What if we had White Hetero Male Studies?

Poor Attorney Roy Den Hollander. His rights have been infringed and his penis-privileged life has been blighted not only by Women’s Studies, but also by Ladies Night. The pitiable guy was supposedly duped by a female who married him to gain citizenship. Now, in seeming retribution, Hollander has declared a jihad against feminism.

Will any of you kind readers help him and donate to his fund for Men’s Rights? A resounding no? Well, thank the goddess. Yes, and this goddess worship of you crazy feminists out there reveals what Hollander claims in his lawsuit against Columbia University – that feminism is a religion that violates the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments. Reminds me of how a student of mine lovingly referred to my Advanced Feminist Theory class as “feminist church.” Yeah, if only.

If feminism was a religion we would be doing far better in this country that does not separate church and state. If feminism was branded as a religion we could get away with all sorts of things…

We could claim equal wage day a religious holiday! We could get all sorts of tax breaks!

We could refuse to do any number of things that offend our feminist sensibilities and then sue for religious protection under the law (like the male police officer who took civil action after he was fired for refusing an assignment at a casino because it went against his religious beliefs, we could refuse assignments such as doing the dishes or ironing – “sorry, no wrinkle free clothes, it’s against my religion.”)

In some states, such as California and Michigan, we could use publicly funded vouchers to send our kids to feminist schools.

We could come up with “charitable choice” or “compassionate conservatism” or “faith-based initiative” programs as a way to compete for funding with secular non-profit organizations.

Heck, we could jump on the jihad-is-so-damn-cool bandwagon and declare feminist jihad against the patriarchy.

And how about creating abstain-from-abstinence programs to preach in schools across the nation with both the blessing and the funding of the government?

Of course, if feminism were branded a religion, we would still have a pretty tough sell on our hands. But, with enough “Jesus was a feminist” bumper stickers and a number of cool re-tooled commandments, we just might be able to do it. Heck, we could even keep some of the old ones. “Thou shalt not kill” seems pretty in keeping with feminism. However, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” would have to be changed to “Thou can covet anyone or anything if the coveting is done under the conditions of mutual consent by all involved parties”…

Anyhow, with that digression aside, allow me to return to poor (Hem)RoyDenHollander, a royal pain in the feminist ass. He claims that University of Columbia’s Institute for Research on Women and Gender is discriminatory and unconstitutional because there is no equivalent “men’s studies” program. Huh? Has HemRoyD not heard of men and masculinities courses? (For more on this line of argument, see the post about RoyD here at Appetite for Equal Rights.)

Perhaps (gasp) he has never actually taken a Women’s Studies course. No, that couldn’t be. He couldn’t possibly declare jihad against an entire school of thought that he knows nothing about. That would make him kind of like GWBush. Oh wait, squinty eyes, gray hair, crazy and incoherent claims, anti-woman… Hmmm, guess they are a bit alike.

His laswsuit claims that within Women’s Studies “Females…are credited with inherent goodness who were oppressed and colonized by men.” Wow, what brand of feminism you reading there RoyD? Did you get a hold of some radical gynocritical 2nd wave stuff and take it as gospel representing the entire movement?

In case any of you hetero females out there feel like RoyD would make a real catch, he shares that “I am looking for … superficial temporary escapades with pretty young ladies.” RoyD continues that “It’s harder than it was when I was younger. I only go after girls who are in their athletic prime.” By girls, I assume he means the under 18 set. Surely he wouldn’t refer to grown women as “girls” as this would be enacting the very type of gender bashing he claims to deride – and I don’t see him ever referring to men as “boys.” Thus, apparently rules regarding adulthood and who is able to give informed consent are not amongst the laws concerning Mr. RoyD. Who cares how old she is as long as she is in her “athletic prime,” hey RoyD?

RoyD is quoted as claiming the following in a Times Online article:

“The long-range goal of my law suits is that I am, in my own small way, trying to give all those feminists equality – not the equality of all the best in life, but the equality of the worst in life.

“Make them register for the draft, make them go to war and die, make them work in the worst occupations,” he said.

“They do not want equality. They want preferential treatment. It’s just the same old pedestal. they say, ‘I am a female. I want to be the CEO of a company.’ I want to be on a pedestal.”

Pardon me while I pick away at these inane claims.

  1. We don’t have a draft and thus neither women or men have to register for it
  2. Uh, females do go to war and die – they have for quite some time now RoyD, and they are dying in larger numbers than every before in another jihad – the one ran by your long lost twin, GWBush
  3. Worst occupations? How about sweatshop slavery? Sexual slavery? Domestic servitude? In fact, the worst jobs with the lowest pay (and often no pay) plus the most inhumane conditions are undertaken in the vast majority by females
  4. Preferential treatment? Perhaps you should look up the meaning of preferential – I think you have it confused with equal opportunity
  5. CEOs and pedestals? Well, there are a number of female CEOs (although in the vast minority), but none of them that I have heard actually sit on pedestals

As for refuting his misogynidiot claims (i.e. idiotic claims based on misogyny), perhaps Kim Gandy, president of NOW, puts it best: “They have a men’s studies department: It’s called ‘history’, ‘politics’, ‘business’. It’s the entire university. It’s all about men’s studies. It’s like asking why there isn’t a White Studies department.”

But, wait, no white studies department? Why not? How unfair!!!! Excuse me, must end this post now so I can work up a lawsuit of my own – I think I am going to call for a White Moneyed Christian Heterosexual Male Studies program. What’s that you say? The interests of that group run pretty much the whole show? Dang, is white hetero rich dude the ‘his’ referred to in the word HIStory? I never realized.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “What if we had White Hetero Male Studies?”

  1. Your inability to address the facts reinforces the idea that you have a faith. You believe. You have endorsed the doctrines and cannot consider any thoughts that do not fit your faith.

  2. The facts you have not addressed include:
    1. In order for course offerings to be equal, all focus groups would have to be included, and that includes white males. There is a white male point of view that is as valid as the non-white feminist one.

    2. The study of history is not White Studies. In fact, great care has been taken to assure that it is not.

    3. Your personal attacks on the man bringing the suit are outside the facts. Suggesting he has not studied the courses he is objecting to is outside the facts. Comparing him to Bush is outside the facts. These are tactics of a believer who is defending the faith at all costs.

  3. Thanks for the reply and your attention to detail. In reply:

    1. Course offerings in women’s studies do include white males (as students and as part of the curriculum). White male points of view are certainly valid and contrary to your suggestion, there are white male feminists! I happen to live with two of them.

    2. The study of history has historically (pardon the redundant phrasing) been via a ‘white perspective’ that focuses on and champions whiteness. It is only recently that the hallowed halls of academia have begun to focus on diverse, all encompassing history — hence, courses such as “Women’s History” and “African American History” have been added — yet, the lack of need for “White Male History” courses is testament to the fact that normative history still focuses disproportionately on certain groups/genders/geographical locations.

    3. I admit to personalized attacks against RoyD — but in these I suggest that it seems he has never taken a women’s studies course due to his apparent lack of understanding of the discipline and his stereotypical claims. Comparing him to Bush is meant as a joke.

    But, you are right, I do believe in feminism. I don’t, however see it as ‘faith’ or as a ‘religion.’ Rather, it is a way of looking at, analyzing, and responding to the world. I prefer feminist ideology to other theories and philosophies as it is the only one that I have found to call for an end to oppression and privilege, or, in other words, to envision and try to bring about a just society.

    Thanks for reading even though you don’t agree with my feminist stance!

  4. I actually tend to agree with your “feminist stance.” I have simply developed a “masculinist” stance as a counterbalance.

  5. My (white, male) Women Composers through History prof even answered the question “Why don’t we have a History of Male Composers?” in the syllabus with the answer “We do. It’s called Music History 101”. As someone who’s recently out of school… yeah, Women Studies Departments are necessary.
    Just sayin’.

  6. The only thing I’d like to point out as a correction is that men actually still do need to register for the “draft” by registering with the Selective Service at the age of 18, women on the other hand do not.

  7. OMG! I’m laughing and crying at the same time! I’m laughing at this guy’s criminal stupidity and I’m crying because of this guy’s…yup, criminal stupidity.

    I made a civility oath to myself when I started blogging. It lasted (loosely defined) a few days, anyway.

  8. Jay,
    Thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of no longer having a formal draft, but your point about men having to register at 18 for Selective Service is key. I disagree that anyone (male or female) should have to do this… But, that is an entire discussion in and of itself to be had perhaps in another post.
    Thanks for reading and commenting!

    Rachel,
    A civility oath? Sounds painful. I didn’t take one of those… I like the “what comes around goes around” stance — RoyD isn’t being very civil, so in return I have not been civil regarding his asanine lawsuit…

  9. True. And I wasn’t any too civil in my comment either. Oaths were made to be broken, I’ve heard. Oh, wait, that was rules.

  10. I agree with the article, but in the interests of being a nitpicking asshole I must point out that it’s “thou” (not “though”) and “shalt” (not shall).

    Otherwise, great post 🙂

  11. Nihilunder,
    Thanks for your nitpicking! I hate it when I make editing errors and appreciate having them pointed out so I can fix them.

    I wonder if my errors have anything to do with the fact I don’t read the bible… Ha! I really should have caught the “though” mistakes even if the “shalt” ones are probably due to the fact I haven’t looked at the actual commandments since I was forced to as a Catholic grammar school student…

    Thanks for reading and for being a nitpick!

  12. No problem 🙂 I’m a bit of a mythology enthusiast, so I have some familiarity with the bible in that context.

  13. 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

  14. Great post.

    Oftentimes I find that those who criticize Women’s Studies don’t show that they understand the field well enough to be able to render accurate or legitimate critiques. Usually, they find the most extreme feminist views, pass them off as views of all feminists, and create “masculinist” trains of thought to counter extreme feminist thought.

    Actually, I’ve found that “masculinism” does not actually counter or engage Women’s Studies in any real way. It basically ignores women’s concerns, brings men back to the center, and says “yeah, well, men have it tough too because of the draft and circumcision and workplace fatalities, etc.”

  15. The first thing that jumped to my mind of a White Male Studies class was…drum roll…Any type of Western Civilizations Class, or World History for that matter. My World History book had hundred page sections just focusing on European History, while African, Asian, South American, and Middle Eastern societies had fifty pages at max. Even with the longer chapters, the roles of some of the greatest empires, such as the Han Chinese, Songhay, and Mongol, were somewhat diminished, with most of the focus on the roles of males in society, with a few pages on the roles of women. He needs to get his head out of his behind and open his eyes. Without the contributions of women to society, the world would not be what it is today.

    And this is coming from a black, fyi

  16. Well, “do well” is not exactly stellar syntax, but you do keep a consistent insulting tone in your comments around the blogosphere (at least the ones I have seen),and this is one aspect of good writing. However, tone consistency itself can become problematic when the tone is so negative and attacking.

    We do already have white male hetorosexual literary studies — it is called the literary canon. Perhaps you have heard of the notion of “exploding the canon” that came to light in the 70’s? This ‘explosion’ was necessary as the traditional canon being taught in uni’s and schools was white hetero and male — hence the term “DWM literature” – or dead white male literature. There are many great and important DWM’s and also LWM’s (living white males), but they are not the only people who write great works of literature.

    What “angry specialties” have you studied exactly?

  17. Prof, I’m sure you noticed he refuses to respond to a direct question? That’s in Chapter 1 of the Troll handbook.

    I could run down the psychological characteristics of such trolls, but I’m not inclined to provide a $160.00 an hour service for free. (I’m sure you could do so as well.)

  18. Rachel,
    Yes, that is why I stopped engaging…
    Chapter 1 of the Troll Handbook? Ha! I shudder to think how many chapters there are…
    I do wish we had a different moniker for ‘trolls’ — I quite like the troll figures with bright, standing up straight hair, as well as various troll type creatures in literature…

  19. Maybe we need a thread with troll photos?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm….I’m off to buy trolls! I have a new shoot planned. I must saddle up Rocinante. I see a windmill!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s