Tom Martin, who is taking legal action against the London School of Economics for anti-male discrimination, has been attacked by the Guardian. First, let me say something about academics, universities, the London School of Economics and The Guardian:

1. Academics have no noticeable ethics or legal responsibilities that are ever enforced;

2. Universities have no noticeable ethics or legal responsibilities that are ever enforced;

3. When studying Linguistics at the University of York (UK) in the early 1970's, I found that Nancy Woo's rules for Hokkien tone-sandhi did not work. My lecturer, Steve Harlow, suggested that I write and tell Geoffrey Sampson, a lecturer at the London School of Economics, about that. I did so. A few years later, I happened to notice a footnote in an article by Sampson in the journal Language which stated that Nancy Woo's rules for Hokkien tone-sandhi did not work, but the footnote did not say who had worked that out. That is typical of academic ethics, and I could give other examples;

4. The Guardian never likes the facts get in the way of a good emotion. I remember, many years ago, reading a two-column news article in The Guardian Weekly about a right-wing party that had become part of Austria's coalition government, and its views on immigration. The first half of the article was an emotional rant about how evil right-wing parties and restrictions on immigration were, and only after that was the reader treated to any factual information whatsoever, on the basis of which he might be able to form an opinion of his own. I am particularly interested in that party, because it ceated the Austrian Ministry of Men's Affairs, which -- last I heard -- was still in existence.

   The Guardian article is full of lies and distortions:

• It says "Feminism makes some men very scared." How does the writer know that? I have never, in all my years of Men's Rights activism, come across any sign of fear of feminism -- except that its opponents often prefer anonymity, for fear of retaliation by feminists. But that is fear of feminists, not fear of feminism. This particular lie is aimed at creating the impression that feminism threatens men's privileges, which is a feminist propaganda line. What might really be frightening about feminism to the thinking man, however, is that it destroys men's privileges, while keeping women's privileges intact, and even creating new privileges for women.

• The article says: "The irony of attacking feminists by invoking a piece of legislation whose existence is largely down to the energy and commitment of feminist campaigners scarcely needs pointing out." That is only ironic in the sense that the last thing on the minds of the drafters of human rights legislation would have been that men could use it to attack women. Like man-hating organisations such as Amnesty International, such people, like most lawyers, academics and journalists, are true believers in the feminist lie that men have all the advantages and women all the disadvantages.

• The article (written by a self-confessed Gender Studies lecturer) says: " The dominant ideas, approaches and insights of the vast majority of academic disciplines are produced by, for and about men." That is plain stupid, and demonstrates (yet again) that feminised universities discriminate against intelligent students and allow the stupid to become lecturers. Prior to the onslaught of feminism, academic disciplines were certainly produced by and for men, but they were certainly not about men as a group. Since feminists are too stupid to tell the difference between the study of the actions of individual, historically important men, on the one hand, and the study of men as a group, on the other hand, they have reacted by devoting huge resources to the study of women as a group. The issue of bias is a totally separate one: there may well have been academic bias against women, just as there may well have been chivalrous and male feminist academic bias in favour of women. With male feminists like the author of the Guardian article in academia, why would you need women? He is as capable of producing anti-male propaganda as any woman!

• The article states that feminist propaganda in academia is limited to the Gender Studies field. This is completely false. I have studied Law, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology, Political Science and International Relations, and have found it to be endemic there, as well. And I have good reason to think that it is endemic in Sociology, Criminology, and every other academic field -- with the possible exception of Mathematics.

• A further lie perpetrated by the Guardian is the statement that "the perception that gender studies is doctrinal and dogmatic is simply untrue." If you search for "Gender Studies" and "Domestic Violence" together, you find the Columbia University Law School, which prides itself on its Gender Studies courses (see http://www.law.columbia.edu/llmgrad_studies/courses/gender ). On the page http://www.law.columbia.edu/courses/L8006-domestic-violence-and-the-law you find the course "Domestic Violence and the Law", which is taught by a woman who draws her case studies from the Center for Battered Women's Legal Services, where she works. She clearly teaches this topic as if Domestic Violence was solely or principally something that men did to women, despite Professor Fiebert's annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography, which ( as at 8 December 2011) states: "This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800." Gender Studies is doctrinal and dogmatic, in the sense that it follows the feminist line that Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Sexual Abuse are phenomena where the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, but this is a mere assumption, which is extremely resistant to counter-argument, and biases academia against any search for female perpetrators (see Myriam Denov, "Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial", 2004, Aldershot: Ashgate). Feminist Domestic Violence "researchers" typically interview only female victims and only male perpetrators -- making an exception only for same-sex perpetrators and victims.