Men in Power, a pending RSO on campus, held their first meeting Thursday night in Bartlett Trophy Lounge to discuss the male-focused pre-professional group’s plans to address gender and career issues, attracting about 25 attendees, including seven protesters.
Men in Power founder and third-year Steve Saltarelli, a Maroon associate sports editor, first proposed the group in a March Viewpoints column for the Maroon that was intended as a satire, Saltarelli said. However, after its publication, Saltarelli said he began receiving e-mails from “all over campus” about forming an actual group. Men in Power is pending final approval on their RSO application, although it was approved by the Committee on RSOs (CORSO), which voted three-to-two to recommend Men in Power for approval.
CORSO chair and third-year Race Wright said the committee had some reservations about recommending Men in Power, but CORSO thought that the group fulfilled the criteria necessary for approval.
“Initially, we questioned how serious the group was,” Wright said. “In deciding, we look for a clear philosophy for what the organization is about, and whether they had identified clear mechanisms to accomplish those goals.” The organization’s presentation to CORSO allayed some of their concerns, he said.
Currently, Men in Power is working on organizing a campus-wide event for the end of the year, but in the future they plan to host speakers on masculinity in America, hold alumni roundtables, and begin a mentoring program called “Little Men in Power” in the Chicago Public Schools.
In addition, Men in Power is broken up into three smaller pre-professional groups for students interested in business, medicine, and law.
When Saltarelli was asked by one of the seven protesters if he believed there were not enough men in power, Saltarelli said he did, and that his group was interested in cultivating leadership in men. He said that success was not a zero-sum game.
“This is not a backlash, not a relative gain thing,” he said. “It doesn’t mean we oppose women.”
Saltarelli said that the group would create settings inviting to males for interests not yet served on campus, like prostate cancer awareness.
“There are 11 women’s groups on campus and none for men,” Saltarelli said. Fraternities are not RSOs and are not funded by University resources.
Women in Business president and fourth-year Jessica Pan saw nothing wrong with a pre-professional organization for men and women on campus, but “to call it Men in Power denotes something different,” she said.
“Other pre-professional organizations on campus serve the same function that Men in Power seeks to,” she said. “Not only are there many business RSOs from the Blue Chips to [the International Leadership Council], but I’m sure there are also pre-professional health and law RSOs. To allocate money towards the group takes away from other organizations who are already fulfilling that function.”
Saltarelli said that while existing groups may offer career-oriented services, they do not address issues of men’s rights. “Men have far higher instances of suicide and drug use than women,” Saltarelli said in an interview.
Pan said she believes that Women in Business serves a needed, gender-specific role.
“Gender is an issue that is present in the business world,” she said. “Not only are some women not paid as much as men for the same job function, but there are many fewer women executives.”
Second-year Eliza Behlen said the Feminist Majority, of which she is a member, plans to discuss Men in Power at their Tuesday meeting. Behlen hopes to work with Men in Power planning events, such as a series documenting the construction of masculinity and femininity in the media.
“That’s why we have men who come to our meetings, because we discuss issues relevant to everyone,” she said.
Fourth-year Ali Feenstra, another member of Feminist Majority, said she is not convinced Men in Power teaches men to be empowered without hurting other people.
“You need to think about the reason for the creation of female-only spaces, queer-only spaces, an independent reason why people might need to go there to feel safe,” Feenstra said. “It can’t just be ‘Because it exists for women, it should exist for men.’”
At the meeting, third-year Elizabeth Scoggin, Men in Power’s outreach director, said she saw gender divisions in the workplace as a problem for both genders.
“There is a stigma around women being involved in a group that recognizes that men have a role to play,” she said.
First-year Omar Massoud said he came to the Men in Power meeting because a sign sparked his interest. He said that he felt criticisms voiced at the meeting were unwarranted.
“This RSO has yet to do anything and the group goals seem completely justified,” he said.
Wright, the CORSO chair, said Men in Power describes a core philosophy significantly different from other groups, conducting a real exploration of men’s issues not addressed by CAPS. He said CORSO members were somewhat concerned about the name, which could be taken as pejorative or offensive to other groups. They decided it did not fall under language intended solely towards victimizing others and therefore should be approved.
Ultimately, he said, the organization will “have to live with it—they might be better off with another name, but it’s not on us.”
A bit slanted, no?
The name may be unfortunate but “Feminist Majority” is not exactly indicative of equality either
We are in a college setting, where we can think about the different issues that men and women face in the professional world.
I just wonder how the female CPS students would feel if this RSO launches its “Little Men In Power” program at public schools. For girls who are developing their world views and discovering their own potentials, I don’t think that any group called “Men in Power” is sending a positive message.
We are being asked by certain people why “men in power”? It has been suggested that our group, as it exists for the promotion of men, must exist against others, and in particular, against women. And the idea that we are a sexist group is pushed forward with a certain ardor. I think this issue touches the main nerve of the group, and I would like to address it. Any group that arises to promote the interest of its members, which would presumably have something in common, is in most occasions meant to help them thrive in a competitive environment, so necessarily at the detriment of others. That’s no news, and that’s not controversial. If we were to consider a group of architects getting together to promote their interests, we would look at it through what I would call the “neutral” lens, and certainly our critiques, together with all mip’s, would agree that this a perfectly legitimate group. And in that sense, the mip’s and their critiques would in the same “group of opinion.” Similarly, if we were to consider a group of white people, regardless of their gender, promoting their interests as white people, both the mip’s and their critiques would consider such a group through the “lens of discrimination,” and we would all agree that this is an illegitimate group and in that sense, yet again, the mip’s and their critiques would find themselves in the same “group of opinion.” To be sure, there are not too many groups for the promotion of ethnic minorities, and in most instances their struggle is still real and ought not to be the object of irony.
Now the discord comes from the fact that mip’s consider their gathering through the “neutral” lens, and their critique consider it through the “lens of discrimination.” Architects have nothing against interior decorators, they just happen to be architects. We have nothing against women, we just happen to be men. Hence the nature of the discord should by now be limpid. We are not pitted against the feminists, we are pitted against those who accuse us of being machists and misogynists, and these detractors turn out to be feminists. We are pitted against feminists not because we are sexists, but precisely because we are not sexists.
I find the mere fact that the University is even considering a group by this name as a pending RSO on campus, is a slap in the face towards everything that Woman’s Liberation has tried to overcome. When I read Steve Saltarelli”s March Viewpoints column as the satire it was intended, I never dreamed that men on UChicago’s campus would think it was serious. Apparently men appear to still want to keep women “in their place.”
“For girls who are developing their world views and discovering their own potentials, I don’t think that any group called “Men in Power” is sending a positive message.”
And what of boys who are developing their world views? Should they be surrounded by a vast majority of female teachers who, according to studies, show more preference to female over male students, then be taught that men are responsible for much of the evils of the world. No wonder teenage boys are significantly more likely to commit suicide. Society desperately needs a group like “Little Men in Power”
Are you serious GUI? You are sexist. Everyone, including women, is. I don’t care if your group exists though. Feel free to expose yourselves as the troglodytes you are. Its not like the money I pay for any rso benefits me.
troglodyte is misused in the below comment, unless they are implying at all members of men in power live underground…in which case the assumption is false
Sigh. Men are already in power. I didn’t realize they needed a group for that.
And, O, “Feminist Majority” as you incorrectly assume, does not mean “Woman Majority” or “Female Majority.” Feminism (well, feminisms…)is the notion that people are equal regardless of gender. As such, “Feminist Majority” means “An organization of people who think people are equal regardless of gender.” See how that is different than “Man Power”?
If this group of men is truly tired of being called “misogynists”, they should probably stop being misogynists first.
Tender Buttons,
If everyone is equal, then what is the objection with everyone having the same resources available to them?
Who are these Misandrists calling the MiP group Misogynists?
Two can play that game.
I am not exactly sure what the feminist movement is supposed to do? How can something be feminist if the only way you measure progress is to accomplish what men have already done? How is that feminism? Feminism is actually not interested in equality, but in female superiority. It is a gender war…and I applaud MIP for standing up to it. PC and philosophical drivel have muted men for far too long. I don’t think it is a white male thing, as I am an African-American male and I fully support this group.
Feminists only recognize Free Speech when it is approved Speech by them. The Marriage Strike is evidence that American Men are rejecting American Women. Feminism’s fruits include the 29 year old Man in TN. who has Fathered 21 children by 11 different Women. Who make minimum Wage. And who will ask Taxpayers to subsidize his Baby Mamas.
It is politically incorrect to sympathize or support men.
Please change group name and purpose to “Women in Power”, “Pets in Power”, “Minorities in Power” “Gays in Power” “Children in Power” “Victims in Power” for low risk, easy approval.
Ignore that men die earlier, lose more in divorce (kids, 18 years of income, property, respect), commit suicide in greater numbers, work longer hours, have few options (no work or part-time work and stay at home or full-time work for the women), no honor in the media and Hollywood, among other things.
Mark, thank you for exposing that MIP is a backlash-against-feminism group. Your “facts” are a joke. Women make 77 cents on the male dollar, are only 2% of CEO’s of major corps., are the poorest group in old age, fathers who fight for custody (most don’t) usually win over mothers, male suicides have other causes than maleness (like class issues), everywhere you look you see men already in power and women in subordinate positions (studies even show that women are interrupted more by men than vice versa), We’ve never even had a female President or VP–and women are only 18% of Congress! WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON??? MIP and its silly arguments is backlash-against-feminism (and therefore anti-women’s equality), pure and simple. You’re about as progressive as the White Citizen’s Councils were in the South!