Godwin’s Law
From Wikipedia: Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving (the Zionist narrative of) Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″ — that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.Yes, we’re going there today. We’re going to compare feminism with Nazism and how this is both good and bad.
So let’s start with a simplified history lesson on these two movements, as they actually had somewhat comparable roots. It’s amazing how hate movements start off eerily similar to one another.
The Early Days
In the beginning, there was World War I, and thusly followed the Bitchslap of Versailles—a treaty to end the war that was basically one big clusterfuck of various treaties. Everyone was allied with everyone else, one tiny country’s dictator died—Archduke Franz Ferdinand—because he was a fuckwit who was assassinated and was sewn into his uniform that his doctor was afraid to cut open to perform surgery, so yeah … great starting point.
At Versailles, the French were pissy about the whole thing and tried to lay pretty much all the responsibility on Germany. Surprisingly, US President Woodrow Wilson was the voice of reason here. He basically said, “Whooooa, slow down, guys, what the fuck? No, seriously. What. The. Fuck. You don’t really want to do this, do you? This is going to fuck Germany over hardcore … you’re going to make a lot of innocent people suffer on petty vengeance, and it’s going to bite you in the ass.”
France’s reply was pretty much: “Non, ve simply vhant to slap zhem vith zhe velvet glove … filled with a brick” (except they did the overly cheesy French accent better than I can in text).
English Prime Minister David Lloyd George essentially said, “Oh, right-o thar, ol’ chap, can’t do, sorry, election year. The voters want blood and I want to be re-elected. You’re totally right, ol’ boy, but what can you do?” and went along with the bullshit anyway.
And yea, thusly, so did the Great Depression fuck over Germany even worse than everyone else. The currency at the time was literally falling so fast that a law was passed to pay workers twice a day in cash because the money wouldn’t be worth half as much by the next day. People had to cart out wheelbarrows full of money to buy bread because the paper the money was printed on was worth more than the money itself. Note that was wheelbarrows, plural. Shit was crazy, yo.
And this is the environment out of which Nazism was born—one of excessive weakness, hatred, and fear. The government was falling apart, and political parties turned more into gangs than anything else … and the Nazis were one of the biggest gangs out there. Their methodology of getting elected was simply to have their political opponents “have mysterious accidents.” Great guys, really. We know how it goes.
When they were the only stabilizing force around, people figured, “Hell, why not, may as well vote for them, they’re the only assholes left.”
With this the Nazis gained a great deal of political power, their violent streak, and a massive sense of entitlement à la “We deserve better than this bullshit. No, the world owes us better than this bullshit.” These were the seeds of destruction, as we’ll see in a moment.
So what happened with feminism? Where are its early roots? Didn’t it just magically pop up in the 1970s?
No, no, it’s been around a lot longer than that, I’m afraid. Closer to 150 years, actually, but there’s a starting point here that’s important—when it got its first big head of steam.
Let’s go back to 1914. World War I and the White Feather Campaign, overseen by one Mrs. Humphrey Ward, a well-known author at the time.
The White Feather Campaign took root in England and involved women attaching white feathers to men not in uniform in order to shame them into going off to die in the ditches of trench warfare. The women had no fear of being drafted, and shame was a wonderful tool to get the men to go off to war.
This was one of the first bits of entitlement that the movement displayed: the capacity for women to tell men what to do when they were at zero risk themselves. The men really were shamed, and did enlist, showing that women had the power to send men to their deaths with just a word and a feather. Women have no power? Women need no power—they had men to do shit for them.
In 1917, in the US, about 900,000 men were drafted for World War I, some as young as 18 years of age. They challenged it, said it was unconstitutional, and on January 17, 1918, the Supreme Court basically said, “Fuck you, you get to vote, so you have to fight. This is how this shit works”—despite the fact that the actual drafting age was lower than the age to vote, meaning boys who couldn’t vote could get drafted because they could vote … except they couldn’t. Right …
On June 4, 1920, women were given the right to vote too … sans the mandatory draft. Huh? So the only reason men are allowed to vote was because they could be killed off on a whim, but women are allowed to vote because … tits?
Seriously, American men could be sent to war at age 18 but could not vote until age 21, regardless that that was the excuse for why they were allowed to vote. It wasn’t until June 22, 1970, that men finally got the right to vote at the same age they could be told to go kill themselves. Fun fun fun.
These were the seeds of entitlement from which the earliest branches of feminism sprung. Women’s suffrage was based on the idea that women deserved to vote because they were women, but men deserved to vote because they paid for it in blood, except for the fact that men still paid with their blood without the right to vote, so it was kind of lopsided.
Trust me, I’m all for women being able to vote. I rather like being able to vote myself, and without that movement, I couldn’t. Except … I also stress that the reasoning for why women could vote, while men aged 18 to 21 couldn’t, was absolute, total bullshit.
Either everyone should have had the right to vote without being drafted or no one who couldn’t be drafted should have had the right to vote.
Even today, men can still be drafted, and women can’t, but men “pay” for their right to vote with the draft, and women “pay” for their right to vote with … erm … being female? Huh? Interdastingsk. Funny how feminism has no problems with that, and in fact, when men bring up that fact, they’re told to shut the fuck up because it’s not a real problem, despite being blatantly sexist.
Regardless, in both cases, both Nazism and feminism began from similar roots: violence toward others and a huge-assed entitlement complex.
Foothold
Getting a foothold is the crucial step for a hate movement. To garner any support, you have to provide something relevant to people. Something that makes them like you. Something that lets them point to all the good you’ve done, and to ignore the bad.
The Nazis pulled the German economy out of the shitter, built new roads, set up a powerful infrastructure, rebuilt Germany itself, held the Olympics, and sparked a sense of national pride with the whole Aryan race dealie by telling normal citizens that everyone was just jelly of the German master race, which is why they were trying to beat them down.
People just loooove to be told how awesome they are, and even more, they love scapegoats. Mmm, scapegoats … what better way to make people agree with you than to give them a common enemy, tell them they themselves are awesome, and hand them free stuff? It even lets people ignore that the Nazis got into power in the first place by murdering their political opponents! SWEET!
Hey … that sounds familiar …
Oh, right, because that’s what feminism did, pretty much one for one. Even the murder.
See, in the 1960s and 1970s, feminism wasn’t exactly liked all that much. It was too radical, too violent, and too filled with hatred, and the normal average person could see that. It was pretty fucked-up shit, to be perfectly blunt. Even women didn’t want anything to do with it for the most part.
And then Erin Pizzey started the first domestic violence shelter in the world. She realized quickly on that the women going there were often as violent as the men they were fleeing from, and she quickly traced the root back to violent family history. If you have violent parents, you’re probably going to be violent too and seek out a violent partner. Who would’a thunk?
Well, obviously the feminists wouldn’t’a thunk that at all. They were absolutely certain that it was only men who could be evil and vile or violent because … well, they were a hate movement. It’s kind of their schtick.
Within a few short years, feminists realized that they needed some good PR, a common enemy, a way to tell women how awesome they were, and some example they could use to show they were being a benefit to society instead of a menace.
Oh, hey, that’sssss a nice domestic violence shelter system you have going there, Erin … it’d be a shame if anything were to … happen to it, if ya get my drift.
Yeah, they kicked Erin Pizzey out, and were violent as hell. They constantly harassed her, sent her death threats, and eventually assassinated her dog. The fuck? Yes, you heard me right. They murdered her dog as a warning to her to get the fuck outta Dodge. Nice people, those feminists. Friendly, loving, non-violent, especially toward their fellow woman!
And in return, they were rewarded with being able to lie to people by telling them that only men are violent (scapegoat), that women are angels who are oppressed (they’re the only ones in need of domestic violence shelters), and that they’re being useful to society (protecting those poor, battered women, ignoring the men in need entirely—after all, if we refuse to build shelters for them, we can point to how there are no men’s shelters, so obviously they don’t need them! Sweet deal, huh?).
Thus, the hate movement of feminism got its foot in the door, using pretty much the same core tactics as the Nazis had used—except that their scapegoat was men rather than Jews, and their good deed (although stolen) was domestic violence shelters instead of the Autobahn, and they instilled gender pride instead of racial or national pride.
Even from the start, feminism was about hatred toward men. This was a well-known fact at the time, and it wasn’t until feminism applied coercion that it became well liked.
Silence
Your average German didn’t know what was going on with the Nazis. They thought they were fighting back against people who had attacked them first. They thought that the Jews were simply being deported. They thought that they were fighting a just war, and that they were winning. They knew the average Nazi: they were friends and family, really nice, ordinary, regular people.
The thing is, management were total assholes.
There were only a few hundred Nazis who fucked the whole thing up for everyone. Keep that fact in mind. A few people at the top who put the orders in and a few assholes on the ground level who went along with it and were given the power to make anyone else back down the moment they questioned it. A small number who were corrupt and malicious to the core and who were absolutely certain that they were in the right and would change the face of the world.
They slipped their people into the higher ranks of the military and the government, quietly converted children throughout the schools and their youth group, and ousted any teachers who wouldn’t teach their propaganda.
And in the end, it worked.
This is where feminism is right now. It’s right behind the curtain, just barely out of earshot. The average feminist is a really nice, ordinary, regular person—your friends and family. They think they’re fighting the good fight against tyranny and injustice.
The thing is, management are still total assholes.
There are only a few hundred to maybe a few thousand feminists who are truly rotten to the core, much like the Nazis, except that they’re the ones calling the shots, also like the Nazis. They’re the ones making the laws, publishing the horribly mangled studies, teaching bigotry in schools, and converting our youth to their cause, quietly slipping their own people into the upper echelons of society.
Much like the Nazis, feminists have removed teachers who don’t agree with their narrative; most teachers in schools are women, and most of those are feminists now, especially in universities and colleges, and even more so in the human resources departments that handle disputes between students or faculty.
The average feminist is a good person fighting for what they believe is a good cause, but they’ve been lied to by a powerful propaganda machine. Any time they support feminism, they support those who create malicious laws, who break down the judicial system and due process, who reinforce bigotry and hatred.
“Not all feminists are like that.” But enough of them are, and they’re the ones in power.
“Of course they aren’t.” Not all Nazis were like that either. But enough of them were, and they were the ones in power.
The problem isn’t that “Not All Feminists Are Like That” by any means—it’s a silly notion. The problem is that the funding goes toward projects of hatred. The problem is that support goes toward vile acts and cruel deeds. The problem is that every time someone stands up for the average feminist, they’re supporting the actions of the ones who are malicious by not holding them under scrutiny.
Right now, feminism is preparing for its concentration camps. It hasn’t set them up yet, but it would absolutely love to, and is putting the pieces into place to make it a reality. And all the while, no one is able to say, “Wait, this is bullshit. What the fuck?” because, after all, Not All Feminists Are Like That.
Just the ones who matter are.
The Choir of Hate
You can’t fight a war without soldiers. You can’t have a hate movement unless it’s supported by the general populace. You can’t create acts of vast malice without complacency …
To the feminists who are reading this, take a look at what you’ve been supporting and tell me this is what you really want. These are the ones in charge, who make the laws, who power the movement, and who spend the money you support them with. Is this really who you want speaking for you?
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
~Robin Morgan, Ms. magazine editor
“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”
~National NOW Times, January 1988
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
~Catherine Comins, Vassar College, assistant dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
~Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in Women and the New Race, p. 67
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
~Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
~Andrea Dworkin
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.”
~Sharon Stone
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
~Catherine MacKinnon (prominent legal feminist scholar, University of Michigan & Yale University)
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”
~Sally Miller Gearhart
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”
~Marilyn French
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
~Hillary Clinton
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
~Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
“I wonder if he [Martin Luther King] really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots.”
~Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole on her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King
When asked: “You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?”
Dr Greer (denying that she said it): “I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don’t take place anywhere near an ovum. I don’t know that the ecosphere can tolerate it.”
~Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book The Change: Women, Aging and the Menopause; from a newsreport dated November 14, 1991
“How will the family unit be destroyed? … [T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”
~Roxanne Dunbar in her essay “Female Liberation as the Basis for Social Revolution”
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
~Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed.), 1970, p. 537
“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men …”
~Elizabeth Stanton in One Woman, One Vote, Marjorie Spruille Wheeler (ed.), p. 58
“Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck—and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.”
~Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia; from the Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia, February 9, 1996
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … he can sexually molest his daughters … THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.”
~Marilyn French
“All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck.”
~Statement made by a University of Maine feminist administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the university in the amount of $600,000. Dinsmore had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the university, which was settled successfully in 1995
“If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal—a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students—I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment … of persuading students that women are oppressed.”The End
~Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers’ book Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women (1995)
You may notice that these are big names are big—they’re senators, education administrators, authors, congresswomen, and bigots one and all.
You may wonder if the quotes are simply taken out of context; in their actual context, they’re actually far, far worse.
These are the people in power; these are the people who are the rotten 1% of feminism. They’re the only 1% who needs to be rotten because they’re the 1% who has both the power and the desire to abuse that power, and every claim of “Not All Feminists Are Like That” gives them another layer of immunity to criticism.
This is how a hate movement is formed. No one questions it, everyone makes excuses for the ones in power, and everyone feels they’re doing the “right thing” by traveling down the slippery slope in the name of justice and to help the underdog.
Remember, Nazi Germany was the underdog. They were the ones who were crippled and weak, and they used that to leverage their people into backing them with the promise of a better future.
Feminism has taken the same road, using the same tactics to cover up that it’s a hate movement at its core.
Godwin’s law only applies if there isn’t an actual direct correlation.
We let the Nazi war machine free because no one would stop it. No one would decry it. No one would stand up and say, “This is fucking bullshit, what the fuck!?” They were silenced with shame, by overt removal, or simply “disappeared.”
The first two of these are already in place: mansplaining and removing people from college and university campuses. We’re not too far away from the third—they just need to erode due process a little more on the rape laws and then they’ll be able to disappear any man they want to on a whim. No questions asked, no answers given, merely an accusation is all that will be required. If you think that’s impossible, check the laws—we’re almost there already.
I’ve already covered how feminism hurts women in other articles, but this is more important than how it affects me personally. This is how it affects everyone, both men and women together.
Remember, the average German, hell, even the average Nazi, was a pretty good person. They believed in what they thought was a just cause, following along blindly as the wool of propaganda was pulled over their eyes time and again. They knew that the hatred was there, lurking at the corners of their vision, but they let it slide.
The average woman and the average feminist are still good people who honestly believe they’ve been supporting a just cause. We simply can’t afford to ignore the hatred we see now, skulking in the shadows, in our peripheral vision. We need to direct the spotlight of criticism harshly upon it so it can wither and die in the light rather than make excuses for the vileness and protect that malice with a wall of average feminist human shields.
If we don’t put an end to this now, and embrace actual egalitarianism fast rather than feed this hate group … well, there’s a poem that describes this all too well. You may have even heard it before.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
And there was no one left to speak for me.
— Martin Niemöller
Edited by WD
Source
_______
David Futrelle Falsely Accuses Canadian Senator Anne Cools Of Homophobia
By : David Futrelle has launched a blistering attack on Canadian Senator Anne Cools, accusing her of having actively campaigned “against gay and lesbian rights for decades.”
Senator Cools, one of Canada’s most passionate and pre-eminent advocates for the rights of men and boys, has been invited to speak at the first International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit later this month. This should provide a clue as to the timing, and the nature, of this attempt to smear the reputation of this admirable woman.
Clearly, this hatchet job on Senator Cools has been designed to whip up a frenzy of indignation and outrage among the gay rights community with the aim to rope more of them in to supporting the anticipated feminist protest of the conference.
When terrorist tactics fail, bring in LGBT.
At least, that is what David Futrelle has obviously resolved to do after his ideological allies’ threats to conference participants and the staff and guests of the original venue, and their demand that all public discussion about men’s issues be silenced, failed—and left them looking like dangerous and deranged bigots violently opposed to one of the MHRM’s most cherished principles: freedom of speech.
Opponents of the men’s human rights movement frequently attack individuals associated with it by presenting their views as supporting, promoting, or advocating some form of extremist position—misogyny, racism, rape-enabling, and, of course, homophobia—with the transparently obvious intention of trying to discredit the entire MHRM. However, few of our opponents have used this dishonest tactic with more dogged regularity—and lazy and perverse delight—than has David Futrelle.
Supporters of AVfM will be very familiar with Futrelle’s methods, not to mention the man-hating, trigger-prone hypochondriacs who huddle at his “We Hunted the Mammoth” site in the hope of being fed cherry-picked tidbits in order to indulge in their peculiar brand of faux outrage—like the “evidence” provided for Senator Cools’ alleged homophobia.
For those new to AVfM, or who have never been able to stomach going anywhere near the site run by the Bigot Formerly Known as Manboobz, [Ω], what follows should provide insight into how the reasonable, logical, and considered opinions of a woman too intelligent and independent-minded to follow a PC script can be twisted and truncated with insinuation in order to demonize her personally and to misrepresent and mischaracterize what she actually stands for: the rights and welfare of men and boys.
Before Futrelle even mentions Senator Cools, he casts doubt on the veracity of Paul Elam’s unequivocal declaration that AVfM is a site that supports men of all sexual orientations.
“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.”—Paul Elam
Futrelle attempts to do so by pointing out that there is no “mention of lesbians” in this declaration and pretends not to realize that the reason why lesbians are not mentioned in this declaration at A Voice for MEN is due to the rather obvious fact that lesbians are not men. Elam doesn’t mention koala bears either, for exactly the same reason. Futrelle takes the opportunity to offer his own utterly fatuous explanation for why lesbians were not included in this declaration about men on a site about men: “Elam does not seem to like women very much.” Futrelle does not feel the need to validate this damning claim with any supporting evidence.
To further present his case that AVfM is a hotbed of homophobia, Futrelle takes a pot-shot at managing editor Dean Esmay by stating that he “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.’” The reader is meant to cast doubt on Esmay’s “boast” simply because it was made by Dean Esmay—and because Futrelle expects them to.
Just in case the reader finds these examples of AVfM’s rampant homophobia less than compelling, Futrelle completely undermines his own argument by linking to one of his old posts in which Elam denounces Chris Key (who, as far as anyone knows, was never heard from again) for being “a homophobic asshole.”
Futrelle then highlights this rather prophetic quote from an AVfM commenter called Dusty:
“Here, feminists prey on the occasional alienation that gay men feel at the hands of heterosexual men who have been raised to think that homosexuality is immoral or even pathological.”
It is ironic indeed that those gay men who may feel alienated at the hands of heterosexual men are the very same type of gay men that feminists, like David Futrelle, are now trying to persuade to join them to protest at the conference (supposedly just for straight, white, homophobic men, even though it’s no such thing) in Detroit. It is even more ironic that Futrelle goes on to attack me, a gay man, for pointing out that lesbians co-opted the gay rights movement and infused it with their radical feminist agenda. They immediately began bullying the gay men connected to LGBT into working against their own interests by doing things like—oh, I don’t know—protesting conferences that focus on their own rights as men.
This same post has Paul Elam trying to account for the virulent misandry in the work of trans-woman Men’s Studies scholar Raewyn Connell by speculating that it could be connected to the self-loathing she felt when she was a man. Something must be driving this trans-woman’s seething hatred of men, and if someone has a better suggested explanation than that offered by Elam, they are more than welcome to share it.
Before moving on to discuss the accusations against Senator Cools, it is important to point out that this is the sum total of the so-called evidence that Futrelle has gathered to prove the existence of what he calls AVfM’s “anti-gay agenda.” After years of tirelessly sifting through the thousands of articles and comments on this site, this is all he has: Paul Elam welcoming gay men as men deserving of human rights, denouncing a homophobic bigot, and taking a trans-woman to task for her rampant misandry; Dean Esmay stating that he is a long-time supporter of gay and lesbian rights; and me, for making many of the same points made by John Lauritson, Stonewall organizer and founder of the modern gay rights movement, who was actually there when the radical feminist lesbians literally barged in carrying the same 2x4s they still use today to argue that LGBT has been cynically exploited by ideologues who couldn’t care less about the rights of any men—gays included.
Even accounting for Futrelle’s famously low standards, this collection of “evidence” is pretty pathetic.
Senator Cools opposed adding “sexual orientation” to hate speech legislation in Canada for exactly the same reasons that I would vehemently oppose any such legislation in my country of residence. It is an attack on freedom of speech. It is exactly the kind of attack that feminists are currently levelling against the MHRM. Anyone who does not understand that such legislation can be used as a weapon to punish those who dare to express unapproved opinions, and to invoke fear of doing so, fails to fully grasp the lengths that ideologues, like David Futrelle, are prepared to go to impose their version of utopia onto the rest of humanity.
One can only shudder at the ease with which criticism of LGBT, the nonsense that is queer theory, and gay men protesting a men’s conference could be interpreted as “hate speech against sexual orientation.” Futrelle interpreted AVfM’s inclusion of gay men as evidence of homophobia, and does the same with Senator Cool’s vigorous defense of free speech. He dismisses it by sneering that “the passage of the bill in question did not lead to millions of Canadians being rounded up and arrested.” It will probably never happen, but the groundwork for such an eventuality should never have been laid in the first place—and Senator Anne Cools was one of the only people in Canada with the integrity to point it out.
Senator Cools drove home the dangers of legislating against hate speech based on sexual orientation by referring to “a document called the Journal of Homosexuality, particularly, volume 20 in 1990,” in which the subject of the entire volume was “pedophilia and male intergenerational intimacy, historical, social, psychological and legal perspectives.” She pointedly asked if such legislation would legally forbid anyone from criticizing any of the articles it contained, such as “Man-Boy Relationships.”
In one fell stroke, Senator Cools exposed the perils of exempting an entire demographic from criticism. It could give immunity to individuals within that demographic from receiving strident condemnation when it is genuinely warranted. Predictably, Futrelle insinuates that Senator Cools connected homosexuality to pedophilia, and all but froths at the mouth in his attempt to do so. Senator Cools did nothing of the kind, which Futrelle knows very well. There is no limit to the deceit in which he will engage to discredit anyone connected to the MHRM.
Senator Cools doesn’t believe that morals should be subject to legislation either. She contended that such legislation would expose “millions of Canadians … who hold moral opinions about sexuality, to criminal prosecution.” These are the “windows into people’s souls” that Elizabeth I believed the state had no right, or need, to peer into. Those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds—whether those grounds are religious, philosophical, or simply personal—have every right to do so. Unless they impede the rights and welfare of others, one’s morals are nobody’s business but one’s own.
Mankind should welcome living in this age, where we are finally free to debate the relative merits of our moral positions without the fear of the kind of reprisals so familiar throughout much of human history. Implementing hate speech legislation would cast us back into the Dark Ages when such freedom was forbidden—the Age of Enlightenment would have been for nothing.
Futrelle focuses a great deal on Senator Cools’ supposed objection to gay marriage by referring to her fascinating presentation to the Canadian Senate.
It is a passionate and comprehensive examination of marriage from an historical, social, biological, religious, and legal perspective in an effort to define marriage as a concept and a practice. It is a no-holds-barred attempt to understand what marriage is, and what it actually means—something I would have thought was rather imperative while discussing legislation that would redefine it as dramatically as including same-sex marriage. Senator Cools’ perspective, and David Futrelle’s condemnation of it, can be summed up with this quote from her presentation:
“Human life is so vital and the man-woman sexual act in procreation is so pivotal that the body of law called the law of marriage buttressed this sexual act. It did so because the law understood that lust, 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.”
Whichever way you look at it, this is a fair and reasonable summation of why marriage was instituted and how it is still widely perceived within society. You would have to be a bit of a fool to object to Senator Cool’s contention that homosexuals do not engage in sex for the purpose of procreation, or that it isn’t a good idea to place one’s trust in lust, or that lust contains “no public interest or public good”—and you would have to be a complete moron to find evidence of homophobia in what are some glaringly obvious truths. Futrelle has managed to do both.
It may come as a surprise to Futrelle, but I don’t know any gay men who engage in sex with their partners in the hope of one of them becoming pregnant. I’ll hazard a guess that Futrelle doesn’t know any either. For most gay men, sex is pretty much centred around lust—and, of course, an opportunity to express affection. This is just a plain and simple fact—and has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia.
Futrelle has attempted to besmirch the reputation of Senator Anne Cools, a brave and outspoken advocate for the rights and welfare of men and boys, with a false accusation that she is a homophobe who supports “a bigoted agenda.” I hope the good senator takes heart in the knowledge that Futrelle has levelled the same accusation against me, a gay man who doesn’t follow the feminist-approved script either. It is all part of his own agenda of spreading disinformation about anyone connected with the MHRM in order to discredit it as a legitimate human rights movement.
Futrelle’s methods of deception have become so familiar to the readers of AVfM that it has become commonplace to dismiss him as an irrelevant and pathetic buffoon. His attempt to smear Senator Cools on the eve of her appearance at the International Conference on Men’s Issues is an outrage that proves him to be an inveterate liar who will stop at nothing in his dedicated campaign to derail it. He is doomed to fail in this venture but still deserves the sternest of rebukes for pulling such a shabby stunt.
Full marks to Janet Bloomfield (a.k.a. JudgyBitch) for standing her ground against the kind of shame-laden bullying for which feminists, like David Futrelle, are notorious. The accusation of homophobia particularly rankles because it continues to be made without any evidence whatsoever to support it—and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am one of many gay/bisexual men and women who proudly support AVfM and its goals precisely because, as Paul Elam made crystal clear, it considers “men as human beings, regardless of their sexuality.”
AVfM also staunchly supports freedom of speech. This means that even if Senator Anne Cools really did oppose gay marriage, she would have every damn right to say so—and I would support that right. It still wouldn’t make her a homophobe.
You see, that’s how we roll at AVfM. Unlike David Futrelle, we actually practice what we preach—a concept that a hopelessly bigoted ideologue like him would never understand.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment