Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Office of Men's Health
H.R. 2115 : Men and Families Healthcare Act of 2009 will create a Office of Men's Health just like the existing one for women. This is a large step for men and it needs your support if it's going to pass. Follow the link to send an email to your congressperson and/or senators supporting H.R. 2115. The faster you write them the more they know there is a need for this program. Write those emails today.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Rapist parties in bar
Mary Kay Letourneau is back and now she has a night to celebrate in a Seattle bar,which is hosting "Hot for teacher" night. Read about it here. The owner,Mike Morris,had this to say:That Letourneau has served her time, married her beau and it should be okay for them to have a little fun on a Saturday night.
“It's turned into sort of a love story," Morris told the Associated Press. "I realize it had a sick twist at the beginning, but they're both adults now. They're both married by the state of Washington.”
If the genders had been reversed would everyone be welcoming a male rapist with open arms and a forgiving attitude? More likely it would vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and the police letting them get away with it. As far as Morris is concerned if this mangina would be anally raped I wouldn't be in such a rush to punish either considering he would probably wanted it that way. Let's see how much time Letourneau got: 6 years and the permission from the young man's mother. If this were a man he would still be in prison and if he kept in touch with the victim he would be looking at additional time,no sympathic mother or public and most likely Morris would not be throwing a theme party for him either.
It's like I said in the past; it's not about getting rapists it's about getting men,plain and simple.
“It's turned into sort of a love story," Morris told the Associated Press. "I realize it had a sick twist at the beginning, but they're both adults now. They're both married by the state of Washington.”
If the genders had been reversed would everyone be welcoming a male rapist with open arms and a forgiving attitude? More likely it would vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and the police letting them get away with it. As far as Morris is concerned if this mangina would be anally raped I wouldn't be in such a rush to punish either considering he would probably wanted it that way. Let's see how much time Letourneau got: 6 years and the permission from the young man's mother. If this were a man he would still be in prison and if he kept in touch with the victim he would be looking at additional time,no sympathic mother or public and most likely Morris would not be throwing a theme party for him either.
It's like I said in the past; it's not about getting rapists it's about getting men,plain and simple.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Moran at it again
Apparently Congressman Jim Moran is now authoring a bill that would restrict advertizing for products such as cialis and levitra. Apparently erectile dysfunction doesn't matter to the congressman. This is not Moran's first misandric move. Regular readers of this blog know he also sponsered IMBRA in which foreign women could do criminal checks on American men.
Jim Moran's bill
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Feminists weigh in on my blog
Feminists are weighing in on my comments. Let's see some of the gems coming from the enemy shall we?:
wow... you people are sick! obviously if an order of protection was placed on the man then he did something that hurt the woman physically or threatened her physically, and if the order of protection is broken then obviously her life is in danger! If GPS tracking systems are the only way to keep her and or her children safe then i honestly dont see a problem with it... how would you like if your wife, girlfriend or mother was being stalked my some random man or an ex husband... you would feel the same way. Its very sad how many women and children get killed everyday because of things like this.
And:
Anonymous you are wasting your time attempting to educate the uneducatable. It seems as though Masculist most likely has a history of DV or will in his future based on his rantings. He lacks insight into the real history and every day experiences of women and picks topics to fit his own diluted version of reality. From an individual who works in this area and knows the truth, this entire blog does nothing more than prove why women have had to fight for their rights and why they must continue doing so. Masculist and like-minded individuals will never have an army big enough to stop my from fight for equality for all human beings.
Source:here
With endorsements such as these we must be doing something right. It's one thing when your friends endorse you but when your enemies do it it is something else. Like I said I must be doing something right.
wow... you people are sick! obviously if an order of protection was placed on the man then he did something that hurt the woman physically or threatened her physically, and if the order of protection is broken then obviously her life is in danger! If GPS tracking systems are the only way to keep her and or her children safe then i honestly dont see a problem with it... how would you like if your wife, girlfriend or mother was being stalked my some random man or an ex husband... you would feel the same way. Its very sad how many women and children get killed everyday because of things like this.
And:
Anonymous you are wasting your time attempting to educate the uneducatable. It seems as though Masculist most likely has a history of DV or will in his future based on his rantings. He lacks insight into the real history and every day experiences of women and picks topics to fit his own diluted version of reality. From an individual who works in this area and knows the truth, this entire blog does nothing more than prove why women have had to fight for their rights and why they must continue doing so. Masculist and like-minded individuals will never have an army big enough to stop my from fight for equality for all human beings.
Source:here
With endorsements such as these we must be doing something right. It's one thing when your friends endorse you but when your enemies do it it is something else. Like I said I must be doing something right.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Roy,part 2
Hello,
Here's the latest--more of the same from another judge scared of the feminists. His 2 page opinion is attached.
April 24, 2009
Ruling in Favor of Columbia’s Women’s Studies
A Federal Judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Columbia’s Women’s Studies Program for violating Title IX and the Constitution. The attorney and one of the plaintiffs, Roy Den Hollander responded, “When it comes to Men's Rights, judges act with an arrogance of power, ignorance of the law, and fear of the Feminists.”
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan mischaracterized the central claim of the case as a violation of the Establishment Clause which he called “frivolous… absurd and without merit.” Den Hollander, replied, “The only thing frivolous and absurd is men looking for justice in the courts of America. It’s time we find justice elsewhere.”
Judge Kaplan irrationally ruled, “Feminism is no more a religion than physics.” Den Hollander replied, “Feminism believes that the differences between the sexes are the result of social conditioning. Science, which includes physics, disagrees.” Den Hollander added, “Religion means an irrational belief system. What’s more irrational than believing sexual roles have nothing to do with genetics or evolution or that because of sex, one group is entitled to preferential treatment. The Judge obviously never studied science, but clearly believes in Feminism.”
“What do you think his decision would have been if a college offered only Men’s Studies but no Women’s Studies?” Den Hollander asked.
In accepting the Magistrate’s decisions, Kaplan concluded that the two plaintiff alums, attorney Roy Den Hollander and recent Columbia College graduate William A. Nosal, suffered no harm because they did not enroll in a Women Studies’ course or were denied admission to one.
“Judge Kaplan obviously ignored the equal protection and Title IX arguments to give us and the class of men the bum’s rush out of court,” said Den Hollander.
--
Roy Den Hollander
Attorney at Law
New York, N.Y.
rdhhh@yahoo.com
(917) 687-0652
Here's the latest--more of the same from another judge scared of the feminists. His 2 page opinion is attached.
April 24, 2009
Ruling in Favor of Columbia’s Women’s Studies
A Federal Judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Columbia’s Women’s Studies Program for violating Title IX and the Constitution. The attorney and one of the plaintiffs, Roy Den Hollander responded, “When it comes to Men's Rights, judges act with an arrogance of power, ignorance of the law, and fear of the Feminists.”
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan mischaracterized the central claim of the case as a violation of the Establishment Clause which he called “frivolous… absurd and without merit.” Den Hollander, replied, “The only thing frivolous and absurd is men looking for justice in the courts of America. It’s time we find justice elsewhere.”
Judge Kaplan irrationally ruled, “Feminism is no more a religion than physics.” Den Hollander replied, “Feminism believes that the differences between the sexes are the result of social conditioning. Science, which includes physics, disagrees.” Den Hollander added, “Religion means an irrational belief system. What’s more irrational than believing sexual roles have nothing to do with genetics or evolution or that because of sex, one group is entitled to preferential treatment. The Judge obviously never studied science, but clearly believes in Feminism.”
“What do you think his decision would have been if a college offered only Men’s Studies but no Women’s Studies?” Den Hollander asked.
In accepting the Magistrate’s decisions, Kaplan concluded that the two plaintiff alums, attorney Roy Den Hollander and recent Columbia College graduate William A. Nosal, suffered no harm because they did not enroll in a Women Studies’ course or were denied admission to one.
“Judge Kaplan obviously ignored the equal protection and Title IX arguments to give us and the class of men the bum’s rush out of court,” said Den Hollander.
--
Roy Den Hollander
Attorney at Law
New York, N.Y.
rdhhh@yahoo.com
(917) 687-0652
Friday, April 17, 2009
Another word from Roy
Hi All,
Here's the latest in the suit against Columbia University's Women's Studies program. It's an interim decision in favor of preferential treatment for girls--as expected from judges steeped in their arrogance of power and ignorance of the law.
April 15, 2009
Interim Ruling in Favor of Columbia’s Women’s Studies
A Federal Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Columbia’s Women’s Studies Program for violating Title IX and the Constitution.
Magistrate Kevin Nathaniel Fox, a Columbia graduate, concluded that the two plaintiff alums, attorney Roy Den Hollander and recent Columbia College graduate William A. Nosal, suffered no harm because they did not enroll in a Women Studies’ course or were denied admission to one.
“The Magistrate completely miss-read the complaint, or only read Columbia’s response,” said Den Hollander. “Under Title IX, it is the absence of an opportunity for an equal educational experience that is the injury.” “When a college only has a guys’ rugby team, the injury to girls who want to play rugby is that there is no girls’ team.” “Mr. Nosal and I told the Court we tried to take Men’s Studies’ courses at Columbia, but there were none—that’s the injury.” “Why this Judge thinks we had to enroll or try to enroll in Women’s Studies’ courses is beyond me.” “It’s not the law, and I like to think I’m not that masochistic.”
The Judge also found no equal protection injury, once again because the plaintiffs did not enroll in a Women’s Studies’ course or try to. The discriminatory harm is that Women Studies give females an advantage that prevents guys from competing on an equal footing in education, the work place, the courts, the culture, and society as a whole. Now you might disagree with that, but that is what the complaint alleges, and at this stage in a case, what the complaint says is considered true. “Obviously the Judge interjected his only factual and ideological beliefs in order to recommend dismissal,” said Den Hollander. “You’re not suppose to do that, but it happens all the time, especially when taking on the post-modern Feminists in a system where men just don’t count.”
Den Hollander continued, “The Judge considers the discrimination against the plaintiffs as insignificant, a ‘subjective chill—he calls it.’” The U.S. Supreme Court says differently: ““Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).
“The Courts are suppose ‘to protect unpopular individuals … and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society,’ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995), but today in America they are essentially useless for protecting the rights of men—probably time for a different strategy,” remarked Den Hollander.
The Magistrate Judge’s recommendations go to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who will decide whether to accept, reject or modify them—bet he accepts them, and then there will be an appeal to the Second Circuit.
--
Roy Den Hollander
Attorney at Law
New York, N.Y.
rdhhh@yahoo.com
(917) 687-0652
Here's the latest in the suit against Columbia University's Women's Studies program. It's an interim decision in favor of preferential treatment for girls--as expected from judges steeped in their arrogance of power and ignorance of the law.
April 15, 2009
Interim Ruling in Favor of Columbia’s Women’s Studies
A Federal Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Columbia’s Women’s Studies Program for violating Title IX and the Constitution.
Magistrate Kevin Nathaniel Fox, a Columbia graduate, concluded that the two plaintiff alums, attorney Roy Den Hollander and recent Columbia College graduate William A. Nosal, suffered no harm because they did not enroll in a Women Studies’ course or were denied admission to one.
“The Magistrate completely miss-read the complaint, or only read Columbia’s response,” said Den Hollander. “Under Title IX, it is the absence of an opportunity for an equal educational experience that is the injury.” “When a college only has a guys’ rugby team, the injury to girls who want to play rugby is that there is no girls’ team.” “Mr. Nosal and I told the Court we tried to take Men’s Studies’ courses at Columbia, but there were none—that’s the injury.” “Why this Judge thinks we had to enroll or try to enroll in Women’s Studies’ courses is beyond me.” “It’s not the law, and I like to think I’m not that masochistic.”
The Judge also found no equal protection injury, once again because the plaintiffs did not enroll in a Women’s Studies’ course or try to. The discriminatory harm is that Women Studies give females an advantage that prevents guys from competing on an equal footing in education, the work place, the courts, the culture, and society as a whole. Now you might disagree with that, but that is what the complaint alleges, and at this stage in a case, what the complaint says is considered true. “Obviously the Judge interjected his only factual and ideological beliefs in order to recommend dismissal,” said Den Hollander. “You’re not suppose to do that, but it happens all the time, especially when taking on the post-modern Feminists in a system where men just don’t count.”
Den Hollander continued, “The Judge considers the discrimination against the plaintiffs as insignificant, a ‘subjective chill—he calls it.’” The U.S. Supreme Court says differently: ““Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).
“The Courts are suppose ‘to protect unpopular individuals … and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society,’ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995), but today in America they are essentially useless for protecting the rights of men—probably time for a different strategy,” remarked Den Hollander.
The Magistrate Judge’s recommendations go to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who will decide whether to accept, reject or modify them—bet he accepts them, and then there will be an appeal to the Second Circuit.
--
Roy Den Hollander
Attorney at Law
New York, N.Y.
rdhhh@yahoo.com
(917) 687-0652
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)