In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Feminism: Not a Religion. Men’s Rights Activists: Still Not Getting Laid Much.

Feminism is not a religion any more than physics, says a District Court judge in response to a “guys’ rights” lawsuit brought against Columbia University. And… yeah. No shock there.

The contention? That Columbia uses government aid to preach a “religionist belief system called feminism.”

Roy Den Hollander, the man behind the cases, sounds like a real winner:

Mr. Den Hollander devotes much of his private practice to representing men in civil cases — “antifeminist cases or guys’-rights cases,” as he puts it – and said his bitter 2001 divorce from a woman he married in Russia helped tweak his anger toward feminists and laws he sees as favoring women.

In July 2007, Mr. Den Hollander filed a class-action suit against prominent Manhattan nightclubs like Copacabana, China Club, Lotus and Sol, claiming they discriminated against men with their ladies’ nights offering free or reduced admission, which violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, the suit said.

In February 2008, he filed a suit against the federal government calling parts of the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional.

Those cases are still pending. Mr. Den Hollander said that today’s lawsuit completes a “trilogy of antifeminist lawsuits.”

At least someone is taking on the great injustices that are Ladies Nite and federal programs to help women escape abusive relationships.

I actually do think that disparate entry rates at bars are wrong and unfair, and I would be happy to see Ladies Nite disappear. But I suspect it will shock no one when I point out that Mr. Den Hollander’s objections to Ladies Nite aren’t about fundamental fairness, but about his serious issues with “girls”:

The other night—nite?—Den Hollander was maneuvering his way past a maroon rope that marked the entrance to LQ, a dance club in midtown. It was a Salsa Wednesday: five bucks for ladies, ten for gents. Den Hollander shelled out and went inside, where he cruised the pink-lit periphery of a dance floor, sparsely populated with wrinkled couples practicing twirls. “Last time I was here for an after-work, you had younger people,” he said. “Problem is, the music’s so loud. When I hit on a girl, I need to be able to talk to her.” Forgoing a complimentary buffet, he made his way to the bar, where he ordered an Absolut vodka gimlet. “I tend to be attracted to black and Latin chicks, and Asian chicks,” he said, citing the influence of the twelfth-century Provençal troubadour Guiraut de Bornelh. “He said, ‘For a man, attraction goes through the eyes.’ ” Den Hollander was unfazed by the notion that, as a hound dog, his fight to defeminize clubs was perhaps counter to his self-interest.

Den Hollander likes to keep his age a secret. He was wearing a greenish double-breasted suit and, judging from his gray buzz cut, rubbery grin, and Hypnotiq-blue eyes (courtesy of contacts), seemed to be about forty-five. His frequent references to the Vietnam era, however, put him slightly earlier. “I look around,” he said, recalling his college years, “and there are all these girls walking around in see-through skirts and having sex whenever they want to, and there I am, dodging the draft.”

Bitches.

He reached into his pocket and produced a typed forty-one-point list headed “Discrimination against men in America.” (Sample gripes: child-custody laws, circumcision, “5% of females have borderline personality disorder.”) “What I’m trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights,” he continued, bringing to mind a combination of Leon Phelps, Che Guevara, and Travis Bickle.

The club was filling up as Den Hollander held forth on Title IX (“Sports isn’t a big thing to girls, but it’s a big thing to guys”), pickup tactics (“You sort of cut the person you’re after from the herd”), his personal finances (“Have you heard of the dot-com bubble?”), and his belief that “the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there’s been a transfer of rights from guys to girls.” Too bad, it was suggested, that his lawsuit is set to be heard by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, herself a known female. But Den Hollander was not deterred. “What I think will happen,” he said, “is that clubs will reduce the price for guys and increase it for girls. Every guy will have ten or fifteen more dollars in his pocket, which the girls will then manipulate into getting more drinks out of him. If they drink more, they’ll have more fun, and so will us guys. And then when she wakes up in the morning she’ll be able to do what she always does: blame the man.”

Maybe he can file a lawsuit about that, too.


103 thoughts on Feminism: Not a Religion. Men’s Rights Activists: Still Not Getting Laid Much.

  1. Too bad, it was suggested, that his lawsuit is set to be heard by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, herself a known female.

    Too bad, indeed. Clearly the feminazis have infiltrated the courts, not just the bars.

  2. This guy is clearly a paranoid nutcase . . . but the particulars aside, I’ve never understood how the argument “feminism is a religion!!” is supposed to undermine anything? The people who usually raise that objection are, themselves, deeply religious individuals . . . so if feminism is a religion and therefore it’s stupid, does it follow that your Catholicism, being a religion, is also stupid? It’s just strange.

    Of course feminism is a world view, a way of understanding the world and a set of ethical values and practices that grow out of that world view. I don’t really think any feminists would deny that? So why do they think this is some sort of trump card?

  3. Well, if it wasn’t for the rest, then him referring repeatedly to “girls” and “guys” would make it hard to take him seriously. And of course there is all the rest.

  4. Ah so not only is he a misogynist jerk but a racist one as well,

    “I tend to be attracted to black and Latin chicks, and Asian chicks,”

    He is such a perfect bad example he should be put on display.

  5. What is this word “religionist”, anyway? I’ve never heard it before. Does it imply that (a) feminism itself is a religion, or that (b) it somehow discrminates against people with religious beliefs?

  6. As a Dutch woman, I’m kind of ashamed that someone like that is named Den Hollander (meaning The Dutchman).

  7. Clearly, entitlement and unearned privilege have poisoned his brain. We’re doing men like him a service by trying to dismantle them. Little though they appreciate it.

    Shorter me: For fuck’s sake.

  8. Is this guy aware of what a complete ass he sounds like? I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts suing because he can’t “score wit da babes”. *Grumbles about Feminists and other Uppity Women making it hard for dumbasses to get laid*

  9. Wow, what a complete and utter asshat. Seriously, wow, this dude is scared of women yet wants the sex.

    He also sounds like a friend of mine who once said that feminists have forgotten they’re women.

  10. Ugh.
    Why is that almost every other Roy I’ve ever met or heard of, turn out to be huge assholes? It’s starting to give me a complex.

    I give him at least an 8 or a 9, akeeyu. He’s super creepy, for sure.

  11. “I actually do think that disparate entry rates at bars are wrong and unfair, and I would be happy to see Ladies Nite disappear.”

    I don’t know that it’s unfair, in and that the object tends to be to get more women in the establishment not because of any “hooray, women!” sentiment but because the establishment can then cater more effectively to male patrons, but it’s pretty wrong.

  12. Hmmm….I suppose this is why people snort derisively at me when I talk about gendered norms harming men….

    Asshat.

  13. I’m still trying to figure out how 5 percent of women having Borderline Personality Disorder is discrimination.

    Though I can imagine how he’s diagnosed it: First, they liked him, or at least they didn’t say they disliked him. Then, later, they say they don’t like him. Because he’s a great guy, the reason they changed their opinion of him must be based in pathology. It couldn’t be because they actually found out what he’s like.

  14. oldfeminist: no, no, the fact is that 5% of women have BPD, so they are simply TOO CRAZY to ever trust with anything! I mean, they also have higher rates of depression! Women are just too emotional and should stop trying to do men’s jobs. Then men like Den can also have the jobs that all the women are stealing.

    I’m always so flummoxed by the men who utterly hate women, and yet want to have sex with them. I can’t imagine feeling very good about having sex with something (note: they always consider women ‘something’) you hate. They try to pass this off as being that they “love beauty”, which really just means that they wish women’s bodies came without personalities. Also? They tend to be the men who love pressuring women into anal because it enables them to enact hateful fantasies of “pumping a girl hard” even if she isn’t willing, while trying to handwave it away by saying that women love it, because they are all secretly sluts who want to be manhandled by a real man.

    (Yes, I’ve seen many of these specimens in action.)

  15. Okay, seriously.

    There are legitimate issues for men to get worked up about. Patriarchy Hurts Men Too, after all. But Ladies’ Nite is not one of them, and all it does is hurts your cause because people think you’re an idiot and don’t listen to your legitimate points. It’s like that whole Dworkin “all-sex-is-rape” thing, except not an urban myth.

  16. of COURSE he’s a lawyer himself. of COURSE he’s filed this kind of bullshit lawsuit before. of COURSE.

    wonder what it would take to strip the license. the Phelps clan works in a similar fashion (all lawyers, they just litigate/harass people to death)

  17. We’ve been listening to this crap for so long and I’m sick of it. Seriously, I can barely pick up the Spec (campus newspaper) without having to cringe at Hollander’s new antics. The University is trying to (and probably will) get the suit dismissed: Spec article on the case.

  18. “wonder what it would take to strip the license.”

    Depends on the state. Jack Thompson (the crazypants anti-video game homobigot obsessed with Janet Reno) practically had to show up to his disbarment hearing wearing someone else’s face as a mask before he got his ability to practice yanked.

  19. Though I know the discussion is not on the real deal behind the different rates for women and men in bars, but on this crazy-ass’s statements, I would be really pleased to see that difference vanished from earth. I mean, if that is not objectifying women in order to get male audience–“hooray da place is full of galz lets get them all ladies”–, then I don’t know what it is.

  20. i don’t why he went with a 14th amendment claim against the Copacabana, China Club, Lotus and Sol, since they aren’t govt entities and therefore not subject to the equal protection clause.

    He probably would’ve had a good shot if he went with a ’64 civil rights act violation. I recall Hooters lost a case where women were favored (in hiring) so there is precedent for using the act to protect individuals who don’t belong to an historically discriminated group and where there is even some economic rational for the business to discriminate.

    Just for the record, I don’t advocate this. I’m generally libertarian, don’t like to legislate my feminist or ant-racist morality, and believe business people should have the right to economic freedom.

  21. Hrm. Is it also a problem that Columbia has a religious studies department and appears to offer coursework which addresses a number of different religions?

    BTW, AEH, I genuinely enjoyed the article from the Spec. This is my favorite: At the time, Hollander dismissed the notion of parody: “Women’s studies [programs] aid and abet murder,” he said. “Where do you think all those lunatic female syndromes come from for excusing murdering incipient human beings, boiling babies, drowning their children, and killing their boyfriends or husbands?”

    Of course, this is a close second: Hollander said he learned that the wife he brought to the U.S. from Russia was a prostitute allied with the Chechen mafia. A scuffle with her—including a brush with the Violence Against Women Act—sparked Hollander’s activism. There’s so much going on in these two sentences that I can’t even wrap my brain around it.

  22. Shorter Roy: Chicks in their teens and twenties won’t fuck me and I hate my ex-wife! WAAAAAHHHHH!

    I read that article, RD, and OMG, Roy’s King Douche of Douche Mountain.

  23. Yeah, preying mantis, I found it pretty funny he was crusading against Ladies’ Nite. What? You mean the tradition of selling women cheaper drinks or getting in the bars for less money so they’d have more to drink on, simultaneously supporting rape culture by providing men a place to find women who would be more likely to be drunk, so that finding a hookup… er… victim… would be about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel… this concept isn’t antifeminist?! Color me dumbfounded.

    Way to go, RDH. Way to go. Understanding Misogyny FAIL.

    Of course, I shouldn’t expect anything else from a rapey asshat:

    “If they drink more, they’ll have more fun, and so will us guys.”

    Yeah. Precisely the problem.

    This dude’s not worth the effort to spit. (Pay no attention to the aforeposted comment.)

  24. A 62 year old failed lawyer still mad at his mother who played around. A career reduced to a punchline. Sad.

  25. He lost another lawsuit!!!

    His lawsuit against Columbia University just got thrown out: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/court-rejects-mens-studies-lawsuit/.

    The Judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, in the case said that “Feminism is no more a religion than physics,” the judge wrote, “and at least the core of the complaint therefore is frivolous.”

    Mr. Den Hollander, who had claimed that offering a course of study about one gender violated Title IX and the Constitution, assailed the judge as a feminist and said, “The only thing frivolous and absurd is men looking for justice in the courts of America.” “When it comes to men’s rights, judges act with an arrogance of power, ignorance of the law, and fear of the feminists,” he said.

    Clearly, this man has extremely paranoid about women.

  26. Is anyone else getting a Don Quixote meets Frank Miller vibe or is it just me?

    It’s not just you. This guy sounds like a real piece of work. The stuff about his wife in the interview RD linked is pretty horrifying, too: “She was crazy and totally tried to kill me but it’s okay, I know martial arts…and that’s why she got a restraining order against me. Also, she was a dirty foreign prostitute.” I hope she ran and never looked back after the divorce.

    Gah. He would just be sad and a bit creepy if he didn’t come into contact with actual women. Ever. As is, he freaks me right out.

  27. oh EW I used to go to Broadway Dance Center (the place where he goes so he can watch all the sweaty young girlses). I hope he falls on his ass a lot.

  28. oh wait, but no, he must be getting laid like whoa; after all he links to this winner from his website:

    http://thenononsensemanDOTcom/page5.html

    Are You Wining & Dining Her for Sex?

    Most men pay their girlfriends and wives like prostitutes—cash, dinners, vacations, jewelry, cars, homes, and clothing—in exchange for sex. Not only unnecessary and emasculating, such stupid male behavior induces “purchased and entitled” women to fake their orgasms.

    Like a car, a woman will take you where you guide her—assuming she’s a good match and you’re a good driver. Ignore her pings and rattles, and she’ll stop operating, strand you, or put you in a ditch.

    Marc Rudov’s popular book—Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper CablesTM—helps men avoid golddiggers, learn what really turns women on, and end self-destructive chivalry. This provocative and hilarious book is a perfect sequel and companion to The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women. There’s no book like it in the world: it will change your sex life and your life.

  29. “Men’s Rights Activists: Still Not Getting Laid Much.”

    The title of this great post is something I’ve been stuck on. How is essentially shaming MRAs (who should be called out on their BS) for not getting laid acceptable? It seems to imply that there is something wrong with people who aren’t “getting laid”. Or is the title a twist on how RDH views women and sex and his lack of “getting laid?”

  30. I think it points out that they’re such douchehats that no one will sleep with them, that being ironic since that’s all they think women are good for.

  31. “It seems to imply that there is something wrong with people who aren’t “getting laid”.”

    If you’re not getting laid because your potential partners can, if sane and sober, tell from ten paces that you hate them with the fiery intensity of a thousand suns, then yes, there is something wrong with you. Unfortunately for MRAs, this is generally the source of their oft-bemoaned coital woes.

  32. No, feminism is not a religion. I’ll give you that. Certain individual feminists, however, can be rather dogmatic.

    Men’s Rights Activists: Still Not Getting Laid Much.

    Now see, if someone were to replace “Men’s Rights Activists” with “Feminists” in this statement, the outrage of feminists would be understandable and justified. But I’m sure there are plenty of people here who can explain to me why this is different and completely acceptable, and label me a “concern troll” and/or “MRA sympathizer” for having a audacity to question this.

    As for me, I don’t “get laid” much either because my husband, the only person I choose to lay down for, is overseas. I’m sure this is directly related to my irritability and overly-sensitive response to this. Then again, perhaps it gives me some personal insight into how utterly stupid it is to measure the value of a person’s views by how often s/he gets laid.

  33. Now see, if someone were to replace “Men’s Rights Activists” with “Feminists” in this statement, the outrage of feminists would be understandable and justified. But I’m sure there are plenty of people here who can explain to me why this is different and completely acceptable, and label me a “concern troll” and/or “MRA sympathizer” for having a audacity to question this.

    Maybe the title had a little something to do with the fact that the MRA in question spent a not inconsiderable amount of time cruising, talking about what kinds of women he would like to have sex with, and bitching about how he couldn’t get laid?

  34. How is essentially shaming MRAs (who should be called out on their BS) for not getting laid acceptable? It seems to imply that there is something wrong with people who aren’t “getting laid”.

    As one who has argued at great length with these some of these fellows (over on Feminist Critics), let me reply to this one.

    Whenever I have responded to their anti-feminism rants, they start out by demanding I admit there is FEMALE PRIVILEGE… and I won’t do it. Then I ask, you know, the logical question: what “privilege” do you speak of?

    And it usually goes like so: 1) women do not have to register for military conscription, 2) women are sissies and get men to lift the heavy stuff and… yes! You guessed it! 3) women have the power to decide which men get laid and which do not.

    As long as they remain obsessed about getting picked last for basketball/bedroom frolics, it is correct to point this out and name the thread after their obsession.

  35. Oh jeez. I’m not measuring the value of a person’s views by how often s/he gets laid. I am making the point that MRAs view women entirely as pleasure-bots, solely existing to cater to men physically and emotionally. But because women are actually human beings — crazy! — they don’t tend to fall for that crap. Hence, dude goes to Russia and marries what he thinks will be a docile playtoy, and she dumps his ass as soon as she can get out; dude also goes out to bars on ladies night for the express purpose of getting laid, and “girls” can tell from 100 miles away that he’s a creep. Dude then decides to oppose the Violence Against Women Act because it helped his wife escape him (after a “tussle,” as the Columbia Spectator calls it), and opposes Ladies Night because if he had that extra $5, he could buy more drinks for chicks in an effort to get them drunk enough to go home with him (where then they could wake up in the morning and “blame” him, those bitches).

    The point wasn’t to shame him for not getting laid; it was to use his lack of lay-age to illustrate the broader point that for all the time he spends trying to get laid, his hatred of women is so intense that he’s unsuccessful.

    And yes, it was also to make fun of him. Which, in context, I think is fair because of the above, and because of what Daisy, flamethord, preying mantis and William said.

  36. Maybe the title had a little something to do with the fact that the MRA in question spent a not inconsiderable amount of time cruising, talking about what kinds of women he would like to have sex with, and bitching about how he couldn’t get laid?

    Oh, OK. To the title was referring to this one person as opposed to the lot. I guess the pluralization was a typo then.

    Thanks for setting me straight. I knew someone would.

  37. Do you really believe this? If men who hate women can’t get laid, then wouldn’t feminism’s revolution be all but done? Last I checked, that Chris Brown guy’s still dating Rihanna.

  38. I am making the point that MRAs view women entirely as pleasure-bots, solely existing to cater to men physically and emotionally.

    Really? That’s how all MRA’s are, like, by definition? I’m not trying to be funny here, I’m seriously asking. If this is part of their ideology or bylaws or some shit, then I’ll stand corrected and bend over for my spanking.

  39. Hmmm, can’t figure out how to use the xhtml.

    “If you’re not getting laid because your potential partners can, if sane and sober, tell from ten paces that you hate them with the fiery intensity of a thousand suns, then yes, there is something wrong with you. Unfortunately for MRAs, this is generally the source of their oft-bemoaned coital woes.”

    Do you really believe this? If men who hate women can’t get laid, then wouldn’t feminism’s revolution be all but done? Last I checked, that Chris Brown guy’s still dating Rihanna.

  40. On second though, Manju has a good point there. I’ve known plenty of woman-haters who were always getting laid.

    I hope this doesn’t mean I have to forfeit the spanking.

  41. No one said that men who hate women can’t get laid. Preying Mantis said that MRAs give off a very particular hate-vibe that makes it more difficult for them, as illustrated by the linked NYer article. Doesn’t mean they’ve never gotten laid or that they never will.

    But since Lottie and Manju are not exactly known for arguing in good faith, that’s all I’m going to say in response to either of their de-rails.

    Daomadan, hopefully I answered your question; if you still don’t agree, that’s cool.

  42. That Rudov guy also furthers the MRA myth that marriage sucks for men more. Let’s lay out why they think this:

    1. Women take the kids and ALL THEIR MONEY when they get divorced! First of all, studies have shown that women are generally worse-off, financially, than their ex-husbands. This isn’t the case all the time; my boyfriend’s dad is a prime example. Secondly, all the MRAs have this fantasyworld of him sitting in a slummy apartment, paying alimony and child support to that bitch of a prostitute so that she can live in a mansion with marble floors and buy fur coats. I don’t know about you, but all the divorced women I know actually use their child support money for their children.

    Oh, and third, most MRAs would much prefer the ex-wife taking care of the children while floundering in debt and poverty, because nothing says “I hate you, you slut” like making your children live on rice and beans. I know of very few MRAs who actually want to have complete custody of their kids, which means also paying for everything for their kids. And to those? I don’t doubt that divorce courts, when it comes to child custody, favor women more often than they favor men (although I’ve heard that joint custody is more common than either); maybe this is because women have always been thrust into the child-caretaking role? Hmm. Perhaps feminism has something to offer…

    2. It screws up their ability to legally fuck more hot chicks, because now they’re attached to one woman who might not be so happy about this. They’d vastly prefer to be able to sleep with tons of young women who don’t know any better.

    3. Women, apparently, use sex as a weapon in marriage. This is another way of saying that women are unhappy in marriage and don’t like having sex when they are unhappy, particularly with someone who has a large role in how unhappy they are.

    4. The dude has to pay for the engagement ring.

    5. (Unrelated, but almost always comes up with the marriage issue): Women have reproductive choices and men don’t! This, of course, ignores the fact that “female reproductive choice” is really just bodily sovereignty in action, and men absolutely have the choice to a) talk this over with their partners beforehand, and b) use a condom. Of course, I’d love more effective methods of male birth control, like a male pill, but I wonder why nobody’s worked on those yet… possibly because it’s always been a woman’s job to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant? a-yep.

    Of course, this is just another SCARY WOMAN-DESIGNED MISANDRIST PLOT to stop them from “fuckin’ some bitches”. In their ideal world, men could sign something as soon as they know a woman is pregnant, up to and including her having the baby, that would give them no financial obligations. In effect, this is financial coercion to have an abortion. Or they just claim that women who can’t afford children shouldn’t be having sex. Seriously, Rudov also fantasizes about a law that either compels women to get an abortion, or to raise their child on their own, with no financial assistance, and a “certificate of selfishness” to give to their child.

  43. But since Lottie and Manju are not exactly known for arguing in good faith, that’s all I’m going to say in response to either of their de-rails.

    Excuse the fuck out of me, Jill. Just because you don’t happen to like what I have to say or the manner in which I say it, does not mean that my arguments are not in “good faith”. Your remark to that effect is completely unfounded, dishonest and a thinly veiled attempt to poison the well.

    My comments are not “derails” either. That is just your way of attempting to devalue my perspective because, again, you don’t like it.

    My question to you was genuine. If all MRAs, by definition, “view women entirely as pleasure-bots, solely existing to cater to men physically and emotionally,” then I stand corrected. If not, then this was nothing more than an unfounded generalization that is not better than calling all feminists man-haters and whatnot.

    That is my legitimate, good faith concern

  44. “But since Lottie and Manju are not exactly known for arguing in good faith”

    Now, I’m lost. I’ve been commenting here a long time and I’m exactly who I say I am: An unprincipled libertarian, meaning I’m not dogmatically wedded to the system (i’m hanging out here after all) and essentially feminist, except I hate socialism and love capitalism…which means I generally support your ends but not your means.

    I think sometimes within the confines of the “safe space” slight deviations appear outrageous. In the land of the midgits, even a normal sized person looks like a giant troll.

  45. Oops… I accidentally hit submit before I was finished. Here’s the rest:

    That is my legitimate, good faith concern whether you recognize it as such, or not. Your feminist concerns are no more valuable or important than mine, Jill, and attempting to devalue me or my thoughts and ideas seems incredibly counterproductive to your cause.

  46. I think sometimes within the confines of the “safe space” slight deviations appear outrageous. In the land of the midgits, even a normal sized person looks like a giant troll.

    This is a nice, succinct way of putting it, Manju. I’ve tried making this point many times, and it never seems to get through. Perhaps you’ve explained it in a way that will this time.

  47. I’ll admit that I sort of blinked at the “not getting laid” bit very briefly and then ignored it because the guy is such a creepy douchenozzle and yes, he does do the whole “my life is terrible because hawt chix won’t fuck me.”

    So, no, I don’t have a problem with making fun of him or even most MRA activists (based on the ones I’ve seen) as such; I’ve no sympathy overall.

    but yeah, it’s a point, I’ll say now: does it help to reinforce the reactionary standards the guy obviously takes as gold, even as a joke?

    (also see: making fun of Ann Coulter for her appearance, putting aside the recent transphobic shit; I mean the bit where it’s just that she’s not “hot” anymore or a bad dresser or has an unattractive face or is too thin and so on and so forth)

    I mean, it’s true that he could be having sex every day and he’d still be a creepy douchenozzle. It’d be even creepier, in fact, in this instance, because of the -way- he talks about going about trying to “get” sex, and who from (teenage girls, “cut from the herd,”);

    It’s not pent-up sexual frustration that’s making him such a fucknotch. He might indeed be sexually frustrated because he’s such a fucknotch; but it’s really secondary to the fact that he’s a total fucknotch.

  48. uh, yeah, so, my post where I’m basically sort of agreeing with your point is still in automod, but: Lottie whom I don’t even know who the hell you are and Manju: if you’re talking about ways in which to get people to take you seriously, calling everyone in the room “midgits” (sic) because you’re annoyed with Jill probably isn’t a terrific way to Make Friends And Influence People either. Just a friendly FYI there.

  49. that would be the point about whether it’s a good idea to use “he can’t get laid” (which I’ve employed before too, yes) as a weapon even against someone like this, that is, not the bit about how unfair this might or might not be to MRA’s. stupid automod.

  50. “It seems to imply that there is something wrong with people who aren’t “getting laid”.”

    No, it implies that there is something wrong with people who aren’t getting laid and loudly, incessantly blame everyone and everything else in the world, especially women in general, for that state of affairs.

    When I read that New Yorker “Talk of the Town” piece on den Hollander for the first time, I remember envying that writer. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.

  51. Um, no one is calling people “midgits”. We’re talking about keeping things in perspective and not shouting “troll” or “derail” every fucking time someone happens to share a different point of view. It’s a common theme on most feminist blogs I’ve ever visited, and it causes a lot more division than seems to be necessary.

    I think for myself, and I don’t see how I’m any better off being lead around by feminists than by men. That’s a point that seems to consistently fly over certain people’s heads.

    And, yeah, I expected my comments to go into moderation at any minute. They typically do when I call Jill out.

  52. Thank you Jill. You did answer my question.

    I hope the “oh jeez” wasn’t aimed at me because I wanted clarification on something…hence my question. I never said I disagreed or agreed and before responding further just wanted to know what was up.

    RDH is still vile as are other forms of the MRA species.

  53. “if you’re talking about ways in which to get people to take you seriously, calling everyone in the room “midgits” (sic) because you’re annoyed with Jill probably isn’t a terrific way to Make Friends And Influence People either. Just a friendly FYI there.”

    Yes, I took a gentle swipe, Belle. Forgive me, its been a while since i got…

  54. calling everyone in the room “midgits” (sic) because you’re annoyed with Jill probably isn’t a terrific way to Make Friends And Influence People either. Just a friendly FYI there.

    Likewise to shouting “troll” and “derail” when you’re annoyed with people. Another friendly FYI.

  55. All this “women have all the advantages” stuff is right out of Bigotry 101. Get any bigot talking long enough and eventually, he’ll get around to telling you how whichever group he hates has got it made. Blacks can get any job they want due to affirmative action, gays (or Jews) dominate the entertainment industry, women are whores who eat bonbons while their ex-husbands slave to support them, etc., etc.

  56. Daomadan, the “oh jeez” wasn’t targeted at you. You and Belle both make really good points, and I agree that the “he can’t get laid” is of course a petty swipe and not much of an argument. I’ll stand by it nonetheless, because I think in context it’s fitting, but I do appreciate and hear what you’re saying. And you are of course welcome to disagree 🙂

  57. I agree, in context it’s completely fitting. Maybe I’m just sensitive because currently I’m not “getting laid” myself and could really use a fun evening romp!

  58. “Really? That’s how all MRA’s are, like, by definition?”

    I can’t say that MRAs are all like that by definition. I can quite honestly say that in my experience, every single one of them I’ve ever encountered has absolutely had that particular mentality.

    “No, it implies that there is something wrong with people who aren’t getting laid and loudly, incessantly blame everyone and everything else in the world, especially women in general, for that state of affairs.”

    What Bitter Scribe said.

  59. Oh, OK. To the title was referring to this one person as opposed to the lot. I guess the pluralization was a typo then.

    Thanks for setting me straight. I knew someone would.

    I wasn’t trying to set you straight, and I’m a bit confused as to why you seem to be coming out swinging. The guy in question is pretty typical of the vocal MRA experience, he invoked a lot of the same tropes, and he’s a player in the movement. He strikes me as a representative sample of the greater population of MRAs. One of the central points that a lot of MRAs try to make, and that MRAs in his specific subset are particularly fond of, is that they’re Good Guys™ who are being kept down by a system that favors women through giving them an unfair share of sexual control. The linked story seemed to show particularly well the mentality behind that typical argument, and not getting laid is a big part of it. Not all ducks are green, but most ducks have two wings, a beak, and an affinity for water.

  60. I agree, in context it’s completely fitting. Maybe I’m just sensitive because currently I’m not “getting laid” myself and could really use a fun evening romp!

    Ah, I hear ya on that…

  61. slippage. well, no, no you probably aren’t any better off, at that. So, why are you here at a major feminist blog, then?

    I mean, yeah, that is often why people do get labeled trolls, when they keep coming back to a place they insist is inimical to them.

    and, everyone’s comments go into moderation all the frigging time, mine included; it’s automod and completely capricious.

  62. Jill:
    Thank you for admitting “he can’t get laid” is a petty swipe. It’s not really a big deal (at least to me) because everyone takes petty swipes from time to time, and when we get called out on them, we all need to be more willing to admit that’s exactly what it was.
    That being said, I get your point that MRAs’ misogyny is responsible for their ever shrinking pool of women willing to sleep with them. I actually doubt that they have a problem with this as they obviously prefer young, naive women. If this is a point you want to make, perhaps it could be another post instead of a swipe that unintentionally promotes the women should be pure/men should be studs trope.

  63. William,

    I wasn’t “swinging”, I was commenting on something that struck a chord with me.

    belledame:

    The other “midgits” in the room hadn’t called you “troll” and “derailer,” Lottie; it’s not that frigging complicated.

    I never called anyone a midget. It’s not that frigging complicated.

    “Derail” was the exact word Jill used to describe my comments after making the completely unfounded accusation that I am “not known for arguing in good faith” for which I believe I am due and apology, as I am well known, in a number of circles for always arguing in good faith.

    “Troll” was in reference to a general trend that I have observed here and on the vast majority of feminist blogs I have visited. Don’t lockstep, you’re a troll. That’s been my experience.

    That being said, I get your point that MRAs’ misogyny is responsible for their ever shrinking pool of women willing to sleep with them. I actually doubt that they have a problem with this as they obviously prefer young, naive women. If this is a point you want to make, perhaps it could be another post instead of a swipe that unintentionally promotes the women should be pure/men should be studs trope.

    I would be very interested in reading a post on the subject as well.

  64. well, no, no you probably aren’t any better off, at that. So, why are you here at a major feminist blog, then?

    So, I should only come here if I want to be lead around? I thought the idea was supposed to be something altogether different.

    Definitely slippage.

    I mean, yeah, that is often why people do get labeled trolls, when they keep coming back to a place they insist is inimical to them.

    I come here because feminism is important to me. If it’s trolling to go places that you insist are inimical to you, then feminists have been “trolls” since long before there was a word for it. So why the double standard?

  65. Heavens, seriously?

    I was totally behind the criticism of BitchPhd’s wierd transphobic nonsense. But this? Just makes us look like we have no sense of humor.

    No one is calling you a bad person because you haven’t gotten laid recently, Lottie. And really, we aren’t calling MRAs bad people because they aren’t getting laid either. We’re pointing out that a) the man in the article has issues with it and b) yeah, MRA philosophy isn’t going to make any woman with half a lick of sense sleep with them. Sex, after all, might create teh babies, and then we would of course then have to roast the MRA’s over a slow fire to extract the maximum child support, which we would then waste on handbags and shoes.

  66. Considering the fact that dumpster cheese like der Hollander insist that all feminists are ugly bitches who can’t get laid (while harassing my feminist self and friends when we go out for a drink), I have no fucking sympathy for their bruised feelings. FFS. This guy has vomited out the most nasty, hateful bile about women–I mean, this snivelling inbred dipshit even got the likes of OPIE AND ANTHONY to turn against him, which is no small feat all things considered–but we have to be cognizant of his fee-fee’s and the feelings of all MRA’s? the same men who aren’t talking about civil rights, but working to take rights away from women? The same men who post threats to feminist blogs? The same men who accuse rape survivors of lying? The same men who try to shut down DV shelters (rather than, say, talk to feminists about how they started the shelters and then start one for male victims of violence)? The same men who enable and embolden some nasty abusers, and excuse men who kill their wives and kids? Those guys?

    Really?

    Oh, FUCK OFF.

  67. Actually, yeah, it’s a bit weird to go to a particular place and insist that YOU WON’T BE LED AROUND BY THEM. There’s a reason I don’t frequent MRA blogs. But, sure, by all means, get on with your mavericky self, then. You rebel, you.

    and, no, you didn’t originate “midgits,” but manju did, and you explicitly C&P’d that post in apparent approval. It’s not a huge leap from that and your overall tone to assume that you in fact share the opinion that your role here is of the normal sized “regular person” in a room full of “midgits.”

  68. @Alyssa: yeah, I’m not always above “cheap” myself. @others: I think, again, how harmful it is to Den Hollander’s or similar types’ fee-fee’s isn’t the point; it’s the question of whether there isn’t a subtler (unintentional, implicit) message that these standards are, in fact, worth upholding.

    but I mean: yeah, the guy’s a creepy loser, and he seems thoroughly representative of –excuse me –“the vast majority of” MRAs I have encountered.

  69. personally not real concerned with anyone who thinks I have no sense of humor, but then that’s probably because I really don’t have one. At all. Had it surgically removed and converted into a tea cozy. I do like a nice cup of tea, I do

  70. Actually, yeah, it’s a bit weird to go to a particular place and insist that YOU WON’T BE LED AROUND BY THEM.

    Really? Because that’s precisely what feminists have been doing since the movement began, and continue to do, by definition.

    But thanks for clarifying your position in the matter. I always thought that feminism was supposed to be about empowering women as individuals, though, not about some women leading other women around and attempting to marginalize and belittle those who don’t toe the line.

    There’s a reason I don’t frequent MRA blogs

    I don’t frequent MRA blogs either. For some reason, though, I expected better treatment from people with whom I share common interests and goals. Thanks for reminding that I shouldn’t.

    But, sure, by all means, get on with your mavericky self, then. You rebel, you.

    Now where have I heard this kind of shit before? Oh right! From my abusive ex-husband when he was trying to humiliate and intimidate me into shutting the fuck up because he didn’t have anything else.

    As for the “midgit” comment, get the fuck over it, belledame. I didn’t take it to mean that Manju was calling anyone a “midgit”, so I was not agreeing to any such thing. I read it as a metaphor for simply keeping things in perspective. I told you what I meant by my reply to the comment. It was not my intent to hold myself up as “regular person” in a room full of “midgits” but to agree that the way things appear (someone is very tall or someone is a troll) is often subjective and a matter of personal perspective.

    If you want to read shit into it that isn’t there, be my fucking guest, but stop putting words in my mouth.

    Oh, and, way to argue in good faith, belledame. Thanks for showing me how it’s done.

  71. oh look, my last comment went into moderation. IT’S A PLOT I TELL YOU

    You’re hilarious, belledame. Unwittingly, I’m sure, but hilarious nonetheless.

  72. “Every guy will have ten or fifteen more dollars in his pocket, which the girls will then manipulate into getting more drinks out of him.”

    Is it just me or he is basically saying and approving of “If I buy that drink for you, you are entitled to have sex with me, with or without your consent”?

  73. “personally not real concerned with anyone who thinks I have no sense of humor but then that’s probably because I really don’t have one. At all. Had it surgically removed and converted into a tea cozy. I do like a nice cup of tea, I do”

    belledame–not sure if that was meant for me, but I I didn’t mean the OP/you didn’t have a sense of humor. I meant that the freaking out about the “still not getting laid much” indicated a lack of a sense of humor.

  74. “Troll” was in reference to a general trend that I have observed here and on the vast majority of feminist blogs I have visited. Don’t lockstep, you’re a troll. That’s been my experience.

    Really, I find that charge interesting. I can’t speak for the rest of the feminist blog community, but here at Feministe I don’t really see the accusation of troll thrown around too often. I comment here a lot. I don’t march in lock-step and I disagree often. I can be confrontational, condescending, aggressive, rude, and generally unpleasant especially when something as “struck a chord” with me. Still, I don’t think I’ve been accused of being a troll. Nor have moderators ever accused me of arguing in bad faith.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, you should take a step back and try to figure out why someone might say something like that about you. It doesn’t mean you have to agree, but if you take off the victim hat once in awhile and try to understand what exactly the other party’s problem is with you you might just learn something. Otherwise you just sound like Hollander on a different frequency.

    This is feeling to me like a derail, so I am making the decision to bow out of this part of the discussion. Interpret that how you will.

  75. it’s the question of whether there isn’t a subtler (unintentional, implicit) message that these standards are, in fact, worth upholding.

    Normally, I’d agree with you, Belledame. However, these guys make Not Getting Laid the big issue in all fucking caps. How many times have we seen comments derailed by a pack of MRA’s whining about how Nice Guys (TM) can’t get laid? These guys write and plug books about how to pick up women/manipulate women into having sex. Their sites are all about not getting laid, and the scapegoat du jour for that (American Women Suck! No, it’s White/Russian/Black women! It’s older women! It’s younger women! It’s X women! It’s just WOMEN! WAAAAHHH.) They complain that the scapegoat du jour doesn’t appreciate them, and that’s why they can’t get laid or have relationships. Christ, I remember when Jedmunds jacked one of those sites–he lurked as a bunch of poo-flinging MRA monkey-trolls harassed Amanda at Pandagon. One of the big discussions was, “Are you here because you want to fight the FEMINIST SYSTEM or because you can’t get laid?”

    These aren’t guys who are taking political action against injustices for an oppressed group (I mean, hello, most CEO’s are men, as are most Congressional reps and senators, as have been all of the US Presidents, as are most executives and judges). When women say things like “I think rape is wrong,” we get the “You’re an ugly manhater who can’t get laid!” because saying rape is bad truly means you hate men and must be bitter to these guys. But check out the vast majority of feminist sites and publications–there is nary a mention of how to pick up men or date or get married or what the fuck ever. We’ve got bigger fish to fry. Not so with the MRA’s, who simply would rather equate their romantic rejection with Nazi oppression.

    So you know, I don’t give a shit if someone points out that, in fact, their attempts to get laid are ending in EPIC FUCKING FAIL. If they weren’t such hateful, bitter, entitled nasty asshats (who maybe would realize that Angelina Jolie’s clone isn’t going to go down on them), they might have a chance at having sex, or a relationship, or whatever.

  76. Yeah, I’m not saying I’m going to the mat over it or anything; and I’m sure there’s plenty in the “MRA blog titles that aren’t, but should be” collected at my spot (vols 1 and 2) that are much nastier, cheaper, etc. So, believe me, no moral high ground here.

    http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2008/11/awesome-names-for-mra-fuckwit-blogs.html

    http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2008/12/awesome-names-for-mra-fuckwit-blogs.html

    …Just something to think about. I get that it’s additional aggro because on account of it looks like it’s simultaneously being used to defend poor unfairly generalized MRAs here.

  77. SK: It’s not just you.

    What’s extra special about this guy is the no-win vibe. How many other misogynistic assholes (among other people) have pointed out, correctly, that getting rid of “Ladies’ Nite” just means fewer hot young drunk babes for him to stalk? It’s not as though he can’t just avoid singles bars altogether if all he wants is a drink. No, he wants the “ladies” to keep coming to the bars, he just thinks they should pay for the privilege of being “culled from the herd” by the likes of him, as well as their own watery margaritas. Fair’s fair.

  78. “These guys write and plug books about how to pick up women/manipulate women into having sex”

    Wait. Are MRA dudes synonymous with seduction dudes? I thought they were two different breeds. Can’t imagine a seduction community guy being concerned with custody rights, feminism, title 9 for barcrawlers, etc.

    Seduction dudes are just guys who can’t get laid but want to. Now problamatically for you midgets (not you, Belle, your’re a giant), the reason they can’t get laid is usually because they don’t live up to masucline ideals scoially constructed by the patriachy: they’re geeks, unathletic, passive, etc.

    Which is why calling their attractiveness into question is problematic for feminism. Now I personally have no problem with this (my beef was with the reason why they’re so unattractive) but I’m not fully convinced by the social construction of beauty standards argument (though I’m open to it, ergo I’m here). Of course, it may very well be true that their lack of masculinity coupled with their misogyny makes them particularly creepy, but I would gather the latter is more peripheral…since central to the feminist social critique is how mysogynists reap the benefits of society.

    So, in short, while I’m not complaining myself since I’m not totally in the place the rest of you (sans Lottie) are, I am surprised you’re willing to throw feminism (and by extensions hetero feminist men, who almost undoubtedly have similar problems hooking up) under the bus.

    I do however enjoy some good ol fashioned southparkish slams. So kudos for that. You should toss in a small penis joke too.

  79. Thanks for posting this, it’s nice to have a laugh. I know his absurd opinions represent a lot of sexist reality, don’t get me wrong, but they’re also pretty hilarious. If only all misogyny were this easy to snort at.

  80. I agree.

    I am, however, troubled by the reference to Hollander “not getting laid much” in the post title. The only point is to attack Hollander’s masculinity. The norm that a man’s masculinity is defined by how much sex he has (preferably with as many partners as possible) is deeply problematic–it’s directly tied into the idea that women are supposed to be sexless and women who have sex are sluts. It also tends to stigmatize, for no reason, men who choose not to have sex, or not to have much sex, or to have few partners.

    I’m also bothered on a personal level, as a man who has been stigmatized for failing to conform to American norms of masculinity, including this one.

  81. Manju:

    The thing about sexual politics is that it really isn’t that difficult. Getting laid tends to be about two people with complimentary personality style running into each other and giving it a shot. Passive guys I know date aggressive partners, geeky guys date geeky people, unathletic guys date people who don’t value athleticism as much as other attributes. Now, those kinds of people exist in spades, and there are a lot of things which go into the mix of personal attraction.

    Guys like Hollander run into the problem of having a relatively small pool of potential mates: women who do are willing to be submissive (not just sexually, but interpersonally and emotionally as well), who do not mind being used as receptacles for his anger over previous experiences, and who are not made uncomfortable by high-intensity sexism. Thats a pretty small pool, and one likely to reinforce his views (rejections are more evidence for his theory, successful relationships more likely to end poorly because of a likely damaged population).

    I think there are some telling things about Hollander’s story that are important, and potentially justify the comment about not getting laid. Hollander complains at length about not getting laid, but he says some important things in the periphery. Some have already mentioned the comments about his fighting with his ex-wife, which seemed to suggest that he was defending (almost bragging about) having a physical conflict with her. Spousal assault tends to be about domination and power. Its probably worth noting that he married a woman from a highly patriarchal culture and then transplanted her to the US, implying a relationship that might have an unusual imbalance of power. You also have his stated preference for women: non-whites. It could be a preference, but we might also try to learn something about his perceptions. Here is a white man who has had a relationship end badly with a white woman (despite a possible vulnerability), now his preference has shifted to non-white women. I would wonder if perhaps this isn’t a movement to women he already sees as more malleable or passive. This speculation is given a bit more weight by the fact that Hollander talks about his quest for sex in a largely manipulative and dominant way. He wants to be able to get women more drunk (weaker, more malleable) so they go home with him, and he seems to take it as a given that they will be angry come morning. He describes picking up a woman as separating her from the herd. He seems to describe virtually everything as an attack, as a conflict, as a fight. He talks about sex as an almost aggressive activity. He fights battles in which he feels he has been made powerless by women. He describes his college years as him running from the government while women had it easy, but even there there exists a tinge of sexual frustration. All these girls running around being attractive and having sex, but him running from the draft.

    Hollander is bitter, and he focuses his bitterness on a myriad of imagined injuries. One of those, one that he places in the middle of his discussion, is that he isn’t being given sex. He talks about a lot of situations in which he isn’t as powerful as he thinks he should be, but there is something creepy about the implication that comes when he applies these perceptions to sex. Women pick up on that, and they decide not to have sex with him. The funny/tragic/scary thing about his case is encapsulated in his not getting laid. He creates his own problem, and reinforces it with his own behavior. Pointing out that he isn’t getting laid isn’t an attack on his masculinity or a commentary on social expectations, it is a humorous tip of the hat to Hollander being blind to his own role in his situation.

  82. Manju —

    Please stop using ‘midget’. It’s an outmoded term that causes harm, and it seems you’re using it as an insult here (“Now problamatically for you midgets (not you, Belle, your’re a giant),”).

    I understand your metaphor, but I am surprised that you felt it would be acceptable to make it with offensive terms about others’ bodies, here in a social justice community.

    I hope no one minds me derailing the derail, but I felt it needed to be said.

  83. Heh. One of the advantages of learning pick-up is that you develop a creep-dar that lets you know just how creepy you’re being, as well as breaking you of the habit of attempting to force rapport. Telling that he used such adversarial diction, which goes straight to a commodity-adversarial view of sex.

  84. “Please stop using ‘midget’. It’s an outmoded term that causes harm,”

    You know, that actually occurred to me so I looked it up to see if this was considered an offensive term, but found nothing. The wiki entry didn’t mention anything along those lines and said it was more or less synonymous with “dwarf,” which sounded vaguely more outdated to me than “midget.”

    Sorry. didn’t know. duly noted.

  85. I am, however, troubled by the reference to Hollander “not getting laid much” in the post title. The only point is to attack Hollander’s masculinity.

    No, it attacks his likability (if that’s an actual word). He’s not getting laid because of his attitude about women, yet it’s the woman’s bitch’s fault that she doesn’t like someone who acts that way.

Comments are currently closed.