An attorney named Roy Den Hollander has caused a stir recently by filing a suit against Columbia University, alleging that by offering courses in women’s studies, the university discriminates against men (NYT report here). Den Hollander describes himself as an anti-feminist, and has tastefully declared himself to be on a “jihad” against feminists. You can read more about his colourful background and campaign here and here.
There’s not much point in wasting time on the substance of his suit, but I was rather taken with his accusation that Columbia uses government money to promote a “religionist belief system called feminism.” I suppose it’s probably just hyperbole; he can’t possibly think that feminism actually is a religion. But it did make me think of the advantages that might accrue if it were established as such. In the UK, we could look forward to charitable status for all feminist organisations; a regular slot on Thought for the Day; and, most excitingly, the chance to run feminist faith schools. Maybe, one day, we could even cement our status as a mature religion with internecine wrangling and eventual schism over the ordination of male clergy. Any suggestions for an appropriate deity?
Because she let John run for President. Really. (And while we’re at it, let’s throw in quite a disturbing violent fantasy about John, just because that’s always fun.)
I think Sally Quinn has identified a rich new vein to mine for woman-blaming. (Just blaming them for their husbands’ affairs is so cliched.) Iraq war? Laura Bush should never have let it happen. That guy Dick Cheney shot in the face? Why did Lynne ever let him leave the house with a gun? But let’s not stop with recent history. Surely Neville Chamberlain’s wife is one of the great unsung bumblers of history. Reader contributions much appreciated.
You know something good must be going on when you get a defense like that, huh? Reader Nicole sent us this story about an Arkansas town that’s dealing with a high crime rate by imposing a curfew. The authorities insist that it’s for citizens’ own good and that they’re sure the citizens would agree. After all, “at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law” (from Councilman Eugene ‘Red’ Johnson, probably not named for his politics). Yup, that’s right, someone’s deciding what time these people have a right to be out on the street. And, as Nicole points out, this is (of course) an impoverished area, where many people work night shifts and do indeed have a “reason” to be out on the streets. (Or would Red rather have them go on welfare? Nope, didn’t think so.) Surely there are better ways to deal with high crime rates than this.
After writing this, I learned JJ had already written on this. But since we’re drawing out different things, I figured I’d put mine up too!