Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? attention seeking doubling down entitled babies gender policing imaginary oppression irony alert male studies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed white men playing the victim

Feminist-hating lawyer Roy Den Hollander sues "modern-day, book-burning, Bacchae reporters from down-under" on broomsticks for allegedly losing him a teaching gig

Roy Den Hollander: Are we lawyer or are we dancer?
Roy Den Hollander: Are we lawyer or are we dancer?

The other day I suggested that perhaps it was unfair to the Men’s Rights movement to allow them to handle their own public relations, given how terrible they are at it. Today I wonder if the same principle might also apply to MRAs trying to handle their own lawyering.

A case in point: the lawsuit that antifeminist lawyer, “Ladies Night” hater and hip-hop dance enthusiat Roy Den Hollander has just brought against Australian journalist Tory Shepherd, who wrote about the involvement of Den Hollander and others with links to “men’s rights extremists” in a proposed set of “male studies” courses at the University of South Australia.

It’s still not clear to me if these courses had ever been formally approved – the university says they weren’t – but Den Hollander thinks that Shepherd and another Australian reporter got them cancelled by writing about them. And so he figures that they should compensate him for losing him his teaching gig.

You may vaguely remember all of this. A Voice for Men, heavily involved in the courses, famously denounced Shepherd as a “whore” shortly after AVFM’s Paul Elam indignantly called her a liar for suggesting that A Voice for Men regularly calls women whores. (Which of course it does; Elam himself used the word “whore” 28 times in a single post about Skepchick’s Rebecca Watson.)

Anyhoo, so Den Hollander, acting as his own lawyer, has served Shepherd with the lawsuit. And it’s a doozy of a document, at least going by the excerpts Shepherd posted in a column Wednesday.

Somehow we doubt that this lawsuit is going to enhance Den Hollander’s reputation as a fair-minded analyst of gender relations.

Here are some of the best bits, as presented by Shepherd in her column as “some lessons from Mr Den Hollander, who will not be paid to give lessons at UniSA.”

Lesson 1: How to censor a journalist by accusing them of censorship.

“Two modern-day, book-burning, Bacchae reporters from down-under authored and published false and misleading information concerning Plaintiff (Den Hollander) with the intent and result of harming his economic interests and interfering with a prospective economic advantage by causing the University of SA to incinerate the section of a proposed male studies course that Plaintiff would have taught,” he writes. But wait.

Lesson 2: How to personally attack a journalist by accusing them of personal attacks.

“The two reporters, Tory Shepherd, AKA “Tory the Torch” for The Advertiser and Amy McNeilage, AKA “Amy McNeuter” for The Sydney Morning Herald, used their power as reporters to do what weak-minded ideologues have done throughout history — employ personal attacks to prevent the spread of knowledge and ideas that they disagreed with.”

Lesson 3: How to prove you are not an extremist by sounding like an extremist.

“If these two feminist book-burners had not jumped on their broomsticks and scared the bejesus out of the administrators of the University of SA, students there would have had an opportunity to acquire information and consider views not available anywhere else in higher education.”

Yeah, I’m sure that sort of thing is going to go over great in court.

Elsewhere in his lawsuit, Den Hollander denounces “yellow, female-dog-in-heat reporting,” takes a swipe at “girlie-guys,” and offers this intriguing take on Australian military history:

Thank goodness for Australians that Tory was not around for Australia’s battle against the Japanese. Her anti-gun advocacy for men might have even resulted in her and Amy ending up as Japanese “comfort girls.”

The case does at least promise to be highly entertaining, so I guess we have to give Den Hollander credit for that.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Can they seriously not get through a single “article” without fantasizing about the women they don’t like being raped? That comfort women comment, oy.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

I don’t know much about Australian law but this is definitely the kind of frivolous lawsuit that would get thrown out in American courts.

This kind of thing is why the MRM is so terrible at satire. They’re totally serious about things that seem so absurd they can’t be real. It explains why one of the misters (Esmay I think?) thought that the “feminist sues the patriarchy for not giving her a job” lawsuit was real. MRAs literally think they’re entitled to jobs and it’s a crime if they don’t get one.

Zolnier
Zolnier
6 years ago

I think MRA’s are bad at satire because good comedy usually punches upwards. A bunch of straight, white, usually middle class or higher men mocking women everywhere is pretty much the definition of punching down.

And oh dear they’re here as well, at least it’s not NT, we’ve got enough social strife as it is without organised MRA bullshit.

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
6 years ago

Wait. Are these quotes from the lawsuit itself?

Alice Sanguinaria
6 years ago

Thank goodness for Australians that Tory was not around for Australia’s battle against the Japanese. Her anti-gun advocacy for men might have even resulted in her and Amy ending up as Japanese “comfort girls.”

Ahahahahaha, comfort women. Isn’t it funny to wish rape on people?!?! /s

As an Asian woman, fuck you. Fuck you for trivializing a despicable series of events just so that way you can have a sick fantasy against two journalists. Fuck you.

duckbunny
6 years ago

I’m reminded of that Sovereign Citizen case where the judge wrote dozens of pages on the whole movement as well as the case in question. And tempted to reread it. Does anyone have the link handy?

contrapangloss
6 years ago

He has to prove:

1) The university would have held the courses without the journalists’ pieces.
2) The university would have hired him, and would not have canceled any job offer for as any reason but the articles.

Meanwhile:

The university is looking at his lawsuit, and thinking ‘Thank ceiling-cat we didn’t hire this incompetent fool!’

He’s literally making the ‘why you should not hire me’ case.

Shaun Day
Shaun Day
6 years ago

TRIGGER WARNING

Also extreme sarcasm.

MRA Logic: Feminazgul all have «*« rape fantasies, therefore rape fantasies are good! Not letting us have our *actual rape* fantasies is MISANDRY!

«*« misnomer. The vast majority of the so called “rape fantasies” women tend to have have absolutely nothing to do with rape.

cloudiah
6 years ago

Ah, Roy den Hollander, approved AVfM submitter.

Shaun Day
Shaun Day
6 years ago

Also didn’t the university reject these courses a year before Tori wrote her article? I’d sy she has a defamation lawsuit against the lawyer who doesn’t understand either the law or a calendar.

Children of the broccoli
Children of the broccoli
6 years ago

I don’t know how Australian law differs from American law, but in the US you can’t be guilty of libel if what you wrote is true. So not only would he have to prove that the articles were the reason the courses got canceled, but he’d have to prove that the reporters knowingly included false information in the articles.

KB
KB
6 years ago

Oh I wish this suit had been brought in the US.

Somehow I doubt I’m the only person who would love to see this go into discovery.

Feminista_Throwaway
6 years ago

Oh my goodness. Like Warren Farrell, he didn’t even bother to find out about Australia.

The Japanese never intended to invade us. No one would be comfort women, guns or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

pallygirl
pallygirl
6 years ago

Roy Den Hollander is a lawyer? Did he pass his bar exams? And the way he writes:

causing the University of SA to incinerate the section of a proposed male studies course that Plaintiff would have taught

So they ripped out the section and held a public book-section-burning? WTF?

LOL at this:

students there would have had an opportunity to acquire information and consider views not available anywhere else in higher education

Yeah, because they’re not “information” or “views” supported by research, i.e. the thing that universities do besides teaching.

Their criticism of Professor Heather Dillaway, in sociology, as being basically unqualified for a university position due to her research interests is another example of their (MRAs’) hypocritical attitude. In their view, it’s fine for a university post to “teach” “men’s issues” but not fine for an equivalent post with respect to female issues (and I’m going to assume they’re not that okay for a post teaching LGBT issues).

But then standards, science, and being consistent aren’t their strong points.

I’m not commenting on the other bits in the post as others have said what I would have said, only better.

GrumpyOldMan
GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

It almost seems unsporting to argue with such a witless, clueless person.
Does he really think his arguments will ever get him anywhere with anyone who does not already believe in the total depravity of feminists?

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Looks like someone wanted to challenge Tom Martin!

Salty
Salty
6 years ago

Oh yes, go ahead and make light of comfort women.

Well done. You sure showed them there, by comparing them to women taken from their homes and made sex slaves in times of war. Great way to advance “men’s rights”.

Next I suppose he’s going to compare feminists to the inhabitants of Nanking.

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

Does David provide a link to Shepard’s column? I can’t find it in this post.

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
6 years ago

I always think Colbert should do a “Difference Makers” piece on these MRM and MRM-adjacent types, like Esmay, Judgy Bitch or Elam. I see (as David provided a link above) that he’s already done one on this guy. *snicker*

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

Random — Alice, you aren’t a Yaley are you? It’d be WEIRD if you’re who I had dinner with last weekend!

strivingally
6 years ago

@brooked:
Men’s rights campaigner Roy Den Hollander attacks The Advertiser’s Tory Shepherd in bizarre legal writ filed in New York County

It just beggars belief that somebody could think that kind of passive-aggressive persecution complex crap was appropriate material for a legal document. I hope the legal system gives this case the regard it deserves, none. (which will no doubt be evidence of MISANDRY!!~!~~one!!, sigh)

strivingally
6 years ago

Oh and IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) but from conversations I’ve had with people who are, Aussie defamation law has changed in the past 10 years – it used to be that truth was NOT an absolute defence against defamation in Australia the way it is in the USA (as you can still unfairly shred someone’s reputation by taking true facts and publicising them out of context or without mentioning mitigating circumstances). Now a claim of defamation can be defended against if the claims are “substantially true”.

Of course there’s a loophole:
“To use the defence of honest opinion you do not need to prove the truth of your comment. In some cases this is not possible, especially if it is an opinion rather than a fact. You only need to convince the judge or jury that your comments were your honestly-held opinion and that it was:

– clearly a matter of opinion and not a statement of fact and
– it related to a matter of public interest and
– it was based on ‘proper material’ (i.e. substantially true or based on privileged material)

The defence can be defeated if the plaintiff can prove that the opinion was not honestly held.”

So if someone says “Joe Hockey is the worst economic manager this country has ever had!” that can be construed as an opinion, but it *sounds* like a fact. Which is pretty much the entire Daily Telegraph/Sun Herald/Fox News business model.

jrobie
jrobie
6 years ago

I’m an American lawyer, not very familiar with Australian practice, but I can’t imagine that sort of language is going to go over very well with the court.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

This guy is a lawyer right? Wonder how the bar association looks upon its members when they do shit like this.

GrumpyOldMan
GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

This lawsuit was written for the media, not the courts. This is almost Orly Taitz level stuff.

Shaenon
6 years ago

Does he really think his arguments will ever get him anywhere with anyone who does not already believe in the total depravity of feminists?

No, but he doesn’t need to. He’s survived for years by filing goofy nuisance suits–mostly suing the bars where he unsuccessfully hits on younger women for hosting Ladies’ Nights, but also sometimes suing colleges for having women’s studies departments–and publicizing the hell out of himself as the MRA lawyer. This guy’s been around for ages. He’s one of those cockroach people who could survive a direct nuclear strike and go right on creeping.

On the plus side, he’s an endless font of hilarity: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-nightclub-entry-human-article-1.1415304

brooked
brooked
6 years ago

@strivingally

Thanks! I made that comment because I do think David should put the link in the post if it’s not there. So it’s not because I’m too lazy to google the article. 🙂

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

Should we draw a Venn diagram for JB showing circles for “men” and “LGBT people” so that she understands why it doesn’t make any sense to say “yeah, she’s anti-gay, but it’s okay because she cares about men”?

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

Is that ever in the wrong thread! I don’t even know how I did that! Oh dear.

zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
6 years ago

@duckbunny

I’m reminded of that Sovereign Citizen case where the judge wrote dozens of pages on the whole movement as well as the case in question. And tempted to reread it. Does anyone have the link handy?

I think you mean Meads v. Meads? Sovereign Citizens are endlessly amusing.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

R. v. Duncan, which cites Meads, is much more fun to read. The same sort of sarcastic dismissal is what I hope for in the den Hollander case.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html

Alice Sanguinaria
6 years ago

Argenti –

Random — Alice, you aren’t a Yaley are you? It’d be WEIRD if you’re who I had dinner with last weekend!

Nope! I don’t even live on the same side of the country as you do if I remember correctly. 😛

wewereemergencies
wewereemergencies
6 years ago

Can I be a “modern-day, book-burning, Bacchae [person] from down-under on [a] broomstick”? Actually, without the book burning. That sounds really fun, and it apparently fulfills my misandry quota, which has been sorely lacking for the past week.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

I’d sign up too but I’m from the wrong continent.

kittehserf
6 years ago

And oh dear they’re here as well, at least it’s not NT, we’ve got enough social strife as it is without organised MRA bullshit.

Zolnier, yeah, those fuckwits are here, all right. You heard of Peter Andrew Nolan, the pillock who thinks sticking a copyright symbol in his name means people have to pay him to type it? He’s as toxic as a cane toad, that one. We’ve a few MRA loser groups floating around the country, alas, though I think they achieve even less than Pauly and co.

So if someone says “Joe Hockey is the worst economic manager this country has ever had!” that can be construed as an opinion, but it *sounds* like a fact. Which is pretty much the entire Daily Telegraph/Sun Herald/Fox News business model.

If only those rags would say that about Hockey. /snark

So, this fucker thinks he “needs to pull a Carrie Nation” at clubs holding Ladies’ Nights? In other words, attack the places with an axe. Riiiiight, it’s so much about men’s rights. Not at all about hating women, not at all about rage that 66-year-old-creep isn’t interesting to the very young women he’s hitting on (his words: “they look better”). Not at all about wishing rape on women, noooooo.

pallygirl
pallygirl
6 years ago

How is this dude making money from lawyering? I assume he’s doing something like conveyancing because I can’t see him winning any court cases. I also can’t see him as being competent as a law clerk/researcher either.

Where did he get his law qualifications from?

kittehserf
6 years ago

Same place as Pauly got his Ph.D in psychiatry doctory stuff, prolly.

Alice Sanguinaria
6 years ago

That PhD is going to smell strongly of fecal matter. *shudder*

pallygirl
pallygirl
6 years ago

Marseachusetts State University? Alarseka State University?

kittehserf
6 years ago

LOL proobablyl!

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

He got it from FTSU of course!

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Same place “Dr.” John Grey got his!

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

So he actually wrote about feminists riding broomsticks and a rape threat in a legal document. This is the document he filed with his lawsuit…and he expects to win, somehow?

GrumpyOldMan
GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

No, he expects to get media coverage — particularly if a judge laughs himself to death in court.

pallygirl
pallygirl
6 years ago

I am under the impression that to be a practicing lawyer, in whatever role, should be a member of whatever is the American equivalent of the (English-based) Law Society. In New Zealand, it appears that practicing lawyers must be a member of our Law Society. There are professional and private requirements that one must meet:
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-lawyers/joining-the-legal-profession/admission

In particular, note the requirements about character. There have been lawyers struck off in NZ for not maintaining the character requirement.

Is there an equivalent requirement in the US? I’m struggling to see how Roy Den Hollander would meet it. He could also stand accused of bringing his profession into disrepute – and professional bodies *hate* that as well.

TL;DR: how is this joker still a lawyer?

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Pallygirl,
I think the US all you have do is pass the Bar exam for the state you want to practice in. I could be wrong though. Attorneys can be disbarred for violating ethics or committing a crime but not for being a douche bag.

I’m not a lawyer so take my post with a grain of salt. That’s just my understanding.

contrapangloss
6 years ago

Pallygirl: The US has three voluntary associations, with the most prominent being the American Bar Association.

But, they’re all voluntary, and lawyers can practice even if the ABA decides they’re awful.

Dunno about Australia…

pallygirl
pallygirl
6 years ago

I didn’t realise that caveat emptor would apply so strongly to hiring a lawyer in the US.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Huh. I thought you had to pass the Bar exam to practice. It’s probably hard to a get a job if you don’t though. There are something like twice as many lawyers as there are jobs in law.

contrapangloss
6 years ago

You have to take the bar exam for your state. You don’t have to join the ABA to take the Bar exam.

It’s wonky.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

Alice — east coast here, and much as I would enjoy meeting you…just (tmi) not accidentally over dinner with the guy we share (see why it would be weird if you were that Alice?)

Back on topic, IANAL, but I worked for one, and yes, you can file things with the court if a lawyer is being a douche. Granted all the ones in saw were violating professional ethics, but hey, he files way more nonsensical things than filing a motion for sanctions against him.

…and it looks like not attempting to determine the truth of the claims in documents filed with the courts is indeed grounds for said motion. So “feminist book burners”? Prolly not libel, cuz our libel laws suck, but grounds for a motion for sanctions? Idk, but more valid than his claims.