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.
@CassandraSays – I was going to ask if he could give us the date for the appeal. I might just travel down and sit in the public gallery with a big tub of popcorn. That’s of course provided I’ve nothing better to do like, oh I dunno, clean out the cat’s litter tray or something…
if anyone goes to the appeal, is it possible to post it on YouTube?
also is this the longest thread evah?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he paid someone to write his entrance papers for him.
@ Maya “I wouldn’t be surprised if he paid someone to write his entrance papers for him.”
Let’s not jump to conclusions. It’s equally likely that on the day he applied, the admissions officer had been hit in the head by a falling roof tile.
Firstly, I’ve read Men and Women in Interaction by Aries in its entirety.
Also, as it happens, I’ve read Male dominance and Female Power, by Sanday.
Both of these authors are self-described feminists. Their books are couched in feminist, patriarchy theory adherent frames. Nevertheless, the evidence they dutifully report in their books, indicates that “patriarchy” aint so.
Another great example of burying the facts, appears in Goodwin and Rudman (2004), where two self-described feminists mention that women are four times more sexist in attitude about men than men are about women (using an Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT). They only reflect on it in the last paragraph of the study, and call the finding “a reversal of sexism” because to their strategic frame, lovingly adhered to in the waffle between the evidence, “patriarchy” must be primarily sexist against women.
These researchers may believe it necessary to keep up the patriarchy theory adherence to get their studies published.
Maybe they think patriarchy theory is a noble or beneficial lie.
Maybe they think patriarchy is real, and the research they mention is just a blip.
What you people think about patriarchy theory is relatively irrelevant, because the head of the Gender Institute at LSE, along with most other serious elites, acknowledge “patriarchy” et al are mere “stories”, as in her book Why Stories Matter.
The documentary I’m taking part in, is starting off at the point where the experts acknowledge with irrefutable examples the falsity of patriarchy theory and all the other feminist myths, and asks why we use them.
It steps around you douchebuckets – and gets to the issue, which is “Why do we keep placating women and ignoring men’s equality issues?”
You have rendered feminism irrelevant with your perpetual mocking and obfuscations, but you don’t want to retrain for other more useful professions, and realize the skills you’ve learned in professional feminist land are non-transferable.
You don’t get on in life by pretending to be a victim when you’re not – accept in professional victim-feminism, when you only get so far.
David Futrelle has been invited to be in my documentary, to explain the function of mocking, but has declined the offer. Maybe because he’s a douche who doesn’t want to put his face to his actions.
All the other misrepresentations, by your comments, by the university, the judge, the media, the Times, the BBC, in relation to the facts of the case and the subsequent reporting of it, will show you for what you are. Unreliable witnesses, whoring for all you’re worth (or at least, 98% of you).
Statement of fact.
BigMomma:
Actually, this is the longest thread evah:
http://manboobz.com/2011/11/27/women-oppress-men-by-playing-at-having-a-career/
This current one is the 13th longest, for now. But I think it will move up a couple of notches before it’s done.
@David, 13th longest? i stand in AWE of this site.
But is it the funniest thread evah?
Professional feminist land? Are you under the impression that we are somehow making money by commenting here? You certainly seem to believe that everyone here has studied for the right to call themselves feminist, and therefore needs “retraining”.
You’re wrong. I mean, you’re wrong about almost everything, but on this point you’re also factually incorrect.
Though I personally am nearly 42% whore.
Tom, what do you think we spend our days on? Even Women’s Studies professors and professional feminist bloggers, which are the only careers I can think of that would involve doing feminist things all day at work, have time off. People volunteer and maintain friendships and raise children and do all sorts of socially important things even when they’re feminists.
Tom, um… how do I say this. You realize most of us comment here as a HOBBY, right? For FREE? The job I currently have doesn’t have anything to do with feminism directly (though we ARE re-writing our office handbook to be more friendly to LGBTs!)
Oh please, pretty please, spoilers!! If you have ‘irrefutable’ proof, can’t you give us at least one here?
And what exactly is this documentary of yours? Is it something you’re doing on your own, or not? Where will we be abl to see it? When will it be finished? Do you talk a lot about whores in it?
Also, David, what’s THE longest Manboobz thread?
Okay, wait, back up a minute here. You got into a social science program when you can dismiss cultural stories that easily? I… I don’t even know.
And for some other unknown reason, the conservatives are way ahead of the game in embracing can-do feminism.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/316892/20120320/feminism-feminists-discrimination-workplace-women-men-capitalism.htm
Can the left wing rework its rhetoric?
Wading through the patriarchy theory-adherent drivel in this article, it looks like the left will need a bit of a shove (and one manboobzers will probably not be able to muster):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/02/labour-settlement-sexes
Ah, but how much of it did you understand?
And: 98 percent now? What happened to cause this mighty upward tick in the Whore Index?
Tom, what is a whore? Is Holly’s definition correct, is it complete?
Tom Martin is very boring. Unlike his comment about prostitutes being boring, he has been gracious enough to provide us with lots of evidence to support the “Tom is boring” theory.
@ abeegoesbuzz “And: 98 percent now? What happened to cause this mighty upward tick in the Whore Index?”
There’s a 1% margin of error. He forgot to mention it before, because whores.
I wonder if Tom realizes that there is more to online feminism than Manboobz. I’m also still kind in awe of the fact that people routinely show up to a blog that has the word ‘mock’ in great big letters at the top and expect srs biz.
Oh my. That certainly is an illuminating article. Apparently feminists are whiners because
1. Some women want to be SAHMs. Guess you didn’t think of that, feminists! Hah!
2. The job market has seen a modest recovery for women over the past three months — NEVERMIND that in the two and a half years before that, women gained just 11.5 percent of the jobs added. LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT.
3. Men are poorly represented in the highly lucrative and extremely powerful childcare and young-education fields.
4. Ugly people are discriminated against.
5. Capitalism!
6. The writer is not like those whiny feminists. She is a strong!
Congratulations on providing a link to a source, though, Tom. WTG.
Oh look, Tom’s back. Yay. /sarcasm
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
GAD, he’s still so boring.
Here’s a dog trying to retrieve his WHORE tennis ball:
Female lion cubs are WHORES:
(Adds lion cub to the list of creatures that reside in my fantasy zoo.)