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.)
Pot, meet kettle.
Wow Tom, nice failure to grasp the point. The point, in small words, was that a mahr is symbolic of the ability to support a family. I fucking get that they’re real money/property/goods, what they are not is, however, is enough to actually support a family. Ergo they are symbolic of that ability.
Right, small words…
Ergo = Thus
I just want it recorded for posterity that Steele acknowledges that Owly is an MRA, and not a secret feminist mole. Apparently, the “true Scotsman” line falls somewhere in between “says that little girls only wear swimsuits to the beach because they’re trying to seduce adult men, which is terrible and slutty of them” and “says children should be punished for victimizing pedophiles.”
Wait…Steele is on NWOslave’s side, but not Tom Martins?!
I…just…Steele, do you have any self-awareness at all? Do you even know what he believes?
“is, however, is” = repetitive, please ignore an “is” there, either one works, but only one is needed.
Polliwog — either that or Steele/Varpole is unfamiliar with NWO’s thoughts on teenage girls? Oh…no…it’s that Tom’s rant included boys. NWO only comments on teenage girls, Tom also thinks boys should be punished.
Oh Steele, you’re taking your cues from NWO now? “Women should be beaten in the street because justice!” NWO? “Women make men rape them by wearing the wrong clothes!” NWO? “Eight-year-olds in swimsuits are dirty sluts!” NWO?
I already knew you didn’t give two shits about equality, but thanks for remove all possible doubt. Oh, and good trying to pull a No True Scotsman ever again.
Yeah, I’m waaaaay too poor right now to join Mensa myself, but one of my best friends who is lucky enough to have a trust fund not infrequently brings me along to Mensa events, and I must admit they’re often pretty fun. If I had his financial resources, I’d probably join, too, but in the meantime, I’m okay with finding more impoverished nerds to hang out with. 🙂
Argenti Aertheri,
The Mahr can be symbolically small, but usually it is a substantial amount proportionate to the wealth of the groom. A tax-free lump some gift to the woman, but a compulsory gift.
Are you defending the mahr? Yes or no?
Which manboobzers want to defend the mahr? Put your names to it!
Also, which manboobzers want to keep the law which says Muslim wives can keep their earnings whilst husbands must provide for the whole family? Names please.
I am seriously afraid that this is precisely his issue.
Tom Martin, context matters. You keep pulling things out as if they exist in a vacuum, and expect us to judge them that way. They are not. Many things are intertwined with culture, economics, history, religion, and the freaking weather.
There is no such thing as a particle in a box, that doesn’t interact with other particles. Everything affects everything.
Things are complex. Learn to deal with that.
I wonder why these two aren’t going at each other.
Maybe… could it be… they find each other even more boring than we do?
NWO “if evolution were true we’d have superdogs?”
Steele, can you explain why Tom is not a MRA but NWOslave is a MRA? I am so curious.
Tom, like literally on this same page, you idiot:
Tommy-Boy: The Mahr can be symbolically small, but usually it is a substantial amount proportionate to the wealth of the groom. A tax-free lump some gift to the woman, but a compulsory gift.
A gift that she can’t really spend, because to go out in public without a male relative is forbidden. So if her husband refuses to let her out… the money is pretty much his to use as he sees fit.
Hence the symbolism of it.
Tom — no one here, least of all you, actually wants my thoughts on what ideal-land would look like. As for simple answers though, I already answered that one.
“Are you defending the mahr? Yes or no?”
“…and neither is going to find much support from feminists.”
So no, I was providing the definition you’d asked for. I would not, however, do away with it in cultures/countries where women are not allowed to work, since it is intended to allow her some means of surviving if her husband dies. Which, as I’m sure you know, does sometimes happen, death being inevitable and all.
Oh, right, I momentarily forgot you think that any woman who accepts anything from a man is a wh*re. So question then, should women be allowed to work outside the home? Yes or no?
(And fuck Tom, “Yes or no only” is cross exam style, as I’m sure you know by now, don’t expect me to answer another one of those, seeing how I’m not on the stand…not unless I get direct exam where I can explain first)
@Pecunium; fascinating list of times Steele spent posting (hardly time in between some of those for forty crunches).
And he cannot even begin to respond to it other than by calling you names.
Why do these dudez not realize EVDENCE is left and time dated and stamped and there for anybody to look at if they wish!
*snickers*
Pecunium — symbolism is a big word for Tom! …and there’s a Boondock Saints clip for this problem… (for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie, this clip is um, rather bloody, it’s the aftermath of the mass murder of a bunch of mobsters)
http://youtu.be/lG_OezlTZ1A
Steele: Pecunium: You really are a pretentious asshole, aren’t you?
Nothing pretentious about it. I am gov’t trained professional asshole. I’m also efficient at it.
You’ve claimed a lot of things, several of them contradict themselves. Some are obviously false. It took me ten minutes to find/copy/paste the times.
You said you, “efficiently” post while at work. You have some pretty strange work hours, or you lied. I don’t post from work: At all. That means I’m not stealing from my employer.
You can’t say the same (unless, of course, you were lying).
You also said you were really smart, but not smart enough to find a way to keep your mewling tirades (rant seems overused) interesting.
It took me two minutes to come up with that list of words/phrases to change out for “vile”. A truly smart person reads the audience, and tailors the message. If you’d actually tried to make a more subtle case, you could have gotten agreement about things which do harm men. You could have argued for social pressures to conform. You could have bemoaned that women aren’t allowed to fully participate in things like front line combat.
The problem is… that undercuts the inane idea that men are oppressed. And you are wedded to that. It’s a problem for you. The only people who are willing to agree with that formulation of the problem (the expectation of gender conformity) are the MRAs, and they are rape apologists, and abuse apologists, and homophobic, and transphobic.
And those are the better ones. The not so better ones are the Tom Martins, and the Paul Elams, and the Eivind Berges, and the Peter Nolan©s: the actual abuse/rape enablers and advocates.
And… most importantly (to me) it’s clear you don’t have any real response to any of the things I said; including the part where you are hoist… either Tom is an MRA, or misandry isn’t really a thing (that or the brilliant feminist conspiracy is too stupid to know that they could lose a case; because misandry is a thing. That one, however, pretty much shoots your sooper-sekrit-conspiracy dead).
You are a one trick pony (doggedly cussed; this is your third bite at the apple. You came in as Varpole, became Anti-Manboobz, and when that was more than you could hack you became, “Steele”), but you don’t have depth.
You are, it seems, fundamentally too decent to stick with the MRM, because IT. IS. FULL. OF. TOM. MARTINS. Some of them are less over the top (or so over the top in other ways [see Meller, David K. or Slave, NWO] that the horror of what they believe is harder to suss out.
But if you follow the links in the posts and comments; you will see more of the same. The sad thing is, we don’t cherry pick.
Your movement is that full of people who are that fucked up.
@Torvus Butthorn
We know it’s easy for you to just call Pecunium pretentious instead of actually refuting anything he says, but come on, can’t you put in some effort? It also shows that you are aware that he is much smarter than you. He is way out of your league.
You do read, don’t you Tom?
I was going to link to a story about a woman in Saudi Arabia being whipped for driving, or another story of a 75 year old woman being whipped for mingling with men unrelated to her, or I might have brought up the lack of Islamic basis for blasphemy laws that multiple Islamic nations nonetheless implement—but then I remembered I’m dealing with a guy who earnestly believes that child prostitutes prey on adult pedophiles, that Saudi Arabia is a Whoriarchy, and that 97% of women (and probably penguin women) are prostitutes. I realized that even if I successfully demonstrated the error of confusing the law for the practice, and of written religion for practiced/interpreted religion, I would probably only succeed in creating a completely new error in his mind which would be impossible to dislodge. This error would build on his other errors, creating so many additional errors that new energy would literally be forced to come into existence, thus setting off a chain reaction that would lay waste to half of the planet.
And I thought: I should really save that for some other time.
How’s your butt, Tom?
Argenti Aertheri,
Women in Islam are allowed to work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam
Women are allowed to work in Islam, subject to certain conditions, such as if a woman is in financial need and her employment does not cause her to neglect her role as a mother and wife.[33][34] It has been claimed that it is the responsibility of the Muslim community to organize work for women, so that she can do so in a Muslim cultural atmosphere, where her rights (as set out in the Qur’an) are respected.[34] Islamic law however, permits women to work in Islamic conditions.[34]
The work should not require the man or the woman to violate Islamic law (e.g., serving alcohol), and be mindful of the woman’s safety.
If the work requires the woman to leave her home, she must maintain her ‘modesty’ just as with men.
An indicator of the attitude of the Qur’an to women in the workplace can be seen in the quotes regarding working women. These are the examples of two female shepherds Qur’an 28:23,[non-primary source needed] and Muhammad’s first wife Khadijah, who was an eminent businesswoman. Khadijah is called up as a role model for females in the Qur’an.[34][35]
Argenti, you will often hear Muslims say that women can work outside the home “if the husband allows it”, but this is purely symbolic patriarchalism, as Muslim men are obliged to make their wives happy, so if the wife wants to work, the husband doesn’t really have any choice in the matter.
So, there are no countries where women are not allowed to work. Now, do you recommend doing away with the mahr?
… and the law on women keeping their earnings whilst men must share theirs?
Pecunium,
You are labouring under the false premise, that Muslim women can’t go out and spend their money on what they like. Again, they need their menfolk’s permission to go out, but it is only symbolic. The husband must make his wife happy. The only time a Muslim man will put his foot down and say a woman can’t go somewhere, is when he thinks she might be in danger from doing so – the shopping mall is not on the list of dangerous places she can’t go.
But here is where feminism reaches its limits of usefulness, Not one of you will either put your name to supporting female privilege, or removing it. All you’re doing… is nothing as usual.
That’s why a documentary on Muslim women’s and men’s attitudes to female privilege has just been added to the list. If you want something changed, don’t ask a manboobzer.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
whine recognize whine
@fembot,
@Torvus Butthorn
We know it’s easy for you to just call Pecunium pretentious instead of actually refuting anything he says, but come on, can’t you put in some effort? It also shows that you are aware that he is much smarter than you. He is way out of your league.
Messrs Dunning and Kruger…paging Messrs Dunning and Kruger to the white courtesy telephone please.
Okay, prediction time: Will Steele desperately backpedal on this characterization of NWO as a “fellow MRA” or will he pull a Eurosabra-esque “Well, he has some good ideas and some bad ideas?”
Personally, I think the two of them will bond over their mutual belief that David wields unfathomable power by virtue of running a blog.