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.
RE: Auntie Alias
It’s not cancelled, dammit. Ticket holders have to present a gov’t-issued photo ID.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? These guys are axing off their own attendees by the moment. I’ve seen mental health cons with panels about how to SURVIVE the con that were easier to get into! Oy vey! (And these were DID cons, you know, the diag that a lot of people still insist doesn’t exist. You’d think they’d have more reason to be paranoid than these chucklefucks.)
RE: Matheus
but why doesn’t he treat the far more hateful comments left by many feminists with the same standards?
Because we mock MISOGYNY. It’s right there on the header bar. Also, these hateful feminists have had how much impact on our real world? HOW many feminists have tried to murder men out of hatred of men? (I know of… Solanas. Depending on your definition, Emma Goldman. Both failed, and Solanas was the more recent, twenty-five years ago.)
Misogyny kills women. It happened with Elliot Rodgers just recently. And with Anders Breivik. And Thomas Ball. (And yes, you might notice they killed men too. A very direct lesson in how misogyny hurts men too.)
Misogyny is more dangerous. We’re not going to mock asshole feminists on a defunct website just to satisfy your feelings of fairness.
RE: Kittehs
That was the bit that leapt out at me: she’s fixated on anal sex, like so many (all?) these rabidly homophobic idiots.
I for one do not like to give AVFM page views. Why don’t you just tell us what hateful things feminists have done that David is supposedly covering.
Since you people usually recycle the same few complaints over and over (probably because as a whole the feminist movement is not actually hateful) so chances are we’ve heard and addressed whatever it is before.
I would like to know what terrible things AVFM or other prominent MRAs have said that you think is satire.
You also didn’t address the fact that “random” commenters on AVFM get many more upvotes than downvotes when they say misogynistic things.
Now, a question for the ones who take David Futrelle seriously: he loves to talk about the so called “misogyny” in the MHRM, treating satire and comments made by random individuals as serious representatives of the movement’s opinions, but why doesn’t he treat the far more hateful comments left by many feminists with the same standards?
I’m sorry, I was unaware that David was hosting a Women’s Rights conference and had invited the writers of five-year-old comments on a radical feminist message board to speak at it, and when questioned about their anti-male views said it was okay because they also like kittens. That really is odd. David, why did you do that?
Well, how about this? http://imgur.com/a/DBZD8?gallery#26
“Since you people usually recycle the same few complaints over and over (probably because as a whole the feminist movement is not actually hateful) so chances are we’ve heard and addressed whatever it is before.”
I’m pointing out your overwhelming hipocrisy. Despite the atrocious things so many feminists have said and done, you still think that they aren’t representative of the movement, while anything any MRA says is automatically indicative that the MHRM itself is hateful. Consistency, anyone?
@Matheus
If you would like us to comment on “terrible things feminists have said” how about you actually quote some here, including who said it, when and where, or link to the original source of said quotes. I’m not going to wade into the cesspool that is AVFM just to keep you happy.
RE: Matheus
Despite the atrocious things so many feminists have said and done,
Name them. I’m serious, please name them. I’ve already mentioned Solanas and Goldman. Also, by all means, engage with what I said earlier.
“Name them.”
Check the fucking link.
We all about that stupid Jezebel article. Nobody here is defending it. It was a joke, but a terrible offensive joke. The article was from 2007. AVFM reposted the bash a violent b*tch month post last year. Why is that? Was it to satirize domestic violence awareness month? Really hilarious that 3 women a day are murdered in intimate partner violence. Har dee har.
Generally the evidence of evil feminists you guys come up with are that Jez post, the SCUM manifesto and those Canadian protesters. That’s it. Three things.
David manages to find enough material for at least one post a day sometimes more. False equivalence is false.
Matheus, please, do tell me, is AFVM the face of the MRM? Because last I checked, it is.
Which feminists? Give us examples Matheus! Copy/paste into your comments here and provide links! It’s not hard to create a coherent argument on the one page using examples and sources, high school students do it all the time! We can’t argue with you because we don’t know what your argument is! Set it out clearly!
Why the fuck do I feel like a high school English teacher?
“Generally the evidence of evil feminists you guys come up with are that Jez post, the SCUM manifesto and those Canadian protesters. That’s it. Three things.”
You must have some brain damage. The last imgur link I posted literally contains hundreds of such quotes from feminists.
ninja’d by weirwoodtreehugger.
@Matheus
Can you at least summarise what you think is terrible rather than just linking walls o’ text as an image.
ninja’d several times. Matheus, you have failed your English exam.
There’s also the simple fact that David hasn’t invited those violent feminists to write on his blog. AVFM invited Cools to speak at their convention, which is a tacit endorsement of her and her views. They’re not even close to being the same thing.
Also, it’s funny that you accuse us of being less open to dissent than the MRM when AVFM banned Tom Martin for being a “feminist”, and we have a policy of allowing MRAs to comment as long as they don’t get abusive.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/05/27/tom-female-penguins-are-whores-martin-banned-from-a-voice-for-men-for-excessive-feminism/
Well, there you can find feminists openly discussing the genocide of men, selective abortion of males, feminists talking on a thread called “The Extent to which I hate Men”, etc…
What was the worst thing the folks at AVfM have said, again?
So apparently it’s misandry for us to mock day old offensive comments on AVFM but we’re expected to answer for years old comments made by strangers on a different web site?
If it makes you feel better Matheus we’re all against anti-male genocide here. Even the people on that thread admitted they would have no popular support for a genocide against men. Because it isn’t a mainstream idea.
However the notion that women frequently lie about rape is a mainstream notion. It isn’t true, yet the MRM promotes it and Elam said he would vote “not guilty” in a rape trial even if he knew the rapist is guilty. Are you going to claim that was satire too?
RE: Matheus
I’m reading your fucking link. Right now I’m reading about… a lot of blather about women’s spaces, finding feminists on facebook, dismantling the nuclear family, some assholes celebrating genocide in Papua New Guinea (which sounds like it was perpetrated by desperate people in warfare, not some feminist cabal)… dear god, Matheus, this is a LOT of freakin’ pages and a whole lot of blather.
Okay, I’ll chop this down for you, just going off the four pages I read. (Cause I sure as hell ain’t reading a whole fucking gallery’s worth of forum threads that seem to be 90% blather.)
Finding women’s spaces on private property: I don’t see what the deal is.
Finding feminists on Facebook: I don’t see what the deal is either.
Dismantling the nuclear family: pretty common sentiment, not talking about violence, seems to be mostly going on about how marriage and childbirth is so fixated on when it comes to the worth of women. I don’t see anything particularly strange about it.
Genocide in Papua New Guinea: horrific. The women were assholes for celebrating it. Genocide is wrong.
These forums have been shut down. Presumably because they said terrible things. If that’s true, then society functioned the way it should’ve; it shut down the horrible people. So yeah, of course we don’t talk about it here, because they’ve already been shut down. AVFM and the misogynists here, have not.
Or am I supposed to say the women going on about genocide were simply employing satire?
Have I answered to your satisfaction, Matheus?
I for one do not like to give AVFM page views. Why don’t you just tell us what hateful things feminists have done that David is supposedly covering.
It’s the results of their super-secret spy project “Agent Orange” (no, they gave it a code name, really), which turned out to consist of going to the defunct radical separatist site RadFemHub, combing through its two years of archives, and finding a half-dozen anti-male statements in the comments. (Some of these comments seem to be genuine man-bashing, while others look like they were probably less incendiary in context, but whatever.)
They think this is a huge gotcha against against David for some reason. Back when it was still super-secret, they used to gloat about how it was totally going to destroy him and, I don’t know, he’d have his blog taken away by the Blog Police?
[Random question: I call gays and lesbians ‘homosexuals’ does that bother anyone?]
About fifteen or twenty years ago, it felt as if using both G/L and H allowed a speaker to differentiate between different sorts of subject by turn of mind or lifestyle. More recently I’ve borrowed the habit from author Robert Farrar (I don’t know who invented it) of using “same-sexer” or “opposite-sexer” when not specifying between monosexuality and bisexuality.
“However the notion that women frequently lie about rape is a mainstream notion. It isn’t true, yet the MRM promotes it and Elam said he would vote “not guilty” in a rape trial even if he knew the rapist is guilty. Are you going to claim that was satire too?”
I don’t agree with Paul Elam on that instance. He was trying to point out the fact that the system was too corrupt, but I think his comment was of bad taste.
However, there have been many proven cases of false allegations. The majority of allegations are simply unproven either way, but you seem to assume that every allegation that is not proven to be false must be true, which really makes no sense.
I see the problem Matheus is having. There are women talking about what if they did to men what men have been doing to women. Dreadful, innit? He wants them condemned to exactly the same degree that AVFM condemned the shooter in Santa Barbara. Oh, wait. They dinna do it did they.
Also too and besides, you have worn out your welcome Matheus.
Matheus – Oh, I don’t know, how about
or
or [TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE]
or
Do I go on? I can find more.
Describing a plan to get rapists off the hook, legally speaking, as “bad taste” pretty much puts you into the not even worth engaging with category.
“Have I answered to your satisfaction, Matheus?”
You seem to have ignored many of the more hateful comments, there. Either way, I was trying to point out a double standard: if you believe it’s unfair for us to take these quotes as proof that feminism is a hate movement, then the same must apply to stupid quotes from some MRAs. There are a lot of reasonable, non-violent MRAs (the majority) but you love to paint the entire movement as misogynistic, which is just unbeliavably hypocritical.