MRA Smacked Down by Appeals Court


The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling dismissing a lawsuit by nutty Men’s Rights Activist Roy Den Hollander seeking to deny public funds to Columbia University because it was teaching the “religion of feminism.” You can read the full ruling here.

According to Hollander, feminism is a “modern-day religion,” and by providing public funding to Columbia, the Defendants unconstitutionally “promote and favor the religion Feminism while inhibiting other contradictory viewpoints.”
Hollander, who seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contends that he has standing to bring his Establishment Clause claim both as a New York State and federal taxpayer, and as a Columbia alumnus whose “direct contact with the offensive religion” of feminism makes him “very uncomfortable” and interferes with his “use and enjoyment of Columbia as [a]
member[ ] of the Columbia community.”

The case was dismissed on the grounds of collateral estoppel, which means that the court is refusing to hear the case because they had already ruled on an identical case brought by Hollander against another university. This guy almost makes Orly Taitz seem credible. He wrote about it on the A Voice For Men website last year:

The third in my trilogy of anti-feminist cases is against “Women’s Studies Programs,” or as I affectionately call them “Witches’ Studies.” The fight started in 2009 and is continuing with a second federal case now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Both cases claimed, in part, that Feminism is a religion; therefore, the state and federal governments cannot provide aid to Women’s Studies because it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Sounds dumb, but it’s not.

Yes it is. You seem to be the only one who doesn’t recognize it.

Comments

  1. mythbri says

    collateral estoppel

    I think they could have dismissed it on the grounds of bovem feces as well.

  2. doublereed says

    Wow, that’s amazing in its psychosis. I’m shocked by this, but then I haven’t seen much of A Voice For Men.

  3. says

    MRAs seem to be defined by their incredible stupidity while having massive over confidence in their own intelligence … We should thank them from a feminist perspective as they are single handedly breaking down the sexist stereotype that men are the rational thinky ones not emotional and “hysterical” like the wimmin.

  4. says

    This is why it’s important to have a definition of a religion.

    A clear, coherent definition that could not just as easily apply to an ideology which involves no gods, nothing supernatural, no transcendent reality riddled with normativity yet lacking in falsifiability. No top-down agency, just some things some people believe in very strongly. Which it is absolutely legal to teach.

  5. says

    How is this different than randomly declaring that something like Psychology is a religion, and then filing suit on any universities that are teaching it, as violating the establishment clause?

    Let’s declare that Social Studies is a religion too, and get that banned.

  6. scienceavenger says

    …as a Columbia alumnus whose “direct contact with the offensive religion” of feminism makes him “very uncomfortable” and interferes with his “use and enjoyment of Columbia as [a] member[ ] of the Columbia community.”

    You know, even in my sympathetic days WRT to the MRA viewpoint, I would never have stooped to being such a…what’s the word…as this guy.

    Oh yeah. Pussy. You’re a pussy dude.

    … “Women’s Studies Programs,” or as I affectionately call them “Witches’ Studies.”

    Oh come on guy, you know you want one of those letters to be changed to a “B”. See above.

  7. jnorris says

    At least he has a hobby. This one keeps him off the streets and away from small children and stray pets.

  8. twincats says

    “Witches’ Studies” sounds like an interesting course.

    Should be covered in any of your better comparative religions courses.

  9. oranje says

    In the words of George Carlin’s hippie character on the Simpson’s, “this man does not represent us…”

    I almost picture him filing his lawsuits while sitting in a wood-paneled office, typewriter on his desk, calendar stuck on 1971. And smoking for some reason.

  10. Subtract Hominem says

    I see he couldn’t manage to hire a lawyer to take that suit and translate “BUT WHADDABOUT DA MENNNNNZZZZZ!?!?!?!!!1!??!?!one” into something coherent. Fool for a client indeed.

  11. says

    You know, even in my sympathetic days WRT to the MRA viewpoint, I would never have stooped to being such a…what’s the word…as this guy.

    Oh yeah. Pussy. You’re a pussy dude.

    You mean, he’s like a cat?

    Or that he’s like female genitalia in that he is weak?

    I suggest “wussy” or “wimp” if you want to insult his mental/emotional fortitude without insulting female external genitalia and women in the process.

    If pussies weren’t strong, fucking would not be fun and babies would not get born.

  12. dingojack says

    SallyStrange* – Offense by false etymology (you’re about 500 years too late).
    Pussy‘ is, in this case, derived from ‘pusillanimous‘ (cowardly, timid) and is first attested to in English in the mid-14th century, the usage you’re thinking of is first found in English in the mid-19th century.
    Not even close, and certainly no cigar**.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * I was biting my tongue (so to speak) but I just had to correct this one (as I have on other occasions)
    ** ‘Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar’

  13. dingojack says

    And were we speaking of ‘all the guys in high school’? No we were not.
    Now you’re somewhere near the forward of the same book (although perhaps not quite on the same page) perhaps we can continue…
    Dingo

  14. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    SallyStrange,
    Have an internet!

    dingojack,
    Bullshit. Where “pussy” as an insult derived is utterly irrelevant; now “pussy” refers to the female genitals, but is used primarily if not exclusively to insult men. Why do you think that is, dingojack? Let’s see an explanation that does not involve sexism?

  15. says

    DJ, I’m disappointed in you.
    I mean, while your use of a cherry-picked, one-of-many-possibilities origin to excuse what is a sexist insult was transparently ridiculous and everything, I didn’t expect you to abandon your argument after one little comment.

    And were we speaking of ‘all the guys in high school’? No we were not.

    That’s what you did there. You barked and then ran for the hills.
    Your claim that “pussy” as an insult isn’t sexist because of your chosen etymological theory can only be supported by two arguments

    A. that this etymology somehow nullifies the current understanding of the meaning of the word by the vast majority of the population including both the person who posted it here and high school students and everyone else, or…
    B. the commonly understood meaning of “pussy” as an insult by both those using it to injure feelings and by those on the receiving end is that it means “pusillanimous.”

    You don’t do that. You dismiss my high school students and thus essentially admit you know the commonly understood meaning and therefore intent of the insult.

    So all you have left is at best “I know most if not all guys say it meaning female genitalia, and I know that most people called the name receive the insult with that in mind, but since I was able to find some excuse, some escape clause… etc.”

    You don’t have a very good argument if you have to abandon it and grasp for something else the second it’s questioned.

  16. cry4turtles says

    This is so wrong. In my college days, a course called “American Women’s Experience” added richness to my Liberal Arts education because so much coursework was otherwise patriarchal dominate. As a woman, I took notice.

  17. brucegee1962 says

    I’m going to choose to interprate dingojack’s comment as meaning that he wants to promote the original use of the word.

    As in “Dude, don’t be such a pusi…..llanimous individual!”

    That ought to really liven up the old locker room.

  18. scienceavenger says

    Apologies to those who took offense at my use of a sexist perjorative. I was insulting the native in his tongue.

  19. dingojack says

    TCC – Apologies for taking time to get back to you. I have been searching out a creditable link, unfortunately I can now find no credible source, but I do remember commenting on it on an (much) earlier thread.
    Jaffa Hots – no, that was the sense that it was meant (I suppose, I’m a not a mind-reader but it seems reasonable not to jump to offense immediately unless there is other evidence. Do you have such evidence?)
    A) The etymology is a false one, so you’re offense is equally false.
    B) Whose community? What understanding? You’ve never heard of ‘pussy’ used in any other context?
    We were talking of a specific posters usage. Attempting to create false etymologies that apply to all uses you can think of (in order to claim offense) has little weight.
    Dingo
    ——–
    Get ready to be offended!
    OED 2nd ed. Vol XII p 900
    PUSSY
    1. A cat. 1726 MRS DELANY in Life & Cor. (1862) 124 “My new pussey is… white,… with black spots”.
    2a. A proper name for a hare. 1715 T CAVE in M. M. Verney Verney’s Letters of the 18th Cent. (1930) “I xvii 342 “The dog is very young and has seen but a few pussies, but… I doubt not of his having Appeal’d and profess’d enemy to your Hares by this Time”.
    2b A jocular name for a tiger. 1873 Routledge’s Yng. Gent. Mag. 535 “I should have liked to pot a pussy, particularly such bloody thirsty brute as this one seems to be”
    3a. Applied to a girl or woman. Esp. one that is finicky, old-maidish, or an effeminate man; a homosexual. 1583 STUBBS Anat. Abuse (1877) I 97 “You shall haue euery sawcy boy to catch vp a women & marie her… so he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withal, it forceth not”.
    & etc.

    Also note:

    pussy: chiefly US dia. corruption of PURSY… mainly in PUSSY-, corpulent, obese. 1844 J SLICK High Life in NY II 89 “A pussy as a turkey gobbler” ibid. “As pussy and pompous as a prize pig jest afore killing time/”

    Historical Thesaurus of the OED (2009) suggests various meanings:

    Nouns
    1583 Term of affection for a woman/girl (02.02.22.04 | 01.01); a woman or a girl (01.02.07.04.02)
    1715 Largomorhia (01.02.06.20.05.09 | 01.01.01) [puss 1668]
    1726 Domestic cat (01.02.06.20.05.02..01) [puss 1530; puss-cat 1565]
    1879 Female external genitalia (01.02.05.21.02)
    1925 An effeminate homosexual (01.03.02.06.02)
    1941 A rabbit (01.02.06.20.05.09 | 01.03)
    1959 Women judged coll. as sex objects.(01.03.02.03. | 05.01)
    1978 Sexual intercourse (01.03.02.04.01)

    Verb intrans.
    1943 To move stealthily (02.01.12.09.01.01) [pussy-foot 1903; cat-foot (It.) 1913]

Leave a Reply