From Bitch Magazine: Douchebag lawyer and his douchebag lawsuit: "Feminism violates men's rights!"

written by a douchbag

Her post is just one loooonnnngggg ad hominem attack . . . nothing new there

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.

Sarcasm is not argument it is evasion

I suspect if we looked over a list of N.O.W.'s legal history we'd find some interesting suits

The difference being is this; when NOW and their ilk sued places like GPA - they 'forgot' to mention the FPGA existed, giving the public the impression that it was a 100% a one-way discrimination.
Yet, here we are seeing obvious one-way discrimination in the form of free drinks for women only, and it is mocked.

Not to spoil the orgasm-fest among our side, but the libertarian in me feels compelled to point out that the State and its excesses are the enemy. When a lawyer uses the enemy in order to advance what he thinks is our agenda, he validates the enemy. It would be better if the goal were simply to get the State to leave us alone.

Any private business should be allowed to discriminate against men if it wishes. The whole idea that such a business should be sued (under the law) is exactly the oppression that we are fighting against. Such tactics validate and legitimize the frivolous lawsuits that the femmies are so fond of bringing.

Now as far as his lawsuit against the university, that's different; his premise is that the university accepts federal dollars and thus must serve both sexes. But by that premise, a remedy would be to institute a program in which women are just as demonized as men now are demonized under the Feminist Studies program now in existence at Columbia. Never is it questioned that public money shouldn't be subsidizing the university at all (although that is a political question outside the scope of the courts). We are left between demanding a greater slice of the socialist pie, or being demonized by a discriminatory program that exists because of socialism.

Just wonderful. We're now clamoring for the creation of an enemy of our enemy.

John Dias

Agreed, but we must also remember a few years ago when it was impossible to simple speak up.

The ultimate goal must, of course, be to limit government. In fact, I believe, we must limit influence on government to men only. Men are the ones who makes a society and thus the ones who should have a say in how it's run.