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.
Oh I’m a bit curious why david is a “whore”? You mentioned something about mocking and excluding mras or something. Does mocking and excluding make you a whore?
I think MRAs are doing quite well at that by themselves.
ozymandias42 | March 19, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I’m not going to give a fuck about not being a whore unless you explain to me why your theory isn’t an invisible garage-dragon.
Okay,
Here is my current understanding of the way gender relations tend to work.
Experimental psychology shows us, that when you put a stupid man and an intelligent woman in a room, and tell them to discuss an issue, come to a decision about it, then announce their findings, 9 times out of 10 the woman wins the argument, but then elects the man to make the announcement. This types of experiments have been repeated a lot since 1967, and they tend to get the same results. It’s quite reliable.
Women elect men to positions of ‘dominance’ – more accurately, prominence – but to carry out what women order (Aries, E. 1996 for meta analysis).
So ‘patriarchies’ are really male ‘dominance’ and female power.
Research shows (Strauss, 1986 et al, with a 2007 Harvard study confirming it which I can’t find) that 9 times out of 10, in happy marriages, women tell men what to do (on decisions big and small).
So, that explains our history of male ‘dominance’ and female ‘oppression’ or ‘subservience’ – it’s a reversal of the truth.
However, there is an important caveat. In those happy relationships, when women tell men what to do 9 times out of 10, the men show no stress response, like increased heart rate or blood pressure. They don’t mind, or even like being told what to do (citation needed).
However, this regrettable compliance on men’s part does not change the core fact, that women are usually the boss of men in a so-called ‘patriarchy’.
So, when we know who is making the orders in a “patriarchy” on average, and we ask, how did such “patriarchal” religions and customs come to pass making such whores of women? The answer is, God made it so, and it was enforced by the religious police, Imams, etc.
The male dominance/female power model fits this set up.
God/men/Imams/religious policemen are symbolically in power, but, they are merely carrying out the will of the real gods, on average, women.
And sure enough, when you scratch a little bit beneath the surface and actually ask women in whoriarchies about their gender politics, you will find they are fractionally more keen to talk about gender equality than men, but conversely, also more keen to cling on to whoring privileges and traditions than the men, in particular, the privilege of not being obliged to split their earnings with their husband:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103441/saudi-arabia-majorities-support-womens-rights.aspx
Likewise, it is women who do the sex segregating, although it may be enforced by the men/religion/tradition. Religions though, are just extensions of ‘God’s will’ AKA women’s original will.
Likewise, it is women who want men paranoid, jealous and possessive, i.e. “patriarchal”. Just have a debate about the introduction of compulsory paternity testing, and you’ll soon realise how much the average woman instinctively hates the idea of guys being certain about paternity – women just hate it.
Likewise, it is women who want female fetuses dead, to keep the numbers of females down, and the male-on-male competition fierce – and in these skewed societies with a shortage of females, “patriarchy” ensues – the most skewed being Afghanistan. These women know they don’t want to have to work the land, and won’t have to if they keep killing females.
Now there are male supporters in the background in all these scenarios, who think they’re in the foreground, but behaviourism says its the women in charge, and always have been, and if you speak to the average Muslim man he’ll say “In my country, men are the boss.” and all you need to do to pop the veneer, is say, “You’re not really though, aye.” and it will soon all come out, that women are the boss.
So, this is why there’s relatively little point in preaching feminism to Arab women if you want gender equality, but would be much more effective explaining experimental psychology to Arab men. The penny drops, they realise they’re being ripped off, and they soon get wise.
Yo, that’s real nice and stuff, but even assuming it’s all true… since when is “a woman who tells men what to do” a “whore”?
USE WORDS TO MEAN THINGS.
Could he possibly be an anti-MRA, trying to damage the cause with his lunatic outbursts?
I think MRAs are doing quite well at that by themselves.
To do that intentionally one actually needs some degree of honesty and intelligence, something MRAs don’t have.
And now he’s just repeating himself ad infinitum. So I give you Emojicons for all your emotive needs.
(Seriously, I admire those of you engaging with him, but to me, he is just dumber than a box of hair.)
(⊙ω⊙) [Female sloths are WHORES!]
i’m confused as to how my husband not being arsed about what we have for dinner equates to me running the world….
other than that your baseless assertion that women abort female fetuses to avoid sexual competition (you’re right i plan to compete sexually with my 18yr old daughters when i am nearing 60) make me want to vomit. You are obscene.
And here are some Starling photos that are quite lovely:
WHORES!
WHORES!
WHORES!
WHORES!
Oh gawd Cloudiah
how I feel about this thread: ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Tom, y u no make sense?
Starlings are more whoreish than penguins, it’s true because science.
Tom: Okay, there’s this thing called language. It’s a way for many people to communicate complex ideas. But part of the deal is that WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. You can’t just one day declare that a hawk is a handsaw or vice-versa, it just doesn’t work, and makes communication much more difficult that it needs to be. So let’s do an imagination exercise: let’s try to think of a word that has a generally accepted meaning that is closer to your thoughts on women today, because whatever the fuck you’re trying to describe IS NOT A WHORE!
Ok I just had to do the same one Quackers!
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Oh…oh shit. There’s a Loreena Bobbit emoticon on that site, first one http://emojicons.com/popular/4
MRAs gonna be piiiiissssed
I’m pretty sure this is why he lost the court case.
♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ ( ･o･) ┓♪ dance party!!
Bostonian: Because he rants like… I dunno, something really, really fucking ranty that makes no fucking sense?
Gah. You answered the WRONG QUESTION again. I didn’t ask what evidence you have FOR your theory; I asked what evidence would turn you AGAINST it. It is really a very simple question. What evidence could someone present you to show you that your theory not true?
Otherwise it’s just an invisible garage-dragon, and I don’t care HOW many burn marks you show me.
@Bostonian
I think the y u kno is my favorite but HOLY CRAP ADVENTURE TIME!!! | (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
More randomness:
My turkey meatloaf recipe, by cloudiah:
2 lbs ground turkey
about 3/4 cups of quick-cook oats (improvised, ‘cos no bread crumbs; internet to the rescue!)
about 1/2 cup salsa
4 oz diced green chiles
dehydrated onion flakes (because WTF, I had ’em)
2 eggs
freshly ground pepper, b/c if you use pre-ground you are a WHORE!!!
Put into 3 tiny loaf pans that I inherited from my mother and bake for something like 1:15 hrs at 350, or thereabouts. Make a green veggie for the side, and then eat some yum. Save leftovers for awesome sammiches, made by WHORE WOMEN for INVENTOR MEN.
raise the roof…RAISE IT!!! (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ
unce, unce, unce, unce, unce!
[¬º-°][¬º-°]¬[¬º-°]¬[¬º-°]¬
The Walking Dead.
@ Bostonion “I’m pretty sure this is why he lost the court case.”
Yeah. I was actually following him for the first few paragraphs there. Not agreeing, obviously, but following. Then suddenly his train of though jumped the tracks and plunged into a ravine. I’d love to see a court transcript, just to see if any of his arguments before the judge suddenly turned into weird misogynistic/Islamophobic screeds.
ヘ(^_^ヘ)ヘ(^_^ヘ)ヘ(^_^ヘ)
HOLLA
By all means, disprove the hypothesis.
Some of you are going with the old “I don’t understand him, therefore HE is stupid” fallacy.
Some of you are going with a general Code Stupid, where you literally just say the word “stupid” a lot, without explaining what or why. On the assumption that any neutrals reading this thread aren’t stupid though, you’ll have to get to it.
Some of you are making baby talk.
Some of you are drawing pictures.
A lot of you are changing the subject.
A lot of you, who would have been patriarchy theory-adherents will now, in the face of an explanation of how women run ‘patriarchy’, attempt to claim that whatever that traditional gender dynamic is called hardly exists today.
A lot of you are playing the ‘don’t talk to him’ game.
Others are claiming they don’t understand the written word all of a sudden – although they seemed to comprehend the previous 700 comments.
What am I right or wrong about, and why?
@Sir Bodsworth Ruddlesby III
Trains jump the tracks all the time.