Man Sues Columbia over Women's Studies

Submitted by MR on Tue, 2008-08-19 16:01

This story is all over the news media sites, and all over the blogosphere.

'Feminist' Columbia University demonizes men, lawsuit claims

"Anti-feminist lawyer Roy Den Hollander sued Columbia University Monday, accusing it of turning feminism into the school's religion - and teaching that men are "the primary cause for most, if not all, the world's ills."

Hollander says Columbia discriminates against men by teaching a doctrine that scapegoats men for all of history's troubles.

In a suit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, he complains that the Ivy League school in Morningside Heights uses federal money to fund a "religionist belief system called feminism."

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I doubt he'll win, but I've been waiting for someone to challenge the hateful rhetoric of Women Studies. In fact, my first exposure to feminism was during a date rape seminar freshman year. A professor from the ' Andrea Dworkin School of Hate' asked the men to raise their hand and made the ridiculous claim we were all potential rapists. I've been told this misandric practice occurs at other colleges. Hopefully all Women Study programs will dissipate like a fart in the wind.

............................................................

"Courage and consistency
bravery and valor
honor and pride
for what was it worth"

[Dimmu Borgir]

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2008-08-20 00:05

I've always said that feminism is a religion. It is founded on the faith-based belief that men are bad and women are good. It has no scientific or factual backing. As a religion, it has no place in venues financed by the public.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by shawn on Wed, 2008-08-20 00:13

The case may boil down to what the definition of a religion is. Is there an actual legal definition somewhere, like in the Constitution?
-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Wed, 2008-08-20 03:24

Women's studies is a taxpayer funded, hate movement, IMO. Anyone promoting or teaching that program should be prosecuted for hate crimes against the male sex, IMO.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Wed, 2008-08-20 04:56

What I'm wondering is: why did he go the religion route instead of the title IX route? While I personally agree that feminism is effectively a religion, to me that this is a title IX issue more then anything. The religion route suggests that colleges/universities can't teach religion or ideologies. The title IX route instead hits the university where it hurts: the pocket book.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by lance on Wed, 2008-08-20 15:35

He did use Title XI. You can read the entire complaint here. It's a pretty interesting read. This is great to see.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Tom on Wed, 2008-08-20 17:07

As we know, title nine as applied to men's sports has resulted in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of men's programs (even though that may not have been the original intention). Likewise, feminists will be wary that if this lawsuit succeeds, hundreds of women's studies programs would be done away with (even if the intention is only to create men's studies programs).

-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Thu, 2008-08-21 01:00

Under "Relief Sought" number 138 says,

"Level the playing field by either instituting Men’s Studies or eliminating Women’s
Studies at Columbia University, which will assure that male students and male alumni are no
longer at a disadvantage when competing with female students and female alumni for the
benefits of society nor at a disadvantage of ending up with the worst of society’s burdens"

So at least he's being up-front about it.

-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Thu, 2008-08-21 01:04

Roy Den Hollander's site:

http://roydenhollander.com/

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by anthony on Thu, 2008-08-21 01:58