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.
You missed the point 2cyar. The point is the MRM is claiming to be a human rights group. Yet they have no problem hiring a bigot (homophobe Anne Cools) to speak. That is hypocritical.
While feminists have not always been perfect at intersectionality, there’s no way a non-fringe feminist group would hire a huge bigot to speak. Even if the bigotry isn’t directed at women.
2cyar: Did you miss the part where Cools conflated lesbians and gayen with pedophiles? ‘Cause that’s pretty damned homophobic.
So your lack of interest in a right somehow nullifies the legitimacy of another person’s interest in having that right. You’re a great activist.
RE: Auntie Alias
We strongly suggest bringing a copy of the PayPal transaction receipt with you to avoid any confusion, especially in case the tickets have been purchased in a name different than who will actually be attending.
Are you fucking serious? The more I imagine tabling at this con, the more of a nightmare it sounds. Last minute changes of venue, demanding all this identification to prove I am truly the ticket holder… they’re inconveniencing their own attendees way more than the protestors ever could!
RE: brooked
I just want to say that I appreciate and very much enjoyed your attempt to engage this unholy amount of random screenshots that make no noticeable sense.
I know right? And those threads were fucking LONG too, I expected just some quick highlighted quotes, but nope, whole fucking THREADS on finding feminists on Facebook. Great job presenting your damn evidence, Matheus.
RE: woodyred
any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage
The MCC (which my husband attends) laughs in your face.
RE: House Mouse Queen
I hate the term TERF because it implies all radical feminists hate trans ppl.
What? No. Ally’s a trans radical reminist, last I heard. If I meant radical feminist, I would just say radical feminist; I say TERF specifically to SEPARATE them from other radical feminists. And just because someone’s a feminist doesn’t mean I can’t call them out for being transphobic. I AM respecting them as a feminist; I’m specifically refusing to just IGNORE their transphobia. (Hell, I’m freakin’ calling them ‘Trans Exclusionary’ not even transphobic!)
RE: 2cyar
“We oppose all state authority over or interference in the private lives of consenting adults engaged in any form of interpersonal relationship”
…then why are they encouraging a senator who is literally using state authority to interfere in the private lives of consenting adults? She’s a SENATOR.
“So your lack of interest in a right somehow nullifies the legitimacy of another person’s interest in having that right. You’re a great activist.”
I don’t have a lack of interest in marriage…I am opposed to it. I think that a person who gets married, especially a male, gains nothing and actually loses rights in the process.
Truly, 2cyar is a great activist! It’s not that they’re preventing folks in same-sex partnerships from being able to get hospital visitation rights or protect each other’s healthcare… on the contrary, 2cyar is PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS by sitting upon their fundament and not doing a damn thing!
Truly, we should learn a thing or two and follow suit.
The concept of rights is so foreign to MRAs. “I’m opposed to this institution, so why would anyone else care if they don’t have the right to it? It sucks anyway!” How selfless of you!
“It’s not that they’re preventing folks in same-sex partnerships from being able to get hospital visitation rights or protect each other’s healthcare.”
I support these types of things for anyone who chooses them…without marriage.
This right here is a thing of beauty.
As a father, I would like to know which of my rights this Cools person is committed to protecting and defending. My right to be married to my husband? My right to be a parent to my sons?
Also, the minister who performed our wedding service is the most devout Christian I know personally, and she was just delighted to be the one marrying us.
Finally, can you just imagine the on-site check in at this conference? Photo IDs, printouts of PayPal receipts, names under which registered vs names on the badge – I’m sure they could have made it more complicated, but I’m not sure how.
My big question about all the security: How does any of this actually keep unwanted people out, since presumably anyone could go onto PayPal and buy tickets?
“As a father, I would like to know which of my rights this Cools person is committed to protecting and defending. My right to be married to my husband? My right to be a parent to my sons?”
Her speaking topic is: “The Law: Fathers, Children, and their Well Being,”
So I’m guessing she is committed to protecting and defending your right, and all men’s right, to be a parent to their children.
@2cyar
To second Sparky, Cools is pedaling a far reaching homophobia that goes way beyond gay marriage. In the US there are people who support gay rights and gay civil unions, but can’t rap their brain around gay marriage. That’s especially true among older folks and I’m not calling people who support better anti-discrimination laws, the abolition of sodomy laws and like gay people homophobes because they’re wrong about gay marriage.
That said I’m middle-aged and gay, so the various strains of homophobia are very, very familiar to me. Check out the quotes David provided above again. Labeling gay men as predatory pedophiles is a decades old classic: gay men are sick sexual deviants that create more gay men by molesting young boys who grow up to be gay pedophiles. Or, as Cools so sweetly put it, “seduced at youthful ages”. She also puts forth the nonsense slippery slope argument that gay rights set the table for “pedophile rights”. She also pushes the idea that gay men have unhealthy sex that is “dangerous and life threatening”.
This shit is toxic for gay men. These are the arguments people use to defend sodomy laws. These are the arguments people use to ban homosexuality taught in schools. These are the arguments people use when the want to prevent gays, particularly gay men, from teaching school, adopting children, gaining child custody and getting married. These are the arguments people use when they suggest that the contemporary surge of support for gay rights in the west is a moral sickness that is ruining civilization (except in Russia where they know how to stop that infernal Gay Agenda).
Here is a good article from SPLC (I know MRAs, boo hiss!) that outlines the ten anti-gay myths including the junk science and inflammatory rhetoric used to falsely accusing gay men of rampant gay-making pedophilia.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
“My big question about all the security: How does any of this actually keep unwanted people out, since presumably anyone could go onto PayPal and buy tickets?”
It doesn’t keep anyone out. All people are welcome to attend, and in fact, some of the most caustic feminists have been invited to attend and observe free of charge. Security will be there to ensure safety and prevent any disruptions, whether it’s from MRA’s or others.
@2ycar
Um,did u miss the part where Leum said they didn’t llike being called homosexual? just say gay ppl instaed….
then don’t get married.
Seriously dude you don’t have to get married but don’t tell everyone else not to…
She’s not interested in defending teh rights of gay fathers, 2ycar, you keep missing that.
RE: 2cyar
I support these types of things for anyone who chooses them…without marriage.
Does that in practice happen to do ANYTHING but prevent guys like me from marrying my husband and GETTING those rights?
So I’m guessing she is committed to protecting and defending your right, and all men’s right, to be a parent to their children.
Dude, she thinks Robert and me are pedophiles. SHE DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR FATHER’S RIGHTS. Do you even READ before you post?
You’re both adorable.
And…how does requiring people to present PayPal printouts ensure safety and prevent disruptions?
“That said I’m middle-aged and gay, so the various strains of homophobia are very, very familiar to me. Check out the quotes David provided above again. Labeling gay men as predatory pedophiles is a decades old classic: gay men are sick sexual deviants that create more gay men by molesting young boys who grow up to be gay pedophiles. Or, as Cools so sweetly put it, “seduced at youthful ages”. She also puts forth the nonsense slippery slope argument that gay rights set the table for “pedophile rights”. She also pushes the idea that gay men have unhealthy sex that is “dangerous and life threatening”.”
Replace “gay men” with the word “men” and what you are saying is pretty much the same as how ALL men are portrayed in our society and one of the things that the MHRM is fighting against.
RE: 2cyar
Replace “gay men” with the word “men” and what you are saying is pretty much the same as how ALL men are portrayed in our society and one of the things that the MHRM is fighting against.
BWAHAHAHA. Tell me that when straight men can’t marry, legally have sex, and are having to stage die-ins.
I’m contacting David. I have NO patience for this kind of co-opting of queer struggle today.
“And…how does requiring people to present PayPal printouts ensure safety and prevent disruptions?”
It doesn’t but it would avoid any misunderstandings or confusion. They’ve already admitted that they are new to all of this, their staff have been stretched quite thin, and things haven’t gone quite as smoothly as they would have liked it to. People will be picking up their tickets at the conference instead of having them mailed to them. I don’t think it’s a big deal to show them my receipt.
2cyar: Ok, but, if you support the rights of all men, including gay men, how do you reconcile that with a speaker who likens gay men to pedophiles?
Isn’t that linking of gay men with pedophiles something you’d want to see stopped?
Even if Cools isn’t talking about gay marriage, she is still being paid to speak at a men’s rights conference. The AVFM is still lending their support to Cools by having her at their conference as a speaker, even she’s talking about father’s rights and not gay rights. She is still against the rights of gay men.
How do you reconcile that?
“BWAHAHAHA. Tell me that when straight men can’t marry, legally have sex, and are having to stage die-ins.”
Straight men can marry, but they have no choice about whether they can stay that way.
They can legally have sex, but are at risk of being called a rapist for doing so.
Straight men are literally setting themselves on fire to protest their treatment if family court
Okay…
Uhm, no. No it does not.
Wow – way to co opt the struggles of an oppressed group, there, champ. Is this how the MHRM shows they care for gay people?