Tom Martin, a former gender studies student at the London School of Economics, recently became a minor celebrity amongst Men’s Rights activists and other angry men when he sued his alma mater for alleged sexism against men.
He’s now had his case thrown out of court. Let’s go to the Camden New Journal for details:
Tom Martin, 39, who lives in Covent Garden, claimed he suffered “anti-male discrimination” while studying for a master’s degree in gender, media and culture at the world-famous university in Holborn.
Representing himself at his application for a trial at the Central London County Court on Tuesday, Mr Martin complained of a lack of men-only sessions in the university’s gym and the preponderance of posters in the corridors advertising services for women without the presence of similar materials geared towards men.
Mr Martin, who describes himself as a feminist, said “hard” chairs in the library were uncomfortable for men and that a “male blaming culture” was evident in course materials, which “ignored men’s issues” and focused on wrongs done by them.
Damn those misandrist chairs and their man-hating hardness!
The judge didn’t buy it, saying Martin’s case had essentially no chance of success. He threw out the case and ordered Martin to pay LSE’s legal costs.
Martin, welcome to reality.
On Twitter, Martin responded to the news by calling his critics “whores.” One of many examples:
But I was really discriminated against, you whores!
And, yes, his Twitter handle is indeed Sexismbusters.org.
EDITED TO ADD: Actual headline today on What Men are Saying About Women:
EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Tom Martin has replied to this post in the comments. Some highlights:
My legal complaint did NOT involve a complaint about the seating. You have been misled by the press – The Times and the West End Extra/Camden New Journal both mysteriously got it wrong.
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
He then details his attempts to fight this grave injustice. Also, there’s this:
[S]everal comments here are confusing ‘whore’ with ‘slut’. A slut has sex freely, which I am all for. Freedom of association is the ultimate in humanity. A whore charges for sex. Even if a woman is a virgin, but is waiting for Mr Right to buy her something, she’s a whore.
It’s counter-intuitive, but a lot of professional feminists are whores. They expect the government and men to do them special favours. They make up stories to convince men and government to believe that we all owe women something.
But really, if someone were keeping a tab, then…
Women owe men five years pension.
Women owe men some National Service.
Women owe men some inventions.
Women owe men positive discrimination in university curricula.
Women owe men some child access.
It’s women’s round at the bar too.
For the whole thing, see here.
For more charming quotes from Tom, see this post on the blog Butterflies and Wheels.
Tom: If you want to know whether men or women are more oppressed in Islam, I will tell you, but first, I want you to bring me your week’s wages. Hand them over and we’ll talk about it. Oh, and keep doing that every week.
I don’t have wages, so you may have all of them, in perpetuity (the joys of being retired from the Army). So, tell me all about the ways in which men, or women, are the more oppressed in Saudi Arabia.
Jump to it, man. I’ve given you what you asked for.
Dude, even people who are married don’t give over ALL their wages. Lots of people have separate bank accounts!
Rutee: So what’s the contraception and abortion prevention, if it isn’t patriarchy? The pay gap, the hiring and promotion gaps, the good ol’ boy’s clubs? Hint: Just because you say it isn’t a patriarchy isn’t going to make it so.
You need to see it properly. Women are arranging for those things to justify there 1: insistence on “goods” for sex and 2: it allows them to continue to withhold sex, even after they they the “goods”.
It’s all part of the way they run the world and oppress men.
Kyrie:
I get it, not in the lawsuit. So what, we can’t talk about it? You keep argumenting for it, we keep laughing. Especially since you’re enable to show your only ‘proof’.
Worse, we are mocking him. BUT… they put cushions on the seat, it was a victory. We are mocking his victory.
Only… it wasn’t a victory. The still “don’t want men” so they put those comfy chairs in the library for women.
We are mocking his defeat.
That’s gotta hurt, what with a £37,000 judgement against him.
So whores can be men! There goes the last bit of possibility that Tom might not be a dirty whore.
“Whore”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Fascinating how quite so many of you don’t seem to want get your heads round the concept of having sex without money or gifts being involved.
It’s really not that complicated for me.
Still waiting for the first feminist here to renounce prostitution in all its forms.
It’s the proverbial open door.
Are any of you rational enough to walk through it of your own free will though?
Nah.
Fascinating how you don’t seem to be able to get your head around the concept that we do not have to accept your speshful snowflake misdefinitions of words, Humpty-Dumpty, or your unsupported premises.
It’s really not that complicated, but it does involve acknowledging the authority your audience has.
Still waiting for you to respond to the many many posts I made concerning all your claims (except the all women are prostitutes, or Saudi Arabia is a matriarchy, which are impossible to address because the whole cloth they’re made up of is clogging your head).
Still waiting for you to do something more than call your everybody who disagrees with you ‘whore.’
It’s the proverbial open door.
Are you rational enough to drop your obsessions and acknowledge the humanity of the rest of us?
Nah.
Martin, what do you intend to do when all the women in the world just stop dating? When we all move out and away from where any men are. Because according to you, this is the only way women can stop being whores. Seems like a lot of trouble. So here’s my proposal. We take you and all your like minded friends and send you to mars as the first colonists. You’ll be happy because there won’t be any women and all of humanity will lionize you as heros, and the rest of us will get to enjoy our lives together!
Ithiliana, that post right there, I love you. Please please please never stop smacking down the trolls here, okay?
I have sex not for money ALL THE TIME. In fact, I have occasionally bought men meals or Mountain Dew and then had sex with them! I’ve offered for my partner to live with me rentfree for a few months while he tries to find a job, so he does not have to move to Far Far Away and live with his parents! If anything I’m paying men!
…I just also think that sex work is a viable career choice.
Tom, I have absolutely no problem understanding your claims. They make sense. The only thing they’re missing is some basis in reality.
It’s really not that complicated for me.
I don’t doubt that. No situation is complicated if you ignore every element but the one that you made up.
Oh by the way Tom, in order to successfully use emotional manipulation to get people to agree with you for fear of looking stupid, your target has to respect your intelligence to begin with.
@Pillowinhell: *blushes* Ah, thanks!
I have such fun that I cannot see NOT doing the smackdowns!
And hangout out with you all!
Because wow, this site sizzles.
“I don’t doubt that. No situation is complicated if you ignore every element but the one that you made up.”
Hey, you made me spit out my water! 🙂
Tom, I have sex for no money or gifts all the time. But I guess since I’m married I’m like Uber Whore or something, right?
1. A quick google search shows … Students may buy membership to the LSE gym; membership is not mandatory or automatic.
2. The LSE gym advertises that the gym has women-only hours three hours a week. Male students have other options besides litigation, including not buying a membership to the LSE gym, and negotiating with the gym (see 3).
3. The LSE gym created women-only hours as a result of student groups (including Islamic women’s groups) asking for women-only hours. Male students may campaign for their own schedule or a reduced rate.
4. On my campus, students, student organizations, and to some extent organizations affiliated or aligned with the school can put posters up advertising meetings, classes, events, services, etc. Assuming this is the type of “posters in the corridors” Mr. Martin complained of, I seriously have a hard time understanding how this even amounts to a “genuine gripe.” So a group of students formed an organization for people *like themselves* and *unlike you*. Form your own damn group and advertise it. Or don’t, and come to terms with the fact that not every self-selecting group has to include you.
In short, jumping to litigation after six weeks in a program, without asking for any kind of remedial measures, makes it look like the plaintiff never wanted to be in the program at all and only wanted to litigate. I think this is one of those cases where the idiot actually is 100% wrong.
Martin, we have plenty of reasonable people here. Who read your anti-prostitution arguments, tore them to pieces by analyzing them and showing their stupidity and therefore rejecting it.
Listing reasons is not the same as making a logical argument of winning a debate. You didn’t convinced the judge, you didn’t convince us. Time to try to convince SA men they’re oppressed by their wives.
Glad to see a few of you at least defensively claiming you’re not whores.
A bit more positivity about it though, would do wonders.
Complicating the category of whore is not going to get you there.
Claiming men and women would be further apart without whoring indicates to me quite how much of a whore you are when around men currently.
Pretending hypergamy only exists in my head, indicates to me that you personally are trying to hide something.
Language doesn’t help though, as currently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.
“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.
“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.
“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.
Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.
We need a new word…
Actually, most people here seem to have a pretty simple definition of the word whore, it’s a slur against sex workers. You on the other hand seem to have a definition of byzantine complexity encompassing not only all women ever, but also the men who you don’t like.
Eh, Tom “One Trick Pony” Martin has gotten super boring, so here’s a video of a 4th grade girl taking her first ski jump:
Really? Beloved says there’s no word in any language for a man who isn’t an asslicker. If men aren’t kissing up to the boss, their sucking up to the bank loan manager, being a sycophant to whatever political power, patting the asses of your sports buddies, begging the bartenders and drinking buddies or making kissy face to mothers and wives.
Any other points you’d like to make whoremaster?
@ Cloudia
That video was amazing! Thanks for posting it. I should have known better to read the Youtube comments, though…sigh.
+h
Dammit
Tom, what evidence would prove you wrong?
Your entire “whoriarchy” gender structure… what evidence could someone provide to show that it is all mistaken? Because the thing is, until you can disprove a theory, it’s not a theory– it’s just faith. And while faith may be valid for spiritual and aesthetic concerns, it has no place in matters of politics.
Here, I’ll start. The evidence that would prove my current gender theories entirely wrong includes:
1) Neurological evidence that shows significant gender differences between men and women rooted in biology.
2) Evidence from the psychology of happiness that proves that people are significantly happier with strong gender roles.
3) Evidence that suggests that any gender overwhelmingly benefits from the patriarchy (as opposed to being hurt less), such as quality-of-life studies of people in more and less patriarchal societies that show that one gender, but not any others, has significantly higher quality of life in the more patriarchal society.
4) Valid arguments that show that liberating one gender necessarily involves harming another gender.