Tom Martin’s “anti-male discrimination” case against the London School of Economics dismissed; he responds by calling his critics “whores.”
Hard wooden chairs: Enemy of men?
Tom Martin, a former gender studies student at the London School of Economics, recently became a minor celebrity amongst Men’s Rights activists and other angry men when he sued his alma mater for alleged sexism against men.
He’s now had his case thrown out of court. Let’s go to the Camden New Journal for details:
Tom Martin, 39, who lives in Covent Garden, claimed he suffered “anti-male discrimination” while studying for a master’s degree in gender, media and culture at the world-famous university in Holborn.
Representing himself at his application for a trial at the Central London County Court on Tuesday, Mr Martin complained of a lack of men-only sessions in the university’s gym and the preponderance of posters in the corridors advertising services for women without the presence of similar materials geared towards men.
Mr Martin, who describes himself as a feminist, said “hard” chairs in the library were uncomfortable for men and that a “male blaming culture” was evident in course materials, which “ignored men’s issues” and focused on wrongs done by them.
Damn those misandrist chairs and their man-hating hardness!
The judge didn’t buy it, saying Martin’s case had essentially no chance of success. He threw out the case and ordered Martin to pay LSE’s legal costs.
Martin, welcome to reality.
On Twitter, Martin responded to the news by calling his critics “whores.” One of many examples:
But I was really discriminated against, you whores!
And, yes, his Twitter handle is indeed Sexismbusters.org.
EDITED TO ADD: Actual headline today on What Men are Saying About Women:
EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Tom Martin has replied to this post in the comments. Some highlights:
My legal complaint did NOT involve a complaint about the seating. You have been misled by the press – The Times and the West End Extra/Camden New Journal both mysteriously got it wrong.
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
He then details his attempts to fight this grave injustice. Also, there’s this:
[S]everal comments here are confusing ‘whore’ with ‘slut’. A slut has sex freely, which I am all for. Freedom of association is the ultimate in humanity. A whore charges for sex. Even if a woman is a virgin, but is waiting for Mr Right to buy her something, she’s a whore.
It’s counter-intuitive, but a lot of professional feminists are whores. They expect the government and men to do them special favours. They make up stories to convince men and government to believe that we all owe women something.
But really, if someone were keeping a tab, then…
Women owe men five years pension.
Women owe men some National Service.
Women owe men some inventions.
Women owe men positive discrimination in university curricula.
Women owe men some child access.
It’s women’s round at the bar too.
For the whole thing, see here.
For more charming quotes from Tom, see this post on the blog Butterflies and Wheels.
Like this:
Posted on March 16, 2012, in actual activism, antifeminism, I'm totally being sarcastic, irony alert, misandry, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, twitter, Uncategorized, whores. Bookmark the permalink. 1,521 Comments.
Seriously, what’s next? A long-winded treatise about how kicking puppies is the right thing to do, because whores?
Wow. That is a seriously horrifying statement.
Yeah, nothing like being shot to make you realize you’re not a victim…?
Wait, let me make sure I read that correctly.
Mister Hard Chairs Are Misandry You Are All Whores just suggested a fifteen year old girl who survived an assassination attempt is a shill for the BBC’s nefarious schemes.
A fifteen year old girl was shot in the head for daring to speak up about girls being kept out of school- and let that be a lesson to her! But the chairs in the library were a serious affront to Martin’s delicate ass.
Just seeing his name in the Recent Comments ticker makes me queasy and sick to my stomach.
Malala is a victim of sex segregation and religion.
The great thing about ending sex segregation is that it kills the religion too.
It would be nice to see Malala publicly reject sex segregation, and the religion foisted onto her as well.
I think she’ll be a bit too politically correct to do that though (and a bit too pally with fems encouraging the sex seg).
I saw some stats that show worldwide, 78% of girls and 81% of boys are in school, so a genuine inequality of opportunity for girls, I assume - but no, this is an inequality of outcome.
There are inequalities of opportunity for girls and boys to go to school no doubt - like conscription for the boys and Taliban for the girls - but you never hear an interview of a girl saying she doesn’t want to go to school because she plans to be a scrubber. Maybe some peasant rural girls don’t want to go to school as much as boys, given the girls’ options of sitting in the mud hut and waiting for the highest bidder to feather their nests. Boys do not have the same option of being a whore for life like the girls do. Just saying.
But I think something we overlook is that in all rural communities, from third to first world, the proportion of economically inactive housewhores is much higher than in the cities.
Economic activity stats make it look like relatively high proportions of women in whatever country are working, but some orgs cook the stats by only surveying women in cities. I saw a stat in passing from Mexico for instance, claiming only 1.5% of rural Mexican women are/were economically active.
Anyway, so many manboobzers’ comments about me miss the point and misrepresent what I say, so I am going to start making shit up too.
David Futrelle eats children.
Dude, all we are doing is reading the words you type. There is no misrepresenting your positions on 7 year old child prostitutes or your current stupid statements about a brave young girl. You just suck at being a good person in general.
Hard chairs and quoting you verbatim is misandry.
So just to get this straight, you support the Taliban, right, Tom?
Given that 43% of agricultural workers in developing countries are women, I feel pretty safe in asserting that Tom’s figure of 1.5% of women in rural Mexico are “economically active” is, er, rectally derived. (That is, pulled from his ass.)
You gotta admit, he’s very good at figuring out how everything is the fault of underage whore.
Feminists are in charge of the school system in Afghanistan? Who knew!
But of course, I’m probably misrepresenting his point somehow by assuming his written word is what he actually intends to say or somesuch bullshit.
In addition to participating in crop production, Mexican women also engage in off-farm activities (from handicrafts to empanadas) to diversify their families’ livelihoods.
This is of course in addition to providing the lion’s share of chlid care, eldercare, and care for the sick. Probably none of this counts as “economically active” to Tom, since most of it is unpaid — but why aren’t men pulling their weight?
Arrgh, italics were meant to end after “very” and “whore” should be plural.
You might wonder what “chlid care” is. Also known as “child care.”
Hey Tom, I asked you a question instead of just assuming I was sure what you meant, but you ignored me. Instead of bleating about being misunderstood, answer the damn question.
Which do you believe is more valuable, ‘things’ or freedom and autonomy?
Look lackwit, a case of mistaken identity does not equal false rape accusation.
As for the Taliban nonsense, fuck you with a cactus in Sheriff Joe’ jail.
Tom’s teeny butt is so sore
that the pain has him down on the floor.
Shoot a child in the head?
Aw, shaddup, she’s not dead,
and Tom’s pain’s more important, you whores!
Tom saw a statistic in passing,
About women whose wages weren’t massing.
Turns out women’s work
Is undercounted, you jerk!
So Tom’s numbers are derived by grab assing.
Criminy! That d00d is painfully ignorant about life, the universe, and everything.
I hope someone had a Steelbutthurt bingo game going during this. There must have been a winner in all that waffle.
So, just to be clear, Tom hates male rape victims just as much as he hates female rape victims, and victims of child prostitution?
And thinks that child prostitutes aren’t actually being raped, apparently.
Since Tommy Boy won’t answer me, I’m going to go ahead and assume he is jealous of the sweet deal (he thinks) women in Saudi Arabia have going.
So, feel free anyone, to lock him up in your basement and use him as free labour. You’ll never have to let him out as long as you feed him and give him presents occasionally. He’ll feel so happy and privileged never having to do anything. (Remember though, his labour only counts as work if you pay him, so make sure you never pay him.)
Also, if we’re going for Saudi conditions, remind him that you are entitled to have sex with him (since presumably you will be getting married - otherwise living alone together would be indecent). Obviously none of you are going to want to actually have sex with him, what with the sympathy for pedophiles and the calling all women whores and all, but be sure to remind him that you could force him to have sex with you if you wanted to. And also that you could legally have put him in this situation when he was 12 if his mother had signed off on it.
And then remind him how lucky he is to be in such a position and how he must have chosen it himself because he was too lazy to get a job.
“Privileged classes—never educated;
instead, kept rich, fat, and sedated
while the oxen and mule
make decisions and rule.”
Thus sang Tom as he masturbated.
@ Tom Martin
I’m curious, Tom. Are you interested in women in terms of sexual relationships or romantic partnerships? Or are you a MGHOW? Or are you uninterested in women?
Tom is a troll… He can’t be serious. Even in the ludicrous world of the MRM he stands out as being ridiculous.
Just because no one else has mentioned it, that decree Tom’s pointing to as proof that the Taliban would love to educate girls, so long as they’re segregated from the boys? That was made 16 years ago. Women have missed their entire education under it.
Yeah, one of the general false claim repeating itself here again and again is that I claim hard chairs are misandry.
My claim, is that hard chairs discriminate more against men than women on average.
The way you have all wrongly ridiculed my complaint, because it is a male complaint, is misandry.
Can manboobzers tell the difference? We know Douchetrail can’t.
We know LSE’s library and the EHRC can make the right call on it though, so on the scale of things, you lost that one - let it go.
Kim said (in relation to the economically inactive housewhore’s lot):
Which do you believe is more valuable, ‘things’ or freedom and autonomy?
I think both are important, but more to the point, Muslim whores think that things are more important, and they know that they can control their wage slave husbands too, so have the autonomy of not having to clock in at a job they hate like their husbands.
Doing housework is good for women’s health (and men’s) because the result is a more pleasant living environment - where as being a cog in a corporate wheel does not have the same benefit for the person doing the work (other than money - which by law goes to the housewhore anyway).
Feminists lie about the degree of autonomy Muslim women have.
Muslim women can largely go where they want.
Muslim women are supposed to get their husbands’ permission for certain activities, like work and travel, but it is largely symbolic, as while Islam teaches that men are the boss, it also teaches that men cannot do anything that makes their wives unhappy.
Islam allows Muslim men to object to their womenfolk doing certain things on safety grounds, which suits muslewhore perfectly, because they get told no occassionally, but usually for things they’s rather avoid anyway (like working at night).
Foucault says, that in traditional gender-rolled families, the only person the husband really bosses, is himself, out the door to work every day. Everything else is symbolic.
I think there are a lot of fems here who haven’t read any behavioral research, so really don’t get the back seat driving tactics of trad whores.
Women elect men to positions of prominence - to be the actor. Acting the boss, but carrying out the will of the woman.
So, when the Taliban, or the natives populating Taliban regions, keep girls out of schools, it’s not so straight forward to assume it’s the men who are behind the inequality. They may be the pawns having to enforce it, and to be seen to be enforcing it, but it is way more complicated than that. Female agency is not something manboobzers are going to be able to debate honestly - but I’m sure you all really do get it.
Princess Bob Bob quotes me:
The BBC head guy just lost his job and the BBC is about to go through the ringer again because despite a man alleging a man raped him, then retracting it due to mistaken identity, the BBC persisted in reporting the original claim as if genuine.
Then she says: Look lackwit, a case of mistaken identity does not equal false rape accusation.
My point is, that the BBC started reporting that the person accusing Lord McAlpine of child rape withdrew his allegation admitting he’d accused the wrong guy by mistake - but that the BBC starting reporting the mistake in some reports, but kept running the old reports for several hours still incriminating McAlpine - but without mentioning the crucial update,
John Redwood pointed out the BBC’s delay in updating all reports in his appearance on Radio 4′s Any Questions, after which, the BBC kept running the old reports of McAlpine as suspect. The BBC could not bring itself to fully retract the allegation, because the accused was a man (‘the bastards’), and a conservative, and because ‘rape allegations should be believed’.
You are in your own little world are you not Tom?
Yes, yes you are in your own world.
In reality, BBC is actually a large organization, the fact that they kept a report going over a few hours when someone had a retraction is not proof that they are anti-male. It is at best proof they need to be quicker at updating their reporting and/or they should hold off until all of the facts are in when reporting on a criminal matter.
It is not a false rape accusation-a false rape accusation is a completely made up tale of rape that the person later admits was completely made up. This is a situation of mistaken identity that took a while to be corrected and sadly someone was affected briefly by it.
And yes, I am straight, single, and taking applications.
PrincessBonbob,
I was doing some home improvements that day, so listening to the same station, Radio 4, all day - they kept reverting back to the old accusatory story, despite reporting the mistaken identity at other times. Then John Redwood complained about this intransigence - and they kept doing it!
The BBC is in line for a little bit of direct action.
whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores whores
And when something discriminates more against men what do we call it? Could it be ………. misandry? /sarcasm
We ridicule your complaint because you frame a regular complaint (these chairs are uncomfortable) as a male complaint. If you just said “Hey LSE, your library chairs are really uncomfortable, how about we get some new ones?” none of us would care.
I’d like to know how the chairs can discriminate against men. Are they made of sapient pearwood?
Aw look, Tommy thinks he is nuanced and at all credible while going around using terms like “trad whores.” I’m sure Foucault said it somewhere, too.
Lets, see here…
Nope, sounds just as ridiculous.
Can we send Tom on a field trip to Saudi? Please? He can try to perform “research” on the streets of Riyadh and get himself arrested, and then spend the next few months whining about how the mutaween is secretly controlled by “housewhores”.
Can anyone tell me, are there videos of Tom (or people arguing on the same side as Tom) in which he says, out loud, the same sort of things he has written in this thread. That would surprise me. I don’t have the time or inclination to watch them, just curious.
Been busy with NaNoWriMo, and missed Toms latest appearance… not much new, just doubling down on self evident bullshit… oh, girl being shot in the head “that should teach her to say the things I think she should say instead of the things she wanted to say”… well isn’t that special? More bullshit about chairs… hey how’s the seating in LSE lecture halls? They could make those more comfortable using the money you owe them from your idiotic nuisance suit… more on idiotic theories on practical Islam… actually just the same idiotic theory… and one of those conspiracy theories that only work if you assume a large organisation operates the same way that an individual does.
So, didn’t miss much. Hardly worth even mocking.
Tom’s reasoning is so bizarre that the only way I can think to address it is with …
A FIND/REPLACE PARTY!
Carleyblue, I suspect he knows just as much as we do that ideas such as “women owe men positive discrimination in university curricula [after generations of positive discrimination in favor of men, for some reason]” are completely laughable, and so would never dare to freely distribute their amused reactions to his nonsense.
Their amused reactions = the amused reactions of the general audience I assumed he would be saying such things to, although I guess it’s not unreasonable that he would do videos of himself speaking on youtube.
@Tulgey Logger Thanks, that’s what I would think too, but some people really have no sense of how (most) other people really percieve them.
Oh, his youtube account does have one video of himself in public, but it’s mostly in regard to the LSE and “sexism against men”:
Not sure if he brings up his “97% of women are whores” theory, but I do like how he has the nerve to name his account (and his website) “sexism busters.”
Check it out, a chair that doesn’t discriminate against men!
I’m a biologist, and I don’t recall ever seeing any research on “trad whores.”
Shit, I just got a horrible shock. Tom Martin looks almost exactly like this guy I was seeing for a short time. Couldn’t have been him, though, since this guy insisted on paying for everything! By the way, I will always say that I can pay for myself on dates (on the rare occassions on which they occur), but if the guy insists, what am I supposed to do?
“Muslim women can largely go where they want.
Muslim women are supposed to get their husbands’ permission for certain activities, like work and travel, but it is largely symbolic, as while Islam teaches that men are the boss, it also teaches that men cannot do anything that makes their wives unhappy.”
Yes, just go ahead and ignore the hadith that tells women that they can’t lawfully refuse their husbands’ sexual advances and the Koranic verse that explicitly says that women are supposed to obey their husbands or else they will be punished through sexual withdrawl, beatings, and “admonishment”. It’s not symbolic; all of these misogynist rulings are derived from authentic Islamic sources.
“Islam allows Muslim men to object to their womenfolk doing certain things on safety grounds, which suits muslewhore perfectly, because they get told no occassionally, but usually for things they’s rather avoid anyway (like working at night).”
No, Muslim men are allowed to stop their wives from doing anything so long as they aren’t forcing their wives to disobey God’s teachings. Also, those “safety grounds” you speak of include the “danger” of a woman being a “temptation” for other men. Do you really think those are legitimate concerns?
No one cares, no one cares, NO ONE CARES (not if you were the last man on Earth).