Columbia U. trivializes and attempts to bury suit against women's studies...

[bronxman]

...in order to quell potential media attention that would, for the first time, undermine the feminist academic (propaganda) machine.

How could Columbia actually defend the existence of its, and therefore all other, Women's Studies programs?  Well, no matter how Columbia goes about it, it would open up highly unwanted media coverage of these programs and feminism in general.  They are desperate to throw out the case and the justification to deny the motion, per the article below, is ridiculous. 

________________________________________________________

Columbia University defends women's studies

NEW YORK - Columbia University urged a judge Friday to toss out a lawsuit that claims a women's studies program is unconstitutional because there is no similar men's program, saying the lawsuit "reads like a parody."

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the school said the judge should reject the demand in an August lawsuit that women's studies courses be prohibited.

Columbia noted that the lawsuit's claim that the courses violate the constitutional rights of men was based on plaintiff Roy Den Hollander's "personal hostility to feminism, his belief that feminism is a `fundamentally false belief system.'"

Hollander operates a Web site with a home page that reads, "Now is the time for all good men to fight for their rights before they have no rights left."

After looking at Columbia's court papers, Hollander said there was no humor in his lawsuit.

"Women's studies give women a carte blanche to do whatever their irrational whims tell them," he said.

The school noted that thousands of courses throughout the university teach about the experiences and accomplishments of men in every period of history.  Comment: There is a reason for that - men desired to build cities and create societies more than women desired to do the same.

Columbia, saying Hollander put forth his arguments "in a complaint that reads like a parody," also rejected his argument that the Ivy League school should be forced to establish a men's studies program.

To do so 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, Columbia said.  Comment: And what is wrong with having white and heterosexual studies?  Women are in the majority, so why are they being studied in the first place?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27362795/

[bronxman]

Roy said that Women's Studies is a "boot camp for turning out feminist stormtroopers who pervert the constitutional law..."

Columbia filed a motion for the case to be dropped, arguing that Hollander has no standing to sue since he is not a Columbia student, and that he has not coherently defined a men’s studies alternative.

Lets help Roy on this one.  What would define a Men's Studies program?  What would be the course titles and content? 

1. Introduction to Men's Studies
2. Patriarchy: Myth or Reality
3. Cultural Marxism: Friend or Foe
4.
5.


Introduction to Men's Studies draws on masculinist ideas and scholarship in developing historical, theoretical and cross-cultural frameworks for the comparative study of men and gender. Questions addressed include: What does it mean to study "men" as a group? When is it useful to focus on commonalities among men, when is it necessary to stress differences? In what ways do gender differences and gendered power relations organize the social world and shape people's experiences and self-perceptions? The course aims to sharpen students' critical awareness of how gender operates in institutional and cultural contexts and in their own lives, and to give them an opportunity to imagine participating in social change.

Units covered include histories of the men's movement (nineteenth and twentieth centuries); historical developments in masculinist thought (consciousness-raising, "the personal is political," simultaneous oppressions/privilege); gender and sexuality (the social construction of gender and sexuality, coming-out stories); violence against men (masculinist theories and interventions); men and work (men's work, subsidizing the work/family conflict needs of women); men and religion (Christianity in the US: history and ideology; international masculinism (war and international labor) and a final unit on masculinist cultural interventions (anti-feminism, golf, dating foreign women).


http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56499

[bronxman]

By COREY KILGANNON

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/court-rejects-mens-studies-lawsuit/

Remember the lawyer who sued Columbia University for failing to offer classes in men’s studies? His contention was that Columbia was being biased against men, since the university offers women’s studies.

The lawyer, Roy Den Hollander, contended that he was trying to save the men of the world, one chauvinistic lawsuit at a time. But he’ll have to do better next time, because his suit against Columbia was thrown out on April 23 by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of United States District Court in Manhattan.

In his decision, now released, the judge noted that Mr. Den Hollander claimed Columbia was violating the first amendment because “his central claim is that feminism is a religion.”

“Feminism is no more a religion than physics,” the judge wrote, “and at least the core of the complaint therefore is frivolous.”

The judge also disagreed Mr. Den Hollander’s claim that the judge should have recused himself from the suit because he attended Columbia.

Mr. Den Hollander, who had claimed that offering a course of study about one gender violated Title IX and the Constitution, assailed the judge as a feminist and said, “The only thing frivolous and absurd is men looking for justice in the courts of America.”

“When it comes to men’s rights, judges act with an arrogance of power, ignorance of the law, and fear of the feminists,” he said.

[bugman7]

Feminism in America has long outlived its usefulness considering the original goals of political, economic and social equality have already been met long ago. The continued existence of this movement is a con game that bilks taxpayers out of billions while denying the rights of due process of law for American men. Today’s women’s movement reminds me of a half deceased cow and it stinks and permeates the American judicial and legislative system. There are two electrodes attached to this cow and every one in a while the cow twitches. The name of the cow is appropriately named “American women feminists of the 21 st century”.

[bronxman]

...and any free milk that leaches out is way past its due date

[frank johnson]

Feminism is a mental illness which gets worse when tax dollars are fed to it.

[Delphi_Programmer]

"Women's and gender studies" is a curriculum designed to turn out women (and some men) who dig up dirt on everything male and of male interest in an effort to regulate, outlaw and restrict as much of it as possible.  Look at all the spew on the "mail order bride" so-called "industry".  Stamp us as exploiters and abusers, put us in straight jackets and handcuff us.  That is the motus operandi.

So what would the purpose of a "Men and gender studies" curriculum be?  To do the same to women?  If such a curriculum did exist, it would have to be for the purpose of undoing what the "womens studies" think tanks have done.  While they fight for some utopian ideal of equal outcomes for women, enforced by a statist agenda; we would fight for freedom for individuals to pursue their own happiness at their own risk, protected by constitutional rights of free speech, free assembly and due process.