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.
Joe my point is that both genders die in equal numbers during war. Men who die in battle die quickly, and if you want some historical quotes from men who were very happy to die a quick death on the battle field than face the suffering that came afterwards…
Why should Hilary not hilight the plight of women? When men die in battle they are given honor parades, special ceremonies and their valor is commemorated in monuments. When the battle is over, women are buried in mass graves or eke out miserable existences under their oppressors or trying to rebuild what was lost. And they get forgotten. No monuments to them, no special ceremonies and few in the world think to recall them when war moves on.
We honor those who kill (and often rightly so) while ignoring the continuing plight of those left to rebuild. Why? Yes the men suffered and we have so many movies and stories about that but very few to honor the living who often end up being women.
We should honor the fallen, I agree, but we should also be assisting the living.
Why are you so pissed about what one woman said? Look around you to see how the fallen are repeatedly honored! How often we are told their stories that we can feel sorrow for their suffering!
@Shaenon –
“The Prime Minister’s wife is scheduled to present at an awards ceremony where one of the honorees was convicted of murdering her husband. Even though the murder was over 20 years ago, it’s inappropriate for a political figure to be associated with this ceremony. It makes it look like the PM and the government don’t take violent crime (against men) seriously, and it makes men like me feel unsafe.”
^Yeah, ok, that would be a better way of putting it.
I don’t agree that everyone in the US should vote for Ron Paul. Paul is pretty terrible on reproductive rights for women (except in cases of “honest rape”), opposes minimum wage laws, voted for zero funding of OSHA’s ergonomics rules and voted No on restricting an employer from interfering in union organizing. In Freedom under siege, he said “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.” He thinks the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution. And he signed off on some terribly racist newsletters. One of the lowlights from those was this quote after the LA riots: ““Order was only restore in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” More info about Ron Paul linked from here.
Oh crap, html fail again. I think the links will work though.
@pillowinhell – Equal numbers of war dead? No, I don’t buy that.
You might get reliable stats for one war, maybe, but it varies from one war to another e.g. WWI – vastly more men than women died, as most deaths were combatants. WWII – vast numbers of civilians died too, so far more women died than in WWI, however the bias MAY have still been towards male deaths – if not overall, then in some countries e.g. the Soviet Union, where an entire generation of women ended up more or less without men – especially in Siberia.
Not really the point anyway. Clinton didn’t just a) empathise with women’s suffering (which is A-OK), she b) minimised men’s suffering /death. b) wasn’t necessary for a), and it’s misandry.
Why am I bothered by what one woman says? Errr, becuse she is one of the most powerful people in the world!! and has been for many years* . It’s documented, for instance, that she was instrumental (as Secretary of State), in getting the US to fight in the Libyan war. People have DIED en masse due in part to her decisions!
Her hands are bloody, just like a lot of powerful politicians.
(*arguably we are now in the third term of her US presidency. Only slightly joking.)
Joe: So maybe you should use that phrasing instead of making it sound like The Official British Government was giving the lady a medal for killing her husband. You know, expressing disapproval without actually lying. Just a thought.
Re: racism Ron Paul is the ONLY candiate who will pardon thousands of non-violent drug offenders currently jailed – two thirds of whom are black men.
Here’s what a whole bunch of black people say:
He’s denied the newsletters.
So, he’s the ONLY candidate against mass murdering wars, and the police state, and the only candidate who will release thousands of black men from jail. All the other candidates are FOR war, the police state and fuck loads of black guys in prison. Including Obama!!
Wow, Joe’s a skeptic and into Ron Paul. I think I get bingo if he mentions the boner he has for Ayn Rand.
Joe: What kind of fuckwit (especially a fuckwit with political ambitions) allows anything to go out with their name on it without at least giving it a once-over? My lack of sympathy for Paul’s dumbfuckery is vast.
@KathleenB – in a 30 year career how many politicians haven’t fucked up somehow / somewhere*?? He’s up against the banksters of Goldman Sachs et al. and those old newsletters are the worst they can dig up?
(*Remember Hillary Clinton saying she came under sniper fire in Bosnia? Never happened)
Ron Paul is totally A-fucking-OK with individual states locking you up for drugs, miscegenation, drinking out of the wrong water fountain, what have you. His only complaint is when the Federal government does it.
Funny definition of “liberty.”
Ron Paul also favors the government being small enough to fit inside women’s uteruses. So liberty is only really for men, again.
Joe: Missing my point. Watch it whoosh past… Whether he believes the things printed or not (and not knowing the guy, I have no clue), he allowed that shit to be distributed under his name. If he doesn’t have the fucking common sense control the things said on his behalf, why is anyone considering him for higher office?
And honestly, if he’d (or has, can’t be arsed to care) just said: “Hey, that was some horrible stuff said on my behalf. I disagree with it and will do my best to make sure it never happens again. I fucked up and I’m sorry for the pain my fuckup caused,” I’d be at least a little sympathetic.
@Joe
I hold all life to be equally valuable. If someone puts a bullet in me and I die, they have harmed me greatly. They’ve cut my life short. However, after I’m gone (I don’t believe there’s an afterlife, perhaps if I someday came to believe in one my opinion may change), my friends and family will continue to mourn months, years or maybe even their whole lifetime. Therefore, I believe they will suffer MORE. To say that loved ones suffer more, is not to say that the victim NEVER SUFFERED, and to put those words in my mouth is incredibly disingenuous
@bostonian – Ron Paul’s personal opposition to abortion is not in dispute. Ron Paul believes the Federal gov’t should have no part in determining abortion law, and that it should be up to individual States. Lots of States (afaik) have already cut off all kinds of funding for abortion, so if you want access to abortion that’s where you’ll have to fight anyway….
@cotton pony – Ron Paul is for States’ rights that’s true. And there’s plenty who have / are legalising e.g. marijuana in various ways. if different States have different laws and you can move freely from one to another, surely that gives you more CHOICE about the political environment that you get to live in?
@Shadow – what you just said there, in the first person, seems reasonable, if arguable. For instance we can argue that loved ones have a chance to eventually “get over” their loss and move on to experience some happiness in their lives. Those killed don’t.
However your post there is a whole lot more nuanced and less offensive than Clinton’s remark. Maybe you could PR for her? (Joking. Please don’t, she really shouldn’t have more power, she’ll only use it to warmonger)
Of course the people Ron Paul would pardon as POTUS would be those held in Federal prisons. Not in County or State.
You Americans and your crazy three tiers of government, police and prisons! No wonder you have more people in jail than any other country in the world! By a factor of 7 vs. the next most lock-up happy Western nations.
Athough you can comfort yourselves with the knowledge that if China didn’t shoot so many folks they’d probably have more prisoners. Well done. / sarcasm
the problem with ron paul is that he’s got this vague and not very well developed sense of what ‘governing’ is that he then forces all the things he’s personally for into. it’s a philosophy that makes sense if you’re talking about a precocious teenager’s first attempt at figuring out what this ‘government’ stuff is all about, but that’s about the most laudable thing to be said for it.
where that really comes out is his constant invocations of the constitution. he doesn’t have a coherent theory, just a notion that it must permit all the things he likes and prohibit the things he doesn’t. his entire argument is essentially that he knows better what the constitution was meant to say than the justices who were actually involved in the formation of the union, because he said so, that’s why.
the constitution is a sophisticated text that is capable of many interpretations. and paul’s blind ideology is an incredibly disrespectful way to treat a remarkable document- to so blithely sweep away the care that should be involved in approaching it, and to declare for no reason at all that only he can truly understand it
ron paul isn’t a serious leader. he’s a grown-up child telling other grown-up children that they should all hold their breath until the get what they want. you don’t argue with that, you just let them sit there until they get tired and storm off.
no, that isn’t true at all. you can’t just up and move because you don’t like the laws of your state. that doesn’t work in the real world.
oh, you don’t actually know anything about america, is that what’s going on here. dude, those ‘three tiers’ of government youre talking about (i guess you’re including municipalities, but those aren’t part of the federalist framework, so, you should probably stop phrasing it that way if you want to sound like you know what you’re talking about) that is the whole basis for the state’s rights argument. if you think that’s crazy, you think state’s rights is crazy.
p.s.: most of those non-violent drug offenders are in state, not federal prison. so you’re fantasy version of america wouldn’t even work.
Yo, Joe, aren’t you supposed to be British?
You’re the first British person I’ve ever encountered who was super enthusiastic about states’ rights.
@holly
it turns out this is only because he actually has no clue what ‘state’s rights’ means
this is why i said it’s a waste of time to take paul fans seriously, they always turn out to be as fundamentally clueless as their hero.
He’s definitely the first Brit I’ve encountered who supports Ron Paul. Which shows exactly how much he knows about… anything, really.
yeah… ron paul voted for the federal partial birth abortion act, so, this is wrong too
We Americans (or USians if you will) got our government mostly from you guys Joe. Our entire jurisprudence system is rooted in English Common Law (Alexander Hamilton was greatly influenced by Blackstone’s Commentaries for one.) Our bicameral legislative branch is modeled on yours. Our executive branch was not so much but our judicial sure was.
We did not use all of your legal concepts when it came to the Bill of Rights but we reacted to what your country did to ours in the lead up to the American Revolution.
Ron Paul would be an unmitigated disaster for this nation if he was elected President. He has a few reasonable points (his views on war, his views on drugs at the federal level) but his other opinions would do immense damage to the rest of the nation-especially in the financial sector. His utter disregard for the destruction an individual state could do to its citizens would mean the misery of millions of Americans and it would signal a return to certain laws that should have been left in the dustbin in history.
The fact that you are a Ron Paul FanBoy shows that not only are you a liar, you are also stupid.
And you might want to read the entire speech Clinton gave and the context in which she gave it. Her statement is accurate based on where she was, who she was talking to and what she was talking about. To think otherwise is to show once again, you have no clue about pretty much anything.