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’m sure it does.
Seem might be the important word in that sentence (the electrically shocked part… I got nothing, perhaps you should wear less wool to bed).
It’s funny how Tom conflates “genuine” and “involuntary” when he talks about his imaginary study.
@kittehserf:
That’s really neat coloring, I’d be temped to call it “lynx point tabby” very cool.
@tom:
Candid Camera is not exactly a scholarly work. For a “documentary” getting consent after the fact is probably(IANAL) fine for using the footage. But, if you’re trying to prove anything, from an academic standpoint, you’re on pretty shaky ground, ethically speaking.
Nope. Toxoplazma Gondii is a protozoan that can infect pretty much any mammal or bird. They can sexually reproduce only in cats and the oocysts will be shed in the cat’s feces.
The shed oocysts take ~1 day to become infectious, so being directly urinated on is not going to be an issue (from a T. Gondii infection standpoint). However, the primary means of infection for humans is from consuming infected, under-cooked meat.
The evolutionary benefit of altering the rodent’s behavior is pretty obvious, it get’s the protozoa back into a feline host where sexual reproduction can occur. There is no such benefit in changing a human’s behavior. Not that it couldn’t happen, just that it’s not going to be a very successful strategy.
Tom, LBT is a man. If you already knew this and called him “she” anyway, congratulations! You’ve found a way to be even more of an asshole than you already were!
And stop blathering about women’s orgasms. I’m like 99% sure you’re just trying to goad the women here into countering your “facts” with tales of our own orgasms. We’re not here to provide you with fap fodder.
Meanwhile, you keep adding goals to your documentary which just happen to reflect the conversations in this thread and your desperate need to have us believe your assfacts. Not only is your “documentary” going to be an unfocused mess of unrelated hypotheses, it’s also going to be a tragic reflection of your desperate dependence on our opinion of you. The one thing it won’t do is prove how wrong we were, so you can stop going “oh yeah? Well I’ll just add that to my documentary!” like it’s some kind of “gotcha”.
Oh, and you can add toxoplasmosis to the list of things you don’t know shit about even after reading about them.
Chibigodzilla, thanks for the toxo facts. I was gonna post them myself, but I’m happy to be ninja’d in this case 🙂
Tommy: Pecunium, you’re wrong about requiring written consent before the interviews. How do you think they filmed Candid Camera?
If all you were doing was making a “gotcha” TV show, you’d be right (this is where that auto-didacticism is biting your delicate little ass).
Have a citation:
Before.
That, of course is US law.
What about Great Britain? How are things done there?
You can’t do that after the fact.
Let’s look at specific requirements for studies in psychology:
Let’s look at the details (I’ll highlight the relevant bits)
Note the distinction… one consent form for collection (which therefore is requireed prior and one for dissemination. Since you have their faces in this, it appears to be in this category (see infra, re video or audio recording
Who is the academic researcher who worked with you? Where are they presently accredited?
Crap… some bolding errors. But I think you can parse it out, what with your degree in self-teaching. If you can’t, everyone else can.
And in particular, you certainly can’t be claiming that you got consent if all you offered women was a choice between having their footage used and having their footage reenacted verbatim by someone else. There’s the rather key “not participating” option missing there.
FTR, pre-study disclosure can be fudged. The overall gist of it has to be true, but you can mislead your subjects to a certain degree — Milgram was redone with debriefing and that was IRB approved (Milgram himself never told those people that they hadn’t actually hurt anyone, that was the really unethical part)
Argenti: Right: there is some leeway, pre-experiment, about how much to disclose (and only that which is going to fundamentally alter the outcome is permitted), but as soon as the data collection is completed you have to follow up.
But we know that there is no IRB, so any, “professional” Tommy has spoken with was either lied to, misunderstood completely what was being asked, or has less in they way of ethical constraints than Bybee and Yoo.
I’d go with all three.
The newer Milgram’s experiment got close enough to the same results btw.
A recurring problem for Tommy.
I have never met anyone with such dedication to making an ass of himself in public as Tom.
That, and disappearing BBC videos.
Tommy:
Wait… you read ABOUT this magical study? So you admit you haven’t read it?
It’s all just assfax.
Got it.
Basic concepts Tommy doesn’t understand: If you claim there was a study/documentary about one oddly specific thing relating to one of your pet peeves and it turns out you made it up, then nobody is going to believe you the next time you make that claim.
katz: They didn’t cover, “persistence of reputation” in the British University of Auto-Didacts. A small, but understandable, failing in the curricula.
It might have been offered at one of the sister schools (The British University of Decent Human Beings), under the course titles, Ethics and Morals for Decent Human Beings, but Tommy skipped it because he didn’t think he needed to study mushrooms.
But some of them have lovely red skirts with white polka dots!
Argenti: You’ll catch more flies with honey.
Thanks Pecunium, for all that info about consent. From what I’ve read, we’re covered.
EmilyGoddess said,
“Meanwhile, you keep adding goals to your documentary which just happen to reflect the conversations in this thread… ”
Well spotted Emily – so make it interesting.
Emily then say
” …stop going “oh yeah? Well I’ll just add that to my documentary!” ”
It’s my ship Emily. You are part of the unpaid focus group.
The documentary is morphing all the time into an investigation of different styles of humour between the sexes (as the difference in joke-making ability is probably small between the genders compared to sexism levels), investigating ways adult women can become funnier without being so nasty – like dropping gold-digging and misandry (or resurrecting victim-feminism) – and learning to be more honest sexual communicators – so they have a few more orgasms and cheer up a bit.
You are all big winners.
It’s about leaning in, then cracking a joke.
Hellkell made a joke earlier… about me fucking blow up dolls. In retrospect, that might explain a lot of their personalities.
I saw a documentary on expensive realistic love dolls, which followed a few love doll fans’ with their £8000 love dolls – and it was all very sad – cleaning out their vaginas with pipe cleaners etc. Then it cut to the factory, and one of the guys making the dolls said something like “You can laugh all you want, but what guy can say truthfully that if he was left alone in a room with one of these for long enough he wouldn’t fuck it?”
Why not? It’s more realistic than a bright pink ball-bearing filled, rotating, vibrating, multi-pronged, double-ended, strap on, remote-controlled, rechargeable, machine-washable vibrator – and what woman hasn’t tried a vibrator?
HM leaves hers in overnight!
You know, I buy women tell lots of nasty jokes. But I get the idea your nasty is “Not saying that 97 percent of women are whores” rather than making an actual nasty joke, like a rape joke or a racist joke.
*Facepalm* Sooooo…you didn’t read anything he wrote, then? YOU HAVE TO GET CONSENT AHEAD OF TIME. To use their data at all, not just to use the footage.
You can’t find the study you “read about” (telling, that) because it doesn’t exist. Search the scientific databases. You’re flapping your gums all over the place about wholly imaginary things, and apparently when it comes to these things you don’t actually read the studies themselves anyway.
I go back to how you look to others who do not share your peculiar hang-ups: women laugh at you and will always laugh at you because the things you say and claim bear no relation to what actual human females experience or do. You look absolutely pitiful with this stuff about orgasms. You know who doesn’t need studies to know how women respond in bed? Women. So when we see you prattling on with this stuff we just laugh at the deluded guy who has it all wrong, so wrong.
I don’t have time to look at this other study I imagine you’re also misrepresenting.
One thing you’re clearly always misrepresenting is sex: sex is not just penetration, you dope. I wonder where all this overly focusing on what gives the guy the most pleasure will lead us…hmmm…
”Point of entry,” ewwww. Just ewww all around. You make me so sad. But all the more thankful that I have a guy who doesn’t see me as this Other creature he needs studies to comprehend…and then only wants to use them to prove how alien and unresponsive I am. How at fault I am. How women cause all the problems. Hypothesizing about a link between female orgasms and “joke making”? What a loser. I mean…that is absolute loser territory almost to the point of being objectively so. May you someday find a way to get free of all these hang-ups and grow out of this crap.
Hahaha the idea that a plastic woman with a fuckhole you have to clean out in the sink is more realistic than anything…sigh. And some of the best vibrators are straight up massagers. Why make a dick-shaped thing when its whole purpose is something dicks can’t do? Dock another point for you not getting things.