¿Qué piensan de este abogado y sus argumentos a favor de una supuesta ¿disciplina? de Estudios de Hombres, por existir los programas de Estudios de las Mujeres? Parece una tontería, pero no podemos obviar todos los debates relativos a esos programas, desde el mismo feminismo. ¿Cabe hablar de Estudios de la Mujer? ¿No deberíamos hablar de Estudios de Género? Eso parece pensar la persona que enlazó la misma noticia en el blog de Feminist Law Professors. Yo sigo pensando que la palabra "mujeres" es revolucionaria e inclusiva.
April 27, 2009, 2:15 pm
Court Rejects Men’s Studies Lawsuit
By Corey Kilgannon
NYTIMES
Remember the lawyer who sued Columbia University for failing to offer classes in men’s studies? His contention was that Columbia was being biased against men, since the university offers women’s studies.
The lawyer, Roy Den Hollander, contended that he was trying to save the men of the world, one chauvinistic lawsuit at a time. But he’ll have to do better next time, because his suit against Columbia was thrown out on April 23 by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of United States District Court in Manhattan.
In his decision, now released, the judge noted that Mr. Den Hollander claimed Columbia was violating the first amendment because “his central claim is that feminism is a religion.”
“Feminism is no more a religion than physics,” the judge wrote, “and at least the core of the complaint therefore is frivolous.”
The judge also disagreed Mr. Den Hollander’s claim that the judge should have recused himself from the suit because he attended Columbia.
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.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario