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:
Tom Martin Faces Slut-Feminist Judge, Motion Denied..
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.
![Google is Censoring Men’s Rights Searches and These Totally Not Fake Screenshots Prove It [CORRECTED]](http://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/manboobzresearchlab.png?resize=50%2C50)
…Treacle?
Is it happy hour in Britain or something?
Tom: Go to sleep, molasses.
I think it was about sixish (am) when Tommyboy did his last post. An all-night binge, maybe?
For reference, his line about the treacle was posted at half six local time. Drunk posting at half six in the morning is actually slightly worrying.
He probably has to drink to endure the pain of hard chairs.
Weeeeelll, it’s not like he has a job to go to. Still wondering how his managing to pay for things without working, collecting donations for ‘projects’ he has no intention of doing or fobbing off a legally-enforceable £35k debt doesn’t fit into his unique definition of whore.
‘Cos he’s a man, of course. Only women are whores. If we’re really good at it we get promoted to whoriarchs.
The whoriarch is captain, of a sinking ship.
.
No, still demonstrating you know nothing. All relationships require some effort to maintain them. Just because something is enjoyable to do doesn’t make it not work. I’m really starting to wonder if you manage to have any friends with the way you view people. It’s like you view every human interaction as 1 person conning or taking advantage of another. Unless there is money exchanged for work, then it’s all clean and above board. If you do have “friends”, do you pay them to be your friends?
Tom can’t afford friends with that 37K judgement against him.
Let’s just ban the moron. He really serves no purpose.
… Queen C.
“Tom can’t afford friends with that 37K judgement against him.”
At time of writing the above sentence Hellkell, you clearly didn’t believe in free association.
How about now?
On the subject of money, what 37K calculated gambles for a good cause have you lost – or won – lately?
On the assumption that you don’t have any dependents, so can afford to gamble with your career, what high gamble high reward projects have you taken on?
I will take you as I find you.
What are you going to do, and why is it going to be so awesome?
Kim said:
No, still demonstrating you know nothing. All relationships require some effort to maintain them. Just because something is enjoyable to do doesn’t make it not work. I’m really starting to wonder if you manage to have any friends with the way you view people. It’s like you view every human interaction as 1 person conning or taking advantage of another. Unless there is money exchanged for work, then it’s all clean and above board. If you do have “friends”, do you pay them to be your friends?
I think Kim needs to PHONE a friend. Two heads are better than one. Have a guess Kim.
I don’t make £37000 bets to prove my worth. I don’t need to. I’m better than that.
You want me to gamble and lose to show how awesome I am? Tough. I’m too busy actually being awesome. You know, making things and loving people and telling stories and running grassroots educational projects. Things that make the world a better place.
I’m going to ask our Dark Lord to ban your ass, and it will be awesome when that happens because you are a boil on the ass of humanity and this blog, and the sooner you are spewing your pus elsewhere, the better.
I am already awesome because I am not you.
He is so sure of his superiority that he really thinks he can use the “what x have you done lately” for any act he’s ever done and it’ll work as a damning condemnation.
Good lord, is Tommyboy still drunk?
Okay then, tell us a joke. ANYTHING!
I’m all for letting the pedophilia apologist post here. It just lets the world know more about The Greatest Human Rights Movement Of The Twentieth Century and its courageous, upstanding warriors.
Viola,
What is the grass roots organization, and how have you made it as awesome as it is?
I think we have more than enough evidence from this particular subject, and now he’s just tiresome and incoherent.
Yeah, anyone searching him can find out how he’s acquitted his “movement” here.
Hmm. I’m sort of inclined to let him stay (he’s on moderation but I let most of his comments through). But i could be convinced to ban him if enough people are sick of his crap.
Or maybe we need some sort of challenge for him. Only let through comments if he does x or doesn’t do y, or something.
Why is he asking us to tell jokes? Where was anyone talking about jokes at all?
Tom’s too incoherent to perform any challenges. I’m done with him.
I’d second (third? Fourth? Umpteenth?) hellkell’s suggestion to ban him, if only because he’s incredibly boring as well as contemptible.
You know, given that Tom seems to have reached the stage of life collapse where he’s drunk trolling in the early morning rather than figuring out a way to pay off his court debt, cutting him off from as many of his sources of trolly satisfaction as possible might actually be seen as an act of compassion in the long run.
Early morning is right – yesterday he was at it at 6.30 am, today it’s 12.30 am. Sleeping it off during the day and starting again at night, perhaps?
Nothing wrong with having an odd schedule, but I don’t remember him being drunk all the time when we first encountered him. I think he’s coming unglued.
That’s what I meant – should have clarified – the hours plus the incoherence, not the hours alone.
All right then. I’m cutting him off. He can find somewhere else to troll.
Huzzah!
Thanks, David.
I do have a joke. He won’t think it’s funny.
Tom Martin, Mens’ Rights Activist.
^*rimshot*
And he’s gone.
Thank You.