More Masculinism

The controversy with Pitzer's unofficial Masculinist Coalition has turned downright ugly.

I have to hand it to the club's founder, he's media savvy and, as I expected, using the media to spread his plight. A week ago, he landed an interview on the Kevin & Bean morning radio show out of Los Angeles.

I sometimes listen to the Kevin & Bean show, though I can't say I'm particularly proud. Its station is one of a few I flip between on my drive in to work. Admittedly, sometimes, I find the show funny, however, sometimes, it's remarkably offensive. In the past, I've heard the show make sweeping generalizations about homosexuals, African Americans, and women. The show makes a habit of dinging a bell each time a woman is mentioned that the crew finds attractive. A week prior, the team did an investigative report as to why Latino Americans don't support Barack Obama, which was really an excuse to bring up stereotypes and make the Latino community look ignorant when it comes to politics (you can see a modified video of this report on Kevin & Bean's website to give you an idea of the un-PC nature of the programming.

Wanting to catch the madness, I listened to the on-air segment (you can find a link to the audio here) with my first period who was fascinated with the story and excited by any distraction to get out of working. Since the show is so male-centric, I feared it would be a glorification of the Masculinist cause without having a full understanding of the story; alas, my prediction proved to be true. Most of it just made me shake my head; two of my students used their cell phones to call in on my behalf so that I would argue as other callers were doing, but I was not about to take the bait of entering a debate where my perspective wouldn't be given a fair shake. For that reason, I panicked when I recognized the last caller to the show to be my friend. Before she even had a chance to speak, the radio host stopped to ask the Masculinist head whether my friend "look[s] as hot as she sounds." If you're objectifying someone before they even speak, how can you expect to have their points taken seriously? Thankfully, in a classier moment, the Masculinist founder refused to comment on that matter and bring himself to that level. As expected, my friend was prettily handily shot down, ultimately being cut off by a Family Guy audio clip which said, "I know you're a feminist and I think that's adorable, but this grown-up time and I'm the man," clearly culminating in some impressive discourse.

Speaking to my friend later in the day, I learned that she hadn't even realized she was on the radio. When she called, she was first subject to two different people who asked what she would say if they were to put her on air. After that, she was speaking to the radio hosts, but at no point was she was told she was on the air yet, so she assumed they were going through more hypothetical questions in preparation for the actual interview, unaware that she was at that point being broadcast. For that reason, rather than making any concrete points, she kept saying things like "I will talk about this" and "I will address that" without actually getting the substance in, causing her to look a bit silly to the radio listening public who didn't know the situation. Also, at one point she gets bleeped out and chastised for cursing on air, making her look like a foul-mouthed irrational person. Again, she didn't know she was on air at that point, so when the Masculinist president said he had been threatened via email over this cause, she said "You know I think that's fucked up." They didn't just bleep the f-word, however, instead bleeping her whole statement, making it look like she responded to this claim unsympathetically with a curse word.

After wasting a lot of class time listening to the show, at least I was able to go back to my students the next class to give them a real life example of media distortion and to not take everything they see and hear at face value.

The story is being blogged about ad nauseam (and yes, I'm contributing to that) and has been picked up by the Associate Press. As a result, people with no relation to the college are giving private donations to the organization to support men. I'd wish that people concerned with gender inequality would give to more legitimate organizations that could break down barriers rather than to a group whose minutes claim they are intending to spend it on astronaut suits, a go-kart, fireworks, and alcohol, but then, it's not my money, so private donators can give their money as they see fit, I suppose.

Meanwhile, on campus, the support for the group is still under-whelming; Student Senate has rejected the group's charter three times. By a loop hole in the bylaws, the Masculinist Coalition can re-propose its charter each week by editing it slightly since that technically constitutes a new charter.

To make matters worse, the founder is now claiming he was verbally threatened by a member of the Feminist Coalition. This news is new to me, so I can't comment on its validity. It wouldn't surprise me, actually. I do know that there have been intimidation tactics by both sides and that both parties at various points have claimed to feel threatened. Clearly, actions of these sorts are unacceptable and no one should be threatening anyone.

Everyone has a right to feel safe. I'd say Pitzer's campus is rather safe as far as colleges go, but it's hardly perfect. On the five campuses at Claremont, I have female friends who have been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and even raped. I'm still haunted by an incident freshman year when drunk men tried to force their way into a friend's dorm room, claiming they wanted to "stick it in" her. There is legitimate reason for concern.

Let me explicitly state that I have no reason to believe that the members of the Masculinist Coalition would be party to any of the aforementioned harmful activities directed at women. What it comes back to is the club's name, a name that carries a history of female oppression. The name in itself becomes threatening to some members of the student body. For this reason, Pitzer College should not feel pressured to approve a club with this name.

The Masculinist Coalition claims that they want to turn the name into something positive. First, there's the problem that people outside of the community who look up the word in the dictionary would get the wrong idea. Second, the ongoing saga has left the larger community distrusting the club. If you're going to take on the large task of forging a new definition for the word Masculinism, you need to have demonstrated that you are devoted to such a political undertaking. The Masculinist Coalition has not proven this state, however, given its first mission statement, the initial denial of any political agenda, and the manifesto's homophobic statements. (I do believe that the homophobic statements were meant to come across as a joke, but just because jokes of that nature against homosexuals are largely accepted by the greater society does not make it okay. As it has been pointed out to me, if the comments were related to race, ie "our club is a celebration of white men (not in a black way [not that there's anything wrong with that])" it would not be tolerated.) Because the organization has had a history of making members of the student body uncomfortable with their words, jokes, and methods, how can they be trusted? Understandably, the Senate cannot disregard these events which have been interpreted as off-putting by many when considering whether to allow a club that represents the college to take a potentially offensive name.

A compromise should be easy: the Masculinists agree to take another name, one that doesn't align itself with an agenda that promotes inequality, and it can have its club. Not so coincidentally, this reasonable compromise has been the same one on the table practically since this whole ordeal began. But the Masculinists insist on keeping their name.

Why?

Because compromising would put an end to a supposed controversy, which would put an end to the litany of media attention, which would put an end to the private donations that will undoubtedly amount to far more than the Senate would/could ever reasonably give them. The Masculinist club is playing the game, and they're quite good at it. They know how to spin the story to make it appear as though they are being discriminated against and they know how to earn both press and money for their pursuits. It's probably one of the most complicated ways I've witnessed someone undergo to have his alcohol paid for, but I'll still give a resigned kudos.

From what I've been following, it would be dishonest for me not to acknowledge the Masculinist president as an intelligent, funny individual. I might not agree with all of his tactics, but his blog is at times amusing and the club's minutes do seem to reflect a good time being had by its members -- having fun was a pivotal part of my experience at Pitzer. I see potential for the Pitzer community to ultimately be enriched by this club's existence. However, by refusing to compromise on the name issue, the Masculinists will only alienate much of the community instead and make it more difficult

Furthermore, I respect the fact that the president took the highroad on the aforementioned Kevin & Bean episode and didn't objectify my friend on air when asked. That showed me that he was in fact better than a lot of that. Why, then, does he seek out these media venues who do often buy into a more traditional Masculinist mindset if he claims to be against such perspectives? Why seek both affirmation and funds from individuals who do hold sexist values? We don't need this little experiment to prove that these attitudes are the norm outside of the Pitzer community; hell, Pitzer prides itself on being ahead of the curve on these matters, as it should be.

But what I don't respect is a person who badmouths a college I love under false pretenses. What I don't respect is a person who acts as though he's been persecuted for wanting to engage in stereotypical male activities when there are still far more people on that campus who drink beer than are engaging in this debate with him. What I don't respect is a person who claims to support gender equality starting a debate that will undoubtedly spurn more hatred toward the feminist movement based off of misunderstandings. And more than anything, I don't respect a person who is overly stubborn.

The Masculinist's president is stubborn. Since he hasn't built the trust to be given approval to use the name, why not get the club approved under another name, then prove to the school its political stance is one that can override the existing rhetoric of the Masculinist movement and have the name changed then?

In spite of the opposition, I project that the Masculinists will win. If they employ the full resources available to them, and it appears as if they are, men have enough clout to impede any feminist rebellion -- that's just the way our society is structured. If, indeed, this result is the ultimate outcome, it will just go to show yet again why groups like the Feminist Coalition are positively necessary to achieve equality, not groups that, although fun, thrive on perpetuating stereotypes.

I hope this issue continues with discourse rather than ugliness and threats. It shouldn't be about "winning," which I'm concerned starts to become a concern for everyone involved after becoming so embroiled in the situation. There seems to be an achievable outcome of coexistence and respect, so long as the parties involve recognize this fact as well.