Man Sues University over Feminist Indoctrination

by Featured Guest on September 8, 2011

By Peter The Great

Most guys going to college are not aware of the feminist atmosphere and indoctrination to be found on today’s college campuses.

Tom Martin, who matriculated at London School of Economics, which used to be one of the premier colleges of economics, quit after 6 weeks and is now suing the LSE.

He is asking for 50,000£ claiming breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation and breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act.

Mr. Martin, age 39, states that while attending LSE last year states the university’s lecturers ignored male issues.

LSE, after an internal investigation, found (naturally) no evidence of bias.

Martin, who is representing himself in the Central London county court, said there was “systemic anti-male discrimination” and , “The core texts we had to read before each class were typically packed with anti-male discrimination and bias – heavily focusing on, exaggerating, and falsifying women’s issues perspectives, whilst blaming men, to justify ignoring men’s issues. There was no warning of this sexist agenda in the prospectus.”

He states “”They simply refuse to acknowledge the research which contradicts the ‘women good/men bad’, or the ‘women victims/men perpetrators’ storyline.

“Science does not come into it at LSE’s Gender Institute. Like a religion, the curriculum simply insists, by repetition, attempting to drum the anti-male agenda into the students.”

LSE’s legal team is asking that the suit be dismissed:

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”.

In other words, it is clearly justifiable to slander men, and be biased against them. We should applaud Mr. Martin for his laudable stand against the standard university feminist party line, and hope that his suit will proceed on its merits.

{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }

Uncle Elmer September 8, 2011 at 11:13

The should have at least taught him Elmer’s Law :

Women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. They are marginalizing that small percentage of men who passionately innovate, destroy, and create ideas and take the risks to drive them to actualization

Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. Women can only insult me and deprive me of opportunity. Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labyrinthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 96 Thumb down 6
Firepower September 8, 2011 at 11:20

I applaud Mr. Martin for taking ACTION.

For those fearful of using faster methods, taking the Bitch Nation to court and suing for REAL MONEY can put a hurt on Liberals and their insane policy.

But, beware the “law” turning a blind eye when no recompense is given, as in how the University of Michigan ignores even the US Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action restrictions in admissions.

If you don’t/can’t have the stomach to “take OUT these sons of bitches” – a good lawsuit is the place to start.

Hit ‘em where it hurts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 67 Thumb down 0
Tom936 September 8, 2011 at 11:21

Yes, much applause for Tom Martin. This lawsuit’s long overdue.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 1
Rebel September 8, 2011 at 11:22

IMO universities must be segregated.

a)That will fix the problem once and for all.
b)There is NO other possible solution.

N-O-N-E

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 4
R. Parks September 8, 2011 at 11:28

It might be worthwhile for Spearhead readers to help Tom Martin out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer September 8, 2011 at 11:32

50,000£ buy a lot of beer.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
Robert September 8, 2011 at 11:39

Uncle Elmer September 8, 2011 at 11:32
50,000£ buy a lot of beer.

and inflatable sheep.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9
Opus September 8, 2011 at 11:45

You will be glad to know in the last action I undertook in the Central London County against an academic institution I was entirely successful (they caved in) – oh I was representing a woman and no it was not sexual harrassement, but breach of contract – the course was not such as advertised.

As a matter of law (it being different in the U.S.A.) he will be suing for damages to be assessed (NOT EXCEEDING £50,000) as that is the County Court limit – not that Central London is actually a county . Will he succeed? I doubt it. Even if he does I doubt that the damages awarded will be more than the cost of any tuition fees paid.

Frankly Mr Martin would have done better to read sites such as this, and save himself the fees, though sadly Welmer does not yet issue Master’s degrees. Perhaps he should, validated by the LSE perhaps?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7
TheOrangeOne September 8, 2011 at 11:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 31
Rebel September 8, 2011 at 12:11

“I would say he’s foolish.”

Absolutely right!

The law is bull shit. Justice is bull shit. Govarmin is bull shit. Universities are full of shit. This society is bull shit.

Wall-to-wall bull shit. We drown in a sea of shitty estrogen, which is another form of bull shit.

Men must pull themsleves out of this cesspool of bull shit. Let the fembots die in their own bile.

Take the red pill and fuck this sick society!

Just – let – it – die!
The sooner the better.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 7
oddsock September 8, 2011 at 12:11

Interesting Opus.

Perhaps another route he could have taken would have been via a breach of the HASAWA. Management regs. Duty of care. Yes, even colleges and universities have a duty of care.

If he could demonstrate that his experience had caused him stress the university would have to be found in breach of the above. Quite difficult to prove unless of course it is supported by medical evidence, depression etc. But, they would have to look at the complaint from a very different angle. Plus it would also require the involvement of the H&S Executive. If this was proved to be true then the university would be guilty of a criminal act and thus leaving the way open for compensation in the civil courts but I suspect the amount would be minimal. Then again the courts would also have to fine the university plus force them to amend their course content.

Slightly off topic

Many years ago I made an enquiry with the Equal Opportunities Commision. I asked, what part of their policy applied to men ? I was told quite bluntly that it did not apply to men, and it was set up to protect women and other minorities ???

With the above in mind, it is quite clear that the only group that is not protected would be white hetro men. Therefore, perhaps a better option would be to use the HASAWA route as that covers every fecker !

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Rocco September 8, 2011 at 12:25

IMO lawsuits such as these are the future of the MRM. This is how feminism gained control of the country.

Men on campus can’t can be imprisoned now on another persons word alone.

It will be lawsuits, left and right that will win this.

Men will eventually go to law school to study how to assist men who are the subject of feminist injustice.

Perhaps a young man is reading this, well, I say, look at the college rape law, this is a lawyers paradise. Wealthy families fighting over which skank kid is more of a skank, some enterprising young man is going to be very rich if he goes to law school and starts chipping away.

The law here is a joke we all know it. If the blacks had turned to serious attempts to change the system Jim Crow may not have lasted for nearly 100 years.

We don’t want this misandry to be a 100 year blot on the record of history.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
Rocco September 8, 2011 at 12:29

He should have done it in the US where law suits are another method of changing law after the legislature and lower courts get it wrong.

Here he would lose for a while, for the first 5 years then, eventually, his cases will draw at first interest, then excitement then, he will be a cause celebre followed by being the next Gloria Allred.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Tom Martin September 8, 2011 at 12:41

That’s sexismbusters dot org.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Bob September 8, 2011 at 12:48

I have a question for your readers. I correct my wife — publicly, if necessary — when she speaks to me in an inappropriate tone of voice.

What’s your take on this practice? Is it constructive?

Or do I not have the authority in this no fault divorce society to make speaking up, when spoken to rudely, worth the ruin that would surely follow for myself, and my family, should the wife decide to push for a divorce?

I’ll note that I have not been able to curb my wife’s nagging, whining, and verbal tantrums, even though I respond by asking her to refrain from using an inappropriate and uncivil tone, rather than responding in kind.

Any suggestions?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Opus September 8, 2011 at 12:48

@ oddsock

Interesting idea – you are the Health and Safety expert, but as stress seems to be part of a student’s life, and as he is not an employee, I am not sure that is an angle I would want to run with. Neither do I think he will get far pushing the Gender Equality angle. It would be a novel approach that an academic course had to comply with any and everyone’s personal views, and academics(who never agree with each other) are notorious for their own views. In short his view is a non-starter – a success would be an attack on academic freedom. As I have said before, each case has one maybe two strong points and those are the ones you must hammer home. There is never any point suing unless you have a strong case and frankly I do not see Martin’s case as being strong, – and from what I have read in the linked article – how shall I put it – law is not either obvious to him or his strong point.

If I were judging the case I would be thinking: ‘What will The Court of Appeal do to any decision I make in his favour on appeal?’. Being overturned is a fact of life for a judge but one doesn’t seek it, and so it is better to be overturned for taking the standard view than for going out on a limb. I’d find against him, and then let the CA sort it out, if, as I suspect, he takes it that far.

Still from our point of view, people read the Standard (it’s free too now) and it gets our views out into the open – so he is doing us a favour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
sedulous September 8, 2011 at 12:51

@TheOrangeOne

All this will look like to any media, is an angry bitter male. Not a good political stunt. The MRM needs to choose targets and times wisely, regardless of how justified we all may actually be in suing.

I agree.

I fear the anti-MRM forces will have a field day using this lawsuit to try to color all men’s issues as petty and frivolous. I wish this man the best, but I plan on keeping my distance.

Instead I think there needs to be a lawsuit of some type (class action? — I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer), where the recent Title IV “preponderance of evidence” standard can be challenged in court. Maybe even take it all the way to SCOTUS.

The phone calls and emails so far have been a good idea. But I think this needs to get notched up further. Are there any legal organizations like the SPLC that can take this on?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
sedulous September 8, 2011 at 13:01

Whoops!

Make that Title IX.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
oddsock September 8, 2011 at 13:16

Opus

Moi ? H&S expert ? Nah, long time ago maybe not now.

However. HASAWA 1974 is an enabling act (just for interest is based on common law, that is why it is so powerful) from which many other legislations can and often are tagged onto.

The common misconception is that it only applies to employers/employees. Its as simple as this; if you provide a service of any kind, then you will have a duty of care under HASAWA 1974.

Stress is now a notifiable hazard and an employer has a duty to ensure they have systems in place to identify it and deal with it. Yes, stress is quite common in most jobs but if it becomes excessive and not identified and consequently not dealt with then the employer or provider could be found negligent, especially if it has caused harm or injury. Thus the university would be a tortfeasor if any H&S Exec investigation found evidence that the course content had caused it.

Yes I agree it is probably not an easy route but at least it would bring much publicity to our concerns. Is there not a saying ,there is no such thing as bad publicity ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
piercedhead September 8, 2011 at 13:17

Good on him. He may not succeed, but who knows what marginal effect this suit has: some other guy thinking of filing a (possibly stronger) suit of his own now knows that it will at least be heard; a judge with a sympathetic view may be thinking right now ‘if it was me ruling on this, I’d likely go out on a limb’ – and then gets a similar case; someone with influence at a university may be reflecting that it is only a matter of time before one of these suits wins, and decides to moderate the misandry on campus; readers everywhere have been exposed to yet another news article acknowledging the existence of a pro-male point of view.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
sedulous September 8, 2011 at 13:24

Is there not a saying ,there is no such thing as bad publicity ?

Yeah, but it only applies to celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
oddsock September 8, 2011 at 13:35

“sedulous

Is there not a saying ,there is no such thing as bad publicity ?

Yeah, but it only applies to celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan.”

Titter ye not sedulos. I have celeb status now. Myself and PAN got a mention over on the mangina with boobs website.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian September 8, 2011 at 13:39

The best revenge is living well. He should just go out and earn a pile of money rather than waste his time and effort trying to fight a generalized suit against deep pockets without a specific claim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12
Rocco September 8, 2011 at 13:41

@ Sedulous

No, it applies to anyone, it’s just that us mra’s are not used to getting dirty.

Even when, in 2008, that attorney from NYC, Dan Hollander, filed something similar, it made waves and our issues were discussed.

At that time it made the NYT’s:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/lawyer-files-antifeminist-suit-against-columbia/

3 years later, a student is doing it. If many students did, the PTB would start churning out new laws.

The reason for the change in the rules in colleges is the “fear” of a title IX lawsuit. These lawsuits are so high because there is corruption involved.

The same will apply to men. Corruption is corruption even if the corrupt aren’t willing to admit it, and they never are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Sedulous September 8, 2011 at 13:41

Titter ye not sedulos. I have celeb status now. Myself and PAN got a mention over on the mangina with boobs website.

Tom Martin might be joining you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
proffessor September 8, 2011 at 13:56

Folks are staring to understand that what christine hoff sommers calls… “Gender, Gender-Raunch feminism”, ….is not yer mothers feminism!!
If one was to observe a new gender-Raunch feminist classroom, they would realize that not all males are being targeted and harassed…just the hetero-sexual ones. This would seem “silly” if it were not the truth.
New Gender-Raunch feminism is telling students that the scourge of society; all the sickness, all the greed, all the perversion, all the social ills, ect, ect, are stemming from heterosexuality, and specifically…hetero-sexual males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
TFH September 8, 2011 at 13:57

Awesome!! Imagine if he wins – the class action potential here is immense!!

Wow, this makes my day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
TFH September 8, 2011 at 14:01

Why is no lawyer interested in this pro-bono?

That might be an indicator of bad news.

But I applaud the man for trying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
proffessor September 8, 2011 at 14:02

Them Blokes got us into this, maybe they can get us out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
CorkyAgain September 8, 2011 at 14:09

the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men.

Wait. Because the misandric texts were made available to both men and women, therefore they weren’t discriminatory? Wasn’t Mr Martin’s complaint about the content of those texts rather than their availability?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 8, 2011 at 14:22

“I’ll note that I have not been able to curb my wife’s nagging, whining, and verbal tantrums, even though I respond by asking her to refrain from using an inappropriate and uncivil tone, rather than responding in kind.

Any suggestions?”

Copy and Paste.

Be a mirror.

Invoke equality of treatment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 8, 2011 at 14:29

@Proffessor:
“New Gender-Raunch feminism is telling students that the scourge of society; all the sickness, all the greed, all the perversion, all the social ills, ect, ect, are stemming from heterosexuality, and specifically…hetero-sexual males.”

By any standard you might chose, this is not feminism. It is something else.
I think is the the hidden “force” that maintains feminism alive.

There is an agenda here by something that passes for feminism, but is something else.

This sounds very bad.

Sooner or later, the beast that is hiding here must be uncovered.
What are they trying to achieve?
Cui bono?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Opus September 8, 2011 at 14:36

@ TFH

I suspect you meant contingency fee where you wrote pro bono. I certainly would not want to have taken the case on a contingency basis for effectively I would (I fear ) be doing it pro bono.

@oddsock

Health and Safety legislation is usually a criminal matter to be pursued by the Executive in the Magistrates Court, is it not ? So I would not expect it to be used in the County Court. I can’t quite agree that the legislation is better being derived from common law. I suspect that what you mean is that the common law was not extinguished in the passing of the Act. In that sense one might see it as better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
silent September 8, 2011 at 14:46

Bob,

Divorce. Plan it secretly. Evidently, if you file first, you stand a better chance of not getting destroyed. If she’s being shitty to your face, she’s already planned divorce. Don’t stay together “for the kids” because she’ll use them as a weapon against you.

If you MUST be married, drive an import like Uncle Elmer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 69 September 8, 2011 at 14:46

I think this is a good thing. It constitutes”documenting a case.”

This is another example of valid complaints which are ignored by the courts and the society. When a group of people is being dehumanized by a society, with plans to exterminate them, any complaints are ignored, because after all they are trouble makers.

Later, when the human genocide trials are held, the historical complaints become all damning. Claims of “we didn’t know” are proved totally false by these historical attempts to extract justice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
TFH September 8, 2011 at 14:48

I suspect you meant contingency fee where you wrote pro bono. I certainly would not want to have taken the case on a contingency basis for effectively I would (I fear ) be doing it pro bono.

Why not? Only because you have enough business already, or is there actually a reputational risk to the attorney if the attorney is rather young?

If attorney’s start taking such cases on a contingency fee, that would qualify as a major ‘cracks in the dam’ event. A man representing himself, not so much (unfortunately).

Ultimately, we need misandry-opposing lawyers to take the risk of representing such clients on contingency.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Rocco September 8, 2011 at 14:49

OT

On the subject of men’s inability to understand what women say even if women don’t say it (mind reading) a woman at the huff po penned this concise summary of how modern women think about men:

“I think its pretty clear that the kind of man you’re talking about is hte typical patriarcha­l American male most of us know and are forced to love because there aren’t enough of the other kind to go around yet. Now that I have a front row seat watching my son in law and his father turn my grandson into a little man, I can see how men actively teach boys how to shut down emotinally­. My daughters and I have had many conversati­ons about this, and we are doing all we can to subvert the process. We can do this because possibly for the first time in human history, women are capable of understand­ing exactly what happens to a boy in order to fit inside society’s culturally accepted view of what a “man”is. Mothers and grandmothe­rs have the opportunit­y to work against the cultural programmin­g, I believe, but we all have to know what it is we’re working to prevent. I agree that boys are more fragile than girls – i could see all the biological difference­s described in the article in my own son, stepson and grandson. But just because boys are hardwired differentl­y, we should always remember that from conception until hte androgens appear, male embryos are exactly the same as female embroyos and human beings all have the same needs. Perhaps we need to recognizet­hat testostero­ne is really something of a poison and men for all their physical strength are wounded from the get-go.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/why-cant-men-love-like-wo_b_950064.html?ref=mostpopular

You don’t change this kind of thinking, you fear it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Rocco September 8, 2011 at 15:20

And here is the push back from another female poster, also a self proclaimed feminist:

“I’ve been practicing restraint but im tired if doing so… if this blog isn’t a microcosmi­c representa­tion of just how destructiv­e and divisive radical feminist ideology is. I’ve advocated for womens issues for twenty plus years but the nonsense I’ve read from feminist in articles and comments sections concerns me. I believe its a matter of time before men begin to aggressive­ly push back. As a woman I’ve had enough myself. If men don’t agree with feminist ideologues theyare referred to as anti woman or misogynist­. Anti the ideology doesn’t equate to anti woman. I lo e my sisters but this is really ge5ing out of hand. Sorry bout the rant bit for the past year I’ve read in amazement of how anti male our society has become.”

Calling for “aggresive” measures.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
oddsock September 8, 2011 at 15:30

Opus

@oddsock

“Health and Safety legislation is usually a criminal matter to be pursued by the Executive in the Magistrates Court, is it not ? So I would not expect it to be used in the County Court. I can’t quite agree that the legislation is better being derived from common law. I suspect that what you mean is that the common law was not extinguished in the passing of the Act. In that sense one might see it as better.”

Mostly correct. The Health and Safety At Work act 1974 is usually the first port of call used in any prosecution and it is always criminal.

The severity of the breach usually determines where it is heard. It is usually the H&S Executive that operates as the prosecution. Sometimes it can go all the way to crown court, especially if there is a case of corporate manslaughter or similar. The standard process is for a case to be heard in the courts under criminal investigation. If a company or owner is found to be guilty then it makes it much easier for the wronged party to proceed to the civil courts/county courts for compensation although, this is not always the case as sometimes compensation was awarded in higher courts if the said party decided to go down that route. May have changed though ?

The biggest change in legislation came about a few years back . This is what fuelled a sudden rise in H&S professionals. Apart from a huge rise in claims for compensation it became law that the ulitmate responsibility for any serious breach of the HASAWA could now be placed on the head of the MD or owner of a company. This meant that not only could a company be heavily fined but the MD or owner could face serious prison time. This obviously freaked them out big time. Nothing panics a stubborn MD into investing in new safer equipment or sytems than telling him if he does not and there is an accident. He will be held responsible and could go to prison. It was amazing how they suddenly found the money for such improvements.

The common law aspect has always been used as a basis especially regarding H&S. I believe it was the mines quarries and railways act that preceeded HASAWA also stemming from common law? Like I said, many years ago since I read up on all the terms and laws and history. Great reading for sending you to sleep though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rocco September 8, 2011 at 15:43

OT

It looks like boys raised without fathers become young fathers, another in the list of feminist attrocities.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-09-boys-absent-fathers-youngdads.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
MWPeak September 8, 2011 at 16:00

The team also argues that “any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable”.

Well, at least they’re being somewhat honest after the fact.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
tom47 September 8, 2011 at 16:07

Every dam will break and every tree will fall if enough presure is applied long enough. If a court can find “gay rights” in a 200 plus year old constitution, they can find anything. Keep on truckin’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
John Boy September 8, 2011 at 16:27

It is well past time for men to begin to demand that various institutions of higher learning set up Men’s Studies programs. And by MS, I do not mean one’s chartered by the Good Men Project or NOW.

This would have a immediate balancing effect that would not only counter balance and refute much of the crap pushed by feminist but it would probably deradicalize many of the Women’s Studies programs. Women have learned that there are no repercussions for their bad behavior. This is as true with academia as anywhere else. By having promenant well funded, well respected MS departments it would serve notice that just making shit up and passing it off as research or promoting equality will no longer do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Firepower September 8, 2011 at 18:10

Uncle Elmer September 8, 2011 at 11:13

The should have at least taught him Elmer’s Law :

Dude, you’ve already turned the silicone mask into eponymous laws – it’s almost a meme! Bravo – I can’t wait until you get your own blog and start filling it up with your stuff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
aaa September 8, 2011 at 18:25

“Testosterone is a poison” — perhaps this terrifyingly deluded person should listen to the ‘Testosterone’ episode of This American Life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner September 8, 2011 at 19:22

“…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”.”
.
.
Being equally available is to avoid the issue of what was being available: anti-male hate literature and indoctrination. The-discriminatory-effect-against-men-is-justifiable argument merely is EVIDENCE that the University IS INDOCTRINATING. In acting as it had, the London School of Economics was, in effect, meowing that it wasn’t a cat. As such, one can conclude based on the evidence, that the LSE has teacher for brains (and teacher for heart).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner September 8, 2011 at 19:32

Dear Rocco September 8, 2011 at 12:25:
.
.
“The law here is a joke we all know it. If the blacks had turned to serious attempts to change the system Jim Crow may not have lasted for nearly 100 years.”
.
.
As per the above, we need to appeal to the Feminists’ own CS and put a spin on the above language. We need to talk about repealing the, “JANE Crow” laws. The ClansWOMEN need to hear that. They won’t know what hit them. Dong such publically in front of large audiences would give opportunity to see the criminal enemy squirm for its policies, etc. against the male race.

MRA: “We shall overcoooome…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner September 8, 2011 at 19:39

Dear Bob September 8, 2011 at 12:48:
.
“I’ll note that I have not been able to curb my wife’s nagging, whining, and verbal tantrums, even though I respond by asking her to refrain from using an inappropriate and uncivil tone, rather than responding in kind. ”

As per the above, a proverb reads: “Rebuke a man, and LATER, you will find more respect than a man who flatters with his tongue.”
.
I’ve done the above with Seig Heil Feminazis to their surprise. They didn’t know how to handle it, immediately. In one case, in which I accounted the male-suicide-at-school phenomenon to which the women responded with yet another save-the-girls program, THE NEXT DAY (following my rebuke of her), she actually approached me and asked me to dance at a wedding we both attended. It was her way of acknowledging my being right/her being wrong.

My advice is as per the above Scripture: Rebuke her; repent nothing of your rebuke (emotionally, demeanoringly, verbally or otherwise) and let her kow-tow to your in your righteousness.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
proffessor September 8, 2011 at 19:52

“Jane crow laws” (n). new university level perversions of our legal system that are effectively removing a college guys right to equitably defend himself against a false rape accusation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
proffessor September 8, 2011 at 19:58

3o years ago, if a professor strapped a dildo onto the end of a saws-all, and took it to a womens vagina as a class project..feminists would have been in an uproar.
These days its “gender, gender-Raunch feminists” who are tho ones doing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Attila September 8, 2011 at 20:43

Bob- You can always pray that the Lord dispose of it by whichever means He deems fit (and if the Lord should deem that she should drop dead of a heart attack- your problem is solved.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
codebuster September 8, 2011 at 22:57

Why is no lawyer interested in this pro-bono?

Good question, TFH, and an important one. Here is what I can tell you from my own experience:
1) Legal remedies and procedures are ultimately political instruments. As political instruments, they are intended to tune into the zeitgeist of the time to garner the most support from the masses. Our contemporary zeitgeist is that of chivalry/slut culture. Legal practitioners and the judiciary are interested neither in real justice nor the rights of men. Whether as “true” (liberal) believers or opportunists, they are interested only in the things that are consistent with chivalry, slut culture and the profit incentive. Ultimately, “follow the money” dictates the terms, to weed out the true believers, the misguided and other assorted troublemakers;
2) Feminism succeeded ultimately because it tuned into the zeitgeist of free sex, the liberated 60s, anti-establishment music and the contraceptive technologies that spawned an industry. Feminism succeeded, ultimately, because it was profitable. What alternative zeitgeist do we think that we can create that might turn the tide? What new profit incentive might we inspire? Competence? Efficiency? And what, put all these useless parasites out of work? haha!
3) Bottom line, they are simply not interested. “No evidence of bias”, “claim dismissed” are the stock-standard answers that we can ever expect… until slut culture is reversed and a very different culture put in its place;
4) Hand-in-hand with slut culture evolved compliance culture. The tide of parasitism (communism by indifference) has become the norm. Refer to the thread under Uncle Elmer’s recent post. Refer also to Ann Coulter whose recent publications allude to this compliance (mob) culture;
5) Conclusion? Speaking from experience, I have been forced to conclude that we are pretty much wasting our time pursuing legal avenues before changing the culture. They are simply not interested. Why should they be? Even those with the best of intentions know the pattern of decisions that the judiciary routinely makes. No-one has any profit to derive from stepping outside of the interests of the established hegemony, and they have everything to lose. Pro-bono lawyers simply won’t get paid becuase they will always lose.

Of course none of this is to say that we do nothing. Win or lose, making a stand is one’s only obligation. And when you find yourself peering over the edge of the abyss, maybe it will be redemption that will define your final purpose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Phil September 9, 2011 at 00:11

What happened to Tom Martin’s post? I refreshed the page and Tom’s post is gone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 9, 2011 at 00:14

What happened to Tom Martin’s post? I refreshed the page and Tom’s post is gone.

-Phil

See commenting policy #8.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
oddsock September 9, 2011 at 00:36

gender foreigner

“Being equally available is to avoid the issue of what was being available: anti-male hate literature and indoctrination. The-discriminatory-effect-against-men-is-justifiable argument merely is EVIDENCE that the University IS INDOCTRINATING. In acting as it had, the London School of Economics was, in effect, meowing that it wasn’t a cat. As such, one can conclude based on the evidence, that the LSE has teacher for brains (and teacher for heart).”

Pass that by me one more time mate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 9, 2011 at 02:59

How could he have ‘matriculated’ from LSE when he quite after 6 weeks?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Maaldweb September 9, 2011 at 05:50

Apparently few people here know that the LSE was funded by the Rothschilds and its full name is London School of Economics AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. And the emphasis goes to the capital letters.
I don’t think I have to mention that all the major players of the economic destruction of Europe studied at LSE or that Political Sciences nowadays are in reality feminist propaganda

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Sedulous September 9, 2011 at 06:03

I just added this to their comments.

Irlandes69 made a good point about documentation. But I think there’s enough documentation in the school texts to cause backlash whether a lawsuit is attempted or not.

“…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”.”

Unless I’m misunderstanding something here, the first statement is irrelevant to Tom’s claim, while the second statement is admitting that Tom is right and the school is guilty.

Instead of quitting and suing, Tom should stay on, and bring the science and empirical data he feels is lacking to the program. If a thesis is required, Tom could build his thesis on that concept: that gender studies programs are built on anti-male bias, document point for point how this is so, then use the most accurate data available to refute it. Should make for an interesting thesis.

If he just quits after 6 weeks and sues (representing himself), I would hate to see him get thrashed. Stay and fight the beast. Easy for me to say, of course.

Best wishes to you Tom, whichever path you choose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
ahamkara September 9, 2011 at 07:10

To Bob:

I think you are on the right track. I was polite to my ex-wife and allowed her to get away with her rudeness and she clubbed me over the head with a divorce anyway. I think there is something to be said for the philosophy that women want a man to be in charge. They want a man to put limits on their behavior. They see it as a sign of strength, and are constantly testing you for it (hence why she keeps doing it, she is checking to make sure you’re still in charge).

I didn’t do this, so I can’t say from experience, but you might as well give it a shot because if she wants to cut you loose she’s going to do it regardless of how you act. I know a couple of guys who are happily married and they keep their wives on a very short leash, and the wives seem to like it. I wish I had tried it, although now that the divorce is over I’m pretty glad things went the way they did… but that’s a whole other story….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
oddsock September 9, 2011 at 09:11

ahamkara

To Bob:

“I think you are on the right track. I was polite to my ex-wife and allowed her to get away with her rudeness and she clubbed me over the head with a divorce anyway. I think there is something to be said for the philosophy that women want a man to be in charge. They want a man to put limits on their behavior. They see it as a sign of strength, and are constantly testing you for it (hence why she keeps doing it, she is checking to make sure you’re still in charge).”

Oh yes, I know this music very well. I am sure so do many other men on here and probably across the Anglosphere.

You see, the big mistake that I made and I have to say continued to make for many years, was believing I was dealing with a mature adult. Now call me old fashioned but when someone asks for help or wants to do something or go someplace, for some strange reason, I take them at their word, you know? That they actually mean what they say. It took me a long time to figure out they were nothing more that “shit tests”. However, just to add even more confusion, sometimes they are not ” shit tests”.

I finally had to come to the conclusion that I did not want to play the role of a parent trying to deal with a difficult child or to be more exact, a female adult child.

Life is difficult enough as it is without having to be constantly on guard and fully aware of what was or was not a “shit test “. Not forgetting they always have the weight of the government and thousands of manginas to support them should you guess wrong or she changes her mind.

Still want to get married son ?

P.s. Yes they are all like that. Your cup cake just hasn’t pulled the pin,,,,,yet !

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Jean September 9, 2011 at 11:41

Following same logic as the move to dismiss:
Because Mein Kampf is freely available to both Jews and Non-Jews, it must not be discriminatory.
Reductio ad absurdem. The fallacy is obvious and law should follow.

Should. :-P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
CorkyAgain September 9, 2011 at 12:44

It took me a long time to figure out they were nothing more that “shit tests”. However, just to add even more confusion, sometimes they are not ” shit tests”.

Whether it is or is not a shit test is itself a shit test.

It’s a mindfuck and the reward they’re offering for figuring it out isn’t worth the trouble. Go your own way, brother.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
BeijaFlor September 9, 2011 at 14:07

I threw this comment in to the Forbes website:

“Feminism” has long since gone from being a “fight for justice” to becoming state-sanctioned terrorism and hate-crimes in the name of a spurious “victimhood.” Now we have some men who attempt to point this out – and they are ignored, shamed, ridiculed, and outright attacked for it.”

Got notice not five minutes later that it was “called out” – as were most, if not all, of the comments I saw when I checked the site.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner September 9, 2011 at 14:39

Dear Jean September 9, 2011 at 11:41:

I wish I had said that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Clifton Richard September 9, 2011 at 14:58

I applaud Mr. Martin for his conviction & undaunting courage. This alone whether is case is thrown out or not…is worthy of respect, it also shows these feminazis,that men are willing to fight back !! Enough is enough!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
bruno September 9, 2011 at 19:06

Mr Martin is a true hero for taking this feminazi nonsense to the court.
The more they try to defend and justify themselves, the more they reveal their true nature : “any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable”, which literally means: “we on purpose discriminate against men, and we are even proud of it”.

I hope many men all over the world follow his example.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Bill Brasky September 11, 2011 at 12:34

It is abosolutely surreal to look back on some of the retarded filth I had to read in college. I really hope this goes somewhere, even if it just opens up some mouths.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Firepower September 11, 2011 at 13:18

Hope
springs
eternal…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Things Are Bad September 11, 2011 at 13:26

It is likely that this sexismbusters.org website is not really Tom at all. I would suggest not donating to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Tom Martin September 11, 2011 at 17:27

Sexismbusters.org is real. Things Are Bad saw a video that my web designer put up on youtube without my permission, where he chose any sexism video at random to test if the system worked. I have since instructed him to remove the video, and it has been removed.

Guys, I am a men’s rights activist. This is a once in ten year opportunity to support a rock solid legal case against the establishment. Please put fears to one side, and donate $10 to the cause. I’m £950 short. It is hard work, and I need your encouragement.

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
universe September 13, 2011 at 11:47

Just – let – it – die!
The sooner the better.
Rebel September 8, 2011 at 12:11
– Plying a multitude of unceasing swipes upon the pink “shitty estrogen” society will facilitate its demise. Letting it die on its own will take longer than getting in their collective faces. But getting in their faces will make it seem longer to them.
Imagine the collective squirming when their sacred shibboleths and their preachers of it are put on display and held publicly accountable for the subterfuge. (Take away their pensions!)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Mickey June 16, 2012 at 00:17

Gender equality to a white english woman = having everything she wants at all times and not having to answer for her actions ever to anyone, especially if it’s a man

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: