There's a lesson here: overuse and over-broaden things like "bigotry" and they end up being co-opted by jackasses like this.

But I'll give him this: ladies' nights are in pretty clear violation of every consumer anti-discrimination law. Equality is a two-way street, last time I checked.

No, it makes him a humanist.

if feminists issued a statement on all the problems that Mr. Hollander sees. I don't think this has the potential to become something like the abortion debate--but it would be good to have a set of answers ready for use. Some sites, like

www.finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com, seem to be doing that.

Personally, I think sometimes feminism exaggerates--like all movements defending a group and fighting against discrimination--in certain stereotypical presentations of the 'oppressors' or 'discriminators', or in reacting too fast against things that aren't really part of the problem (more like part of life). This drives away people who might otherwise support feminism.

Mr. Hollander is clearly exaggerating--let me say that clearly. But if out of his exaggerations we get some interesting debate and more ideas and arguments out there where the public can see and think about them, that would be nice.

in unconstitutional because there isn't enough violence against men by women? Seriously?

...why does it need to be under a gendered label? Maybe that's part of the problem - maybe men like Hollander would be more comfortable with the concept of gender equality if it came under the heading "equalitarian." "Feminist" does, by its very reference to the female gender, insinuate that it is about women and only women, so its not surprising that some men perceive it that way. The fact that most (I hope)feminists do not think of it that way is irrelvant. Of course, the question is, do Hollander and other men who share his perspective really want gender equality, or are they really trying to perpetuate the historical imbalance of power?

"If his true goal is equality between the sexes, doesn't that make him ... a feminist?"

No, it doesn't. Feminists promote a brand of "equality" that soley benefits women, on the theory that past discrimination warrant's preferential treatment, indefinately. Therefore, factions of the feminist movement feel comfortable minimizing the "boy crisis" because of the perception that helping boys hurts girls. Feminists defend "paternity fraud" statutes, like they did Califoria, without irony. NOW came out with a report (which could almost be characterized as fraudulent) stating that family courts are biased against women. Many feminists don't seem to think that a disproportionate number of women attending college is a problem. When women were treated unfairly in the educational system, we passed Title IX. When it is the guys, fuck 'em.

Maybe Hollander is a blustering baffoon. Maybe not. In any event, he represents a segment of society that feels slighted.

...and based on Broadsheet's (and even more, Slate's XX Factor's) polite but pointed "more feminist than thou" oneupswomanship, that's a way off...

The Ladies Night thing always cracks me up.

Of COURSE it is unfair for women to pay less, do away with it.

But those poor oppressed fellas should keep in mind that bars don't so much have ladies night to attract women by providing lots of drinks, they have ladies night to attract men by providing lots of women.

Hero or Jerk? Man sues Columbia over Women's Studies, claims it hurts feelings [VOTE] - http://www.thriveorfail.com/47028

anti-radical feminist anyway. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal result. I also believe in well regulated free markets, if that's not an oxymoron, and capitalism. Competition is good. The problem with the radical feminist crowd is they want equal result (at least for now) and don't mind using socialist, communist, discriminatory and any other policies to achieve that end. Blame the patriarchy is the central tenet from which all ideas sprout.

I welcome Roy Den Hollander's lawsuits, and hope he moves swiftly into family courts, lower education, affirmative action and anywhere else males are oppressed.

Men perceive equality as a loss. That's the fundamental argument you bring up: When women "gain" something, men must be "losing" something. However, I fail to see what men are losing when you don't have a male history course.

When you talk about funding programs (like issues with Title IX), that's true--there's only so much money to spend, so we'll "take away" from boys' programs to give to girls' programs, but has it happened that fewer boys are pursuing sports because of this? The number of sports might change, but if you are taking money from a less popular boys' sport like diving to expand a mainstream girls' sport like swimming, you aren't burning guys overall, you are elevating girls' sports to the same level and treatment as boys'.

Men are so oppressed! They only have majority control of every state and local and government, every top 500 corporation, every religious institution, ... damn near everything. The history of western civilization is the history of men's deeds, since they were in power and could slant glory away from women's accomplishments.

What a wussie. Whining that his drinkie-poo costs another 50 cents. Whaaaaahh.

Step 1: Rename the program "Gender Studies", since that's what most Women's Studies programs have morphed into. (Remember that New York Times story about women-only colleges having to deal with transmen who begin transitioning during the university years because all-female colleges are less hostile to the differently gendered? I do: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/03/17/girls/index.html)

Step 2: Give Roy Hollander the finger.

Easy.

Hollander has mistaken the branch of feminism that is, in fact, as loony as he describes for the entirety of the feminist movement. It's a silly, counterproductive assumption to name people who really earn the title "femnazi" the leaders of feminism, but I can see how it can happen.

As a male, half-Asian, half-European descent college student, I'm here to testify that it can be downright intimidating to have to deal with policies that on their face disadvantage you, if you're part of a group that has historically been more privileged. There is no grand white conspiracy to keep minorities down; or if there is, the people who have to worry about which college they'll go to aren't part of it. There is no vast male conspiracy to keep women out of the workforce. There might be conspiracies, and the effect might be vast, but there's no centralization, and no Wiki-Keepherinthekitchen.

So, as a individual, it rather irked back when I was applying to colleges that so much emphasis was put on the difficulties that Hispanics, blacks and women had suffered, but not Asians or poor white boys. And, frankly, I was a little annoyed to discover that Womens Studies was a major, and The African American Experience was a class.

But, damn, three years later, I know a lot more about the world, and I can't be bothered to be outraged over trivialities like the minutiae of a liberal arts degree. There's more important stuff, yeah?

So, while I'm still not sure how I feel about the situation (well, actually, I wish there didn't need to *be* a feminist movement anymore, is what I mostly think), I'm glad that Hollander and his ilk are still stirring up trouble. Maybe it'll all be thrashed out in another century.