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.
Lion cub whores are the cutest whores.
(=^ェ^=)
And here’s a WHORE on drugs:
(And now I’m off to the market.)
This website’s strap-line misleadingly says it mocks misogyny, when really it mocks men’s equality discourse from what I’ve read. A majority of you seem very keen to overlook the distinction.
1000 comments in, and you’re only excuse is “Oh well, we’re only mocking.”
Nope. You were mostly ignorant of the facts, and use the “we’re only mocking” as a fallback position when you find out you’ve been taking the feminist line too literally.
Now, moving on…
The argument has been, among elite fems, that the mocking uselessness and patently ridiculous female victimhood perspectives of feminism today, to, in an age of positive disrimination for women only, cry further about being a woman, is a deliberately provocative act, to provoke men to become enraged and enter equality work, crying “what about the men?” – and that fems who carry out this function are actually in on the joke – and are thanklessly making idiots of themselves for the greater good.
And meanwhile, whilst this victim female perpetual ruse unfolds, we know that really, administrations subtly slip men’s equality gains through the back door. The “Nudge nudge, wink wink, don’t scare the horses” approach.
Be nasty about men, with critical announcements at every turn, creating sufficient subterfuge , to then slyly help men get a bit more equality without all the women going “Equality? Men? NEVER! We’re moving to Saudi Arabia.”
So critical politics on men is a bluff, to placate man-hating women, whilst secretly helping men. You get it. Right?
David Cameron did it the other month, when he actually announced words to the effect of “it is about being critical on men”, lambasting absent fathers, whilst floating an actual policy idea stating that if women didn’t put the father’s name on the birth certificate, they’d be fined £200.
So it’s a bluff, to surreptitiously achieve equality. Nope. It’s a double bluff, to introduce piss poor snail-like progress on men’s equality issues, but making it look like things are happening.
If he just announced a £200 fine for women not putting men’s names on birth certificates, we’d say “£200 is hardly going to stop women blocking fatherhood” but with the whole criticality charade, most people say “Ah, see what he’s doing here. Very clever.” But they’re being double duped, with trickle down. Real equality for men, would be if he announced that every newborn would get a routine paternity test, paid for by the state, to establish who every child’s biological father is.
So you mockers are really just blockers.
Questions for Tom to Answer Someday
1. Why are penguins whores?
2. Did you get into this program just to sue them?
3. Why should I care what you think of me? Why should I do what you say?
4. Do you realize we don’t get money for posting here?
Tom: 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.
Oh, hell, no you don’t expect anybody to buy that do you: in this context, stories are not “lies” or “fictions,” but cultural narratives–some of which are designated as fiction, some of which are designated as history, some as other genres and discourses–the point is that the stories (CULTURAL NARRATIVES) that support the kyriarchy (I know you cannot deal with the concept of patriarchy, but kyriarchy is important to bring up when engaging with a racist shit such as yourself) are how people are acculturated (even as some resist to greater or lesser degrees). Why stories MATTER is that stories are how we learn, fuckhead.
Stop attention whoring, Tom, and go earn an honest living.
So you mockers are really just blockers.
A rhyme! CAN YOU WHORES HANDLE IT
What is a whore, Tom??????????????????????????????????????????????
Tom wants LSE to give him money because he couldn’t manage the course. What a whore! In fact, “give me money” seems to be a running theme with our friend Tom. I’m still wondering why he thinks that random women in bars should give him money.
He thought we should all give him our wages too. He’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a stale tortilla and left out in the sun too long. Or something like that. Now I am really, really off to the market.
◉‿◉
Tom, definition for whore, please.
This koala whore begs you => ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ
A whore is the opposite of a pacifist.
my head is still spinning out trying to visualise, if i’m writing in my mother’s basement, how that would look…stretching as it would have to do from Scotland to Australia…
(right thread this time)
Our only excuse for what, Tom?
My mind is overwhelmed by the versatility of “whore”
Still attention whoring, Tom? You should really stop that, you know.
That explains the penguin thing, then. Bloodthirsty little warmongers!
Come on, you can do better than that. You can’t properly define something by stating it as the opposite of something else. Give us a real definition!
“every newborn would get a routine paternity test, paid for by the state, to establish who every child’s biological father is. ”
It doesn’t work that way.
A paternity test allows you to establish whether a specific donor is the genetic parent of a specific child. You can’t just throw the sample into a machine and have it tell you “The genetic code of this baby indicates that it belongs to Tom Martin of 103 Madeup Street, Bloggington”. You’d have to have a database containing the genetic data of every person with semen in the country, plus everyone with semen who’d ever visited, plus everyone that residents travelling abroad came into contact with who could have fathered a child.
Since there isn’t any global database of people’s DNA, your suggestion isn’t “real equality”. It’s just stupid.
Damn, Bee already asked Tom if he understood the Aries he read. Well, Tom, did any of it sink in to your whore brain?
Tom may be the most boring attention whore ever, and that’s special, seeing as we’ve been home to some mighty boring trolls.
A whore is the opposite of a pacifist.
A cartwheel is the opposite of a taco.
It’s shockingly easy to make exactly as much sense as Tom Martin.
Tom
Tom
Tom
Tom
Tom!
You can’t call us ignorant of the facts when you continually fail to provide them. As I said previously “because I say so” is not a source of validity, nor is “This study I can’t find”. I’d be curious as to whatever you mangled out in your undergrad years. I am positive it’d be a hoot.
It is pretty self-evident your knowledge of “experimental psychology” is a joke. Considering the way you write, I am doubtful you could even manage to define terms for any sort of experiment. You’d just replace everything with the word “whore”.
So let’s get this straight. When a baby is born, the government should pay for every single man the mother has been in contact with to have a DNA sample taken, so that we can be sure who the father is? And this promotes equality why, exactly?
I’m trying to be kind here and assume that Tom knows that there is no international DNA database that they can just check newborns against.
Not to mention that being forced to contribute to the data base would be a gross invasin of privacy. But hey! Maybe we could dust off some rape kits while we’re at it!
Still want that genetic testing done martin?