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.
Yeah, but some other commenter here already explained why giving parents (or mothers, if you prefer) the wrong child is a hospital-problem, which hospitals guard against lest they be be found liable — while a presumed father not being the child’s actual genetic father is not a hospital-problem. So I probably don’t need to go into that, unless you’re really stupid. You’re not really stupid, are you, Tom?
(If you were, I could tell you that all hospital birthing services, including the ID bracelet, are actually really fucking expensive here in the U.S., but I’m just gonna assume you know that.)
If the governments should pay for it, it’s really not up to me, then, is it? Why the names, Tom? Call your PM a miserly whore. Call your country’s taxpayers miserly whores. Or you could, as I suggested, create a fund with other like-minded souls to help indigent fathers who want but cannot afford genetic testing. Why not? This is apparently something that you feel very passionate about. Fund it, you miserly whore, you!
Oh wait. You can’t. Because you’re already deep in debt because of your poor decisions and awful reasoning skills. Whoops! Lol ur priorities.
@Tom:
… Are you quoting yourself here? Cause honestly that’s the best interpretation you’ve got here. Otherwise you have a whiny kid declaring victory while calling counter-arguments and demands of evidence “pedantic” and calling the arguers whores. Repeatedly. ad nauseum. You really don’t want to be this guy.
In Tomspeak…
WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE WHORE
@Tom:
There are some pretty simple reason why mandatory genetic testing is unnecessary and a bad idea.
“Paternity testing from an accredited laboratory typically costs between $400.00 and 2,000.00, depending on the area in which you live in and the type of paternity testing you choose.” source
So a mandatory minimum of 400 dollars of extra expense for all births. Then, also, you are making the law assuming that in a significant number of cases it would catch paternaty fraud. The wiki you linked to states that the rate of discrepancy found in various academic studies ranged from 2.0% to 9.6%. “However, in situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing (which “inevitably overestimates population level”) there were higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%).”
So, in cases where the parantage is disputed, (the cases where a paternaty test would be done anyway), the rates would be significant enough to warrent the test. The rest is likely insignificant (the 2.0-9.6% includes rates found in cases where parantage was disputed already).
So what you have is a mandatory costly procedure accusing every single couple of paternaty fraud from the get-go with no hope to provide any sort of significant advantage. Congrats. You’ve just formulated a terrible law.
CassandraSays:
I didn’t bother with a paternity test, partly because I’m not a paranoid misogynist and I had no reason to think that my son might not be mine, but mainly because he’s is the living spit of my grandfather.
In fact, whenever I show pictures of him and this particular paternal great-grandfather side by side people generally gasp in astonishment and say something like “I never believed in reincarnation till now”.
In fact, since the great-grandfather in question was a prominent right-wing politician, I’m actually more concerned about that side of things than I am about the possibility that the male child I live with might not be my son.
(Mind you, I suppose my wife could have had sex with my brother – but for that to have happened, there’d also have to be a stronger probability of hell freezing over or the Dalai Lama being revealed as the new head of Al-Qaeda, as those two scenarios are considerably more believable.)
Yep, that 30p bracelet they put onto the child which said that for the next 18 years I’ll belieable to care for that baby. Seems like a good deal to me, for the baby and the government. What’s in it for me?
Yep, 30p vs. 400$
If the government gave you 30p, would you be OK with that?
See data about paternity fraud above.
So, you want the government to pay for you? You whore!
BTW, it always amazes me how some guys seem to think that after years of care, love and relationship with a child, the thing that matters more than all these things is their DNA and their money. Totally not selfish.
BTW, Tom, what do you think about a guy who is the father but tries to force paternity testing in order to paint his ex-wife to be as an irresponsible slut so he can get a better deal in the divorce?
Does it prove whoriarchy, too, in some strange way?
Woooooooooooowwww it’s douchey in here to-night.
HERE A WHORE THERE A WHORE EVERYWHERE A WHORE WHORE
Tom is such a whore. Not only does he want the government to pay for paternity testing for every baby just to soothe his insecurity, he apparently wants David to fly to London to help him with his little documentary and he expects David to pay for it. Or possibly the government should pay for it. Certainly not Tom, whose basic premises are a. 97% of women are whores and b. also give me money.
Well, to be fair to Tom, his production budget just took a £37,000 hit.
You think he had a budget set aside? I was thinking that he was expecting the government to pay for it.
Tom Martin: No matter how often you call me a whore, I will not fuck you.
Not because I particularly object to being called a whore, you understand, though it’s factually inaccurate and that always bothers me. Just because you’re a vile excuse for a petty philanderer, and there are syphilitic goats with a better sense of justice.
I’m going to put this in as non-stigmatizing terms as possible, but I do think it needs to be said:
Tom, you have severe psychological problems, and you are not managing them well.
CassandraSays:
I think you’ve just worked out the motive behind the original £50,000 damages claim, since it made absolutely no sense on any other level.
Martin Scorsese raised the budget of Mean Streets by suing someone who called him a mook. Absolutely true.
Well, OK, a bit made up.
By the way, doesn’t anybody else think the idea that making women the only accountable party for the identity of the father a tad… stupid?
In Tom’s world, if the man lied, or betrayed the woman’s trust, or even used a forged I.D., she would be the only one punished for that. And let’s not get started on rape victims! You should have known better than getting a vagina, you whore?
Anyway, I’m sure that a world that required the immediate identification of both parents, with heavy penalties for the woman, would have veeeery healthy social structures, and totally non screwed-up relationships. Because whores.
After reading all of this, I can’t shake the overwhelming feeling I get that once upon a time, a young Tom Martin bought a lady he liked dinner and the “whore” had the audacity to deny him sexytimes.
Good lord, I don’t think I have anything constructive to add to this thread.
Everybody’s already said everything I could think of to say, and better! — Except of course for the Whorefinder General. (He gets thruppence ha’penny for every one he finds, you know!)
I think it is clear now that “whore” as used by Tom Martin is a synonym for “c–t” as used by the inimitable whomsoever it was whom I cannot find right now (but there’s totally a study on it from 1897).
What if I got pregnant while I was in an other country, or with someone from another country. If I tell that my baby’s father leaves in a cave in China, do you get him there?
Hey, other idea, what stopping me, just for the lulz, to point as my baby’s father random famous people. I slept with Johnny Depp, go take his DNA. No wait, that was Barack Obama. No sorry, I meant George Takei. Or maybe Benedict Cumberbatch. Yeah, definitely him.
Oh, I’ve got a better one: what if my husband, on whom I never cheated and who fathered a child is dead a week after I got pregnant? Do you put me in prison for life or would you rather dig up the corpse? No, wait, all is left is ashes. What do we do?
And what is a whore?
If paternity tests are made routine for every newborn the cost would come way down, and it would create jobs, and millions of children and men currently duped around the world would know who their real families actually are.
You’re having another empathy fail.
As with the seating issue, I pointed out in an essay on hard seating in a museum, that the discomfort for men is compunded by not only having smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, but by being heavier than women, so having more weight bearing down onto a smaller area – and that the problem is compounded further still, by people not taking the complaint seriously.
This inhabitants of this website are compounded shite trying their best to block equality wherever it might happen.
Jesus Christ, Mr. Martin, all right, come over here and I’ll give you your cooties booster so you won’t have to fear rubbing elbows with all the gorlz and therefore you will stop trying to strip off their shoes and keep them in the kitchen.
Either of those men could give me all the babies and I’m otherwise a straight white male. U mad?
Seriously Tom take your too tiny ass argument up with mother nature.
Oh, Tom, go buy one of these. I suppose you expect the government to buy that for you too.
But I like it that you use “I wrote an essay about it once” as evidence that this widespread problem exists. Mother Nature is a whore, goddammit — giving men such bony asses and providing few tufted sofas for them to sit upon.
Oooh oooh if writing essays is all it takes to prove an argument, I have some essays from college that my philosophy prof didn’t like all that much. I can’t lay my hands on them at the moment, but they’re on a 3″ floppy in a box somewhere and they totally invalidate your argument.
MY UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY WANKINGS
YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID
Uh… Tom, just because something becomes routine does not lower the cost. Not everything works on a basic supply and demand scale. In fact, most things don’t. And here you were aiming for LSE. Silly.
Your lack of knowledge is continuing to show. No wonder you could never manage academics so well. Throw your case before plenty of other judges and you’d get the same result. Why? Because your case is actually just bad for you. You are only making it worse.