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.)
He ignores the question, goes for an insult, and misses that working with him would also be absolutely infuriating (for both those reasons, and a few more).
Congrats Tom, you are so far out there that you broke Spot That Fallacy!!
Would dealing with you in person be half as tedious as dealing with you online, Tom?
Again, emotional manipulation. Again, pathetic. What’s it’s like to fail at being a con man? I actually pity you. Even as a scumbags go you’re mediocre.
huh… This exchange on Tom’s channel just about sums it up for me.
Editing videos, painting some random women as experts then quoting false or misldeading statistics at them in an environment where they can’t actually fact check. Not to mention an honest-to-god Gish-Gallop about halfway through the video.
Yeah, see, this is what cranks do. Memorize a bunch of talking points, go up to random people on the street who haven’t heard of the arguments or the responses, and then claim victory when they get flustered. If this is the type of “documentary” he wants to do… I dunno… he’s free to waste his money?
Yeah… It’s rather clear from the single video on his channel that Tom Martin is exactly the sort of person that would really piss me off.
Well I was going to ask which video, but since he only has one posted…
AHAHAH neck ties are discrimination against men!
Funny story Tom, when the IT dept I used to work for decided everyone had to wear a tie, the women took that to mean everyone — the entire dept showed up in ties, the policy lasted about a week.
And women have dress codes too btw (I mean, duh?)
@Argenti:
This calls for an update on my placard!
“Misandry: Whenever a Man Has to Do Something that a Woman Doesn’t, Like Wear a Tie”
At least ties aren’t a health hazard, like high heels.
And the environmental problems are blamed on men? BY WHOM?
I, for one, blame companies (namely walmart, seeing how they seem to enjoy making token fixes and not actually cleaning up their act).
“Koran — declares women weak and so should be provided for by men.”
Yep, that’s discrimination against men in Tom’s mind.
Oh and look, he wants compulsory paternity testing, full stop — doesn’t matter if the purported father either agrees he’s the father, or doesn’t care.
This may actually be the worst video I’ve ever seen, which is saying something considering I was an art minor and tend to date artists (I’ve seen a lot of unedited nonsense in other words, and this is edited to make it even worse).
Chapin’s videos are less terrible than this, at least he doesn’t have flashing text blocks make shit up then go see, previous thing wasn’t true!
Congrats Tom, you have managed to make the worst MRM video I have ever seen, that truly takes (a complete lack of any) talent.
“At least ties aren’t a health hazard, like high heels.”
Seriously! Well, except when they are, but I can’t imagine factory jobs require ties…safety girl and all…whereas heels are a hazard, full stop — nothing harmful about wearing a tie in general.
His 9 min video just took me 17 min because I had to stop for more vodka, repeatedly (I’d complain he’s driving me to drink, but I’m celebrating my birthday a few days early)
And extra lulz? He’s got some sort of begging container people are dropping change into. We know what that makes him right? XD
(I’d say they’re quarters, but that’d be US currency, whatever’s UK currency and about the same size, he’s collecting them on film there)
You know what? It actually reminds me a little bit about Expelled. Here’s what I mean.
Except that Ben Stein makes the mistake of talking to actual knowledgable people rather than random folks off the street. No, Tom takes a leaf out of Ray Comfort’s book and labels college students as experts then frustrates them with bullshit “facts,” cherry-picks some good-looking exchanges, and declares victory.
Hey everyone, long-time lurker here. I just wanted to say that I think I’ve finally cracked the case on who REALLY has the power in Saudi Arabia.
You see, the manboobz regulars here believe that Saudi Arabia is very clearly a patriarchy. Tom, using his high IQ, figured out that Saudi Arabia is a whoriarchy cleverly disguised as a patriarchy. Both of these beliefs, however, are incorrect. While he came close, even Tom, in his infinite wisdom, could not deduce that the patriarchy-disguised whoriarchy is, itself, a disguise. So who holds the true power, you ask? It’s quite simple: Reptilians!
Yes, Saudi Arabia is really a Reptilianarchy disguised as a whoriarchy disguised as a patriarchy. As amazing as it seems, it’s actually quite obvious. Take the mahr, for example. Pecunium and Argenti Aertheri have said that the mahr is merely symbolic, since wives have no real way of spending the money. Tom, with his vast intellect, has seen through such silliness and realizes that it is just a sum of money husbands have to give to their wives. But what even Tom doesn’t realize is that once the wives have this money, they go out to buy SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES, which the Reptilians have laced with mind-controlling spores! It’s so obvious! Soon, the Reptilians will have all of Saudi Arabia under their mind-control!
Not to derail two threads at once with Doctor Who, but I’d take homo reptilia over the current rulers…seriously Eldane was awesome, he can have the Nevada desert.
Tom, a serious question. If during the course of your research for your documentary, it transpired that your subjects were giving radically different responses to those that you predicted, in such a way that your project’s entire thesis was being undermined…
…would you still go ahead and complete it?
How Is Tom Martin’s Butt?
by E.L. James
@Wetherby:
”
Tom, a serious question. If during the course of your research for your documentary, it transpired that your subjects were giving radically different responses to those that you predicted, in such a way that your project’s entire thesis was being undermined…
…would you still go ahead and complete it?”
My guess is that the edit button would be more liberally used. Tom, much like a crackpot
obsessed with reptilian shape shifters, is far too invested in his worldview to care about little things like having true beliefs as opposed to beliefs that are emotionally satisfying to him.
Wordspinner: At least ties aren’t a health hazard, like high heels.
Depends on where you work. When I was a projectionist… no tie in the booth. When I was a machinist my “boss” (he was the owner’s son-in-law, didn’t know one end of a ball-cutter from the other; I know why she employed him [her daughter refused the job], but gods what a pair of fools they were; in different ways), used to wear a tie, and then come round the machines.
I was terrified he was going to get himself killed.
Tommy: You thick prick. 33 percent of Afghan women may be active, in all of Afghanistan, but how many are active in the areas of Taliban control?
That’s what Taliban controlled Afghanistan for another, means.
To make it more plain I point you to the portion marked, Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) . Like all averages, the HDI masks inequality in the distribution of human development across the population at the country level. The 2010 HDR introduced the ‘inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI)’, which takes into account inequality in all three dimensions of the HDI by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The HDI can be viewed as an index of ‘potential’ human development and IHDI as an index of actual human development. The ‘loss’ in potential human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI, and can be expressed as a percentage. (For more details see the technical note 2). Due to a lack of relevant data, the IHDI has not been calculated for this country
In short, you don’t have any actual data more granular than, “all of Afghanistan.” When were you there last? How many people do you know who’ve spent time there recently? What have you got which details female freedom of action in Taliban Controlled (or even in the more tribally structured areas) of the country.
Blind people, face insurmountable obstacles to work, and yet 34% of UK blind people have a job.
Then they aren’t insurmountable.
Feminists like to play up Muslim restrictions on female freedom of movement, which is largely a symbolic restriction,
So that is, “symbolic”, and so is irrelevant, but the Mahr is symbolic, and devastating in its effect. Looking at the way you use it, and the way you used insurmountable I’m beginning to think your grasp of English isn’t all that strong.
, other than the guarantee by law of money they receive from their legally enslaved husbands.
What law? Show me the act of Parliament which says Muslim men are slaves to their wives? Because if you are arguing that, in the UK, this is a trufact… citation needed. Hell, if you are arguing it’s a “trufact” in Saudi, show me the law, not the Sura. Because Islamic laws are interpreted by each Muslim. There is no “pope”. Shi’a Muslim do have such leaders, but even they aren’t perfectly dispositive.
Again, have you been to Saudi, or Iraq (I have), or Kuwait, or Afghanistan (Urban, or hinterland)? Have you got direct observation to support your assertions that this, “law” is actually in effect?
No, you don’t. You know that it was against “the law” in England, prior to disestablishment, for a woman to be a leader of the church? Except that Elizabeth, and Mary, and Victoria all were. But it says, right in the holy book of that church, that women aren’t to be church leaders.
That’s because the legal and religious laws aren’t the same.
Tommy: give us a slogan you could fit onto a placard
Hard chairs chap my ass.
Fembot used the “You’ll never get anyone to agree with you” argument, or effectively “most people agree with me”,
No, those are substantively different. She said you were wrong. Fractally so. So wrong that no counter-argument is really needed; because on its face your case folds like wet crepe in a windy rain.
That’s not a claim that people will agree with her argument, and so you are wrong because of that. It’s a claim that because you are wrong, people will agree with her that you are wrong.
Direction matters.
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.
Will that be before or after the one about humor in women? Or the one about the renunciation of all aspects of whoring? (and will there be a definition of the concept in that one)?
Will it be available to the public, or languishing behind a paypal button in the vain hope someone will plunk down 5 quid to see your shining visage?
Kirby: 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.
Yes, he can. He does it all the time. His arguments are much like his documentaries… he’s planned them out in his head, it’s the pesky work of actually making them inw which he bogs down.
But the planning, Oh!, you should see the brilliant rhetorical flourishes he ponders, hear the awestruck silences, feel the thundering applause and see the crushed opponents whom he has destroyed with the brilliance of his reasoning, the tightly structured ideas, the irrefutable evidence and the carefully turned phrases.
They are so magnificent that Cicero rose from the dead to clap and the famed speech of Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) in the auditorium pales.
Someday he will share them with us, and we will be amazed.
I’m just waiting for Tom to explain why the Taliban attacks little girls for going to school. I’m guessing the answer will have something to do with The Who and Riarchy. The reptilian prostitute overlords must be depraved, indeed.
me. i am super excited about your videos.
Tom Martin: Cargo Video Cult Master!
Give him a topic, he’ll make a video!
IF he can get a feminist collaborator, who can brake nails, and be his counterpoint (*collapses in helpless laughter at the image).