Amity Reed at The F-Word and Cath Elliott have been finding out more about our new friend and regular commenter MRA Tom Martin.
Reed pointed out a Twitter account of his, Min4Men. One striking tweet is
MIN4MENThe Missing Minister
All Muslim women are whores, as The Holy Whoran says men MUST provide for women. If you’re a woman WITH a job, then you’re NOT a true muslim
The Whoran does say
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other… ”
Of course, the wording is deliberately vague. ‘the one [sex] more strength’ – it doesn’t stipulate which.
When we consider men die more from 14 of the top 15 causes than women, and have shorter life expectancy too, get more cancers, and can resist infection less well than women, it is obvious women are the stronger.
So it seems to me, the writers of the Whoran, were placating women’s economic inactivity rates, with a bit of the old symbolic patriarchy. And it seems a lot of over-worked Muslim men have fallen for it – or are forced to go along with it.
So, as an exercise in Socratic dialogue, I argued that if you’re a woman with a job, then you’re not a real Muslim, after all – religion sucks – and a few too many muslim women are wandering around fully veiled, pretending to be angels these days, whilst quietly getting away with leaching off men.
Muslim women will say they are not whores, because they are not promiscuous, or that they are virgins, and are not going to give away sex cheaply, like Western women.
I argue, Muslim women (or any others) can be virgins, but they’re still whores, if they’re setting a price on their virginity, as their religion and culture most certainly encourages them to do.
Young women call other women ‘whores’ for being sluts – having sex freely.
Whores are slut-shaming by calling women who do not charge for sex, ‘whores’.
So, it is about time we called a whore a whore. ‘Patriarchies’ should more accurately be described as whoriarchies.
Yes, these Arab women face some obstacles in the jobs market, but the way to get them to rise up, and demand absolute equality of opportunity more forcefully, is to get muslim men to sit down, and learn to stop giving women money and gifts.
Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, but has the lowest levels of female economic activity anywhere in the world, despite an educated population. Saudi surgeons were able to separate conjoined twins, both surviving, but they have been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s asses from the couch.
Muslim women do not buy patriarchy theory for one minute, but muslim men might well refuse to continue financing the whoriarchy. And what woman would want to be associated with that either?
“So, it is about time we called a whore a whore.”
What’s this ‘we’ stuff Tom? Because I certainly don’t who it is you think you’re representing.
Also, a good comedian often tests his material on a live audience. How good do you think your material will be in front of a male or female audience?
Tom – I like a joke as well as the next person, but are you seriously that stupid? What do you think would happen to a Saudi woman who “rose up” and went out to try to get a job?
Definitely a Poe. I can’t even think of any *unreasonable* people who would believe any of the above, let alone any reasonable ones. But you, Mr. Martin, are the saddest kind of Poe. Do you really need validation that badly? It’s like you’re purposefully thinking up stupid shit to say until everyone gets annoyed, and then you’re all, “Haha! I win! I annoyed you! I’m so clever!” It’s just sad.
Just to clarify, I hate all religions, and I hate prostitution – this does not make me a misogynist, or does it?
No, Tom. Your *other* wonderful qaulities make you a misogynist.
Everytime I read something you’ve written, I’m dumber for the effort.
I think some forms of trolling can be funny. I also think that some forms of trolling can create awful suffering.
For example:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Facebook-troll-jailed-mocking-death-teenager/story-13327593-detail/story.html
Perhaps some people with certain psychological disorders or problems are unable to comprehend the affect of their behaviour, largely finding fun in causing suffering in others. There is often cruelty in humour, but it does not fall into outright sadism or torture.
My point Tom is that you’re largely an unsympathetic person, and that means that most can’t see your humour either, because a comedian has to be sympathetic to his audience.
I can only suggest that perhaps you find a new career for your talents.
“women’s economic inactivity rates” = the informal economy is a feminist conspiracy to make it look as if women weren’t total lazebags
Oh, Tom isn’t really a “comedian” surely – that’s just a front. That stuff about putting together a comedy group wasn’t about actually wanting to do comedy…it was just another way to poke feminism with a stick. Comedians don’t enroll at LSE, do they?
“Comedians don’t enroll at LSE, do they?”
I had a little chuckle over that. Perhaps poor comedians?
men’s rights activism is about as well established as feminism was in the 1950s. We are at the bottom of the S-curve. facing a mountain of opposition and ignorance, so it does mean that to tell a joke, you first have to overturn all the victim-female propaganda which has gone before. People are naturally inclined to laugh at people attacking men, and so when faced with an audience who think its inappropriate to laugh at women given (insert spurious victim-feminist fact) it is then hard to garner sympathy in a short space. Not impossible though, and I like a challenge in my spare time.
I don’t imagine the early feminists were much of a hoot. Certainly the stereotype is of an angry brigade.
But anyway, jokes or not, the court case, and any work I do, is fundamentally about improving the treatment for men on earth, in turn, improving conditions for the women and children and ecosystem they share the planet with, reducing aggression, and violence, and war, and the diseases associated with it.
Putting a ‘z’ on the end of men’s suffering isn’t funny at all.
Don’t pat yourselves on the back too much sisters.
“men’s rights activism is about as well established as feminism was in the 1950s.”
Which, by your interpretation of events, would be talking about a nonexistent problem – by your own words: “women’s perceived inequalities”. Emphasis on the word perceived.
No, you’re just flailing about, saying whatever you think will give you an argumentative edge, regardless of whether it even makes for a coherent story, much less whether it reflects reality.
One wonders: If anti-woman bias began to be removed in the 1950s, and anti-man bias is only beginning to be removed now, which group was it that had privilege over both women and men, prior to the 1950s? The Lizard People?
Careful, there’s a David Icke joke in there somewhere…
Tom:
Just curious. In the previous threads inspired by your activities and opinions, many people pointed out to you the many ways in which women have been oppressed throughout history. How much of this “alleged” oppression do you consider to be untrue, imaginary or invented? How much of this is just “propaganda” and not actual oppression at all? If the many examples brought to your attention do not constitute oppression of women, what, in your opinion, would? I’m wondering because you have failed to respond at all to most of these posts. Why is that?
Can’t the site just ban users who are trolling or wasting everyone’s time? I mean, displaying this stuff does indicate how crazy some people are, but trolls love the attention so it’s somewhat self-defeating.
I’m suing gender studies because it lies about men. Today- and tomorrow too, if it can continue getting away with it.
Perceived inequalities or actual inequalities women face, do not justify doing men down. Ever. You know this to be true.
People who run the course I am suing, acknowledge in other forums, that their brand of feminism, is full of lies.
The course texts themselves, acknowledge that misleading the public, is what it’s all about these days.
Lying is not okay in a science degree. Especially not, if it is to do men down on any level, given men’s relatively week standard of living across most measures, compared to women.
11,600 page count on google about his story, and it’s because someone is telling the truth for a change.
Sheep.
More assertions, no more evidence. It’s quite amazing how much like a creationist or AGW denialist TM sounds like.
“The course texts themselves, acknowledge that misleading the public, is what it’s all about these days.”
Yes, I’d like to see that. Care to give us some examples? I’m certainly not prepared to take your word about anything.
Try again.
“men’s relatively week standard of living across most measures, compared to women.”
Ooooh, I’ll bet there’s some cherry picking in there. How do men compare globally with women in terms of:
Property ownership
Political power
Rates of pay
Rates of literacy
Representation in corporate hierarchies
Employment
Social mobility
I fully acknowledge that men have lower life expectancies and suffer higher rates of some diseases, but I do not believe that the male standard of living is “relatively week” (sic) compared that of to women. I would dare say that whatever oppression men suffer, most, if not all of it, is the result of imbalances of power implemented and maintained by other men, not women.
Tom Martin, I personally am bored with your tiresome bleating. Respond to the points that have been made against your ludicrous position or admit defeat and fuck off.
I agree with marta. I don’t have enough spare brain cells to push through the mire of idiocy. I don’t even really know what TM is trying to say most of the time, because what he seems to be saying is so out of touch with reality I honestly cant believe it’s what he means.
Are you a Muslim woman living in a Muslim country? No?
Then don’t try to tell us what its like in their lives or their motivations. I suppose its just another sign of male oppression when women in Muslim ruled countries face execution for adultery even in cases of rape. Poor men having to work so hard to stone those “whores” to death. Fuck off sir.
Word to the wise: Just because people laugh at what you say, that doesn’t make you a comedian.
This made me laugh. ^_^
OB, why are you wasting your valuable time letting this cretin post here? He hasn’t said one intelligent thing since he started, and taking the piss is getting stale. I think we should rise above the temptation to pick on the village idiot before it becomes a bad habit.
Dude’s cracked. Off his nut. Out of his tree. Bat-shit CRAZY.
I don’t think it works like that, does it? How much time does it take Ophelia to let him post here? Does it take more time than not letting him post here?
Er… yes, women in Islamic countries face some obstacles to economic activity, but Muslim women in the UK? A lot less, yet…
75% economic inactivity rate (last time I checked stats in 2007).
It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a higher rate of female economic activity in some of those Muslim countries where women face all those obstacles to employment.
The ideology of the religion, is to leave men to do all the hard work. All the fighting. All the burying of the dead. All the political fighting.
Actually, one of the few areas where the core texts they gave us on the gender course let loose on women, was when discussing critically, this prostitution ethic culture in Islam.
But hold on, it might be a bit convenient to say ‘Yuck! Those Muslim whores’ – when in every country in the world, the women are hypergamous gold-diggers on average, and have lower economic activity rates than the men on average. – and start work later and finish work earlier in life.
Religions do seem to make it worse though, and while I hate all religions, Islam does seem to have the most debilitating effect on women’s paid work ethic.
Polygamy, and sex-selective abortions make the matter worse, where girls are aborted, or left to starve or die – keeping the numbers of women low – and the demand and competition for those women among the excess men at fever-pitch.
And I will say, that feminists spend more effort problematizing these practices than men’s rights activists have to date.
The men’s rights perspective is that women form prostitution unions to marry rich men polygamously, so they can avoid work, and that women would rather kill excess females than see female sexual market power decrease by a more even-balanced sex ratio.
Incidentally,
Everyone goes on about China and India having high rates of sex-selective practices, but the country with the largest number of missing females per head of population is Afghanistan.
So the female power maintained in a whoriarchy is not necessarily about sisterly love.
Holy fuck, there is a lot of delusion coming from this twit (and the MRA movement as a whole), but this may be one of the stupidest, most ignorant things I’ve read yet…
And this?
Do you seriously believe it’s women killing women in Afghanistan?!?!
And by the way? One of the biggest issues in China and India is mothers wanting sons instead of daughters for various cultural reasons. Are you seriously saying mothers are killing daughters so they don’t “see female sexual market power decrease by a more even-balanced sex ratio”!?!?!
Unlike some others, I don’t think you’re trolling. I’ve read enough MRA tripe to see that you’re real. The point of satire is to overstate the ridiculousness of that’s being satirized, not to merely create an exact copy.
Dave – because of his nuisance-suit. That makes him of more general interest than the usual village idiot.
Bit of an eye-opener, isn’t it.
Of course, the downside for women who keep the female population low, is that men then become extremely possessive – and so are inclined to agree that the best thing is for the woman to stay in the house.
The downside for men, is that they have to fight and kill other men, to gain access to women, and counterbalance the male child preference policies of women.
Women hiding in the house, brings about sex-segregation – and the religious/cultural police enforce the sex segregation.
An analysis of 21 primate species, found increased sex segregation directly correlates with increased brain capacity for aggression, whilst freedom of association of the sexes, appears to have evolved increased brain capacity for empathy and higher thought:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11820-rivalry-leaves-its-mark-on-primate-brains.html
That’s one reason why I have a problem with some people claiming to be egalitarian, who nevertheless create predominantly all-girl environments in gender studies and elsewhere.
It does appear to be the women who are sex-segregating, given women’s in-group preference, as spelled out in Goodwin and Rudman, 2004. Women’s in-group preference is partially swayed by an escalated fear of the threat men pose, and you cannot deny the victim-feminist anti-male polemic has indeed exaggerated statistics to make men look worse than they are.
So, when I say I want to make gender studies more welcoming for men, I mean it for a very good reason.
And all those people calling themselves feminists who would nevertheless choose to sex-segregate and advocate for a separatist ideology, of ‘women’s issues only’, mocking ‘What about the menz?’ need to evolve a bit, and stop dragging their knuckles on the issue.
Tom Martin…No, it’s not an eye-opener. Second-wave feminism has always known and said that sexual inequality was bad for men too and that feminism is good for men. Yes feminism means they have to share domestic duties but it also means women have to share breadwinning duties. If you think feminism means endorsing the idea that men are obliged to support women, you’re not paying attention.
“The men’s rights perspective is that women form prostitution unions to marry rich men polygamously, so they can avoid work, and that women would rather kill excess females than see female sexual market power decrease by a more even-balanced sex ratio.”
This is why the MRM as it stands condemns itself to irrelevancy. Only this “movement” would look at Afghanistan and say “look what those evil wimmenz did!” I’m all for letting “Tom Martin” post here, and indeed I would give him a megaphone to advertise his ridiculousness if I could. I put his name in quotes because I note in post 16 Tom apparently refers to himself in the third person in a way that would seems unnatural for someone talking about themselves: “his story”.
“in every country in the world, the women are hypergamous gold-diggers … The men’s rights perspective is that women form prostitution unions to marry rich men polygamously, so they can avoid work, and that women would rather kill excess females than see female sexual market power decrease by a more even-balanced sex ratio.”
See, this isn’t funny, this isn’t even just nuts; this is systematic misogyny, conspiracy-mongering hate-speech at a fascistic level.
Dave – quite – and here it is for the LSE lawyers to find.
Ohhhh… if only I had faith that the LSE had any good lawyers; they’re still trying to wriggle out from their last bout of Gadaffi arse-kissing.
Oh yes, there is that…
Here’s a few clues about why women typically don’t want equality as
much as men:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1343899/Gender-equality-myth-Women-want-rich-husbands-careers.html
A study by the Fatherhood Institute which I can’t find right now, from about 5 years ago, shows 74% of women say they want men to do more childcare, and 76% of men say they want more childcare.
Another study I remember hearing, asked UK women whether they would transfer their final 3 months maternity leave to the father, and 85 or 90% of women said they’d keep the leave for themselves.
The Masculinity Index (MAS) finds arab countries are much less interested in traditional male gender roles than men in the west:-
Japan scores 95, Britain scores 66 and USA scores 62, whilst Arab nations score 53.
A pan Arab women’s opinion study (which I can’t find but do have printed out somewhere), shows they rank women’s issues like inequalities way down on their wish-list for change, citing other socio economic political and nationalistic issues.
If you understand the experimental psychology, that women elect men to positions of dominance (Aries, E. 1996, Oxford for meta analysis) – then it becomes clear just blaming men for ‘patriarchy’, is way, way off the mark.
‘Patriarchy’ may be enforced by men, serving ‘god’ – but god being not real, who are these enforcers really serving?
And, if it’s in the Daily Mail, there will be a companion piece somewhere about the effect on property prices.
If ‘The War of the Worlds’ were reported in the Daily Mail tomorrow, the headline would be something like ALIENS INVADE, HOUSE PRICES PLUMMET.
B&W witticism of the day award goes to – Skeptic Lawyer!
I’m curious how a crank like this got accepted into any kind of graduate program. Maybe they felt sorry for him?
What’s with all the prostitute-hate, anyway? It’s not more parasitic than any other entertainment jobs. What, farmers are the only honest, hard-working people in the world?
What did they tell the women to think?
Hi, I just ran across your web site via yahoo. Your viewpoint is truly applicable to my life right now, and I’m really pleased I found your website.