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.
@weirwoodtreehugger
More like anger salad. He’s an abusive, gaslighting rageaholic.
@Kittehserf AKA, got nothin.
@weirwoodtreehugger attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Futrelle is making an accusation against Cools and against the MRM for not denouncing her. I’m calling him a hypocrite because he doesn’t denounce feminists. What the MRM is or isn’t is irrelevant to the fact David does not do what he condemns others for not doing. I have to prove nothing about the MRM to demonstrate Futrelle for a hypocrite.
@wewereemergencies You’re pretty sure, but you offer no links. So, what, I’m supposed to take your word for it? And given the only evidence you can dig up is his denial of threats, as reported by the hotel (not the MRM), but if they did happen, not cool. Hardly a denouncement. And if a twitter assertion is sufficient, why then does judgies own denouement not count… It’s right up there in the images Futrelle posted.. she states openly: “I vigorously denounce the anti-gay rights agenda. I don’t have to agree with 100% of her beliefs”… which is way more than Futrelle has ever done.
“More importantly, where have MRA’s denounced their *leaders’* hateful rhetoric?”
Why the sudden change in criteria? Why does it now need to be “leaders” being denounced? Are you suggesting Cools is a “leader” among the men’s movement? I know that Paul himself, as well as JTO have both openly and repeatedly condemned the bigots at manhood academy (not that I consider them MRA’s, but I know you folk do). I also know they put up a bounty on information leading to the arrest of someone who allegedly assaulted a feminist (Danielle somethingorother from Queens university in Ontario). I know Paul regularly opposes MRA’s who speak about violence… you should know as much, you folk have used the very quote he used as an example of what would not be tolerated, from the very article he posted it in to assert such posts would lead to an instant ban, as an example of the hate the MRM promotes. So there are three examples of Paul himself doing what you folks seem unable to show a single example of Futrelle doing, in an article where Futrelle is condemning the men’s movement for not doing such.
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.
P.S. Fuck off, Mark.
Getting mad at David Futrelle for not denouncing radfemhub extremists is like getting mad at Jon Stewart for not denouncing anarchist terrorists. When someone’s position isn’t to represent a group, but to mock another group, you can’t pretend that they should be equally culpable for the extremist elements of their “side” as people who are actually held up as the faces of an organisation. That’s why we laugh at JB coming here and trading insults with David, and why Stephen Colbert gets so amused at people attacking his credibility – why are you going for the comedians and commentators?
@Auntie Alias Why am I not surprised to see you here? And surprise surprise, ad hom attacks.
As to the twitter comment you linked to, seems to me he is more defending them than condemning them. In fact, if we use the same reasoning David uses, “Cools said some terrible things. She don’t deserve to be rejected and disgraced for it.” 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”. Futrelle just acknowledge they said some bad things, but he didn’t denounce them, as he’s demanding of MRA’s.
Still waiting.
@strivingally “Getting mad at David Futrelle for not denouncing radfemhub extremists is like getting mad at Jon Stewart for not denouncing anarchist terrorists.”
Who said anything about radfemhub? There are many prominent feminists that have said some truly horrible things… any one of which David could and should have denounced. Most of whom he has actually defended in his articles, once AVFM writes an article condemning them. 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)?
Sorry, that’s not how that works – you have to point out a specific instance (or general instances of) monstrous hatred by “feminists”.
I’ll give you a freebie, like, the old “kill 90 % of men” for instance.
And then you have to point out why the person in question isn’t denouncing that. If you just say “feminist hatred”, you’re being too broad, because it can’t ever be defined as something concrete. At the same time, there’s plenty of specific qoutations by actual people that people here find problematic. See the difference? Specific qoutations that someone disagrees with, versus some broad notion of “general hatred”
That’s how it works.
Oh, in any case.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/02/15/factchecking-a-list-of-hateful-quotes-from-feminists/
Here, I’ll quote the relevant section.
So, yeah. That’s apparently David Futrelle pointing out he disagrees and finds offensive some words by Andrea Dworkin, noted feminist.
Are we done here now? Was there anything else?
@mark *poke* you’re being boring.
(also a) you’re on this website. look it up yourself & b) I wasn’t “changing the goalposts” – you’re asking David to denounce random people who identify as feminists, I’m asking why MRAs don’t denounce the people who have shaped their movement – if you can’t understand why, then you should probably stop trying to logic)
But mostly you should probably be more entertaining.
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooored.
The Twitter conversation was about RadFemHub. You know, Agent Orange and all that. If you see defense rather than condemnation, that’s your problem.
David is not the Might Feminist Gatekeeper you all make him out to be. You’re just pouting because he had a valid criticism of Anne Cools. Suck it up!
Nope. You don’t get to make the claim that bigotry on the part of feminists is so self evident that we have to prove a negative. If you want to make the case that feminists are bigots, make the fucking case. Use citations. Make those citations recent and from mainstream feminist spaces.
It’s stupid for you to expect that David would denounce feminists as an entire group. Especially since he identifies as one. He has however always denounced threats of violence. No matter where they come from.
Do you really think you’re here with new arguments? Try harder.
In case my little argument slipped by your head, I’ll be annoying now.
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!
———
See how that doesn’t work at all?
Thanks. Now maybe stop playing this game. Bring something to the table. Come up with something “feminists” have said or written that is hateful, terrible or wrong (“kill 90 % of men”, “all men are nothing but animals”, “with the proper training a man can be taught to perform many basic tasks”), and then ask if David – or anyone – disagrees with this.
You’ll a), find the answer is probably yes and b) waste less of everyone’s time including your own.
*Mighty
Someone has a grudge against Auntie Alias.
I’m also a little confused as to why anyone would consider David responsible for things that were said on RadFemHub, a membership-restricted forum of which I’m pretty sure he wasn’t a member (which means he wouldn’t even have been able to read the stuff being said there until the whole Agent Orange fiasco happened).
@cassandrakitty
Mark and I are sworn enemies on Disqus.
@Fibinachi “Sorry, that’s not how that works – you have to point out a specific instance (or general instances of) monstrous hatred by “feminists”.”
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.
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?
As an aside, I point you to the comments of your fellow commentors… seriously, read them. Tell me their responses aren’t those of religious zealots defending their religious leader with unwavering devotion, completely immune to reason or any kind of opposing view. Only one even tried to meet the challenge, and failed misserably.
(Points up)
This comment is extra funny given the fact that some of us called David out for responding less than perfectly to sexist trolls, what, a week ago? And then he apologized, and made plans to handle similar situations differently in the future.
It’s almost like Mark has no idea what he’s babbling about.
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.
So, Mark, are you attending the Greatest Human Rights Conference of All Time?
Ffs Mark. If you are so certain feminists are saying hateful things, why can’t you come up with an example?
@markxneil:
Sorry, I just still don’t understand what this particular exercise is supposed to accomplish.
and
but
But I’ve just demonstrated he did it. So… are we done here?
I mean, I wasn’t trying to coyly manipulate you into giving me a list and then be able to go “But of course you can’t expect everyone to know this list!” – I just literally thought this was how this kind of thing was done, that if you said someone hadn’t said a word against hatred you had to point out what hatred it was they hadn’t spoken against.
I apologize if that’s not how that works. And then, if that’s not how that works, I want to know why you’re not speaking out against anti-dragonists or the Khmer Rouge. :b
Anyway, I won’t play your game. You can’t move the goal post after the goal has been accomplished. There’s an example of the person in question speaking out against “feminist hatred” by voicing disagreement with another feminists, and that’s it. Asking me to find more examples now that I’ve found one just means you’re trying to bait me into playing an endless game of catching up to your changing standards of acceptability. Which is, what was that, dishonest and somewhat transparent.
Anyway! Was there something else you wanted or want to talk about?
Oh, and finally, my opinion on the religiousity of my “fellow” commentators is hardly relevant to the point at hand.
Circular reasoning 101: we cite an example of a feminist who we don’t agree with and renounce the views of. Mark claims that person’s condemnation is “feminist approved”. No True Feminist?
@Mark: pick a feminist thought leader. Seriously, pick one. Who’s a current, mainstream feminist who is anywhere near as extreme as the hateful jerks who put out bounties on women’s personal information and boast about how they want to hurt women? Trying to hedge by assuming we’ll claim they’re a special case is dodging the issue. Holding yourself and us to differing standards of argument is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.
@politicalcynic
I’m going to disagree with your claim that it’s David who is the one using the diversion since the Agent Orange file has been around for a lot longer than this conference, so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to suddenly demand that David immediately make a comment about it now. How long has Cools been an announced speaker of the upcoming conference? AVFM is paying Cools and are featuring her at their conference while David doesn’t know those Radfem Hub posters at all.
Also, gave you seen the ridiculous amount of unorganized screen shots that the Agent a Orange guy threw at David? David was able to highlight the homophobic statements of Cools in a readable, straight forward manner, probably because he’s a journalist and not a rage-fueled crank.
“If you are so certain feminists are saying hateful things, why can’t you come up with an example?”
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.
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.
And now I’m said to be defending them because, after criticizing them, I said they shouldn’t be doxxed and harassed.
Guess what dudes, I don’t think MRAs should be doxxed and harassed either! I don’t think anyone should be harassed!
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. Even if they have to resort to bizarre non-logic like arguing that I support evil “through my silence.” Which isn’t silence. I’ve said over and over again: I’m not a radfem. I disasgree violently with a lot of radical feminism.
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?