Douchebag lawyer and his douchebag lawsuit: “Feminism violates men's rights!”

So New York lawyer Roy Den Hollander once married a young woman he met while working as a private investigator in Russia. Once Den Hollander moved himself and his foreign bride back to New York City, though, she took a job as a stripper and proceeded to dump him within months.

It's a sad little story, and probably not nearly the first of its kind. But to say Den Hollander seems to have had a wee bit of trouble letting it go would be a massive understatement. Since his marriage ended, the spurned groom has turned into a men's-rights crusader so convinced that feminism is the reason for all his personal woes that he's literally made a career out of litigating against it. Back in 2001, Den Hollander filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife and Flash Dancers, the club where she worked. It was dismissed. In June 2007, having decided that life as a single man was being seriously hindered by the costs of attending the "Ladies Nights" hosted by bars and clubs—and perhaps being one of the few dudes to see things so gloomily, since isn't one of the main points of Ladies Night to ensure a surplus of tippling gals, making the odds all the better for creepy men on the make?—Den Hollander struck again. His federal lawsuit, detailed in an August 2007 New Yorkerprofile, cited discrimination based on the fact that admission to clubs on Ladies Night was reduced for, you know, the ladies. That suit is still pending. (However, a similar suit filed in Denver, Colo. the same year failed to convince a judge that offering women the chance to pay a few dollars less for their Screaming Orgasms and stale pretzels on Ladies Night constituted a violation of men's civil rights.)

But Den Hollander—whose third assy lawsuit targeted the federal government's Violence Against Women Act—will not be stopped. The Energizer Bunny of frivolous litigation, his latest full-scale tantrum addresses Columbia University and its women's-studies courses, which his suit describes as an indoctrination program responsible for "spreading prejudice and fostering animosity and distrust toward men with the result of wholesale violation of men's rights due to ignorance, falsehoods, and malice." It adds that, "Columbia has thrown its influence and prestige into violating the rights of men by offering a women's studies program but no men's studies program." (This from the man who in that New Yorker piece defended his beef with Title IX with the razor-sharp legal reasoning that "Sports isn't a big thing to girls, but it's a big thing to guys.")

Apparently, Den Hollander got his M.B.A. from Columbia, which seems like the only reason he'd be targeting only the women's-studies courses of that particular university. I mean, really, why not go whole hog and name every single women's-studies and women's-history course and department in the whole United States in the suit, if the object here is really to wipe out this nasty epidemic of female empowerment?

Geez. Feminism may not have the reputation for being funny, but antifeminism, as this story proves, can be hilarious. Oh, and he's got a MySpace page, according to this. I'm not going, but feel free to check it out and report back.

Bitch Media publishes the award-winning quarterly magazine, Bitch:Feminist Response to Pop Culture. Pitch in to support feminist media: Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

15 comments have been made. Post a comment.

Another recent case

Not a lawsuit, but the Nevada Equal Rights Commission ruled last week that offering different prices to women is discriminatory.

hmm...

Does that mean salons need to charge the same for haircuts and stuff, too? I hate having to pay $10 extra for the same trim.

If he wants to make a fool out of himself, be my guest...

Individuals like this really make me laugh. Apparently antifeminism is funny, because this is not the first instance of "I am Man, hear me roar", that ends up being a ridiculous diatribe about the loss of men's rights. I mean, when you're already born entitled to everything, isn't that enough. Or are we still screaming for another cookie? It's just embarassing to him, and women (and hopefully most men) realize that he's just mad that his mail order bride grew a brain instead of a baby.

I do think though, that it speaks to American culture a little that he is wasting the courts time fighting the violation of men's rights while there are a thousand other civil rights issues that could be dealt with. Let's see that homosexuals can have an institution of marriage and can legally adopt, that black and latino - americans are not longer confined to poverty, and women are equally paid to men and have legal and safe access to abortion, before we start kicking up a storm over the fact that you have to pay a few more dollars in cover charge to watch what pretty much amounts to Girls Gone Wild in person.

Apparently women should have to pay equally to be objectified, despite the fact that we're not paid equally anywhere else.

Douchebag

"Douchebag" as a perjorative? Hmmmm, not for me. That's one of those clever words they can use on television because everyone just knows it's just the ickiest thing ever, cuz it has to do with woman parts. Spoogebag maybe more fitting? :-)

I've struggled myself with

I've struggled myself with the use of douchebag as a pejorative. However, I've come to realize that douchebags aren't so much about vaginas as they are about the belief that a woman's vagina is dirty. Which is why I think calling Roy Den Hollander a douchebag is kind of perfect; he's an asshole who is trying to "wash out" powerful women who have made him feel inferior. When I call someone a douchebag, I feel as if I'm pointing out the connection between a sexist and the women-need-to-be-cleansed culture that they come from.

Let me know what you think!

Ashley McAllister, Outreach Coordinator

Yep. I agree, Ashley.

In fact, not only were douchebags created to make women feel their vaginas are dirty, but they've since been proven to be dangerous as they interfere with the normal cleansing process and bacteria levels of the vagina.

Knowing this has left me completely content to use the word as a pejorative.

Douchebag=Something false, dangerous and uncessesary!

Take note: Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Bitch. Dig?

I think 'douchbag' as a pejorative is fine...

...for the above stated reasons. I'll just echo them. Douchbags are unnecessary and stupid. This guy and his lawsuits are as well.

women's colleges

Does he realize that there are still (a few) colleges that only accept women? I'd almost want to see his response to that.

(PS. I go to Simmons in Boston because it's not co-ed.)

cuz men have no rights. right.

>>>his latest full-scale tantrum addresses Columbia University and its women's-studies courses, which his suit describes as an indoctrination program responsible for "spreading prejudice and fostering animosity and distrust toward men with the result of wholesale violation of men's rights due to ignorance, falsehoods, and malice."<<<

if you just change a few words from that quote from his lawsuit to say "spreading prejudice and fostering animosity and distrust toward people of color with the result of wholesale violation of people of color's rights due to ignorance, falsehoods, and malice" i think we could drum up a discrimination lawsuit for all high school history courses...

~toni~

t-love-pdx.blogspot.com

Roy Den Hollander speaks at Columbia

WISC (Women in Science at Columbia) has invited Roy Den Hollander to speak about his lawsuit against the aforementioned university. He'll give a short talk briefing us on the case against Columbia and then answer any questions from the audience. All are welcome.

The talk will be Thursday, August 28 at 1:00pm, on Columbia campus in 209 Havemeyer.

If you use facebook, please feel free to rsvp:
http://www.new.facebook.com/event.php?eid=27929186974

videos

the talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2186862006569246385
the Q&A:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7619287216681435329
Comment by rootneg2 - August 29, 2008 at 11:54 pm

apologies for the poor video/audio quality; a transcript is still in the works.

I also would like to add that by hosting Roy Den Hollander, WISC is neither endorsing nor condemning his viewpoints or opinions. WISC believes strongly in open and honest dialog concerning all forms of gender discrimination in the sciences at Columbia.

What a douchebag! Doesn't he

What a douchebag! Doesn't he know men should NEVER marry? 60% Divorce rate in this country. If you are a college educated man, there's a 90% it will be your wife, not you that files for divorce. Men only get custody of their own kids 15% of the time. It's well known that with a simple false accusation, any man can be banned from his home with no evidence whatsoever! (But you'll still have to make the payments... Mom's new boyfriend has to live somewhere!)

Women, if you're not sure how to do this to your soon to be ex, don't worry. Your helpful lawyer, (paid for by your husband) will assist you filing false abuse claims, explain the concept of 'imputed income' and a dozens of other women-only laws that will help YOU clean out his assets and RETIRE EARLY. (Working is for chumps, and men.)

Spread the word from sea to sea! Men, don't marry: EVER! Then you will never feel tempted to file these douchebag lawsuits.

Reply to Oak

While you have some facts straight, apparently you do not live in California. My female friend named M. filed for divorce. Her husband, E., cheated on her and doesn't want the divorce. She makes $60,000 per year, he makes less than $30,000. Even if she can prove that he had an affair, and coupled with the fact that he hasn't helped with rent in over a year, the end result is that SHE will have to pay anywhere from $1200 to $1600 per month for 4 years. He's a martial arts expert that wants half of her jewelry, which she owned long before she met him. And he'll probably get it.
Doesn't matter - in a no fault state, whoever makes for money must pay the alimnony - male/female doesn't matter.

Precision in Definitions

He's right about this being discrimination, but as I'm sure he will be told in court, not all discrimination is illegal. In this case, he will be told that while it is discriminatory, it is permissible, as it serves a perfectly reasonable purpose - lower prices for women, leads to more women, more women leads to more men, more men leads to more intoxicated idiots dumping money at the bar in an effort to become even more intoxicated.

So be careful with your definitions. Just because something is discrimination, doesn't mean its illegal, or even bad. That's just not what the word means (although its undeniably how it's most often used). For instance, how often have you heard the phrase, "the discriminating buyer"?

Don't get me wrong, but I do

Don't get me wrong, but I do think that a man who believes in equal rights is sane. Probably, the only reduction of rights a straight man experiences is a reduction of his historical rights. They were handed to them on a golden plate just because they were born male. The men who complain about this are just hanging on to the past in the way certain white people resisted the freedom of black slaves or the humane and equal treatment of gays in society.