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.
Hank says:
“There’s two things l’d like to see:
1. increased sexual aggression from women.”
So, sexual aggression is now a positive in the feminist mind? I thought it was an evil like none other.
Does Hank support the date rape of men by women?
“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.”
Women have long been using technology to get off. Vibrators and dildoes are a billion dollar industry. Imagine the thrill 3-D tactile-computer-simulated sex will give them!
Did you mention that with the singularity could come perfect sexual independence for men and thus no more need for him to lick the stink hole that is his mistresses cunt?
I’m sorry but if the likes of Ray Kurzwell talks like this guy then they are no heroes of mine.
I agree EvilWhite.
David Pearce was a hero of mine before I read his statement about men.
I think the Singularity/Transhumanist movement is important to influence, and for that it might require a different approach.
As far as Hank is concerned, he was polite and seems open to dialogue. Unlike another writer there who has refused to publish an inoffensive comment of mine.
Thanks for pointing out this Web site. I answered one of Hank’s comments to you. In case it doesn’t make it through moderation, here’s my reply:
Hank Pellissier: 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.
Most men do, in fact, view women as more than the sum of their physical parts, Hank. In Western countries, anyway. Most men, in fact, work hard for the women and children in their lives.
What feminism does is singles out the small group of men who behave poorly towards women and makes them seem the norm. Most men — most people, for that matter — coexist pretty peacefully. Rape is defined by feminists as everywhere but it’s actually fallen in recent decades (some have posited because the prevalence of porn gives men release elsewhere…have fun with that one!).
But if you want to remove the “physical dimension” from the equation, then you’re basically looking to end the world, because reproduction itself rests on the male pursuing the female of the species when it comes to humans.
Sometimes we get so intellectualized that we get removed from our basic biological urges. Let’s put it another way: if I could turn back time and make your wife look like Andre the Giant or Hulk Hogan, would you have daughters at all? There has to be some basic level of attraction, and I don’t believe this is “socialized” to the degree feminists would have us believe. I assume you were attracted to your wife and you would want men to have some basic attraction to your daughters at some point?
Another point: for all the complaining fathers do about not wanting their daughters to be sex objects, they all seem to make sure their daughters are always well-dressed, eat right, etc. Why not feed them total junk food and blow them up like balloons, dress them in rags, refuse to comb their hair, etc.? Then they would have to be judged by their personality and ability because looks would be off the table.
I think you realize that option would be worse than guys “looking at them,” which seems a negative only if you view that through a religious lens, not a biological one. Feminism, Catholicism and Puritanism seem to go hand in hand when it comes to the way they view men liking women as somehow “sinful.”
thanks, I appreciate it.
Excellent points regarding the complaining Fathers. Unfortunately there are a lot of patriarchal fathers in the men’s rights movement who are only too happy to adopt feminist quack arguments when it comes to protecting their own precious teenage daughter’s virginity.
EH.. its probably best to stay away from anyone naming themselves “progressive”, whether it is technoprogressives or otherwise. Also, this is the first time I have come across transhumanism, which has the inherrent idea that human beings will/should/must stop being human beings.
This transhumanism – Its seems nothing more than technological marxism/hegelianism. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for development of technology to allow human beings to lead far superior lives, but just from the name of the ideology, I surmise that – Man (or human) is obviously something that they do not understand, do not like and want to see “improved” and “reformed”.
I agree with your scepticism and your points about the Hegelian myth of progress, but I do think that Transhumanism is inevitable, and that it is essential that men’s rights supporters influence it. Why have feminists been so successful? Because they have permeated and infested every possible sphere of discussion and every single intellectual movement.
Thanks for all your other intelligent comments by the way – I appreciate it. Please keep reading and commentating.
I get the impression that any movement that accepts women within their ranks will never truly be pro-man…
Transhumanism is much bigger and more diverse than the milieu represented by those like David Pearce and the IEET folk. The IEET crowd tends to be liberal-left in orientation. However, much of the transhumanist mileu, particularly the parts that are off the radar screen of the media, is mostly libertarian with some conservatives. We even have Christians as well. Also, many of us who identify with the transhumanist label do not subscribe to the singularity concept nor do we identify with the collectivism inherent in IEET and the writings of those like David Pearce. People like him are a very small part of the scene.
Also, for every self-identified transhumanist, there are at least 10 and probably 100 people who are “life extensionists”. Also, many women are interested in life extension, but do not associate with the geeky transhumanist scene at all.
Hi, Hank Pellissier here. I’d like you to know that transhumanists are by no means unanimously “feminist” — – quite the opposite. Truth is, so many of them are hostile to “feminism” that it impelled me to write the article that I did. So for anyone thinking of abandoning transhumanism because it is feminist, you are misreading the situation. One of the commentators above noted that IEET represents a “liberal” segment of transhumanism, and that is correct.
I am also, personally, not in agreement with about 50% of the opinions of feminists. I would be kicked out of any real feminist group! I am really only a feminist in a sort of old-fashioned way — I believe they should have equality, and I believe they often have a point of view that gets ignored. In many many issues, I regard American ultra-left pc feminists as opponents of my cherished values, and I have written articles expressing myself in this regard.
Stop evading, you slippery piece of shit.
We caught you. Red-handed. Posting your admiration for the SCUM scenario in the comments section.
It doesn’t matter how you say you feel about feminists or what you’ve written in the past. YOU OPENLY ADVOCATED THE EXTERMINATION OF HALF THE WORLD’S POPULATION. I gotta hand it to you, Hank. That’s more ambitious than Hitler.
Fuck you, neo-Nazi. You deserve nothing but active hatred.
Hank Pellissier here again. Here is a link to an “anti-feminist” article I wrote, because I certainly don’t agree with feminists on all issues.
http://www.thejewishnewsplace.com/blogs/latest-posts/entry/feminists-need-to-support-israel.html
does this make me less of a mangina?
Thanks for the link Hank, and I’ll admit I was surprised by the non-mangina tone of the article.
There is a debate within the men’s rights community as to what extent the difference between ‘mainstream’ feminism, and ‘radical’ feminism, is.
Personally speaking, I believe that feminists have exploited the ‘femi-nazi’ charicature in order to create a sort of good cop/bad cop routine. I also think that Sarah Palin is as loathesome as the left-wing feminists (support for Israel not withstanding, which I agree with). In fact, we have a word for feminists like her – femiservative.
Hi antifeminist — Also, although the comment section on the “Women-Only Leadership” article has been closed, there is still another thread open, on the poll taken to survey readers opinions about the article. So, if any anti-feminists want to leave comments on this topic, they can do so at:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/poll20110302
Regarding your viewpoint, I do not have any control over content at IEET, truth is, not all of my articles are permitted there either. But I am working on editing an e-book on transhumanism and there’s a possibility of including your opinions there. I need to ask the other contributers first. Thank you for your reasonableness in this discussion.
HI — I have an idea for an article that might get run at IEET but there’s no guarantee — an article called: “Estrogen Utopia? or XX Dystopia? – feminist vs antifeminist debate”
It could be set up as a double-interview with each side answering questions and responding critically to each other’s statements. Let me know if this interests you, via facebook.
Schopenbecq,
These things tend to be setups. So be careful, particularly since Hank is pretending to be moderate here, but writes some pretty extreme things elsewhere.
But I would encourage you to take up Hank on his offer, with the added assertion that any hit-piece will receive brutal treatment (check out http://www.avoiceformen.com for the latest example of a hit piece against men’s rights).
I’m caught in two minds as to whether Hank is just a misguided idealist or rather something a little more sinister and cunning. His submission of that feminist article to the Spearhead seems to have been an attempt to humiliate that site and possibly even to stir division.
Regarding the contribution to the IEET – I agree that a back and forth statement and response type piece on ‘his’ site is very much open to being a set up job. I might just write a piece here at the weekend, Hank can print or link to it at the ieet if he wants, and if the Spearhead wants to publish it as well, that will be fine.
Please feel free to suggest any essential points I need to make in the piece.
EDIT : I would just like to add that I’m a little reluctant to be the ‘official’ MRA who takes on Hank. As everybody knows, my website is a controversial corner of the present men’s rights movement, although (I believe) rarely saying anything that illustrious European anti-feminists such as Schopenhauer, Belfort-Bax, Steve Moxon, Neil Lyndon, and Angry Harry would consider amiss. For that reason, given his mainstream men’s rights acceptance, together with his knowledge of trans-humanism, anti-feminist tech would probably be better suited to this role.
Other than my knowledge of transhumanism, I’m really not the best MRA to take Hank on. I would much prefer that is was someone who was a more skilled writer than I am. Someone like Bill Price or Paul Elam also have a reputation for being more moderate than I am which would make it better. That’s why I have been dragging my feet on this. All things being equal I shouldn’t be the MRA dealing with this but if no one else does, then it has to be me.
Pro-Male,
It might have to be you who takes the first stab. After one article is out, then at least it is on the radar screens of The Spearhead and Paul Elam. But they just aren’t writing about it now, because they don’t ‘get it’ yet.
Once you write something, someone else will eventually pick it up. The ball just needs to get rolling..
Well I’ve already written 2 articles directly on Hank and Pearce. The Spearhead and any other men’s rights site are always welcome to republish any article of mine. I’ll be keeping an eye on the IEET and transhumanism in general for any further misandry.
Have you noticed that 2 weeks ago Hank was authoring a book entitled ‘Estrogen Utopia’, yet now he appears to have changed it to a general book on Transhumanism with a different title? Unless they are two seperate books, looks like we may have won a victory there.
Also, you should know that David Pearce is a keen advocate of oxytocin as a solution to the world’s ills. Oxytocin is a hormone associated with females undergoing pregnancy, and also is released by them after having sex with a long term partner. It could ultimately represent a feminists ‘chemical treatment’ for males who stubbornly refuse to be manginas.
http://oxytocin.org
“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. ”
Take Kurzweil’s side. That way nothing can be blamed on the Y chromosone because there is no difference between and X and a Y.
Both are equally guilty or equally innocent.
Have you noticed that 2 weeks ago Hank was authoring a book entitled ‘Estrogen Utopia’, yet now he appears to have changed it to a general book on Transhumanism with a different title?
Actually, we may have played our hand too soon…
If he had actually gotten the book released under the ‘Estrogen Utopia’ title, it probably would have contained enough misandry to do the work of 1000 MRAs. Nevermind Welmer and Paul Elam, even Dr. Helen would be all over that crap. It would have been an amazing recruiting too against misandry…
We might have caused him to wise up a bit too soon….
*recruiting TOOL..
In other words, his book would have been to the general male population what 9/11 was to America’s interest in fighting Islamic terrorism..
A series of small attacks before 9/11/01 was not awakening the sleeping giant. But after that….
That strategy might have been good, since Hank Pellissier and his extremist manginas actually think their views are not a fringe, but an acceptable mainstream idea. More men reading ‘Estrogen Utopia’ would be a windfall for the MRM.
I say better to side on the “there are no differences between men and women” side of the fence because then nothing negative like violence or war can be blamed on testosterone or Y chromosone.
Its in mens’ best interests to push for the “equality agenda”.