Latest Posts
Showing posts with label tom martin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom martin. Show all posts

Tom Martin Faces Slut-Feminist Judge, Motion Denied..

To be honest, I was hopeful that there would be one single decent judge out there who would at least have the decency to listen to the argument but unfortunately they have already been trained in the slut-feminist doctrine and are too far gone..

From the Rights of Man Site..

MAJOR UPDATES ON TOM MARTIN

It's been a busy week or two in the news for men's equality issues. Mr Martin has been debating at University College London, had coverage in The New Statesman and even got to appear on Women's Hour on Radio 4! He performed especially well on Radio 4, you can listen to the discussion on sexismbusters.org. It was great to see Tom making use of thsi blog's research into the activities at the NUS and let a wider audience know of their sexist policies.

The bad news is that the case against LSE was heard on Tuesday and rejected by the judge. I'm not aware of the judge's reasoning at present and all is not lost as he has the chance to appeal, but I find it a baffling decision given the weight of the evidence against the LS, not to mention the fact that Mr Martin studied there beofre Labour's sexist "Equality" laws were introduced.

The publicity Tom has received and the resulting debates are a already a victory in themselves but it's a shame he's missed out on the bigger prize for now.

For me, the most interesting and revealing outcome of the above has been the reaction by feminists to the debates. Some of the treatment men's equality campaigners have been subject too is nothing short of outrageous. Regrettably I was unable to attend the debate, but there was much discussion on Twitter with one of the first comments coming from a feminist suggesting that Mr Martin and his friends looked "a bit rapey". I've seen gender feminists stoop to pretty low levels numerous times, but making false rape smears to silence dissent surely down there with the lowest of the low? I suppose it was quite a pertinent statement given that Tom went on to discuss the issue of false rape allegations and actually proves a point about the problem of our culture tolerating the most horrific smears against men. Then, of course, there's the incredible double-standard of feminists judging people on their appearances too!

A further feminist tweeter by the name of Sarah Lesniewski later went further, likening Martin to the perpetrator of one of the worst massacres in Canadian history and questioning his mental state. So in summary, dare to quesiton the more sexist aspects of feminism then you're basically a mass murdering, mentally deragned idiot and probably a rapist too. It goes without saying than none of these critics actually addressed the issues at hand and if people have to resort to such staggering personal attacks then it suggest we're the ones"winning the arguments". Voters in Walthamstow may also be interested to see which side of the debate their sexist MP chose to support. If LSE gender studies department is 1% as hostile, sexist and narrow minded as the gender feminists on Twitter then there most certainly be any doubt as to the outcome of the appeal.

I look forward to the upcoming documentary by Mr Martin covering his experiences over the last few months, though he has a lot to live up to given the quality of his previous efforts.

By John Kimble (contributing this post to keep things ticking over here, hopefully normal service from Skimmington will resume shortly).

HELP Tom Martin..


As noted in the previous post, Tom Martin is in the process of taking the London School of Economics to court and the date has been set (A court hearing date has now been set, for February 14th, 2012.)


Tom recognised the blatant anti-male hatred generated by "Gender Studies" courses. The "Gender Studies" subject is run and promoted by rabid feminists whose main intention is to malign and denigrate the entire male sex and it is a subject that most males must attend, if they want to succeed..

This technique has been elevated over the last couple of years as we witness feminist liars and hypocrites like Hillary Clinton in the US and Lynn Featherstone in England, who cannot resist maligning all men and casting them into one generalised basket. If you watched the video that Tom Martin produced, you will witness that blatant hate and ignorance by the victimhood princesses who claim that "no discrimination exists against men". These are "educated" females who are supposed to know better but have spent years being indoctrinated into the feminist lies and exaggerations. They in turn will go forth to spread that same hate message without ever realising that they have been hoodwinked and nothing assures it's longevity better than ensuring jobs for these so called experts..

Feminism is that entrenched in the educational system, they are now offering doctorates in hate and malice. Once does have to wonder why any individual would want to spend their entire life hating an entire sex based on nothing but here-say, negativity and assumed discrimination. The arrogance and ignorance of those women is mind blowing, incomprehensible..

 Tom Martin wishes to represent himself in court which is fine as he is an intelligent, bright and resourceful man but it has mostly been the case that anyone who is not familiar with the law does not stand a hope in hell of winning any case. I would imagine that Tom just cannot afford a good legal representative and has no other option by to do the hard yards himself..

We need to help Tom win this case for all types of reasons, the main one being that it will stop feminism dead in it's tracks, as this case will set precedence in civil law. Civil law is followed by all western countries and so this will spread to America, Australia and Europe. We have to make it a priority for Tom to win this case by supporting him and ensuring he gets the best legal help available. Help Tom to Win..

Donate Ten Dollars or more, something, anything is better than nothing..

Request by Tom Martin..


Tom Martin 

I can tell you, I could do with both money, and other kinds of support too.
I want to be able to get out there and do one more video before the court hearing, so any camera operator/editors in London who don’t mind working for free, please email me.
Any law students with an interest in discrimination/contract/education law who would like to offer their advise and support can do so too. In the county court, I am entitled to have an adviser with me, who need not be a qualified lawyer. Although I have represented myself when filing the legal papers, and plan to do that in court too, I am open to pro bono representation from any qualified individual who wants this opportunity to make a name for themselves with this high-profile case.
But most of all, I do need further donations. People probably don’t realize, to bring a discrimination case, takes reference to an average of 25 law books.
My case is potentially even more complicated, because it incorporates contract law, advertising law, and education law too.
It is extremely time-consuming and labour-intensive, and I want to be able to afford to focus 100% of my efforts on the case – hence the appeal for more money.

Tom Martin, London School of Economics and Male Hating..

Anyone alive and breathing, having an IQ larger than a single digit would be well aware of the fact, and it is an obvious fact, that "Woman's Studies" and now changed "Gender Studies" is nothing more than pursuing the same outcome as the Swedish example has already demonstrated, what the feminist aim is all about. Gender Studies was introduced by the male haters in order to get away with the continual slanging of the male sex.
Feminists are blameless, always..
Gender hating is it's aim and it only applies to anyone with a penis. Women are ofcourse exempt, as far as feminists are concerned, they do absolutely no wrong. The obvious sexism, male hate and anti male discrimination is clearly demonstrated and it's time they were exposed to doing precisely that. All we need now is an impartial judge, hopefully not some feminised lackey, as has been demonstrated in the past. We need a judge who will demonstrate that the law is all inclusive and not just there to favour women or feminism. Feminists have forced a clear cut hate swathe across society, just to promote a doctrine that has neither been proven, tested or demonstrated to help society in any way, shape or form. The experiment has to go and reality reintroduced..


Tom Martin vs LSE court date set

PRESS RELEASE: December 5th, 2011

Court date for man’s £50,000 lawsuit against ‘male-blaming’ gender studies degrees at LSE

(AVfM News)A former student of the London School of Economics (LSE), who has filed a lawsuit claiming all five of its gender studies Masters degrees “exaggerate women’s issues and recommend blaming men to justify ignoring men’s issues,” will make his case at the Central London County Court, a hearing date now set for February 14th, 2012. As reported by The Evening Standard , The Guardian (here and here),Forbes Magazine, The West End Extra, A Voice for Men, Men’s Matters, and dozens of blogs and vlogs, Tom Martin’s case has garnered a lot of public support, his legal fund receiving £3055 in donations from ninety people in eight countries to date, but Martin says he now needs more donations, “Clerical errors by the court have caused a three month delay, so I now need a few thousand pounds more to continue devoting all my time in preparation for winning the case.”
Director of LSE’s Gender Institute, Dr Anne Phillips, told LSE’s student union newspaper The Beaver, “I find it almost surreal when [LSE's] Gender Institute is portrayed as representing ‘women good, men bad,” but Martin’s website documents his method and analysis of texts in the opening compulsory unit for all gender degrees at LSE as evidence of “systematic male-blaming bias,” and argues the contract students enter explicitly rules out sex-discriminatory learning materials. LSE’s defense now argues key texts are not compulsory learning materials, only “recommended.” Martin claims key texts are indeed compulsory, that students are explicitly told to read them in preparation for further discussion in seminars.
LSE also argue texts are available for both women and men to read so therefore do not directly discriminate. Further, they argue a focus on women in gender studies is expected, claiming any bias or discrimination against men “plainly justifiable.” Martin says the prospectus did not warn of any discrimination or bias, nor seek to justify it.
In a 2011 book (p10), Dr Clare Hemmings, senior gender lecturer at LSE, admits when “women’s studies” became “gender studies” programs, it signalled a rejection of biased, exaggerated female victim-hood perspectives in favour of greater inclusion, accuracy, and fairness for the field, but that subsequently, nothing changed. In 2008, Hemmings wrote that replacing the prefix “women’s” with “gender” was a good way to ensure continued public funding and support.
Another of LSE’s key gender texts recommends ignoring men’s studies in favour of “Critical Studies on Men (CSM).” According to various reports, many educational programs around the world are similarly critical, from kindergarden up. Research shows negative stereotypes on men effect focus, performance, and health. With 59% of university degrees going to women and 41% to men, and the gap widening, Martin hopes his lawsuit will encourage educators to improve their stories. He appears in a Youtube exposé, finding some LSE students justify bias against men, by citing discrimination issues they say women face, one student exclaiming “There’s no discrimination against men!” her outburst replayed in slow motion then freezing as a 160 item A to Z list of discrimination issues scrolls by.
Commenting on the February 14th court hearing date, Martin says “I think LSE’s Gender Institute is planning an extra special Valentine’s Day massacre for men’s issues as usual, but people would prefer to see these gender studies industry representatives publicly renew their vows to gender equality, and make a serious effort to pick up the £50,000 tab, too – loose change for LSE maybe, but not for the more than 900 other gender studies and women’s studies departments worldwide who can avoid similar payouts by dropping the man-hatred, and incorporating men’s equality debates without further deceit, delay, or excuse. Gender-developmental progress is much more attainable when considering both women’s and men’s issues. Equality is a two way street.”
The university’s press office can be contacted here. Tom Martin can be contacted here.

Update..


Tom Martin

Thanks PHX MRA – I can tell you, I could do with both money, and other kinds of support too.
I want to be able to get out there and do one more video before the court hearing, so any camera operator/editors in London who don’t mind working for free, please email me.
Any law students with an interest in discrimination/contract/education law who would like to offer their advise and support can do so too. In the county court, I am entitled to have an adviser with me, who need not be a qualified lawyer. Although I have represented myself when filing the legal papers, and plan to do that in court too, I am open to pro bono representation from any qualified individual who wants this opportunity to make a name for themselves with this high-profile case.
But most of all, I do need further donations. People probably don’t realize, to bring a discrimination case, takes reference to an average of 25 law books.
My case is potentially even more complicated, because it incorporates contract law, advertising law, and education law too.
It is extremely time-consuming and labour-intensive, and I want to be able to afford to focus 100% of my efforts on the case – hence the appeal for more money.

Tom Martin Talking to "Students" About Sexism..

Here is Tom Martin asking students about discrimination relating to his own case. Tony has sued the London School of Economics -

Watch this video and be astounded at the total ignorance and stupidity of most of these women and others as they are asked simple, straight forward questions and watch how those male haters wallow off into their standard, women's studies encouraged, and brainwashed responses which is so limited in it's outlook, one has to wonder what these women are doing at University..

The aggressive behaviour by these women is astounding. What planet do they live on..

This is the "new" generation of morons that are now being schooled, now being indoctrinated and will in the future be running government offices and the country. I hope I don't live that long...

The ignorance and stupidity is overwhelming. If it was not for the odd one or two, all would and will be lost..



Tom Martin began studying an MSc in 'Gender, Media and Culture' at The London School of Economics in the 2009/10 term, but withdrew six weeks into the course, filing a £50,000 damages claim against the elite university, for 'sex discrimination, breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act.'

Tom is representing himself in the legal process, and asks you to go tohttp://sexismbusters.org/ to read all about the case, and to donate towards the fighting fund.

For an in depth interview with Tom on AVFM, (starting 36:30 into show) listen at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/21/what-do-women-want-and-a...

References: Women 4 times more sexist than men:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
- unfortunately, the researchers have hidden their findings within the above paper - so reading the extract is not enough, but it is well worth the $11 to download, or you could read it free, by going tohttp://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~socoglab/publications.html and find the listing:
Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494-509.
Clicking the link labeled "Request Paper" at the end of that entry will bring up a window that will email a PDF of the paper to whatever email address you enter.

No pay gap for under 30s, and part-time women out-earning part time men:http://fullfact.org/blog/dominic_raab_gender_gay_pay_gap-2461

Per unit of effort, women earn more than men per hour overall: Go tohttp://www.roydenhollander.com/MediaCoverageWS.htm
and download video clip entitled 'Neil Cuvuto show, August 21th, 2008'. Roy Den Hollander says women earn 3% more than men for all work-related hours - and here's how he got that number:
'Females earn more per unit of time at work than males. The average man spends 44% more time working or doing work related activities than the average female. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Time Use Survey 2007, Table A-1. So for every hour a guy works, a girl works 42 minutes, but the average female makes 77% that of the average man. If the two were paid equally per unit of time actually worked, then the pay for the average female would be 69.5% that of the average man—not 77%--so girls are overpaid. 

You'll have to update the figures because I believe now the Dept of Labor stats are girls making 80% that of a guy and the Dept of Labor has a more current Time Use Survey.'


As for women more likely to use weapons, poison, element of surprise, or an accomplice: http://www.batteredmen.com/batsacks2way.htm

As for women initiating 70% of DV and being 70% of lone abusers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIE - Martin S. Feibert's enormous annotated bibliography is in the lowbar of that video.

Indian domestic violence allegations (98% false) video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in_4QhWQaq4

For exclusive link to LSE's newspaper article on Tom's lawsuit:http://sexismbusters.org/Beaver%20article.pdf

Hyperlinks to all A to Z references in the video appear athttp://sexismbusters.org/ - some hyperlinks currently not working - being fixed soon)

Tom can be contacted at sexismbusters@hotmail.com

Don't forget to like, favourite, subscribe, tweet, blog, and keep spreading the word!

Sexism: Tom Martin Against the London School of Economics..

Compulsive liars and doctrinal sycophants as feminists are, never bother to stand back and look at the bleeding obvious. That same obviousness that every individual, not wearing their discriminatory, rose coloured, "only women are victims", victimologist, femmie-goggles, can blatantly witness, they are just totally blind to it. How does one demonstrate or explain to those people something that glaringly obvious should not exist as they so falsely claim, they are for equality when they have indication of what that actually means. They are past that point of no return, no matter what facts or explanation you come up with, no matter how many examples you demonstrate that are beyond refutation, they still continue like you have not uttered one single word. Fascinating, even Psychologist are not even remotely interested otherwise they would have already identified the illness applicable to feminists and named it accordingly. I have made several suggestions in the past but none really explain their complete and total disassociation from reality..

To a feminist, justification of an assumed slight is reason enough for their own discrimination and sexist, their endless slandering against all men and boys..

Tom Martin can be contacted below as I have posted before..
 Sexism busters.org and make a donation to his fighting fund..



London School of Economics Sexism
November 13, 2011A VOICE FOR MEN, SEXUAL POLITICS

Sex Discrimination at London School of Economics

Tom Martin has made headlines[1] around the world for bringing a £50,000 sex discrimination lawsuit against the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE), claiming a gender studies Masters programme he withdrew from, consistently focused on women and exaggerated female victim-hood perspectives, blaming men, in order to justify excluding[2] male equality debates.
Tom has discussed his case on A Voice for Men[3], and now appears in a youtube video, asking LSE students if discrimination against men in a gender studies course is justifiable, as the university’s defence team now argue. Some LSE students are immediately hostile on camera, one declaring “There’s no discrimination against men!” – the outburst juxtaposed by a fast-scrolling 160 item A to Z[5] list of discrimination issues faced by boys and men. Other students agree with Tom’s cause, one quietly admitting “I’ve been here for three years and never heard or read of a study about equal rights or equal opportunities for men, so definitely, there’s a case there.”
The head of LSE’s Gender Institute wrote[6] candidly in 2011 (p.10), that when ‘women’s studies’ changed to ‘gender studies’ it signalled a new era of inclusion for men, and exclusion for the old victim-feminist bias, in favour of neutrality and objectivity – but that in truth, no such change happened. In 2008 [7] (p.275), she further spills the beans, “ ‘Gender studies’ as a designation [rather than 'Women's studies'] is more likely to attract funding.” On camera, one LSE gender student justifies a focus on women in gender studies as “just kind of what happens”, so corruption for her too, the unproblematic norm.
False advertising aside, the contract all students enter with LSE, explicitly rules out sex-discriminatory learning materials, but Tom has shown[8], the compulsory texts[9] are full of male-blaming bias. At first the university denied any bias, but now Tom has measured it, the defence are trying to make lame excuses for the bias[10]. Evasive or disingenuous denials of discrimination by defendants in lieu of a proper investigation, are grounds for further prosecution (p.641).
One text[12] in the curriculum actually recommends bias, calling it ‘Critical Studies on Men (CSM)’[13] – and according to various anecdotal reports[14], it taints a wide range of subjects, at every level, from kindergarden up[15]. Boys and men feel threatened by the negative stereotypes[16] targeting them, and research shows, this badly effects males’ concentration and performance[17].
With 59% of university degrees going to women and 41% to men[18], the gap getting wider, Tom’s lawsuit should invigorate educationalists to update their curricula and become more welcoming to males and male equality issues, as with females.
Equality, or a £50,000 lawsuit? For the 900 plus[19] women’s studies and gender studies departments worldwide, it should be an easy choice.
[1] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23983895-former-student-sues-lse-over-its-gender-bias-against-men.do
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias
[3] http://blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/21/what-do-omen-want-and-an-interview-with-tom-martin
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9_oklmHvU
[5] http://sexismbusters.org/ref1.html
[6] http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=45732
[7] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q7hPoTVrLJkC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=
[8] http://sexismbusters.org/Line%20by%20line%20analysis%20of%20text%201.pdf
[9] http://sexismbusters.org/First%206%20week’s%20core%20texts.pdf
[10] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23983895-former-student-sues-lse-over-its-gender-bias-against-men.do
[11] http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/System/Publications.asp?NodeID=89132&Mode=display
[12] http://fty.sagepub.com/content/5/1/49.abstract
[13] http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/5/1/5.abstract
[14] http://www.youtube.com/user/e33State
[15] http://www.manwomanmyth.com/video/education/nursery-and-primary-school/
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
[17] http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/01/girls-boys-schools-gender-gap
[18] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8085011.stm
[19] http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/programs.html

Written bySexism Busters