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:
How could you possibly quote:
and think that this is an empowering message to women? When Jesus spoke of blessing the meek and the poor and such, he always followed with “for they will .” This simply says “women, you are not allowed to learn or speak except by your husband.”
This is from Ephesians, and the message is not one of empowerment, but one of declaring what is good and bad to do. What is good is for a wife to be completely obedient, have no thoughts but for her husband, and entirely dependent.
No, it is not saving from work, or saving of any kind you are thinking. The passage describes things like these as a way to cleanse or purify oneself, to “present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” In other words, a husband owns his wife, and it is his duty to present his wife to god purified.
There is no message of women having power through men. There is no message of being saved from toil and stress. The only message is that of presenting a polished trophy or a groomed doll.
WHAT!!! Those bastards stole my idea!! Need more tinfoil!
What’s saddest about Tom is that he cites really famous studies, and then attempts to completely misrepresent them. Unfortunately for him, psychology is a popular field, and most people who’ve done their Bachelors would have run across these studies already.
@pillowinhell
I think he’s doing the typical MRA (basically reactionary) thing and going “aha women actually have some power in government in law now thus men are not oppressed” except he takes it one step further into stupidity and starts claiming that this is how it’s always been which is a complete and utter lie.
Hell even if I decided to take his word for it and said that women influence men to make decisions in their benefit, it still doesn’t mean this happens as often as he think nor does it change the fact that a man in power is still the gender in power and is the one making the decision and the one who has the final say NOR does it make men all magically agree to what women want. I don’t think these guys can even wrap their heads around a society where one sex is not completely dominating the other. They claim they’re for equality but they don’t even believe in it…its all a zero sum game.
@Molly
well you see there were actually secret feminists telling those birth control panel dudes what to say. In fact my sources that I can’t seem to find right now actually show that they aren’t even men…they’re androids controlled by feminists!!!
*thus men ARE oppressed
okay I think its time for a nap…hope all that made sense
aunthortense:
Aries is not entirely free from feminist spin. But she does get to it:
Megargee tape-recorded discussions between [male-female] pairs before choice of leader. The tapes revealed that when high dominance females were paired with low-dominance males, 91% of the time they elected the low-dominance partner to be leader. It was not the case that low-dominance men were more assertive, but rather that high-dominance women were reluctant to be assertive, and expressed their dominance indirectly by appointing their partners to be leaders.
The above paragraph is so problematic for patriarchy theory adherents, that one male feminist scholar who conducted a sexism inventory or other decided to categorize any man who expresses a belief that women are back-seat drivers as a sexist. Even though the experimental psychology, repeated since 1967 shows its on average, the case, that women will try and be back seat drivers.
Muslim men don’t even deny its true actually. Some of them say they like it like that, and that its not so bad being bossed around etc, because women are naturally better at it etc, and basically, everything’s alright if he can get his end away now and then.
There’s a line in the Whoran about not pissing women off, because they can’t be trusted etc – so Muslim men will just go along with anything for an easier life. It’s drummed into them every day by the religious scholars, “You’re the boss! Do whatever she says.”
Also Aunthortense, the Harvard 2007 study I have been unable to trace aside, there are other studies I’ve heard about in passing, regarding maternal gatekeeeping, which find that even when women are not verbalizing to the man to go out of the house and bring home a mamouth, that women have non-verbal ways of communicating exactly that – to leave them alone with the child.
So, any research finding women and men ‘agree’, that they make a lot of shared decisions, is on very shakey ground. Usually men and women will say they make joint decisions, but a little further scratching, finds that she has given him permission to agree that they make joint decisions, but that behind the scenes, she makes the decisions.
For anecdotal evidence of this, ask any estate agent, who makes the decision to buy, and they’ll tell you in no uncertain terms.
If you’re not happy with anecdotal evidence, do a study on it yourself.
Anyway, feminism does deserve credit, for attempting to encourage women to speak up, rather than back seat drive. Unfortunately, victim-female strategic frames are steeped in female victtimhood stories, so some feminists get the wrong end of the stick though, and see this as a licence to speak up WITH COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PATRIARCHY rather than to speak up and make proper contributions.
Complaining more is not the purpose of the exercise.
Contributing more is.
Tom: Complaining more is not the purpose of the exercise.
Contributing more is.
QUOTED FOR IRONY!
So, Tom, what do you do besides complain and call people whores and bring frivolous lawsuits?
Well then Marrtin, you should be very happy with how women have been contributing to the health of men by demanding that the law see to it that every man thoroughly understands the issues involved in getting viagara and vasectomies and that their health is completely examined before any perscriptions or surgereies are done.
And we’re back to individual women and their husbands again. Well, I gave you a ton of info regarding my day and what needs done. Yet you haven’t given me so much as one reply on the matter. I can therefore only conclude that its all too much for you and therefore I must consult my own preferences and do what pleases me. Now, if you willfully choose not to know about the mundane matters of home and work why should I trust you to decide what’s best for me in terms of politics? Why should I trust that you know what it is to be a woman, what decisions are afforded to me or that you have any clue about any particular womans life? You want all that important information we seem to be holding back, so I gave you mine.
Yeah that’s great and all but you’te still a misogynistic piece of shit.
I still say that according to his own definitions, Tom and his mother are both whores. Since he is the one who expanded the definition to include just about every person, he should be included.
I see no proof of any kind of patent or of any useful work done by Tom, just a useless lawsuit and begging for money from gullible MRAs.
Oh what terrible misandry.
Seriously, what would satisfy you here? Because if they’d elected the woman to be the leader, that would be female dominance. But because they didn’t, that’s Secret Backhanded Female Dominance?
—
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 has desires or preferences 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. A woman who hasn’t patented anything.
8. A Muslim woman.
9. (NEW) A woman who allows men to lead her.
Also, as someone pointed out in the comments section to my video, there are more women against abortion than men in the US apparently, so, have a word with yourselves:
Likewise, there were only women’s groups (no men’s groups) set up to oppose women getting the vote, or so I’ve heard.
And, which sex is it that hobbles women with foot binding, and high heels, and veiling, and neck- stretching, and genital mutilation, and breast ironing and force-feeding with milk? It is women that do it.
Is the penny dropping for any of you at all?
Also, I’ve mentioned I’m inventing something, and a few of you whores would disparage it.
Check yourselves.
Breast ironing and force feeding with milk?o.O
Wut?
I’m bored with this troll. On to more entertaining things
One of these things does not seem like the others. Can someone enlighten me about force-feeding?
So far, proof of women’s evil WHORE oppression of men includes men being disproportionately chosen as leaders, women oppressing other women, and women subjected to painful beauty standards.
WOW THIS MUST BE SO HARD FOR MEN.
Plenty of men opposed the vote for women too, check your history.
It’s also more men killing other men, assaulting other men, men shaming men for being weak or pussies, men not going to the doctor, men thinking women are to weak to fight in combat roles etc…so maybe MRAs ought to have a word with men instead of ranting at feminists.
Also is this the book you keep quoting from? http://books.google.ca/books?id=HJtwlSWVVKsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
this still doesn’t exactly disprove patriarchy or BS gender roles because why else would dominant women be hesitant to call the shots? why are aggressive women shunned as bitches and why does this harm them in the work force? how will the next generation of women step up to power if there aren’t any female role models aside from singers and actresses?
and again, none of this changes the fact that the majority of male politicians are not taking orders from anyone. They still have the final say. Until we get a more or less equal amount of women in there with the power to make decisions on important things like friggen birth control, no it’s not an equal society. All there are are women’s groups, and there’s only so much they can do as evidenced by all this shit going on with reproductive rights right now in the US.
I’m sorry, how does reluctance to be assertive translate into being, and I quote from your OWN post, “bossy” backseat driving behavior?
As to your last post: the “patriarchy means that evil men oppress all women” is the old straw man in place to stop you realizing that patriarchy means the rules of the game are rigged, that the structures, cultural, institutional and mental, that are in place discriminate against women and produce and reproduce stereotypes that are harmful to men and women. The power of these stereotypes is what Aries’ book is about which you’d know if you bothered actually reading it instead of skimming it for clues and support.
For fuck’s sake, man.
Does anybody have the first idea how Tom “I have tons of sources, but my dog ate them!” Martin got into grad school?
Yes, women are agents of patriarchy. Duh. Think about it: wouldn’t it be MUCH WEIRDER if the misogynistic social constructs only filtered down to half the population? Women get the same patriarchal messages that men do– women are worth less, men are violent, etc.
I like how your study showed that high-dominance women elect low-dominance men to speak for them, and this is proof of WHORES and also that 90% of women let men speak for them. Um… adjectives have meanings.
Hell even I understood that just by skimming it just now. I don’t think it says at all what he thinks it does -_-
I wonder why Tom is so fixated on Elizabeth J. Aries:
Here are abstracts on some of her publications (articles and the 1996 book which he keeps blathering about):
Dispositional and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups.Full Text Available
Aries, Elizabeth J.; Gold, Conrad; Weigel, Russell H.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 44(4), Apr, 1983. pp. 779-786. [Journal Article]
Subjects: Dominance; Group Dynamics; Personality Measures; Sex Roles
Database: PsycARTICLES
One hundred and one college students were observed in small-group discussion
situations to determine the degree to which a previously administered personality
measure predicted overt verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Results indicated that
within all-male and all-female groups, scores on a measure of dominance exhibited
only modest power to predict the frequency of any single behavior but were
highly correlated with the overall pattern of dominance-related behaviors displayed
by the subjects. In addition, situational influence was indicated by the
negligible personality-behavior correlations obtained for both men and women
in the mixed-sex discussion groups.
CONVERSATIONAL PATTERNS AMONG SAME-SEX PAIRS OF LATE-ADOLESCENT CLOSE FRIENDS.
Authors:
Johnson, Fern L.
Aries, Elizabeth J.
Source:
Journal of Genetic Psychology, Jun83, Vol. 142 Issue 2, p225, 14p
Abstract:
Reports on a study to determine the nature of conversations that late-adolescent, close, same-sex friends have with one another and to see if female friendship pairs and male friendship pairs differ in conversational patterns. Data collection; Participants; Finding that females conversed more frequently and in greater depth about topics involving themselves and their close relationships, while males were found to converse more frequently and in greater depth about activity-oriented topics.
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SEPARATE SENSE OF SELF DURING INFANCY: DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.
Authors:
Aries, Elizabeth J.
Olver, Rose R.
Source:
Psychology of Women Quarterly, Dec85, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p515, 17p
Abstract:
Focuses on the study about sex differences in the development of a separate sense of self during infancy. Distinctions between new born male and female infants; Assessment on the behavior of the child; Expressions of physical affection.
atabase:
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Verbal and nonverbal behavior in single-sex and mixed-sex groups: Are traditional sex-roles changing?
Authors:
Aries, Elizabeth J., Amherst Coll
Source:
Psychological Reports, Vol 51(1), Aug, 1982. pp. 127-134.
Abstract:
Examined the degree to which traditional sex differences in behavioral interaction occur in groups in which Ss are similar with respect to personality attributes and personal aspirations. Seven all-male, 6 all-female, and 8 mixed-sex groups of 5–6 undergraduates had 40 min to discuss an ethical dilemma and come to a consensus decision. While rates of interaction departed from traditional sex-role stereotypes, with females dominating the mixed groups verbally, interaction styles and nonverbal postures remained sex-role stereotypic. Males devoted a greater proportion of their interaction to task behavior (i.e., giving opinions, suggestions, and information) and the females to reactions (i.e., agreements and disagreements). Males exceeded females in displays of nonverbal postures associated wth dominance. Most behavioral measures were not affected by the sex composition of the group. Implications for work settings are discussed. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
The talk of women friends.
Authors:
Johnson, Fern L., U Massachusetts, Amherst
Aries, Elizabeth J.
Source:
Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol 6(4), 1983. pp. 353-361.
Discusses the sources of prejudice against the topic of the talk of women friends, the dimensions of social context that shape women’s friendships, and the major differences between male and female friendships. On the basis of prior research and an interview study, it is proposed that talk is central to close friendships between women. Interview data from 20 27–58 yr old women reveal a broad range of conversational topics among women friends. Ss reported that talk with their close friends created a mosaic of noncritical listening, mutual support, enhancement of self-worth, relationship exclusiveness, and personal growth and self-discovery. Issues pertaining to research methodology, cross and subcultural differences, and the politics of female friendship are discussed. (47 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends.
Authors:
Aries, Elizabeth J., Amherst Coll
Johnson, Fern L.
Source:
Sex Roles, Vol 9(12), Dec, 1983. pp. 1183-1196.
62 male and 74 female parents of undergraduates completed a questionnaire on the nature of their communication with same-sex close friends; they also supplied demographic information. An analysis of frequency and depth of conversational topics showed that female Ss conversed more frequently than the males about intimate topics and daily and shared activities. Sex differences on depth of topic discussion also emerged, with females reporting greater depth in topics involving personal and family matters. Sports was the only topic for which males, rather than females, reported both more frequent discussion and conversation in greater depth. The topic frequency data were factor analyzed for each sex group. The factor analyses indicated patterns for the males on Personal Issues, Sociocultural Issues, and Activity and patterns for females on Domestic Matters, Personal Issues, and Worldly Issues. Results support sex-stereotypical assumptions about the nature of male–male and female–female conversations. (32 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the Differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
amazon.com:
For many years the dominant focus in gender relations has been the differences between men and women. Authors such as Deborah Tannen (You Just Don’t Understand) and John Gray (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) have argued that there are deep-seated and enduring differences between male and female personalities, styles, even languages. Elizabeth Aries sees the issue as more complex and dependent on several variables, among them the person’s status, role, goals, conversational partners, and the characteristics of the situational context. Aries discusses why we emphasize the differences between the sexes, the ways in which these are exaggerated, and how we may be perpetuating the very stereotypes we wish to abandon. For psychologists and researchers of gender and communication, this book will illuminate recent studies in gender relations. For general readers it will offer a stimulating counterpoint to prevailing views.
Somehow I’m not seeing “women control the men and make them puppets!”
Pro-tip Tom: “So I’ve heard” is not a form of validity or sourcing.
Wait, wait, guys, we’re going about this all wrong!
I totally agree we need to end the whorey whorey whoriarchy, and this is why we need to elect more female leaders, promote more women to places of prominence in business and academia, expand job opportunities for women, and stop groups that oppose women’s rights.
We need to give men a chance to take that oh-so-coveted “backseat driver” position, let men sit idly by while women make money and create inventions!
That’ll… yeah, that’ll show those whores!
Tom, we can do this together!
But people! He’s a MAN! Why should he let details like what books really say or how the world actually works get in the way of his view!! That’s misandric that is!
So many petty details out there you know. He’s a man! And men have better things to do than look after petty details! That’s what women are for! (And tom, that’s why women makes so many decisions in relationships, many men. Cannot be bothered with all the little details like chores, shopping lists or which house will contributed to the greater comfort of the family and meet their needs)
Quackers: Oooh, you found the book. I skimmed the first 15 pages (before my computer stopped downloading it), and WOW, that looks good. I might have to use that in a future course because she really seems to be doing an excellent job of breaking down some of the binaries even among my favorite feminist linguistics about the major differences between “men and women” (as opposed to taking other things into account, like status, class, ethnicity, etc.). A lot of my students are wedded to the “mars/venus” crap, and this would be fun to work through, especially if we could test some of the stuff ourselves….*makes a note*
Thanks, TOM!
Oh, but the book isn’t arguing what you say it’s arguing, asshat.