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.
@ Auntie Alias
JB lies like a cheap rug.
@Aunty Alias
Vice won’t get everything obviously, but I hope they’ll be there for the whole duration and I’m pretty confident about the conference blowing up at some point. The CPAC panel I discussed was filmed by ThinkProgess and AVfM could cover-up any ugly incidents by preventing others from filming and not posting it themselves, unless there are masochists willing to watch the entire live feed as it happens.
@brooked, I’d be interested in watching some of the train wreck but not the usual hucksters whose rhetoric is predictable; i.e. Farrell and the AVFM clowns. The only problem is my computer overheats and goes to sleep spontaneously, particularly during videos, so watching a live stream will be dicey.
@fruitloopsie
eH. I don’t like it much, but I don’t think it’s offensive, more of just a personal preference. Just dont call us ‘people of homosexual orientation’ and you should be fine XD
@Leum
Ok, well it doesn’t bug me but since it bugs leum I’ll go with don’t use it.
I realize I could just delete this comment now, but I really want to post it so everyone knows someone (my stepmom! Yay!) calls gay people ‘people of homosexual orientation’. Because seh’s a fucking homophobe and seem sto get awkward even just saying ‘gay’, unless it’s in a homophobic joke.
@DJG
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.
@brooked
Wow. that sounds like a terrible pannel.
And my commment got stuck in moderation what fun. tryign agian:
@fruitloopsie
eH. I don’t like it much, but I don’t think it’s offensive, more of just a personal preference. Just dont call us ‘people of homosexual orientation’ and you should be fine XD
@Leum
Ok, well it doesn’t bug me but since it bugs leum I’ll go with don’t use it.
I realize I could just delete this comment now, but I really want to post it so everyone knows someone (my stepmom! Yay!) calls gay people ‘people of homosexual orientation’. Because seh’s a fucking homophobe and seem sto get awkward even just saying ‘gay’, unless it’s in a homophobic joke.
@DJG
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.
@brooked
Wow. that sounds like a terrible pannel.
I’m a bit late, but Auntie Alias’ link has another interesting bit, from commenter mgtow-man. Responding to Paul asking people not to say hateful things about women:
You know… saying hateful things about women is telling the truth!!!
@LBT
I just want to say that I appreciate and very much enjoyed your attempt to engage this unholy amount of random screenshots that make no noticeable sense.
My favorite screenshot is labeled: “Then David realized he fucked up”. It just has two Paul Elam tweets that say “So how long have you been working with people who advocate the extermination of men?” and “Oh my! @DavidFutrelle now published on gendercide advocate blog! #hardlysurprisedatthispuke”. Wow, that’s quite a, uh, gotcha. I really see the many good reasons why people here need to see that and respond.
@Matheus
While I realize MRAs think everything is about them, this blog mocks misogyny throughout the manosphere. If I was feeling masochistic, I could limit myself to comments only posted in the last 24 hours and could find oodles of hateful shit on PUA, Incel and anti-feminist sites that would dwarf everything in your vaulted “Agent Orange” files. (FYI, that’s obnoxious fucking name if you know anything about actual Vietnam-era Agent Orange, but whatever.)
Yes, everyone interested in MRM is not the same. Heck, the worst misogyny on Reddit isn’t on r/mensrights, because TeRPville, r/adviceanimals and r/SRSsucks are worse. Congrats on that. That said, if you don’t see that the main MRM sites are fringe Alt-Right echo chambers where people mostly hate-rant about women and are fueled by anti-feminism rather than concerns about social issues facing men, this isn’t the website for you because that’s what is discussed on WHTM every day.
MaudeLL – so whinerdude is saying he and his little MRA buddies can’t have a social conversation without saying how much they hate women.
Class, they has it.
@MaudeLL
All the LOLs.
“Snooping idiots probing for things to be mean and clueless” = Non-MRAs criticizing misogyny in direct quotes
My favorite part is that he uses the human rights version, MHRAs. Lots of human rights groups have a membership that who would be labelled as a hate movement if their conference discussions were directly quoted, right?
Help for the MRM. If you aren’t going to be hating on women, what else will you have to talk about?
Some possible answers:
* the weather
* incomprehensible poster design
* the weather
* correct etiquette for eating cold stew from a can
* the weather
* hey do you think Warren Farrell is related to Colin Farrell or is it just a coincidence
* ties knots — the Windsor vs the Esmay
* ellipses and the rule of two
* why all women are bloodsucking monsters. I mean the weather! The weather! Shit.
They’re called that because anyone who tried to actually read them all would shrivel up and die.
@kitteh
The gynocracy is oppressing their speech through Paul Elam.
@Sir Bodsworth
I suggest they talk about actually going their own way.
And they can hide their misogyny by discussing their love of scented fucking candles (shrewd strategy).
Ok so if im following the MRA logic clown car right.
feminists at a dead website said shitty things->David doesnt denounce them Therefore David is pro genocide
In what alternate dimension does that make even the smallest amount of sense?
by that same train of thought (and i use the term very very loosely)
Elliot Rodger wanted to starve all women to death-> Mra DEFENDs Rodger Therefore
Mra want all women to starve to death
Its not even difficult to find awful things said by feminists. Feminism’s been around for a while and feminists are people with vastly differing views. No shit a lot of horrible things have been said by people who are feminists sinse the idea’s inception.
Here’s the thing: the people saying those things are fringe-dwellers, upholding ideas abhorred by the overwhelming majority of feminists worldwide.
By contrast, AVfM is THE voice of the MRM. The putrid shit they espouse is mainstream MRA thought. They’re not dwelling on the fringes of the, ahem, movement nor are the people telling us such profound insights as domestic violence against women is beneficial to relationships and society (and I’m pretty sure every AVfM contributor has said that or something close to it) unique within their group. That’s fucking normal for them.
There’s just no valid comparison. Yeah, some feminists have said some gross things throughout history. That’s not the same as belonging to a movement that is populated by gross people who share gross beliefs. That’s what AVfM and the MRM are. Awful feminists saying disgusting things that make the world shake their heads are just a fucking embarrassment. They have no power in the real world nor within feminism. Their thoughts do not in any way reflect any trend anyone need be concerned by. They’re laughed out of the room. We aren’t paying or even inviting them to speak at our conferences. We don’t need to rely on the authority of people who agree with us on something while simultaneously denigrating groups to argue our corner because we actually have sincerely decent people in our corner and THAT’S because human rights actually matter to us.
Can’t say the same about AVfM and the MRM. All they’re concerned about is portraying men as victims of women and feminism and if that means throwing gay people under the bus, they’re all for it.
Human fucking rights.
By the way, Matheus, you realise the crowd at AVfM doesn’t care about you, right? Like, they’re not going to be there for you when you’re in need or anything. They’re not going to listen to you for hours and hold you we you cry and send you a care package to ensure you have a little less to worry about while you’re going through any kind if ugliness in your life. They aren’t trying to make your life or the life of any man or boy better. They really don’t care but you.
I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts this crowd and almost any crowd within a feminist circle will jump at the opportunity to make your life or the life of any man or boy going through shit a little easier if they hear you’re in trouble and need a hand.
If you need something, you can just say so. There’s really no reason to be afraid of judgement or persecution here.
@Matheus
Fuck off you disablist shithead.
Pardon me, “They really don’t care about* you.” Sorry.
Seriously though, the prominent names within the MRM are in it for themselves, not you and not men and/or boys. They do what they do for satisfaction, not out of a need to see social injustices righted.
I’ve taken a volunteering position for the next six weeks working with boys sixteen to eighteen whose high school math and science marks are the shits but they want to further their education in the subjects at university. There’s lots of programs catering to kids in general but because the issue of under achieving in high school has become more prevalent amongst boys and they generally aren’t as successful as girls re: the social learning experience, this program caters to them exclusively. It’s basically about making reasonable demands and holding boys to the same standard of behaviour girls are held to resulting in that social learning experience girls benefit from. My experience suggests it has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. When you’re not held to reasonable standards of behaviour though there’s nothing for you to be ambitious about. We really fail boys when we behave as though it’s unnatural and outside their control to be learners the way girls are expected to.
First of all, he’s wrong, and second of all, HE FUCKING APPROVES OF PEOPLE REDUCING THE CHANCES OF RAPE VICTIMS RECEIVING JUSTICE IN COURT. That’s not merely “bad taste.” That’s fucking misogyny and rape culture.
Many? By what standard? Of course there have been many false accusations, but they are vanishingly rare, especially compared to the number of actual rapes.
Here’s a somewhat recent Mother Jones article about how militant “Open Carry”
terroristsactivists doxx and intimidate women who publicly support sensible gun control. I’m posting this because it’s all sadly familiar, plus non-US residents can see how disturbing American gun culture is. The same people who “protest” with assault rifles in fast food restaurants harass the victims of gun violence. Seriously, this is the first time I’ve ever said this: I want my country back.Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women
Welcome to the dark side of America’s war over guns.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas
The one thing that stands out to me about this conference … do these people think that this is the way feminist/ women’s issues conferences work?
My recollections are from a long time ago but, by and large, I simply don’t remember talking about men, only about workplace/ politics/ economics/ medical/ childcare/ indigenous issues depending on the agenda. Of course, during breaks, we’d catch up with friends and acquaintances so we’d talk about our partners and families and update our contact information and the like. But we didn’t talk about how icky and horrible men were even when we were talking about divorce or domestic violence. We’d talk about the problems of funding or managing refuges or of dealing with cops and courts or talking to stubborn pollies who just didn’t “get it”.
We hardly talked about men at all. Occasionally we discussed strategies for getting men involved as allies generally or in specific issues where there were problems / solutions affecting men and women more or less equally. If there was any private “trash talk”, it would be about _individual men_ who were employers/ union members/ political party members who’d been impenetrably stubborn or outrageously offensive or had some other characteristic which Singled. Them. Out. rather than being part of the general ickiness of all men.
Well Im an MRA – and I support gay marriage. so there.
@ woodyred, and how do you feel about a homophobe speaking at your conference, then?
@ WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak – I dont know what her objections are. could be religious reasons – you know what religious people are like. its an unfortunate fact that you cant always agree with everyone on every single topic.. its my understanding she is speaking about fathers rights – not gay marriage.
@woodyred, why do her specific reasons for objecting matter? I asked how you felt about AVfM allowing a noted and active homophobe to speak without issuing a denial of support for those views. Or does AVfM only care about straight men?
@WhatIsThisGravitasOfWhichYouSpeak – I dont know her specific objections to gay marriage – I personally cannot understand peoples objections to gay marriage. but perhaps she would favor civil partnership or some other kind of union – and simply objects to the idea of a same sex religious-type marriage. reading this article is the first I have heard of her opinions on this matter. From what I gather she is speaking with regards to her previous experience with battered womens shelters and fathers rights. not gay marriage.