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.)
Okay, it looks like you’ve all calmed down a bit over child prostitution not really being rape comment –
so it’s about time I said something controversial, so Douchetrelle can write another article.
Here goes…
Old women should be conscripted to do National Service – but just the old women (not the old men) – because old women, 65 to 75, are the most privileged demographic in history. They should do the National Service, with one caveat… no whinging – just happy to repay their debts to society, and lose a little of that puppy fat.
Damn, Tom, your need for attention is pathetic.
I think someone’s lonely.
Boring.
I want you to blame the Taliban shooting little girls for going to school on the female dominated Whoriarchy.
That would be fun.
Grandmothwhores?
Sorry, I meant to say:
Grandmothwh*res?
The more I see of Tom the more I think that he’s stuck at about a 5-year-old’s level of emotional maturity.
“They are so magnificent that Cicero rose from the dead to clap…”
They’d better involve some damned good fish jokes then. (I’ll finish catching up in a moment, the idea of Cicero giving a shit about Tom is just too hilarious, Cicero is, um, headache inducingly complex)
Lol, wow, that Cicero comparison is rather apt. Cicero did a much better job of defining wh*re and only applying it where it’d help his argument.
Yeah, pensioners are the most privileged demographic in history; that’s it, I’m sure /sarcasm
And Tom, before you claim I just committed a fallacy, you have to proof your point, I don’t have to disprove it —
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
…I need to check something, I think “onus probandi…” might be Cicero…
So the whole child prostitution thing was a desperate bid for attention? Good to know. Any more videos yet? Or is the whole budget already blown on booze?
(I think we all know the answer to that question.)
i know they dont have the xiii amendment in england but even without it that still sounds super stupid
Aw, now you’re just trying too hard.
“And outlaw merriment and laughter!”
“And everyone who bakes pie is evil and should receive fifty lashes!”
“And… and FEED PUPPIES TO HITLER!”
“…Are you paying attention to me yet?”
do they have maddog in jolly old england because otherwise i dont see how that could be the case
The fact that the MRM is cool with child prostitution is not really news, either.
…yeah, this thing about old lady pensioners? It catches my attention. I know an old lady pensioner.
Who has given, given, given her entire life.
And now lives in fear that the next round of austerity is going to leave her penniless and alone to die in the dark.
(long political rant here that ends with ‘…and I can’t promise those heartless bastards won’t succeed, either, only that I’ll fight them every step of the way.)
Given, given, given her entire life. Whole families propped up. Working multiple jobs while home-making. Plus holding up organizations on the side. She still regrets that time in her life when she was too busy caring for her own disabled child to prop the church up (and they were too damn lazy to help her)
…but, no, she’s the most privileged person in history.
Living on practically nothing. Reliant on the goodwill of others, because after a life of hard work she had nothing to show for it.
Hey, you know what? A big giant fuck you. Thanks for playing.
Nah, just bored. Or rather relaxed, because we know full well that within seconds of you attempting to grab another spot in the limelight, up will pop your child prostitution comments like a bad smell that will never ever leave you.
Aw, Tom’s pathetic need for attention is almost cute.
I mean, I know he’s reaction-trolling. He outright said it. I know he gains some sort of perverse thrill from me telling him that he’s a worthless pile of shit whose views are stains on the universe, and that I should be the bigger man and not call him a douchecanoe.
But, you know, only human.
Douchecanoe.
Argenti: thanks. It’s nice to know that a familiarity with the classics is not wasted.
I’d have said Martial, but we aren’t looking for pithy retorts her, we want eloquence.
Thank you, Pecunium. As always you say things far better than I can.
And sorry about the pearly skin and hunky husband bit. I guess I just got carried away. 🙂
(I’m not apologizing to you, Tom, so bugger off)
Got it: Tom Martin hates all girls and women, from age 7 to 75, and no doubt earlier and younger.
No surprise here.
So Tom, how many feminists are leaping up to volunteer to work for you?
Pecunium — wouldn’t Steele doing Martial require actual wit? Something he is clearly sorely lacking in?
I had the unfortunate displeasure of reading Cicero in Latin, so I know his style best, but all the classics that are still read are either witty, or very dry history (I can probably still recite the opening of Caesar’s history of Gaul in Latin…very, very, dry history…) — I’m sure Cicero was brilliant to his contemporaries, trying to figure out his word order is why I called him headache inducing.
Manboobzer: “She’s a home maker”.
MRA: “You mean, her husband bought her a house.”
Twelve weeks basic training, followed by the remainder of the year, doing deeds, for the good of the land. We need a constant reserve army of old women, who in a state of emergency, can be sent in to clean up.
Disaster at nuclear power plant?
Send in the old ladies. They’re infertile anyway, so cannot pass on any radiation-acquired genetic mutations through reproduction (unlike the old men who volunteered to clean up Fukoshima).
Asbestos-ridden skyscraper gets brought down by a terrorist act?
Send in the old ladies, as the effects will take years to show up, and again, they can’t reproduce, so any mutations, or conditions can’t be reproduced.
A town gets anthraxed?
Send in the old ladies, because although they might die – they’ve already had a good innings – and were statistically likely to have paid less tax, but received more government hand outs – leached off their spouse, never bought him a drink, avoided conscription as a youth, had positive discrimination in the workforce, had more maternity leave, received the state pension from an earlier age, got pandered to by political parties as a special victim group, got treated with kid gloves by the judiciary, received an engagement ring, got a juicy divorce settlement of alimony too, received more parenting time after separation, and grand parenting time, subsequently from all these privileges, destined for a longer, healthier retirement than the men.
The old men got short-changed in all these areas throughout their lives – so it’s simply re-balancing the books.
A bit of National Service will do you good, and will be something to look forward to.
yeah, im gonna agree with everyone who said that now youre just doing this because you need attention
Argenti: It’s the word order which made his rhetoric so powerful.
I am sure you know this, but allow me to wax pedantic. 🙂
Russian, as was latin (though to a lesser degree) is a declined language (Stephen King notwithstanding, he grandmother, no matter how expansive her education, never declined a verb).
So, in English have a small amount of being able to play with word order. “Peter loves Anna” is a bit different from “Anna Peter loves”.
Russian the three words, я не знаию mean, “I don’t know”.
не знаию я means, “It is unknown to me.”
знаию, не я, isn’t something I’ve heard (amused could help here, zie is a native speaker), but if I did hear someone say that I’d think something like, “Know that?… not at all!, (though to be honest, were I to wish to say express that thought I’d say, “знаию,нет я“, which doesn’t feel as wrong as ,b>знаию, не я; which is just unpleasant in my ears.
Our (and by that I mean moderns who are familiar with Latin) problem is that we don’t really have a way to get the feel of the language, so the subtleties we can manage with English:dagger; are not present in the ear, and make the eye rather stumble, when to the ear of more practiced listeners (in an age when speaking was more of an art then it is now) those hints of nuance, and blasts of sentiment and rage, were as plain as any Bombastic Rantings of a David Duke.
† with which we have been playing, because Steele is so bad at it, that one feels the need to counteract the stultifying vapidity of his prose. He wouldn’t have been far off them mark had he, rather than tedious, accused me of being a tendentious jackass. For real style he could have engaged in some repetition, “Pecunium you are moved from being a pretentious jackass to a tendentinious, interminous jackanape”, but that would require a facility we’ve not seen much evidence of… it would require that he have enough fondness [love would be nice] for language to play with, at all, but I digress.