Princeton University is looking to hire an “Interpersonal Violence Clinician and Men’s Engagement Manager.” In addition to providing clinical support for the men at Princeton, “[t]he Manager will develop and implement men’s programming initiatives geared toward enhancing awareness and challenging gender stereotypes…”
If you want to apply for the job, you had better be a leftist. Two of the “essential qualifications” are: (1) a “Masters or doctorate in social work, psychology, women’s and gender studies, public health, or related graduate degree,” and (2) “ab[ility] to balance strong commitment to social justice with a capacity to navigate complex organizational systems.”
As Karin Agness Lips, writing for Forbes, observes:
Women’s studies departments emerged out of the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s and have established themselves as one of the most dependable tools of the Left on campus. And the term “social justice” has been taken over by the Left to mean supporting liberal causes and ideas. In other words, the job description itself signals an unmistakable political agenda.
Note, too, that the second qualification suggests a tension between commitment to social justice and ability to function in the real world, a suggestion worthy of its own blog post.
It is important for universities to foster an environment of mutual respect between the sexes. But Princeton’s new position clearly signals the University’s intention to go much further. Indeed, one of the responsibilities of the position will be to:
Lead and expand a violence prevention initiative, Men’s Allied Voices for a Respectful and Inclusive Community (MAVRIC), promoting an environment for healthy male social development by challenging belief systems and social constructs that contribute to violence and offering alternative options.
This sounds like old-fashioned “re-education.” As Lips says, it “reeks of a larger concerted effort to reject any form of masculinity and label men as inherently toxic.”
Princeton isn’t alone in viewing masculinity, traditionally understood, as toxic. Lip points out that Brown University has a webpage dedicated to “Unlearning Toxic Masculinity.” The goal is to create, “safe spaces for men to unpack all of the things they have learned about masculinity and what it means to be a man” and “to help those socialized as men to unlearn some of the notions that have led to such profound harm being enacted toward others and toward themselves.”
What men at Brown really need is a safe space from Brown’s safe spaces. I suspect many will find them, to the University’s dismay.
Lips also reports that Duke and UNC have launched similar programs. The goal of the Duke Men’s Project is to have men “critique and analyze their own masculinity and toxic masculinities [and] to then create healthier ones.” Old-time leftists will recognize this as “self-criticism,” a staple of authoritarian Marxists.
As the language on the Brown webpage shows, the premise underlying all of this re-education and self-criticism is that men are the way they are because they were socialized that way. This can all be “unpacked” and “unlearned” because it has nothing to do with biology (e.g. testosterone). You just need to find the right gender studies grad to make it happen (and make sure her commitment to social justice won’t make her a menace to the college bureaucracy).
I’m pretty sure men can’t unlearn their masculinity. Some can become confused, though. Princeton, Brown, Duke, et. al. will probably have to settle for this level of brainwashing, which is toxic enough to advance leftism.