Our old friend Hank Pellisier, from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, reports that the founder of the Word Transhumanist Society – David Pearce – has begun a Facebook campaign for women only governments across the world within 25 years. Apparently, the idea is that if every nation on the planet was ruled by governments stuffed with Margert Thatchers, or Benazir Bhuttos, then there would be no more wars and the international community would live happily ever after, with not a stinky male in sight. Unless the sovereignty of the Falklands was questioned, of course. Or the oil supplies of the Middle East were threatened, obviously. Or if you were having a little neighbourly dispute over the Kashmir foothills.
In Pearce’s words:
There is one crude and spectacularly effective way to reduce global catastrophic risk. For evolutionary reasons, almost all wars are started and waged by men. Enacting legislation that allowed only women to stand for national public office would probably save hundreds of millions of lives this century—possibly more.
I’d estimate the reduction in global catastrophic risk and existential risk would by its implementation lie at between 50% and 95%—actually closer to the latter percentage figure, but let’s be conservative. Can we imagine an all female executive and legislature authorizing, for example, the design and use of nuclear weapons systems?
Good old Hank is eager to show he’s not quite in David Pearce’s post-human mangina league, so rather than just assuming that if we cut all men up into tiny pieces, violence would be a thing of the past, he took the scientific and objective step of e-mailing some radical feminists (both male and female mind) in order to garner their views first. To his surprise, they all reacted in horror and disbelief at the sheer stupidity of the idea :
A quick reply came from Dr. Rob Sparrow, bioethicist at Monash University in Australia I thought Sparrow’s feminist credentials—he asserted in 2006 that “maybe we should all be having girls” (due to XX longevity and procreation ability)—would align him with the girl-power plan. I was wrong.
Sparrow’s answer:
…war is a political relationship between states and has nothing to do with the individual psychology of the individuals involved… It’s the political systems (capitalism/state/patriarchy) that drive the actions of those in power rather than the other way around… in order to gain political power, women have to accommodate themselves to the needs of these systems as much as men do…
Huh. But wait! A percentage of this response isn’t logical—one-third, to be precise. Sparrow blames war on capitalism, the state, and the patriarchy, but… if all leaders are women, well, that smashes the patriarchy, doesn’t it?
Hank goes on to express utter bewilderment as to why intelligent people might have reservations at the misandristic and astonishingly simplistic belief that getting rid of men would instantly create a global utopia. I guess such ignorance is just written into his millenarian transhumanist DNA. He then quotes David Pearce on his infamous claim that the Y chromosome is the source of all the evil in the world :
The genetic source of most human predatory behavior has been identified: the Y chromosome. Competitive alpha male dominance is perhaps the greatest under-lying threat to what we call civilization. Human history to date can attest to the gruesome effects of testosterone-driven male behavior.
Hank recently published an absurd article at the same site claiming that feminism = everything great because many of the top ranked nations for unquestioned goods, such as long life and peace, are also the most ‘advanced feminist countries’. To put it bluntly, Hank may be an ethicist, but he surely isn’t a scientist. His final ‘argument’ is that there may have been a few violent female leaders in history, but that there has also been a handful of peaceful ones, therefore Pearce’s argument is irrefutable and opponents of it are boys are stupid, throw rocks at them. A gender based final solution to the problem of war seems to rest upon the scientific observation that Helen Smith, premier of New Zealand, opposed sending young men to their deaths in Iraq, in an illegal war fought to ensure the interests of Dubya’s oil friends. How noble of her. (as did 98% of the male leaders of the world, if I remember correctly).
Most of us in the men’s rights movement, or simply any man with real world experience, understand that women are no less violent than men, they are simply better able to instrumentalise and use others (men) to express their violence. The reason why a major war is now unthinkable in Europe, after centuries of constant bloodshed, is not because of the growing political involvement of women, as some have claimed. The outbreak of major war in Europe effectively ended on that February night in Dresden when over 100,000 women and children were burnt alive under the onslaught of allied bombers. From that point on, war for women has no longer represented the ultimate shit test for their lovers and husbands, but rather simply a means of getting themselves incinerated. War had finally come home and put women on the front line. In Roman times, German women used to watch their men fighting battles from the sidelines, breasts exposed to show their men why and who they were fighting for. No doubt, when those men lost, and their mutiliated bodies littered the battlefield, those brave German women rushed into the arms of their new conquerers. Their new Alpha dominant males. Black and white scenes of proud young German women cheering and waving off Third Reich soldiers to the killing grounds of the Eastern Front, and then waiting in queue to be ‘raped’ when the victorious Red army entered Berlin, were simply modern re-enactments of ancient German history. After 1945, for the first time in human history, women were more likely to be killed in any future major war than men were. And thus Europe has enjoyed its longest period of general peace since the collapse of the Roman Empire 1,500 years ago. If David Pearce really wants to consign war to the dustbin of history, a better solution than women only governments, would be women only armies and female only drafts.
And just for David and Hank, please leave your mangina bubbles of unreality, just for a moment, in order to watch the following videos. Then tell me that you are looking forward to the possibility of having Sarah Palin’s finger on the nuclear trigger when she’s just caught her husband looking at a younger, prettier female…(and don’t worry, it’s perfectly legal to view videos of girls being bullied and beaten half to death by other girls, unlike watching porn in your feminist utopias) :
http://www.mentalzero.com/Evil-Russian-Bitches-Take-Turns-Assaulting-Nerdy-Girl-3106.html
http://www.mentalzero.com/This-Is-Why-You-Don-t-Fuck-With-Black-Girls-At-Denny-s-3079.html
I think Hank might actually be the guy in this video :
http://www.mentalzero.com/Pansy-Just-Lets-MMA-Chick-Beat-His-Ass-Senseless-2799.html
Hank finishes his article by inviting readers to tell him what they think of his and Pearce’s masterplan. I suggest we all take him up on his offer. Here is the link again :
What a bunch of f*cking manginas. They are an insult and embarrassment to each and every real man on this planet.
When did all this
reversesexism become fashionable anyway… I’m all for not being sexist against women, equal opportunity, yada yada, no problem. But some of the feminazis and manginas out there seem to think that when sexism goes against men, it’s ok… well, two wrongs have never made a right… but just look at how marginalized and disadvantaged men are today… I am not saying that equal opportunity for women doesn’t still have long ways to go in some areas, especially in the job and business world. However, not so in politics, as we all know – that field is overrun in recent years by man-hating politicizing uber-feminists who want revenge for “hundreds of years” of suppression. But when feminists think they have to exact revenge (and not sensible, level-headed politics) to solve problems of female disadvantagement, then something is bound to go terribly wrong.And so this is it for us men, huh? All we are is war-waging child-molesting wifebeating cretins who were born with the wrong set of chromosomes… well, it wasn’t long ago, perhaps 75 to 100 years, that women were seen as inferior by birth based solely on their gender. This included the notion that women were incapable of politics, for they were unable to form complex analytical thought that went beyond cooking meals, cleaning house and raising kids, as well as they were said to not even be able to orgasm (yes, this assertion was put forward by men). There are entire pseudo-scientific diatribes in social and medical science books of that era that attempted to corroborate the idea of women being second class humans.
Fast forward a century, and you would think that mankind should have learned something from discriminating against a whole half of the population based on contrived unfounded claims like that. Well, it hasn’t. And feminazis and manginas are making sure every day that our sexist sins of old as men won’t cease to come back to bite us.
Thank you for this insightful text. I really enjoyed how you debunked that purple poodle.
Masculist greetings,
Manifold
The Sons of Perseus
It’s feminists who need to be exterminated and the sooner the better.
let’s pretend he’s correct.
in some magical future only women are leaders, but then something weird happens, a man gains control of a country. the man like the manginas say is bellicose and wages war on a rival country and obviously defeats the push over and continues to conquer other countries. the peaceful woodland creature-like women don’t know what to, so men of those countries take over to defend their homeland. soon pretty much every country is ruled by men.
and the idea of lowering the male population that is sometimes mentioned is a bad idea. nigel barber has found that contrary to popular belief a low male to female ratio results in greater violence.
Actually low male to female ratio makes life easier for men to court with the ladies.
That’s why so-o-o many children are born out of the “wedlock” after WW2 when simply they should’ve legalized polygyny.
I wonder which non-violent, loving women he’s talking about? All those Germen women who worked so dutifully shoving Jews into ovens and then cleaning up afterwards? Maybe he means the ones who beat, torment, and murder their children every year? Or maybe he means those fucking evil cunts who hold down their four year old daughters while some harridan with a razor blade cuts off her fucking clitoris?
We only need to change one law to see the full force of women’s violence: make it illegal to assault children. They are the only group in our society not protected legally from assault. And guess who assaults them most? Why don’t women beat on men MORE? Because they are typically smaller than men and will get their asses severely kicked. Who is smaller than women? Who can women beat with impunity and call it mothering? Women prey on the weakest. In droves.
Change the law, and then try to make such a patently stupid claim.
“Women prey on the weakest. In droves.”
That is incredibly true. They gather and thrive on that when the opportunity comes.
I have witnessed this many times when I was spending time in Hell.
Predictably, Hank has closed comments on his site, after initially seeking feedback.
Schopenbecq, I hope you can stay on this story. It is very ugly, and needs to be made more visible. Please do a guest post on The Spearhead, or the equivalent, as you see fit.
Hank Pellasier is actually employed by the New York Times. We should make it uncomfortable for them to keep employing someone who lusts over gendercide like this.
Thanks Anon. Yea, I see Hank has closed the discussion as soon as sane people started joining it. I agree it’s an important story. People like him do sit on legislative panels and thinktanks, and they often do quite directly influence policy and law making.
He also writes for the New York Times….
He should be shot.
Why should people like him decide to run our lives for us?
If men like Hank want to cut off their balls that’s their problem.
When they start going for everyone else’s balls it’s everyone else’s problem.
100% agreed.
Put him in jail for gendercide.
Just a minor correction. In the above post you wrote:
“A gender based final solution to the problem of war seems to rest upon the scientific observation that Helen Smith, premier of New Zealand, opposed sending young men to their deaths in Iraq, in an illegal “…
I think you meant Helen CLARK, the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time…
BTW she would be the most staunch and devout Feminazi in the Southern Hemisphere and she is still trying to come to terms with loosing the last general election to a MAN – the current Prime Minister: Mr John Key…
I’ll write no more, because if I start I’ll still be here next week!
Thanks Alan, I’ll correct it in a moment.
“…(and don’t worry, it’s perfectly legal to view videos of girls being bullied and beaten half to death by other girls, unlike watching porn in your feminist utopias) :”
Thanks,
You have no idea how much I laughed at that little footnote! (And I do realize that you were not being entirely humorous)…
Hank Pellisier actually got an article posted on The Spearhead :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/07/title-you-are-a-scientist-and-engineer-of-mens-rights/#comment-77296
This is misrepresentation on his part. This should get more visibility brought to it – that someone advocating the extermination of men has misrepresented himself to The Spearhead.
That one certainly slipped through Welmer’s net. Maybe we should demand that Hank allows Welmer or Paul Elam to submit an article to the IEET presenting the case for men’s rights..or at least the right not to be the victims of a gendercide.
Good idea. We should ask Welmer to do an ‘Open Letter’ sort of request, since TS posted Hank Pellissier’s article, they should allow the same.
We should not let this one slide, however. This is not just some ordinary misandry, but pretty effing extreme….
Male gendercide presented as ‘transhumanism’ is a pretty scary thing.
Actually, the makeshift ‘poll’ at The Spearhead asking if Hank Pellisier should be confronted is receiving an answer of ‘Yes’ by a vote of 52-0 :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/08/daniel-craig-dresses-in-drag-for-international-womens-day/#comment-77426
Pretty overwhelming demand..
Of course it is interesting if someone has new ideas. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of problems with the approach in that article.
It did inspire me, though, to a very new and very different solution:
Men are violent and competitive almost exclusively in order to conquer women, who allow only the most successful and violent men to have sex.
If women now would generously give sexual favors to all men, independently of their attractiveness, strengh, finances and success, that might get men out of their competitive mind. Maybe there could be mandatory sex services, just like military services for men.
A bit more research is needed. But sexually satisfied men are much more peaceful then frustrated men.
Make love, not war. Why fight, if you already can get all the sex you want?
I know, women probably would not want to do such a contribution to world peace. They would rather eliminate men ……….
I also wonder what the genetically changed vegetarian lions will eat. Will they compete with sheep for grass?
Women can be peaceful because men are chivalrous and don’t attack them.
Interesting points HS.
What you have in the free sexual market of today is the constant appearance of availability of sex – females going around half-dressed, no shame in causal sex – with the reality that due to hypergamy, and other female sexual behaviours, most men still aren’t getting much sex (certainly not in relation to the suggestive ‘offers’ their eyes are being constantly bombarded with). Not to mention all the nubile jailbait going round in skin clinging leggings and breasts half revealed and yet you’ll get a paedo label if you so much as look at them.
A goal of transhumanism should be the fixing of female’s defunct sexuality, which is totally maladaptive both for themselves and for society in a secular world with access to both easy contraception and safe and legal abortion.
Regarding the last point – I think vegetarianism would lead to less starvation and competition for both humans and animals (it’s just a matter of common sense – human has to feed cow grass in order to eat cow – why not just eat the grass which is far more efficient?). Also, if we got to the stage of being able to genetically turn lions into vegetarians I suppose we would have also got to the stage of producing artificial meat for the lions to eat, unlimited genetically modified grass etc. That’s not to say, of course, that David Pearce’s vision isn’t sadly hoplessly naieve, and as you suggest, that it’s an example of the mistaken belief that human beings can control natural selection itself.
QUOTE: “If women now would generously give sexual favors to all men, independently of their attractiveness, strengh, finances and success, that might get men out of their competitive mind. Maybe there could be mandatory sex services, just like military services for men. ”
I oppose conscription, I believe that if a country cannot find enough people to voluntarily fight to defend it…then it does not deserve to exist. As such I also would oppose “mandatory sex services” as well, that sounds like state imposed slavery…that being said a country that conscripted men for military service AND conscripted women for SOMETHING could claim to be more egalitarian than countries that conscript men for military but…make no state imposed requirements on women whatsoever. I would of course have no objection to the voluntary recruitment of women in a social service designed to provide sexual care to the disabled/infirm/severally mentally ill…etc. In fact I have already previously proposed that the government should train “sex care nurses” to fullfill such a role. As far as the sexual needs of AFCs who are not disabled I do not see how legal prostitution could not take care of that.
On an interesting note Bonobo chimps are apparently more sexually active and more peaceful than regular chimps. Female Bonobos apparently have sex with males of all levels of status yet…still apparently only 50% of male Bonobos end up passing on thier genes…why? Apparently it has to do with the fact that a female Bonobo’s mating patterns will change dramatically when she is ovulating and she will become temporarily far more picky. This system seems to allow for both the sexual satiation of ALL males AND for a eugenic effect to take place.
chimps are equally promiscuous, however, unlike bonobos they don’t exhibit sexual receptivity outside of a fertile window. female chimp promiscuity is suggested as a way to reduce paternity certainty and as such reduce infanticidal behavior in males. however, similar to the bonobo, female chimps are somewhat able to dictate paternity by having sex with high status males around peak fertility.
“Men are violent and competitive almost exclusively in order to conquer women, who allow only the most successful and violent men to have sex.
If women now would generously give sexual favors to all men, independently of their attractiveness, strengh, finances and success, that might get men out of their competitive mind. Maybe there could be mandatory sex services, just like military services for men.”
I like it. I like it.
It’s hard enough for being a man trying to get laid within this matriarchial system.
Keep vouching for the AFCs!
Dear god, this is possibly the worst I’ve ever read. And I frequent MRA boards and blogs daily.
The poll at The Spearhead (about holding Hank Pellisier to account) is up to a 93-1 tally :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/08/daniel-craig-dresses-in-drag-for-international-womens-day/#comment-77426
We need to pester Welmer to address this, or have a guest write an article. Maybe you could write one, Schopenbecq.
This is a test of the MRM. They expend energy fighting Laura Wood and Manboobz, while not turning up the heat on the vastly more significant Hank Pellisier.
I e-mailed welmer, angry harry, paul elam, pele billing, and manwomanmyth as soon as I saw the IEET article. Only Angry Harry has replied so far and linked to Hank’s piece. I agree this is important and I’m quite surprised that Paul Elam especially hasn’t let rip at Hank yet. Seems like Hank tricked Welmer, so I would have thought that he would want to respond too.
Excellent piece. Maybe you should go ahead and submit it to The Spearhead or to IEET.
Don’t ask Welmer to do it; just do it. Leaders *do*, they don’t ask others to. They don’t say “someone should”, they say “I will”.
And yes, I realize I’m being hypocritical by asking you to go *do* something instead of just doing it myself. :/ I don’t think I’m up to the task right now, though.
We need to put some pressure on the spearhead as well. This isn’t the first time they’ve fucked up-they released ane article with a headline claiming that Lara Logan was “Gang Raped” when there wasn’t even any evedience to prove that she was sexually assaulted, let alone raped.
FYI
Episode 3 of A Voice for Men Radio will feature T.J. Ward, an expert investigator who has appeared on Larry King, to discuss the case of Vladek Filler, a Maine man being prosecuted by Mary Kellett, whose quest for rape convictions has been billed as “The modern day witch trials for fathers and men.”
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/10/must-read-avfm-radio-next-tuesday/
Hi everyone — I’m Hank Pellissier, not very popular on this site, I see. I am not the moderator on IEET, I am just a reporter and I have nothing to do with closing down the comments. I am sorry if many of you were unable to express yourself in the comment section, but don’t blame me. The moderator told me he wanted to close down the comments because it was getting too mean, for example, someone threatened David Pearce. So really, you’re partly to blame, don’t you think? In the future, just keep the discussion a bit more civil and the comment thread won’t end. But honestly, once it gets over 100 comments everyone gets tired of the thread and there might be a move to close it. That article went to 161, that’s the most comments any article has ever received, tying my previous article entitled “Feminism’s Social Side Effects.”
I want you “anti-feminists” to know that I do not regard myself as an enemy of yours, not at all. I am curious about your opinions and I will read your materials. I consider myself an observer, a reporter, not a propangandist. I am also planning to edit a book on gender and I might ask “anti-feminists” for some essay contributions, because I believe all sides must be listened to. I do think men have been treated unfairly in certain circumstances, like child custody, and I am interested in fairness, egalitarianism, etc.
Sorry again about the comments being cut-off. And really, don’t you think acting and talking violently is counter-productive, especially when you’re responding to an article that says men are violent?
sincerely, Hank
Hi Hank, and thanks for your comments.
I agree that the language contained in the comment you are referring to was excessive, and I felt that my own response was an attempt to defuse the situation a little. Jay didn’t make a threat, he was pointing out our widespread belief that, contrary to your assumptions, feminism is derailing civilisation, and a violent, anarchic post-feminist society will be no place for any of us.
I regularly post news items here regarding ‘mob hysteria’ that just couldn’t have taken place even 20 years ago. And the blame lies fully and squarely with feminism. For example, a recent ‘outrage’ that was whipped up in the media concerning boys aged 16-19 – ‘paedophile groomers’ who had been using social networking sites to have sex with girls only slightly younger than themselves. When I read things like that I see no evidence at all of feminism being a civilising force.
David Pearce is still a hero of mine. I realise that people like you and him are not bad persons, but simply very naieve and somewhat delusional (at least regarding feminism and gender difference). There is a growing men’s rights movement seeking to address the pain that feminism has caused to millions of men across the world. If I hadn’t made this post, some other MRA would eventually highlight offensive quotes such as the one blaming all bad things on the Y chromosome (and probably in a more aggressive and hateful manner).
Evolutionary theory would predict men to be more physically violent, not least because women would be predicted to sexually select for such violent men who could protect them and their offspring in a hostile world. It would also predict that women would express their aggression through using men to commit violence against other men, and to harm others themselves through less overt physical means such as gossiping, shaming language, psychological cruelty etc. In a ‘civilised’ world, such means can be far more successful and painful than brute violence.
Also, I don’t know if you’re a utilitarian like David Pearce, but I wonder how your support for the criminilization of porn can be realistically squared with such a philosophy, at least if you count a man’s pleasure (or pain) equal to that of a woman (and I guess David doesn’t)?
“And really, don’t you think acting and talking violently is counter-productive, especially when you’re responding to an article that says men are violent?”
Umm … the article advocated VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN, and you personally appeared supportive of an idea that ALL MEN SHOULD BE INTERNED IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND MURDERED.
I will defend and protest!
Guys, don’t believe this Hank Pellissier for a second. He shows up now claiming he is just a reporter. He didn’t disavow anything he wrote in that article.
Totally. He supports the extermination of masculinity, in the form of aborting male fetuses, chemical castration, and extermination of men.
He is a gendercidal monster. I doubt he would actually debate anyone here, as his position is indefensible.
God, I didn’t see that. Thanks anyway.
“someone threatened David Pearce”
Nobody threatened David Pearce.
“So really, you’re partly to blame, don’t you think?”
Who wrote the hateful article? It wasn’t us.
“keep the discussion a bit more civil”
This is civil?? “Women-Only Leadership: Would it prevent war?”
“honestly, once it gets over 100 comments everyone gets tired of the thread and there might be a move to close it”
Do you know how pathetic that is? At The Spearhead, when an article gets over 100 comments it means there is still a discussion worth continuing. Apparently you and your readers are not really interested in discussion. How transhumanist of you. :/
“consider myself an observer”
Then start observing, and stop interfering.
“acting and talking violently”
The original misandric article should be considered thus. Your hate supports violence.
“So really, you’re partly to blame, don’t you think?”
Nice tactic. Passing the blameworthiness by asking the question.
Seen that in Hell before, YOU CAN’T FOOL ME!
David Pearce is a hero of yours? How?
Because I didn’t encounter his insane misandry in his earlier writings, and I identified with his vegetarianism and his aspirations for a pain free world (although I recognise it to be based upon unsustainable idealism, confirmed by the incredible naievity of his views on women and men).
I would like to see him taming the lions and convincing them of the better solution.
Poor Hankie-poo. Propose screwing over 3 billion men and some of them with no sense of humor say nasty, even violent, things? I am shocked to my very core.
Welcome to the inevitable consequences of years of hatred of everything male. It will probably get a lot worse. It might be a real good idea to distance yourself from anything violent directed towards men, on top of 45 years of open hatred and violence directed towards men.
“The moderator told me he wanted to close down the comments because it was getting too mean, for example, someone threatened David Pearce. So really, you’re partly to blame, don’t you think?”
Hank, your article was advocating for men to be oppressed and then systematically wiped out. Now if that had been said about women or gays or blacks are you telling me you wouldn’t get an aggressive response?
On a side note Hank, I’m really glad I have been made aware of people like you and David Pearce.
The poll about holding Hank Pellisier accountable is getting a vote in favor by a margin of 135 to 2.
135 to 2. It does not get more overwhelming than that.
Hank Pellisier and his mangina ilk have no idea how outside of the mainstream they are.
“one blaming all bad things on the Y chromosome”
Without it, we fucking wouldn’t be here.