I cling to the belief that Transhumanism, perhaps marshalled by a strong men’s rights movement, is the best hope for ending the rape of the male that is feminism – in that it could someday render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete. However, recently, I’ve become aware of just how anti-male and pro-feminist the Transhumanist movement actually is. David Pearce, one of the two founders of the World Transhumanist Society, and a personal hero of mine, appears in one of his writings to blame all human aggression upon the Y chromosone. A couple of weeks ago, Ray Kurzweil, the most famous ‘Singularitarian’, published a piece on his site entitled ‘Neuro Nonsense’, which approvingly referred to a recent feminist ‘scientific’ work claming that there are no hardwired differences between men and women.
That the transhumanism and singularity movements are so anti-male is disturbing on a number of levels. One can easily imagine their influence being used one day, for example, to validate a feminist government’s mandating of genetic or chemical therapy to ‘improve men’. Another example, which might strike you as almost comedic given how incredible it appears, is the plan (in process) to reverse engineer the human brain and create an ‘artificial mind’. Some have speculated that if this task is achieved, which some predict might only be a few years away, it could represent the moment of the Singularity – whereby the intelligence of such an artificial silicone mind could quickly be improved and upgraded, and upgrade itself in fact, to the point where it almost instantly dwarfs that of any human. If an individual human brain is used in order to create this artificial mind, and harbringer of the Singularity, no prizes for guessing which politically correct gender it will belong to.
This week, the moral think tank of both Transhumanism and the Singularity – The Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (IEET) published a piece entitled ‘Feminism’s Social Side Effects’. The author – Hank Pellissier – compares a series of global ranking lists measuring such things as relative happiness and crime levels, with the ‘Global Gender Gap Index’, which purports to measure the most and least feminist nations. On the basis of the fact that many of the same countries (in particular the Nordic countries and New Zealand) appear at the top of both the feminist rankings and all the other quality of life indexes, he concludes chirpily that feminism = social prosperity and happiness.
I left several comments underneath his piece, and to his credit he both published and answered them (fairly and politely). Here is the complete dialogue :
My First Response : You are making a basic error of confusing correlation with causation.
Only rich countries can afford the luxury of feminism. Richer countries are also going to have longer male lifespans, happier people, less likely to be at war, and even more ‘democratic’ (especially as female participation in government is likely to be one of the measures of democracy’).
Third wave feminism – the sudden dominance of women at all levels of government – is still a relatively recent phenomenon, even in Scandinavia. Let’s see if these lists still stand in another 10 or 20 years time.
Such ranking lists of national happiness are difficult to believe or take seriously, in any case. The Netherlands is always in the top 3, yet has one of the highest rates of native emigration in Europe. If people are so happy there, why are so many millions leaving or thinking of leaving?
Most of the nations listed are only now moving from ‘equality’ into becoming overt gynocratic states. You can see what is happening already in such places as Iceland or Sweden, where you will be thrown into jail if you visit a strip club or have sex with a burst condom.
I assume that after the events of the last few weeks, that the Nordic countries may start to slip down the list of most ‘peaceful’ nations. Also, I suspect, from the list of most ‘non-religious’.
If you showed the same lists from the 1970’s you would probably get much the same countries in almost precisely the same order. The point is, feminism is now breaking lives (of men and boys), and within a generation or two, the effects on wider society will be obvious and horrendous.
One final thought for a transhumanist : pornography, at least the production, is more or less banned in the feminist utopias of Iceland and Sweden. Do not forget that the adult industry has more or less driven forward technological progress from cave paintings to the internet, and will surely be the catalyst for virtual reality (sex).
Hanks first reply : for theantifeminist — thanks for your comments. I am actually writing about many of the issues you brought up, that I will hopefully be presenting in future essays. Regarding what you posted, I have a few comments:
1. I disagree with your remark “only rich countries can afford the luxury of feminism.” Depriving half the population from fully participating in the economic arena is not conducive to a nation’s prosperity. Children in “anti-feminist” nations are also raised by disempowered and uneducated mothers, to their own disadvantage.
2. Iceland’s legislature voted unanimously to outlaw strip clubs. Their contention is that supporting strip clubs promotes international sex trafficing and child prostitution. If you want to heap scorn on Iceland’s decision to ban strip clubs, you owe it to your readership to include this information.
3. Assange is on trial for allegedly committing two crimes — once his condom burst and he continued to have sex without the consent of his partner, and second, he was having unprotected sex with his partner when she was asleep. In your post you said he could go to jail for “having sex without a condom” – again, you presented incomplete info because you want to buttress your contention, not reveal the truth of the situation.
4. The banning of pornography production in Iceland and Sweden was a decision made in two of the world’s “most democratic” nations. I don’t see it as a catastrophic choice. I think it is interesting and revolutionary direction to take. Women have been sexually objectified forever, and this is moving a step away from that. Congrats to them.
Thanks again for your comments.
My Second Response : @Hank,
I constantly tell my readers about how feminists are forever shamefully exploiting the tragic abuse of a small minority of children and women to take liberties away from men (and younger and better looking females) and which just so happens to strenghten their own position in a free sexual market (for example, their lovers or prospective lovers & partners have less of an alternative sexual outlet to a real relationship if stripclubs & prostitution are outlawed – that’s pretty close to rape don’t you think?).
Without being rude, you seem to justify sweeping and simplistic judgements upon how things are and should be on the basis of a flimsy grasp of cause and effect – rich nations are feminist, therefore feminism is good ; sex trafficking is evil, feminists don’t like sex trafficking, feminists don’t like strip clubs, therefore strip clubs are as evil as sex trafficking. I guess its your utopian mindset.
I think you owe it to men to actually demonstrate that something many or most of them do is evil before you allow feminists to take it away from them, just because they, and perhaps you, don’t like it. I hope you’re aware that Hitler justified everything on the basis of ‘protecting the children of Germany’. (BTW, as you know, a lot of people think transhumanism, conflated with eugenics, leads directly to Auschwitz).
It is highly disturbing to me that you see the decision to ban porn as a ‘revolutinary and interesting act’ and that you assume that the ‘sexual objectification’ of women is intrinsically evil and something to be removed.
If I walk down the street and see an attractive skimpily dressed woman, am I evil for merely glancing at her and admiring her sexual beauty? As a transhumanist, would you like that impulse removed from my dna code, if it can’t be removed by the social engineering of feminists, of course? A recent study into men who didn’t look at porn failed, on account of the fact that the researchers couldn’t find any man who didn’t look at porn. Perhaps you and your transhumanist friends belong to that rareified and strictly hypothetical segment of the male population who do not ever look at porn, and have never sexually objectified the opposite sex, and therefore can afford to view legislation that criminilizes and dehumanizes the essential nature of what it is to be a man as ‘interesting’. In that case, you really have already lost your humanity.
Hank’s Second Reply : for antifeminist – Ha! thanks for your comments. I don’t want you to think transhumanists don’t look at porn, that would be WILDLY INACCURATE and I thoroughly share your enjoyment of looking at attractive women. However, my attitude has changed considerably since I became the father of two daughters. I want them to live in a world where they can have equal opportunities to succeed, where they can be viewed as leaders, and where they get judged by men for more than their physical dimensions. I know (many) men are programmed to view women as primarily sexual objects, but I think this is rather sad and superficial, don’t you? I always felt diminished when I was regarded that way.
Regarding your previous statement that feminism is a product of wealth, I still disagree — I am sure it is a product of culture. There are wealthy “antifeminist” nations (Qatar) and impoverished nations that rate high on the Global Gender Gap index. (Philippines and Lesotho) Virtually every Islamic nation scores low on the “women-friendly” chart, because the religion does not seem to promote equality. The highest rated nations for women’s equality seem to be liberal Protestant / atheist nations.
…..for Paul, iPan, theantifeminist, & Bill —
what do you think a sexual utopia should be?
sometimes I get the impression from transhumanist men that what they want out of the future is just really great 3D porn and superhot Sex robots.
I think this lacks imagination and foresight.
Partly because it seems like it is not what women really want and they are half the planet. Sexual utopia needs to make a significant majority happier.
There’s two things l’d like to see:
1. increased sexual aggression from women. I think this would be interesting, and beneficial for females, to be the gender taking the initiative more often. Being passive isn’t good training for leadership or entrepreneurial risk.
2. eventually, I’ve always liked the scenario Ursela K. LeGuin developed in “Left Hand of Darkness” where people were able to switch genders easily. To go through life as both male and female would eliminate all divisiveness, misunderstandings, and gender war.
My Third Response : @Hank
“for Paul, iPan, theantifeminist, & Bill —
what do you think a sexual utopia should be? “
You make some good points in that reply. To answer your question, I think a sexual utopia would be where every sexual being can fulfill his sexual needs without causing pain or harm to himself/herself or others.
Regarding the point about transhumanists only wanting 3d porn and sex robots. If that’s the case, I’m reassured. Because most transhumanists I’ve read on this subject want to ‘perfect’ humanity by killing the male sex drive altogether, or even wiping men from the face of the planet.
I would also state that a free sexual market IS undeniably cruel and savage for a woman’s sexual and emotional needs. The ageing process is particularly evil for women, and lets hope that science can fix that soon. I also agree that women should be allowed to experience sex in the way that most men appear able to – as a physical and (non possesive) emotional joy. Perhaps transhumanism can fix that too.
I think what will happen very soon is that virtual sex will replace physical face to face sex. When it becomes as real as the real thing (likely to be remarkably soon) virtual sex will have so many advantages over real sex – even, you’ll be pleased to know, for women.
For example, women will no longer have to compete with 18 y.o teenage girls with perfect breasts – they can be that perfect teenage girl for their virtual lover..or they can be whoever,whatever they want to be. Eventually, any roleplay or virtual identity will be possible. I guess at some point the manipulation of memory, self-identity etc will become so advanced that an 80 year old woman (or man!) could literally BECOME an innocent female virgin for an hour of casual lovemaking.
At that point, the age old sexual conflict between men and women, which is fuelling the bitterness of modern feminism, and consequently so much pain for both men and women as well as disruption to society (despite what your lists say), will be over.
Also consider the impact of radical life-extension. The number of
people having families and aspiring to ‘life-long’ monogamous partnerships will dwindle, perhaps even be forcibly reduced by governments concerned about over-population. As David Pearce argues, the separation of sex from reproduction and traditional (selfish) concepts of love is inevitable. Traditional sexual morality, which feminists largely subscribe to and legislate for, will be obsolete.
You say that transhumanists don’t have much imagination. Actually, it’s feminists with their incessant barrage of man hating sex negative laws which do not have imagination. For example, in 20 years time, when these bitter and sad old Icelandic feminists can present themselves as perfect bodied young holograms in order to have virtual sex, will they have criminalized themselves with these ridiculous laws banning strip clubs or absurd definitions of ‘virtual child pornography’ which make anime pictures of girls in bikinis illegal?
Feminism has always been a sexual trade union responding to changes in technology that rip open the free sexual market at an ever increasing speed. The first wave resulted from industrialisation (the first feminists called not for the vote but for the banning of prostitution, saloon bars, and a rise in the age of consent), the second wave began immediately the contraceptive pill was introduced and allowed men to enjoy consequence free sex, the current third wave has been created out of globalisation and the internet, which enables Polish hookers to offer a feminist’s husband sex for $30, or for him to chat live with a Russian webcam girl at any time of day across the world.
There will come a point soon, call it a singuarity moment if you will, when technology will open the free sexual market to the extent that feminists can’t keep up, or hopefully, no longer even want to.
Anway, thankyou for allowing my comments to be posted.
Finally, @the postfuturist. I guess you agree with me (and the vast majority of muslim women) that conservative Islam does not oppress women, at least not as much as the free ‘meat’ market of the west does, if the lustful gaze of a man is so much the worst thing that a woman can suffer.
Given that this was posted on Reddit, I’m surprised few others submitted anti-feminist comments. Given that the writer of the piece, although his original thesis is obviously absurd, has demonstrated his fairness and openness to intelligent debate, perhaps this is an opportunity to let him have YOUR opinions on what a sexual utopia might be? Please remember to be polite, as he has been very fair.