Watching the President of Kappa Sigma initially supporting NCFM’s message, then flipping hours after … it became clear the Montana University System is teaching students what to think; no longer instructing these emerging professionals how to do so,” ~ NCFM Montana State University Chapter President, Nevada Thompson
Kappa Sigma President Aaron Adamski was for an NCFM campus group at the University of Montana before he was against it.
In a sudden and complete reversal of opinion about the formation of an NCFM group, Adamski first said that he had been in touch with Nevada Thompson about NCFM because it sounded like a chance to redefine fraternities in the community.
Said Adamski, “My fraternity wants to fight this image of frats, that we’re all womanizing date rapists.”
Ah, but that appears to just be the knee-jerk, honest kind of proclamation that could only come from a young man who had not been told how to toe the line, and for whom. But oh what a difference a couple of hours can make. His original statement was published by The Montana Kaimin on March 28.
On the very same day, with who knows what transpiring in the meantime, Adamski fired off a letter to the editor of The Kaimin, obviously written with someone’s stiletto lodged in his backside:
Like many Kaimin readers I was shocked and disheartened by the National Coalition for Men’s attempts to set up a chapter at the University of Montana and their attempts to reach out to the fraternities on campus. The brothers of Kappa Sigma feel that the NCFM has no place on this campus and their misguided views will only hinder the progress that has been made in dealing with the issue of rape and abuse at UM. We were founded in 2007 by a diverse group committed to work hard every single day to combat greek [sic] stereotypes. Kappa Sigma was founded specifically with service as the primary purpose, specifically the purpose of protecting women from all forms of violence and abuse. We are proud to participate in causes such as Take Back the Night and Walk A Mile in her shoes. We strongly urge our fellow fraternities to reject the NCFM and their backwards views about women. There is still a lot of work to be done to eliminate rape and abuse in our community and we will continue to be a partner in that effort.
The poor boy was clearly shaken, and nervous. But no bother, he redeemed himself by mentioning all the appropriate campus feminist’s causes célèbre, and reassured everyone that his fraternity’s raison d’être was to protect women. I can only assume young Aaron is back in good graces with whomever he is afraid of, and is back to being well-behaved.
On April 10, he was continuing to sing for The Kaimin, even if someone else was clearly holding the sheet music up for him (or pulling the cord in the back of his neck). He reported on the sudden and coincidental vote of the Interfraternity Council (IFC) to reject any affiliation with NCFM.
“The general consensus of the IFC and the general consensus of fraternities in general was against this group, because we don’t believe that it would help us in anyway,” Adamski said, with newfound missionary zeal. “We don’t want to build walls when we could build bridges.”
Of course, one has to wonder if the walls Adamski is so worried about are those between his fraternity and the community at large, or the potential walls between himself and whoever was telling him his opinion.
Well, we can pretend to wonder if we want to.
At first blush these are disappointing developments. They are reminiscent of Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario, where two young women and one young man, disturbed by the “hate and intolerance” of violent protests against a lecture on the Boy Crisis by Dr. Warren Farrell at the University of Toronto, decided to push for the formation of a men’s issues group at their school.
They were summarily blocked in a kangaroo proceeding by the Ryerson Student’s Union, who went as far as to proclaim that any attempt to address the needs of male students on campus would be regarded on its face value as misogyny.
And this is the way this will go, for a while.
As AVFM and NCFM are now working together for the formation of men’s issues groups on university campuses, we see this as little more than instructions for how we are to proceed. They are not a roadblock as much as a detour on the road that will eventually enable us to circumvent the obstacles.
And it should come as no surprise. The feminist narrative is the most powerful force on college campuses today. We have seen it at the University of Toronto, where violent protests begin in part with groups sent by that school’s women’s studies department.
We saw it at Ryerson, where even the idea of men having issues is summarily dismissed as hate. We saw it at Simon Fraser University, where the idea of a men’s group was met with equally virulent hostility.
And now we see it at the University of Montana, where a young man naïve enough to imagine that a men’s group that actually addressed some of the challenges faced by young men was a good idea, found himself in hot water so quickly that his life has been one big, fat mea culpa ever since.
In the end, though, it won’t make any difference. If anyone thinks that the idea of men’s issues groups, or the desire for them to be established is going to just go away, they need to crack a few history books. As history shows time and time again, where there is a need, people act, and they do not quit easily.
The need for men’s issues groups outside the purview of hateful gender ideologues has never been greater.
The good news is that cooperation from fraternities and student’s unions is nice, but hardly necessary. These groups can and will form with or without the approval of organizations already under feminist ideological control. NCFM Montana State University Chapter President, Nevada Thompson told The Kaimin that she is disappointed that NCFM didn’t have the support of the fraternities, but that the group is still working to starting a UM chapter next fall.
“We’ve got a couple of students who really seem interested so we’ll be coming down to meet with them,” she said. She also said that the group is reaching out to University of Montana professors for support.
On our end here, as we enter more substantive stages of this work, we are charged with developing the infrastructure for guiding and supporting these young people through the maze of bigotry and distortion of their mission that they will face at the average college campus. This is going to take some time, but we are meeting weekly and hope to have the foundation for that infrastructure built within a reasonable amount of time. Personally, I am hoping to have something in place by Fall, but cannot make any promises. It is a mountain of work that must be done correctly the first time.
But it will happen, regardless of how long it takes. There have already been a lot of contacts from interested parties, and we anticipate that will increase with time. Like I said, the need is there, and the resistance and fear of speaking up is beginning to wane. It is no longer if, but when.
Men’s issues groups are coming. And I am proud to say that you will be witnessing the documentation of that here, in as much detail as sensible strategy allows me to bring to these pages.
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part III – Tom Pynn - January 26, 2015
- Byron Hurt throws black men under bus while feminists drive it - January 25, 2015
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part II – Stacy Keltner, garbologist - January 19, 2015
- KSU feminists panic over AVfM stickers - January 18, 2015
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part I – Introduction - January 16, 2015