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.
@woodyred, No intention of answering my questions, then. Alrighty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Woodyred, she’s opposed pension benefits for same-sex couples, and common-law recognition of same-sex couples. And the issue isn’t just that she has religious objections; it’s that she’s made this her own personal crusade, and that in pursuing this agenda she’s spewed all sorts of homophobic nonsense. You did read the quotes from her in the OP, did you not?
She is allowed to have whatever views she wants on this. The question is why a supposed “human rights” group that claims to be for gay rights (at least for gay men) would give a crusader against gay rights a platform at their first big conference.
It’s almost as if this “human rights” group is not actually a human rights group at all, and doesn’t actually give a shit about gay men. (We already know they don’t give a shit about lesbians.)
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?
Ninja’d
@woodyred
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.
I know plenty of devout religious people who are not giant toolbags, but nice try.
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.
In the last sentence of the above, who is ‘we’ referring to?
Codswallop. Being devout doesn’t mean being a bigot.
@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.
@ kittehserf – oh yes, the major religions are so tolerant of homosexuality, yes.
@House Mouse Queen
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.
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.
@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?
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.
@ 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 – 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?
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.
Should I pay them money to hear them speak?
@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.
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.
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.
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…
@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