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.)
“Oh, I have a somewhat relevent question actually. Did Tom ever say anything about how many men were w-s in his estimation? Cause I remember him saying 98% for manboobzers, and some percentage of us are male…”
I asked him exactly that already, file it under “questions Tom ignored”. I really do need that number to calculate what % of manboobzers are male, in his mind, and I’m frikken’ curious!
Katz, we just can’t have nice things.
I wrote:
The frustrating thing about Tom is that he would never define the W word, or explain what “prostitution in all its forms” actually *entitled.
* that should say entailed. How embarrassing 🙁
I wasn’t just being random, with the old comments thread thing. I was reading the link sniper put up. Meller was amusingly Meller-ish.
He’s like those people that sell you a substance that “detoxifies” your system by getting rid of all the stuff that hardens in your colon because you just swallowed something hardens in the colon.
Ladies, are you afraid you might be in the 97% of women who are all whores? Order my Dewhoreifer 8000 for only $19.99 you can de-prostitute your life! You can renounce ancient Egyptian temple whores! Being a mistress! You’ll be free from bordellos, brothels and modern redlight districts! Order now, and we’ll throw in the pint-size de-child-whorer!*
*Just pay separate shipping and handling.
Sounds like Tom is so repellant, even his hair wants to get away from him. Upon reading all this crap from him, all I could think of was this:
http://static.flickr.com/33/42241471_cc3954f8aa.jpg
Speaking of men, and hair:
LOL!!! I liked that one!
Well, my understanding, from all his rantings and ravings, is that a “goddess” (I like Ithiliana’s suggestion for replacement word for the W word, so I’m gonna use it) is someone who accepts anything (a gift, a paid meal, a paid movie ticket, etc., etc.) from the person with whom they are having (or with whom they will be having) sexual relations. Especially repugnant of the “goddesses” are the “housegoddesses” (i.e., housewives, stay-at-home-moms, who are not gainfully employed outside of the domestic sphere) because look at all the free stuff they get (room and board, clothing, etc.) in exchange for the sexual relations that they provide. So prostitution in all its forms would be just that… not only the self-identified sex workers, but accepting anything offered from a person with whom one is having or will have sexual relations.
What about government largesse?
I guess that might depend upon whether the bestower(s) received any sexual favours from the recipient(s).
He said any woman who received “government largesse” was a w.
It’s sorta like owly’s whinging about how it’s only men who have to actually WORK, and work at all the dirty and dangerous jobs, in order to put food on the table, bla bla bla, whereas a woman need only sit in the middle of the street and cry in order for food, money, gifts, etc., to rain down on her like manna from heaven. For Tom’s whinging, just replace “sit in the middle of the street and cry” with “flash some pussy”.
Then if a woman is not sexually active or dating or in a relationship she can’t be a W. But since most women in relationships or dating recieve (and give) gifts from their partner, they are Ws. Wow. How would a forty year marriage look if neither party gave gifts for its entire duration? Probably not very happy.
So what about men who’re on the dole?
(Which I rather suspect Tom must be, given some of the hours he’s been posting at.)
Hmmmmmmm…. I may have missed that one….
Okay, so any woman who receives “government largesse” is receiving something without actually WORKING for it, and since it’s mainly men who do what is actually considered as WORK, only those men (and possibly a few token women) are required to pay taxes to said government. The “goddess” is probably fucking at least one of those men who has to pay taxes of which the government largesse is comprised.
I’m sure that he could come up with some type of special rider for that situation, if said woman is not doing any form of what he considers to be actual WORK for whatever it is that she is receiving.
He may give them a penis pass, especially if he is one of them.
I do not think that Tom understands what a “gift” means- it means that you give something to someone else without expecting anything in return. It is a kind gesture, not an exchange of items for actions.
Or does he expect that every time his parents give him a present for his birthday that they expect sexual favors in return?
I get gifts for my husband all the time. Does that make him my strumpet?
If your husband is giving you sexytimes, then I think the answer, in Tom’s world, would be “Yes”.
Since there’s no way that couples are going to stop giving each other gifts, things like birthdays and holidays being built into most cultures, the only remaining solution would be for all couples to stop having sex.
Yeah, this is going to work out great.
Yep, it’d be a world full of cushiony chairs but either no gifts or no sexytimes.
And all because Tom’s penis is not a valuable commodity. Oh, the humanity!!
For those tired of Martin’s bilious boorishness, John the Other has a LOVELY article up on AVfM all about how Taslima Nasreen, a Bangladeshi feminist, is in his opinion an “imbecile” and has a nine-year-old’s mentality. PS the subject is acid attacks; JtO chooses only the least loaded, most appropriate topics over which to call someone an imbecile and ask “what about teh menz?”
It may not be the best way to seek relief from Tom Martin.