It’s no secret that since the 1990s, women outnumber—and out-graduate—men in American post-secondary education. Currently, the fairer sex accounts for 58 percent of the nation’s college students and many experts estimate that number rising above 66 percent in the coming decade. There to usher the growing masses through the university system are a myriad of women’s advocacy organizations, evidenced on our campus by 10 such RSOs, most notably the Feminist Majority, the National Organization for Women, and Women in Business. There are zero such male-oriented RSOs, as misleading as the name of the female a cappella troupe Men in Drag is.
As a member of the 49.6 percent of the students at this school with a Y chromosome, I feel it is my duty to ensure that similar resources are provided for males now and in the future. Without further ado, and beginning next quarter, I’d like to propose a new group entered into the University of Chicago RSO landscape: Men in Power (MiP).
Basically, Men in Power at the University of Chicago will serve as the flagship organization for a national group of the same name, working to spread awareness and promote understanding of issues and challenges facing men today. Many don’t realize that men are in power all around us—in fact, the last 44 presidents have been men, including our own Barack Obama.
Embracing a range of gender identities and ideological positions, its members will work cooperatively to organize events and facilitate open discussion. Men in Power’s ultimate goal, however, will be to offer a unique opportunity for undergraduate men at the University of Chicago to expand and sharpen their knowledge of business, politics, and networking—giving them the skills they will need to become future leaders of the world.
I know what you’re thinking: This sounds really misogynistic.
I assure you, however, that the group would not be against or in any way attempt to inhibit the advancement of women. We would simply advocate for men in the same manner that female groups advocate for women. Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP.
Establishing a relationship with the university community as a whole will be crucial to the success of this nascent RSO. Accordingly, next quarter will feature a number of events aimed to raise the profile of Men in Power on campus. Firstly, we will be hosting weekly study breaks/screenings of movement-oriented films, including: A Few Good Men, 12 Angry Men, Men of Honor (and many other Cuba Gooding Jr. masterpieces), All the President’s Men, and—of course—X-Men.
Additional upcoming events will include an open-mic night on issues concerning body image, a tutorial on barbecuing, and our much-anticipated workshop “Protecting What’s Yours: Drafting a Prenuptial Agreement.” Given the lack of similar groups on campus, MiP will have to establish a broad base, merging social issues and activities with a pre-professional slant. Through our fishing, hunting, and flag-football retreats, we hope to cultivate close relationships with many individuals and organizations in different sectors of power—including business, politics, and academia.
As should be the case with any RSO, social responsibility will take a front-seat role in MiP. Through our “Little Men in Power” program, we hope to provide middle school and elementary students with the skills and knowledge necessary to become the next generation of this country’s leaders.
I hope the above, and the successes of next quarter will show that MiP will be a far cry from an “old boys club”—after all, its members will all be pretty young. As is the case with every other special advocacy group such as the aforementioned, Chicago Friends of Israel, and UCDems, MiP will be applying for funding through ORCSA, a group bankrolled by our collective tuition. Accordingly, I encourage all those interested to attend events and get their slice of the big RSO pie.
Steve Saltarelli is a third-year in the College majoring in Law, Letters, and Society.
Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.
Discussion
HANNAH
March 5th 2009 at 11:43 AM
Why was this published? Is it supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to be a comment on RSO funding? Lost on me.
KEENAN
March 7th 2009 at 03:01 PM
I'm disappointed the Maroon would even publish this. As someone who has recently graduated from the University of Chicago, I am embarrassed that our mainstream newspaper would explicitly credit the views of the above article enough to promote and publicize them. Our school prides itself on intellectual rigor, not bashful and naive sexism.
MICHAEL
March 8th 2009 at 05:43 PM
Why was your comment posted? Is it supposed to be funny? Lost on me.
HANNAH
March 11th 2009 at 11:17 PM
men: 51% of US workforce, 97% of fortune 500 CEOs.
what?
TAIJOO
March 14th 2009 at 01:31 PM
The main reason, for me, that WiB and similar women advocacy groups exists is to advance minority groups that have historically struggled with equal treatment in the workplace.
Men haven't faced the same unequal treatment as other minority groups in the same fields... especially not white men. I know, the RSO would be open to all men and all students interested in "studying and learning from men in powerful positions."
If you want to get this passed as a serious RSO, you might want to think of stronger reasons as to why this RSO should exist. Maybe you feel that reverse sexism is a serious issue that needs to be addressed or you feel you can teach men proper business etiquette to avoid lawsuits. Or maybe you feel that increasingly progressive measures put men at a disadvantage today and MiP would aim to somehow deal with that.
Regardless, good luck with this. In the worst case scenario, you guys could always function as an ISO like a lot of other respected and successful business oriented student organizations.
MATT
March 16th 2009 at 04:58 PM
Also, funding is from SG, not ORCSA.
HANNAH'S FRIEND
March 19th 2009 at 03:14 PM
yah, good point!!! This article sucks!!!! ZOMG, how misogynist!!
THOMAS
April 25th 2009 at 02:18 PM
Yes! This is awesome. And these comments are idiotic
BRYAN W/A 'Y'
May 14th 2009 at 11:20 AM
I bet they wouldn't have published this if it was called whites in power.
JACK DUMAS
May 14th 2009 at 01:59 PM
Good for you, its about time. All these poeple that think they are being intelligent by saying that men are not discrimated against or the make up 51% of the workforce or 97% CEO just don't understand how math work and how demographic change work. The CEO population is representative of what the universities look like 30-40yrs ago. Go back 40% years, how many women in business school? In law school. Given the current split, things will be much more different in the next 40 years, that's the nature of demographic change, a women getting out of univerity today will not become a CEO tomorrow, but in 30 to 40 years (around 50 to 60 yrs) she migh be ready.
Its about time this is done for guys, because men are routinely being discrimated against but people are too narrow minded to see. The next time I pass an homeless man, I'll remember to tell him to suck it up, he is the privilege one, afterall men make 97% of CEO
PIERCE HARLAN
May 14th 2009 at 04:21 PM
The piece was brilliantly written -- and, yes, for the constipated few who didn't "get" it, it was tongue in cheek. But it would be a good idea.
To suggest that men don't have unique interests because we are not disadvantaged in the workplace is absurd. Believe it or not, men do face certain disadvantages because they were born male. Don't believe me? Consider: women outlive men worldwide by ten years; men have higher death rates for all 15 leading causes of death (except Alzheimer’s); men are approximately 50% of the workforce but account for 93% of job related deaths; young men between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide; overall, men commit suicide at rates three to four times greater than women; innocent males are far more likely than females to be victims of violent crime; during FY 2007, 158,935 names and addresses of suspected violators of the duty to register with the Selective Service System were provided to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for their failure to register, carrying a penalty up to five years in prison -- and every one of the violators was male, because young women are exempt from even registering; government funds for breast cancer research outpace funding for prostate cancer research by nearly two to one even though prostate cancer and breast cancer have roughly the same caseload; death among young men due to testicular cancer in the 15-34 age group outpaces the number of deaths from breast cancer among women in the same age group; and victims of war -- both combatants and non-combatants -- are more likely to be male.
I could go on and on. I didn't even get to the anti-male bias in family law court or the female sentencing discount in criminal law court.
Still don't think there's a need to concentrate on men's issues as well as women's issues? That's called misandry.
ZAK
May 14th 2009 at 10:56 PM
"men: 51% of US workforce, 97% of fortune 500 CEOs."
And what does that have to do with university or the education system exactly?
MATT
May 15th 2009 at 12:11 AM
@Hannah
And the vast majority of homeless people are MEN. And in absolute numbers this is FAR more than the number of men happen to be rich.
DUDEJO
May 15th 2009 at 06:13 PM
i have a theory.
even in 40 years, the man/woman ratio won't change too much.
don't women tend to retire earlier than men?
if i'm right, what do you think will happen in a few decades? i bet that for every woman that retires late, there will be TWO that retire early.
JUSTIN TROTTIER
May 24th 2009 at 09:58 AM
If you believe this article to be "naive sexism" can you please point to the flaws in the author's logic. Otherwise you appear the one guilty of naive - and unsupportable sexism - by insinuating that men somehow deserve the despicable double-standard treatment they routinely get and which the author has carefully pointed out. We're no longer going to accept refutations of male sexism with one line and unthinking responses.
JAMIE
May 27th 2009 at 08:42 PM
I suspect feminist (man bad, women good types) will not allow this organization to grow.
Feminist own the media, academics and government.
A lesson in feminist influence can be observed in Family Court at the county court house. The USA has one of the highest divorce rates in the world of about 200 countries. Women initiate about 80% of divorces (90% if the have a college degree). Without due process, a family courts awards the woman your children (about 85%), 18 years of your income (tax-free), half your assets, a car. The man gets an order of protection and the marital debt.
Last example, though there are more, a woman can abort a fathers developing child with his consent or knowledge.
MICHAEL LIU
May 28th 2009 at 12:15 AM
About time!
UCLA
MARGE
May 28th 2009 at 03:20 AM
how about an advocacy group for young professionals, or recent graduates including both genders?
JOE VERTON
May 28th 2009 at 10:10 AM
Thank you for being brave enough to write this. Now, please start a campaign against all the TV commercials that portray males as dumb and incapable and females as tha opposite
BILL
May 28th 2009 at 10:52 AM
You are right on track with your group, I encourage you to continue the fight for men's rights.
SHAUN
May 28th 2009 at 11:58 AM
Good for you. I am an Oregon resident who got his "white-male, patriarch dominated society" education in a liberal institution of higher learning in California. Which is fine, but it's good to hear a sense of balance is being brought back by your efforts. I applaud your work and wish you continued success.
ANGIE
May 28th 2009 at 12:11 PM
I LOVE the idea of this group! I find it refreshing that these men are starting to take a stand against the feminization of their gender.
As a woman, I am sick to death of hearing about women's issues and inequality in education/workplace. Get over yourselves, get to work and start competing on the basis of your abilities. I have a master's degree in a male dominated science field and have never once felt discriminated against because of my gender. In fact, I would be offended to know that I had been given an opportunity only because of my gender.
Kudos to MiP - I hope you get your funding and I wish you much success with this group!
LIBERALS ARE ANNOYING
May 28th 2009 at 12:22 PM
We have groups like "Women in Business" on campus already. Why can't there be a male group? We also have OBS and were someone to start OWS (W meaning white) there would be a huge uproar. Reverse discrimination and double standards are not becoming folks.
DR.FUNKE
May 28th 2009 at 02:12 PM
I call bullshit. This has got to be some ill-conceived attempt at garnering publicity for your law school applications next year.
ERIN
May 28th 2009 at 03:00 PM
Epic fail. Men don't need male power groups because they already hold a disproportionate amount of power.
Doesn't that go without saying?
This is spank fodder for misogynists. This article is a perfect example of how misogyny is accepted and promoted in American culture.
What may be tongue in cheek for men is incredibly insensitive and insulting to women.
I am disgusted that an academic institution would publish such hateful and insensitive literature.
ERIN
May 28th 2009 at 03:10 PM
I see a commenter has challenged naysayers to point out flaws in the author's argument. Here's a big one.
He takes issue with the statistic that 49.6% of university graduates are men. In light of the 0.4 percent gain made by women, he proposes....fighting back?
What is there to fight against? How far back are they going to push?
Seems like an attempt to go back in time and put women in their rightful place: below men.
Misogynist and hateful.
1ST GEN
May 28th 2009 at 03:49 PM
I can see why people might consider your article idiotic, but I really think you have a great point....its just about how u present it.
Im a 1ST Generation Mexican-American that is trying to help my family live the american dream. I graduated from a private school in SO Cal and I am trying to build a succesful business, but I see that men older than me (Im 28) see me as a immature guy....i call them HATERS
MEN in POWER is not only for whites, its about the the new generational man.....our history is different from those older men....i truly believe we have the same determination to become successful men, but unless we already have a connection into the bussiness world its just a dream to make it
Any questions or wanting to listen to more about 1ST GEN.......contact me at 1STGEN714@gmail.com
www.myspace.com/1STGEN714
JULIUS HATCHER III
May 28th 2009 at 04:05 PM
Hey, if you read the article it is not sexist, just refreashing to know men need support also!!! Look when a woman want to get an abortion she can get one without any rights of the father in question, yet if she had the child then the father is liable to pay support which he should, but what about his rights as the father of the child that is being aborted, why cannot he adopt the child if he wanted too. Some would say well he should have thought about that before he had sex, well thats right, so what about the female she should have also right? So why is it, they always want the man to pay up, but he DONT have a say so if the child was aborted!!! Talking about sexism!!!
DON
May 28th 2009 at 04:38 PM
So we're supposed to take an organization that materialized from this satirical column seriously? He's just doing this to ruffle some feathers and build his resume for law school. I'm sure he's enjoying all the attention.
TJ
May 28th 2009 at 05:17 PM
This article touches on some important facts. In a college "sensitivity" course I was required to take. I learned that as a white male there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. "You can't be discriminated against if you have all the power" our insightful professor told the class. Really? Well, call it whatever you want it happens every day and is all around us. Every year I run & donate money to the Susan Komen breast cancer run. Last year a wondered why there is not an event to support prostrate cancer? It's in my family, my grandfather was diagnosed. I would eagerly participate in both. I don't hate on others for having their groups...it's interesting to note from whom & why there is such a lack of support for this.
T MURPHY
May 28th 2009 at 05:32 PM
The “logic” used to denounce this organization is so sexist and outdated it should be outrageous, but in the current American reality, it is considered common knowledge: Men: 51% of the US workforce, 97% of fortune 500 CEO’s… So what this person is saying and it IS a common belief, that because so rich guys come from rich families, all males are somehow equally benefited. When HR Clinton ran for office it was perfectly acceptable to vote for her because she was a she, but not against her because she was a woman.
KEN
May 28th 2009 at 10:18 PM
It's about time for MiP! If you don't think men are discriminated against just take a look at some of the most popular programs, even the Bill Cosby show. When he attempted to fix a faucet in the guest bathroom and they were having a dinner party that evening, Clair had a plumber waiting to fix his mistakes. OK, lets put that in perspective, how about Cliff contacting a caterer if the dinner Clair was cooking just happened to be a disaster? Funny, I think not. Discrimination against men in our society is so prevalent that it is not even noticed anymore, on TV and especially the press. Even ads usually show men as the stupid one with a women in a commercial. If you think this does not have an effect, then read some of the more rational statements above by women, who do want a strong male as a partner, not a dominating male, just one who has the cajones to stand firm and be the protective partner. It's in our genes ladies, men will look out for you if you let them! Stop putting down men. (Father of four daughters, all college grads)
THE MAN
May 29th 2009 at 06:54 AM
You are to be congratulated on sticking up for what is right but unpopular with the hipsters. These are the people that preach diversity on one hand but are willing to exclude people with whom they don't agree from their utopia (ever hear one say that they need a bigot's point of view?).
Keep fighting the good fight.
MOM OF 2 UCHICAGO STUDENTS
May 29th 2009 at 01:24 PM
Angie wrote <<As a woman, I am sick to death of hearing about women's issues and inequality in education/workplace. Get over yourselves, get to work and start competing on the basis of your abilities. I have a master's degree in a male dominated science field and have never once felt discriminated against because of my gender. In fact, I would be offended to know that I had been given an opportunity only because of my gender.>>
And this has happened, ONLY as the result of the women's movement. I find it hard to believe a UChicago woman could be SO blind to the struggles and lack of opportunties that existed for women my age. You ought to be writing thank you notes to the women who came before you, that gave you your so easily gained options.
JIM
May 29th 2009 at 03:28 PM
Congratulations Mr. Saltarelli! It is quite amusing to read the various responses to you exercising your freedom of print and speech. A number of the children who responded choose words like "mainstream," and any number of "ism's" and "ist's" to support their points of view. These children choose to select adjectives off a very short list in an effort to label your freedom's and beliefs, thereby allowing them to throw whatever assertions they wish in an effort to discredit them. This is an acknowledgment that what you are doing is right and correct. Those who disagree will choose to silence you as quickly as possible, hence the adjectives. Yet these same individuals will demand that everyone else listen to their beliefs regardless of the absurdity. This two-faced level of respect and freedom is referred to as the "mainstream." Why let facts cloud ones judgment when the "mainstream" has already decided for them. It's much easier to fit into this stream then to learn and think on your own. Why do the majority of communities of "higher education" tend to be more liberal than the rest of society? Because many professors have not left the university life long enough to diversify themselves with the beliefs and understanding of other human beings whom share this earth. Just stagnant "thinkers" living in a stagnant world teaching mushy minds to distribute labels. THAT IS NOT AN EDUCATION CHILDREN! Support Mr. Saltarelli for voicing his factually based opinion in such a profligate community rather than cower to the "education" MAN! FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION...RIGHT ON!!!!
JACK CROWLEY
May 31st 2009 at 05:31 AM
We'll see if this group evolves or devolves. Men's rights movements rarely get traction. The biggest pitfall is misguided chivalry. The 2nd biggest pitfall is that, in the past and leading up to the present day Republican Party, religious males were easily tied hand and foot because feminists got to their wives.
150 years ago it was Victorianism and the White Slavery rhetoric of the WKKK that fueled the fires of racism and misandry. Now it is the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and talk of "human trafficking" statistics that blatantly and unashamedly include voluntary prostitutes and strippers while making it sound like legions of males knowingly fail to help slaves.
In the US Congress, the left wing feminists have a solid alliance with "Christian" right feminists where they just agree to disagree on abortion and pre-marital sex. Often you see their husbands playing the knight in shining armor and signing laws like the one that criminalizes going to a room with a woman - until they get caught themselves like Eliot Spitzer (who was not prosecuted under the law he signed because he would renounced the law to save himself).
You may think "no problem" like Bill OReilly of Fox News says (or has to say to avoid dismissal because he is on thin ice because of his sex-harrassment case)- but the difference between the sexes are such that you have to have male input into social policy. For instance, it is in the interest of older wives to make sure their husbands don't cheat or abandon them for a gorgeous young Russian woman.
Enter a particularly nasty new law called IMBRA - which forces US males to be background checked before being allowed to communicate in any way with a Russian woman. Besides the blatant unconstitutionality (there is a Right to Assemble), the law (which is widely ignored) often makes it impossible to meet anyone who isn't constantly on email ready to "electronically" sign a background check affidavit.
Chivalry is always exploited to convince men to give in to such irrational lawmaking demands. In a half-hearted challenge against IMBRA, a new GW Bush appointee, Thomas Rose, said "There is no fundamentally liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship."
Men in Power will hopefully direct lawyers to reversing the banana republic kangaroo court system that completely ignores the Constitution in the name of chivalry. The ACLU will never help because of who works for them.
Regarding the prenuptials seminar that can remind young men that this is where lawmakers got a lot of laws and precedents set against the interest of males...you're on the right track there. Actually, no man should get married while VAWA gives him second class citizenship. Again, it is in this advice where too many "Christian" males would say "I am not going to let the feminists stop me from getting married" which is beside the point. All such a man has to do is challenge the law or his fiance could challenge the law and they can get married when it is clear that judges in the US finally understand that men have the option of just going on a marriage strike...or enjoy being married in another country with great weather and high standard of living.
CHRIS
June 1st 2009 at 07:52 PM
"men are approximately 50% of the workforce but account for 93% of job related deaths;" -
Men can get and take most of the high risk jobs, but the high risk jobs women take out of economic desperation are illegal and deaths are not counted. Women are still excluded from many of those jobs.
"young men between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide; overall, men commit suicide at rates three to four times greater than women;"
- they use guns more and are therefore more successful, but this is certainly worth looking at, depression in young men.
"innocent males are far more likely than females to be victims of violent crime;" - yes, men kill men a lot, more than they kill women. The issue of men killing -- both men and women -- is the problem that needs to be addressed.
"during FY 2007, 158,935 names and addresses of suspected violators of the duty to register with the Selective Service System were provided to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for their failure to register, carrying a penalty up to five years in prison -- and every one of the violators was male, because young women are exempt from even registering;" - yes, because "we" (men and governments) want cannon fodder and women are still excluded from combat, at the behest of men;
"government funds for breast cancer research outpace funding for prostate cancer research by nearly two to one even though prostate cancer and breast cancer have roughly the same caseload" - 25.6 per 100,000 men die of prostate cancer per year vs. 123.8 women dying of breast cancer. Obviously, whatever the research dollars, treatment for prostate cancer is far more effective than for breast cancer. Where do you get your data? The difference in diagnosed cases (case load?) is tiny but women have a slight edge. Data from National Cancer Institute: It is estimated that 192,370 women will be diagnosed with and 40,170 women will die of cancer of the breast in 2009. It is estimated that 192,280 men will be diagnosed with and 27,360 men will die of cancer of the prostate in 2009.
"death among young men due to testicular cancer in the 15-34 age group outpaces the number of deaths from breast cancer among women in the same age group;" - Don't know where you get these numbers. Of women diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 50, only 43% survive up to 40 years -- that is, 57% will ultimately die of cancer. The 5-year survival rate for testicular cancer is 96%, for breast cancer it is 91%. Risks of breast cancer increase dramatically with age. It is extremely rare in females under 20.
"and victims of war -- both combatants and non-combatants -- are more likely to be male." - Are you combining combatants and noncombatants? Yes, men do war more than women. They kill more, they die more, they carry guns more, they wage war more.
So what do we know for your assemblage of statistics, verifiable and not? Men are more likely to kill others in wanton violence, especially men but also women; men are more likely to wage war and to kill and be killed in war; men are more likely than women to kill themselves. Men killing themselves, others of their own sex and others not of their sex is a huge problem. If Men in Power can help men stop killing themselves and others, that would be wonderful, also ending war would be good. A universal draft would be good. Your cancer stats are off base -- 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer. Why is it that specifically male cancers have better survival rates on the whole? Overall, though, men are more likely to die of cancer, or anything else, than women. That seems like biology, nothing new or cultural that any organization dedicated to the oppression of men can address.
MARK
June 1st 2009 at 08:40 PM
If you want to see man bias, wait for your wife to divorce you. Though you're legally innocent in court, most all fathers lose children, 18 years of income, 1/2 a home, a car. Then the guy gets stuck with most of the marital debt and an Order of Protection (for getting angry about the new arrangement).
Divorce in the USA is unilateral (one party decides) and no-fault (no reason needed), unlike marriage which is bi-lateral (two decides). Therefore, the USA has one of the highest divorce rates in the world of about 200 countries.
UC FEMALE
June 2nd 2009 at 01:54 AM
Heard you on NPR Sounds like a it could be a really good group if you address all the issues that you use as your backing for the group (higher substance abuse in males, more domestic violence by males, etc). Actually, it could be a good group either way...but I hope you don't use those examples if you're not going to actively try to find ways to solve them or lower the rates. Good luck!
ERICA
June 2nd 2009 at 03:58 AM
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! It's about time that men stood up and did for men what women did for women. I so very often see reverse discrimination in our society and think to myself, "Didn't we fight against this?" Why is it that an entire generation of women who fought against being negatively generalized by our gender .. so often do it to men? I could go on and on. Don't even get me started on Oprah, her minions, lifetime television, the media in general, or the so-called family court system.
Steve Saltarelli .. you're my hero!
Pierce ... great posting.
"CHUCK"
June 2nd 2009 at 01:50 PM
"Mark", you are a moron. Nothing you said stands to basic reason, but the real cake-taker: if you get an order of protection for getting angry, you need to work on your anger management. If you're that overtly angry, I don't blame any court for favoring your ex, and nothing else you just whinged about has any standing next to that fact.
I gather that there's some serious intent behind this "Men in Power" idea. However, the obvious jokiness of this article, if Steve S. is indeed behind the group, makes the whole thing rather disingenuous, and it serves distinctly better as a counterargument than as an argument.
If you're real, you need to stop using weak humor to take a notch out of women's groups and their considerable accomplishments and focus on the real problems that men face – if you can even identify them. There are legitimate topics for discussion in this arena, but none of them involve justice. They involve what men do and do not do for themselves, making themselves less available and less valuable to the rest of society, and how those choices affect men even after they experience a change of attitude. You address those problems and you'll have full support of women's groups. You work against women's groups and you're missing the boat completely.
JOSH
June 3rd 2009 at 10:44 AM
Heard about this group in the news. If I was a UC student I would love to join this group, great idea!
MARK
June 3rd 2009 at 01:50 PM
CHUCK - When I post what I wrote using a girl's name, I do not get a hostile response. But when I use I guy's name I get name called and hostility towards me.
Do you think there is reason for this?
AMANDA
June 4th 2009 at 06:57 AM
Hi, I am a 26 year old WOMAN from Canada and I believe its long overdue to have a group aimed at Men's Rights. While I believe feminism was right in the beginning to bring equality to the sexes I also believe now its just a ridiculous movement who has lost sight if its true goals (most likely due to the fact that it reached its goals years ago). I am very happy to finally see a man take action and fight for rights that have been lost upon all men. I have read many articles pertaining to this new group and many have called this a joke or have called you a chauvinist. What I think they lack is a bit of reality. I just wanted to say that I think that this is an awesome idea and any person who says otherwise obviously doesn't have a grasp on reality and doesn't see where we are in society as far as what rights woman have over men. Congrats on the nerve to do this.
LAURA
June 4th 2009 at 01:27 PM
I have to admit, as I was reading this article I was thinking it may have been written in a facetious manner, but, sadly, it was in all sincerity. I am not opposing the idea of a men's group, however, (according to this article) your choice of activities for the members of this group do not seem to be all-inclusive for men. Instead, the activities (such as "fishing, hunting, and flag-football" or "barbecuing tutorial") chosen seem to be a very narrow representation of the male population. Do you plan to truly empower ALL men or those that fit into a narrowly defined category of what it is to be a "real" man? Until corrected, I will have to assume that this is one of the most obvious attempts at sexism towards both men and women.
JOE PLUMBER
June 4th 2009 at 02:50 PM
Yeah! Let's get drunk and send our wives to the kitchen lest they be beaten.
CHUCK
June 12th 2009 at 11:03 PM
MARK - You didn't post what you wrote using a girl's name here, so I can't comment on the relationship between the name you use and the responses you receive. I only know about this post and this response, so I can comment only on this scenario.
(In case it escaped you, the quotation marks I put around your name mean that I know the name you type in a box has no necessary relationship to the hormones you manufacture. None of the people posting here under girls' names made the same unfounded suggestions you did. However, allow me to observe that you didn't contest anything I wrote, you only tried to impute that I only say it because I think you're a boy. I should think you'd be more interested in whether it's true than in whether I would feel comfortable saying it to you if your nametag said "Mary Beth".)
I already justified why I wrote what I wrote, and it's nothing to do with your name or 'nym, whichever it is. It's only because your comment doesn't stand to simple reason and betrays a stunning absence of deep consideration.
Finally, I take your hint, and it's fair. I apologize for calling you a moron. That was not necessary, considering all the other ammunition at my disposal.
Cheers!
STEVE
June 13th 2009 at 11:58 PM
This is the beginning of a new day for men and like minded women. We have watched the last forty years of feminism and reaped the whirlwind. The end result a divorce rate at fifty percent accompanied by an industrial prison system filled with men that have been raised by single mothers. Mr. Saltarelli is a brave young man and a breath of fresh air with the courage and intellect to make this a great success. For the time being this a local movement however we see the day there will be local chapters all over college campuses across the country.
DANNY
June 16th 2009 at 12:42 AM
I'm glad to see someone actually taking the time to look at men's issues instead of just assuming being male is the key to the kingdom. But a small issue:
"reverse sexism"
I've never liked this term. It implies that male against female sexism is the norm and that female against male sexism is some awkward deviation of that norm. Sexism is the treatment (positive or negative) of someone based on their gender. No more no less. If a woman is fired from her job because she is a woman then its sexism. If a man is fired from his job because he is a man then its sexism.
I give a more detailed breakdown of it here:
http://dannys corner of the universe.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-still-ism.html
MIKE V.
June 18th 2009 at 08:19 PM
The author has sensed that there is an societal imbalance that needs to be addressed. I recently attended my daughter's Arista installation and was surprised to discover that 65% of the new members were female. What is going on in our schools? Are there enough male role models encouraging our young men to succeed? Ninety percent of the elmentary school teachers are female, seventy percent of the junior high school teachers are female. I would suggest this imbalance is hurting the education of young men. This imbalance must be corrected for the good of both sexes.
MRA FOR MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS
June 30th 2009 at 10:27 PM
90% of men loose their children in divorce and are only allowed to be visitors of 4 days a month in their child's life. 85% of the homeless are men and boys. 75-80% of suicides are men and boys. Suicides have increased 300% in men and boys since 1970. Men now only acquire 40% of college degrees. Men are 95% of workplace fatalities. Men now die 7 years earlier than women. Men have unequal healthcare funding, men are subject to register for forced military draft, Men have no affirmative action as women do in education and business, no men only scholarships, loans, grants and Title IX policies as women do to give them equal opportunities for education. Men have no domestic violence laws such as VAWA to protect them and are directly turned away from services and shelters for Domestic Violence. Men are required or forced by law to financially support women both in courtship, marriage AND after divorce. Women initiate 70% of all divorce. Men have no conception rights. Men do not have choices as women do but responsibility.
SANDY
July 21st 2009 at 03:36 AM
A comprehensive examination of abuses of men’s civil rights (particularly as it pertains to the institution of marriage in the United States) is a work by Stephen Baskerville: Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family (Hardcover). The book is written from a Political Science perspective, and is indispensable for understanding what men and fathers are subjected to in our free and democratic system.
Apart from reading this book, to get a quick overview of the inequities that men find themselves in context of dating and marriage, read this essay: http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/essay. Do not be turned off by the title. The essay is definitely not by a misogynist, but by a man who find the current status with respect to marriage and relationships highly unfair. He does not advocate not having a significant other. What he does advocate is not subjecting oneself to slavery that the current institution of marriage is for men.
DAVID
October 7th 2009 at 11:14 PM
Reading this article, I am disgusted. I am a recent graduate of the College at the U of C, and I am ashamed that the Maroon has become so inconsiderate to serious social concerns that it would allow this to be published. And I am frankly ashamed of the students of the College who would decide to blindly support such an organization. I hope this group gets all the heat that it deserves for the messages that it is promoting.
BILL ANDREWS
October 28th 2009 at 04:18 PM
Good job on advocacy for men and I think you are doing it in an honorable and reasonable fashion. It is time for men to stop feeling like they need to apologize for something.Go forward guys and stop apologizing and get your juevos back. Expect a fight on this one. Remember girls, you can't make your light brighter by dimming the light of men so do the right things and support this!
JASON
January 9th 2010 at 11:42 AM
Just read this article in Mens Health and ended up searching for Steve's MiP on the internet, found this and was pleased at most of the comments posted here. It's a great start for recognizing a man's potential, not as the man having to be the so-called "laborer" to make the money and have the woman spend it on stuff she wants, not what the man wants to provide the family with... This is a good start finally that can put a man at ease to have a say for the average household man in this country!
JOSH
January 25th 2010 at 05:30 AM
After reading all these comments, I cant help but to foresee a terrible and much worse country my future children must grow up in. Our rights have made us into selfish beings. And Im just referring to the comments.
"Pride comes before a great fall"