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.)
Tulgey Logger,
You’re talking about unrelated issues, of women being treated harshly under Islamic law when they break those laws. The men get the same treatment – and yes, I am against such brutality, and all forms of sex segregation. See how easy it is?
Now, back to the topic in hand, are you for or against the mahr, or women’s right to keep their earnings whilst men must share theirs?
yall realize that mikey just doesnt really know that many words, right?
Sharculese, that’s clearly a vile paranoid strawman of hypocritical projection.
@Tom Martin:
So women in Islam are allowed to work (“allowed” by whom?) as long as their primary role as mother and wife isn’t interrupted? Well buckle my shoes, equality is just fine.
Now to read back and see WTF this thing with Mahr is.
Worst. Netflix. Queue. Ever.
that must be frustrating for you, since you never strain to conflate unrelated things
“Women in Islam are allowed to work:…”
Under highly restrictive conditions. Which is not wtf I meant, and that really should’ve been damned obvious (then again, you have an amazing ability to ignore the obvious).
“…but this is purely symbolic patriarchalism…”
*cackles* oh this is going to be fun!
In seriousness Tom, do you not see the damned problem with women being allowed to work if:
1) there is financial need, and
2) it does not neglect her roles as mother and wife (note the and there, that means even if she’d starve if she doesn’t work, being a wife and mother comes first) and
3) the work is in a Muslim atmosphere, and
4) does not violate Islamic law, and
5) maintains her “modesty” (modesty is where the burqa comes from btw)
And then we have another claim that wtf the Quran says is exactly wtf is actually happening, when no, it really isn’t (the burqa? it isn’t in there; FGM? “if you cut, cut mildly” = a close as that comes to being “required”) — there’s a reason for “non-primary source needed” in other words.
“So, there are no countries where women are not allowed to work. Now, do you recommend doing away with the mahr?”
Oi, I apparently need to always use tiny words with you, or Tulgey’s right, I’ll just create more errors. I’d recommend women be able to work in jobs they choose, that have equal chances of supporting them and their families, as the jobs men can choose.
Clear enough now?
Btw, are honor killings just symbolic murder? This whole “the husband must please his wife thing”, it doesn’t work that way in actual practice.
I dunno, it sounds like a blooper collection of ass whoopings to me. I’d chuckle
@Tom
Why don’t you go to a Muslim country, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and live among the people for several months, and see for yourself the type of priviliges and freedoms women enjoy? Maybe then you won’t sound like such an ignorant asshat.
The fact that you believe these countries are a W***iarchy just shows the lengths you will go to preserve your precious concept of men’s oppression and your hatred of powerful women. Blind faith propels you to file your silly lawsuits, and bark your “ideas” on the internet, and no amount of facts will persuade you to ever see reality. Because, after all, what else do you have to live for?
Tommy: You are labouring under the false premise, that Muslim women can’t go out and spend their money on what they like
No. You are under the false impression that women run the world. All of Islam isn’t living in the UK. Now, most of the Islamic world isn’t Saudi Arabia, but in Saudi, for one example, Taliban controlled Afghanistan for another, some parts of Baghdad these days, etc., a woman who goes out without her husband’s permission… as Tulgey pointed out, is punished, beaten, even executed.
That means she can’t spend the money. It also means she can’t earn that money you say she gets to keep.
You, instead, blather about “renouncing prostitution in all its forms” and “female privilege” and how hard chairs are discriminatory to men and that kids can give informed consent to sex at seven; which is them preying on pedophiles.
You are delusional. So the real question isn’t what I’m going to do, or say, it’s are you going to get help with dispensing with your delusions.
One of which seems to be that you are making a documentaries. How did the filming go this weekend? How’s the editing going? Gonna be able to pay that £37,000 bill anytime soon?
god i cant wait for toms video
i mean i know its not gonna happen but i really wanna see it
… Why does Tom believe that feminists would support a practice heavily entrenched in gender roles, in which a new wife gets a one-time piece of spending money in trade for having her life dictated by another person? And why does he belive that that’s an example of how women hold power over men?
Tom, pet owners are obligated by law in some places to pick up after their pets feces. Does that mean that the pets in question actually have power over their owners? No. It means that the pet owners are owners of their pets, and are therefore responsible for them.
Women, and especially female partners, should not be pets. They should be people.
OBJECTIVELY, they’re men, but SUBJECTIVELY-
no, i do too understand the words i use. stop fucking laughing at me! that’s MISANRY!
imma go start a blog about how much you guys suck and then give up on it when i realize nobody cares
@Tom
Pecunium wrote:
“You are delusional. So the real question isn’t what I’m going to do, or say, it’s are you going to get help with dispensing with your delusions.”
This, Tom. You have to be aware, at least on some level, that you are completely delusional and that your ideas have no connection to reality. Now, are you ever going to get help? Because the rest of the world will never align with your highly warped perspective.
Hmm. The internet seems to think that there are a whole bunch of different sects of Islam, with very differing ideas about what the rules are, and how much autonomy people, including women have. But Tom Martin thinks they’re all one giant, monolithic, matriarchal mass who will all react the same way.
It’s almost like, instead of doing some research to prepare for his “documentaries” so as to gain some real insight, he’s talking out his ass in order to justify punishing women for being hoors.
@Tom
And really, Tom, we shouldn’t even be discussing your “ideas,” because that is just giving you the impression that they are real and important enough to talk about. They aren’t.
I’d like to see Tom trying to take a human development course, and try to patiently explain to the professor how why yes, children are perfectly capable of making rational decisions at 7 years old, about the time when they’re just starting to figure out that if you pour water from one glass into another differently shaped glass, you still have the same amount of water.
And those rational decisions would be about sex, made at a point in time where they haven’t even begun developing sexual characteristics. About a topic that even adults make uninformed decisions about. A topic where you really can’t even be expected to know what you’re doing until about the third time through.
How is your butt, Tom? Chairs still giving you a hard time?
“Tom, pet owners are obligated by law in some places to pick up after their pets feces. Does that mean that the pets in question actually have power over their owners? No. It means that the pet owners are owners of their pets, and are therefore responsible for them.”
Thank you for that, the much simpler version of what I was trying to say about mahr is that I’d be okay with doing away with it (or picking up dog feces) when women (or dogs) can actually support themselves.
And now I need brain bleach, preferably not puppies.
Unimaginative: It’s almost like, instead of doing some research to prepare for his “documentaries” so as to gain some real insight, he’s talking out his ass in order to justify punishing women for being hoors.
You understand it perfectly.
@Argenti:
Nom nom nom nom nom nom nom. Nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom. Nom nom nom nom nom nom.
(That song cannot be done justice through the lyrices)
“How is your butt, Tom? Chairs still giving you a hard time?”
What was the cushion thing called again? Some of us might like to invest in one. (The rest of us have heard of pillows, but yeah, let’s go back to Tom’s butt, it might be his least disgusting topic…that or penguins)
Actually, my office has these really neat bungie chairs. They are chairs literally made out of a bunch of brightly colored bungie cords. Surprisingly comfortable! Though I do have my eye on trying out that “standing desk” thing some day… Might be a bit better on my health.
@Argenti Aertheri: “Btw, are honor killings just symbolic murder? This whole “the husband must please his wife thing”, it doesn’t work that way in actual practice.”
He blames honor killings on the mothers sending out a son or husband to kill their children. I kid you not. Look here:
Tom Martin: “As with so-called ‘honour killings’ we know that it is the female elders, desperately trying to keep up with the Joness, regarding what class of family their off-spring should marry, mothers who deem it a crime against the family’s honour when their off-spring choose a mate from the wrong class, then it is the young men of her clan who are ordered to carry out the honour-killings. Pure back-seat driving, and backward victim-femalist thinking, to pretend the women who are financially served, are not the ones calling the shots, stabbings, and burials – in order to maintain the whoriachy they’ve grown accustomed to.
Responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies primarily with the queen whore mother, then the obedient father, the wannabe whore daughter, and finally, the blamed for everything son. ”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/09/tom-martin-on-whoriarchy/#comment-8807
Tom Martin officially has abdicated reality and renounced it in all it’s forms.
tom ‘all women are the same (slutty) woman’ martin is also a huge racist? perish the thought!
BUNNY!!! D’AWWW (bunnies, like kitties, cause you’re a kitty!)