Lawyer Files Anti-feminist Suit Against Columbia University

Lawyer Files Anti-feminist Suit Against Columbia University

The New York Times

August 18, 2008, 3:16 pm

Lawyer Files Antifeminist Suit Against Columbia

By Corey Kilgannon

Roy Den Hollander is a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist. Over the past year, he has sued Manhattan nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies’ night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence.

And now Columbia University has come within his sights. On Monday, he filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan against Columbia for offering women’s studies courses, which Mr. Den Hollander sees as discriminatory toward men. His class-action suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a “religionist belief system called feminism.”….(Full Story)

Here is a related story:

The Straits Times (Singapore)
25 October 2008

Columbia uni’s ‘parody’ lawsuit

AP – New York – Columbia University urged a judge on Friday to toss out a lawsuit that claims a women’s studies programme is unconstitutional because there is no similar men’s programme, saying the lawsuit ‘reads like a parody’.

In papers filed in US District Court in Manhattan, the school said the judge should reject the demand in an August lawsuit that women’s studies courses be prohibited….(Full Story)

That article mentions that Columbia University noted that “thousands of courses throughout the university teach about the experiences and accomplishments of men in every period of history.”

Yes, it is difficult to deny the fact that there have been some but relatively few notable experiences and accomplishments by women in every period of history, but is that enough reason for Columbia University for rejecting Mr. den Hollander’s demand to establish a men’s studies program?

Columbia University argues that to give in to such a demand “would be like saying the existence of African-American studies courses required the establishment of a white curriculum, or that an institute devoted to gay and lesbian studies should be balanced with an institute that studies heterosexuality”.  That is of course a very objective and accurate point of view, but Columbia University does not see things that way.

It is remarkable that Columbia University does not see the irony in its argument against not only formal men’s studies programs but also against programs that study heterosexuality, unless it truly advocates that being a white, heterosexual man with wife and family is politically incorrect and that therefore not only that state of existence but all knowledge of it must be eradicated.

“Jezebel” emphasizes and illuminates the sort of reasoning used by Columbia University. Read that and become fully informed through feminist rhetoric. If you lean toward her approach that all men need to be “f….d” over (yes, she minces no words), you will be inclined to agree with her.   You will then also be inclined to vote for Barack Obama, so as to give “Jezebel’s” views the necessary clout.

On the other hand, you may rather wish to take in Roy den Hollander’s views, first hand, through his website.