Pitt display calls be a man example of toxic masculinity

A display recently surfaced at the University of Pittsburgh that labeled a “male protagonist” as making “a living being violent,” being “white,” and owning “lots of guns.” 

According to pictures of the display obtained by Campus Reform, one of the posters featured presented a flowchart of behaviors that perpetuate “hegemonic masculinity,” including “gendered socialisation,” “power inequality,” “social/health inequality,” “social reproduction of patriarchy,” and “patriarchal society.”

Another poster, titled “Stereotyped Gendered Behaviors,” portrayed a picture of a male next to the term “masculinity,” as well as a picture of a female next to the term “femininity” with a line dividing the two labeled “neutral androgeny [sic].”

The display also included a guide to “toxic masculinity,” with actions associated with the term listed as “emasculation,” “suppressed emotions,” “be a man,” “violence,” and “never a victim.”

Diverting from the topic of “toxic masculinity” and “gendered stereotypes,” a different poster warns about the dangers that men deal with compared to their female counterparts. 

According to the poster, men are “2x as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD,”  while “1/5th [of] men will develop alcohol dependence,” and are “4x more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism.”

A final poster features “Male Protagonist Bingo,” listing characteristics of male protagonists, such as “killing spree,” “white,” “makes a living being violent,” “bald/crew cut,” and finally “guns. Lots of guns.”

Campus Reform reached out to the Resident Advisor responsible for the display, but did not receive a comment in time for publication.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: Read more:

Prof wants colleges to pay women extra for emotional labor

A communications professor at the University of San Francisco is urging colleges to pay female faculty members for their “emotional labor.” 

Brandi Lawless, who teaches classes oriented towards social justice, argued in the March issue of Review of Communications that “emotional labor” is a form of academic work, just like teaching classes and grading homework is for professors. 

Emotional labor refers to “demonstrations of sympathy and empathy, one-on-one attention, supportive communication, counseling, general development of personal relationships, and making a person 'feel good,'” according to Lawless. 

[RELATED: College RAs suggest paying minority students for ‘emotional labor’]

In layman’s terms, emotional labor simply refers to the tendency for female professors to act more caring and nurturing than male professors, such as by being friendly and supportive to students, especially those who struggle personally or academically. 

Responding to emails, talking to students during office hours, and interfacing with school disability offices are all examples of this, Lawless notes. 

Though women across cultures tend to engage in more of this caring work, Lawless argues that “the unwritten rule that women are emotional creatures is not natural,” suggesting that female professors are socialized into this role because of neoliberalism. 

To address this issue, Lawless argues that professors should be paid for this work, declaring that “if we cannot stop neoliberalism in its tracks, then we must do something to improve our working conditions.”

Her plan encourages professors to document their emotional labor, such as in a calendar or workbook, and demands that academia recognize emotional labor as a valid form of work.

Lawless also calls on communication studies professors to produce more research on emotional labor that other academics can use to make the case for additional payments, concluding that “given the additional work that is expected of us from students, colleagues, and administrators, we must make arguments for compensation.”

[RELATED: Students, profs petition for administrative salary cuts]

Lawless isn’t the first to make this argument, however. University of California, Berkeley professor emerita Arlie Hochschild popularized the theory in her 1979 book The M

Read more:

Profs lament desire to win as a masculine social norm

In a recently published article, four professors complain that “masculine social norms” such as the “desire to win” prevent women from entering engineering fields. 

Led by Allison Godwin, who teaches at the Purdue School of Engineering Education, the professors published their research findings in an article titled “Hidden in Plain Sight: Masculine Social Norms in Engineering Education.” 

[RELATED: ‘Social justice warriors’ are ruining engineering, prof warns] 

The paper, inspired by an annual Frontiers in Education Conference held last October, warns that engineering schools are dominated by “masculine norms” and a “masculine culture” that hurts women in the field. 

These norms include not only the “desire to win” and “emotional regulation,” but also “dominance over others,” the “need to be high performing,” and “hegemonic masculinity.” 

Other allegedly harmful male norms include “a sense of invincibility” and “risk-taking,” though the professors do concede that students who display these norms are generally rewarded in society. 

The professors go on to frame these traits as hurtful to women, saying that masculinity ultimately perpetuates “accepted practices that legitimize men's dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of women and other marginalized ways of being a man.” 

Donna Riley, another professor at the Purdue School of Engineering Education, made a similar argument in December when she argued that “academic rigor” in engineering classes hurts women because it reinforces “white male heterosexual privilege.” 

Academic rigor can “reinforce gender, race, and class hierarchies in engineering, and maintain invisibility of queer, disabled, low-income, and other marginalized engineering students,” Riley claimed. 

[RELATED: Engineers baffled by ‘microaggression’ workshop at conference] 

To address this issue, the “Hidden in Plain Sight” article calls for increased attention towards masculinity in engineering. 

“[If] we want to better promote inclusion of those who are marginalized by engineering cultures, we must first generate a detailed understanding of why some membe

Read more:

Prof its miserable to work with evil conservative students

A philosophy professor at Siena College says that she left the committee on civil discourse because the thought of working with some conservative students was “making me miserable.”

In an email obtained by Campus Reform, professor Jennifer McErlean strongly condemned the conservative students on her campus, voicing her desire to protest the upcoming “Let Freedom Ring” conference that is slated to feature several prominent political figures including investigative journalist James O’Keefe, lobbyist Roger Stone, and others.

[RELATED: Profs puzzled that conservatives resist social justice courses]

The email appears to be part of a broader discussion chain between Turning Point USA Chapter President Antonio Bianchi and a university alumnus. While the professor addressed her grievances to the alumnus, she also copied Bianchi on the email, which personally berates him and another conservative student for their activism.

“I believe [Bianchi] greatly exaggerates the number of 'conservative' students who agree with his position (they are a small band) and his description of them feeling threatened borders on the ridiculous,” she wrote. 

“I withdrew from the committee that has been formed to figure out ways of productive civil discourse on such matters - it was making me miserable thinking of how to work with students like Antonio!” she continued, noting that “this way I am free to protest at the conference, IF there is any protest.”

Bianchi publicly condemned McErlean for her remarks, arguing that she “exemplified everything wrong with collegiate bias and discrimination against conservative students” in her email.

“In the email, she condones threatening tactics being used on conservatives on campus, insults myself, my members, and our organization,” he pointed out. “This is not acceptable.”

McErlean also voiced her concern about turnout for the counter-protest next month, fretting that not enough students will show up to oppose the free speech event.

“I'm still worried that so many groups are thinking about doing 'something' that nothing will result,” she wrote. “Faculty will surely have forums that counter and are more inclusive on issues like free speech and gun rights the week before and the week

Read more:

Conservative paper pressured into suspending publication

An underground conservative newspaper at Taylor University was recently pressured into temporarily suspending publication for striking “fear in some students.” 

The anonymous paper, called Excalibur, was launched in February by a group of professors as a means to articulate “conservative stances boldy, extensively, and without fear of editorial filter,” according to a copy of the print edition obtained by Campus Reform. 

[RELATED: Former prof recounts her ‘escape’ from political correctness]

“We are Taylor University faculty, staff, and students who heartily affirm the historic orthodox theological doctrines, as expressed in the Apostles creed and other classical ecumenical creeds,” the founders of the publication declared, claiming that the current campus publications “offer insufficient means to counter leftist trends.” 

In particular, Excalibur took aim at campus social justice movements, arguing that “a conservative-libertarian approach to race relations is most respectful of racial minorities and holds out the most promise for long term racial justice in this country.” 

The publication immediately sparked controversy, with students and alumni objecting to both the authors’ anonymity as well as their stances on current issues

In fact, a March 7 letter addressed to the “faculty behind Excalibur” collected more than 100 signatures and claimed that “in an anonymous publication, the authors have no credibility, however deserving they may be.”

“In absence of coherence, substantive rationale, or originality, the paper is thus left with no redeeming quality,” the letter stated, offering lengthy responses to several of Excalibur’s articles. 

“Rather, this paper has served to deepen fault lines on campus, strike fear in some students, and evoke anger among some parents, students, faculty, and alum,” it added.

[RELATED: Students ‘fear’ Chick-fil-A will jeopardize their ‘safe place’]


Read more:


National Weather

Click on map for forecast