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.
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.
I didn’t see her comment about harassment until after I tweeted a couple more times.
Some more bang-up public relations work from Ms. Bloomfield here.
(Im actually computer programmer by trade – you would think I would be better at this !)
In the following dramatisation, the part of woodyred will be played by the large gentleman at the table, while Mr Buster Keaton will be playing the part of ‘the Point’.
http://giphy.com/gifs/qHuL8vAocEDXq
Russia’s not ‘really’ Europe. Because.
And ‘civil partnerships are accepted.’ in Europe, you say.
Except Poland, Romania, Slovakia, most of Eastern Europe, some of Northern Europe, Italy.
And abortion is legal. Except in Ireland. Malta. Getting pretty darned illegal in Italy. Restrictions on access popping up all over.
…
Yes, let’s talk about how this is all settled in Europe.
The ire in my pervious is directed at woodyred and JudgeyB who are reducing Cools’ homophobia to merely being against gay marriage. As always, ignorance, real or feigned, is no excuse, woodyred. If you don’t believe David then go read what she said before you continue to argue with us.
*my previous post
Good grief, I did terrible things to commas in my 10:43 am post. I apologize to all readers and English grammar.
@ Howard Bannister — No, no. Europe is a country with a single legal code. It is known.
@ Howard Bannister – I live in the UK. Russia is quite separate and distinct from Europe, actually. Ireland has an issue with abortion, yes – Im very aware of this- a very famous story recently – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741 – there is pressure on them to change this – hell, theres pressure to ban male infant genital mutilation .. dont tell me we’re not progressive out here. and eastern european countries do have issues also, yes. but believe me, we’re streets ahead of you lot.
Ah, of course.
When it’s convenient.
Yessss. Tell me more about the UKIP and how their racism is totally different from the racism we’re fighting over here.
Woodyred,
How can you support a speaker who is against the rights of some men? Or excuse said speaker?
Here’s an example of two fathers and two sons whose rights are actually being violated. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/jason-hanna-and-joe-riggs_n_5506720.html
Do you suppose Hanna and Riggs would feel welcome at the conference or in the MRM at all when they’ve invited a virulently homophobic speaker? AVFM have claimed Cools is a supporter of father’s rights but from her quotes it’s clear that she wouldn’t support the rights of these two fathers.
As it happens, I read about this case on another feminist site. Once again we’re more compassionate to men and boys who need it than the MRM is.
@ Howard Bannister – where are you from ?? russia is VERY distinct from Europe – by every measure – they are, in fact, separate countries, cultures, languages – russia are not part of the EU – they are not part of NATO …. russia is not part of Europe.
But Howard, that’s European racism, which, as everyone knows, is far superior to American racism.
/sarcasm
@ House Mouse Queen; Sorry about that. I was using Matheus’s terms to try to get him to see the flaw in his logic, but you’re right, I should have put “violent” in scare quotes.
…
…
…
…
Yes, I am aware that geographically and culturally there is what we call “Eurasia,” and that only part of Russia lies in what is geographically designated as Europe.
But…
What…
Okay.
The UK and hate crimes. (link is a PDF from gov.uk)
Because that doesn’t really look like a world free of racism and prejudice from here, yanno.
I love the country of Europe. I wish I could spend all my time there, perhaps in the capital city of Provence.
@Woodyred
This shouldn’t need saying, but… Europe is not a country. It does not speak a single language, or have a single culture. Geographically, it is considered to end at the Ural Mountains. I wonder if you can guess which country those are in? European Russia makes up only around a quarter of Russia’s territory, true, but it also contains 77% of the Russian population. It also makes up 38% of Europe’s land area – far more than any other country. (Statistics from here). In fact, in many ways it seems more reasonable to consider Russia a typical European country than the UK. There are cultural and linguistic differences, of course, but these exist on a spectrum. Culturally, Russia is probably more similar to Bulgaria and Ukraine than the UK is to France, Germany or Spain, and in terms of languages they are certainly more similar – enough that I can read Bulgarian fairly comfortably based solely on my knowledge of Russian, whereas I can’t really read German despite having studied it in the past.
Tl;dr: You’re a fuckwit who knows nothing about Russia and is engaging in special pleading.
@LBT there are definitely people interested in the plight of men affected by toxic masculinity, victims of abuse, or in need of shelter. However, most of them don’t want to be associated with the MRM movement. You probably remember that article too.
I hope more moderate MRAs see the good work done and the stark difference between mens’* rights and the MRM.
*I mean this as inclusively as possible.
@Woolyred
It’s so wacky! She’s religious, we just have to deal with the homophobia! Not like she can actually work on not being a homophobic ass or anything!
Uh no. I’m not very religious, but my dad is, and he isn’t anti abortion/ anti gay marrige.
Plus, this isn’t about banning them. It’s about why you want her at the event.
omgomgomgomg. omygod. ‘you people are looking to label homophobe as homophobe, u meanies’.
you sound like my stepmom tahts not a good thing.
troll to english translation: labelling homopohbe as homophobe is dishonest plz not call things what they are kthnxbye.
It’s a shame that religions aren’t made up of people…who can chose whether to be homophobic or not….
@howard bannister
If you support freezepeaches!!!!!eleven
@woolyred
“”I don’t get why I’m getting ganged up on this site meant to mock misogyny when I am a misogynist????? so wierd”
@woodyred
WOw such condescending very go fuck yourself.
I hate to break this to you but lots of eupope is seperate countries XD
Why would AVFM be interested in pushing for marriage for homosexuals when it is already opposed to marriage for straight people?
From the mission statement:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/policies/mission-statement/
“We oppose all state authority over or interference in the private lives of consenting adults engaged in any form of interpersonal relationship”
There will be many people present at the conference that disagree with Senator Cooles stance on marriage…but mostly because they are opposed to State sponsored marriage period.
Let’s see: The MRA say they stand for human rights for everyone, but particularly for all men. They want a speaker on some particular men’s rights issue. So they pick a person who is publicly known not for that issue, but for her vile, inflammatory homophobia. Obviously, in the eyes of people who genuinely believe in human rights, her homophobia seriously damages her credibility on any other issue, So why not find a speaker on said issue whose credibility is not seriously impaired. The only answer I can come up with is that they are trying to generate publicity for their silly wittle confewence, and nothing does this better than providing a platform for well-known inflammatory bigot like Ms. Cools.
Do you think any feminist conference would ever try — let alone get away with — making a notorious anti-Semite or white supremacist one of its principal speakers?
That’s right, you go ahead and tell those homosexuals what rights they ought to want to get, go ahead and tell them they have no right to be offended by being second-class citizens, because you didn’t want those rights anyway.
And then tell them you’re not homophobic. See how well it goes down.
“Do you think any feminist conference would ever try — let alone get away with — making a notorious anti-Semite or white supremacist one of its principal speakers?”
Which of the speakers at this conference is a notorious anti-Semite or white supremacist?
I’m not aware of any. Please back up your accusation with a citation.
“That’s right, you go ahead and tell those homosexuals what rights they ought to want to get, go ahead and tell them they have no right to be offended by being second-class citizens, because you didn’t want those rights anyway.”
Homosexuals can go for what ever rights they want to. I, personally, have no interest in pushing State sponsored marriage on anyone since I would like to see it ended altogether. I would also like to see the financial benefits of marriage available to anyone, in any kind of long term domestic relationship.