The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.
After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.
In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.
And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!
The word of the day is: whore.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.
The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy:
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.
The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy 2: Misandrist Boogaloo
The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.
Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.
Anti-male shaming tactics are always used at the point of losing an argument, Hellkell.
When someone asks me “What sort of woman would go out with a men’s rights activist?” I reply “the sort of woman who isn’t a whore.”
Tom Martin’s 14 Point Anti-Prostitute Program:
Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.
1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.
2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.
3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.
4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.
5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.
6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.
7. Prostitutes are boring.
8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.
9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.
10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.
11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.
12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.
13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.
14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.
I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.
I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.
I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.
Fems: It’s time to renounce your whoredom!
I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …
From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.
Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.
But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.
But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.
So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?
At least Rosa Parks got a seat:
Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?
My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …
They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,
so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….
[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …
So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.
But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.
Scum.
Saudi Arabia: A Whorish Matriarchy
In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.
Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).
Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).
Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …
[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.
Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.
Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.
Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.
Did I explain already that Muslim women are whores?
Muslim women are quids in the whores.
Their civilizations are down the pan, but as long as they’ve got one over on the men, they don’t seem to give a shit.
I would totally take my anti-Muslim-whore crusade to the streets, but Muslim women are too scary:
[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.
Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …
I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.
Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.
All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point
“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …
Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.
We need a word for women who aren’t whores:
[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.
“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.
“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.
“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.
Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.
We need a new word…
Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …
The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.
Female penguins are whores
For the record, I would never claim all women are whores. I’d put it at around the 97% mark in my estimation – so back off, haters.
What do we want! To inconvenience whores! When do we want it? Now!
Liberating men involves mildly inconveniencing whores. It’s a win/win.
Ladies! Stop being whores and invent something.
There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”
9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.
I have invented something, and am working on prototypes.
I have previously sought a patent application for another invention.
And I’ve built lots of things too.
I’ve also made daisy chains.
My cat made a hairball, but you don’t see her bragging about that.
Okay, so Joe insists we back up everything we say, even though he doesn’t believe us anyway, but we’re supposed to run reading books because he says so.
AND HE STILL WON’T SAY WHY HE’S HERE JESUS CHRIST.
No, Roman Polanski just raped a child, fled the court, went to France, and keeps making bushels of money on his award-winning movies which the film industry shits itself over. I never said he killed anybody; he’s “just” a repulsive child rapist scumbag and still getting all sorts of love.
Ah, and don’t forget William S. Burroughs. And Ted Kennedy, for that matter. He might have gotten some government-sponsored award, now that I think of it … That’s right — he got an award for bravery for letting a girl drown in the car he crashed.
(Or, you know, not.)
“Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.”
Men with less money not being able to afford sex is the cause of war? And here I was thinking it had to do with oil…
It’s all about the lube.
Joe: @pillowinhell – Awards for killing their spouse? Link one.
You first. You are the one who made the (so far unsupported) claim that the PM’s wife gave an official medal for bravery to a woman for killing her husband.
Joe: @Holly – I didn’t say that. Enjoy beating on your strawman there.
You planning to give lessons? Because you seem better at that then you are at legitimate arguments.
But lets look at men who were involved in a woman’s death. Ted Kennedy.
US Representative, then Senator. Lionised as being a great politician, contender for the US Presidency. Honored in state when he died (they lowered the flag to half staff… it was official).
And none of it had anything to do with Chappaquidick; though he was thought well of for work he did which helped women.
@Pecunium – There’s a lot of people throwing in other criminals here, none of whom killed anyone. Or got gov’t approved awards.
I know OJ basically got off on account of being rich & famous. Pretty sure his career was in the toilet thereafter and he didn’t get any government awards.
I’m not familiar with the Ted Kennedy case, I know he was lauded by your gov’t, but afaik he was neither ?tried? nor convicted for murder??
Not to mention all the examples brought up are US, and I restricted my assertion of misandry to the UK. I’ll leave it to US men’s rights advocates to fight their own corner. Although, I would contend that the UK desperately needs to amend its extradition treaty with the US (which is horribly biased to the US) and there’s men’s rights issues in there.
Right… Kennedy probably committed negligent manslaughter of Mary Jo Kopechne. it was ignored.
Your, “honoree” was convicted, went to prison and then went on to raise awareness of DV, which is what she was recognised for, by a women’s magazine.
You persist in pretending it was for the, “bravery” she showed when she killed her husband, and that Her Majesties Gov’t was giving her, “a medal” for killing her husband.
When no such thing happened.
OJ “got off” because the Gov’t completely failed to meet the burden of proof, even if he did commit the murders, the jury had no choice but to acquit him.
But, if you’d like me to admit there are women who have been awarded medals for killing their husbands, all you have to do is link to one.
I Am Joe’s Faulty Argument
When a woman kills a man, is convicted, serves a prison sentence, is released, does good works, and then is awarded for those good works, the fact that a man-killer got an award is misandry.
When a man kills a woman, is not punished, and then does good works and is given an award, the fact that he served no jail time says absolutely nothing about prevailing societal views on gender, and he probably deserved the award so shut up.
Joe, yes you, Joe. I’m making this clear to you.
You say you are a skeptic, right? That the burden of proof relies upon the one making the claim?
Yet you just made a claim about Hilary Clinton beating up Bill Clinton, and said that it was from her biography. When asked for where this specific piece of information might be, you stated “look it up yourselves”.
This is not how a burden of proof works. You are not a very good skeptic if you only apply the methodology to those you have ideological disagreements with. I suggest you rework your position as “skeptic”, because you clearly are not one.
abeegoesbuzz: Well, to be fair, there weren’t any extenuating circumstances of longstanding to move the charge down from Manslaughter to “kthanxbye”, when it was just a dead woman in his car at the bottom of a ditch.
Unlike the woman who went to jail, for murder, and had it reduced to “only” manslaughter, and served out her sentence.
So yeah, there is absolutely no reason to think he wasn’t given a perfectly fair shake, while she got to use the power of her pussy pass.
RE: Flib
You say you are a skeptic, right? That the burden of proof relies upon the one making the claim?
Yet you just made a claim about Hilary Clinton beating up Bill Clinton, and said that it was from her biography. When asked for where this specific piece of information might be, you stated “look it up yourselves”.
This is not how a burden of proof works. You are not a very good skeptic if you only apply the methodology to those you have ideological disagreements with. I suggest you rework your position as “skeptic”, because you clearly are not one.
There you are again, asking him to have consistent standards. MISANDRY!
In her memoir, “Living History,” Hillary Clinton said that after Bill told her what had happened with Monica Lewinsky, she “wanted to wring his neck.”
It’s pretty clear that we all owe Joe an apology for not believing his accurate portrayal of what the book said. Joe, I promise I’ll never doubt you from now on. You’re clearly just as truthful and unbiased as FRS.
Oh so Joe is indeed outright lying, again?
Bostonian, I wouldn’t say, again. That would imply a cessation.
According to this website, author Gail Sheehy wrote in her biography of Hillary Clinton that she did hit Bill and throw items at him. I haven’t read the biography, so I have no idea if that’s an accurate take on what Sheehy wrote.
http://www.safe4all.org/essays/victims
I also know nothing about the organization SAFE. Maybe someone who has done work with DV knows?
@abeegoesbuzz – nope, I didn’t say that. Try quoting posts I’ve made. That might help you.
I wonder if Hillary used a rolling pin and threw dishes. That would be so like a woman.
/sarcasm
Ah yes, I remembered you saying it was in her autobiography, and you actually said it was in her biography. My bad. Sorry, Joe. You’ve been a pillar of truthfulness and accuracy in your comments here.
There are two biographies that talk about Hillary’s violence towards Bill Clinton:
“Hillary’s Choice” by Gail Sheehy…
and
“Bill and Hillary” by Christopher Anderson
http://www.safe4all.org/essays/victims
“According to a generally complimentary biography Hillary’s Choice, by author Gail Sheehy, Hillary Clinton has attacked her husband on several occassions. In 1993, Hillary allegedly slashed Bill Clinton’s face with her long fingernails, leaving a “mean Claw mark along his jawline.” Dee Dee Myers, the White House spokeswoman at the time, later explained to Sheehy that it had been singer Barbara Streisands visit to the White House that had sparked Hillary’s rage. According to Christopher Anderson, author of Bill and Hillary, Hillary also assaulted him on August 13, 1999, after the Monica Lewinsky revelations. Anderson writes: ”Much of what transpired next between Bill and Hillary Clinton was plainly audible to Secret Service agents and household staff members down the hall. In the past, Hillary had thrown books and an ashtray at the President–both hitting their mark…Hillary rose to her feet and slapped him across the face–hard enough to leave a red mark that would be clearly visible to Secret Service agents when he left the room.” Sheehy’s account of the incident is similar, though the book also mentions a lamp that was thrown by Hillary Clinton in this or another incident, but she does confirm the the August 13, 1999 assault by a quote from Hillary friend Linda Bloodworth-Thomasen who was staying with her husband in the private quarters nearby who confirmed that Hillary Clinton ”smacked him upside the head.”
I can’t find the full extract, atm, and the only explicit reference I can find right “
Oh, sorry Pecunium, STILL it the word I should have used. My bad.
Joe.. again with the problem of consistent standards.
You say that “it’s plain” the Home Office was making an award for someone killing her husband.
No actually said that, but, according to you http://manboobz.com/2012/03/20/highlights-of-tom-martins-recent-visit-to-man-boobz-keywords-london-school-of-economics-lawsuit-tossed-out-whore/comment-page-3/#comment-137663>1) it’s a really, really bad idea to give anyone an award for killing someone while they sleep.
Which isn’t what they said the award was for.
So what makes you so special? What spider bit you that you can read peoples’ unspoken motives (not just the PM’s wife, but the Gov’t itself)?
– The use of “fighting” by PM’s wife in her speech, and the “come out fighting” that you quoted, while handing an award to a killer = strongly implicit (if not explicit) approval of that killing.
Not what she actually said, but what you think it meant. BTW, were you there? Are you sure the quotation was from something she said as she was handing the award, or perhaps it was something in prepared comments about the awards in general?
Skeptical minds want to know.
Scratch that last sentence that begins “I can’t find….” edit fail
So, now we have some credence that Hillary is abusive. She should be ashamed of herself, and if she’s beating on Bill she should be charged.
And I can’t imagine that if those allegations against Hillary were untrue, that she wouldn’t have sued both authors of those two books into the ground. Whatever my regard for her attitudes and politics, there can be no question that Hillary Clinton is a formidable political operator and lawyer, i.e. someone most sensible people would hesitate to cross, without being sure of their ground.