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: Unh-hunh. Who were those people she was saying were ending up dead? their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat….. ”
You know, the men she is, “disappearing” from the equation. It’s hyperbolic, but there is something to be said for the men who were choosing to engage in all that killing being something less than innocent bystanders.
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.
That would be because you don’t understand US libel laws, and that public figures are very hard to libel, and judgements in libel cases which are seen to be unfounded are often made; putting the court costs on the plaintiff, as well as the, not inconsiderable, costs of mounting the suit.
So those claims are to be taken with a grain of salt. Not dismissed out of hand, but needing a bit more support to be deemed “presumed true”.
I have a problem with the AWARD.
If society / gov’t hands out approval to people who kill their abusive spouses and are released from jail early (you or someone else said 3years) that implies:
“Hey, if your spouse does X to you, it’s ok to kill them”.
Which you continue to misrepresent the case. She wasn’t “released early” her case was reviewed and a different sentence was deemed the proper one.
Let’s try your little rubric for the correctness of social treatment of people.
Let’s say a man is convicted of manslaughter, and he gets out of jail and spends 10 years working to make it easier to prevent the circumstances that led to his committing manslaughter.
Should his efforts be recognised? Or should he be treated like a pariah all his days?
Not under general international and ordinary international legal uses of that term. Generally, it is considered impossible by definition to engage in terrorism against combatants. It is extremely clear that Blackwater operatives in Iraq and Afganistan are not non-combatants. Guerrilla warfare and being the smaller or weaker force in a combat is not typically classified as terrorism. This bullshit attempt by sections of the US government and public to pretend like people attacking soldiers and other combatants is properly considered terrorism is an attempt to redefine and render virtually meaningless, the term. If you are a member of an occupying force who engages in violent activity within a combat zone, asserting you are a non-combatant and therefore attacks against you may be properly considered terrorism is fucking absurd.
DSC: It’s debatable as to whether the boys of the “Independent Military Contractors” are combatants. Part of that is clouded even further by “General Order 17” which exempted a slew of non-combatants from both US, and Iraqi law.
Combatant is a fairly specific term, and the issues with Blackwater, et al. having to do with chains of command, oversight, and (most relevant), adhering to the laws of war, puts their status as legitimate combatants into serious question.
And if they aren’t legitimate combatants, then what is being done in response to them is a different kettle of fish.
The terrorism I had in mind was a very specific sort, aimed at Blackwater, with the intent of making them come a bit closer to adhering to the Laws of War, as defined in the Hague, and Geneva Conventions.
My personal opinion is they had all they got, and more; actually, coming to them, and they were made examples of. Then again, there’s a reason I never took a job with them, or any of their ilk; even though they’d be glad to have me.
It’s because they are both hired-guns, and agents of an agenda, and the person driving those agendas (esp. in the case of Xie, née Blackwater) is usually a sick fuck.
Fuck my life! Fucking fuckers! Fuck!
So, do armies that commit warcrimes suddenly become noncombatant? Just unilaterally declaring your armed, violent mercenary invasion force “noncombatants” doesn’t make them so, nor does their committing warcrimes suddenly convert them into civilians.
I just shared this with my flatmate and we tried reading through his reasoning in sexy voice -and fell about laughing before reaching half way and deciding we needed more alcohol. This is surreal. A semester of tuition on the fact that if he’d actually stayed in long enough to submit an assignment – he would have either a) failed or b) been kicked out based on the schools code of conduct
jeeeebus!
Have any of you renounced prostitution yet?
Have you given any reason for us to renounce it yet?
By the way, which three rapes of women do you believe actually occured Martin?
I haven’t renounced prostitution because I don’t have sex for money.
If by prostitution you just mean “baddy badness,” then you need to ask “have any of you renounced being baddy baddersons yet?”, and then the answer is no.
How did you ever get into grad school.
Hey I’m still waiting for that detailed list of instructions Martin, so that I don’t use my preferences and then accidently mention I have them. As you have not provided such instructions on how to complete any of my tasks, how can I renounce being a whore, other than to use societies definition….which means I’ve never had any such thing to renounce.
Not me! But wait, I’m a pacifist too. So does that mean I’m the opposite of myself?
It makes them mercenaries. Which are not “combatants” in the ways in which Geneva (and Hague) define them. Which means they don’t have any more protection than any other civilian for the things they do.
That, despite the precedent of Nuremburg, it’s still pretty much a “victor’s justice” sort of world doesn’t do that. But simply saying, “someone engaging in violence in a warzone is a combatant” and therefore can get away with murder… I’m not for it.
Them being non-combatants means they aren’t able to appeal to the laws of war to excuse their crimes as being necessities of combat. It strips them of the privilege to commit violence, and raises the burden to that of self defense. They don’t get to shoot anyone who is a target under the combatant rule of engagement, but only those people who are posing an immediate threat to their lives.
It’s the opposite of giving them a pass.
To elaborate: Who is/isn;t a non-combatant, and what happens as a result of that was a large part of my job. A combatant has to have violated the laws of the country he serves; or the Geneva Conventions (for nations which are signatory), or have committed, “crimes against humanity” to be tried for war crimes.
A non-combatant is, no matter what country they come from, subject to local law. That’s what made CPA General Order 17 so egregious. It was handwavium on the part of the Bush Administration to exempt US nationals from Iraqi Law. The War Crimes Act still applies (which makes all Americans, no matter where they are subject to US laws relating to war crimes/the Geneva Conventions), but the Bush Administration (and subsequently the Obama Administration; to my regret and their shame) refused to use it to prosecute, claiming that the CPA General Order preventing applying Iraqi law, and that the crimes (e.g the bus shooting) were outside the territorial US: they ignored the universal jurisdiction of the War Crimes Act: which was promulgated by Reagan, and then reinforced by Clinton.
The Laws of War apply to everyone in a combat zone; what they do it grant extra protections to soldiers, for the legal things they do in combat. There are things which make otherwise non-combatants into combatants (e.g. l’evée en masse) and the protocols of 1948 extended the definitions of combatants to make insurgencies and resistance/partisan organisations obviously legitimate combatants. But mercenaries don’t get that coverage unless they obey the laws of war.
They are given less leeway in violating them than partisans, etc., because they are making it their profession, and as such they have a greater requirement to adhere to them; since the presumption (as shown by Blackwater) is the country from which they come, and the nations which hire them, will look the other way when they violate them.
Which is part of the reason professional soldiers tend to look askance at mercenaries. They make our jobs more dangerous, and our lives harder. Which is neither here nor there; but trust me, I have no love, nor any respect, for Blackwater, Xie, or whatever the hell they are calling themselves now.
Is it just me, or did the group wipe the floor with Tom pretty quickly?
In the other blogs I saw him appear in, he got banned pretty quickly (and understandably so)–since he never descended into the personal attack (and yeah, after 2853892 repetitions of “whore” I found it nearly meaningless), David didn’t ban him–which meant we got to play with him the WHOLE time…..and wore him out?
David Futtrelle is a hairball.
Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom: Is that really all you have to say! I did a total insult of you just above the comment you left (it’s always hilarious when trolls try to sneak back into old thread to get the last word). And somehow, they almost always fail.
C’mon, don’t you have anything better than that????????????????????????
David is sticking in your craw is he martin?
Tell us more about the chairs, Tom. XD
This guy can’t be for real…..
Have you stopped beating your wife, Tom?
Tom Martin | March 24, 2012 at 8:52 pm:
Have any of you renounced prostitution yet?
Nope. I am the 97%!
Tom Martin | April 3, 2012 at 9:46 pm
David Futtrelle is a hairball.
And you are a Warwickshire shithouse.
Tom Martin is a hemorrhoid, which does explain his fixation on chairs.
@Cassandra
Naww, he’s too forgettable to be a hemorrhoid. He’s more like gum under your shoe: annoying when he’s here, and completely forgotten when he’s not except for that random moment when you’re like “Remember that gum under your shoe, how fuckin annoying was that?”
I have it! He’s like the sand that gets in your swimsuit at the beach – trivial, but sort of annoying, and every time you think it’s all gone another bit shows up.
Tom Martin, you have been defined