A Post-Mortem On The Corpse Of ‘Social Justice’

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com

I have been commenting on social justice propaganda for quite some time; long before it was fashionable to do so, and long before there was an organized movement of support to defend commentators who dared to question the insane dictates of the cult of political correctness. In my article ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness’, published in early 2014, I outlined the basic philosophical underpinnings of political correctness and what these beliefs tend to lead to. At the time, the future for champions of individual liberty and reason appeared rather bleak. Today, I am happy to say the backlash against “third-wave feminism” and cultural Marxism has expanded beyond anything I could have dreamed.

I do not want to diminish or underestimate the threat still posed to personal freedom by the adherents of the social justice cult, but at this stage I think it is safe to say that political correctness is effectively a dead movement walking.

Recent statistics without bias are hard to come by. That said, the latest available numbers show that people who agree with “gender equality” are many, but those who identify as “feminist” are slim. In the U.S. this constitutes 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 that identify as feminist depending on which polls you look at, while in the U.K. feminists make up only 7 percent of the population.

According to the CDC, abortion rates from 2008-2014 fell to historic lows post Roe v Wade. Abortion being a primary platform and leverage issue for social justice warriors, I take it as a good sign that even in a time of severe economic instability people are backing away from abortion as an acceptable option.

Just as a general observation, social justice has not been a reliable driver for political success, considering the abject failure of the Clinton Campaign in 2016, which clung tightly to SJW ideologies throughout the election cycle.

And finally, social justice has also not been selling so great in the marketplace. This is most evident in the entertainment world, where movies created by producers with open social justice agendas continually fail to bring in expected box office numbers.

For example, the feminist-produced and-directed Ghostbusters reboot ended with a dismal showing compared to many other blockbuster movies of with the same production costs, ending its run with an estimated $70 million loss.

Feminist action films perpetuating the fantasy of physical parity between the sexes, like the movie Atomic Blonde, though receiving accolades from mainstream critics (like all social justice films do), have had embarrassing showings in theaters.

And finally, perhaps the biggest sign of a sea change against social justice in pop culture, even massive brand names like Star Wars are suffering when social justice propaganda is injected into the franchise. The latest installment, The Last Jedi, with its obvious and heavy-handed social justice messages, had one of the worst second week showings of all the Star Wars movies (adjusted for inflation) and only generated a little over half of the revenues brought in by The Force Awakens. Not to mention the highly critical audience reviews and the complete bomb the movie suffered in the Chinese market, which was supposed to help elevate revenues that were expected to be much higher.

So, what has spurred this societal rush for the exits when it comes to cultural Marxist ideals? There are many reasons why Americans in particular cannot stand these people. Here are just a few…

Deliberate Deconstructionism Of Root Mythologies

One of the core tenets of cultural Marxism is the destruction of a society’s vital mythologies and symbols. In other words, the very psychological archetypes that make up the collective unconscious are targeted.

This is one of the reasons why SJWs are so obsessed with the entertainment industry. Much of the art and stories that inspire us in modern times are found in film and television. Identity politics has been the premier staple of Hollywood the past decade, so much so that it is no longer even hidden. In fact, despite the reality that the SJW ideology has been proven to be a money loser, production companies are STILL pushing the issue, choosing political messages over profits. Parables are often more powerful than real events and present a tempting tool for mass mind control.

Social Justice deconstructionism is often mistaken as an unintended “business blunder,” but the truth is that these companies are absolutely aware of what they are doing. Cultural Marxists want to dismantle social and biological norms, moral principles and beloved heroes because they hope to create internal chaos within a nation. Once this occurs, they desire to then instill their ownideology on the confused and fearful populace.

Unmitigated Self-Indulgence

Social Justice is also rooted in the notion that self-indulgence and gluttony on every level should be celebrated as healthy and “progressive.” Sexuality is a purely recreational affair without consequence or physical and psychological responsibility. Not only this, but it should be pursued in as many forms as possible, and if a person sees something wrong with this or has a natural inclination to avoid these behaviors, then they are “homophobic,” “transphobic,” racist, fascist, etc.

Obesity is defended as “beautiful” and “wholesome” through the “body positivity movement,” even though it has been proven in every notable study to result in incessant health problems including diabetes, heart disease, birth defects, cancer and clinical depression.

And, perhaps the worst indulgence of all; the psychological indulgence of intellectual isolation is encouraged. “Safe spaces” are enforced as a means to protect the social justice cult from challenging ideas and people. Willful ignorance is applauded as ideological strength and an act of loyalty to the collective. All intellectual opponents are treated as monstrous criminals rather than merely informed adversaries with a different point of view.

The Attempted Erasure Of Masculinity

In my article ‘Will Manliness Make A Comeback In 2018‘ I outlined why masculinity in particular has been so often targeted by SJWs. In fact, masculinity represents an element of unpredictability to a society that is important to individual liberty but dangerous to the establishment. Femininity tends to lend itself far more to collectivism and, by extension, the desire to rely on an outside force like the government as a provider and for security when a masculine presence is not available.

When masculinity is repressed in a society and matriarchy is entrenched, such systems are historically doomed to failure and collapse. Superior production, invention, organization and security are a staple of a masculine foundation within a culture. The war on men is yet another product of cultural Marxist deconstructionism.

By extension, the assertion that masculinity is evil within men is often followed by the assertion that masculine displays by women are empowering and good. In this way, true femininity is also under attack, as women that enjoy and naturally gravitate towards biologically feminine roles are admonished by feminists as being “slaves of the patriarchy” or “breeders” that hold back the social justice movement.

Life Is About Emotional Validation

Validation without merit and demanded empathy without discrimination are time bombs within any culture. Social justice thrives on these disturbing ideals.

It is important to point out that these mindsets are often an extension of narcissism. Narcissists make up about 10% of any given population at any given point in history, which is interesting because latent sociopaths and psychopaths (as well as full blown sociopaths and psychopaths) also make up approximately 10% of any given population. SJWs are liable to display both narcissistic and sociopathic qualities, desiring constant emotional validation from all the people around them while also holding morally relativistic stances on most issues.

This does not mean that SJWs do not appear empathetic. Quite the opposite. Most narcissists and sociopaths are highly adept at hiding their aberrant character flaws behind causes, platitudes and virtue signaling. They have to believe that the things they do and the ideals they seek to enforce are grounded in moral soil, even though the consequences of these ideals are usually destructive. When confronted with reality, that they are the villains rather than the heroes they imagine themselves to be, they can become erratic and violent.

SJWs have effectively turned sociopathy and narcissism into a civil rights movement.

Identity Politics

SJWs see group identity as the defining factor in a person’s personal worth, as well as the worth inherent in their ideas and claims. Now to be fair, SJWs are not the only group guilty of this idiocy. The so-called “Alt-Right,” which is actually a tiny contingent of pretenders that claim to be “conservative,” is rampant with people that think skin color is somehow immediately reflective of mindset. While SJWs see all white people as inherently dangerous, the Alt-Right sees all non-white people as inherently dangerous. This of course ignores all cultural factors and individual factors for the sake of lazy broad brush politics and absurd non-solutions. These groups are basically two sides of the same coin.

That said, it is true that SJWs are the most aggressive and vicious of the two sides so far.

SJWs adore identity politics because they see victimhood as a currency. Victim group status can be used within a socialist/collectivist system to purchase entitlements from the state, which is the only god-figure that these people know or love. The more oppressed you are on the list of victim groups, the more stuff you can get from government, as long as that government is also collectivist in nature.

This helps to explain the sudden explosion in the trans-person fad over the past few years. White people in particular are extremely disadvantaged within the identity politics ladder of oppression, UNLESS they identify as transgender. This allows them a quick route to victim status and social entitlements, swiftly surpassing other ethnic groups.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty – Trial By The Mob

Whenever I see SJWs in action I am always reminded of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, in which a man is prosecuted for a crime that is never explained to him and sentenced without understanding how or why. As his trial commences, he makes a rousing speech appealing to logic and reason but is laughed at by the hordes and the courts as if what he is asking for is ridiculous.

This is the social justice standard — to attack all opponents as inherently criminal. To label them racist, misogynistic, homophobic or privileged from birth by virtue of their skin color or gender. This argument even extends to “implicit bias” which they claim makes all white people specifically racist and advantaged without them even being consciously aware of it. They also accuse all men of being innately sexist and violent.

This allows SJWs to make indictments without evidence, for how can anyone ever prove or measure such a thing as “implicit bias” and show that they DON’T suffer from it. Proving a negative (a virtual impossibility) becomes the task  the accused must perform to purify themselves before the court of social justice. It’s simpler for many to apologize for whatever they are accused of and sublimate in the hopes of redemption.

What many SJWs don’t seem to realize is that by using broad and abstract ideas such as “hate speech” as a means to attack and criminalize their opponents as guilty until proven innocent, they also open the door for governments to do the same using similar justifications.

A recent and horrifying example is the Spanish government’s implementation of “hate speech laws” against eight teachers that are vocal proponents of the Catalan separatist movement!  What do Catalan issues have to do with hate speech?  It doesn’t matter. As we critics of social justice have been warning for years, literally anything can be labeled “hate speech” without due process, and one day this might even come back to bite cultural Marxists on the ass.

A saying comes to mind which was popularized by Michael Savage, but stated first as far as I can tell in Ecclesiastes 9:10:

Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.

In other words, hell is a place without reason, and SJWs are seeking to construct hell on Earth.

Are Social Justice Warriors Actually Aliens From Another Planet?

This would help explain a lot, and I wish it were that easy. SJWs act like they cannot fathom humanity and despise the dictates of human nature. They display elements of moral relativism and lack critical thought. They seem to operate on a completely different set of intellectual and emotional rules. That which has sustained human society for thousands of years and hundreds of generations is not of any value to them. They almost seem to be studying how to dissect humanity rather than participate in humanity.

Unfortunately, these people are indeed entirely human, which is a depressing fact to say the least. They are what Carl Jung describes in his book The Undiscovered Self as an expression of the “collective shadow.” That 10% (and sometimes greater) of a nation that embraces sociopathic tendencies and organizes in the worst of economic and cultural conditions.

Luckily, this “invasion” is being squelched in the U.S., at least in the past couple of years. Before long, the term SJW may be a distant memory of a time that history will consider a brutal hallucination, rife with a mob based mental illness that almost consumed the world.

***

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

With global tensions spiking, thousands of Americans are moving their IRA or 401(k) into an IRA backed by physical gold. Now, thanks to a little-known IRS Tax Law, you can too. Learn how with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals how physical precious metals can protect your savings, and how to open a Gold IRA. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

Will Manliness Make A Comeback In 2018?

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com

Men embracing their masculinity and biological heritage has not been the easiest path the past few years, at least, for those who care about being labeled a “toxic” curse hanging over the history of the world. For me, frankly, I am indifferent to the gnashing and wailing of feminists and the social justice cult. They are a paper tiger and always have been. Beyond that, it’s almost impossible to live in rural Montana without being a capable man (or living in a family with capable men), so even if I wanted to become some kind of liberal my-little-pony metrosexual, the environment simply would not allow for it. I would get eaten alive, or I would have to leave.

It is this lesson above all else that I would like to impart here — masculinity can only be abandoned when the environment is sterilized and controlled and entirely “safe.” Put any feminist out in an uncontrolled and dangerous environment (like the wilderness) for a few weeks, and it won’t be long before they will beg for someone with all those “toxic” masculine traits to come and help them.

In fact, though scientists rarely undertake any social experiments to explore this reality (due to science in our era being heavily tainted by identity politics and liberal bias), there are many examples of the vast differences between genders on display in survival shows such as the Bear Grylls show ‘The Island’.  The British reality series originally featured a group of thirteen men left on an island with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on their backs. Their goal? Work together to survive for one full month.

After accusations of “sexism”, the show started its next season with a group of men and a group of women given the same task. The show had various versions and copycats in other nations, some featuring competitions between the men and the women, but the end result was invariably the same regardless of the country.

While having their own setbacks, the men’s groups do decidedly better in every case, not just because of superior strength, but also superior organizational ability (an evil masculine trait). In the American ‘Survivor’ version of this experiment, which had the groups in proximity to each other, the women inevitably depended on the men for aid.

The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine. This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive. For an example outside of the jungle, read this article by a female entrepreneur who had a utopian idea to build a company made up only of women – a company which suffered complete gridlock and bankruptcy only two years later from employee discord and laziness.

Because of the inadequacies of a culture without strong male presence, feminism and “social justice” as ideologies instantly lend themselves to socialism and collectivism. In fact, it’s hard to separate one from the other.

Socialism provides the governmental and legal bubble that helps to protect people who cannot or will not protect themselves, and collectivism forces capable people (mostly men) to do all the hard labor necessary to keep a system functioning and safe “for the sake of the group,” whether they want to participate in that group or not. In the beginning this is done through taxation, entitlement programs and the centralizing of wages into metropolitan areas. In the end, it is done through unabashed slavery. If you want to see an example of this simply look up the end result of the Stalinist and Maoist models – a productive minority is always tasked (or forced) to feed, house and clothe the non-producing majority.

And this is how these people hope to live out their entire lives — blissfully sheltered from unpredictable environments that require technical know-how, independent ingenuity or decisive and sometimes violent action.

Feminism in particular seeks the destruction of all masculinity as a prerequisite to a supposedly safer world. To illustrate, take a look at this article published by the ever-establishment, ever-collectivist Bloomberg titled “How To Make Better Men.”

The article is typical propaganda, falsely associating masculinity first with institutions that do not define masculinity as well as attitudes that are not necessarily only attributed to men. The goal here, of course, is the demonization of men in general through association with already-established negative events and symbols. Bloomberg ties men and male behavior to the scandal surrounding the recent string of accusations of sexual aggression in politics and Hollywood.

To be sure, these institutions and industries in particular seem to attract a certain type of deviance, not that all the accusations made so far should be treated as fact. Prosecuting someone in the media and in the court of public opinion is not the same as prosecuting them in a court of law. The #MeToo movement is mostly a farce on par with the witch hunting displayed in The Crucible; relying solely on stirring the frothing fervor of the mob rather than generating facts and evidence.

That said, the cases that do seem to be provable illustrate a pattern of narcissism and sociopathy common in the entertainment industry and in politics, and this is a problem among men AND women within these cultural structures. Just look at Hillary Clinton and her treatment of the women that threatened her husband’s career.

And despite what feminists claim, narcissism and sociopathy are not inherently masculine traits. Many women display these character flaws constantly, but in slightly different ways from men.

Is it wrong for a man to pressure a woman into sexual activity through leverage or force? Of course. But is this a “masculine” behavior, or a sociopathic behavior? Bloomberg and the feminists want to condition you to assume the two are interchangeable.

Now, many other behaviors that have been wrongly attached to rape in order to demonize men are in fact masculine and are not negative. Is it an assault for a man to tell a woman on the street she looks good? No. Is it an assault to be direct with a woman or to pursue her for a relationship? No, as long as she doesn’t tell you to back the hell off then all is fair game. Is it an assault to look at a woman and think thoughts you would not share with your own mother (unless you are a freak)? No, not at all. In fact, you will find that many women PREFER a man that is direct over a man that walks on eggshells and is constantly apologizing for acting on what is biological and natural. It is feminists who are complaining about these behaviors, and feminists do not represent women in the slightest.

How do feminists plan to weed out masculine behavior that has sustained civilization since the beginning of recorded time? They hope to accomplish this through public schools. First by propagandizing children (like Bloomberg propagandizes their readers) into believing that traditionally masculine behaviors are “bad.” Boys should be more calm in class, sit still, be quiet, less high strung, they should cry more and share their feelings, they should be admonished for playing violent games such as war with sticks and their imaginations, they should be taught to be vulnerable and less ambitious, they should be, for all intents and purposes, feminized.

Make no mistake, there is a highly concerted effort in the public school system to enforce the feminist ideology by sinking their fangs into the next generation of men and “training” the manliness out of them. Of course, it seems to me that if these behaviors weren’t entirely natural, then the feminists would not have to put so much effort into an agenda to condition children to their side. Why not keep ideologies out of schools completely and let the children decide what comes naturally when they are older?

Beyond the circus of sexual issues dominating the media for the past few weeks or the feminist final solution, I will say that the violence of action is indeed a predominantly masculine characteristic, and honestly, we need far more of it.

It seems to me that feminism and social justice, whether knowingly or unknowingly, feed into the establishment power structure and allow it to thrive. Encouraging men to be weak, indecisive, indirect, fearful of group condemnation and fearful of their own aggression makes a society less secure and more malleable. Masculinity is often raw and unpredictable. It makes sense that potential tyrants would seek to diminish it so that they do not have to worry about sudden rebellion. In ancient times, invading armies would target the military age males of a culture and kill them off. They would then assimilate the women and children, and young boys would be raised to defend the banner of the conqueror.

Today, this is being done in a different manner. Men are being castrated symbolically in media and film, or castigated through our educational system as a nuisance. We are being encouraged to abandon all the qualities that make us a threat to the establishment, in the name of social tranquility. But of course, in the end only the establishment benefits, and “tranquility” is certainly not guaranteed once we fall on our own swords.

Believe it or not, though, I am hopeful.

The tides have been turning against the feminists and the social justice cult lately. And contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because of Donald Trump. If anything, Trump’s popularity is merely a reflection of the vast and growing backlash against the extreme left and the cultural Marxism they promote.

When there is a social backlash, it usually results in people immediately educating themselves on everything the offending movement originally condemned. Meaning, if the feminists hate it then it is probably good. Will this encourage men, and the millennial generation in particular, into finally pursuing technical prowess, physical and mental toughness, independence and self sufficiency, personal security and self defense and the ambition to build something better? Will our dwindling Western populations see a resurgence of child births? Will the newest Generation Z, growing up in the midst of an increasingly difficult economic environment, adhere to more masculine traits by necessity?

If there is any indication of such a return to masculine roots, it will probably become visible in 2018 as the influence of the feminist agenda continues to wane. We shall see. If not, then the Western world is in dire trouble. For if we do not make manliness “fashionable” again and soon, it might be bred out of our culture entirely. And with this loss, a cultural death is guaranteed.

***

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

Eating Meat Perpetuates "Hegemonic Masculinity", Professor Says

Authored by Toni Airaksinen via Campus Reform,

A Pennsylvania State University sociology professor recently argued that eating meat perpetuates “hegemonic masculinity” and “gender hegemony.”

In the most recent issue of the Journal of Feminist Geography, professor Anne DeLessio-Parson argues that “hegemonic masculinity implies an imperative to eat meat” and that this helps reify other power hierarchies as well.

To study the link between masculinity and meat, DeLessio-Parson interviewed 23 vegetarians who live in Argentina to probe how they deal with their country’s “meat-centric” culture, finding that being vegetarian itself is a political act.

Vegetarians also contribute to the destabilization of the gender binary, she argued.

“The decision to become vegetarian does not itself destabilize gender, but the subsequent social interactions between vegetarian and meat-eater demand gender enactment - or resistance,” DeLessio-Parson discovered.

 

“Refusing meat therefore presents opportunities, in each social interaction, for the binary to be called into question,” she said, noting that women, for example, may not consider dating men who eat meat, while male vegetarians might end up spending more time in the kitchen as opposed to outside on the grill, all actions which can destabilize gender norms.

In an interview with Campus Reform, DeLessio-Parson explained that her interest in the issue arose after spending five years as a vegetarian in Argentina, where she worked with community organizations and as an English teacher.

There, she realized that vegetarianism isn’t just a lifestyle choice, but a feminist act.

“Women, one of the ways they push back against patriarchy, they say, "This is my body. You don"t get to tell me what comes in and out,’” she told Campus Reform, explaining that vegetarianism is a way women can assert their agency and autonomy.

She also noticed characteristics unique to male vegetarians, asserting that although many men in Argentina “still have these very hegemonic masculinity traits,” male vegetarians “seem more egalitarian and respectful” and “more open about talking about how sexism exists.”

DeLessio-Parson concludes that vegetarianism can help “destabilize not just gender, but also other hierarchies, and drive social change.

“If we can pay more attention to what we put in our bodies...we can create a better sense of peace in the world. Vegetarianism is a part of that,” she writes.

Professor Suggests "Toxic Masculinity" Caused Las Vegas Massacre

Authored by John Hasson via Campus Reform,

Mass shootings, including the recent Las Vegas massacre, are caused by “toxic masculinity,” according to a professor at Columbia College Chicago.

Last week, shortly after the horrific shooting in Las Vegas, Philosophy professor Stephen Asma tweeted a link to an op-ed he had written for Aeon in 2016 arguing that “toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings.”

“My article on the weaponized loser seems sadly trenchant every few months. #shooter #ToxicMasculinity #Paddock,” Asma remarked in the tweet, apparently attributing the murderer’s motives to the “toxic masculinity” that Asma blames for other mass shootings.

“The facts of toxic masculinity are rarely discussed after mass shootings, as we beat the usual drums of gun control and mental health...But consider the bigger evolutionary picture,’ Asma writes in the op-ed.

“Social life requires the domestication of men...Males must transform from little tyrants, competing for females, to selfless bodyguards and potential providers.”

Asma then asserts that if a man is unable to obtain a partner, he remains “emotionally juvenile—aggressively impulsive, self-serving, and potentially violent,” and may even “take up a disdainful hostility towards domestication itself.”

He even asserts that Islam and Christianity share part of the blame, because both religions advocate for sexual abstinence before marriage.

“Islam and Christianity have played an important role in domesticating their respective male populations, but at a cost,” he writes.

“Religion tries to manage eros for the sake of social harmony, but it does so indirectly by demonising desire and the body.”

This emphasis on abstinence, Asama continues, plays a key role in producing violence.

“Ascetic repressions, without creative outlet, often increase violent energy,” he claims.

“Revenge fantasies and righteous religious narratives (that glorify suffering) help justify the punishment of everyone who is successful. Now add guns to the dynamic, and the story writes itself.”

Asma hedged when asked to clarify his apparent claim that Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock’s actions could be explained by the op-ed, however, telling Campus Reform that it “seems too early to say” what Paddock’s exact motivations were.

“Paddock is not a clear match with my thesis, but that"s because he remains a mysterious cipher,” Asma elaborated, though he ominously added, “so far...”

Duke Recruits Men For Program To Fight "Toxic Masculinity"

Authored by Tori Airaksinen via CampusReform.org,

Duke University is recruiting male students for a nine-week program that pledges to “destabilize masculine privilege” and “interrogate masculinity.”

The program, known as the Duke University Men’s Project, seeks to help men examine how their masculinities exist “often in toxic ways” while beginning “the work of unlearning violence.”

“There is a misinformed narrative that gender equity and feminism hurts men,” a description for the program suggests, adding that “through conversations on the limits of masculinity and healthy alternatives we demonstrate that men have much to gain.”

Over the course of the nine-week program, men will participate in weekly discussion groups conducted through an “intersectional feminist lens,” with the hope of helping male students learn an “intersectional understanding of masculinity” and creating “spaces to destabilize masculine privilege.”

Organizers warn that the program isn’t for the faint of heart, explaining that the discussion groups will make men feel “vulnerable” and “will be challenging,” and should thus be “taken seriously.”

Notably, the application for the program, which closes Wednesday, asks students to describe how “privilege...operates to create inequality on Duke’s campus” and list their preferred gender.

While the project was founded last year with a single group of fifteen students, it has added an additional discussion group this year to accommodate increased student interest.

Upon successful completion of the program, participants will be dispatched across campus to host events for other students on topics such as “pornography and rape culture, male privilege and taking up space, and gender disparities in emotional labor.”

Although the men’s project specifically targets men, it appears that at least some female students are involved with leadership of the program, though when Campus Reform reached out to some of its organizers, all declined to comment, citing “university policy.”  

Participants will not be paid for the program, though the school did recently hire a Men’s Engagement Intern who will earn $9 per hour to help lead the program and foster “collective buy-in on the part of men.”

Additionally, the weekly discussion groups will be held at the university’s Women’s Center, which formed in 1987 after students submitted a 76-page proposal for its creation, now with a mission of helping both men and women “resist patriarchal oppression.”

Campus Reform reached out to Duke University for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.