This won’t be news to a lot of you — I’m a little late getting to it — but our old pal Tom Martin, the repulsive British MRA celebrity, is actually going ahead with the somewhat baffling video “women and comedy” project he was babbling about in the comments here many months ago, when he was still allowed to comment here. Well, “actually going ahead with it” this August if he can get anyone else to agree to work for him for free minimum wage.
The documentary project is called “Laughing with Women” and, Martin explains, it will “investigat[e] if gold-digging impairs women’s joke-making ability, and if, when women reject gold-digging in all its forms, they can become instantly funnier.”
In case that didn’t make sense to you — don’t worry, that’s a completely natural reaction — Tom explains his, er, “logic” a bit further in a jobs listing he’s posted in hopes of finding a crew, which has already gotten a good deal of ridicule over at PZ Myers’ and on at least one comedy website.
Why are women, on average, slightly less funny than men? Does gold-digging in particular impede women’s joke-making ability? When women publicly reject gold-digging, do they become as funny, or even funnier than men?
In his numerous visits to Man Boobz, Martin expounded at length on the topic of gold-digging women, generally referring to them by his preferred term, the shorter and blunter “whores.” Martin has previously estimated that roughly 97% of women fit this description, and has suggested that female penguins are also whores. Frankly, once he gets going on the topic, it’s hard to shut him up, which is partly why he’s no longer welcome in the comments here.
In any case, this odd hypothesis will be tested, Martin says, with a “radical, and revealing street-based social experiment.”
Still puzzled? Mike Booth, the British video comedian behind SomeGreyBloke and Dan Cardamon, has managed to tease out a few more details from Martin (posting here as sexismBusters):
Martin is confident that his proposed video will blow the lid off this whole “women and gold-digging and comedy, no really, they’re connected” thing:
If the radical, and revealing street-based social experiment at the centre of our documentary proves gold-digging does make women less funny (as pre-production research suggests) then our findings will make headlines around the world, our film’s two minute teaser trailer attached to all those news and blog articles (Update: this advert alone has already been blogged and tweeted about by outraged PC types).
The full documentary will be shot to a broadcast-quality standard and format, giving mainstream television companies worldwide the opportunity to purchase broadcasting rights (if they’re feeling brave enough) whilst we maintain a virtually guaranteed revenue stream from our already established hardcore of supporters and fans within the non PC gender equality field around the world, who, along with everyone else, will be able to enjoy Laughing with Women on newly launched pay-per-view channel, Vimeo on Demand (VoD) – where VoD itself takes a very modest 10% cut. The documentary has the potential to be translated into several languages – gold-digging a familiar if hidden story in every country, until now.
In other words, it sounds like some sort of video gold mine.
So I’d recommend that all gold-digging women out there try to get in on the ground floor of this Tom Martin dude.
Oh, and speaking of Dan Cardamon, here’s the faux MRA’s take on the project:
CORRECTION: This post originally stated that Martin wouldnt’ be paying his crew, but he says he will be paying them minimum wage, so I’ve corrected the relevant passage above.
EDITED TO ADD: Tom has shown up in the comments, and I’m letting his comments through (for now at least), so if you have any questions for him, feel free to head to the comments to address him directly.
@Marie
Mr. K has cats and a royal title. I suppose the hivemind could allow an exception- just this once. 😉
Marie and neuroticbeagle – LOL! 😀
And you’re hiring five people to work for 18-20 days. 6.19 x 5 x 8 x 18 = £4456.80, not counting any of the other production costs. Where are you getting that kind of dough, duder?
@Katz
Maybe he’s pimping out some penguins?
It’s not just women laughing at Tommy.
@nueroticbeagle
You’re right. We must respect our furry overlords, and royal titles are the alpha-est
@Marie
Indeed. How are your furry rulers doing today?
@neuroticbeagle
Completely adorable! I got to cuddle them extra this morning, cuz they were in the mood to play <3
yea for cuddles!
Is this that same guy who goes round London with a video camera pretending to be a journalist and stopping women on the street?
@thebewilderness – No, that was some other idiot. Can’t remember the name but he’s a total creep too. I was wondering this morning if Tommyrot is copying him.
@Marie – You must have been very well behaved to earn cuddles from your furry overlords! I am impressed. 😉
God this is stupid… Has he also considered that his subjects might not want to laugh or might fake laugh if they know what this documentary is for?
Seriously, when people know they might be dealing with a biased person, they’re act different. If I was one of the subjects I might intentionally find the women funnier, just so that I don’t have to see the MRM use me as some “HA told you so!” tactic.
I know it doesn’t really matter, but it’s still annoying. These people are like Peggy Hill, you give them a little evidence on their side and they’ll go on for weeks about it. Give them a little showing they’re wrong and they’ll quietly move on to some other issue. Still annoying, but at least it’s less boring.
How many people want to have some stranger (and they don’t come much stranger than this) shoving a camera in their faces at all, let alone a demand to be funny on the spot? How many women does he think will do anything except walk faster? Like was said above, he’s going to end up with a documentary of “Tom Martin gets told to fuck off. Repeatedly.”
I’d really laugh if someone chucked his camera on the ground and broke it.
Not that this is going to happen, unless it’s Tom all on his lonesome shoving his phone in people’s faces, because the rest of it is just in his head – money, film crew, the lot.
@Kittehs’ Hope it’s ok to derail and say I hope it’s ok to comment on your blog, still feel weird about it!
Please do, Theda Bara! All I’ve seen there lately is spam!
Did I give you my email addy?
(Which is to say, I’d love you to comment there.)
🙂
I think so I’ll have to check, college has made me very sodding lax.
Yeah, Tom’s right. Women aren’t funny. Especially not the ones that are gold digging floozies. Not even when they fart. Never happens.
This is the same Tom Martin that contacted me on YouTube wanting me to support his fallacious lawsuit against the university. I was chosen. Chosen! I say. Personally – by Tom to support (most likely financially) his crusade against women’s studies.
I know as a gold digging tart I can never be truly funny, but Tom sure is.
@Buntzums – you were Chosen by Tom? :O
::bows down in worship::
Argh, now I’ve got “this is ground control to Major Tom” playing in my head. Pity Minor Tom lost contact with ground control years ago.
@kittehs
I try 😛
Manboobzer A said:
“It seems to me that Tom Martin’s real underlying hypothesis is that high-status men feel threatened by funny (i.e. witty, intelligent) women.”
I saw a quite large ugly female stand up comedian, doing a bit on this subject, saying “People ask me, if men are a bit… intimidated by a funny woman. Well, I get laid – and yep, they are intimidated by it.”
My position with funny women is, who doesn’t love to laugh? … even better when the joke isn’t lampooning my physicality, or doesn’t deliberately misrepresent – A lot of women, and on manboobz, throwing around terms (at me) like “little” “weaselly” “skinny arsed” “bald” “cockroach” “vermin” “creep” “pedo” “pondlife” then misrepresent, with “stupid” “he doesn’t get it[because we all agree he “doesn’t get it” even though he clearly does]” “repulsive” (Futrelle uses that one a lot) “he scares me/women” “no one would go near him [because we are the arbiters of these things]” etc – Ssssssssssssssssssssss.
That kind of joke-making and language is intrinsically crap – and we’ll see whether the bigger gold-diggers use more or less of it. You’re feminists, meaning you can read, so stop it. (Gold-diggers do have lower IQs). No one here is calling out anyone else when they get into those kinds of terms above, comparing men to animals etc. Aren’t you all really bored of reading those types of lazy brattish comments from each other when someone comes here to disagree with you on issues?
Futrelle should have a ‘no comparing people to other animals’ rule (because you do it a lot – and, reprehensibility aside, it is never, ever, funny).
Manboobzer C says:
“Shouldn’t this have been the first step? Why would you make a documentary about something without first checking with an expert in the field to see if it has any scientific validity? If you’re planning a study, shouldn’t you have worked with a researcher to come up with a research method that counted for extraneous variables and would be accepted by the academic community? Seems like a pretty important thing to miss if you want to convince people that your documentary topic wasn’t pulled out of your ass.”
The documentary topic WAS pulled out of my ass (because I’ve been eating books) and then I devised an experiment and ran it past a professor in the field, who gave it the thumbs up – and who said he’d be happy to appear in the film. I want a researcher/presenter on board to help make the experiment even more elegant, present the data, and to present the show. I’m not just going to parachute a bimbo in (lots have applied). I’m looking for real collaborators. One layer of make-up will be enough.
Manboobzer D says:
“Oh, Tom, when strangers approach me in public the last thing on my mind is making them laugh. I’m much more likely to smile and nod and try to do whatever I can to stop bothering me because (like many women) I’ve had negative experiences with strange men approaching me in the past. How will your “study” account for women who are uncomfortable or busy rightfully trying to gauge the intentions of the approachee(s) and aretherefore less likely to be funny but are very funny to their friends and people they’re close with?”
Well, first of all, a woman will be approaching them, but it is true, that the type of women who agree to do anything unknown or mysterious on camera will be an extroverted group, so this will reduce the percentage of respondents who give gold-diggerish responses, as the biggest gold-diggers are hiding under the table cloth, at home, ‘home-making’ and East Asians, also massive gold-diggers, absolutely never stop for cameras to give impromptu opinions. Gold-diggers take, so why would they give an interview?
So, if we had all women in the world, and we could interview and experiment on them, I predict we would find that 3 to 15% would show absolutely no gold-digging inclinations, but as we’re effectively selecting for extroverts, I predict that 20 to 30% of women who agree to play along with the unknown on-camera goings on will be entirely non gold-diggerish.
The English language needs a positive word to specifically describe a woman who is absolutely opposed to gold-digging!
Tom Martin believes in equality and proceeds to present a phrenology experiment to demonstrate how ladybrains work.
In regards to gold digging women not being funny, I think I found a piece of refuting piece of extensive research conducted by the VEVO institute:
@Kittehs’ Oh good, I might pop up every now and then!
Please do! Or drop us an email, I’d love to hear from you. 🙂