Tom Martin’s “anti-male discrimination” case against the London School of Economics dismissed; he responds by calling his critics “whores.”

Sure there are equality elements to the MRA. They’re more than happy to grind into the dirt all women and any “male” that doesn’t meet their definition of abuser..erm…manly. They are very equal opportunity about that.

The donate button is mine. How much money have you raise so far for your crusade against whores, Tom?

here: http://sexismbusters.org

Some highlights

We all face sexism in life. People in the office or on the factory floor, might say something sexist to you, but they’re probably an idiot – and you can shrug it off. With gender studies professors though, they are experts on what is and is not sexism. They do know better, but have decided to attack men. That makes it 100 times more menacing.

Ohhhh the oppression from gender study teachers!

I have provided the university with a line by line analysis of a reliably large cross sample of their texts, showing beyond reasonable doubt, that the texts are indeed, overwhelmingly biased against men.

line by line people!!! (This “analysis” its currently taking forever to load on my computer XD)

The university also claim that as men and women had equal access to the texts, the texts therefore did not discriminate. It’s like back in the 60s, saying both blacks and whites can get on the bus, and “yeah, blacks have to sit at the back – but it isn’t discrimination” – or like saying in Saudi Arabia today, men and women can both get on the bus – the women have to sit at the back, but if all those seats are full, then two men have to give up their seat, so one woman can sit down. The bus takes you to where you want to go – but it is discrimination.

Its exactly the same I tell you!!!

Now, given the university’s prior expert knowledge of the anti-male bias in the course, a bias which they openly refer to, then there is a breach of contract. LSE knew the course did not do what it promised, and so if my case against them is successful, they have to pay damages to put me in a position I would be in, had they honoured the contract properly. That means, the increased earnings potential I would be able to command with a Masters of Science degree from a top university, should be factored into the damages the university have to pay.

So the damages claim I’ve made for around £50,000 which covers other damages and costs too – is actually quite modest.

XDXDXDXXDXD all about the money eh?

More on Missing Ministry of Men:

http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/09/17/tom-martin-the-lse-and-the-missing-minister/

http://sexismbusters.org/The%20first%20core%20text.pdf

He also highlight stuff here or something which looks like a toddler highlighted it (and its scanned really sloppily too. You can even see his hand on one page). I think its suppose to show male content vs female content or something (though he attributes feminists to females? I guess male feminists don’t exist)

I am thinking he only joined this class in the first place to complain about inequality of men in a course about women. He didn’t appear to take any notes besides the ones he found “sexist towards men”.

398 comments! What I would like to do, is take some of these comments, as a case study in anti-equality anti men’s rights issues progress, missing the point, or misrepresenting the point.

Someone should look at a mirror first Tom. The irony is so strong I could accidentally burn myself with it.

I would like to invite David Futrelle to explain the thinking behind it, for the documentary in production.

Good luck on your “documentary”. But I have the suspicion (one completely unjustified) that MRAs would have no chance of surviving outside the internet.

Yes, mocking the anti-equality elements in the MRM makes perfect sense to me, but when someone is standing up for equality, as I am, David can explain why he thinks it beneficial to mock that too – if indeed, that is his position.

By calling women whores while knowing nothing about who these actual “whores” are, complaining about hard chairs as proof of widespread oppression, and spreading rumors that gender studies courses somehow oppress men to illicit fear and hatred from the public. Sounds legit.

It comes across as delaying tactics from a position of privilege, or from a position of toadying up to those in a position of privilege – and in the world of gender politics – that would be cosying up to the women who run women-only feminism and ‘equality’ departments, and get paid for it.

I believe a user named BoggiDWurms like to bring up George Orwell each time an MRA went on a pretentious, incoherent rambling.

Ironic, because MRAs love using Orwell to show how we live in a feminist dystopia. This fantasy is not borne from actually being oppressed but from men losing some of their god-like cultural status. And to the majority a small loss of power translates into oppression. That’s how power works. The MRM is a perfect example of this.

It’s interesting, because not a single comment from anyone on this blog is supportive of my position, on anything, so everyone agrees, it seems – and I want to know what makes you all so certain you’re right.

You… expected us to be supportive of you, after being a waste of college space and a little lying troll. What planet are you living in again? Is it the Topsy Turvy Planet from the Reddit System?

Like on this hard seating issue (which predated the court case), I would say I’m definitely right, the EHRC and the library management and the BBC documentary would agree with me, and the inventor who designed satchels that go on the back of school chairs with a padded panel that flaps down to pad the chair – a winning invention on Dragon’s Den – but you are all so certain your job is to mock it. Okay, well, is there some kind of mob chivalry in play, where you spend your days getting things right, but when you get together on manboobz, it’s your chance to get things wrong for fun?

Dude, we couldn’t care less about chairs, let alone mock them. The only purpose we’re mocking here is you and your fatuous arguments and frivolous lawsuit.

When someone is fighting for equality in gender studies, and when the defendants admit there’s no equality in gender studies, then which side are you on?

Admitting that you’re a lying douchebag or crying wolf?

To be fair, you were all initially misled by the Times article and the West End Extra article misrepresenting the facts, and the documentary will be showing that, along with the misrepresentations of the BBC when they interviewed me on Woman’s Hour, so you are not alone in your tactics, and I wonder if that makes you feel a bit better about yourselves.

No we were more “misled” by your inane arguments and you calling women whores for the most trivial reasons. Tomfoolery, you outdid yourself by coming here.

I imagined all feminists to be radicals, but when you get to know a few, its the conservatism and sheep-like herd mentality which is most off-putting.

Conservatism? Your stigmatization of sex workers and calling women whores for doing anything you don’t like is as conservative as it gets.

Sheep-like herd mentality? Look you. Look at how conventional your views of women and feminism are. Look at how readily the dumb masses swallowed your shit as “validation” of popular feminist stereotypes.

GTFO

*liked

*person

*look at you

Not the best with typing. Oh well.

I really hope he releases this documentary. I predict instant midnight classic. I can’t wait for the scene when he talks about the cruelly hard seats and his tender man-bum and the camera zooms in on a single tear rolling down his cheek.

oooo: somebody listened to PAUL ELAM’s interview with Tom and summarized some of the points:

http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/09/17/tom-martin-the-lse-and-the-missing-minister/#comment-9066

Some key parts of summary:

The walls of the Gender Institute student common room displayed posters about women’s issues and none about men’s.

Tom was turned away from the LSE student union gym because there was an unannounced women-only session. Though he did go on to say that he found that this was “something they did every year”.

(Currently the LSE SU gym web page shows 3 hours a week that are women-only. http://www.lsesu.com/gym/ )

He was one of only 5 men on the course (out of about 80-90ish students in total? Not sure if am remembering total number correctly). He was the only “openly” straight man. He felt he was picked on as a result of being in the minority.

When he tried to raise men’s issues, lecturers critically questioned the “what about the men?” question. There were other students who asked “What about men?” and were interested initially in what Tom had to say, but as the course went on they went along with the lecturers’ line on this , like “sheep”.

Part of the course aimed to use a cyclical “women’s” way of learning and thinking that was in contrast to a linear masculine-associated style of thinking. Menstruation was cited as a cyclical aspect of women’s lives. It was either asserted that men would not be able to think this way because they didn’t menstruate or Tom took it to mean this, and that therefore it would not have been possible for him to pass this part of the course at all. (Perhaps you could have tried to actually understand and use the “cyclical” method? Sounds like an interesting subject, to examine how far what is taken to be the standard style of academic discourse is in fact a male gendered style of discourse).

Cyclical thinking/discourse: this topic is actually quite fascinating to me–once your start pushing at the sexist binary of it (i.e. that all men always everywhere think/write this essay, and all women too).

For one thing, one of the major French Feminists (Cixous?) cited MARCEL PROUST’s work as the perfect example of ecriture feminine: PROUST! Whose major work is definitely cyclical.

I’d say a lot of James Joyce’s ULYSSES seems cyclical to me (though I could never finish it, so take it for what it’s worth which isn’t much).

A number of (male and female) American Indian authors have talked about cyclical patterns in specific culture’s mythologies and narrative styles that have affected their writing styles.

I spent years having to learn a more linear structure in academic writing (because my own style tended toward spiral type writing–fondly remembers professors saying “beautifully written but what is your POINT” heh heh heh). I don’t believe any of these styles are genetic/essential–but there are varieties of styles/structures, and some cultures do associate specific styles with men or women (of course that can always be tested by giving some writing WITHOUT authorial names attached and asking people whether authors are male or female). In one language and gender course I taught, students often identified Camille Paglia’s work as by a male author, and Douglas Hofstadter’s as by a female author. (They also transcribed public conservsations without names or identifiers, and asked people which of speakers was male or female).

A fellow student appears to talk about their experiences:

http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/09/17/tom-martin-the-lse-and-the-missing-minister/#comment-9078

His lawsuit is opportunistic and staged. Already in 2006, he states his wish to conduct a public experiment that highlights “proof of what I will call male discourse denial” (Martin, T. (2006). “Letters to the Editor”, Transitions, Vol. 26:13-14). (Some of us stayed at LSE long enough to learn how to reference.)

@Ithiliana

Yeah I sort of expected this was all just a show. I can’t imagine him actually wanting to learn from it. He knew what to expect from that class.

I studied with Tom at LSE in 2009/2010 (for the short while he was there). In person, he is just as angry with the world as he is online. He made it clear to co-students from the beginning that he had personal problems and had to use aggressive provocation to get attention. He approached women in seedy manners, told professors that he was better than them and did not wish to be educated. His lawsuit is opportunistic and staged. Already in 2006, he states his wish to conduct a public experiment that highlights “proof of what I will call male discourse denial” (Martin, T. (2006). “Letters to the Editor”, Transitions, Vol. 26:13-14). (Some of us stayed at LSE long enough to learn how to reference.)

Just like he did in class, and just like he is in court, Tom is representing himself and only himself.

Don’t waste any time on his ramblings. He hijacked my learning environment with incoherent personal vendettas for weeks but I still feel sorry for him. The rest of the class spent our time learning and went on to gain a respectable degree from one of the world’s best social science institutions, while Tom is still fighting his rejection issues.

Glad to know MRAs are just as pleasant IRL as they are online.