PLEASE DONATE TO TOM MARTIN'S CAMPAIGN - IT IS VITAL

In April this year the site reported that Tom Martin was trying to get funds together to sue the London School of Economics because their gender studies course was sexist against men.

Tom has made a plea to all those interested in male equality to help him fund his legal case - no matter how small a donation you can give - please do so via this site. He needs another £1,100.

Please also forward to others you know - to encourage them to donate.

This case is more than just a personal issue affecting Tom, it is a vital cause that if successful and will have long lasting postive effects for male equaility in the whole of the UK. If it fails, then there will continue to be no check on the unrelenting anti-male culture we have in the UK fuelled by gender studies courses arming armies of anti-male feminists up and down the country.

It is always worth remembering that the anti-male feminists of today will be the power brokers of tomorrow. This is what happened from the late 70's onwards where thousands of women were radicalised into the men=bad, women=good worldview that has meant men have been second class citizens in Britain. Those women who were radicalised now hold senior positions throughout the public sectors, the media, the arts and in politics.

As more and more 'positive' discrimination takes place in the UK further relegating men in the future, those radicalised now will be able to do even more damage to equality because they will be given even more a leg up into top positions.

This is why Tom's campaign is vital.

The second issue worth commenting on is analysing of the commentary the case has received and the response of the LSE. There has been coverage in The Standard, The Guardian (1,130 comments!), Camden New Journal, Forbes and Spearhead.

Tom has told this site that "all the excuses used in the Guardian article, and by the defence, are known ruses, which I have the experience to debunk entirely in court. I researched gender issues and rhetoric for 5 years before entering LSE's Gender Institute, so will get the job done, funds permitting."

Firstly, with any campaigns that threaten the anti-male orthodxoy is that they try and portray the campaigners as being women-haters. You get this from the tone of the Guardian article and in feminist circles right now (The F Word), this will be how Tom will be portrayed. This will also come through official bodies and there will be whisperings against him now. We all know who these organisiation are - some of them taxpayer funded.

Secondly, it is worth studying the LSE's comments in their response in the Standard article -

The university's legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men. The team also argues that "any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable".

Now obviously this may or may not be the whole statement but the LSE's legal team actually agree that any discriminatory effect is OK. Can you dare imagine what would be the case if the genders were reversed - they would never publish such a statement. It also proves once and for all how discrimination against men is seen as normal, that there is nothing wrong in it and that it should be encouraged.

This is why Tom's campaign is vital - victory will support every man, every boy and every woman who likes men.

If there is one thing or cause you support this year, please make it this one.

Posted by Skimmington 

Comments

[Things Are Bad]

We are assured this is actually Tom then?

[Things Are Bad]

This video linked at the site seems quite suspect (complains only about "sexism" against women): http://www.youtube.com/SexismBustersOrgg

I wouldn't donate.

[Groan]

I have donated. Tom's case looks set to at least highlight fragility of the LSCs case. After all the LSC laweres fall back on an arguement that the course is discriminatory but this is "justified". So lets see them try to justify it.

[John Kimble]

It's quite heartening to see so many condemning the author of the Guardian piece and arguing against him so eloquently.

I've read hundreds of the comments and perhaps some of the most interesting questions concern the conduct of the Guardian itself.

Usually in any discrimination case they'd be backing the wronged party, arguing his case and condemning any powerful institution for their conduct, not to mention condemning the sexist culture of the academic discipline itself.

Instead we see them backing an institution linked to the Libyan regime and dismissing a case they know nothing about.

And for those who aren't aware, the Guardian's 'entire Comment is Free site is run by a gender feminists by the name of Natalie Hanman. Funnily enough she has some experience of gender studies, having taken a course in at at the LSE!

BTW a little more coverage of the issue here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/08/cribsheet-gender-studies-literacy-day

[Things Are Bad]

FYI: Tom stated that the video was put up by his web designer and it has now been removed. He appears to be the real deal.

[Things Are Bad]

Tom has an article in the Guardian that links to your website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias