Aggressive Style

The past couple of April Fool’s Days, I’ve amused myself — and hopefully a few of you — by indulging one of my pet peeves: campus political correctness. It’s a pet peeve because, you know, it has the power to destroy Western Civilization. Some are concerned that Evergreen State College won’t be evergreen anymore because of global warming; others are concerned it won’t be a college anymore. It’s one of those pick-your-battles kind of thing.

In 2016 I imagined a scenario in which traditional clothing becomes outlawed on colleges for all of its problematic baggage associated with the past. Well today The Drudge Report did something quite amusing that further stimulates the imagination to conjure up a not-to-distant future in which students at elite universities are given identical gray uniforms the moment they arrive. The editors needed a generic image to go with a headline about “aggressive masculinity,” and what did they come up with? What would really drive the point home?

A group of guys in blazers, colorful shorts and bow ties.

So don’t be surprised in our lifetime if we see a complete inversion of campus dress codes. The old codes used to force undergrads to dress up to a certain minimum of formality; the new codes may enforce dressing down to a maximum of informality. If Harvard can say that being a member of a same-sex social club is grounds for expulsion, why can’t it say the same about wearing a tie associated with such an organization, even if the organization no longer exists? And then why not ban ties altogether, or any other item of clothing that that is traditionally masculine?

Don’t think so? Just in the past week Yale essentially sent the message that men aren’t allowed to sing together, while at the University of Michigan it was proposed that “masculine” wood paneling inside one of the buildings marginalizes minorities.

I mean, if you’re 18 and just arrived at university and are already freaking out because of “quiet” “masculine” rooms inside the student union, how in the world are you going to deal with Aristotle, Dante, Shakespeare, Locke, Dostoyevsky, Freud and “The Great Gatsby,” not to mention endless hours of math and science homework and infuriating roommates? — CC

25 Comments on "Aggressive Style"

  1. Stewart Smalley, your office is calling.


  2. I actually went to an institution of higher learning where we wore identical uniforms–The Virginia Military Institute or as we called it the uncollected.

  3. That should be “uncollege”.

  4. Mitchell S. | July 25, 2017 at 1:22 pm |

    Next, ALL classic menswear such as neckties, blazers, and pants will be banned because they are associated with male violence and male privilege.

    Males will be required to wear burkas to class and wear makeup to show support to womyn.

  5. Vern Trotter | July 25, 2017 at 1:52 pm |

    Harvard seeks to ban only the “pernicious” clubs but then turns around and says all the clubs are pernicious. I can see the scenario outlined here arriving sooner than we think.

  6. Mountain Cat Prep (MCP) | July 25, 2017 at 1:55 pm |

    Oh no! Is this that Sharia Law I keep hearing about coming to the US?! Lord forbid that an acappella group unanimously agree to open up its membership, and that less than 1% of the student population at the University of Michigan feel a certain way about interior design.

    I apologize for the snark Christian, but I think your worries about this “Campus PC Crisis” are a bit overblown thanks to a few select and extreme instances.

  7. No, it’s a major, major issue, just not one that interests you personally.

    What I found especially interesting about the job listing is that the candidate should have a degree in women’s or gender studies, not, say, psychology with a focus in masculine development.

    The job is partly a “men’s engagement manager.” But just as you’d expect, the position is framed from the position of female victimization and male oppression, and so the way to improve the situation on campus is to have another administrator who specializes in giving workshops to men to show their privilige, oppressiveness, and toxic masculinity.

    I’ve been reading books on masculine psychology lately, and it seems like a delightfully patriarchal alternative would be to have men create a mentoring environment in which Wise Father archetypes (not Nagging Mother) encourage the boys to transition into manhood (rites of passage are virtually extinct in our culture) and cease acting out negative boy archetypes and start acting out mature male ones — or at least get on the path in that direction.

    I tweeted this out the other day with a wink at our president. If a leader (and ultimately any man) doesn’t become a Wise King leader, he falls into one, and often both, of the archetype’s shadows, namely the Tyrant and the Weakling.

    Graphic here:

  8. @MCP

    Never underestimate the power of 1% if they are deemed high atop the victim pyramid and have the proper support among egalitotalitarians. Because of that 1% the entire scientific literature on biology, which has taken a few thousand years to compile, is at least being questioned if not outried denied.

    A different 1% might succeed in getting a Western nation to re-affirm blasphemy laws.

  9. Mountain Cat Prep (MCP) | July 25, 2017 at 2:44 pm |


    Thanks for the replies. Firstly, I agree with you that this position you linked out should have a person holding it who has a psychology degree with a focus in masculine development or something similar, which is possible since some of the qualifications listed are degrees like psychology or public health, not just women’s and gender studies.

    However, after looking at the job posting, I don’t think this position is just another voice to bash men in general. Instead of trying to educate the victim on what they could have done to prevent the violence (Don’t dress that way! Don’t drink too much!), they’re just trying to educate men, who are typically the perpetrators, on what not to do. Would you agree that educating the perpetrators would be a more effective way of changing campus culture over educating the victims? You make it seem like they would be violently lecturing them on the evils of men, but I believe in reality it would be much more conciliatory.

    This position would also be very useful for men who are victims of interpersonal violence or other issues to have a safe space to reach out to for support, which is excellent. Having a cool gentleman work in this position, connect with the male students, and try to create better men for the Princeton community, is a just thing to do.

    Thanks for taking the time to chat with me about this, I appreciate it.

  10. Coincidentally I was listening to this lecture this morning by one of the authors I’ve been reading, and he talks about campus sexual assault at the 53 minute mark with an interesting point of view (from 25 years ago).

  11. PC has become something akin to a religion on my campus. Acknowledging that I’m painting with a broad brush, many of the people leading the PC charge here have the zeal of the convert. They evangelize and they certainly do not believe in pluralism. It’s either the PC way or you’re something like a devil. Someone more eloquent than me could demonstrate a lot of parallels between an organized religion (e.g. Episcopal denomination) and PC.

  12. Hunter Hartford. | July 25, 2017 at 3:05 pm |

    Why don’t we show a bit of honesty and just admit that brightly colored GTH shorts and trousers are indeed signs of masculine aggressiveness/macho-ness/male chauvinist pig-ness: a sign saying I’m so certain of my masculinity that I’m not afraid to wear colors usually associated with women or homosexuals.

  13. Is that what truly toxic and aggressive men think? Like hardened criminals, MS-15 or whatever it’s called gang members? They see a guy in bright pants with little lobsters and think “watch out for that motherfu**er”?

  14. Mitchell S. | July 25, 2017 at 3:47 pm |

    LOL, Christian. You should be a comedian. No, an MS-13 guy is going to see a guy in bright pants with embroidered critters and think “maricon!”

    If you are a member of a Salvadoran street gang, tattoos all over your face and neck convey high status, not Gucci bit-loafers.

  15. MS-13, The Latin Kings et al. cross the street when they see GTH critter shorts because they know that nobody is harder than a New England gangster. Same for motherfu**ers who say et al.


  16. Men-identifying persons who post comments on fashion blogs as well.


  17. I don’t know if the shorts in the pic signal a high level of masculine aggressiveness as much as they do a high level of un-self-aware douche-baggery. But that pic must be a little old: isnt the golden age of the frat bro on the wane, right behind RL Rugby?

  18. @Mitchell

    Have you ever actually heard a comedian?

  19. As for the curriculum, it’s already changing. Math and science are slowly being infected by third wave feminism and PC. The likes of Aristotle and Plato are deemed as “dead white men” and unless you take a philosophy or classics course you’re never going to have them assigned. They’re being replaced with diversity classes (read: content that is grievance themed w/ books selected due to the sole fact the author is not white, male, and/or straight) as electives, if not mandatory classes, for freshmen.

  20. @ MCP: Putting aside the snark, it’s obvious you don’t truly understand of which you mock. As a male I don’t actually need a campus-wide effort to educate myself about what I can possibly do to a fellow male or woman because my sex, in general, is the perpetrator of sexual assault and “interpersonal violence.”

  21. Mountain Cat Prep (MCP) | July 26, 2017 at 2:22 pm |

    @ GRA:

    The purpose of this position wouldn’t be to just lecture men about what assaulters do to their victims, it would be to educate them on what they could do to create a more healthy and safe environment for the students.

  22. I wonder if holding a door open, complimenting a woman on her appearance, walking between your lady and the street, squiring a young lady with an open hand at the small of the back, etc. would be regarded by these people who would seek to instruct normal masculine men? Never mind beating the hell out of somebody who mistreats a young lady. (It was the ’80s and a much more straight forward time.)


  23. I wonder how,not it.

  24. Not it, if. Did I mention that it is NATIONAL SCOTCH DAY?


Comments are closed.