Are fraternimisia and fraterniphobia real?

Pardon me for introducing these strange new words—fraternimisia (hatred of fraternities) and fraterniphobia (fear of fraternities)—but how else do we describe what we are witnessing today? There seems to be an entire industry of online creators whose main pastime is to hate fraternities, fear fraternities, or simply demonize them for clicks and traffic.

When I talk about fraternities, I do not refer only to campus groups. There are also off-campus fraternities such as the Knights of Columbus, the Freemasons, and many civic brotherhood organizations that have existed long before the invention of social media. Are these groups also to be feared and hated? Should the same suspicion applied to young students be applied to long-established civic organizations?

Fear is one thing. Hatred is another. I can understand fraterniphobia—some people may have had traumatic experiences, or perhaps the word “fraternity” evokes images of hazing cases splashed across the headlines. Fear can be irrational, like fear of heights or fear of spiders, but it is real for the person feeling it.

But fraternimisia—the outright hatred of all fraternities—is a different matter altogether. Why do certain corners of the internet hate fraternities in general, and some fraternities in particular? Could it be that these individuals were once offended or aggrieved? Or are they merely echoing the loudest narratives online?

One anonymous content creator goes so far as to claim that “frat men are responsible for corruption in government.” According to him, there is a “legacy” of corrupt practices supposedly handed down from older fraternity members to younger ones. Can you believe that? By his logic, if one member of a civic club commits wrongdoing, the entire club must be corrupt as well.

Worse, he says that because the late statesman Juan Ponce Enrile was allegedly “corrupt,” then Secretary Sonny Angara must also be corrupt—simply because they are both Sigma Rhoans. This is irresponsible reasoning at its finest. Sigma Rho is a large fraternity with thousands of members across generations. To say that Angara “inherited corruption” from Enrile just because of a shared affiliation is the very definition of guilt by association.

This same critic also accuses Angara of “nepotism” for hiring former Undersecretary Trygve Olaivar. Never mind the fact that nepotism requires a blood relation—and that no such relation exists. Never mind that Olaivar is qualified. The mere fact that they belong to the same fraternity is, for some people, enough reason to cry foul.

I am a Sigma Rhoan myself, and I know for a fact that fraternities—like any organization—cannot be held responsible for the individual actions of their members. Some individuals may commit wrongdoings, but that does not make the entire brotherhood guilty. We must remember that accused persons are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

We cannot stop people from hating fraternities. Fraternimisia will exist as long as people prefer sweeping generalizations over rational discourse. But what we can do is remain discerning. Hatred is not analysis. Suspicion is not evidence. And reckless accusations can easily cross into cyber libel—which is another matter entirely.

Fear (fraterniphobia) can be addressed with understanding. Hatred (fraternimisia) must be confronted with truth. But neither fear nor hatred should ever justify careless accusations against individuals or entire communities.

In the end, the real challenge is not whether these new words exist—but whether we, as a society, still know how to think before we condemn.