attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree
...
The university's legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory

Of what possible use is such a degree? Is that another way of saying 'a degree in feminism'? And if 'core texts' are not compulsory for the course, just what IS the course material?

Frankly, I think the university's best defence is to simply say that anyone signing up for such a degree should know that it is a misandric feminist course, so should not expect anything different.

Give this man ALL your support.





[QUOTE] [

Former student sues LSE over its 'gender bias' against men

Tony Bonnici
5 Sep 2011

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23983895-former-student-sues-lse-over-its-gender-bias-against-men.do


The London School of Economics is facing legal action after a former student claimed its gender studies course was sexist - against men.

Tom Martin, who quit the university after six weeks, claims in papers lodged at the Central London county court that lecturers ignored male issues.

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

The 39-year-old, who attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree, said there was "systemic anti-male discrimination". But he said an internal investigation carried out by the university in the wake of his complaints found "no evidence" of bias.

Mr Martin, who is representing himself, said: "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 added: "They simply refuse to acknowledge the research which contradicts the 'women good/men bad', or the 'women victims/men perpetrators' story line.

"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."

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".
[/QUOTE]

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".

lol!!!

so which is their defense? is it A: that there is no discrimination against men or B: that discrimination against men is "plainly justifiable"

I really can not believe how ludicrous that statement is.

edit:

I would also love to hear their rationale as to how discrimination against men is "plainly justifiable".

Article here.
'The London School of Economics is facing legal action after a former student claimed its gender studies course was sexist - against men. Tom Martin, who quit the university after six weeks, claims in papers lodged at the Central London county court that lecturers ignored male issues. He is claiming some £50,000 citing breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act.
The 39-year-old, who attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree, said there was "systemic anti-male discrimination". But he said an internal investigation carried out by the university in the wake of his complaints found "no evidence" of bias.
Mr Martin, who is representing himself, said: "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."
You'll find the rest on the link.

Is the implication that "gender studies" is really academia Progressive code-speak for female, gay, lesbian, trans(whatever) "empowerment"? They bestow (allegedly respected) acadeallegemic CREDENTIALS based on that?
From an institution (allegedly) focused on ECONOMICS?

Well, in fairness, I suppose they absolutely MUST diversify. Now that the tuition/importance ratio of such abstract pursuits can only ASSUME maybe TWO successful completions of certificate of attendance holder a paying job in the private sector. But, no worries, those gub'mint sector union jobs seem to be paying off more handsomely than the folks voluntarily pay me equitably to do this, based on consistently demonstrable performance careers.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Several threads merged and location flags set to UK (as LSE in England, not USA)... Please look at the automated 'similar posts' when creating new topics in case they've been posted already.

The University of Sydney law school is guilty of the same. There are male and female lecturers who are brazenly anti-male. The male lecturers who know that there is something wrong are silent, presumably out of necessity for fear for their jobs. The result for me was that I dropped out, but re-enrolled several years later and completed the bachelors degree.

Extreme feminism is part of the Fabian agenda. LSE is the world's manufactory for turning out Fabian automatons.