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.
Wow, this is by far the most offensive 2cyar said here, which is amazing because I was infuriated and wildly offended by several of his earlier posts. Yes, you insufferable creep, I’m sure a father lawfully weaseling out of his parental responsibilities would encourage a woman to “make the right choice for herself”. And by right choice you mean have the abortion the father wants her to have or magically prevent all accidental pregnancy by willpower, apparently.
Toodles, chucklefuck. Good luck to the next message board you assault with your monstrously vast ignorance, laziness and poor reasoning.
I love how there’s an MRA on this thread arguing his right to abandon his kid while on the other thread an MRA in disguise as neutral female party is arguing that men are oppressed by losing custody.
Which is it?
Basically MRAs just think they should be able to what they want all the time without a thought to anyone else. It they want kids, women are required to birth them and then give them full custody. If they don’t want kids, women are required to get an abortion whether they want to or not.
2cyar
“It isn’t a child before birth. I trust that women, knowing that her sperm donor declines fatherhood, will make the right choice for herself…or better yet take/insist on better precautions before getting pregnant.”
It’s both the man and woman’s responsibility to take precautions. Even if they do take them they still have a chance to have a baby and it’s still their responsibility.
If I was a man and I got a woman pregnant I would help her and the baby as much as I possibly can, I could never abandon them. Being a single parent is hard. Me and that woman made that child so we are gonna to raise him/her together. I’m a woman so I can’t say I know how to be a man but I know how to be a responsible human being.
WWTH
“I’m not sure what of kind of fucking monster would want to let their own kid go hungry or homeless though. I wouldn’t even abandon my cats. You should feel bad about being such a terrible person. My own dad is great but I’ve known people with deadbeat dads and it’s caused them a lot of pain and insecurity. More evidence that MRAs don’t give a shit about human rights. You care for nobody but yourselves.”
Is it dehumanizing to call someone a ‘monster’? I mean saying that the person is acting like a monster is ok, right? And you’re right about everything else.
http://youtu.be/5Gu50vq5ux4
Marie, did I do everything ok?
@Fruit loopsie
i would say no? It hasn’t really been used to oppress ppl, I think, or dehuamnize them
and sorry, I didn’t mean to sound like the mammoth police :3 You dn’t need to check with me every time, it just makes it a little easier to read when you use quotes. Which you did! Yay! 😀
@Fruit loopsie
“Is it dehumanizing to call someone a ‘monster’? I mean saying that the person is acting like a monster is ok, right? And you’re right about everything else.
i would say no? It hasn’t really been used to oppress ppl, I think, or dehuamnize them
and sorry, I didn’t mean to sound like the mammoth police :3 You dn’t need to check with me every time, it just makes it a little easier to read when you use quotes. Which you did! Yay! :D”
Please officer!! It was only just this once, I swear! I don’t want to go to jail! Lol 😀
What is this shit?
IKR? Things were much fairer when women weren’t allowed to divorce their husbands. Once you say “I do” you should be trapped forever, amirite?
Only if they commit rape. Funny how the majority of men manage to have plenty of sex without ever being accused of rape…
Because they’re entitled, rage-filled babies who would rather die (and traumatize any number of onlookers, and deprive their children of their father) than endure the humiliation of attending even one anger management class. I have zero sympathy for Thomas Ball, and very little for people who idolize him.
…so if she hated all men the way she hates gay men, she’d still be allowed to speak at the conference? What even is your argument here?
Would it kill you to read up on a subject before you jump in and rabidly defend it and throw around “I suspects” and “ur so rude”s?
Did you miss the last 50 years of feminism or?
“At some point it will become increasingly unfair to women and then they will be the ones who get rid of it.”
Funny how they can switch between women being too stupid and requiring the aid of men at all times to make decisions for them, etc. etc. But, when it suits their argument apparently men are helpless and society only caters to women’s demands, is this also because men are helpless when faced with the shapely bum of a female so as soon as we ask for something we just collectively shake our asses in front of male politicians or is there some feminist conspiracy where we really hold all the power and just pretend otherwise to continue reaping the benefits?
I was really, REALLY, hoping this ass would be banned before I caught up. But I see that that has not occurred.
Besides being furious about ALL THE THINGS, this one is extra sickening, cuz stats.
So, he should get to decide, after she’s pregnant whether he’s going to support the kid she’s gonna birth? Assuming she doesn’t abort, which, apparently, is what she has to do if she can’t afford to be a single parent.
Ever heard of “reproductive coercion”? I’ll be back with stats, you shit on the shoe of humanity.
Not a large sample size, but I don’t feel like doing your homework — http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/16845768
Of the 34% of surveyed women who’d experienced reproductive coercion, ~30% said their partner had insisted on no birth control and then demanded she get an abortion.
This is wtf you’re supporting, a world where men are completely able, potentially encouraged, to sabotage birth control, and then tell her tough luck, guess you oughta get an abortion! Something that already happens with enough frequency for ~10% of women in that study to report it.
AND YOU WANT THIS TO BE COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE!
You are the dog shit that humanity stepped in while cleaning out week old rotting fish shit while barefoot!
——
I missed the dog shit, narrowly, but HOLY FUCKING SHIT did the filter smell foul! Otoh, the tank is ready to be filled and cycled. Somewhere between a week and a month before I can get fish. And yes, there will be pictures!
“Of the 34% of surveyed women who’d experienced reproductive coercion, ~30% said their partner had insisted on no birth control and then demanded she get an abortion.”
Those are deplorable stats. I am just truly surprised as I was not expecting it to be so bad. Actually, I was thinking that reproductive coercion was such a rare event that it would be on par with albino lobster. Its hard to imagine there are still so many sick fucks roaming free.
RE: Marie (and Unimaginative)
I hope you have fun drawing the sketch :3
I did! Here it is!
RE: Ally
Also, are you cis? If so, then you don’t have a place in telling us trans women what our reasons are for using TERF.
Thank you. By that point, I was so angry about 2cyar that I know I wasn’t being coherent, and you basically summed up most of my grievance. Trans people, don’t call out cis feminists for their horrible transphobia, because you’ll wreck the movement! (Even though radical feminism has survived decades just fine despite having transphobes in their midst!)
RE: 2cyar
I’ve come to the conclusion that she is indeed a traditionalists but by no means the drooling hatemonger that she has been portrayed as here.
I am so shocked. Guys, look! 2cyar has kept to exact same opinion he had at the beginning, after asking us to do all his research for us! Look at that intellectual vigor, everyone! He totally knows what he’s talking about!
Grah.
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”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that ~10% of women in general have experienced this particular form of reproductive coercion (refusing BC than demanding she abort)?
I know trolly or some other MRA is gonna come back with “forcing him to be a father is also reproductive coercion”, so I’m wonderinf if you found any stats on how common that is?
RE: Ally
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, they’re transmisogynistic as hell. I haven’t encountered much of anyone who shits on trans men and not trans women. GEE I WONDER WHY.
Emilygoddess — yeah, that works out to ~10% total. And everything I found in my quick search (and my memory if previous ones) was from women’s health centers, so nada on her using reproductive things to control him. All those studies though have a frighteningly high percent of women saying he’s insisted on sex without a condom // hid her pills // etc, etc, argh abusive partners are the WORST!
Eesh. My rapist tried to talk me into letting him fuck us without a condom. He even tried to give me tons of stats on the failure rates, insisting the pill would be way better and superior to condoms. (Never mind that I was fucking sixteen and good luck getting birth control pills at sixteen in fucking Texas without anyone noticing.)
Fortunately, THAT aspect of control, I did manage to maintain. I also managed to buy time because dude had had unprotected sex before with an untested partner and I insisted he get fucking tested.
Funny thing about all this alleged homophobia in the MHRA.
As a gay man who is also a rape survivor, I have never had an MHRA or anyone associated with AVFM tell me to “shut up” or “stop crying” when I raise issues involving the sexual abuse of men. I’ve only had feminists do that.
As a gay man I have never had an MHRA use “gay shaming” tactics like saying “you must be a closet case” against me in any discussions. I’ve only seen feminists do that.
As a gay man, while there are individual issues I disagree with some in the MHRA on, I have NEVER been faced with the sort of doctrinal lockstep required of those who support feminism. To the contrary, I have watched as feminists and liberals alike have accused the Log Cabin republicans of being “self loathing closet cases” in an effort to silence conservative views from members of the gay community.
As a gay man, while I may disagree with some individual MHRAs on some issues, I have never had any of them attempt to silence me by insisting that I must adhere in lockstep to some monolithic ideology which seeks to silence those they disagree with. To the contrary, on the rare occasions when a commenter at AVFM has behaved in an appalling fashion, they have rapidly been corrected by Mr. Elam or Mr. Esmay.
As a gay man, the ONLY experiences I have ever had involving attempts to silence my views have come from feminists-including their ongoing efforts, like those of Mr. Futrelle, to silence the International Men’s Conference.
And for the sake of a full record, I would point out that the Twitter string Mr. Futrelle is referring to in this piece began when HE was asked if he rejected outright the statements of a large number of radical feminists who, among other things, support the castration and killing of up to 90 percent of the male population of the planet-and are on record as having said so. Mr. Futrelle responded with a diversion-asking about the Senator-and refused to answer the original question.
So at best this entire piece is nothing more than a specious attempt to divert attention from his own decision to support, at least through his silence, that part of feminism that supports committing gendercide-a proposal from which, by the by, they did NOT exempt gay men.
Ones got to love the irony of a feminist who refuses to denounce their own kind spouting hateful stuff, 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, demanding the men’s rights group, which same said feminist attacks and slanders regularly with obvious misrepresentations, drop an influential figure in Canadian politics for to satiate same said feminist, due to same said feminists slandering that figure with obvious misrepresentations. The narcissistic self importance of such is truly astounding.
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. At least she openly denounced the anti gay rights agenda, which you claim she didn’t do. Most feminists will actively defend other feminists hateful rhetoric, while simultaneously claiming NAFALT. Double standards and hypocrisy are all you folk really have.
Is Markxneil’s post total word salad or am I just drunk?
@weirwoodtreehugger “Is Markxneil’s post total word salad or am I just drunk?”
Is this what constitutes an argument here? Let me put it is simple terms… I’m calling Futrelle a hypocrite, and you’re welcome to point me to a single article where he condemns the actions of feminist bigots, to prove me wrong. 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.
What part of “mocking misogyny” do you not understand?
Mark,
You’re going to first need to show that the level of “misandry” in feminism is equivalent to the level of misogyny in the MRM.
You’re also going to need to find us a non misogynistic MRA.
Good luck in your quest!
@politicalcynic I’m sorry you’ve had such terrible experiences with feminists, but I’m going to have to disagree with you on all your other points.
@mark, I’m pretty sure David did actually tweet a couple of times about denouncing the *very few* examples of hateful rhetoric by individual feminists and he certainly does it regularly on this blog. For example, all his coverage of the alleged death threats sent to the conference thingy said very explicitly that if the threats were real they were unacceptable.
More importantly, where have MRA’s denounced their *leaders’* hateful rhetoric?
From David’s Twitter feed: