Categories
a voice for men anne cools antifeminism antifeminist women Dean Esmay hetsplaining homophobia hypocrisy judgybitch misogyny MRA paul elam transphobia

Why is A Voice for Men giving a platform to one of Canada’s leading opponents of gay and lesbian rights? [UPDATED with AVFM response]

 

Gay marriage isn't a men's right, according to AVFM conference speaker Anne Cools
Gay marriage isn’t a men’s right, according to AVFM conference speaker Anne Cools

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.

Alex McKenzie ‏@anArchaeopteryx 3h  @JudgyBitch1 The issue here is that there's a speaker at your conference who is against the rights of gay men. And you're PR, so I ask why.      Reply     Retweet     Favorite  JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 3h  @anArchaeopteryx Her views on shared custody are more relevant. We include a diverse array of speakers with different views @avoiceformen      Reply     Retweet     1 Favorite  Alex McKenzie ‏@anArchaeopteryx 3h  @JudgyBitch1 at a conference for <<men>>      Reply     Retweet     Favorite  JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 3h  @anArchaeopteryx That is not for you to decide @AVoiceForMen @deanesmay Discussion closed. Further tweets will be considered harassment

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.

 David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle  @JudgyBitch1 Why is AVFM providing a platform for one of Canada's most influential opposents of gay rights? http://wp.me/p17cYK-3bW       Reply     Delete     Favorite  12:23 PM - 19 Jun 2014 Tweet text Reply to @JudgyBitch1       JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 20m      @DavidFutrelle Because she also one of Canada's most influential supporters of children and father's rights after divorce.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 19m      @JudgyBitch1 So the fact that she's been actively campaigning against gay and lesbian rights for decades doesn't bother you at all?     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 15m      @DavidFutrelle I vigorously denounce the anti-gay rights agenda. I don't have to agree with 100% of her beliefs. She cares for men and boys     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 13m      @JudgyBitch1 If you denounce her agenda, will you publicly denounce her for pushing this agenda? If not, why not?     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 11m      @JudgyBitch1 If you don't want to be seen as endorsing her agenda, put out a statement explicitly denouncing her for supporting this agenda     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 11m      @DavidFutrelle You think Twitter is private? Of course I would, I know how to criticize respectfully. Don't always choose to though.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 10m      @JudgyBitch1 Is she being paid for speaking at your conference, or being provided with lodging, transportation expenses, and so on?     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 9m      @DavidFutrelle None of your business @avoiceformen @deanesmay     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 9m      @DavidFutrelle You do not get a say.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 9m      @JudgyBitch1 Well, let's hear you specifically, and officially, repudiate her for supporting a bigoted agenda.     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 8m      @DavidFutrelle I do not take orders from you. I don't take orders from anyone, actually.     Details         Reply         Retweet         Favorite     David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 7m      @JudgyBitch1 That's not the issue.The issue is whether AVFM supports Cools and her anti-gay agenda.If it doesn't, you should probably say so     Details         Reply         Retweet         1 Favorite         Delete     JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 6m      @DavidFutrelle This issue is closed. Any further tweets will be taken as harassment and you will be blocked.dfjb2dfjb3

I didn’t see her comment about harassment until after I tweeted a couple more times.

David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 15m  @JudgyBitch1 I'm not issuing orders.But if you don't want people to think AVFM supports her bigoted anti-gay agenda,you should repudiate her Details      Reply     Retweet     Favorite     Delete  David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 14m  @JudgyBitch1 Or at the very least issue a statement officially saying that AVFM opposes her anti-gay agenda. Details      Reply     Retweet     Favorite     Delete  JanetBloomfield ‏@JudgyBitch1 14m  @DavidFutrelle Go write a column about it, David. Get us even more press. We could use Canadian coverage. And good-bye. You were warned. Details      Reply     Retweet     Favorite  David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle 13m  @JudgyBitch1 Would you have a racist speak at your conference if he or she supported your position on some other issue?

Some more bang-up public relations work from Ms. Bloomfield here.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

504 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak
WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak
6 years ago

@woodyred, No intention of answering my questions, then. Alrighty.

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

well look – any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage – and abortion – and all sorts of things – should they be banned from public speaking ? someones views on one topic doesnt invalidate their views on every topic.

House Mouse Queen
6 years ago

So many good comments here and kudos to David for searching Cools. I knew something had to be wrong with her for her to get on board the misogyny train.

Oh and LOL @ Judgybitch. I suppose she don’t judge too good.

Also thank you to all who took part in the making of the video. It’s now on my site.

@Mattheus

Listen dude. Everything at AVFM is a shit pile mmkay? Everything. Nobody has silenced you. Protesting is not silencing. You’ve been schooled on satire.

@LBT

Thanks for responding to Mattheus so I don’t have to go there.

@Children of the Broccoli
I do take issue with you calling those Canadian feminists ‘violent’ They protested. I don’t know who pulled a fire alarm so I won’t blame them. They didn’t take out steak knives and start slashing ppl. They yelled alot and swore at the misogynist assholes.

I hate the term TERF because it implies all radical feminists hate trans ppl. Just call someone TE. It’s not very hard. We’re still feminists and should be respected as such.

DJG
DJG
6 years ago

Marie –

[I’d do same sex and different sex? Because there aren’t just two binary sexes :/ Eitehr way I’m not a big fan of the same-sexer etc thing.]

A fair point – perhaps the concept of “other-sexer” as a firm part of the triangle (which I’ve had in the back of mind but just haven’t had context to use) might round it out. “Different-sexer” might be more accurate with regard to gender, but seems politically clunky. It isolates L/G and lumps straight people in with the non-binary people.

The main appeal was in being a convenient way to acknowledge someone’s current (or otherwise known) partner (or known/presented inclination) while implying that such knowledge may or may not fully represent that person’s orientation.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

Yeah, these guys will literally say that by using the label feminist you associate yourself with anything any feminist said ever.

But to think that they’re associated with a person’s views just because they paid them to come speak at a conference? Now you’re taking this leap in logic too far!!!

My ability to can is severely diminished.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
6 years ago

well look – any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage – and abortion – and all sorts of things – should they be banned from public speaking ? someones views on one topic doesnt invalidate their views on every topic.

I think you’ve missed the point here. The question of why she believes that men should be denied this right is irrelevant, as are her religious views. And nobody is saying anybody should be banned from public speaking. The question is, why has a ‘men’s rights’ conference invited a speaker who is directly opposed to a specific men’s right, namely the right of a man to marry another man?

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
6 years ago

Ninja’d

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

@woodyred

its my understanding she is speaking about fathers rights – not gay marriage.

And just like JudgyBitch you are suggesting her anti-LGBT bigotry is irrelevant to her views on fatherhood. There are gay and trans and multisexual fathers. If she is actively campaigning against them she can’t be an advocate of “father’s rights.” I mean maybe call her presentation “Cis straight fathers’ rights” and then you all can try again with this tactic.

I mean not to mention that there are LGBT children of fathers. If MRA dads were halfway decent parents, that would be enough for them to be horrified that she is speaking for and to them. But of course, the MRM in general takes a children-as-property position on “father’s rights” so they wouldn’t see the relevance.

Finally, it’s not as if her views on LGBT+ people, her views on marriage, and her views on fathers are unrelated. They all trace back, in part, to a bunch of gender essentialist nonsense ideas.

well look – any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage

I know plenty of devout religious people who are not giant toolbags, but nice try.

magnesium
magnesium
6 years ago

well look – any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage – and abortion – and all sorts of things – should they be banned from public speaking ? someones views on one topic doesnt invalidate their views on every topic.

You seem awfully confused. No one has said she should be banned for public speaking. They want to know why, if the organizers of a specific conference do not support her crusade against the rights of gay men, they would invite and pay her to speak at their own privately arranged and funded conference without at least first stating publicly that they do not endorse those specific views.

scott1139
scott1139
6 years ago

I hate the term TERF because it implies all radical feminists hate trans ppl. Just call someone TE. It’s not very hard. We’re still feminists and should be respected as such.

In the last sentence of the above, who is ‘we’ referring to?

kittehserf
6 years ago

any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage

Codswallop. Being devout doesn’t mean being a bigot.

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@David Futrelle well Paul Nathanson was due to speak at this conference also. A gay man. Clearly AVFM dont have a problem with gay men if they are inviting one to speak at their first conference, no ? ultimately its a discussion, okay. and what you people are trying to do is derail that discussion with accusations of homophobia – and racism – and who knows what. Youve labelled Warren Farrell a rape and incest supporter – and now youre looking to label Anne Cools as a homophobe. Its dishonest, manboobz. you know what you do is dishonest.

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@ kittehserf – oh yes, the major religions are so tolerant of homosexuality, yes.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

@House Mouse Queen

I hate the term TERF because it implies all radical feminists hate trans ppl. Just call someone TE. It’s not very hard. We’re still feminists and should be respected as such.

If all radical feminists were trans exclusionary there would be no need for the acronym. We would simply say “radical feminist” and the implication of transphobia/transmisogyny would be present.

There are, of course transphobic feminists of all stripes but TERFs enact their transmisogyny in specific ways. It is a useful distinction.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

and now youre looking to label Anne Cools as a homophobe.

Because she’s a fucking homophobe?! I thought you were just debating the relevancy of her homophobia, not flat-out denying it. Obviously there’s no point in trying to reason with you.

WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak
WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak
6 years ago

@woodyred DID YOU EVEN READ HER COMMENTS?! In what way is she NOT a homophobe?! And you’re frankly refusing to answer our question – namely, why should a self-titled human rights group focusing on the rights of men, allow someone so vehemently opposed to the rights of a group that includes men to speak at their event without comment by them?

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Youve labelled Warren Farrell a rape and incest supporter

And I, for one, will point out that that is a little much. Warren Farrell doesn’t actually seem to be an incest supporter. Hell, he’s probably just as much against molesting children as anyone else and I guess some of his words may have been somewhat misrepresented or misapplied to mean something they don’t.

As for rape though, yeah. Yeah. Just… yeah. He does. He is. His books and his public interviews give me that distinct understanding.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
6 years ago

@ woodyred — You don’t seem to be arguing from an informed position. Go read what Sen Cools has written about LGBT people and what Warren Farrell has written about incest. Go read it. It’s not hard to find. Then come back and tell us why AVfM shouldn’t be criticised for supporting these people.

kittehserf
6 years ago

@ kittehserf – oh yes, the major religions are so tolerant of homosexuality, yes.

Watch those goalposts dance! You’ve managed a double fail here.

1. You weren’t talking about the organised religions. You specifically said any devout christian or muslim would technically be against gay marriage, which is about individual people. How do you account for LGBT people who also happen to be devout, eh? Don’t think they exist? Or the many individual clergy who support equal rights and conduct wedding ceremonies? You trying to claim they are not devout?

2. In any case, the major religions are not monoliths. You can find Christian congregations that reject homophobia in all its forms. I don’t know specifics about Islam, except for the not-being-a-monolith part, but I’d be surprised if no congregations existed that took similar views.

You keep dodging about Cools when her homophobia is clearly described right here in this post. How hard is it for MRAs to actually read articles before squealing that they’re all wrong?

kittehserf
6 years ago

Fibi – I’d say Farrell is so close to being an incest supporter as to make no difference. He talks about how positive it is for fathers and how the only reason daughters found it negative was because they’d been told so. He says boys aren’t harmed by sexual abuse. He talked, in that infamous interview, about fathers genitally caressing children. If that’s not supporting incest, I’d hate to see what is.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

should they be banned from public speaking ?

Should I pay them money to hear them speak?

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak – I find manboobz articles biased at best – and down right dishonest at worst – if you think Im gonna label someone a homophobe based on one of his articles – youve got another thing coming.

@Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III – Ive read up Warren Farrell. He is not what you people accuse him of. I admit I dont know much about Anne Cools – but I will look it up, yes. I suspect she is merely a traditionalist with regards to marriage. traditionalism and homosexuality rarely mix very well.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
6 years ago

Clearly AVFM dont have a problem with gay men if they are inviting one to speak at their first conference, no ?

Right, just like AVFM has no problem with women, as long as they “know their place” and say the right things to soothe the narcissistic egos of the MRAs. Like many bigots, they don’t “object” to people per se, as long as they “accept the natural order of things”, and don’t rock the privilege boat.

That said, I’d love to hear Nathanson’s speech, just to see if even a gay MRA can go a full sentence without blaming women for the sad state of the world.

Youve labelled Warren Farrell a rape and incest supporter

Go read the Myth of Male Power. I have read it, and I still vomit at the rape apologia and extreme misogyny in that book. He calls rape a misunderstanding. Also, he basically argues that daughters would not dislike being molested by their fathers if not the pesky gynocentric society taught them to. Go read anything WTF has written on those subjects. The man is, in some respects, the worst the movement has to offer, and that’s saying a lot.

now youre looking to label Anne Cools as a homophobe

Excuse me? How can an outspoken opposer of gay rights be “labeled” a homophobe? Your claim is absurd. She is, by definition, a homophobe. It’s like saying it’s dishonest to label a person who opposes women’s bodily rights and their right to be treated equal to men as a misogynist.

Oh, wait…

Fibinachi
6 years ago

@Kittehserf: Yeah,and I find it skeevy as all hell. It’s pretty fucking bad! Yet on the other hand, when asked to clarify that comment for instance, he constantly claims that he meant “generally caress” and it was misprinted.

So given the vast breadth of everything else that is terribly wrong with Warren “Oh, Kissing Leads To Sex Just Like Eating One Chip Leads To Eating More” Farrell and his pet theories of “Super Man 2 Means That All Women Want All Men To Suffer And Die For Romantic Love”, I’m inclined to let that one go. Chalk it up to my generosity of spirit, or some such :b

WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak
WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak
6 years ago

@woodyred, Oh, and I suppose you feel the sources they link to within the article are also hysterically biased against your worldview? I suppose reality must conspire occasionally as well, considering you can find evidence of her rampant homophobia with a 5 second google search! How do you keep this denial up?!

Fibinachi
6 years ago

@woodyred

@Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III – Ive read up Warren Farrell. He is not what you people accuse him of. I admit I dont know much about Anne Cools – but I will look it up, yes. I suspect she is merely a traditionalist with regards to marriage. traditionalism and homosexuality rarely mix very well.

Sorry, but no. I’ve read The Myth of Male Power, Why Men Are The Way They Are and Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say because I like suffering and loathe myself enough to want to inflict constant memetic trauma on my brain I was curious.

Because I could not believe what I was reading and in part because I did not want to believe what I was reading, I also read up on him via interviews and AskMeAnything on reddit and archieves. I wasted an entire weekend trying to just fucking understand all that tremendous bullshit, and ever since, food doesn’t taste the same. The sun doesn’t warm me when it shines. Laughing children sound like nails running down a chalk board. I have seen the other side, I’ve come face to face with the underpinnings of MRA thought, and… and… it changed me. I feel hollow. There’s a keening void where my soul used to be. I’m on a strict diet of fluffy kitten pictures, fuzzy rabbits and adorable teddy bears just to be able to bear out living from day to day.

Warren Farrell espouses some terrible, terrible ideas. And anyone who can read his works without seeing it, or take him seriously afterwards? That’s one hell of a heuristic for automatically dismissing their opinion on anything.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

if you think Im gonna label someone a homophobe based on one of his articles – youve got another thing coming.

…so you could click through and go read some of HER articles.

And, seriously, why is it so hard to grant that somebody might be a homophobe and also in favor of fathers getting custody? Her schtick is ‘parents need a mother and a father;’ her homophobia informs exactly what kind of custody for fathers she is in favor of. It’s a piece of one philosophy. This is not exactly outlandish.

Do you not know any homophobes personally?

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@ David Futrelle – “You don’t have to take my word for it.” – haha ! dont worry, I wont.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

@woodyred

…so practice what you preach and go do some reading, son.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

Seriously. I don’t mind a little skepticism, but when we’re turning it up to 11 and doubting things that were read into the public record on the floor of Canada’s legislative body…

Your hyper-skepticism has passed into motivated reasoning.

cloudiah
6 years ago

But perhaps David has somehow hacked Cools’ web page, and infiltrated the highest reaches of Canadian government. You can never be too sure!

Woody is just following the reasoning of the US Supreme Court. The effects of both laws and how they are administered may disproportionately reflect racist biases (see for example the way black defendants who kill white defendants are way more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants who kill black defendants), but unless the prosecutor, judge, and jury actually state on the record “We are taking this actions because we hate black people and want them to die” that is not evidence of racism.

Although in this case, Cools kind of HAS said she is taking these positions because she thinks queer folks are hateful sinners and she wants them to disappear. Therefore, see my first two sentences above! Woody can find a way to rationalize away anything to be able to support his favorite group of bigots and harassers.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
6 years ago

@ woodyred – Once again, why Cools opposes gay marriage is irrelevant. She seeks — from her position as a sSenator no less — to make life more difficult for a LGBT people. I don’t know why she thinks this is a good idea. I don’t care why she thinks this is a good idea. Whether she attempts to make life more difficult for a group of people because of her religious outlook, her regard for ‘tradition’ or some other reason doesn’t interest me.

Now, many of the people that Cools is willing to fuck over are not men. I know better than to expect you or any MRA to give even a fraction of a crap about that. But many of Cools’ targets are men. You know, the people your ridiculous movement is supposed to be in favour of. Remember? So my question is why is a movement supposedly devoted to improving the situation of men okay with someone who is willing to fuck over a subset of the male population?

This is the question that was put to JB, and which she refused to answer. This is the question I put to you, and you refuse to answer. Why was someone who opposes the rights of a significant number of men invited to speak at a men’s rights conference? What does that say about AVfM’s commitment to the rights of men?

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

Your hyper-skepticism has passed into motivated reasoning.

This is, by the by, an extremely useful sentence, one I read back to myself on occasion when dealing with inconvenient facts. Because trying to understand facts and deal with reality as it is can be hard, and sometimes you just have to try to accept things that are difficult to reconcile with your worldview. Sometimes the facts don’t fit what you think you know, and you have to accept that maybe you were wrong.

It’s important to understand that you will always be resistant to this. That it’s easier to believe that you were right and this new information is wrong. Every time.

Only by accepting that can you begin to deal with the world as it is and not as you wish it could be.

Saphy
Saphy
6 years ago

Wasn’t Woody banhammered already? Or was that a different troll?

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@ Saphy – Ive only been here two other times. I got ganged up on last time and retreated.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Fibi, I don’t give Farrell that much benefit of the doubt.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
6 years ago

I really need to learn to refresh the page before posting. Oh, well.

Anyway, @woodyred: I think you’re just as confused about intersectionality as most MRAs. Social issues like homophobia, transphobia, misogyny and racism don’t occur in a vacuum. They are all part of a larger societal pattern that caters to the cishet white man, which is why AVFM and the MRM in general is largely comprised of straight white cis men. They are not for progress, but for a return to less equal times, which is why FeMRAs and non-white, non-straight. non-cis MRAs are really shooting themselves in the foot by working with these jackasses.

For the record, I’m a white cishet dude from a relatively privileged background. I was raised in a religious, traditionalist, homophobic, gender essentialist environment. If I, of all people, can see that the MRM worldview is full of shit, then so can anyone.

@Fibinachi:

Warren Farrell espouses some terrible, terrible ideas. And anyone who can read his works without seeing it, or take him seriously afterwards? That’s one hell of a heuristic for automatically dismissing their opinion on anything.

THIS. As a fellow self-loather who has subjected their fragile human psyche to the horrors that lie beyond the veil, I feel for you, dearest fellow learner of the disturbing and macabre. In terms of pure entitlement and disregard for all that is good, true and beautiful in this world, The Myth of Male Power makes the Necronomicon look like a toddler’s picture book. If you don’t feel nauseous while reading it, you likely possess no empathy. Before I read WTF’s ideas, I genuinely thought that “evil” was how we define it, and not a real, existing force that delights in the pain and suffering of others.

Truly, I am a believer now. I cannot go on for much longer, knowing that happiness and basic humanity are lost in the oceans of selfishness, narcissism, and complete disregard for people who do not fit the norm. At nights, I keep my door closed, play the sounds of feminist harps and stare at the giant poster of the fluffiest kitten in the world on my wall, until I fall into a restless sleep full of nightmares and strange apparitions. For in those dark hours before sunrise, before the light of the day drives away the horrors of the half-awake state, I can still hear the agonized voices of all the women, children and men hurt by those who believe in Farrell’s thoughts, and above that, in the mists of privilege, I can hear the screeching, cacophonic voices of the sinister souls filled with entitlement, singing in a dark unison that would swallow the world if they weren’t too inept to organize a housewarming party: “Iä! Iä! Mhrm fhtagn!”

I kid. Sort of.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Two other times, under what names? Sockpuppetting, are you?

kittehserf
6 years ago

stare at the giant poster of the fluffiest kitten in the world on my wall

Like this, you mean?

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
6 years ago

@Anarchonist:

I’m a white cishet dude from a relatively privileged background

From a socially privileged background. As in, “has class privilege on top of everything else.” Otherwise, redundant phrase is redundant.

Go home, Anarchonist, you’re drunk.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
6 years ago

@kittehserf:

😀

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

anyway – to summarise my position on this article : Anne Cools will be speaking at this event on a topic which AVFM feels she has a valuable insight into. Shes not speaking about gay marriage – I dont know her position on gay marriage – but I will look it up.

and thats the long and short of it, manboobz. dont make it sound like theyve invited some KKK member to speak – they’ve invited a senator to speak on a certain topic. thats all.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

@woodyred

dont make it sound like theyve invited some KKK member to speak – they’ve invited a senator to speak on a certain topic.

…what’s the difference?

In all seriousness.

What exactly is the difference between her efforts to keep some members of society from equal protection of the law and the KKKs efforts to keep some members of society from equal protection of the law?

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@kittehserf – I am always Woody + colour. I was almost certainly red when Ive been here. I only have one account on any forum I engage in.

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

(not that I’m leaping in to go all Oppression Olympics here… but that’s a derailing tactic, saying ‘well, she doesn’t discriminate as much as THESE GUYS that we would DEFINITELY NOT INVITE TO THE CONFERENCE*’)

*(wouldn’t they invite white supremacists? Seriously, now)

Howard Bannister
6 years ago

Yeah, there was another Woody here a few weeks back, but I’m pretty sure they’re not the same Woody. Unless they’re both Steele/MRAL, experimenting with new speech patterns.

woodyred
woodyred
6 years ago

@ Howard Bannister – I think to compare a black senator to a KKK member is somewhat obtuse, no ?

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
6 years ago

@ woodyred — You mean you engaged in this forum? I must have missed it.

1 3 4 5 6 7 11