Posted: Sun, November 11, 2012 | By: Hank Pellissier
In the United States, there is an “anti-feminist” contingent that deeply distrusts the women’s rights movement… I initially encountered them when they wrote in angry comments after today’s other essay, “Women’s-Only Leadership - would it prevent war?” was first published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology. Curious about the group, I emailed the editor of theantifeminist my questions. Our subsequent dialogue is below: (Although I wildly disagree with his POV, I believe it is important to hear opposing perspectives.)
Hank Pellissier: Please describe what you think the “feminist” movement is up to, what their goals are.
What the ‘feminist’ movement is up to is something driven by technological and social forces that are beyond the control of ‘feminists’. Feminism, defined as the continual and accelerating trend of political involvement by women in social and moral affairs over the last 150 years or so, is primarily a reaction to their loss of sexual power during that time in an ever more open sexual economy. Each ‘wave’ of feminism has been triggered by technological innovations further changing the sex market in men’s favour, reducing the ‘costs’ to a man of obtaining a cheap sexual outlet, providing alternatives or disincentives for him to seek life-long marriage or even a monogamous relationship, and consequently weakening the sexual power of the average woman.The first wave of feminism grew out of the social purity movements of the 19th century, which were responses to industrialisation and urbanisation, and the resulting temptations for men to seek sex outside of marriage – from the prostitutes who thronged the new cities eager to take advantage of the working’ mans increased spending power, to the young unmarried girls who now worked alongside them in the new factories. To compound these things, industrialisation had allowed the mass production of a reliable and cheap contraceptive for men – condoms. The first feminists campaigned for restrictions upon prostitution and a raising of the age of consent before they had seriously begun the struggle for the vote.
Likewise, the second wave of feminism was a response to the introduction of the contraceptive pill, which almost immediately triggered a ‘sexual revolution’ in society. Women no longer had to suffer the consequences of pregnancy after sex, enabling them to delay marriage and attend university, and have a career, whilst still enjoying a sex life. Simultaneously, other technological developments – such as household labour saving devices – allowed women to continue in employment even when married and with children. In an era of civil rights movements, and encouraged by men eager to take advantage of the new possibilities for promiscuity, second wave feminists rationalised these developments as ‘liberation’ – both sexual and political.
However, being a largely blind and somewhat irrational response dictated by external forces, second wave feminism has actually made things even ‘worse’ for women as far as their sexual needs are concerned. The sexual revolution has forced women to compete as never before with each other, especially older women with younger women, and women are largely unhappier than ever before (the paradox of declining female happiness). As Michael Houellebecq describes in his novels, sex has become a commodity subject to unrestrained market forces, with the biggest losers being older and unattractive women – a situation ironically made worse by certain aspects of feminism. For example, the rush into education and the delaying of marriage has led to a massive number of single young women available for and seeking uncommitted sex. This in turn leads to the necessity for even more political involvement from older women in the form of a feminism that vainly tries to close the sexual market through the constant criminalisation of male sexuality and the victimisation of younger women.
Currently, we are experiencing the third wave of feminism – the sudden transformation and even domination of political and social affairs by women at a governmental and intergovernmental level. Like the first two waves, this has been triggered by new technology further freeing up the sexual market and weakening the ‘sexual bargaining power’ of the average woman. In this case, it is globalisation and the spread of international communications technology such as the Internet. The Internet has allowed every man instant and anonymous access to an endless variety of pornography, whilst globalisation has mad available cheap and exotic foreign prostitutes, both at home and abroad (demonised by feminists as ‘trafficking’ and ‘sex tourism’ respectively).
What “feminists are up to” is the futile attempt to close the sexual market by constantly criminalising male sexuality, in doing so transferring sexual power back from younger females with no political power, to older females with a monopoly on political power.
Do you feel women are already at an advantage? How?
Women are already at an advantage in that they are able to determine the political and moral agenda. In every democracy, male politicians are in slave to the female vote. When David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK, was set to introduce a bill allowing anonymity for men accused of rape, Harriet Harman, the acting opposition leader, simply reminded him that upsetting women voters would be political suicide. The bill was promptly dropped the next day. On top of this, most countries are introducing quotas for women to fill government positions, with female politicians expected to give primacy to women’s interests. More disturbing still is the increase in national legislation determined largely behind the scenes by supranational organisations – such as the UN or the EU – at the behest of lobby groups dominated by women, serving the sole interests of women.
What are the ways that men are at a gender disadvantage in current society?
There are numerous ways in which men are clearly disadvantaged in current society. Feminists demand quotas for women in boardrooms, but ignore the male domination of prisons, lunatic asylums, dangerous and unpleasant jobs, suicide statistics, and military casualty lists. When a gender imbalance in society favours men, feminists are blank f and blame discrimination against women. When a gender imbalance favours women, it is either ignored by feminists or blamed upon some inherent weakness of men.
There is a growing gender gap in education. In the USA, 36% of young women gain bachelor’s degrees, whereas only 28% of young men do. In many Western nations, there is a growing shortage of male teachers, particularly in primary schools, chiefly because men are aware that they are more at risk from false allegations. Disturbingly, a recent study found that female teachers tend to give boys lower marks than girls. Both schools and universities are becoming places openly hostile to males.
Men are also discriminated against openly in the custody courts – in fact, for the majority of the men’s rights movement (which has largely grown out of the ‘father’s rights’ movement) this is probably the single biggest issue of discrimination.
In short, men and boys are seen as disposable to society, as they always have been, but it is now with a contempt and viciousness not seen before, as traditional male strengths – such as physical strength, become less valued, and women can openly scapegoat and demonise men for their own increasing unhappiness and insecurity.
What policies do you advocate for men in your group? Are there male-supportive political ideas that you espouse?
The primary goal is to get men to see themselves as men, and to recognise that they have collective interests that are being harmed by a society which judges them to be disposable, and in which to express the very idea of ‘men’s rights’ is seen as a form of hate speech.
The political goal is fair and equal treatment for both genders – to stop the demonization and the criminalization of men. Unfortunately, feminism is by definition and practice the furthering of women’s interests. Few serious men’s rights supporters want a return to traditional roles, or to see women ‘back in the kitchen’.
What do you see in the future for gender relations, and the role of men? If you had authority to restructure society, what would you do?
I’m pessimistic about the ability of a men’s rights movement to raise the consciousness of men, and of male identity, to anything like the degree that feminism has for women. Men historically compete with each other, and only appear able to identify with each other as subgroups of men (‘black men’, ‘gay men’, ‘working class men’ etc) being victimised by more powerful subgroups of men. The idea that men need to protect themselves against women, rather than protect women, is something that thousands of years of cultural conditioning (and probably genetic programming) reacts against. In the short-term, I only see the position of men further deteriorating in society as technology continues to sexually disempower and embitter older women.
I think the longer term scenario is more hopeful. As I have described, feminism, and the resulting war against men, has been the result of technology negatively impacting upon women – particularly in terms of the loss of sexual power of older women and in increasing the disparity between attractive and unattractive women. Soon, however, technology is likely to become a ‘sexual leveller’ in terms of allowing older women to compete with younger women, and enabling every woman to be as physcially attractive as another.
I personally see any men’s rights movement as an exercise in limiting the damage that feminists can do to men and to society until the time comes when the forces behind vicious feminism simply disappear and the gender war becomes irrelevant.
How you feel about the Julian Assange vs. Sweden case? Do you agree that Sweden is the ‘Saudi Arabia of feminism’?
The Assange case opened the eyes to many people around the world as to how, in Sweden, a man’s very freedom is dependent upon the whims of the feminist state. Unfortunately, most have still not got the message that Sweden is simply at a more advanced stage of a process that is taking place in nearly every non-Islamic nation on Earth.
Can you characterize the men who visit your website? Are they divorced, young, old, white – ?
My readers represent the entire male demographic. The heart of the men’s rights movement is still made up of divorced fathers, but I actually don’t mention father’s rights a lot on my website simply because there are plenty of other men’s rights sites that do, and because I don’t have any experience of being a father or any inclination to become one. Many of my visitors are single men in their twenties and thirties, as the topics I discuss – in particular the increasing criminalisation of male sexuality – probably affects them more than it does conservative minded fathers.
Who are the “leaders” of the anti-feminist movement? What books do you recommend?
There is no “leader” of the anti-feminist or men’s rights movement, but certain individuals, such as Paul Elam, are rightly recognised as doing the most to take the movement forward. The ‘spiritual father’ of the modern men’s rights movement is Angry Harry. Currently, the men’s rights movement is largely a loose collective of bloggers and online activists. Other important websites alongside the two just mentioned are ‘The Spearhead‘, ‘InMalaFide‘, and ‘ManWomanMyth‘. The Reddit Men’s Rights sub-reddit has over 30,000 subscribers, and illustrates the non-centralised nature of the movement.
There have been a handful of ‘classic’ men’s rights texts published, the first published over a hundred years ago by Ernest Belfort Bax. Modern essential texts include ‘The Myth of Male Power‘ by Warren Farrell’, and ‘The Woman Racket‘ by Steve Moxon..
Who invented the term Mangina? Who does your movement regard as the biggest Manginas in the world?
I’m not sure who invented the word mangina, but it refers to a male who is willing to harm men in the interests of women or in order to gain the approval of women. It is important to note that the term does not mean a ‘weak man’, but is really a defence to the general shaming tactic of feminists that men’s rights supporters are not ‘real men’.
Unfortunately, there are many candidates for the title of biggest mangina in the world, but most MRA’s (men’s rights activists) would put David Futrelle near the very top – a Chicago blogger who has dedicated his life to defining any criticism of women as criminal hate speech.
Do you feel Western women are the most annoying? Do you have fewer gripes with women from other cultures?
Personally, I don’t see much difference between women in the West and elsewhere. Feminism is an international, global sexual trade union, that has as its weapon the demonization of men. To this end, girls (and boys) pretty much everywhere are being brainwashed to see men as inherently evil, stupid, and abusive, and to believe that females have rights, whereas males only have ‘responsibilities’.
Who, to you, are the most annoying Feminists?
British feminist and politician Harriet Harman is a particularly annoying and influential man-hating feminist, as is the highly visible Jessica Valenti. The most troubling feminists for me are not these type of ‘femi-nazi’ charicatures but those feminists who operate largely behind the scenes, lobbying for and legislating law after law that benefits women and that either harms or criminalizes men.
In terms of emerging technology – do you think sexbots will replace women, for many men? what about sexbots replacing men for women?
Sexbots are seen largely as a symbolic representation of the idea that technology may one day free men from their sexual dependence upon women. Personally, I think that the technology required for autonomous artificially intelligent sexbots to satisfy the psychological sexual needs of either men or women are decades away. Transhumanism itself is likely a safer bet for creating the ‘ideal’ sexual partner. Much of our discontent is rooted in the mal-adaptive and conflicting sexual psychologies that we still carry around with us – from male slut shaming of women in an age of contraception, abortion, and paternity testing, to the selfish female desire for monogamy and commitment in a partner (not likely to be conducive to happiness when sex becomes completely divorced from reproduction, when few people have children, and we are all living to be 1,000).
As far as physical technologies are concerned, much more exciting and immediate than sexbots are the roles that telepresence, augmented reality, and 3D printing will enable both men and women to benefit from the free sexual market. 3D printing will allow the cheap and easy production of realistic sex dolls that can be life-like replicas of anybody on Earth (or a fantasy ideal figure). Although this may sound disturbing and selfish, its real value will be when conjoined with tele-presence technology (in a sense, sex bots controlled remotely for virtual sex). ‘Sex bots’ will not replace men or women, but will instead be used to enrich the sex lives between men and women. Older women (and men) will be able to enjoy sex in the bodies of their youthful selves again, or in any kind of ‘improved’ or fantasy body that they wish. In addition, and probably much sooner than that, augmented reality glasses or contact lenses will allow a similar effect – your lover will see you as however you (or he/she) wishes you to appear. This will likely happen within the next 5-10 years. Finally, rejuvenation therapies will eventually mean that men and women can physically return to their younger selves, whilst bioprinting and cosmetic surgery could mean women literally changing their faces almost as easily as changing hairstyle. Ultimately, technology could even lead to individuals routinely swapping gender, or the very idea of gender itself becoming meaningless.
If my interpretation of feminism is correct – which I call ‘sexual trade union theory’ – then the forces driving feminism that are resulting in inequalities and unhappiness for both men and women, will largely disappear in the coming decades. Feminism has been the history of women trying vainly to close the free sexual market that disadvantages them as accelerating technological progess continues to open it at a faster rate.
Quite soon, technology will actually come to women’s aid in this regard, and we will reach a kind of ‘sexual singularity’, in which the very notion of sexual competition – the cause of feminism as a sexual trade union – becomes meaningless. The criminalisation of male sexuality, and the unhappiness of women, will be over.