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.
There was a goodly bit of discussion in the feminist blogosphere a few years back about whether or not it is appropriate for feminists to support same sex marriage when so many of us oppose marriage altogether. We got it sorted without much trouble.
Not a typo, guys. 😉
Kevin’s Law: “If the best evidence of wackjobism you can find is a few anonymous nutballs commenting on a blog, then the particular brand of wackjobism you’re complaining about must not be very widespread after all.”
So, a message board that some have heard of but few outside TERFs have visited say bad shit and that means DF is full of doodie and caca because… ?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, is DF still responsible for not denouncing it? According to Matheus the answer is a resounding “Fuck you.”
I would appreciate it if you would stop using that pejorative against women, damselindetech.
It’s not even that, damselindistech. We’ve had TERFs here, had one just the other day, and we ran her off in short order. We’ve had numerous assholes of varying stripes we’ve chased off and denounced.
Matheus is acting like the folks of the defunct RadFemHub is to us as Cools is to AVFM.
The difference is, of course, that David NEVER let any of those assholes here, while AVFM is having Cools AT THEIR FREAKING CON.
Matheus is trying to compare apples to oranges. By his logic, is David doesn’t refute every assholic thing every feminist ever said, than he’s a hypocrite, even though it’s freakin’ IMPOSSIBLE. While AVFM can’t even take responsibility for the speakers of their own damn con.
Responsibility, my ass.
RE: thebewilderness
I would appreciate it if you would stop using that pejorative against women,
What, TERF? How is it perjorative to say that they were transphobic?
Interesting how they are taking steps to make sure their little tea party isn’t disrupted the way they have no problem disrupting feminist events.
Then again, that’s the bottom line. The MRM doesn’t want to be treated the way they’ve treated women.
Then again, that’s the bottom line. The MRM doesn’t want to be treated the way they’ve treated women.
QFT. I’m pretty sure that’s ultimately where all this “they want to enslave teh mens!” garbage comes from.
LBT, re the tickets: I know, right? Here’s more detail:
Elam is enjoying this cloak and dagger stuff a little too much.
In the LGBT community the question was never really resolved, but the radical queers* stopped talking to the non-radical LGBT people**and vice versa, so it kinda solved itself. Except for people like me who’re non-radical but highly sympathetic to the radical position, we just kinda sit on the sidelines.
*Who generally self-identify as “queer” which is why I’m using the term
*Not sure what to call them, because they only exist in relation to the radical queers who use the derogative terms “assimilationist” and “homonormative” to describe them.
Sorry, which pejorative, thebewilderness?
@LBT – Welp. I think you’ve said it all. I’ll wait with popcorn for Mattheus’ glorious retort.
@zoon echon logon
I too am a wee bit skeptical.
This reminds me of when 2013 CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee), a major US young conservative conference that has been around for decades, had a panel on racism that went to holy hell. The panel was, uh, problematic from the start because it’s title had so much racial dog whistling that it sounds like a parody: ‘Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You’re Not One?’. CPAC had it peak racist moment when a southern college student, who for real started a campus white nationalist group at his school, used that panel’s Q and A to denounce “multiculturalism”, which seems to be his code word for segregation, and complain about how unfair it is that he can’t be a 1950s style racist these days.
See it’s hard for contemporary US political conservatism, which historically has a strong element of noticeable racism meant to drive white people from the Democratic Party, to put it’s nice people pants and pretend it has a strong anti-racist tradition. In fact CPAC main “race” panel was mostly about having a black conservative make white conservatives who have been called racist feel better by pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican. Yet even this weak-ass attempt to deny their racism blew up because it’s racism popped it’s head up the moment the panel’s audience had a chance to speak it’s mind.
So if AVfM thinks that it’s volatile “anti-feminism” isn’t going to spin into outright vocal misogyny at it’s reactionary get-together, well, good luck with that. I have posted about David’s tweeter feed, and have been utterly fascinated by it, because the core AVfM leadership has been losing it’s shit and hectoring their most familiar critic in a way that takes unprofessionalism to incredible new heights. They have been ranting about “gendercide” and pimping their voluminous collection of Radfem Hub message board screenshots because they have convinced themselves that this qualifies as a death-blow grade “gotcha” that somehow defeats feminism and gives their reactionary kvetching social respectability. And when David, and everyone who is not them, doesn’t agree with them because they are comically wrong-headed they explode into a maniacal hissy fit. Seriously, I desperately hope this conference happens because it’s going to eventually derail and Vice will have delectable video of the whole spectacle.
To AVfM fans: Don’t blame David for the fact that the website’s leadership is shitting it’s pants on Twitter because of it’s pre-conference jitters. Pro tip: if you are a hanger-on of a “human rights” group who decides to be it’s PR flack, don’t use your personal twitter handle, make inappropriate jokes, think saying “all publicity is good publicity” defuses a problem, be quick to explode in rage and fling obscenity laced attacks at your critics.
Here’s very funny coverage of the 2013 CPAC panel by a humor columnist at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/15/1194459/-CPAC-2013-The-racism-at-CPAC#
“Where are all these castrating, doxxing feminists with boxcutters I’ve heard so much about?”
Are you qualified as a neurosurgeon? If not, you can’t go to where they are.
What perjorative, thebewilderness? I didn’t see anything except TERF, and that’s no perjorative. It’s about extremely transphobic people and TERF =/= all radical feminists.
@brooked
I was sure I’d seen something about this but couldn’t find it again. Is Vice filming the entire thing? Also, in the comments Elam mentioned a live stream will be available.
I still haven’t figured out if the possibility that Vice may end up mocking the shit out of them hasn’t occurred to them or if they’re just really committed to the whole any publicity is good publicity theory.
@cassandrakitty
Mra seem to have this odd idea that the average person will react positively towards them upon learning about their movement.
As far as I can tell this isnt the case, I’ve seen 4chan users who whine about Sarkeesian say the Mra are ridiculous
They really do seem to think that. Why, I’m not sure, since other than incels and PUAs pretty much everyone else thinks they’re reality challenged weirdos. Even guys who’re pretty sexist in a mainstream dudebro kind of way mostly seem to think they’re ridiculous, and ultra conservative dudes are put off by the sleaziness.
I liken these guys to the Marxist-socialist student activists I went to uni with who were convinced that the overwhelming majority of people in the world would spontaneously flock to their banner as soon as somebody just *explained* their position properly.
Needless to say that attitude – that you’re right and your position is so compelling that people will completely convert to your way of thinking upon hearing it – leads to a bunch of frustration when it turns out that actually a lot of people disagree with you, or simply don’t care.
The complete lack of self-awareness about how hateful, aggressive and spiteful they sound is the best trait about these guys – it keeps them from being able to put a plausible amount of polite gloss over their hatred.
@cassandrakitty: my favourite example of people being put off by the douchebros is when Penny Arcade’s Mike Krahulik (aka Gabe) had only heard a tiny bit about PUAs and said something positive about them. Gabe’s issues with anxiety were public knowledge at that point, so he could empathise with the idea of learning how to become more confident when talking to women.
Then he started getting messages of support from the PUA community. They creeped him out to the point where he publicly disavowed them.
Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about a bleeding heart social justice warrior. Gabe’s been called out many times for transphobic attitudes, minimising the ongoing trauma suffered by rape survivors, and generally being unapologetic when someone lets him know he’s being offensive. But even he was disgusted and offended at how people who were *on his side* were talking about women.
So utterly unaware of how they sound to people who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid. Thank goodness.
This cracking down on people attending the conference business- and not just “journalists”*, and the order to restrict discussions, both of which are really weird, reminds me of the saying “you can’t polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter”.
Although the theatrics of what AVfM is doing for the conference will encourage already-conspiracy minded members in their conspiracy thinking. When your followers have the debating and logical reasoning skills of a 3-year-old, these types of magic tricks work.
Gah, forgot to explain the *
* as in, “journalists defined as such by AVfM”.
@freshlysqueezedcynic
As other people have said, you’re correct and that’s a blog about an interview in which a gay man discusses how feminism can strengthen the argument for gay marriage. It’s super short too, so it’s unlikely this was an epic reading comprehension fail on her part. JudgyB isn’t even making a minimal effort to be intellectually honest.
With ‘friends’ like JB, who needs feminists? 😉
@ strivingally
That’s exactly what I mean. Even the guys who on the surface seem the most likely candidates to sympathize with the manosphere are often horrified when exposed to it on a level deeper than “men have rights too!” comments on Facebook.