Tom Martin is making headlines around the world for bringing a £50,000 sex discrimination lawsuit against the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE), claiming its gender studies Masters programme he enrolled on consistently promotes biassed, female victim-hood stories, blaming men, in order to justify ignoring male equality debates like those brought by the fathers’ rights movement.
Tom discusses his case on A Voice for Men radio, and appears in an explosive new youtube video, asking LSE students if discrimination against men in a gender studies course is ever 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!” – her outburst juxtaposed by a fast-scrolling 160 item A to Z list of discrimination issues faced by males. Other students agree with Tom’s complaint, 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.”
Another LSE student, studying gender, tells Tom that a focus on women in gender studies is “just kind of what happens”. The head of LSE’s Gender Institute candidly admits though, in 2011 (p.10), when ‘women’s studies’ became ‘gender studies’ it signalled a rejection of the old victim-feminist bias in favour of neutrality, objectivity, and inclusion for men – but that in truth, nothing has changed. In 2008 (p.275), the same department head was even more candid, “ ‘Gender studies’ as a designation [rather than ‘Women’s studies’] is more likely to attract funding.”
Misleading advertising and misrepresentation aside, the contract students enter with universities explicitly rules out sex-discriminatory learning materials and bias, but Tom shows, the compulsory texts are full of male-blaming propaganda. At first the university dismissively denied it, but now Tom has measured the overwhelming bias, the defence are making excuses for the one-sidedness. According to discrimination case law, evasive or disingenuous denials of discrimination by a defendant in lieu of a proper investigation, are grounds for further prosecution (p.641).
One compulsory text in the curriculum actually recommends bias, calling it “Critical Studies on Men (CSM)”. According to various reports, such criticality is not limited to women’s and gender studies, but taints a much wider variety of s ubjects, at every level, from kindergarden up. Naturally, boys and men feel threatened by these negative stereotypes – which research shows, badly effect males’ concentration, performance , and health. With 59% of university degrees going to women and 41% to men, the gap getting wider, Tom’s lawsuit can be the wake up call for educationalists to make the curriculum more relevant and welcoming to males and male equality issues, as with females and female equality issues.
The 900 plus women’s studies and gender studies departments worldwide who often justify their existence, legitimacy, and funding by claiming gender studies and feminism are about helping men achieve equality too, may soon be forced to get a bit more serious about incorporating fathers’ rights debates for instance, or face the legal consequences.
You can help boys and men get the encouragement they need to take the academic route – and to get the type of balanced education they need to feel confident enough to challenge the inequities faced by boys, men and fathers throughout the world, by subscribing on Youtube, Twitter and Facebook, by generating your own media to spread the word about Tom’s potentially game-changing case, and by donating to the legal fighting fund, at sexismbusters.org
Source: Sex discrimination at London School of Economics (http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/sex-discrimination-at-london-school-of-economics/)
