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.
@boomboom – nope, it shows that I’m a sceptic.
All blogs represent the POV of the owner, unless substantiated elsewhere I don’t give them a lot of weight, other than as an expression of how the blog owner feels.
A blog that is SPECIFICALLY run as anti-whatever propaganda, e.g. manboobz (which can be summed up as: MRAs = BAD!) is doubly suspect. So, yeah, I won’t take Futrelle’s word for anything. I’m sure that won’t keep Futrelle up at night. 😛
The other thing I do is read different opinions on different sides of various issues. Helps keep a sense of balance. Why do you think I’m here? Just for the kitten pics?
Joe, you’re no more a sceptic than I am a baboon.
@boomboom –
it happened:
“Killer given domestic violence award” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1651234.stm ….
The (now ex, but current at the time) PM’s wife Cherie Blair is referred to as a presenter lower down, by her maiden / professional (lawyer) surname of “Booth”.
Whether you think the killer’s initial conviction for murder, was right, or whether you think manslaughter was right, or defence of reduced responsibility, or releasing her, or whatever:
1) it’s a really, really bad idea to give anyone an award for killing someone while they sleep.
Or to give any awards to any killers.
2) if it had been a man – (who had been beaten by his wife for years) – and he killed his wife by immolation? you know he’d still be in jail today.
Nice to see you have such an open mind, boomboom /sarcasm.
That’s a great way to shut down all political opposition, by instantly condemning anyone who speaks up for, or even reads about, men’s rights.
Yeah, I feel real safe leaving my future up to your politics. /more sarcasm.
And yeah, I disagree with Tom Martin. You want me to excoriate him? No. He’s harmed no-one except maybe himself – financially. He’s entitled to his opinions (wrong or not). Just as you are (wrong or not).
@LBT – I’m not here under the illusion that I can convince anyone here of anything.
@Joe
Indeed. The UK is misandrist. So misandrist that my friend, who is doing a law degree, had one of her lecturers tell the class that defence attorneys should make rape victims cry so they seem hysterical and unreliable, and if that fails they should use their lack of emotion as proof that they are ‘lying’. My responses were “they do this?!” followed by “they admit to doing this?!”
I think this is slightly more serious than the existence of a Minister for Women.
@viola – here, have a banana 😛
Joe’s the kind of fake skeptic who deploys all his skepticism on things he reads in the mainstream media (good, good)… and none at all on things he reads on conspiracy websites about the Illuminati (facepalm).
I don’t mean that specifically, Joe, you may not be an Illuminati type (although they do seem to have a strange interconnection with the MRM, probably due to that common fake-skeptic factor), but you definitely have a hilarious blind spot about taking everything Futrelle says with a grain of salt… and everything Martin says with a grain of “OMG IT’S MISANDRY!”
I think you’d get kicked out of a plumbing program for saying “whores” that much, dude.
That still does not make you a skeptic. You are way too gullible to ever be a skeptic.
@Creative Writing Student – I don’t believe that for a minute.
1 – we don’t call them “attorneys” here.
2 – doing that would help LOSE the case for the defendant by increasing the jury’s sympathy for the complainant.
So I call BS.
Or at the very least dinosaur-law-prof-hasn’t-practiced-for-40-years.
@Holly Pervocracy – sorry, you seem to be hard-of-reading?
a) Tom Martin is one thing.
b) The system is another thing.
c) The properties of these two things are not necessarily related.
d) The system is misandrist (in various aspects etc.)
Tom Martin’s words / deeds do not affect assertion d).
I hope that’s clear now.
Another derivative of the classic “Why is there no White History Month?” argument. The same form was utilized by Anthony Zarat in this comment thread and then, because he didn’t get the answers that he wanted to receive, repeated it to derail the commenting in this comment thread
Yes, because men and women are identical in every way, save for when discussing the righteousness of separate gender roles, then we’re complete opposites.
@Joe
My friend is a third-year law student at a UK university. This happened in one of their courses. And if Dinosaur-Law-Prof hasn’t practiced in 40 years, they’re currently teaching this to current students and future legal representatives.
And also: “hysterical women”. Tend to get dismissed on the grounds of being, y’know, “hysterical”.
Also, I am not sure whether ‘barrister’ or ‘solicitor’ was appropriate. And I have been playing a lot of Phoenix Wright recently. It creeps into my brain.
Joe…, allow me to introduce you to a concept called consistent standards.
Compare…
As for what-I-thought-about Tom Martin, I’d read the front page of his site, seen one of his in-the-street videos aaaand thought he was on a hiding to nothing with his lawsuit. I mean, this is the UK, where one woman murdered her sleeping husband, got released and was given a medal for bravery by the PM’s wife. Oh, and a few months back, a couple of UK politicians seriously floated the idea of abolishing prison for women. Not joking. Really.
With…
@Futrelle – well, I work on the premise that unless I can link through to an original source, that anything you write here may be, y’know, total BS.
I note that 1: I provided a link, so that you can confirm that 2: there is no linked source for your claims.
Which means I can apply your standard, amd say, So, yeah, I’m not going to believe you…
The way we do that around these parts (which bothered Tom), is…
Citations, sorely, needed; esp because you don’t support things like, Everyone knows Gender Studies are purely sexist. If the system didn’t approve of that sexism, it wouldn’t FUND it in universities. But it does. Just like the UK has a Minister for Women and no Minister for Men. Because sexism against men is something the UK gov’t / system / establishment WANTS. Institutional misandry is a very useful tool for the Assholes In Charge (AIC) they love it, .
Which doesn’t mean people won’t have fun if you try.
Joe: Why would an abuse encouraging, anti-treat people as equals blog be a more interesting and productive use of your time (whether you agree / disagree with some / all of what she writes) than all the whhhorrreeeeessssss!!! ranting.
Because that “ranting” is mostly Tom, the other whoring is us mocking Tom, which we do to amuse ourselves.
This seems a much better use of my time, as I pack for two weeks in France, than going and reading more of the same drivel people, such as yourself, are willing to hand-carry here, and save us the trouble (and them the validation).
Joe is the lovechild of MRAL and Brandon: wrong and boring.
Pecunium, have a fabulous time in France!
Oh, hell. O holy Jesus R. R. Christ, I finally foung the time to read further. And I renounce my statement. The part about the Saudi matriarchy is the stupidest thing I ever read.
I think my head just exploded.
The LSE is said to be an ELITE university, kids! This boy cannot have more tan two functioning brain cells! How does this work?!
And of course, it’s just as what anyone that knows anything would guess before clicking the link.
“Kiranjit Ahluwalia, from Southall, west London, was convicted for the murder of her husband in 1989 despite suffering 10 years of brutality at his hands.
Ahluwalia, who had her life sentence quashed in 1992 after her guilty plea to a manslaughter charge was accepted, was honoured at the first Asian Women Awards.”
Manslaughter is entirely appropriate and used even with drunk driving sometimes. This is a short article, she endured ten years of brutalization. She was charged.
The award OF COURSE is for work regarding domestic violence.
A life sentence is entirely inappropriate for the crime if the brutalization was true. She must have had evidence of that, or it would not be reduced to manslaughter. We don’t know the story, what kind of control she was under, nothing about that is in this article. Killing a captor that brutalizes you is still a crime, but it’s dropped to manslaughter for obvious reasons. You can have a difference of opinion, but this is by no means outrageous.
There is nothing that says he was sleeping. But you include that (from some other article, I guess) but not that she was guilty of manslaughter or that it was self defense against someone that controlled and brutalized her for ten years.
Geez, Tom’s like a dumber, crazier, more eloquent version of NWOslave.
*found*
Manboobz is coming to my shore! (ツ)/
Well, kind of.
Joe… has the educational system in the UK slipped so much?
, e.g. manboobz (which can be summed up as: MRAs = BAD!) is a gross misreading.
Right there, on the side of the tin, “Misogyny, I mock it”. That’s the summation of Manboobz. If the MRM had fews MRA who hated women, they would get less play here.
Look to your own house, and ponder why it is they are so full of shitheads and assholes.
The other thing I do is read different opinions on different sides of various issues. Helps keep a sense of balance. Why do you think I’m here? Just for the kitten pics?
Everyone says that. I happen to think you are here to try to piss people off, and pose as the “noble, and independent thinker, who could enlighten us, if we would only accept your (unsourced) pronouncements as fact.
Which makes you very much like Tom Martin.
Ah… I see you have given a link. I see that she wasn’t given an award FOR the killing (which was what you implied at the beginning) and that it wasn’t the sort of thing one thinks of when one hears, “A medal from the Prime Minister’s Wife. Which makes it seem it was a governmental award (sort of like the MM, or the VC, which are quite often given to killers).
So far… total BS from linked sources, 1… unsourced BS… uncounted and climbing.
@Creative Writing Student –
Here in the UK people in general favour the underdog, and people who make women cry are seen as bad. So that would be a counter-productive tactic, if it exists.
Also, the conviction rate for rape charges brought to court in UK is 58% which is on par with the conviction rate for most other crimes. So whatever tactics defendant’s counsel are using they are not conspicuously altering the conviction rate.
I know you’ve all been taught that the conviction rate for rape is in the single figure%, but that’s due to falsely reporting the ATTRITION rate as being the conviction rate, which does not happen for any other crime.
Of course, I don’t expect anyone here to believe me, so go read this article written by a woman reporter for a mainstream (left-wing) UK broadsheet newspaper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates
“The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%.
An attrition rate is the amount of convictions resulting from reports of a crime, and is not routinely calculated for any crime other than rape. Therefore without manually undertaking the exercise, it is impossible to compare the (true) attrition figure for rape with other crimes. A conviction rate is the amount of convictions following a trial, and is calculated for all reportable crimes.
Why is this important? Because the rhetoric of rape, which largely propounds myths, puts survivors off reporting the crimes committed against them, making them perceive that the system designed to assist them is actually wholly against them.
Last week, Mumsnet released a survey of its users as part of its We Believe You rape awareness campaign. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents said low conviction rates would make them hesitate to report a rape due to low conviction rates – clearly they had heard the 6% figure too…..”
Because then he’d be clouding the issue with facts.
To be more clear I mean, this is the UK, where one woman murdered her sleeping husband, got released and was given a medal for bravery by the PM’s wife.
and this:
Ahluwalia was honoured with five other Asian women at the Grosvenor House Hotel in central London on Sunday night for their “strength, personal achievements, determination and commitment”, as voted by Asian Women magazine.
Completely the same… Given a medal for bravery by the Prime Minister’s wife is totes the same as an award, “as voted by Asian Women magazine.”
Which means… based on the present evidence the readers here should presume you to be not merely spouting bollocks, but being actively deceptive, esp. when no source is provided.