The Lighter Side of Tom Martin (the repulsive British MRA)
Not Tom Martin
The other day we took a look at some of the more reprehensible opinions of Tom Martin, one of the UK’s most prominent Men’s Rights Activists and a man who evidently believes that child prostitutes are taking the easy way out to avoid having to get real jobs. He returned with even worse stuff, which I highlighted in my previous post.
Happily for all of us, not all of Martin’s views are this reprehensible. Many are merely ridiculous. So, today, let’s look at the Lighter Side of Tom Martin, as evidenced by some of his recent comments here on Man Boobz.
Martin apparently spent last Sunday working on a video project which involved him buttonholing passers-by on the streets of London and asking them questions in order to “prove” his various crackpot theories about gender. Here’s how he explained one aspect of his video research:
After shooting my video experiment tomorrow to discover who is more sexist on the street, women or women, I will be shooting another short, investigating if there is a correlation between unfunny women and prostitution ethic. I believe women could be as funny as men on average if they tried, but instead, invest in whoring strategies. I have a reliable street experiment to investigate this hypothesis also …
If I can establish that women can be as funny as men (in a zero prostitution environment), then this video experiment will be released in a news piece, and used as a springboard to pre-sell the feature-length documentary it will form a part of, on a related topic.
Good luck with that!
Martin also took on the contentious (to him) subject of male baldness, a topic of intense interest to him, due to certain factors with regard to gender and misandry … er, long story short, he’s bald. Sorry, balding.
After one commenter here suggested that Martin’s ambition was to become a sort of “Ann Coulter … with less hair and more swearing,” he took umbrage – not at the comparison to Coulter but at the bit about hair.
Well Cassandra, there are five new baldness treatments in the pipeline, but no drugs for treating a receding personality, so what are you going to do?
In a followup comment, the man whose favorite word in the English language is “whore,” used as an insult, declared we were being a bunch of evil meanies for even mentioning the whole (lack of) hair thing:
Cassandra, thanks to your receding personality (for which there is already a cure – renunciation therapy), I have decided for my filmed experiment tomorrow to also measure the degree to which each sex is prepared to make physical insults about the other sex.
Even if you specifically were fat for instance, and it was all your own fault because you refuse to get a job, I would never mention it in a debate with you. I debated an obese woman once. She ordered a pizza whilst we were still on stage, but I did not refer to it at the time, because of the most basic standards of decorum.
This I believe was an attempt at a joke.
How many manboobzers are prepared now to concur that Cassandra was being a douche by picking on an involuntary physiological characteristic of a debating opponent? And then encouraging others to do the same?
Of course, in Martin’s mind, mocking women as fat whores is totally cool, because:
Fatness is a choice, ladies, and so is being a whore. Going bald (currently) is not, due to poor efficacy of available treatments, including transplants. That will change, if Aderans, Histogen, Replicel, Allergen and Tsuji-Lab among others have anything to do with it. All you need to do in the meantime is shut the fuck up until they sort it out. The apparent acceptability of attacking the bald though, is a great example of the lack of equality men have. People do not generally attack or humiliate women who are going bald – but when it’s a man…
Uh, yeah, that’s why virtually every bald or balding woman wears a hat or a wig, while bald or balding men just comb it over or shave it all off.
Evidently Martin feels that even a mention of his lack of hair is some kind of hate crime. Here, prominent Bald Rights Activist Larry David tries to convince authorities to investigate a similar hate crime against him.
Note to Martin: Larry David’s show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is fictional.
(Note: Tom Martin has confirmed that this is indeed him posting comments here on Man Boobz by sending an email from the account associated with his website Sexismbusters.org. Also, he’s retweeted quotes from his comments here. Contact him via his web site if you are skeptical.)
Posted on July 16, 2012, in antifeminism, evil fat fatties, hypocrisy, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, misandry, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, Tom Martin, whores. Bookmark the permalink. 651 Comments.
I really want to know what questions he was going to ask.
“After shooting my video experiment tomorrow to discover who is more sexist on the street, women or women…”
Is this a Freudian slip?
Oh great, now every angry sexist on the internet is going to want to scream at me.
Bald Rights Activist makes for an OK, somewhat ironic acronym, but is there any way we can turn it into BRO?
Bald Rights Organizer?
Or, more broadly,
Belittler of Real Oppression?
Whoa. Apropo.
or, “aprobro”, if you will
Bald Rights Operative.
SEE THE CONSPIRACY
So did he ever post his epic masterpiece?
As I understand it, he has not made his epic masterpiece. I could be wrong, though, in which case links plz!
It would be impressive if a competent person had recorded the video had it ready to put out the next day.
And Tom Martin is not a competent person.
“I believe women could be as funny as men on average if they tried, but instead, invest in wh-ring strategies.”
o.0
That’s a sexy pic of Telly.
He’s too busy out BROing to post it online for our amusement, I guess.
ahahaha, THIS IS THE BEST. I thought the intense hurt in his load bearing buttock pads was the best, but this is the best. This is pretty much genius comic writing. He’s like one of Bertie Wooster’s less prepossessing friends, only real.
If only it weren’t for the hideous remarks about child prostitutes, I would find the fact that Tom Martin exists to be utterly delightful.
He’s unintentionally hilarious isn’t he. Like a character from Little Britain
Is there a reason you have the disclaimer at the bottom of all the Tom Martin posts that it really is Tom Martin? Was he trying to deny he said these things? Just wondering what’s up with that. I’m sort of hoping there’s a good story.
Between the horror of the last post and this it seems that Tom is genuinely unwell. It’s really taken all the fun out of mocking him now. I kinda just hope he has a close friend who can convince him to get some serious and professional help.
Probably just to preempt any skepticism that it’s really him. He’s saying some pretty awful things after all, and someone is bound to accuse David (or feminists in general) of faking it to make Tom look bad. Not that it would stop them doing that necessarily.
It’s a valid concern, given Martin’s (technically) a(n) (obscure) public figure and the posts/comments are being attributed to his real name. David made sure it was the real Martin from the outset, as I recall, and at least one BRO has asked about it since.
I think the disclaimer is just for our own edification because nothing David could say would ever be taken seriously by those types. I know I’m still 25% skeptical that anyone (even an MRA) could say these things, tie them to his real name, and think they’re worth repeating on twitter.
Tom Martin is just plain weird.
I’d say that “weird” is the least of Tom’s problems.
So the way this film experiment would work if he got off his aching ass and did it, which he won’t, is:
— If he judges the men funnier than the women, that proves that women are less clever than men, and therefore women suck (a.k.a. the popular Hitchens Postulate).
— If he judges the women funnier than the men, that proves that women could be clever but choose not to in order to work as prostitutes instead, with “prostitute” defined as “woman who does literally anything other than working for Tom Martin for free,” and therefore women suck.
He is a funny little man. Except for all the child molestation stuff.
My feelings exactly. Tom Martin ruined Tom Martin.
I thought when women went bald, at least after chemotherapy, it was a choice, isn’t that what a fellow MRA suggested, that women get cancer because their personalities ate so toxic? All hail rational man!
Holy. Balds. Congrats, Tom Martin, on confirming not only that you have the maturity of a third grader, but that you have no idea how to conduct a proper study of any sort. I mean seriously, every time I read this I have to put a big raspberry at the end!
This really goes to show how adult you need to be out in the real world to make noise and file lawsuits. Not at all.
Hmm. Didn’t David have a post about an MRA idiot mocking modern women specifically for losing their hair. Why, I believe he did.
There has been entirely too much Tom Martin around here lately. I’ll be glad when he oozes away.
if you mean the post where he accurately pointed out that dkm delighted in feminist women getting cancer, then yes. but hair loss wasnt exactly the central thing there.
(hint: it was the cancer.)
Since he kept saying such awful crap, I felt obliged to keep sharing it with the world. But I’ve really had about as much of him as I can take.
It’s all rather amazing to me.
Tom Martin: *says horrible thing*
David Futrelle: Wow, world, look at this horrible thing Tom Martin said!
Tom Martin: Yeah, pretty much. Also, *more horrible things*
How can you make fun of someone by pointing out absurdity when they respond by saying “yeah, that’s exactly right”?
I remember that, Sharcules, but there was also the other fool who decided that modern women are troubled by thinning hair as no generation ever before, because he saw a lot of volumizing products in the drug store.
It’s really sad that he makes me wish for some good, old-fashioned Paul Elam batshittery.
@Sniper:
Got a link?
http://manboobz.com/2011/11/18/this-just-in-girls-are-stinky/
Here it is!
Oh, I have a somewhat relevent question actually. Did Tom ever say anything about how many men were w-s in his estimation? Cause I remember him saying 98% for manboobzers, and some percentage of us are male…
Reading old comment threads makes me feel nostalgic.
…That’s weird, right?
Seconding what kirbywarp said. Up to last week, I have never witnessed a shitty person gloat over their shittiness before and then be shocked, SHOCKED, when people call them out on it.
Oh, wait. That’s pretty much the M.O. of half the trolls who come here.
@Sniper:
Thanks! It’s all coming back to me now. What a strange stream of consciousness that was…
I want to know what a ‘prostitution-free environment’ is, seeing as 97% of women are w-s.
Does he get his two maiden aunts, three nuns, and a ‘stereotypical cat lady’ wearing a chastity belt, and make then perform stand-up or something? How would you measure the comedy? I mean, would there be a panel of judges, audience vote (wait, are the audience w-s?), or some kind of lol-o-meter?
“Reading old comment threads makes me feel nostalgic.
…That’s weird, right?”
If that’s weird, at least you aren’t hurting anyone. :D
It stuck in my head because I collect old books about home economics and there are plenty of home remedies for female pattern baldness that precede first wave feminism. I mean, I know these idiots have no grasp of history or, well, reality, but that seemed particularly lazy.
oh, yeah, sorry.
What is a w anyway according to Tom? Did he ever give a clear definition, or was it all just “I’ve learned how to make a swear so I’m just gonna keep on saying it because you all are stinky?”
@kirbywarp
The frustrating thing about Tom is that he would never define the W word, or explain what “prostitution in all its forms” actually entitled. He just kept repeating himself, as though the phrase was magical and it would hypnotise us into agreeing with him.
@ kirby
He recently offered to make a video explaining his definition, which would only be accessible to those who paid a fee.
@fembot:
I see. I’ll just mentally replace w with “nice person” whenever I read his writing then.
Wow… Tom Martin has a real hate-on for nice people…
I’m pretty sure Tommy has a hate-on for everyone.
And he wants us all to renounce being nice.
I go away for one weekend and you all have a Tom Martin fest.
“Oh, I have a somewhat relevent question actually. Did Tom ever say anything about how many men were w-s in his estimation? Cause I remember him saying 98% for manboobzers, and some percentage of us are male…”
I asked him exactly that already, file it under “questions Tom ignored”. I really do need that number to calculate what % of manboobzers are male, in his mind, and I’m frikken’ curious!
Katz, we just can’t have nice things.
I wrote:
The frustrating thing about Tom is that he would never define the W word, or explain what “prostitution in all its forms” actually *entitled.
* that should say entailed. How embarrassing :(
I wasn’t just being random, with the old comments thread thing. I was reading the link sniper put up. Meller was amusingly Meller-ish.
He’s like those people that sell you a substance that “detoxifies” your system by getting rid of all the stuff that hardens in your colon because you just swallowed something hardens in the colon.
Ladies, are you afraid you might be in the 97% of women who are all whores? Order my Dewhoreifer 8000 for only $19.99 you can de-prostitute your life! You can renounce ancient Egyptian temple whores! Being a mistress! You’ll be free from bordellos, brothels and modern redlight districts! Order now, and we’ll throw in the pint-size de-child-whorer!*
*Just pay separate shipping and handling.
Sounds like Tom is so repellant, even his hair wants to get away from him. Upon reading all this crap from him, all I could think of was this:
Speaking of men, and hair:
LOL!!! I liked that one!
Well, my understanding, from all his rantings and ravings, is that a “goddess” (I like Ithiliana’s suggestion for replacement word for the W word, so I’m gonna use it) is someone who accepts anything (a gift, a paid meal, a paid movie ticket, etc., etc.) from the person with whom they are having (or with whom they will be having) sexual relations. Especially repugnant of the “goddesses” are the “housegoddesses” (i.e., housewives, stay-at-home-moms, who are not gainfully employed outside of the domestic sphere) because look at all the free stuff they get (room and board, clothing, etc.) in exchange for the sexual relations that they provide. So prostitution in all its forms would be just that… not only the self-identified sex workers, but accepting anything offered from a person with whom one is having or will have sexual relations.
What about government largesse?
I guess that might depend upon whether the bestower(s) received any sexual favours from the recipient(s).
He said any woman who received “government largesse” was a w.
It’s sorta like owly’s whinging about how it’s only men who have to actually WORK, and work at all the dirty and dangerous jobs, in order to put food on the table, bla bla bla, whereas a woman need only sit in the middle of the street and cry in order for food, money, gifts, etc., to rain down on her like manna from heaven. For Tom’s whinging, just replace “sit in the middle of the street and cry” with “flash some pussy”.
Then if a woman is not sexually active or dating or in a relationship she can’t be a W. But since most women in relationships or dating recieve (and give) gifts from their partner, they are Ws. Wow. How would a forty year marriage look if neither party gave gifts for its entire duration? Probably not very happy.
So what about men who’re on the dole?
(Which I rather suspect Tom must be, given some of the hours he’s been posting at.)
Hmmmmmmm…. I may have missed that one….
Okay, so any woman who receives “government largesse” is receiving something without actually WORKING for it, and since it’s mainly men who do what is actually considered as WORK, only those men (and possibly a few token women) are required to pay taxes to said government. The “goddess” is probably fucking at least one of those men who has to pay taxes of which the government largesse is comprised.
I’m sure that he could come up with some type of special rider for that situation, if said woman is not doing any form of what he considers to be actual WORK for whatever it is that she is receiving.
He may give them a penis pass, especially if he is one of them.
I do not think that Tom understands what a “gift” means- it means that you give something to someone else without expecting anything in return. It is a kind gesture, not an exchange of items for actions.
Or does he expect that every time his parents give him a present for his birthday that they expect sexual favors in return?
I get gifts for my husband all the time. Does that make him my strumpet?
If your husband is giving you sexytimes, then I think the answer, in Tom’s world, would be “Yes”.