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.)
“…and try and give us a slogan you could fit onto a placard.”
Some might say you are a…
Sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
Cowardly, illitterate, waste of human skin…
Does that fit?
Nevermind, kirbywarp wins.
I asked fembot to come up with an argument, and she came back with:
An argument? You mean so you can ignore it. You’re wrong. No argument needed.
But, I see what you’re doing. I know the tactic. You’re just trying to get me all riled up. Pissing women off gives you boners. We know that much about you. Well, it’s not going to work. I’m going to take a long hot bath, rub luxurious, expensive creams into my pearly white skin, and snuggle up in my warm bed with my wonderful, hunky husband. You have fun with yourself.
So there we are, as I said earlier, drone feminists have a tendency to treat men asking or advocating for the consideration of problems men face, as if those men were asking them on a date – and here you see with fembot, exactly that. After losing the argument, she thinks she wins, by saying she already has a husband. It really is that idiotic.
Give my commiserations to him.
@Tom:
That’s nothing. I asked you to respond to my post, and you came back with a back-handed snarky dismissal. I’d say Fembot’s probably ahead in the “response” category.
Tom Martin, abridged: Provocation is a sound argument when I do it. It’s only stupid when you do it.
It doesn’t matter if I’m ahead in the response, anyway. I’m ahead in life.
Tom — learn how to quote — they’re called blockquotes, they work like this
Since you didn’t quote this, Tom, I am just going to congratulate you on your pearly white skin and your wonderful, hunky husband.
(No seriously, I don’t think there’s anything especially wonderful about either white skin or hunky husbands, but it was too much fun to pass up.)
Wow… I’m gonna call a mea culpa in that I totally misread Tom’s post. See, I thought he was congratulating me on “verging on having a supported argument,” and so I thought “If presenting evidence that flatly contradicts his argument is just verging, what would a fully supported argument be like?”
But no, he was congratulating me on being supportive of men’s issues when I said that I generally oppose religiously-motivated laws. O_o
I… that… huh. How does that even work?
Well, it does mean that Tom is in fact ignoring any actual attempt at argument, then accusing us of not providing any argument. I feel like this is a common rhetorical tactic… Though usually I see it terms of a debate where one side presents a case, the other side presents a counter, and the first explains why the counter is wrong and then says “my opponent still has provided no argument countering my claim.”
Just a real sleaze-ball move, that.
Fembot used the “You’ll never get anyone to agree with you” argument, or effectively “most people agree with me”, which is an argument ad populum, and usually shows up in lieu of an actual argument – as with fembot – and the rest of you – in this case.
You’re collective failure to even dent my argument about financial abuses of men in Islam has convinced me to make a documentary on it.
Interviewing women wearing Niqabs should be fun. At least I won’t need a release form.
kirbywarp — have some vodka, it seems to make Tom make slightly more sense. *hands over a shot*
That’s technically valid, but not looked highly upon. Insults aren’t technically ad hominems, but I wouldn’t try that in formal debate either. Unless your opponents case really is just a series of logical fallacies that is, in that case, “my opponent has provided no counter” is valid…sort of…it’s a thought ending cliche though, so it is itself a round of Spot That Fallacy!!
Tom is, in general, meta Spot That Fallacy!! and even worse at making points than glossary troll, hence why I haven’t tried playing it yet. (That, and his inability to quote is really getting on my nerves, these things “” are pretty danged simple)
@Tom Martin:
What argument? Not that I’m trying to discourage you from spending money to make a pointless documentary, mind. So far you’ve been arguing that muslim women are just lazy. The only thing about finances you’ve mentioned are the “mahr,” which I’ve responded to and you haven’t apparently read, and your one line “the unfair taxes Islam places on men.”
I mean, I know you don’t like to acknowledge that your opponents are arguing against you, and would rather only focus on the people who are fed up with your bullshit and are off to do better things, but even you can’t pretend you’ve made an argument when you haven’t.
“You’re collective failure to even dent my argument about financial abuses of men in Islam has convinced me to make a documentary on it.”
…have you considered asking Islamic men their thoughts on this? Or at least googling to see if anyone affected by your theory agrees?
“Interviewing women wearing Niqabs should be fun. At least I won’t need a release form.”
Holy fucking shit, you still need a release form! You could pixel their faces and you’d need a release form for their voices!
@Argenti:
Sadly I don’t like the taste of alcohol… I guess Tom will have to stay incoherent.
The thing I don’t like about it is that it’s absurdly rude. It’s like a child going “What was that? Oh, probably just the wind” in its level of simple dismissal. The person is not just saying the opponent hasn’t come up with a valid response, but that the opponent hasn’t even addressed the point at all; the person is pretending like zie and hir opponent aren’t even engaging.
Miiight be reading a bit more into it… but that’s my reaction to it anyway.
So, what do ya think the odds are Tom’s “documentaries” are going to get him arrested for harassment one of these days? If he’s anywhere near as pushy and obnoxious on the street as he is here, I’d say there’s a good chance.
@Argenti:
No no, you misunderstand. Tom said he didn’t need a release form because mulsim women aren’t people. 🙂
@Dracula:
Zero, actually, since I’m willing to put money up saying that he mentions making documentaries just to score rhetorical points. “I’m gonna do something important and it will change the world! You’ll see, you’ll all see!”
Remember how he passively-agressively decided to change his documentary focus after CassandraSays insulted him? Yeah…
kirbywarp —
“…the person is pretending like zie and hir opponent aren’t even engaging.”
Considering his absolute refusal to acknowledge we’ve both been making points, that seems about right to me.
“Tom said he didn’t need a release form because mulsim women aren’t people.”
o.O? Tom, now would be a good time to make a point about how you think release forms work…
Oh right, sorry, I forgot he’s all talk.
And yeah, near zero odds, documentaries take actual work, the mind numbing sort that apparently lowers his IQ.
@Argenti:
(just in case, I was in fact being sarcastic in saying Tom thinks muslim women aren’t people. I’m just testing a theory of mine that Tom can only respond to insults)
kirbywarp — I was hoping that was the case, but let’s throw him an easy question eh? Because fuck, if he’s really filming things he needs to know the answer to that one.
Tom — the question was “how [do] you think release forms work?”
Pages later, I am still wondering what media counts as local wrt a blog.
Well, I’ve had a few more subscriptions to my sexismbusters youtube channel than usual, so someone must be looking forward to these vids.
I do need a feminist collaborator to help make these vids, to present the fem perspective on whatever debate etc, and do half the work, in constant “he says, she says, the evidence says” all out war. If you think you’re smart, and aren’t scared of braking a nail or two, then email me for more details.