On Tom Martin’s campaign to sue LSE

// 17 September 2011

Amity Reed on Tom Martin’s attempt to sue LSE over ‘anti-male bias’


Is Tom Martin’s lawsuit against the London School of Economics for ‘anti-male bias’ a genuine complaint (however eyeroll-worthy and misguided)? Or an attack on feminism from a misogynist in progressive clothing? The evidence I have points to the latter.

In February 2010, I answered an online ad for a new website exploring gender issues and sexism. I emailed my CV and a few writing samples over to the listed contact and waited to hear back. Finally, three months later in May, I received an email from Tom Martin who said my application had been viewed favourably. He asked me to complete a writing exercise, which I did, and again gave positive feedback. It was only then that he outlined what the website and project were about, which was classed as ‘comedy’ and entailed a group of writers creating the ‘Missing Minister for Men – the world’s number 1 men’s rights activist’.

Martin went on to explain that “a man” was looking to bring a lawsuit against a “major university in London” for “anti-male rhetoric”, never mentioning that the man in question was him. The group would be expected to write for the website and also campaign around university campuses to garner support and gain media coverage. The group would split any resulting “earnings and royalties”.

Though Martin claims to be pro-feminist, progressive and anti-misogyny (among other self-descriptions), a look at the Ministry for Men’s Twitter account reveals precisely the opposite.



It is noteworthy to me that Martin remained on his gender studies degree for only six weeks before quitting and lodging a complaint about the supposed anti-male bias in the curriculum and, as far as I’m aware, did not go on to enrol in a different course. It is also worth noting that he only launched his ‘Ministry for Missing Men’ campaign after he had received a refund from LSE in January 2010.

Martin’s antics stink of a publicity stunt designed to paint him as the innocent, caring, liberal-minded bloke taken hostage by a feminised, man-hating world, in a strange bid to bolster his comedic aspirations. Whether those aspirations affect the outcome of his lawsuit remains to be seen.

Comments From You

tigerkitty // Posted 17 September 2011 at 3:05 pm

That tweet about Lily Allen is disgusting.

Rob Buckley // Posted 17 September 2011 at 3:55 pm

If you look at some of those tweets, it’s possible he could be doing an Andy Kaufman and the whole thing is some kind of performance comedy. They’re not especially funny, but I guess he could

Alicia Izharuddin // Posted 17 September 2011 at 6:12 pm

Thanks for bringing our attention to this, Amity. Quite an eye-opener.

Rob, some of us are aware that there is something Andy Kaufmannesque about those tweets, but what are you really on about? Those tweets are ridiculous, not remotely funny, downright misogynist, and has nothing do with this post.

Jennifer Drew // Posted 17 September 2011 at 11:06 pm

Tom Martin damns himself by his own words as evidenced by his misogynistic and women-hating tweets. Odd is it not that Martin did not attempt to enrol on any other Masters programme after having been awarded a full refund from LSE. By the way LSE were under no obligation to refund Martin his money because he had already six weeks of the course.

Not quite as innocent as Martin proclaims.

Rob Buckley // Posted 18 September 2011 at 12:08 pm

@Alicia: I was just trying to say (and I appear to have messed up the HTML so not everything I said got said) that it’s possible he is actually doing a comedy act like he claims and that’s he trying to satirise over-entitled men by playing the public persona of one. It’s not a good act and quite an offensive and nasty one at that, but that might be what he’s trying to do. But Jerry Sadowitz is infinitely preferable and funnier.

Still, maybe he’ll invite us all back for milk and cookies and then we’ll know for sure.

earwicga // Posted 18 September 2011 at 12:16 pm

Amity, is Reece Wilkes involved do you know? The Wilkes that Cath Elliott wrote about here http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2010/12/30/so-much-for-the-season-of-goodwill/#more-3354

honestlyAbroad // Posted 19 September 2011 at 5:12 am

Go to Cath Elliot’s blog http://t.co/STs8i7QI where Tom Martin has been commenting. He has entirely exposed himself as to what he truly is. Example quote from his comments “skanky, whorish, back seat-driving type of power which leads to economic and cultural ruin and war – a whoriarchy.” Cath Elliot has replied to each of his comments.

Amity // Posted 19 September 2011 at 10:43 am

I don’t know for certain that Reece Wilkes is not involved in this, but as far as I know it’s just Tom Martin. I just had a look at Cath’s blog and left a comment.

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds