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.
I doubt they agree to have sex with them even if he does offer money. The ewwww factor would be obvious after five minutes of him talking.
Found it!
As, come on, he’s an insult to bottom feeders! Why, just this afternoon my mother was looking in the 55g and saying I need a BIIIG plec. Agreed that I need a young one.
Because bottom feeders are useful, and he is not.
Thanks, David! Although now I’m a tad curious what he called me.
@Hellkell
I’m not comfortable with the body-shaming. I know some very nice people with hair loss.
(No, Tom, this doesn’t mean I’m on your side. It means you’re a stopped clock and this happens to be the right time of day.)
@Tom
Yeah, and if an atheist doesn’t make you define “Yahweh” before telling you her stance on him, she must be admitting that he’s “a thing”.
Now you’ve got an imaginary English scale, too?
You’re aware that scientific research requires more specificity than colloquial usage, right? We all know, approximately, what “gold digging” refers to, but if you’re going to do Serious Research you have to define your terms. Basic academia.
Aww, not as. Autocorrect has a cranky.
Tom complaining about other people’s linguistic skills is also funny. Watch out for word repetition, Tom! Using “whore” 20 times in one paragraph gives the impression that you need a thesaurus.
So I finally finish my evaluations, and he’s scuppered off, darn it.
Augochlorella, I believe that little screed was the basis of an xtranormal video I made:
Emilygoddess: to you a sincere apology. I know I shouldn’t have mocked his baldness, which really is the least offensive thing about him.
No, no, Argenti – I’m not comparing Tommyrot to bottom-feeders. I’m comparing him to bottom-feeders’ diarrhoea.
The more I here about the “experiment,” the more I’m confused.
See, I thought Tom was going around telling people they were on a dating show, then asking them to choose from amongst a group of men (by picture? by description? a combination? were the possibilities randomized per person? was it double blind so the researcher didn’t know who was picked and what options there were? Was there a good distribution of different variables like wealth and looks a personality?)
Now we have this:
So… you approach a woman on the street, and tell them you are trying to find out if left or right handed people are funnier (how do you test them? do you make them tell a joke? do you engage them in normal conversation? who judges the humor? how is the humor judged? how do you protect against contamination from possibility hearing the same joke over multiple people, and finding it less funny the second time around?).
Then, after they’ve been tested, you say “surprise, you’re actually on a dating show” and… test their sense of humor again? Then do you have them pick a guy? What if they burn their good material in the first round of jokes? What if they don’t believe that telling jokes isn’t as appropriate when choosing dating partners? What if they start to feel a little sketched out at being told they are the subject of a humor test, then suddenly told they are really the subject of a dating test? Isn’t this sort of like telling people they’re going to be a “big star” to get them to do things for you?
Is the process done in exactly the same way in a well-controlled manner for each subject? Is the person/s judging the humor separate from the person administering the tests? Is the judge/s visible to the subject? If someone’s looking at you deadpan, it’s going to make you feel flustered unless you are a practiced comedian. Likewise, if someone’s laughing at your jokes, it will make you feel encouraged. Do you control for this social reaction in your experiment?
How do you mesh your results with Howard Stern’s link to a study that showed no significant correlation between a woman’s williningness to have sex and her expectation of receiving gifts? Have you researched other people’s work in similar areas before designing your experiment? Do you have anyone examining your methods and results, to make sure that other people come to the same conclusion you do about your data?
Just a few small questions I have, Tom.
Oh random fluctuations in the space-time continuum, don’t give him ideas!
Oi… typos…
“telling jokes is as appropriate”
“Howard Bannister“
Kitteh — oh, ok then. While I’m not sure that that’s actually a thing that happens, it works. Hm, is about as useful as fish constipation though (not sure that one happens in the wild either, cuz vary their diet is the solution…and I need to feed puff)
Lovely train of thought that was huh?
Tom (or anyone else) would be in serious trouble if he pulled that stunt on me. Not that he’d get that far: strangers with cameras wouldn’t get to the stage of being able to play their fuckwitted “gotcha” tricks. Street harassment isn’t something I find amusing.
Argenti – nah, I didn’t think it was a thing, but following our conversation a while back about how gross fish poo at the bottom of the tank is, fish diarrhoea seemed the natural progression in “things to compare to Tommy for being obnoxious and useless”.
If the random women he pesters tell him to get lost does that count as them having no sense of humor? I’m guessing it probably would.
(Because in addition to his other unpleasant qualities Tom has “bully” written all over him.)
Kitteh — that would be disgusting yes. Particularly considering the whole already in water part…ewwwww
kirbywarp, I am glad you made that correction. I was worried that while my focus was elsewhere, Howard Stern had started commenting here, which could be entertaining but seemed unlikely. XD
All this talk about fish feces is only reminding me off that awful old story about the Foo…
If a random guy with a camera tried to interview me on the street, I’d run away, because I’m an introvert, and because I have low self-esteem. That’s two rather common personality types being left out by Tommy’s methodology. And since I suspect I’m hardly the only self-hating shy person to try to make people like me by making them laugh, I think that’s a significant oversight on Tommy’s part.
It’s all a bunch of bullshit anyway, since humor is so subjective. I mean, I love cracking jokes and trying to be witty, even though people don’t always laugh, or even get the joke. Does that mean I don’t have a sense of humor? Or that I’m objectively not funny? Is it the effort that Tom’s measuring, or the results?
emilygoddess – and there are those of us whose basic attitude to pushy strangers is FUCK OFF, and if they’ve a camera, all the more so. Plus, even if Tom “Fish Feces” Martin could recognise humour, it’s too variable. You might have two very funny, witty people, and they could react entirely differently in the same situation. Hell, you could have totally different reactions from the same person according to the circumstances.
Tom really is a clueless little dumbfuck. He makes a box of rocks look like a MENSA candidate. There’s one realy easy way to get people talking in public, and joking, but he hasn’t a clue what it is (and I’m not going to tell him, either). But noooo, it would mean engaging with other human beings as human beings, and that’s way beyond his narcissistic stupidity.
I wonder if he’s an alien dumped here because the other aliens could’t endure him any longer?
So, thank you to all the “camera, going the other way” folks. You make it much easier to photograph architecture and the like. Y’all and other people who’ve been there and waited for that. And some of the best require waiting for it (I love that damned seal pic on my DA, I do not want to talk about how long I stood there or how many shots that took)
So yeah, from someone not trying to photograph people, your avoiding being photographed is much appreciated, keep up avoiding the cameras! 🙂
LOL Argenti, I’m in the “gitouttameway” group when it comes to taking photos, too. I don’t need humans in the scenery, I can supply my own.
Furrinati, however, are welcomed in any picture they deem worthy.
Or fishinati.