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, at this point of the discussion, you really need to redefine, with clarity.
Holly offered a definition, based of what you said:
Updated definition of “whore”:
1. A woman who has sex for money.
2. A woman who receives anything from anyone ever.
3. A woman who tells men what she wants.
4. A woman who complains about anything.
Here are my additions:
5. A woman or a man who hurt equality (I’m not gonna make do define equality. Let’s just stay to what-Tom-Martin-define-as-equality)
6. A woman Tom Martin doesn’t like
Is she correct? Am I? Do you have a better and synthetic definition? Because we definitely can’t use the traditional definition.
Please apply your theory to real life example:
– why is Holly a whore? (has a job, doesn’t rely on her bf for money, wants equality,…)
– why is David a whore? (not a woman, no information about his sex life, runs a not very profitable blog that mocks and exposes sexism)
– Why am I a whore? (doesn’t live with bf, doesn’t receive money from him, doesn’t want to “put a ring on it”, is studying for a job where I invent and build things)
I’m also repeating what Ozy said:
– really scientific theories can be disproved. For example, if you can show that all fossils were a hoax, you’ve basically disproved evolution. It’s an indication that evolution is a scientific theory.
– is your theory a real serious one?
– then explain how it could be disproved.
For someone who wants to be taken seriously, you sure have a hard time showing your seriousness. What is it, the second, third time that you claim to have evidence without being able to show it.
I’d love to know if Tom’s lawsuit – and his appeal, come to that – was as coherently argued and comprehensively referenced as the arguments that he’s been putting forward here.
Given the reaction from the judge, I’m guessing the answer is a pretty comprehensive “yes”.
And I’m willing to bet that the outcome of an appeal, even if it gets as far as a hearing, is more likely to be a place for Tom on the official vexatious litigants list than anything else.
And quite right, too – the courts are busy enough without having to deal with the fantasies of someone who thinks that 97% of women are “whores” and that the provision of hard chairs is a prima facie and empirical sign of institutionalised misandry.
I think I figured out the way the world works in Tom Martins head.
To him, 97% of women are all members of a secret society called “Women Hating On Real mEn: or WHORE. Their agenda is to spread doom and chaos to the world by controlling it through the power of being selective about who to have sex with. Even the mere act of complaint is a strategic act in their subversion of the world. Only Tom Martin, with his super powers of realizing that hard chairs are an oppressive proxy of prostitution can save the world.
Here is a scenario of the world from Tom’s POV
On the dark stormy peaks of mount Gynofacsim (somewhere in Saudi Arabia), 4 members of WHORE were gleefully bragging about their latest sinister crimes.
Gol Diggaria: “Heh, guess what, I got a man to give his life savings in supporting my extended family, and all I had to do is withhold sex. It feels so good to be so evil!”
Prostitutia: “That’s nothing, through my tireless shadow campaign to spread prostitution, men will fight and compete for my pleasure and joy, mua ha ha ha ha~”
Feminisinister: “Oh yeah, well, I still maintain an iron grip on Saudi Arabia. Our smokescreen of women not being able to drive, and the whole idea of the ‘patriarchy’ is playing right into our hands.”
Deceptiva: “Feh, I was going to oppress men with the hardest of chairs, but that blasted Tom Martin and his amazing powers of perception foiled my evil crime.”
Prostitutia: “Curse that Tom Martin. He is on to my evil plot and is trying to get some of our best agents, the feminists, to renounce prostitution.”
Feminisinister: “We’ve all lost something evil to that blasted do-gooder, but I have devised a brilliant scheme to stop him. We will use our agents in the United Kingdom to dismiss any court clams he may make. Then our next move will be to make a fool of him in the internet. They’ll never know what he truly means when he says ‘WHORE.’ Then our victory of him will be assured!”
—-
What I don’t think Tom realizes is that there is no vast conspiracy of women whose sole agenda is to be the puppet master of the world by “making” men give gifts and being selective about sexuality. Of course, anybody who would try to tell him otherwise (pretty much all the non-trolls here I would imagine) are whores for doing so. I don’t think he realizes that the world isn’t a golden age comic where he is the sole crusader of sexism against men against the forces of whoredom. I can’t think of any other explanation as to why he believes what he believes, and why he seems so convicted in his zealotry to the point of pointing out the oppression of hard chairs.
@Demios: for your scenario of Tom’s mind: (´ ▽｀).。ｏ♥♡
Demios! Quit feeding valuable intelligence to the infidels!!!
What a surprise, 97 percent of women are whores because we have opinions and because life requires that we make decisions without consulting whoremaster.
That’s what really pisses you off isn’t it whoremaster, that God gave women the same intelligence as men and our own personalities and wishes and needs. Oh, that and the fact that many men live quite happily with that knowledge but not you.
Perhapsd you’d be more content in life collecting china dolls whoremsaster.
Tom, let me be blunt about this because I’m tired of this drivel: sources, or GTFO.
Does this mean that the only thing we have to do to get Limbaugh and Westboro to stop making asses of themselves is *put them alone in a room with an intellegent woman*? LET’S DO THIS!
Srsly, though, Tom, I REALLY want to see this study. Because if it was really about putting people with two opposing views in a room and the women always winning, I want to meet those women. It’s hardly ever that easy on the Internet or IRL.
So, I think that since you have so many issues with the fact that women must use their intelligence to make decisions, perhaps I should post every single decision I must make to day, that you may understand the wisdom of being careful for what you wish for….
So tom, I’m about to make the bed..which corner should I start with? Or for that matter, which chore in which room should I start with? Please send detailed instructions so that I’m not forced to decide anything. Also, I have an eighty unit building to clean. Please, let me know what I should be doing and a time table with explicite instructions. Oh! And I have people coming to look at apartments. Where should I await them, what should I greet them with and how shall I present the unit to them? Should I follow them up to the unit or lead the way? I also have washing and a grocery list to provide. Whatr are your instructions?
Come on martin, you need to keep up! You haven’t given me instctions on house keeping, and by this time my house should have been in good order! So, now I’m sweeping halls. When I walk, shall I lead with the left or right foot? The moti of my broom, shall it be long and flowing or short swipes at the floor? Shall I start at the top of the stairs or the bottom. I’m counting on you Tom, the landlord expects a clean building. Oh, don’t forget to let me know when and how to vacuum the hallways.
Martin, there’s chores need doing over here and I wouldn’t want to be a whore by using my own preferences on when and how thery get done. I need to know how to sweep the walkways, what are your preferences on this? And should I sweep the walkways first or clean the windows?
@Tom:
I have already explained why your “interpretation” (I use the word loosely) of Elizabeth Aries’ research does not accord with her actual arguments. Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked my previous comment, but because I suffer from an incurable case of Somebody’s Wrong on the Internet Syndrome, I will try to explain this again:
Aries does not at any point claim that women exert primary decision-making power behind the scenes while using men as their public mouthpieces. Nowhere. Never. Not even a little bit. That particular delusion is derived straight from your ass; stop fraudulently citing research that does not support your claims.
According to Aries, multiple studies have found that men are more likely to emerge as leaders in mixed-sex groups. (Note that “leader” actually means “leader,” and not “pawn of the whoriarchy puppetmistresses.”) On average, women spoke less, raised fewer objections, and made more concessions in mixed-sex groups than in same-sex groups, while the reverse was true for men. Aries proposes that these findings are “in part an artifact of the situation in which leadership has been studied”; most of the experimental groups were composed of complete strangers, and only met for brief sessions. In situations where group members had no prior knowledge of each other and little opportunity to get to know each other, they were more likely to fall back on the stereotypical “script” which casts men as leaders and women as followers.
However, during longer sessions, or when the participants already knew one another, gender became less predictive of relative dominance and subordinance, while factors such as individual competence and personality came into greater play. (Although gender stereotypes become less instrumental in determining the configuration of power over the course of long-term interactions, they do not disappear entirely, and they continue to confer relative advantages upon men, who — all other things being equal — are consistently perceived as more competent and authoritative than women.) Finally, Aries argues that far from preferring to engage in covert manipulation, women employ stereotypically male leadership strategies when they are not stigmatized for doing so: “When sex-typed masculine behavior is legitimized for women, their behavior shifts to a style similar to that of men.”
Care to dig up the citation info for that Harvard study, Tom? So far, we know that you’ve grossly misrepresented the claims of two of your supposed “sources,” but hey — third time’s the charm!
*Cheers AuntHortense on*
Tom definitely is unable to accurately summarize claims of anything he’s read (maybe why he so seldom gives a citation?). It all seems to come down to “men drool, whores rule” in his pointy little head.
Quakers quotes the bible as some kind of literal observation of female oppression:
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the saviour of the body.
The typical whore can see from this bit, that if she shuts up, her body will be saved (from work) by the husband.
Quakers thinks women’s silence is a loss of power:
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Actually Quakers, Aries, E. 1996 on male dominance and female power, makes clear that women withhold power, from men, by not divulging information to men. On average, men speak to women, women speak to women, and relatively few people speak to men. When a woman loves a man however, she divulges a lot freely though, hence the stereotype of men complaining about women never shutting up – but on average, women withhold info from men.
That’s why feminists are so right about encouraging women to speak up in public settings.
Now martin, about my work which needs doing…I’ve given you plenty of info here and yet no timely replies to my queries. Surely you don’t want me whoring around using my own preferences to decide things do you?
Amused said:
Tom Martin, who hasn’t patented, built, or invented anything useful, just proved he’s a whore.
Well, people, I have invented something, and am working on prototypes.
I have previously sought a patent application for another invention.
And I’ve built lots of things too.
I’ve also made daisy chains.
WHORE:
1. A woman who has sex for money.
2. A woman who receives anything from anyone ever.
3. A woman who tells men what she wants.
4. A woman who complains about anything.
5. A woman or a man who does not support Tom Martin’s idea of “equality”
6. A woman Tom Martin doesn’t like
7. (NEW) A woman who hasn’t patented anything
You’ve got to leave this to Tom: There just isn’t any evidence that he won’t turn around.
I mean, usually you get the “yeah, in Saudi Arabia women have it bad, but you western feminists are just whiny bitches”, but Tom is the only person to actually claim that Saudi women have it best.
BTW, Tom, have you bothered to look at the book you’re referencing?
Could you give quotes? Data?
Oh crap, I forgot:
8. A Muslim woman.
Obviously.
relatively few people speak to men…..you do live on planet earth right?
do tell what this amazing powerful information it is that we’re withholding from men as well? because I know what I’ll be talking about with my male friend this afternoon…this ridiculous discussion I’m having with you.
and link to this study? I did google it…found this interesting comment on youtube
might that comment be from you? because I found more of your gibberish when I googled it but not the study itself.
Holly, that women con should be changed to women have preferences. Why would someone complain if they didn’t have a preference on the subject?
I think I get what he’s trying to say, and its still BS.
Leaving out the fact that women’s groups had little influence on government and laws until a few decades ago…hell let alone the fact that women didn’t get the vote until 1920…he thinks any policies or laws that are changed or altered are because women elected men who will make these changes or who align with their political beliefs.
What he fails to mention though is that male voters have this exact same ability and right, and have, historically for a longer time. Both sexes elect men to positions of dominance. But at the end of the day, the men in those positions have the final say regardless of what the voters what. They talk with other men in positions of powe and make the final decisions. Not women. Not even male voters. But it’s still men making those decisions and working in men’s interests or from a male POV. All feminists argue is that women should be given the equal opportunity to have a chance at having that of power in government. It’s easier to have women’s voices heard, it offers women’s POVs and it’s just plain fair. And it is coming to this, and MRAs and sexists hate it. Look at their hate for Hilary.
*power
*want
ugh. I haven’t gone to sleep yet lol
True enough Quackers, but it comes down to indiidual women expressing their preferences or making their disenchantment with certain decisions known. Now, if he has a problem with women having minds of their own when it comes to politics he’s far more likely to have problems with women having problems in general. Hence the “complaining” and not just “I think women should stay out out political decisions altogether”.
Well, people, I have invented something, and am working on prototypes.
Hate to break it to you Tom, but strapping a colander to your head to keep out the space rays has already been done. Back to the drawing board!
Okay, peeps, we HAVE to start the Book of Tom now. Having no voice in the public sphere is actually POWER, yo!
Tom, you might remember that little debate about birth control we had recently, which included a panel made up entirely of men. Were the women complaining about their lack of represenation in this photo just deluded? It got “more than 2,600 likes on Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page and more than 5000 shares from that website alone”, and I don’t think that was because they thought this was the way everything should be.