In September, Duke University’s Women’s Center began a nine-week program for men — called the Duke Men’s Project — to discuss masculinity, feminism and intersectionality. The program touches on several topics, including male privilege, sexuality, gender diversity, intersectional feminism and the language of dominance. While some see this as an attack on traditional masculinity, others see this as an opportunity to include men in conversations about women’s issues. Not sure what to think? Our columnists, Amber Montgomery and Jordan Drischler, give their takes on the project from opposing sides of the issue.

My hero growing up was my great-grandfather, and one of my favorite stories he told was about my grandfather and a set of weights.

After spending months training to lift the barbell above his head, my grandfather, then in junior high, proudly called his dad into his room to show him. As he set the weight down, he waited in anticipation for praise of a job well done.

In response, my great-grandfather picked up the barbell with one hand, hoisted it above his head, set it back down and replied, “When you can do that, come talk to me.”

I love this story because it brings back the nostalgia of times past when traditional masculinity — defined by strength and assertiveness as provider and protector — was still seen as a virtue. I’ve always described my great-grandfather as the quintessential 1950s television dad with traits from shows such as “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” — shows that portray fathers as respectable leaders.

But the reality is that if my great-grandfather lived in today’s era, his lack of praise for his son’s accomplishment would be met with cries of poor parenting and harming his child’s self-esteem.

The dichotomy between how men, and especially young boys, were treated just 50 years ago and now demonstrates the feminization of American culture and the decline in masculinity. This trend towards femininity has recently been thrown into the spotlight with the development of projects on college campuses designed to deconstruct masculinity and the patriarchy.

According to the “Duke Chronicle,” the Women’s Center at Duke University recently implemented a nine-week program called the Duke Men’s Project, meant to “facilitate discussions of male privilege and patriarchy.”

We need to heed this mindset when promoting programs designed to alter how we view masculinity. At first glance, they may seem to take a stand only against toxic aspects of masculinity, but in practice, these oft-repeated buzzwords can easily lead to a very slippery slope to viewing masculinity in its entirety as negative.

While these courses on the surface may seem to stand against the extremes of the patriarchy, a closer look at the statements made by founders and supporters of these programs give reason for concern.

“Our goals are to examine the ways masculinity exists on our campus — often in toxic ways — so we can do the work of unlearning violence. We want to explore, dissect and construct an intersectional understanding of masculinity and maleness as well as to create destabilized spaces for those with privilege,” the program’s invitation to The Duke Men’s Project said.

If a men’s group formed a program in an attempt to deconstruct femininity, it would most likely be met with outrage. This invitation takes the stand that men are inherently violent in a way that must be stopped. Men are physically stronger and more physically aggressive than women, and these qualities were a necessary aspect for society to survive throughout time.

A 2012 study at the Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology concluded, “evolutionary psychology states that every type of behavior is designed to perpetuate the continuance of the gene pool and ensure the survival of the species. This evolutionary imperative leads to gender differences in behavior.”

That men are more aggressive is what has helped countless civilizations survive. The beauty of the genders is that they complement each other. While men are stronger and have taken on the role of fighting wars and performing manual labor, women have become nurturing figures. Both of these roles are of equal importance and are vital for a society to perform efficiently.

While advances in technology have perhaps lessened the divide between these roles, it is still important that both are present. There are still manual jobs that require physical strength, such as with military service and construction. There are occupations that require a more nurturing and caring personality that women typically excel at, such as nurses and teachers.

Of course, there is overlap between the sexes, and these are not strict boundaries that must be followed exclusively by each of the sexes — I myself am a female mechanical engineer — but we should support at least a basic structure of gender roles. After all, while both men and women are equal, they are different, and they should be. We wouldn’t want a society where everyone is good at the same things. We should appreciate the different traits and skills men and women bring to the table and take advantage of their inherent differences.

So when a program deems any outward display of typical masculine traits — be it roughhousing or male bravado — as a problem that must be unlearned, they are hindering an aspect of men’s lives that they are made to perform. Now, it seems that any time a young boy acts out in class, he is reprimanded to act more like a little girl. Boys are discouraged from playing football because it is unsafe. Playground fights are viewed as signs that the child in question will become a serial criminal.

I am in no way excusing actual violence, but to discount the fact that physicality is a natural part of being male is naive and is hindering boys’ growth and development and society as a whole.

As a society, we should not be tearing down masculinity and its traits. We should support masculinity for what it contributes to society. Yet Alex Bressler, a Duke junior on the leadership team of The Duke Men’s Project, stated that the program was meant to “proactively deconstruct our masculinity.”

Duke isn’t the only school to take a stand against men. At Claremont University, a similar event to The Duke Men’s Project was held to provide a safe space to discuss toxic masculinity and mental health. Claremont junior Miles Robinson told “The Claremont Independent” that among the attendees, there was a “common consensus that masculinity is harmful both to those who express it and those affected by it.”

Both Claremont and Duke billed their programs as the creation of a safe space to discuss male privilege and patriarchy, yet the result at Claremont was a program that took on a very anti-male message.

“If masculinity is described as something negative — a mental illness — then this is sexism against men,” said Will Gu, a first-year Claremont student. “Safe spaces… are supposed to make everyone feel comfortable. Criticizing masculinity makes males who adhere to traditional gender norms uncomfortable.”

I believe this last point gets to the heart of the issue. There is nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to gender norms. We should celebrate and embrace male qualities just as much as female traits rather than denouncing masculinity for the sake of uplifting femininity.

While society will — and in many cases should — play a part in our decisions, it is wrong to say that just because you are choosing a traditional path means you have undergone a form of brainwashing.

We should support men who choose to live by traditional masculine standards instead of tearing them down to make them more feminine. We should appreciate the different traits of men and women instead of trying to make them one and the same.

We live in a time where we are very accepting of individuals departing from the traditional gendered path. But in the name of tolerance for pushing gender norms, many have become intolerant towards those who choose to adhere to them.   

Jordan Drischler primarily writes about politics and rhetoric for The Pitt News. Write to her at [email protected].