Categories
a voice for men anne cools antifeminism antifeminist women Dean Esmay hetsplaining homophobia hypocrisy judgybitch misogyny MRA paul elam transphobia

Why is A Voice for Men giving a platform to one of Canada’s leading opponents of gay and lesbian rights? [UPDATED with AVFM response]

 

Gay marriage isn't a men's right, according to AVFM conference speaker Anne Cools
Gay marriage isn’t a men’s right, according to AVFM conference speaker Anne Cools

A Voice for Men likes to present itself as a voice for gay men as well as straight ones. In a recent post, site founder and chief fulminator Paul Elam declared that

We regard men as human beings, regardless of their sexuality. And most of us feel that this is the salve that heals what has in recent history been inflicted on gay men.

No mention of lesbians, but of course they’re women, and Elam does not seem to like women very much.

AVFM managing editor Dean Esmay, meanwhile, likes to present himself as a champion not only of gay men but of lesbians as well, boasting in one recent tweet that “I have been lesbian-supporting since the ’80s.”

So why is AVFM giving a platform to one of Canada’s most influential opponents of same-sex marriage  — and gay and lesbian rights in general?

Canadian Senator Anne Cools, one of the scheduled speakers at AVFM’s upcoming “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit, has been a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage for decades.

Her objection? That only heterosexual marriage deserves legal protection because gay people can’t make babies – at least not with each other – thus making their interest in sex all about lust.

In a speech before the Canadian senate, she argued that

The public interest in marriage is reproduction, the continuation of the species, the offspring. There is no public interest in sex or the gratification of sexual impulses for their own sake. …

[L]ust, like all human passions, is not to be trusted. Lust and sex on their own have no public character and contain no public interest or public good. Marriage is about man and woman in a peculiar act of bringing forth offspring.

Never mind that plenty of stright couples don’t, or can’t, have kids. Or that some trans men can.

She’s not simply an opponent of same-sex marriage. Cools has consistently opposed other legislation designed to afford gays and lesbians the same basic rights as straight people — and the same legal protections as other victims of bigotry and discrimination.

She opposed adding “sexual orientation” to hate speech legislation, warning that doing so would expose “millions of Canadians…who hold moral opinions about sexuality, to criminal prosecution.” (Needless to say, the passage of the bill in question did not lead to millions of Canadians being rounded up and arrested.)

She also worried that adding “sexual orientation” to hate speech legislation would somehow – I don’t quite understand the logic – encourage the “depathologizing the paraphilias” and ultimately lead to children being “seduced” into dangerous sexual activities. Here’s her argument:

The fact of the matter is, honourable senators, that we discourage children from smoking cigarettes because tobacco is harmful. I would submit that we are talking about some sexual activities that are dangerous and life-threatening. The committee should have the moral courage to hear something of it. I have lost a lot of beloved friends to a variety of these conditions. I have made it my business to instruct myself. That is the first question. You can think about that.

Ms. Landolt, your concern that the term “sexual orientation” is so wide as to involve a wide range of sexual behaviours is well founded. I would like to put on the record here for this committee a document called the Journal of Homosexuality, particularly, volume 20 in 1990. The subject of the entire volume is pedophilia and male intergenerational intimacy, historical, social, psychological and legal perspectives. If you were to open up this text, the foreword is the debate on pedophilia, and the second article is “Man-Boy Relationships: Different Concepts for a Diversity of Phenomena.” It continues with “Pederasty Among Primitives and Institutionalized Initiation.”

She continued:

I want to know about these children out there and the impact that this is having on them, and, in addition to that, all of these children who are being seduced at youthful ages and who are discovering what is happening to them two or three years later. I have done a lot of counselling. I would like to get a greater picture of the problems out there for children on these grounds, because this sexual orientation debate is going on here as though children do not exist.

She also tried to raise the question of “the medical consequences to individuals who involve themselves in activities such as ‘rimming,’ … sado-masochism and so on.”

In explaining her opposition to adding sexual orientation ito the Canadian Human Rights Act, she offered a similar “slippery slope” argument:

The concern is that pederasts and paedophiles will advance claims to engage in adult/child sexual relationships as a matter of human rights; that claims will be advanced on the legal grounds that pederasty and paedophilia are sexual orientations having entitlements.

For more on her various backwards views, as well as the source of that last quote, see here.

On Twitter, I asked Esmay to explain why AVFM is providing a platform for a woman who opposes same-sex marriage. He hasn’t replied.

Another curious Twitterer asked the same question of Janet Bloomfield, the official spokeswoman for the upcoming AVFM conference. She handled the question with her usual (lack of) aplomb.

Alex McKenzie ‏@anArchaeopteryx 3h  @JudgyBitch1 The issue here is that there's a speaker at your conference who is against the rights of gay men. And you're PR, so I ask why.      Reply     Retweet     Favorite  JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 3h  @anArchaeopteryx Her views on shared custody are more relevant. We include a diverse array of speakers with different views @avoiceformen      Reply     Retweet     1 Favorite  Alex McKenzie ‏@anArchaeopteryx 3h  @JudgyBitch1 at a conference for <<men>>      Reply     Retweet     Favorite  JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 3h  @anArchaeopteryx That is not for you to decide @AVoiceForMen @deanesmay Discussion closed. Further tweets will be considered harassment

Apparently AVFM’s much vaunted “compassion for men and boys” doesn’t apply to gay men who want the same basic rights as straight men.

For more on AVFM’s tolerance of homophobia – and Elam’s notorious attack on one trans women, see here.

EDIT: After I put this post up, I decided to see if I might have better luck at getting answers from Bloomfield on Twitter. The conversation went about as well as could be expected. Remember, Bloomfield is AVFM’s offical “social media” spokeswoman for the conference.

 David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle  @JudgyBitch1 Why is AVFM providing a platform for one of Canada's most influential opposents of gay rights? http://wp.me/p17cYK-3bW       Reply     Delete     Favorite  12:23 PM - 19 Jun 2014 Tweet text Reply to @JudgyBitch1       JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 20m      @DavidFutrelle Because she also one of Canada's most influential supporters of children and father's rights after divorce.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 19m      @JudgyBitch1 So the fact that she's been actively campaigning against gay and lesbian rights for decades doesn't bother you at all?     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 15m      @DavidFutrelle I vigorously denounce the anti-gay rights agenda. I don't have to agree with 100% of her beliefs. She cares for men and boys     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 13m      @JudgyBitch1 If you denounce her agenda, will you publicly denounce her for pushing this agenda? If not, why not?     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 11m      @JudgyBitch1 If you don't want to be seen as endorsing her agenda, put out a statement explicitly denouncing her for supporting this agenda     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 11m      @DavidFutrelle You think Twitter is private? Of course I would, I know how to criticize respectfully. Don't always choose to though.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 10m      @JudgyBitch1 Is she being paid for speaking at your conference, or being provided with lodging, transportation expenses, and so on?     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 9m      @DavidFutrelle None of your business @avoiceformen @deanesmay     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 9m      @DavidFutrelle You do not get a say.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 9m      @JudgyBitch1 Well, let's hear you specifically, and officially, repudiate her for supporting a bigoted agenda.     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 8m      @DavidFutrelle I do not take orders from you. I don't take orders from anyone, actually.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 7m      @JudgyBitch1 That's not the issue.The issue is whether AVFM supports Cools and her anti-gay agenda.If it doesn't, you should probably say so     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 6m      @DavidFutrelle This issue is closed. Any further tweets will be taken as harassment and you will be blocked.dfjb2dfjb3

I didn’t see her comment about harassment until after I tweeted a couple more times.

David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 15m  @JudgyBitch1 I'm not issuing orders.But if you don't want people to think AVFM supports her bigoted anti-gay agenda,you should repudiate her Details      Reply     Retweet     Favorite     Delete  David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 14m  @JudgyBitch1 Or at the very least issue a statement officially saying that AVFM opposes her anti-gay agenda. Details      Reply     Retweet     Favorite     Delete  JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 14m  @DavidFutrelle Go write a column about it, David. Get us even more press. We could use Canadian coverage. And good-bye. You were warned. Details      Reply     Retweet     Favorite  David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 13m  @JudgyBitch1 Would you have a racist speak at your conference if he or she supported your position on some other issue?

Some more bang-up public relations work from Ms. Bloomfield here.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

504 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
6 years ago

Sheehy’s advocating murder as an alternative to divorce, based purely on an accusation of abuse which would then remove any need for an investigation.

This has nothing to do with “an alternative to divorce.”

Fibinachi
6 years ago

I did. I pointed to Sheehy’s advocating murder as an alternative to divorce, based purely on an accusation of abuse which would then remove any need for an investigation.

I’ve also pointed out why demanding I point to such examples is a dishonest tactic, and exactly how you’ll respond, IE, that Futrelle can’t be expected to police the entire feminist movement. It is for that reason that I was willing to accept ANY example of him doing such. It’s telling that you feminists so frequently are willing to use the NAFALT deflection (but when men use it, you point to poisoned bowls of M&M’s), but demand MRA’s openly condemn ever other MRA YOU don’t personally agree with. Even when those you don’t agree with aren’t even MRA’s (PUA’s aren’t MRA, nor is manhood Academy, yet you lump us all together and demand we take responsibility for each others actions, while flinging the NAFALT at any criticism of feminism.). You hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourselves, and that double standard and self importance is obvious to everyone outside your hive mind. It’s why the MRM is growing exponentially, and feminism is sinking like the rat infested ship it is. And you lot know it, it’s why your all huddled around futrelle’s propaganda machine, hoping it will save you. I’m done here. Enjoy your echo chamber.

So, you didn’t really have anything but non-specific arguments about easily disproved notions and incendiary insults about fanaticism, dishonest debate tactics and slams against perceived hyperbolic hypocriticism.

We know PUA’s aren’t MRA’s aren’t MHRA’s aren’t ABC’s. Yet, the stuff constantly intertwines (“bitches and whores”). So, yeah.

Sod off q:

wewereemergencies
wewereemergencies
6 years ago

Because you are secretly everyone at AVFM David! Did you forget that you were? I know it’s difficult to keep track of all your false identities.

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

@markxneil

like sheehy’s advocacy of murder as an alternative means of divorce, through use of claims of abuse, which should then not be investigated because …vagina

That’s actually not Sheehy’s argument about self-defense, but whatever cupcake.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Gods these trolls are so boooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiinnng

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

Also, David isn’t as an expert or spokesperson for feminism, he’s a journalist blogging about misogyny on the internet. You can critique and question his coverage because that’s out there to be judged, but demanding him to also cover bad feminist behavior because fairness doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

markxneil
6 years ago

Ok, I admit, I said I was done, but I couldn’t pass this up, since David himself decided to respond…

“This is why that whole twitter discussion was so surreal. I started the whole thing off by saying that a some of the things said in the “agent orange” files were indeed terrible. Somehow this didn’t count as a criticism of them. Which meant I was “supporting them, at least through my silence.” Which wasn’t actually silence, but never mind.”

The problem is, David, that you included a “but…”, and then proceeded to defend them. You didn’t simply denounce them and leave it at that. It’s like saying “the KKK have said some horrible things, but … [defend],[defend],[defend]”, or “the Nazi’s have done some horrible things, but … [defend],[defend],[defend]” It goes from the realm of denouncing them, to trivializing the bad they’ve done in to the point they are undeserving of repercussions.

“And now I’m said to be defending them because, after criticizing them, I said they shouldn’t be doxxed and harassed.”

No, that’s not how you worded it. You didn’t criticize, you merely said “despite doing bad things, they should not be XYZ”. That isn’t denouncing what they did, it’s merely acknowledging it, and the follow up defense of them is condoning it. If you want to take credit for denouncing it, do so. Don’t pretend that merely acknowledging it is the same as denouncing it.

And oddly enough, you even acknowledge Judgy denouncing any anti-gay rhetoric, and without any defense within the same post, and yet, you do to Judgy precisely what you’re whining about here. Did judgy not say “I vigorously denounce the anti-gay rights agenda. I don’t have to agree with 100% of her beliefs”… and yet, you assert she never denounced the anti-gay agenda. Why doesn’t that count, when, in you’re view, simply acknowledging the radfems said bad things (but not actually saying you denounce them) seems to count for you? Why do you hold others to a higher standard than yourself?

“Guess what dudes, I don’t think MRAs should be doxxed and harassed either! I don’t think anyone should be harassed!”

Grow up.

“Fact is, it doesn’t matter what I do or say; MRAs will find some way to interpret my words and my behavior as eeeeeeevil.”

Oh no, that’s not projection at all. It’s not like you’ve actually made a career out of doing precisely that to the MRM. It’s not like you now have a financially vested interesting in pushing the idea the MRM is evil, to the point that you are actually slandering a Canadian Senator, who will be attending a conference with several openly gay men and women, who seem not to have a problem with her presence. This seems to be a little projecting your own agenda onto others, then playing the victim to it. Not atypical for a feminist, just a little out of character for male feminists, who typically play the white knight role. Good for you, breaking the gender roles and playing the womanly victim. Way to stick it to the patriarchy.

” Even if they have to resort to bizarre non-logic like arguing that I support evil “through my silence.” Which isn’t silence. ”

Isn’t that the very argument you’re currently making against the MRM?

“I’ve said over and over again: I’m not a radfem. I disasgree violently with a lot of radical feminism.”

I could harp on the “violently” part, but I won’t, instead I’ll simply point out that radfems aren’t the only feminist ideas that need to be denounced. There is a lot of none radical rhetoric out there, and you have actually defended a lot of it with some of your misrepresentation attack articles. When you chose not to acknowledge the underlying issues an AVFM article is addressing, and instead tone troll them and cherry pick to make them out to be monsters. Did you ever condemn Jezebel for writing an article celebrating their physically abusing their boyfriends? Or did you just attack the way AVFM choose to address it?

“I mean, I made clear to the AVFM folks I have no connection to radfemhub but Elam et al are still posting shit saying I’m “tied to genocidal ideologies.” How exactly?”

You seem to think radfems are the only hateful feminists out there… of course, I’ve seen you make excuses and rationalize hatred against men on more than a few occasions over the years. But you keep playing the victim.

Now I’m done.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Wow, it’s so immature not to want anyone to be harassed. Try to be as mature as mark is, David.

pallygirl
pallygirl
6 years ago

I was trying to work out what mark’s point was, and decided he didn’t have one other than to attack David.

Mark needs to learn Venn diagrams.

mildlymagnificent
6 years ago

Playing the victim? Come on.

David starts from the non-violence position (that everybody else here sticks to as well). That is, read carefully now, no one should ever be harassed. More importantly, no one should ever be doxxed. Just because, and entirely because, doxxing makes someone’s identity and contact and location information public. Public is a word with a meaning. It means p.u.b.l.i.c.

Once it’s out there, there’s no way of controlling who can see the information, even less can they be controlled in what they decide to do with that information. And that can be dangerous.

David makes the point that the opinions expressed by some people, who happen to be feminists, are vile and should be rejected by anyone and everyone, feminist or otherwise. Being committed to non-violence as well as to mainstream feminism, he also makes the point that these people should not be doxxed or harassed.

How hard is that?

Fibinachi
6 years ago

David starts from the non-violence position (that everybody else here sticks to as well). That is, read carefully now, no one should ever be harassed. More importantly, no one should ever be doxxed. Just because, and entirely because, doxxing makes someone’s identity and contact and location information public. Public is a word with a meaning. It means p.u.b.l.i.c.

Once it’s out there, there’s no way of controlling who can see the information, even less can they be controlled in what they decide to do with that information. And that can be dangerous.

David makes the point that the opinions expressed by some people, who happen to be feminists, are vile and should be rejected by anyone and everyone, feminist or otherwise. Being committed to non-violence as well as to mainstream feminism, he also makes the point that these people should not be doxxed or harassed.

How hard is that?

Now now, mildlymagnificent. Don’t be so immature. Grow up! It’s incredibly childish to claim that massive sprouting on about people’s real life identities can in some instances be dangerous! That’s just so… immature.

What you should do is be like markxneil here, who wants someone to word things in excrutiatingtly perfect detail in order to vigorously denounce it

No, that’s not how you worded it. You didn’t criticize, you merely said “despite doing bad things, they should not be XYZ”. That isn’t denouncing what they did, it’s merely acknowledging it, and the follow up defense of them is condoning it. If you want to take credit for denouncing it, do so. Don’t pretend that merely acknowledging it is the same as denouncing it.

but who yet seems to think that

“Guess what dudes, I don’t think MRAs should be doxxed and harassed either! I don’t think anyone should be harassed!”

Grow up.

Precisely wording your stance on doxxing and harassment is immature and means someone should grow up.

That’s the kind of mature, thoughtful consistency you should strive to emulate, mildlymagnificent!
———-

I joke.

Seriously, dude, markxneil, come on. Cooomeee oooooon.

I could harp on the “violently” part, but I won’t, instead I’ll simply point out that radfems aren’t the only feminist ideas that need to be denounced. There is a lot of none radical rhetoric out there, and you have actually defended a lot of it with some of your misrepresentation attack articles. When you chose not to acknowledge the underlying issues an AVFM article is addressing, and instead tone troll them and cherry pick to make them out to be monsters. Did you ever condemn Jezebel for writing an article celebrating their physically abusing their boyfriends? Or did you just attack the way AVFM choose to address it?

Soooo..

Actually, it is how it works, because I’m not asking you to point to him condemning a specific instance, I’m asking for you to demonstrate he’s ever done it, ever, even once. If I narrowed it down to a specific instance, you’d simply assert (rightfully) that he can’t be expected to go about condemning every instance of a feminist saying bad shit. See, you’re trying to set up a scenario where I would literally need to point out hundreds of examples of feminist hate, recent examples too, as of the start of his blog, at the latest, in order to cover all possible opportunities for him to have condemned a feminist, and even if I was to put is such a massive amount of work, you would simply dismiss it as tl;dr. This is really a dishonest tactic, and very transparent.

sooooooooooo….

@Fibinachi:markxneil, how come you haven’t posted that you disagree with the politics of the Khmer Rouge? What are you, some kind of genocidal mass-murderer? And I’ve never seen you point out that you think mugging someone is wrong. That’s despicable! Your lack of a clear moral stance against mugging people randomly shows that you are nothing but a violence filled angry person. And also, I read a book at one point where someone said dragons were bad. I haven’t seen you, markxneil, ever say that dragons are good. Are you an anti-dragonist? That’s monstrous, man! Reptilian beings of awe-inspiring power are people too!

I’m back with that.

Markxneil, you haven’t said that you support the rights of dragons to co-exist with goblins. Are you some kind of anti-dragonist? You haven’t talked about why the Khmer Rouge were wrong for murdering millions, are you some kind of genocide supporter? I haven’t seen you EVEN ONCE bring up that nazism was terrible, so, what are you, a neonazi?

That’s the level you’re bringing here. That’s how intelligently you’re trying to make your point, and, as a bonus, slamming in a whole bunch of bullshit gender ideology in that same heaping trash of complete tomfoolery.

I mean shit, dude, really:

Not atypical for a feminist, just a little out of character for male feminists, who typically play the white knight role. Good for you, breaking the gender roles and playing the womanly victim. Way to stick it to the patriarchy.

Yeaaah. Yeaaaah, mr. Human Right’s Activist, mr. MRA, way to support people there. Way to think of men and women as individuals, wow, such activism, such understanding.

Oh no, that’s not projection at all. It’s not like you’ve actually made a career out of doing precisely that to the MRM. It’s not like you now have a financially vested interesting in pushing the idea the MRM is evil, to the point that you are actually slandering a Canadian Senator, who will be attending a conference with several openly gay men and women, who seem not to have a problem with her presence.

Who cares? Other people’s acceptance or non-acceptance of Senator Cools words do not change those words or the impact her activities and work has on people. Whether or whether not other people, hell, other gay people, accept her presence there or do not accept her presence there, how does that change her words? How does that change the assumptions of her beliefs, which seem to be that a “gay agenda” leads inexorably towards pederasty and pedophilia? “This other dude is okay with it” is not and has never been a good way to explain the ethical value of something.

I could harp on the “violently” part, but I won’t, instead I’ll simply point out that radfems aren’t the only feminist ideas that need to be denounced. There is a lot of none radical rhetoric out there, and you have actually defended a lot of it with some of your misrepresentation attack articles. When you chose not to acknowledge the underlying issues an AVFM article is addressing, and instead tone troll them and cherry pick to make them out to be monsters. Did you ever condemn Jezebel for writing an article celebrating their physically abusing their boyfriends? Or did you just attack the way AVFM choose to address it?

You know, we had a troll once.

His argument was, essentially, that any feminist should spend 10 % of the time of their activism calling out other feminists. This would somehow keep everyone on the right track, ensure ideological purity.

It’s a silly way of doing activism.

In case you’re somehow going to claim you’ve missed it, I’d just like to point out that in response to this Jezebel article (An article, just by the way, I personally find repugnant), AVFM choose to publish a response called “Bash A Violent Bitch Month”.

They then claimed it was satire.

Only, they did so, when in the article itself, instructions for beating someone up was followed by an admission that this wasn’t wrong, and the only reason not to beat someone up was because it would entail jail time.

Great. So now we’re all stuck with the suck. Jezebel and AFVM both. And here you are, trying to somehow… paint everyone as a hypocrite, despite your initial conditions having long-since been satisfied. And suddenly you’re down to what you considered “dishonest and transparent debate technique”, enumerating various lists of terrible things feminists or would-be feminists have done and asking if David has somehow argued against it, because if he hasn’t, then oh no, he’s a terrible person.

You are like a paper-thin caricature of a tiny child pointing and going “GOT’CHA!”. Boring.

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

Did you ever condemn Jezebel for writing an article celebrating their physically abusing their boyfriends? Or did you just attack the way AVFM choose to address it?

I can’t believe how many AVfM fanboys try to sidestep addressing “Bash the Bitch Month” by pointing out the existence of that stupid Jezebel article. It’s a terrible article but last time I checked it wasn’t written by the most visible head of a supposed human rights movement. Plenty of articles that the Gawker empire vomits out suck in a variety of ways, it’s not the New Yorker. Elam should be held to a higher standard, even if he, JudgeyB and his nitwit followers don’t seem to understand that.

As I wrote before, why does David have to write about Jezebel when the blog is about misogyny found in the online manosphere?

I could harp on the “violently” part, but I won’t, instead I’ll simply point out that radfems aren’t the only feminist ideas that need to be denounced. There is a lot of none radical rhetoric out there, and you have actually defended a lot of it with some of your misrepresentation attack articles.

He “actually defended a lot of it” when and how exactly? He’s a journalist, not an ideologue. You have to come up with actual examples.

titianblue
titianblue
6 years ago

Auntie Alias “Mark and I are sworn enemies on Disqus.”

WOW. You view me as an “enemy”? That’s a bit disturbing. “Enemy” seems a rather emotionally invested, don’t you think? You’re just not that important to me, cupcake. You just post so much it’s almost impossible not to reply to you occasionally.

Oh dear, are you bitter that Aunty Alias proved what a moron you are on Disqus? Never mind, sweetie, I sure you’ll get used to it since it must happen a lot.

Ally S
6 years ago

@politicalcynic

Funny thing about all this alleged homophobia in the MHRA.

As a gay man…

Gay men are treated like shit by MRAs. That they may be nice to a few of them is besides the point, given that they analyze gender and sexuality in ways that contribute to the marginalization of homosexual folks. A good example is their espousal of evolutionary psychology, which not only uncritically accepts the gender binary but also rarely ever takes into account human beings who aren’t heterosexual.

Moreover, the same MRAs who claim to be supportive of gay men also support misogynist gay men’s views and liberally use the anti-gay f-word to describe anyone who isn’t perfectly heteronormative and cis. MRAs are the same people who also support drag queens who appropriate the word “tr*nny” for the sake of “irony” or some other stupid, transmisogynistic bullshit despite the protests of trans women to whom the right to use that word solely belongs.

The MRM is not pro-gay. It’s a reactionary force that has the weak pretense of being progressive.

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
6 years ago

I don’t recall anyone mentioning that AVFM posted a rebuttal to David’s article: “David Futrelle falsely accuses Canadian Senator Anne Cools of homophobia”. Naturally, the article defended Cools while tearing into David and us “man-hating, trigger-prone hypochondriacs” who post here.

The author, Andy Bob, reiterated Cools’ arguments about free speech and her definition of marriage. Out of 100 comments, two gay men objected. Paul Elam was like, “Yeah, that’s just your opinion.” Fuck.

Note to angry MRAs: The fact that Andy Bob is gay doesn’t legitimize his opinions any more than the participation of the Honey Badgers proves AVFM isn’t a misogynist site.

sarah
sarah
6 years ago

@Auntie Alias

Note to angry MRAs: The fact that Andy Bob is gay doesn’t legitimize his opinions any more than the participation of the Honey Badgers proves AVFM isn’t a misogynist site.

Andy Bob upvoted this comment:
“GLB&T is even better, I find, because transsexualism disorders have nothing to do with sexual orientation, apart from being congenitally determined.

The fact that gender disphoria is a thing to be treated is kind of a tip to that fact.”

So,much for being supportive of men and boys.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Why did I go to bed? I missed out on the chance to learn that the position that nobody should be harassed or doxxed is a sign of immaturity.

Mark dropped ever so much wisdom on us! s/

I wonder how much longer MRAs are going to whine about that stupid Jezebel article. It’s seven years old! If feminists were equally as hateful as MRAs they’d be able to constantly find fresh examples.

But no, they have a seven year old Jezebel article, 5 year old radfemhub posts and of course the 50 year old SCUM manifesto. That’s it.

Mark or any other MRA who’s reading this, please come up with some more recent examples of evil feminists. Otherwise someone might think you’re reaching when you make the “both sides do it!” claim.

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
6 years ago

@sarah

Argh. And it was in response to Paul Elam saying:

Oh, and for the record, I still use GLBT. I am not switching terms to LGBT just because lesbian feminists hijacked the shit and forced gay men into the back of the bus.

WTF?

Ally S
6 years ago

Oh, and for the record, I still use GLBT. I am not switching terms to LGBT just because lesbian feminists hijacked the shit and forced gay men into the back of the bus.

Literally the exact opposite has happened, lol. Gay men’s misogyny is precisely why lesbian seperatism started.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
6 years ago

PoliticalCynic, that’s nice I guess. Meanwhile there are gay men here who find the MRM homophobic. There are also lesbians who feel that way, but they’re women, so I guess their opinions don’t count. And I know I’m drowning in passing privilege ATM, but as a bi woman I do have some idea of what homophobia looks like.

I’m not sure why you’re pointing out that feminists (and other progressives, because apparently no we’re responsible for everyone who’s approximately on “our side”) can also be homophobic. You think we don’t know that? You think we’re somehow blind to homophobia when it’s coming from our alleged allies? Some “gotcha”.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

How is it Elam’s place to decide what the terms are? He’s cis and straight. He doesn’t get to decide that GLBT is the correct label. If he thinks he does get to decide, he’s not a very good ally.

Ally S
6 years ago

“GLB&T is even better, I find, because transsexualism disorders have nothing to do with sexual orientation, apart from being congenitally determined. The fact that gender disphoria is a thing to be treated is kind of a tip to that fact.”

Oh look, another truscum MRA who thinks that dysphoria is a requisite for transness.

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

Stu
What they will do, is just treat the one that adopted the more masculine role as the man. The more feminine will be treated as the woman normally is. So masculine guys and masculine leaning lesbians will get shafted the same as guys in straight relationships. I don’t think it will change anything concerning alimony or child support or asset divisions for straight men. What it will do is provide more food for the family court industry and the parasitical lawyers and victim advocates to grow bigger and fatter on.
—-
J.G. te Molder
What makes you possibly think all gay relationships has one partner taking a masculine role, and the other the feminine one?

Besides which, you’re greatly over estimating or underestimating, demanding on your point of view, lawyers ability to sell she or he is really a girl. Not just inside the courts, but to everyone outside the courts, to just keep going along with the courts, and not finally go, “Yo, senator; the courts, or my vote, one or the other.” That’s where you are overestimating their ability.

You’re underestimating a lawyers ability to give, in case of a masculine and feminine partner, them a makeover and turn them into someone just as feminine. Maybe they can’t convince masculine gay men to do so, but I bet he can convince more masculine women from appearing more girly in court.

I’d offer a critique of the AVfM article but it’s super long misreading of David’s post and just isn’t worth the effort. I thought I’d share this gem of an exchange in the comments instead.

Most AVfM posters are pushing the idea that being anti-gay marriage is okey dokey because marriage is so very awful, but the commentary takes some wacky turns like the above exchange. I’ve seen many people buy into the male-female role playing gay relationship dynamic, but I haven’t seen it used because someone is convinced that the court system requires a male stand-in to screw over.

The OP and other posters repeatedly blame lesbian feminist for hijacking the GLBT movement and ruining everything. I’ve occasionally heard gay men whine like this before. I’ve also occasionally heard lesbians whine that they helped gay men during the AIDS crisis yet gay men aren’t grateful or some such shit. My response is big whiney adult babies should shove off and let mature people run gay communities.

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

Paul Elam
10 hours ago
That is your opinion, which of course you are welcome to.

Personally, if I supported marriage at all I would support it for all. But there is rational dissent from that position, even if I don’t ultimately agree with it.

I am perfectly content with disagreement, and don’t feel the need to demonize those who don’t see it my way. I am wary of those who claim ownership of “sound reasoning.”

That claim is not an argument, and is neither sound, nor reasonable.

I see pro and con on a lot of issues, from drug legalization, abortion, forms of governance. Ultimately I have my own opinion on all those things. Claiming intolerance against anyone whose opinion differs is to me a form of intellectual cowardice.

Why I had no idea Elam was so magnanimous! What a guy.

neuroticbeagle
6 years ago

And also, I read a book at one point where someone said dragons were bad. I haven’t seen you, markxneil, ever say that dragons are good. Are you an anti-dragonist? That’s monstrous, man! Reptilian beings of awe-inspiring power are people too!

Love.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d4/8a/99/d48a9980ab9c34d96b5bb0c30ae4b94d.jpg

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1c/a3/24/1ca324be1c8793d415aee7778eb84a83.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/91/b5/6a/91b56a32a0da10529145121bc8ffc3b6.jpg

Marie
Marie
6 years ago

@Ally

That’s why sometimes I prefer to say TWEF/TWERF (trans woman-exclusionary (radical) feminism). Their views are inherently discriminatory towards trans men, obviously, but trans men frequently side with TWERFs because they benefit from TWERF narrarives of “female socialization”.

Yeah, I’ve seen you use that sometimes. Just checking, is it something you’d like others to start doing, too? (like, do you want me to be calling them twefs/twerfs too.)

idk if that made sense I just woke up

@weirdwoodtreehugger

looks like word salad to me

@markxneil

Is this what constitutes an argument here?

May I direct your gentle eyes up to the header. Do you notice anything about arguing up there, or does it say that this is a mockery site, hmm?

Judgy offered more condemnation when she said “I vigorously denounce the anti-gay rights agenda. I don’t have to agree with 100% of her beliefs”.

Bub, just saying you denounce something doesn’t mean squat. You have to back that shit up with the rest of your words, something judgy doesn’t do.

God, mark is so teal deer-y :/

The problem is, David, that you included a “but…”, and then proceeded to defend them.

can you read, you fucking jackass? Saying you don’t think people should get harrassed is not the same as defending them.

That isn’t denouncing what they did, it’s merely acknowledging it, and the follow up defense of them is condoning it.

How fucking pathetic is it of our troll he thinks saying people shouldn’t be harrassed is condoning their behavior.

“Guess what dudes, I don’t think MRAs should be doxxed and harassed either! I don’t think anyone should be harassed!”

Grow up.

Where in mark proves hes a terrible human being.

@Ally

Oh, and for the record, I still use GLBT. I am not switching terms to LGBT just because lesbian feminists hijacked the shit and forced gay men into the back of the bus.

Literally the exact opposite has happened, lol. Gay men’s misogyny is precisely why lesbian seperatism started.

I’m confused by the dude you quoted Ally (sorry I Didn’t see his name) Switching the acroynym proves lesbians are sticking bay men to the back of teh bus?

Also, I use QUILTBAG for an acryonym, but that’s just because it’s the only way I remember how to spell it.

Marie
Marie
6 years ago

Also, something about the trolls tone (marks) just seems really off to me…like kind of manipulative and gaslight-y? But I dont’ know if I’m the only one feeling it.

Eitehr way its really setting me off.

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
6 years ago

I’ve argued with Mark off-site and you nailed it, Marie.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

What, markxneil being manipulative and gas-ligthy! Marie! That’s such a terrible thing to say about such a mature, reasonable and intelligent individual. I mean, it’s not like he ever–

Given the frequency of the NAFALT deflection, feminists have absolutely no moral grounds to stand on in claiming anyone should denounce anyone else because they disagree on views.

Okay so he did say that the entire feminist position has no moral standing and that any argument anyone makes is automatically undermined by the virtue of the argumenter being a feminist, which is kind of going to discredit anyone’s opinion but come on, that’s not that bad, at least he never—

I’ve given you both the accusation AND the means of proving me wrong now. Lets see how many of you will attack me with ad homs and shaming language, when such a supposedly simple solution exists to discredit me, find me a single article where David does what he is condemning others for not doing.

I stand by my assertion that Futrelle is a hypocrite. I’m still waiting for a single link to an article where he denounces feminists for their hatred, as he expects the MRM to do (despite the fact they actually have.

But you succeeded, more or less, in finding an example of what I’m talking about… of course, it is Dworkin, a feminist whose condemnation is feminist approved, and who is long dead, and thus, no threat to Futrelle himself. It’s a cowardly easy example to point to (and to listen to many feminists, not even a real feminist), but I’ll concede, you found a single example of him doing what he demands of others. Congrats. But I’ve listed 3 examples of Paul doing the same in actual articles (not in some snide remark in an FAQ). I’m curious, can you find the same?

Oh, okay, I guess he did set up a “Simple and easy to pass test” that would be “super easy for someone to pass”, and then the moment someone did pass it, immediately started on about the veracity, ability, understanding and validity of that particular passing mark. That’s a little gaslighty. On the other hand, it’s not like he ever—-

WOW. You view me as an “enemy”? That’s a bit disturbing. “Enemy” seems a rather emotionally invested, don’t you think? You’re just not that important to me, cupcake. You just post so much it’s almost impossible not to reply to you occasionally.</blockquote

@Kittehserf AKA, got nothin.

It’s why the MRM is growing exponentially, and feminism is sinking like the rat infested ship it is. And you lot know it, it’s why your all huddled around futrelle’s propaganda machine, hoping it will save you. I’m done here. Enjoy your echo chamber.

You seem to think radfems are the only hateful feminists out there… of course, I’ve seen you make excuses and rationalize hatred against men on more than a few occasions over the years. But you keep playing the victim.

Okay so he did spend every chance he got switching from addressing someone in person to belittling their mental ability, their personality and their political stance in general, without having to back it up with specific examples but just lumping someone in with a notion of terribad feminists who are wrong and hateful. Bonus points he also gets for harping on about how emotionally invested we all are, and how it’s “a bit disturbing” to be “called an enemy” and how that’s totes not really rational, dear, are you sure you’re of sound enough mind to have this conversation?

Huh…. But he seemed so MATURE and so RESPONSIBLE and so ADULT with his position of… being fine with people being doxxed and harassed. Oh dear!

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

I’m confused by the dude you quoted Ally (sorry I Didn’t see his name) Switching the acroynym proves lesbians are sticking bay men to the back of the bus?

Adding the L was seen as a way to combat lesbian invisibility but usually no one really cares if you put G first as long as you don’t include a long whiny complaint about other people putting the L first. Unfortunately gay guys occasionally publicly complain about how AWKWARD and CONFUSING the new QUILTBAG or even the old LGBT acronyms, that lesbians fall under gay, non-gays can do their own thing and Gay with a capital G is just so much easier. Since you can usually get away with “gay” as short hand in casual conversation, they’re assholes who seemingly can’t be bothered to even superficially recognize non-gay men at all. Obviously there are lesbians that throw bisexuals and trans under the bus because people can suck at times.

katz
6 years ago

“GLB&T is even better, I find, because transsexualism disorders have nothing to do with sexual orientation, apart from being congenitally determined.

Because if there’s a problem with the gay-rights movement, it’s that it’s too focused on trans people.

contrapangloss
6 years ago

Maybe it’s just relative lack of exposure, or the fact that intend to hang out with nice people… But I’ve never actually met any gay men who are jerks about stuff like this.

It really could be just my exposure levels, so don’t take my anecdata too seriously (because anecdata should never be taken as real, good, glorious, perfectly sampled data).

But, I’m kind of feeling a little awkward with the blanket ‘gay men tend to be jerks about lesbians/misogyny” thing that seems to be rolling.

Sorry if I’m offending anyone, and yes, some gay men can be as misogynistic as straight dudes, and I really don’t mean to tone troll, but some of my favorite relatives and friends are gay, and it’s all confusing and touchy, and kind of a difficult subject, and eep!

And I should back off, before I say anything else not too bright…

Sorry.

contrapangloss
6 years ago

Intend should be ‘I tend’

Ally S
6 years ago

@Marie

Yeah, I’ve seen you use that sometimes. Just checking, is it something you’d like others to start doing, too? (like, do you want me to be calling them twefs/twerfs too.)

What really matters is the acknowledgement that these feminists are specifically hateful towards trans women (and, for that matter, anyone who isn’t AFAB). Cis people, because of their privilege, tend to ignore this transmisogynistic dynamic. So I think it’s important for especially cis people to use TWEF/TWERF instead. I mean, it’s not like using TERF is inherently transmisogynistic (several of my trans women friends who prefer to use TWEF/TWERF still use TERF from time to time), but it’s important to not erase transmisogyny through the usage of TERF. I hope that makes sense.

By the way, the reason some folks say TWEF is that it highlights the fact that radical feminists who are trans woman-exclusionary hardly have a “radical” analysis of gender at all because of their assumption that sex isn’t a social construct.

I’m confused by the dude you quoted Ally (sorry I Didn’t see his name) Switching the acroynym proves lesbians are sticking bay men to the back of teh bus?

That was none other than Paul Elam. Real champion of human rights, isn’t he?

Also, I use QUILTBAG for an acryonym, but that’s just because it’s the only way I remember how to spell it.

I prefer to avoid the acronym, honestly. It’s unwieldy for me. I personally say “queer/trans” or something similar instead. That’s just me, though. I don’t have a problem with people using the acronym so long as they don’t include “allies” in it (the movement is for queer and trans people, not allies!).

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
6 years ago

What annoys me the most is the tactic that goes like this: “Are you saying [something completely different than what was said OR a bullshit prediction]?” I have examples!

wewereemergencies
More importantly, where have MRA’s denounced their *leaders’* hateful rhetoric?

markxneil
Are you suggesting Cools is a “leader” among the men’s movement?

strivingally
Getting mad at David Futrelle for not denouncing radfemhub extremists is like getting mad at Jon Stewart for not denouncing anarchist terrorists.

markxneil
Are you seriously going to try and assert that no feminist has said anything worth condemning and/or denouncing since Futrelle started this blog? Or are you just going to assert futrelle should be exempt from doing precisely what he condemns others for not doing (AKA hypocrite)?

::headdesk::

Ally S
6 years ago

@contrapangloss

But, I’m kind of feeling a little awkward with the blanket ‘gay men tend to be jerks about lesbians/misogyny” thing that seems to be rolling.

Please bear in mind that I say these things as a lesbian who has faced misogyny from gay men.

Are all gay men okay with being misogynists? Of course not. But that’s besides the point, in the same sense that the fact that not all men are abusers is irrelevant to the reality of the ubiquity of male violence.

I understand why you are apprehensive about hearing such things because I am very familiar with anti-gay het people saying that gay men are predatory, evil, etc. That is a very real issue and it doesn’t deserve to ever be ignored. But it’s still important to point out the fact that gay men can be misogynistic. Far too many people assume that gay men are literally incapable of misogyny. Nevertheless, I’m sorry that I offended you. I hope I have cleared things up.

katz
6 years ago

Maybe it’s just relative lack of exposure, or the fact that intend to hang out with nice people… But I’ve never actually met any gay men who are jerks about stuff like this.

I think it’s not really gay men specifically, or intentionally, it’s just the regular intersectionality thing: When they go to make a movement about gay rights, it defaults to being about gay white dudes, and then human nature being what it is, people are slow and reluctant to recognize the necessity of expanding it.

But I think you’re right that “gay men hate lesbians/trans people/bisexuals” isn’t really a thing, particularly.

katz
6 years ago

I don’t have a problem with people using the acronym so long as they don’t include “allies” in it (the movement is for queer and trans people, not allies!).

Doesn’t the A stand for asexual?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

When they go to make a movement about gay rights, it defaults to being about gay white dudes, and then human nature being what it is, people are slow and reluctant to recognize the necessity of expanding it.

Yep. I’ve had the misfortune of encountering a very small number of gay men who were virulently and openly misogynistic, but such men are not the norm. What is the norm is people brought up to think of themselves as being the default humans acting on that assumption and thus marginalizing other people. It doesn’t have to be a deliberate thing, all that it takes is for people not to think about their assumptions and to get defensive when people try to point out that that’s what they’re doing.

I’m also confused as to how anyone could think that gay men would be incapable of misogyny given that they were presumably raised in the same misogynistic society that everyone else was. I would point out, though, that in general men who’re not sexually attracted to women are usually going to be less of a threat to us than men who are, simply because so much of the violence and controlling behavior directed at women by men is sexually motivated in one way or another.

cloudiah
6 years ago

I see a troll is once again insisting that we (a fairly obscure bunch of feminists) condemn the actions of other obscure feminists we have no connection to, and pretending that is the equivalent of the currently most influential MRM group (i.e. AVfM) being asked to condemn the abhorrent views of people they have endorsed by asking them to speak at their conference. Yeah, that isn’t actually equivalent. And in fact, David and others here have frequently condemned extremist and/or violent sentiments expressed by feminists (which aren’t nearly as common as this marly troll would pretend).

Nonetheless, I thought I would alert you to the existence of a handy, one-stop-shopping place anyone can go to put their condemnation of these obscure feminists on the record, as it were:
http://www.reddit.com/r/feministscondemnstuff/

Enjoy!

Marie
Marie
6 years ago

@contrapangloss

But, I’m kind of feeling a little awkward with the blanket ‘gay men tend to be jerks about lesbians/misogyny” thing that seems to be rolling.

Sorry if I’m offending anyone, and yes, some gay men can be as misogynistic as straight dudes, and I really don’t mean to tone troll, but some of my favorite relatives and friends are gay, and it’s all confusing and touchy, and kind of a difficult subject, and eep!

idk. I mean it’s great you haven’t met gay men who are jerks about this stuff, but lots of us have met them. :/

@ally

Cis people, because of their privilege, tend to ignore this transmisogynistic dynamic. So I think it’s important for especially cis people to use TWEF/TWERF instead

Got it. thanks for the explanation :3 I’ll switch over to TWEF/TWERF, then.

I don’t have a problem with people using the acronym so long as they don’t include “allies” in it (the movement is for queer and trans people, not allies!)

Ditto. The a stands for asexual, not allies (//preaching to the choir).

@katz

Doesn’t the A stand for asexual?

yeah. But sometimes allies act like it stands for allies, not asexual, which is I think what Ally meant.

rikalous
rikalous
6 years ago

And also, I read a book at one point where someone said dragons were bad. I haven’t seen you, markxneil, ever say that dragons are good. Are you an anti-dragonist? That’s monstrous, man! Reptilian beings of awe-inspiring power are people too!

Of course markxneil is an anti-dragonist. Look at how misandrist they are: http://fearless-feminism.tumblr.com/post/81326932909/feminist-dragons-inspired-by-x

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

You have to remember there is no single LGBT community IRL, it’s a multiple communities that have shared struggles. Most LGBT socially in multiple worlds: a broader social circle including straight people, then smaller LGBT circle and an even smaller, often sexuality related, group. If you have gay male friends there are gay clubs they will bring non-gay friends to and gay clubs they won’t (or can’t) because they’re doing more than dancing.

A lot of the complaints about the current QUILTBAG (or variations) is from people are 40 or over. You know all the things Dan Savage says that offends young queers? That’s same stuff was conventional gay guy thinking, and conventional thinking in general, about 20-30 years ago. When I was growing up in the 1980s people thought all bisexual women were adventurous straight women and bisexual men were closeted gays, the later particularly seen as mythical creatures. Trans stuff didn’t matter because they didn’t have any political power, the history of HRC on trans issues is a horror show, for instance. Luckily, things have wildly improved because trans women and men have gained positions of power in non-profit LGBT advocacy groups. HRC still has huge blind spots because it’s a bunch of rich white people, but HRC is, at best, “problematic”. (I have a lot of issues with HRC). The fact is allies don’t do anything more than lip service, so you need to have as much broad representation in leadership positions.

I’m rambling a bit and didn’t mean to offend or bum anybody out. I’m off to my birthday dinner!

Woody
Woody
6 years ago

AVfM has posted a solid response to this article, not that I expect any of the ideologues on here to give it a fair shake:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/just-plain-crazy/david-futrelle-falsely-accuses-canadian-senator-anne-cools-of-homophobia/

marinerachel
marinerachel
6 years ago

Keep shaking those pompoms, Woody.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Seriously. Is Woody a paid shill? Can we just ban him for being boring? He doesn’t engage and entertain. All he does is drop a praise Paul Elam turds in here.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Behold, the real content of all these comments, which Woody is desperately hoping that Elam will notice.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

Ally — yeah, the only time allies should get grouped with people who fall under the QUILTBAG umbrella is when it’s something like a GSA or “conference for QUILTBAG people and their allies”. (Remind me what the letters are if this is wrong? Queer, undecided, intersex, lesbian, trans, bi, asexual, gay? Or is the Q questioning? But then what’s the U?)

And TWEF it is, that’s really a much better definition of the problem after all.

——

Random — straight :: gay/lesbian/bi/pan, cis :: trans, sexual :: asexual, ?? :: intersex? Is there a term for “I am not intersex // there was no doubt what gender to assign me at birth // nobody’s ever thought my genitals are in need of “correction””?

Ally S
6 years ago

@Argenti

“I am not intersex // there was no doubt what gender to assign me at birth // nobody’s ever thought my genitals are in need of “correction””?

DFAB/DMAB (designated male/female at birth)?

HeatherN
6 years ago

(Haven’t read any of the comments)

But so, yeah…this is akin to the problem of the mainstream gay and lesbian movement willing to throw trans folk under the bus. Except unlike straight, cis MRAs, gay and lesbian folk actually are oppressed…and at least there are a good number of gay and lesbian folk critiquing their own movement’s exclusionary practices. See also: feminism’s problem with throwing women of colour under the bus.

Also reminds me of that time Patton Oswalt tweeted a quote from Steve Sailor without any context and failed to see that it was a problem.