Masculinists

Unlike most schools, Pitzer College is a liberal haven. The student body is largely progressive and enamored with its activist pursuits and atypical educational opportunities. That said, there is also a sizable portion of students who don't fit this mold, students who didn't get the memo and seem to act surprised when Pitzer turns out to be a different college experience than they were expecting.

Such was the case with a student who recently grew fed up with Pitzer's status quo. He wanted to form an organization for guys that celebrated stereotypical behavior. He wanted to drink beer, watch sports, and do other things with males that our society has brought up males to do. He named the group the Masculinist Coalition as a counter to the pre-existing Feminist Coalition. The email he sent out (as obtained from his post available on the internet) is here:


This club has precedence on campus: several years ago, a group called the Pitzer Men's Society formed. Given the group's intentional acronym, PMS, I imagine it's easy to discern what kind of membership the organization had. The majority of the student populace did not take the group seriously, but did not combat it in any way, finding it easier to simply ignore the beer-swigging sect.

Unlike PMS, however, the Masculinist Coalition has not simply been ignored. Many members of the community have spoken out against the idea, causing a great deal of drama on campus. It became a hotly debated issue on the student email network.

The primary beef with the group seems to be its name. While the word "feminist" means someone who supports the movement for equality between both sexes, a "masculinist" is an "advocate of male superiority and dominance." Though the group's originator claims to have made the term up, at least in his eyes, it does indicate a frightening political agenda, one that shouldn't be condoned.

Plus, the group promotes exclusion, an absolute no-no by Pitzer's policies. The comments of "(not in a gay way [not that there's anything wrong with that])" actually come across as slightly hostile and unwelcoming. The organization's first meeting was well attended, even if only to discuss the finer points of the club. It's well-documented, too, since the president opted to film the meeting and then post it to his website. The post initially included some insulting commentary on the club's adversaries, criticizing them and inviting people to laugh at their supposed stupidity. Thankfully, it now appears as though the offending comments have been removed.

Another main item of contention is the idea that the group is purely social and not political. Bullshit -- everything is political. It'd be impossible for a group to form and avoid making a political statement. While you can declare it fun and ignore its implications, the implications still exist. Pretending they don't would be ignorant. Forming a men's group and then setting up activities indicate maleness. It reenforces the idea that activities are gendered and perpetuates these stereotypes rather than breaking down barriers. Critics of the group have asked that people consider these implications, yet the group seems to continue asserting they are not political, just people who want to get together to drink beer and play basketball.

In college, I drank beer. I played basketball on roughly a weekly basis. Both of these activities I did with coed groups, however. It's fun to people because it's fun, not because of the genitalia they possess.

I hope the founder of the Masculine Coalition finds the social network he's looking for; surely, there are people on campus with similar interests with whom to interact. That said, he needs to be careful not to alienate the beer-drinking, basketball-playing students who also take their progressive politics seriously, which is the main reason I suspect this group is not thriving.

Much of the group's budget proposal went toward funding a Male Prison Rape Awareness Mixer, an event that was to simultaneously educate and serve alcohol to the masses. Frankly, upon hearing this news I could barely contain my laughter. Firstly, what kind of party is that? Is there anyone that is going to be excited on a Saturday night to go get wasted at a Male Prison Rape Awareness Mixer? Not anyone that wouldn't be making a mockery of it, at an rate. It sounds like a joke. Secondly, how is an event like that not political?

I came to know a lot about this affair since several of my friends have become more entangled in the debate than even they would hope, in addition to the story being covered on many major websites. Plus, it revolves around a social issue to which I give a lot of consideration. As a sophomore at Pitzer, frustrated by all the female empowerment without acknowledgment of men's issues, I also took a stance, inventing a group called Men Are Oppressed, or MAO -- the members would be known as Maoists. It never amounted to anything more than a joke that was referenced occasionally, but had there been a group that discussed the political/social implications of maleness, I would have joined.

As for the Masculinist Coalition, it was unanimously rejected at Pitzer's student senate, mainly because of its decidedly hostile start up and the club's unpopular name. The overwhelming response is that there should be a male group on campus, a space to discuss male issues. Men are generally shafted (pun not intended) on issues of reproductive rights and child custody. Men, probably even more than women, need to adhere to a certain set of behaviors or be rejected by their gender. Men cannot be openly emotional. Men must restrict their friendships with other males to ensure that no one mistakes them for a homosexual. I'm not saying men have it worse by any means, just that gender oppression is not just a one way street. We all are restricted by societal roles.

In truth, this debate could be squashed altogether if the group agreed to change its name. Apparently, there was talk of the organization electing to be called "Broalition" which would be perfectly inoffensive and humorous, as the group seems to want to be. Alas, the founder refuses to budge, explaining that he can't in good conscience back down from the name. I can't exactly follow his logic on this one, but that certainly is the most political act perpetuated by the group yet.

I suspect the founder is intentionally not attempting to stop the debate, however. Every move he makes seems precisely calculated. He appears to be setting himself up to be some sort of media darling. By filming his meetings, establishing a blog, submitting his story to major websites, he has successfully garnered attention and is poised to perhaps receive more. Supposed "reverse" discrimination is all the rage with the media. Since the more common incidents of discrimination are so frequent they've become accepted and expected, the real "news" is when a white male with privilege is unprivileged. With the right spin, something about how a liberal college won't allow a male group to exist on campus, this event is a Bill O'Reilly story waiting to happen.

From what I understand, there's been a lot of good dialogue occurring on Pitzer's campus surrounding these events, and I hope it continues. I also hope that if it continues to garner media attention that it highlights the ongoing gender inequity debates and is not distorted to some feminists-are-bitches-that-hate-men-and-claim-to-feel-oppressed-when-men-want-to-go-bowling that I fear is more likely.