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.
“then both parents legally obliged to cater to the needs of that child (unless they opt out)”
Opt out? What, mandatory genetic testing for all, and then people can have a paper abortion? No. What is the point of proving paternity if the father can still bugger off? Absolutely none, for your 400 quid.
“…and so less inclined to become impregnated by alternative (usually more alpha) males than their husbands.”
And here we have a believer in the Greek system…
Hey Tommy, what about the men who have clandestine affairs?
Is that problem again solved by policing women’s sex-life?
Also, are only married couples allowed to have sex and children?
Yes, for Tommy-boy, we’re just out to get them:
Get the sperm from the Alpha guy (no idea what that is even supposed to be), make the poor beta pay.
Fact is, Tommy, not even the Chinese have an alphabet long enough that there would be a letter left to describe you.
Forget trying to define “whore”. Let’s see how Tom defines RELATIONSHIPS:
1. Everyone secretly hates their non-buff partner and wants to dump them
2. No man ever LIKES having children. He is just holding on to the receipt.
3. No one’s baby is ever theirs, because women are sluts.
4. No woman ever wants a partner who’s intelligent, kind, or good in bed. She just wants SPERM.
Actually, do women ever lust at all, currently? Ever? Tom seems to think it never happens!
And what happens if the father actively doesn’t want a paternity test?
I’m perfectly happy with the evidence of my own eyes, thanks – so it would be a complete waste of £400.
And even if one or both of my kids turns out not to be mine biologically, so what? That hardly negates the years I spent raising them, and I doubt very much they’re going to suddenly dump me and switch their attention (and affection) to someone they don’t know from Adam.
As so often, these scenarios reveal far more about your own bleak worldview – and, by extension, the shallowness of your own relationships – than anything usefully applicable to the majority of us.
Um, why do you think women get married right now?
Okay, I’ll assume you think it’s all about money because WHORE, and ask another question:
Why do you think men get married?
All the MRA rhetoric about what a screwjob marriage is–you have to pay millions of dollars to briefly live with a person who hates you and sleeps with everyone but you–never explains exactly why men fall for it. I’m sort of curious what the answer is supposed to be.
(In the real world we have this things called “love” and “partnership,” but ha ha, that’s hilarious, no really what’s your answer.)
I wonder how Tom feels about birth control.
AND 911. 😛
what we have here is someone who spent waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many hours watching imports of American day time TV.
Tom, precious, that is made for ratings-all of those Maury shows where the young mother claims that so and so is the father and the man consents to paternity testing to be revealed right after these messages are faked. They are not real. The vast majority of men only seem to care when they are getting a divorce and it is because they are hating on the ex not because they particularly care that their kid is biologically theirs or not.
Yes, genetic mothers and fathers would be able to opt out of parental responsibility in the event of an unwanted pregnancy if stipulated in a pre-sex contract (opting out of parental responsibility is a right only women have at the moment, with choice to adopt – men cannot currently financially opt out. See ‘Roe v Wade for men’:
http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml
… but women would not be able to opt someone else out without their knowing, which is the current system with women refusing to identify or inform the genetic father.
A pre-sex contract would also go a long way to eradicating many false rape allegations.
It would also make people think about the consequences of unprotected sex, so reduce unwanted pregnancies and children in the first place.
It would also end the entrapment culture, where a women tries her best to get knocked up by someone rich then hit them up for huge child support payments.
It would also reduce instances of sperm theft – as there would be less incentive to impregnate oneself this way with an unwilling and financially inoculated against entrapment father to be.
It would also reduce women’s motives to lie about being on the pill when not – as less incentive for entrapment – so less unplanned pregnancies for men to deal with.
The pre-sex contract could be a simple, quick, application on a mobile phone which records the man and woman’s voice, or videos it, so eradicating fraud. It does not to be a four page document in triplicate.
It takes one word to establish when sex is not wanted, “No” so it need not take many more to establish whether in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the protagonists agree to the normal financial and caregiving responsibilities and consequences or not.
Currently, because women have all the contraception options and men only one, it should fall on the woman to establish whether effective contraception is being used or not – where as, the current system says men should ‘keep it in their pants’ which fails to acknowledge that the woman equally fails to keep it in her pants, and has effective contraception and abortion and adoption options, where the man doesn’t. So, the woman should be held a bit more accountable than she currently is for unwanted pregnancies. It’s win/win (but whore lose).
Do you not know any happy monogamous people? The ones I know don’t spend all their time cheating on each other and resenting the other one for how their bodies change o_O. The long-term monogamous couples I know do that thing where they love and support each other.
Most of my weekends with my dad involved going to his work and watching a movie as he did stuff, and then going to his house and watching a movie as he did stuff. Then dinner. My step-dad used to do things like take us to the dog park, help us with our homework, take us to plays, hang out with us, tuck me in every night with a stuffed animal friend.. To be fair though, he was probably the inferior parent, right Tom? Because magic biology is magic?
Which is one of many reasons I’d never sign one–because it could eradicate a true rape accusation if I sign one and then a guy starts doing things to me we never agreed to.
(Frankly, the chances of getting the police and courts to take “I said we could have sex, but then he…” seriously are shitty to begin with, but I’m sure as hell not signing a contract saying “anything this guy does to my body from this point on, I totally asked for and had coming.”)
Also, does your little “contract” system provide for the possibility of contraception failure? Right now you’re treating “the condom broke” exactly the same as “whore stole my sperm for evil whore reasons.”
…Like your sperm is worth that much anyway, seriously. I’d rather have sperm from a guy I loved at a point in my life when I was ready to start a family. I know this sounds wild coming from a whore, but I’m not making an entire human being and caring for them for eighteen years just to get your amazing Alpha genetics or your $300 a month. That’s like the worst deal ever.
O_O
Paper abortion, false rape accusations, tricking rich men into paying for babies (best business model ever, ladies!) theft of sperm AND lying about BC? Is he playing some sort of paranoid misogyny bingo??
Tom, when I made that list about how you thought relationships worked, you weren’t supposed to AGREE WITH AND EMBROIDER ON EVERY POINT! XD
Tom options men have for birth control:
A) abstinance
B) vasectomy
C) condom
D) pull out method
E) sex not involving a penis in vagina
Very limited yes. Hopefully a male birth control pill will be approved or created
We’re talking about the people who think “Paternal Fraud” is identical to “mistaken paternal identity”, so I’m betting no.
Contracts that violate the constitution are void in the US. You cannot contract someone into slavery, and you cannot force someone’s labor even if you have an employment contract (this is considered a constitutionally impermissible remedy, other remedies like financial damages may be permitted for employment contracts).
Actually, do women ever lust at all, currently? Ever? Tom seems to think it never happens!
So let’s try some logic.
P1) Women are lustful WHORES who seduce men to snatch their sperm.
P2) Women are objects who never have any sexuality of their own.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
C) WOMEN ARE WHORY WHORY WHORES!
DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
(Skip to 1:00. If we lived in the Matrix this would happen to every MRA at the very beginning of their arguments.)
As stated previously, if a suspected father refuses a paternity test, then throw the book at him too.
Just because you sign a pre-sex contract, eradicating most false rape stories before they can hatch, it does not effect her right to say no after entering the contract. Even during sex if a woman or man says stop, the other has to stop. The fact is though, the huge majority of false rape stories involve a story about sex being forced on someone, usually where they say they were kissing etc, she said no, and then he forced her, or where he took her to a secluded place, and forced her.
Anyway, if you want to eradicate absolutely all false allegations, and eradicate the chances of acquaintance rapists getting away with it too, then you need an app on your phone which can record the sound and picture whilst people have sex, but which cannot be played back, as it is instantly scrambled, and sent to a central data agency, where it stays scrambled, and can only be unscrambled by a police investigator in the event of a false I mean in the event of a rape allegation.
If people don’t make a rape allegation within a few weeks or whatever, the scrambled data is automatically deleted anyway.
So, I’ve just cut the rate of false rape claims and the rate of rapists getting away with it.
Any more questions?
Any civil liberty issues that trump catching rapists and false accusers?
Also, with the footage from a sex scene being instantly scrambled, there is no need to inform the other person that you are filming it, and women will become much more weary about filing false rape claims in the first place (and rapists will be much less likely to assume they can get away with it also).
Someone must have told Tom about Brandon.
Wow.
There’s bad ideas, and then there’s really astonishingly bad ideas.
So everybody everywhere has a phone that is capable of having apps, that has enough battery power, and that they have time to get to and discretely turn on and hide somewhere before sex happens?
It looks like the average manboobzer doesn’t want to reduce rape/false allegations either. I AM staggered.
I totally agree, but it can be hard to explain this to a “but you agreed, didn’t you?” cop or juror. And it’ll be just that much harder if he has me agreeing on record.
Well, if women are making up fake rape stories all the time for shits and giggles (and presumably Alpha sperm, somehow), can’t we just change the story? We’re not that dim.
Either you believe women will randomly and maliciously lie, or you don’t. But believing “women will lie, but only in certain ways” is ridiculous.
Holy Police State Batman. I’d like more police protection, but even I think “send them a video of every time I have sex and trust them to pinky-swear not to unscramble it for laughs” is a little over the line.
Anyway you can just not turn on the camera when you want to rape someone. Once again, you have a system that can prevent an extremely particular crime, but is defenseless against criminals with a middle-schooler’s grasp of tactics.
Also I don’t really fancy going to court and having my rapist publicly play back a tape of a time I had consensual sex with him for everyone to watch.
Two guys with the same shitty false rape accusation solution–the mind boggles.