Post by Masculist Post by Turin Post by email@example.com
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.
Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.
For those who aren't familiar with "Tom Smith", "Smitty", "Qim",
"Masculist", etc., Thomas is a mentally ill, homeless liberal who is
addicted to street drugs, sleeps in a park and typically logs onto the
Internet from UCSB.
Tom is known mainly as a schizophrenic who takes wildly contradictory
positions on "leftism" (and just about anything else), as well as making
even more wild accusations against people online.
He's a deadbeat dad, an ex "punk" prison con, and a lifelong substance
abuser. Most of his personal problems (both, on and offline) stem from
his abuse of drugs and alcohol.
Tom doesn't have any real understanding of leftism, or politics in
general. Least of all, of Men's Rights. (He's a lifelong feminist).
He isn't genuinely hostile toward women's issues, or even toward gays as
he pretends to be.
It's tempting at first to put him into the quaint category of the
"little man with a pet theory, minus any actual knowledge". However,
the truth is a little more complex. Essentially, Tom has a
deteriorating condition and simply isn't responsible for a lot of the
things that he says.
Tom did use to be involved in what passes for left-wing politics in the
U.S. He was employed in some social make-work programs, designed to
help work-release patients, like himself. When the funding for such
jobs fizzled out, Tom found himself unemployed and his marriage, to his
fellow drug addicted wife, on the rocks. As is typical in U.S. society,
while Tom did 2-3 years for dealing drugs, his wife did none at all.
Their two kids have suffered the psychological damage of having such
parents. From there, Tom's whole life fell apart. That might be said
to have been the start of Tom's "involvement" in Men's Issues.
Further information on Tom's alleged relationship to the Men's movement
can be found in the amusing-but-true FAQ below, along with a more
detailed profile on his disruption tactics and his dissociative identity
disorder. Special thanks to all those who contributed to this project.
by Yuno Hu
Who or "what" is Tom Smith?
Tom smith is a psychiatrically disturbed troll who engages in false
accusations against people he doesn't know, group disruptions and
communication jamming in general. His closest ideology is that of
women's rights; though, his trolling activities are generally done out
of a need for personal attention.
However, in an effort to establish some credibility for his disruptions
in Men's Groups - where he tries to peddle most of his phony tales of
woe - he casts himself as something which he calls a "Masculist", with
himself as the president of it's beer-muddled ideology and the wearer of
it's largest paper hat. As his victim, it inevitably falls to you to
make sense out of his confused and contradictory statements, and thereby
to supply therapy and meaning to his ruined life.
What Thomas's brand of "masculism" actually is, is merely the usual
reactionaryism of male feminists that was written by go-with-the-flow
corporate-liberal types. It's known as gender role playing and is
highly adaptable to every bourgeois political fad that comes along.
Most utilize the technique as their core ideology and embellish it with
their own personal group's identity and style, in the same way that MP3
players utilize "skins". Tom's added twist to the idea is a bit of
band-aid liberalism (that is, when he's not back-pedaling from his
positions), and a whole lot of folksy personality.
That's it. You now have a Ph.D. in "masculism".
Of course, the Men's Movement has long been plagued by half-way
liberalisms, such as masculism, that are (still being) constantly
repackaged to address a Man's heartburn, but not His RIGHTS. They are
counter-insurgencies which seek to redirect the Men's Movement into
serving the woman's agenda. Tom Smith, himself, is basically just
another loud-mouthed servant who enjoys the taste of (a woman's) shit
but goes running to the Men's Movement for protection whenever she
starts becoming too abusive to him.
Those of us who are veterans in the Movement, who are carrying too many
battle scars but not enough victories under our belts (or, laurels in
our crowns ...as case may be), just don't have the luxury anymore of
promoting the self-aggrandizing spoiled little boy types, like Warren
Farrell and Glenn Sacks. Or, the loudmouthed little assholes like Ken
Pangborn. Then, there's the Tom Smith category.
In Tom's case, his made up masculism is also a crutch for someone who's
been left out of the left wing movement - where he found acceptance at
an earlier point in his life. It was a time when the white-trash
demographic, frankly, had a more prominent role in the U.S. Democratic
party, before being abandoned in favor of women and blacks.
Most of Tom's few, laughable allies are from overseas, where there is
still a relatively meaningful labor party. Unfortunately, they tend to
be the lowest of the lot: crude, ignorant, and sanctimoniously
hypocritical as well as obtuse on the father's issue. A political
orphan (if not an abandoned schizophrenic), Tom just doesn't know who he
The problem is that Tom doesn't think that anyone else knows who he is,
either. That being so, his primary tactic is changing positions. His
methods are lying, making up facts, pet theorizing, soundbiting, and
waffling as a supposed moderate - your basic baiting-switching,
passive-aggressive behavior. You can't get a dime's worth of
intelligent conversation out of the old asshole.
In fact, while all of the information contained in this profile on him
is based on claims of his own about himself, it's an additional
obstruction of his to claim that the facts have been made up; thereby,
constantly refueling pointless debates. This amounts to simply one more
ruse for keeping the real debates clogged up with personality wars, and
so in keeping Tom's personal disease well fed and thriving.
Until the University of California, Santa Barbara either pulls the plug
on poor Tom, or stops offering public Internet access, it's going to be
up to the Men's Advocate to either ignore Thomas's trolling or to
prepare himself to debate nonsense by understanding who Tom is and his
own stated background. In either case, a portrait of an asshole helps
to make an informed decision.
Careerwise, when Tom was young, he did two to three traumatic years in
prison for selling drugs. Later, he reformed himself by becoming some
low grade "facilitator" for autistics. From that, he pretends to have
been a pioneer in the field. (Autistics who are familiar with him have
laughed at this.)
Today, he lives on the street as a deadbeat dad. Using public
computers, he attempts to take over discussion groups in little coups,
using calculated disruptions which he believes can be leveraged into
media attention as the magic cure for getting justice. This
self-centered little fantasy is actually a common technique employed by
the deadbeats. Most online groups are aware of some of these characters
and have had enough of them, along with their little Yahoo empires. (1)
Where Tom's great, half-assed awakening to Men's Issues is concerned, he
claims to have always been an activist. No doubt this was true in the
under-my-breath, grumbling sort of way in which most men also are
"activists". But, piecing together his various bullshit stories, it's
obvious that he never was a Men's Advocate at all until his divorce
happened to him. And, he still isn't.
Tom ran to Men's Advocacy as a last recourse after him and his wife,
together, fucked up his life and he found himself having to pay her
"child" support, with no job. Tom, however, is a typical coward who is
too conveniently cynical to support Men's Rights (he doesn't need that
"faggy" shit, he's a MAN), too feminist to put his "sexism" where his
mouth is, and too "moral" to admit that it's not for his kids' sake that
he wants his life back.
To be fair, the father's movement as a whole has never been able to work
with the Men's Movement. It's not just assholes, like Tom. The
father's movement is just too isolationist, too pompous, too castrated,
too stupid and too easily taken advantage of by exploiters (like Ken
Pangborn) to accomplish anything, even on a good day.
What plainly happened with Tom was that (at a time when he was busy
playing the typical hypocritical liberal, with the money, the house, and
the career - for whatever brief period that he had it) he was stupid
enough to ignore the plain realities of today and entered into a
pseudo-traditional marriage, despite the fact that he's always been a
liberal. He wanted to play a redundant male to a redundant, worthless
bitch with no job. For these guys, playing a hollow role is easier than
playing a real one, and more satisfying.
What predictably happened to our pseudo-patriarch of the easy chair was
that the bitch ended up throwing him into the garbage bin of divorce.
Their marriage wasn't based on anything real - only, role playing.
Since, in the 20th century, there was no butter for her to churn, no
clothes for her to make, no nearby stream for her to wash them in, no
meals for her to make from scratch, and - in a word - no WORK for her to
do, which otherwise would have resulted in poverty, disease and
mortality if it hadn't gotten done, then there were also none of those
effective counterbalances (that Tom's type likes to talk about) in place
to stop her from choosing the otherwise option. (2)
...She then proceeded to enjoy the kind of life that a piece of shit
like her can have today by fucking other men in his house and partying
on while he was enjoying the outdoors.
In Tom's anger, he discovered the Men's Movement. But, because he
discovered it only to the extent that the issues affected him in his own
little world - and refused to acknowledge any issue which didn't affect
him personally and directly - he's had about as much success as most of
the so-called fathers' rights groups and clowns who he's gravitated
toward. Therefore, refusing to be ideological has not only cost him his
integrity, it's made him into a bum as well.
Any basic Men's Advocate would have known that this was a formula for
disaster. However, Tom is one of these Joe Average fuckers of
mediocrity who are losing their power in today's world - except, Tom's
also worked for the feminists and has learned to pimp for them.
These simpletons don't think from day to day, and don't care. They're
more arrogant than the rich and more demanding than the poor. They
coast through life by becoming characters who blend into whatever
situation they come across. They have total confidence in their
abilities to play situational politics over the rules, and that nothing
bad can happen to them. They write off principle as being something not
"worth" fighting about. The parts of their brains that handle
principle, as well as ethics and honesty, are so unused, that once it
becomes possible to interface grey matter with computers - lying sacks
of shit that they are - they're going to be able to utilize those parts
as external hard drives with no other adverse effect. Most Men's
Activists have utter contempt for them.
Naturally, hen-pecked assholes, like Tom, still don't want to accept the
fact that half-way measures are actually the whole problem. They prefer
the chivalrously popular cop-out of blaming women's behavior on
government, and according them rights without responsibilities. There's
a nice way to play safe politics. Instead of holding these women to
equality, they shortchange themselves as Men wherever possible. Then,
when the women become unaccountable monsters, and the extortion of
divorce hits, the jellyspines feign shock and blame communism. Bravo.
Essentially, these hicks can't cope in today's world because they don't
understand it anymore. So, they fall back onto a half-assed, nostalgic
definition of a nuclear family: a wife stays home to raise kids, yet
has equal rights and answers only to herself. Huh? Those are the old
days? Meanwhile, "man" strategically learns to duck the head. He is
allowed either to watch TV or to fix a car in a garage.
This version of patriarchy is always highly sketchy in details, but
whenever you're given any it's evident that the men in it are the ones
who are accountable (to women). It's a successful revision job,
compliments of the women's movement. Such is the source and font of all
that Tom thinketh. Woe is we.
Tom is your basic conforming/collaborating male feminist, who not only
still hasn't learned that it's over for him and his type, but has paid
the price for it mentally and physically. While "pussy" or
"pussywhipped" may or may not be the closest label to slap onto crazy
old Tom, in explaining his fucked up, dishonest life ...they certainly
do qualify as a couple of clear choices.
The best thing that you, as a Men's Activist, can do about the whole lot
is to expose them (which, will usually end their games fast, as well).
Do this by fighting for Equality for Men, and to bring female abusers of
equality to justice, for a change. Refute their phony Darwinian "good
old days" nostalgia.
True equality is as anathema to a male feminist as a cross is to a
vampire. His safety is in niches and in defending the women's cause
from "militants" in the Men's Movement. The scumbag will then always
either divert the issue back into the woman's agenda, or run like the
coward he is.
Tom should be an object lesson - to all of us - as to the limited power
of playing moderate politics
...and of BULLSHIT.
(1) Those who are familiar with another sleazy character, by the name of
Ken Pangborn, can remember some of his own famous flame wars, which he
has waged over every Internet protocol that he has ever become familiar
with. The difference between someone like Ken and others like Tom is
that Ken is one of the rich little daddy's boys who never had to suffer
the raw end of divorce discrimination. It's well not to confuse the two
types because they behave differently, and with somewhat different
(2) There's a point worth noting here. Most bourgeois Men's Forums love
to cast this type of scenario as a struggle between capitalism
(patriarchy) and communism ("wymmin's movement"). They believe that, in
identifying anyone that they don't like with commies (in this case, the
women's movement), they're making a brilliant strategic move and putting
the opposition's back up against the wall. Problem is, this was
obviously capitalism feeding on itself. Strawman argument. Strawman
Of course, when the actual FACTS are shoved into their STUPID faces and
they can't PRETEND that this happens outside of a CAPITALIST system,
they quickly get into hairsplitting by turning the focus of their pet
theory against mere cultural influences. (I.e. attitudes and
education). But, the source is still always revealed to be capitalism,
including "da market". It's still a strawman argument.
The point here isn't simply that if Tom's ex-wife had been a
full-fledged Marxist of the mouth, then she would still have been living
a capitalist life, and still a feminist, and therefore it should behoove
us to note the correlation. It's also to note the cause and effect.
It was CAPITALISM that removed all of those quaint little mechanisms
from the picture of Tom's marriage. You know: The ones that supposedly
are so integral to the structure of the "nuclear" family ...whenever you
read a little history of the world from one of these
Morons-with-a-capital-M. She no longer NEEDED him for actual
tooth-and-nail, law-of-the-jungle "SURVIVAL". He was redundant to her
in that respect. So was she to him, as far as ironing his loincloth.
Nor, can one say that candy-ass American "socialism" was the temptation
that lured Mrs. Smith to destroy the marriage with welfare as a safety
net, because materialism had to break down the necessity of their
old-world roles to each other, FIRST, before the temptation could have
effect. Especially, if idiots want to argue that socialism parasites
off of capitalism.
THAT'S why it's a strawman to recommend survivalism as the glue that
binds families together and then in the next breath to recommend the
1950's. Sure, life at that time may still have been somewhat tough
following the Great Depression (for all you dorky Joe and Sue
Middle-class Republicans out there, that would be when free market
capitalism FAILED ...until the welfare state bailed out the country -God
Bless FDR), but the U.S. was pretty much past those decades by then -
which is a given reason by it's retarded advocates for recommending it.
It's especially fallacious to claim all of that and then chant the
mantra that the problem with feminism is that it wants to return us to
primitive living conditions. Well, Which is it? Is the physical
struggle for survival good or bad for marriage?
Capitalism vs. Marxism is a separate issue, and the integrity of "da
family" is a red herring. If anything, Men are returned to their old
roles in a Marxist system, while the women WORK for their equality -
instead of lazing around, insulting Men and using their own resources
against them. Meanwhile, males under capitalist regimes take out the
garbage, are abused by all females, use self-deprecating humor, and are
arrested and imprisoned for the slightest physical or verbal "abuses" of
females - including their wives and including the marital right. It is
the men under the capitalist regime who don't measure up to the survival
standard, and it is the weak capitalist male who protests the loudest
about "men being men and women being women".
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by email@example.com
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
I have such sites to show you...
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."