I realize that I may be the only one who’s really all that interested in sectarian infighting amongst the MRAs, but an old friend of ours has weighed in on the recent battles over the A Voice for Men satellite group MRA London, and I’ve learned some interesting things as a result.
The old friend? Tom Martin, the British MRA who famously lost an anti-male discrimination lawsuit against the London School of Economics and who is well known around these parts for his beliefs that 97% of female humans are whores, 100% of female penguins are whores, hard chairs are misandry, and that [TRIGGER WARNING FOR CHILD RAPE APOLOGIA] “pedophiles who pay children for sex are not really rapists, because the child consents, then performs the act, indicating they understand the nature of the contract.”
Martin used to be a regular troll around these parts, making himself (and the Men’s Rights movement that supported him in his crusade against the LSE) look worse and worse with each comment he posted, until he became too repetitively obnoxious and I banned him.
Apparently he went on to have a bit of a run as a commenter at A Voice for Men, the self-described men’s human rights site that hosts an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its activism section. But he was banned there too. Not for his misogyny. Not for justifying child rape. But for being … too feminist???
No, really. All this happened some time ago, apparently. But AVFM’s Dean Esmay recently unbanned him to let him post his thoughts about the MRA London fracas, and this exchange happened.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Tom was able to figure out pretty quickly that we hated him, and it wasn’t so much because of the whole “male wanting to be treated as a human being” thing so much as his “inability to treat females as human beings” thing. But as we know, the inhabitants of AVFM don’t really live in what most of us on planet earth recognize as reality.
In any case, if you want to wrap up your Memorial Day with some utterly surreal reading (non-USians can ignore this bit), I suggest you take a look at the rest of the AVFM thread from that point on. You will see DriverSuz describe Martin as a “male enabler” of feminism. And you will see Martin himself describe himself as a “feminist MRA,” and offer this strange semi-endorsement of feminists as potential dates:
[W]hen you’ve dated and screened thousands of women for potential dates, you get to realize, its the ones identifying as feminists who are the ones least likely to be gold-digging whores looking for an early retirement off the man’s toil. …
I follow the money, which is why I am a feminist MRA.
The money the state disproportionately allots to over-screechy victim-feminist wheels is wrong, and needs to be fixed, but pales into insignificance compared to the over-screechiness an anti-feminist traditionalist woman has lined up for any man unlucky enough to cohabit with her. A feckless housewife wannabe is far more a financial burden than an ill-informed egalitarian identifying as feminist who can be corrected on which sex owes the other money.
Tom Martin, such a romantic!
This is a thing? Even after Thatcher?
@Maude
Do I want to know more abut this? I’m kind of interested, in a train-wreck-gawking sort of way.
@Pro-Patria
Why is that interesting?
Once again, MRAs prove they haven’t encountered any feminist thought since the 70’s.
Also, maybe I should have mentioned this before but I wasn’t sure how it would be received here.
My aunt is Girl Writes What.
And my grandmother was … Valerie Solanas!
Oh Blacky, your ignorance, and bigotry, are showing.
Tom Martin thinks all women are whores. Honestly. He thinks they all owe men a huge; actual, debt. That they can pay in cash, or ass.
That, my boy, is not feminism. He says feminist women are less likely to be gold-digging, pro-active whores, and so are more likely to be converted to MRMdom.
Again, this is not feminist thinking.
Tom Martin thinks Saudi Arabia is the feminist paradise; because they “force men to do everything for them, even get off busses so they can sit down”.
And we aren’t going to get upset… Tom is both too amusing, and tedious for that. Also, you aren’t as sincere as he was, so it falls flat.
Holy fuck… go away for the weekend and come late to the party on all sorts of fun.
“than an ill-informed egalitarian identifying as feminist who can be corrected on which sex owes the other money.
So Tom Martin is a whore.
And he thinks he’s some sort of feminist. And AFvM sees him as a feminist enabler? Wow. Because he’s done more activism than all of AVfM combined. His suit may have been stupid as the Winter Nights at the Poles are long, but he was making the effort to plead their case in a place which could get results.
And they kick a man like that to the curb.
Gives me hope, it does.
How many men in the friend zone does it take to change a light bulb?
None.. They just stand around and compliment it then complain when it won’t screw.
Then they give it some negs, and it still won’t screw.
Tulgey: *Sticks fingers in ears, loudly talks about men who died for their girlfriends in the Aurora theater shooting, pretends that self-sacrifice is the unique burden of men and is therefore oppression*
Don’t forget, men who die for their loved ones (female type) are tools and pawns of the feminist oppressors; working to perpetuate the ideal of male disposability.
the feminist narrative that women would bring peace to the earth if they had a chance to rule.
“Hopefully we’ll soon stop hearing the feminist narrative that women would bring peace to the earth if they had a chance to rule.”
Nope, not a feminist narrative. You can’t comment on things in any kind of meaningful way if your head is stuck up your ass. It’s not hard to find a good Feminism 101 site to educate yourself with. Stop being so damn lazy.
Well, feminists rule libraries and we have made them places to terrorize men and boys!
(Note: The article has been corrected, so the 1/100 figure is incorrect, but there are some funny comments about how fiction sucks and videogames are superior to movies.)
I pity whichever feminist ended up with this douchefuck, but at the same time, I guess good on them for, if not showing him his error, at least adding nuance to his misogyny.
Me too. It is handy in a way, though, that MRA’s talk like that, because it makes it very clear to most people that they are definitely NOT a human rights movement. Real activists like the ones from Amnesty International would ever use the term “mangina”.
Feminists do not claim that all women are perfect. That’s a straw feminist position told by anti feminists.
Feminists are individuals, and can disagree with each on big issues while agreeing on others. Disagreements can be a helpful way to hash out differences and make progress.
And the only people I’ve ever heard claim that women could bring peace on earth are the ones into new age stuff. That isn’t a feminist position, though, because it puts women on a pedestal, which is a type of benevolent sexism. Women can be good, bad, peaceful, warlike, and anything in between, just like men and non binaries.
Mangina = sexist, ridiculous term
Gender binary, power structure, and patriarchy = Useful terms, not ridiculous
“Whoriarchy?” I like the word, it’s got legs. I think I’ll start using it.
Yadda yadda, blah blah, zzz, Mark, but do be sure to cite the source when you’re dropping that around town, won’tcha?
*I meant never use the term “mangina”, not ever. That typo changed the meaning quite a bit!
Please do! Spread it throughout the manosphere! Use it in recruitment materials!
Seems to me that the MRAs own ideology prevents them from organizing & taking productive action to alleviate men’s problems (despite having had 30-40 years to do so), so I guess all that’s left to them is to constantly monitor each other for ideological purity.
“When you’ve dated and screened thousands of women….”
Why do I suspect this is a slight exaggeration?
“Whoriarchy” is an okay word, but I’ve always fancied “Pornocracy” myself, mostly because the latter is associated with a part of Vatican history. “Whoriarchy” reads like “rule by Whos,” and could probably serve as the title for the darker, grittier reboot of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.”
Directed by David Fincher?
I don’t really go into mine, much.
I thought the “Who-riarchy” was when The Doctor unites with all his regenerations to control all of Time and Space?
Weak trolling is weak
That’s not a pervasive narrative in the first place. -_-
“Mangina” is a misogynist slur. “Matriarchy” denotes a social hierarchy that currently doesn’t exist.
“Patriarchy” denotes a social hierarchy that currently does exist. The “gender binary” is a real thing. And power structures are real things as well.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Just saw that interview video, and I had to scroll down to get the screen out of sight as he stared straight into the camera. But I guess that was for the better for the interviewer because if I was uncomfortable with his eye contact, imagine how it would have been for her if he was actually looking at her when talking.