Well, this is … interesting. So JohnTheOther has plopped out another rambling diatribe about evil feminists. This time he accuses them not only of “attacking male sexuality” but also (if I’m reading him correctly) of being a bunch of evil homophobes jealous that some men don’t want to have sex with women. You read this and tell me what you think he’s implying here:
Male sexuality is of course both demonized and treated as a form of predation, but also strictly limited to a narrow set of acceptable expressions. Outside of sexual identities which place men in positions to benefit women as sexual gate-keepers, masculine sexuality is generally condemned.
JTO would love to compare these alleged gay-man-hating feminists to the proudly gay-male-affirming Men’s Rights Movement. There’s just one problem: As even JTO has to force himself to admit, there are more than a few homophobic dudes lurking around in the Men’s Rights movement. As JTO acknowledges:
[T]here is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or I suppose, transsexual.
JTO doesn’t like this, and says so:
[There] are men (and women) whose sexuality, either chosen or not, doesn’t conform to an acceptable standard – and some within the MRM would demonize them. Gentlemen and ladies – this is nothing short of stupid.
At what point does who an individual finds sexually attractive diminish their value as a human? How is it that a man whose preference doesn’t include vagina becomes less of a man? Conversely, are we going to pretend the sexual preferences of our female colleagues matter in the context of partnership in the fight for the human rights of men and boys?
So: JohnTheOther has explicitly decided to speak up in favor of “the gay agenda.” (Yes, that’s the phrase he used.) And he’s even included lesbians in the deal – something allegedly pro-gay MRAs often have trouble doing – even though he sort of suggests at the end that he’s only willing to accept lesbians who are also MRAs.
But, hey, baby steps, right?
Well, John, if you really want to toss the homophobes out of the Men’s Rights movement, you’re going to have to start with A Voice for Men itself.
If you go to read JTO’s whole post over on AVFM, you’ll see a couple of “featured videos” in the sidebar from longtime AVFM friend and contributor Bernard Chapin. One of them bears the intriguing title “Feminist Professor Gloats Over Lesbian Chic.” The description, presumably written by AVFM head honcho Paul Elam, reads:
Bernard’s on a roll here with this one. And you will be rolling to [sic] as he delivers another thorough fisking, Inferno style.
Watch the video, here or there, or as much of it as you can stand. As you’ll see, it’s basically eight minutes of gratingly “humorous” lesbian bashing from good old Bern – whose preferred term for “lesbian,” incidentally, is “lesbobo.” (Evidently adding an extra “bo” to the old slur “lesbo” is hilarious.)
Chapin has produced more than 1200 videos; this is one of the two that AVFM has chosen to feature.
You want to stand up to homophobia, John? Take down that video. Apologize for hosting it. Apologize for featuring it. Demand that Chapin apologize for it — or kick him to the curb.
Meanwhile, AVFM is helping the guy behind the website Artistry Against Misandry publicize and raise money for an upcoming event; Elam himself says he’s already sent along a hundred dollars. Here are some examples of the sort of “artistry” that’s featured on the site:
This second graphic is not only homophobic but confused: Chaz Bono is a trans man, not a lesbian.
Speaking of transphobia, AAM also hosts several videos by “Creativebrother,” one of which is this not-hot transphobic mess:
John, I suggest you ask your boss at AVFM to get his money back from Artistry Against Misandry. Because, here’s the thing: if you actively support hate like this, people might just get the impression you’re a hate site.
EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, Elam proudly announces his own support of the “gay agenda” as well. Well, with 0.1% of it.
I don’t like most gay activists very much, and I oppose 99.9% of what passes as gay activism, but I don’t think it is very smart to forget that part of the reason they were led astray is because most “normal” men never gave them the dignity of being regarded as a man.
Forget gay marriage, forget bullying, forget AIDS: apparently the only real issue for gay men is evil feminist ladies calling them “fags” for not wanting to have sex with them.
Elam also has a most interesting explanation of homophobia, at least against gay men:
Gay men are bashed, when all is said and done, because they are not of utilitarian value to women, and because they are perceived as not having enough strength to be of utilitarian value to the elites.
Yeah, that’s probably it.
What about homophobia against lesbians? That’s easy: “lesbobos” are just naturally ugly and hilarious.
Uh, yeah, you’ve basically given the dictionary definition of “homophobe.”
Just like if someone says they find the actions of black people repulsive, they’re “branded a racist.” Because that actually is racist.
that is the dictionary definition of homophobe, yes. did your 19th century encyclopedias fail you on that one, duder?
@david
t(‘_’t)
David, we are the hivemind today.
sharculese, I think he’s more “hate the sinner, BEAT THEM IN THE STREETS.”
“Lesbobo?”
WTF?
$10 says that when he says “or I suppose, transsexual” he’s referring to trans women who he considers to be gay men TO THE MAX!!
There are not enough cookies in the world to get Cookie Monster to approve of your blatant homophobia and transphobia, AVfM.
“Lesbobo” would be a good name for a stripper clown catering to lesbian women.
Just sayin’.
@David Futrelle
“Uh, yeah, you’ve basically given the dictionary definition of “homophobe.”
Just like if someone says they find the actions of black people repulsive, they’re “branded a racist.” Because that actually is racist.”
Dave, that is the most pathetic analogy of all time. The defining act of gays is the act of having sex with other men, for lesbians it’s having sex with other women. Tell me, Dave, what is the defining act that makes a black person black? Can anyone here tell me what the defining act is that makes a black person black?
I am laughing that he is trying to gain gay support whilst labeling it THE GAY AGENDA!!! No queer person is gonna fall for that. Is he that dense??? XDXDXD
Like I said before, love the sinner but hate the sin isn’t good enough for the gang. You want everyone to love the sin as well. What’s next, do I need to love the beastiality gang as well. Can I still find that act repulsive? What else am I forbidden to say, Dave, without being branded with some made up word? What other acts must I endorse lest I be considered the bad man? Who get’s to decide what’s good and bad? Who get’s to decide what’s hate speech? Is there a vote? Or is it dictated?
@Halite: Thank you…that clown image will be carefully filed away in my brain to haunt future nightmares.
@ Halite
When I saw “lesbobo” I thought “lesbonobo”, which I guess would be a a lesbian bonobo, which would be awesome, and definitely better than MRAs (though from what I’ve heard, most bonobos are bi).
@ Sharculese–yeah, I think he’s talking about soldiers fighting in wars in oil-producing countries, not oil rig workers, though if he thought of oil rig workers, he’d probably complain about how they’re all* guys and therefore women are exploiting them whenever they turn on the light or drive to… wherever it is that women drive to in in the imaginations of misogynists.
* Obviously not, but these are MRAs. I don’t expect accuracy.
But but… Chapin is not making fun of ALL lesbians, just the ones who insult male sexuality by refusing to look hot!
Definition of homophobe
Noun 1. homophobe – a person who hates or fears homosexual people
It appears you’ve lied, Dave. I clearly stated I find the act repulsive. I neither hate nor fear gays. I also can’t stand the act of eating dog shit, I’ve never tried yet somehow I know. What else aren’t I allowed to find repulsive without being branded as a hater? How about if a woman finds fellatio repulsive and states it as a fact. Surely there’s a word for such a vile woman. You people are sickeningly hateful.
I kind of find sex repulsive, I mean it is a lot of unpleasant looking organs and lots of unpleasant bodily fluids. However, sex is generally a voluntary activity (I know this is a strong generalisation) as is watching people have sex. As long as I don’t have to participate and the people who are participating are doing it of their own free will it really doesn’t concern me. In general I don’t think about sex much. I’m not quite sure why people would find what gay men and women do repulsive, you aren’t being forced to participate, watch or even think about it. If that type of sex doesn’t sound pleasant to you (and it isn’t be forced on you) go think about cute bunnies or something.
@jumbofish
based on the passage argenti quoted about, i wonder if he just doesnt know what else to call it. i mean, it goes without saying that jto has never engaged with an actual gay person before, but he’s heard the term ‘gay agenda’ before, so… that must be a thing, right?
in other words, the reason jto is the worst ally gay men could ask for are as diverse as they are plentiful
Sharculese — I quoted that first quote before I finished, when I was still thinking he might mean well but be clueless, I’m willing to let “the gay agenda” slide in context, but he proves he’s not actually a decent human being with the next bit I quoted (which is the very end of the article)
And having fallen down a rabbithole of Thomas Bell, I’m glad to come back here to see NWO being told to open a dictionary.
NWO, there’s a free online one by merriam webster even, the relevant definition for homophobe. “find the actions of gays repulsive” = “aversion to…homosexuality or homosexuals”
Except, your issue isn’t even with gays is it? I’m guessing it’s more like you have an issue with all public displays of affection and that’s wtf you should say then. (Seriously, you don’t want to see anyone making out? Neither do most people)
@Naira – sorry for that :/ Here, have some (big!) kittehs: http://quetzalcoatl-rising.tumblr.com/post/23933351129/fitzenstein-love
@Sharculese, WordSpinner – I hadn’t thought of the soldier angle. Usually it’s the “we men died in the coal mines while hunting the eluse and rare coal-mammoth for you” tale of woe that I hear.
But again I’d like to point out (to the Trolls that Be, that is) that the ppl making the decisions to spend solider’s (men AND women) lives are not generally women. MISANDRY! (?)
“How about if a woman finds fellatio repulsive and states it as a fact.” — would be a relevant comparison if anyone was saying you had to engage in homosexual sex, which we aren’t. In fact, Pear_tree has explained exactly that (I realize ze commented after your comment, but read it)
And analogy fail aside, if a woman said she found anyone performing fellatio repulsive (not the act itself as a personal preference, but anyone performing the act) — then yeah, we’d probably mock her too. No one is saying you have to have same sex sexytimes not to be a homophobe, just that you do not get a say in anyone else’s sexytimes.
Can’t you just ban NWO? You might be doing him a favor at this point. I don’t know, just an idea.
@argenti
i’m not trying to mitigate the terribleness of what he said, just pointing out that with jto ‘clueless or spiteful’ is a game with no winner
also, no, owlslave has a special hatred for gay people in particular. part of his self-created origin story is that back when he was homeless and went 300 days without eating, there was basically no crime he wouldnt commit to avoid having to suck dick for food. (how this ties in with the year-long fast is not clear).
which, as a personal choice, if you don’t want to exchange sex for food, that’s fine. but owlslave has made it clear that in his case his disgust for homosexuality is so strong that he wouldnt perform a homosexual act to save his life
@owlslave
i know in made-up pretend land that distinction makes sense, but here in reality we get that reviling a person for the way they live their live is the same as reviling the person. this is not complicated.
NWO, can you tell me what the defining act is that makes a gay person gay? I live in a heavily gay neighborhood, so I see gay people doing gay things all the time: eating lunch, shopping, walking dogs.
Those are all gay acts, because the people doing them are gay. Or is gay sex the only thing that counts as gay? There are gay people who are celibate and not interested in sex, or who have never had sex (but want to), or who have had sex but never with someone of their own gender. Even the gayest gay in gaytown isn’t having gay sex all the time. (I wonder, if sex is the only defining gay act, if someone who has gay sex twice as often as another gay person is therefore twice as gay?)
Yes, sometimes I see gay couples holding hands, or kissing. I pretty much never see them having sex, so even if I were disgusted by that it wouldn’t really affect my daily life. I’m not sure why it affects yours, unless you hate gays all the time, not just when they are having sex.
Somehow I suspect that you would be “disgusted” by gay guys walking down the street holding hands.