NARRATIVES OF UNDERGRADUATE MEN ABOUT MASCULINITY AND MEN’S VIOLENCE
Keenan Yul Colquitt, Jr.
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2020
Committee:
Kenneth Borland, Committe Chair
D-L Stewart, Committee Co-Chair
Jeanne Novak Graduate Faculty Representative
Ellen Broido
© 2020
Keenan Yul Colquitt, Jr.
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Kenneth Borland, Advisor
College, specifically undergraduate, men are often described as “drunken, promiscuous…
lovers of pornography, sports, and video games who rape women, physically assault each other,
[and] vandalize buildings on campus” (Harris & Harper, 2014, p. 10). These behaviors are perceived to be common, even normal, for undergraduate men. The behavior is observable on
today’s college campuses and was commonplace at the conception of post secondary institutions
in the United States.
The research on college men and masculinity primarily focuses on toxic behavior. These
studies perpetuate the belief that most college men behave this way, amplify participation in
toxic behavior, and undermine most men that do not. I focused on college men who worked to
disrupt toxic gender norms that perpetuate men’s violence.
I sought to understand how college men defined masculinity by listening to the stories
they told of how they learned to define masculinity as children, as adolescents, and as college
men involved in anti-violence initiatives. The study also attempted to understand how their
definitions of masculinity were shaped and informed by their involvement in these initiatives. In
addition, the study considered why some college men were motivated to disrupt toxic gender
norms; why they became and remained involved in anti-violence initiatives.
This qualitative study was conducted using narrative inquiry and a constructionist
paradigm. Josselson (2011) suggested four processes for narrative data analysis: overall reading,
re-reading for narratives, re-reading for patterns, and dialoguing the themes. I utilized these steps
for data analysis. iv
Participants initially defined their masculinity in concert with traditional masculine
norms; ideals they were taught as children. Gender and cultural discourse informed how they
defined and performed their masculinities. They also engaged in behavior consistent with dominant gender and social discourse to ascend social hierarchy and gain social status.
The participants matured in how they defined their masculine identities and became more
inclusive of non-traditional depictions of masculinity in other people. However, they were
motivated to be perceived as good men because they believed this would result in social
accolades and increased social status. Thus, these men continued to define their masculinity
through hegemonic ideologies.
v
Dedication
To my wife, thank you.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my advisors and my committee, thank you. It has been a long road and I can’t say how much I appreciate your help. To my friends, I appreciate your support. To my fellow scholars, thank you for providing me with guidance.
Lastly, to my family … my great-grand parents and grandparents, thank you for inspiring me to achieve this success. To my parents; my mom and dad, thank you for everything you sacrificed so that I could have. To my wife, thank you for sacrificing with me to see this through.
I love you all.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION…...... 1
Background of Problem…...... 2
Statement of Problem…...... 6
Purpose of the Study…...... 7
Research Questions…...... 8
Significance of the Study…...... 8
Definition of Terms…...... 9
Summary and Conclusion…...... 12
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE …...... 14
Gender and Gender Socialization…...... 14
Gender…...... 15
Masculinity…...... 17
Sex Categorization…...... 18
Gender Roles…...... 20
Gender Role Conflict…...... 21
Gender Role Socialization…...... 21
Hegemonic Masculinity…...... 25
Gender Regimes…...... 26
Power…...... 26
Domination…………………………………….…………………. .. 27
Society’s Permissiveness…………………………………………... 28
viii
Privilege…...... 28
Emphasized Femininity..…………………………………… 29
Hegemony... ……………………………….………………… 30
Masculinity as Behavior …………………………… 32
Masculinity as Identity……………………………... 33
Hegemonic Masculinity Reconsidered….... ……………………………………….. 35
Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity………………………………………. 35
Other Forms of Masculinity……………………………………………..… 39
Heteromasculinty or Heterosexual Masculinity …………………… 40
Toxic Masculinity ……………………………………………… … 44
Productive Masculinity ………………………………………… … 47
Challenging and Redefining Patriarchal Norms …………… 48
Masculine Capital … . ……………………………… 49
Environmental Ethos … ………………………….... 49
Re-thinking Productive Masculinity … . …………………………… 50
Patriarchal Power ………………………………………… 52
Hegemony ………………………………………………… 54
The Social Norms Approach ……………………………………………………… 56
Discourse ………………………………………………………………………….. . 58
Social Discourse …………………………………………………………… 59
Cultural Discourse ……………………………………………… ...... 59
Gender Discourse ………………………………………………...... 59
Weaknesses in Current Literature ……………………………………………… .... 60
ix
Conclusion ……………………………………………… ...... 61
Gender ……………………………………………… ...... 61
Masculinity ……………………………………………… ...... 63
Discourse ……………………………………………… ...... 64
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY………………………...... 67
Research Questions………………………………………………………………… 67
Researcher’s Values and Assumptions…………………………………………… . 67
Personal Interest…………………………………………… ...... 67
Educational Background…………………………………………………… 69
Professional Experiences…………………………………………………… 71
Paradigmatic Framework…………………………………………………………… 72
Ontology ……………………………………………… ...... 73
Epistemology ……………………………………………… ...... 73
Methodology ………………………………………………...... 74
Setting and Context………………………………………………………………… 75
Participant Selection……………………………………………………………… .. 76
Recruitment……………………………………………………………… ...... 79
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………… .. 80
Verification of Data……………………………………………………… ... 82
Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………… 82
Data Analysis ……………………………………………… ...... 83
Trustworthiness ……………………………………………… ...... 84
Credibility ………………………………………………...... 85
x
Transferability ……………………………………………… ...... 86
Dependability……………………………………………… ...... 87
Confirmability ……………………………………………… ...... 87
Harm ……………………………………………… ...... 87
Deception ……………………………………………… ...... 88
Privacy and Confidentiality ……………………………………………… .. 88
Limitations ……………………………………………… ...... 88
CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS……………………………...... 90
Beginning in the Midst at Snowy State…………………………………………….. 91
Profile: Bruce………………………………………………………………...... 94
Childhood………………………………………………………………...... 95
Adolescence………………………………………………………………... 97
College………………………………………………………………...... 104
Mensgroup……………………………………………………….. ... 109
Role of Discourse………………………………………………………….. 112
Profile: Gregory………………………………………………………………...... 116
Childhood………………………………………………………………...... 116
Gregory’s Mother………………………………………………… .. 119
Gregory’s Anger……………………………………………………. 119
Adolescence………………………………………………………………... 121
College………………………………………………………………...... 124
Mensgroup……………………………………………………….. ... 127
Role of Discourse………………………………………………………….. 128
xi
Profile: Indy………………………………………………………………...... 130
Childhood………………………………………………………………...... 130
Adolescence………………………………………………………………... 135
College………………………………………………………………...... 138
Mensgroup……………………………………………………….. ... 140
Role of Discourse………………………………………………………….. 144
Profile: John………………………………………………………………...... 149
Childhood………………………………………………………………...... 150
Adolescence………………………………………………………………... 154
College………………………………………………………………...... 159
Mensgroup……………………………………………………….. ... 160
Role of Discourse………………………………………………………….. 165
Summary…………………………………………………………………………. .. 168
Childhood………………………………………………………………...... 168
Adolescence………………………………………………………………... 168
College………………………………………………………………...... 169
Role of Discourse………………………………………………………….. 171
Status Seeking Behaviors - Bruce……………………………….. ... 171
Status Seeking Behaviors - John………………………………...... 172
Status Seeking Behaviors - Gregory……………………………….. 173
Status Seeking Behaviors - Indy………………………………...... 174
Conclusion………………………………………………………………...... 176
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………… ... 178
xii
Defining Masculinity……………………………………………………………… . 178
Defining Masculinity Through Acts of Aggression……………………… .. 179
Aggression in Action………………………………………… ...... 182
Defining Masculinity through Discourse………………………………… .. 186
Defining Discourse………………………………………… ...... 187
Gender Discourse in Action…………………………………… ...... 188
Gender Discourse Exemplified through Masculine Archetypes 189
A Place for Heroism in Hegemony……………… .. 194
Transitioning Definitions of Masculinity………………………………… .. 197
Conclusion………………………………………… ...... 201
Involvement in Mensgroup…………………………………………...... 202
Motivations to Become and Remain Involved …………………………………… . 205
Hegemonic Masculinity Revisited………………………………………………… 208
Undoing Gender and Challenging Hegemony…………………………………… .. 213
Challenging Gender Inequality……………….……………………………………. 216
Addressing and Understanding Privilege ….……………………………..... 217
Addressing and Understanding Hegemonic Masculinity…………………... 220
Summary…………………………………… ...... 223
Implications for Future Research…………………………………… ...... 224
Implications for Practice…………………………………… ...... 226
Conclusion ……………………………………………… ...... 229
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………… ...... 232
APPENDIX A. IRB APPROVAL LETTER ..... …………………………………………… 253
xiii
APPENDIX B. E-MAIL INVITATION LETTER … ..... ……………….………… ...…… 254
APPENDIX C. ON-LINE SURVEY FORM………………………………………….….. . 256
APPENDIX D. INFORMED CONSENT FORM………………………………………… . 259
APPENDIX E. CONVERSATION GUIDE ……………………………………………… 261
1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
According to Hong (2000), “men are disproportionately overrepresented among both
perpetuators and victims of violent crime” (p. 269). This phenomenon of men’s violence is
attributed to a link between their socialization into stereotypical norms of hegemonic masculinity
and an increased risk for experiencing violence (Messner, 1998, 2002). To respond to men's
violence on college and university campuses, administrators often utilize on-campus prevention
programs and/or anti-violence initiatives (O’Neil & Crapser, 2011). Earlier studies found that
most of these programs focused on traditional approaches to violence prevention and did not
consider how socialization and stereotypical norms inform men's violence (Hong, 2000). More
recent research offers many of the same critiques (Courtenay, 2011).
In this study, I highlighted the stories of men who participated in a group designed to prevent men’s violence on college and university campuses. My goal in conducting this study was to understand how these men came to define masculinity, how their definitions of masculinity were shaped and informed by their involvement in groups focused on men’s violence prevention, and to ascertain what motivated these men to participate in groups designed
to prevent men’s violence. For the purposes of this study, the term men was limited to cisgender undergraduate males. While I acknowledge that other individuals, transmen for example, may identify as men, the parameters of this study were not broad enough to include them. In addition,
given my limited knowledge and competence regarding members of the transgender community,
I believe attempting to expand this study to include transmen would lead to a grossly inadequate portrayal of their experiences. Therefore, with respect to these men, I have opted to position them beyond the scope of this study.
2
I also looked at how college men defined masculinity, the stories they told in relation to
how they define masculinity, and the stories they told about their interactions with other men on
campus in the context of challenging men’s violence. Most of the research on college men and
masculinity solely focuses on those behaving badly or engaging in violence. These studies
amplify men’s participation in violent behavior and undermine the majority who do not. Thus, in
this study I intentionally focused on college men who actively worked to disrupt gender norms that perpetuate men’s violence on their campus. In so doing, the men of this study affirmed the
potential for college men to embrace healthy attitudes and behaviors supportive of anti-sexist and
anti-misogynist views. I believe such an approach can offer findings more useful to men’s
development.
Background of Problem
Higher education and social science literature broadly portray undergraduate men as
“drunken, promiscuous, academically disengaged lovers of pornography, sports, and video
games who rape women, physically assault each other, vandalize buildings on campus, and
dangerously risk their lives pledging sexist, racially exclusive, homophobic fraternities” (Harris
& Harper, 2014, p. 703). Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) classified this type of violent and
crude behavior as “toxic” or as “toxic practices.” These behaviors are perceived to be common
among undergraduate men and most can be found in the early days of higher education in the
United States.
For example, men attending Harvard University circa 1788 incited numerous student
disturbances including rioting over food and beer, vandalizing school property, and physically
assaulting professors (Jackson, 2000). In a similar manner, men attending the University of
Virginia circa 1860 had a “fondness for drinking, gambling, and guns” (Thelin, 2019, p. 52).
3
Each of these examples is reminiscent of Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005) description of
“toxic” behavior or as “toxic practices.”
Later, during prohibition, college students operated campus speakeasies, drank bathtub gin, and actively participated in a culture of sexual freedom and excessive alcohol indulgence commonly associated with the “roaring ‘20s” (Thelin, 2019). Kimmel and Aronson (2004) noted the emergence of a new “gangster-bootlegger” character that became popularized during
Prohibition and how young men, including those attending college, romanticized these personas as violent outlaw-heroes and considered them exemplars of American masculinity.
Numerous behavioral themes are salient in these historical descriptions: aggression,
violence, alcohol use, and rule-breaking are just a few examples. They are problematic in nature,
prevalent throughout the history of post secondary institutions, and observable on college campuses in the present. This has led to toxic practices being perceived as normative even
though most college men do not engage in this type of behavior (Connell & Messerschmidt,
2005). As a result, these behavioral trends have been invariably linked to the perception of
college men.
Yet, societal norms for men’s behavior and masculinity have shifted over time. Pre-
modern societies, past ancient Greece and pre-Confucian China for example, had more fluid and
dynamic understandings of men’s roles, expressions of masculinity, and homoerotic relations
(Connell, 1993). “The terms homoeroticism and homoerotic refer to the tendency for erotic
feelings to be projected onto a person of the same sex” (Sponsler, 2007, p. 712). Negative
attitudes toward homoeroticism and more rigid norms of manhood and masculinity were
introduced through the influence of Christianity and particularly the growth of Protestantism
(Pickett, 2009, 2018). Connell (1993) noted that modern ideas of masculinity and manhood have
4 been shaped by notions of morality informed by religion and functionality, which have been determined by patriarchal capitalism.
Patriarchal systems that reward men with privilege, such as societal approval in the form of respect, for engaging in acts of violence reinforce perceptions of entitlement (Kaufman, 2013).
Johnson (2017) suggested that systems of oppression like patriarchy are extensive and observable in social practices, customs, legal statutes, law enforcement, and religious doctrine. In fact, systems of oppression are pervasive throughout history. They are created by violence and perpetuated by fear (Holter, 2004). Patriarchy, as defined by Lerner (1986), “means the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general” (p. 239). It affects every member of society and is psychologically ingrained in our beliefs, thoughts, and actions
(Johnson, 2017). Patriarchy not only teaches and influences men to be masculine, this system of oppression gives men permission to be violent, aggressive, and/or domineering (Kaufman,
2013).
Connell (1987, 2005), as well as Connell and Messerschmitt (2005), explained that men may use violence to gain hierarchical ascension, but that violence is not necessary for men to obtain and retain social status or privileges. Hegemony is secured through behavioral consistency with current social norms rather than by specific actions; therefore, men who comply more successfully with the most honored concept of masculinity at a specific time are granted more patriarchal power.
Lerner (1986) added that patriarchy implies that men control power throughout society, in powerful institutions, and women’s access to that power is restricted. Courtenay (2000) added on this definition by placing patriarchy as the systematic subordination of women and lower-
5 status men and noted that it is made possible through demonstrations of behavior informed by socially dominant gender construction that empower masculinity and subordinate femininity
(Courtenay, 2000).
Patriarchy privileges men over women and higher-status men over lower-status men
(Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 2015). There are numerous ways in which this happens.
Johnson (2017) presented five characteristics that support male privilege in a patriarchal society: male dominance, male identification, male centeredness, an obsession with control, and the oppression of women. Patriarchal power is created through the systematic subordination of women and lesser-status men. It is cyclical. Men gain access to power because they are men, align with masculine traits and/or male characteristics, which allows these men to reproduce a system where other men can gain access to power and privilege. Men being in power is normalized and, as a result, the notion that men should be in power is perpetuated. This is patriarchal power.
There are identities and social groups within hegemonic masculinity that are idealized and more privileged than others, specifically, White, Western, middle to upper class, strong, stoic, aggressive, and heterosexual (Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 2015). The relationship between power and hegemonic masculinity is relational and subject to change (Connell, 1987).
Thus, achieving hegemony does not require violent or physically aggressive behaviors but hegemonic masculinity may explain why men engage in violent or physically aggressive behaviors.
Society and specifically systems of patriarchy permit men's violence through laws, law enforcement, social customs, and religious teachings (Kaufman, 2013). Acts of violence and violent aggression are glamourized, rewarded, and celebrated in sport, television and cinema,
6 literature, and war (Kaufman, 2013; Kimmel, 2009; Messner, 2002). For example, displaying dominant traits that are associated with masculinity can make an individual a more attractive job candidate. These traits can, and do, privilege men in relation to income and financial prosperity
(Connell, 1987).
Discussions about masculinity and the impact masculine expression has on society must speak to patriarchy, masculine social norms, and perceptions of reality (Kaufman, 2013). In examining men who challenge stereotypical masculine norms, such as norms that promote men’s violence, Harris and Harper (2014) noted that college men who often engage in toxic practices act out of misconceptions of social norms. Arxer (2011) contended that understanding multiple forms of masculinity, behavioral motivations, and social identity in relation to dominant masculine norms reveals and destabilizes patriarchy. While disrupting patriarchy is a laudable goal, it is beyond the scope of this study. As masculinity is expressed via behavior and social ident ity, I focused on college men who challenge men’s violence on college campuses.
Statement of Problem
College men, specifically undergraduates, have a propensity to engage in negative behavior (Capraro, 2000; Harper, Harris, & Mmeje, 2005; Kimmel & Davis, 2011). Examples of these behaviors include, but are not limited to, drinking alcohol, using drugs, smoking cigarettes, and engaging in criminal activities; reckless or illegal driving such as driving while intoxicated or driving at excessive speeds; high-risk physical activities such as playing contact sports or engaging in physical fights; and carrying weapons (Courtenay, 2011). While men of all ages engage in negative behavior, college age men, those between 18 and 25 years of age, are more likely to engage in behavior that places their lives as well as the lives of others around them at risk of physical harm (Bachman & Peralta, 2002; Barnekow-Bergkvist, Hedberg, Janlert, &
7
Jansson, 2001; O’Toole, Schiffman, & Edwards, 2007). Most of the research exploring men’s violence on college and university campuses focuses on men engaging in negative or “bad” behavior, and emphasizes stereotypical masculine norms associated with hegemonic masculinity.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of men who participated in violence prevention groups, programs, or initiatives. By studying the nature of these experiences, college and university administrators will gain a better understanding of these men; including, who they are, how they align with and differ from other college men. In addition, studying their experiences will reveal what kinds of men seek to become involved in campus programs designed to prevent men’s violence and how these men describe their experiences with masculinity in the context of such groups, programs, and initiatives.
In listening to the stories the men of this study told, various commonalities seemed to resonate between them. The participants described how discourse, or nuanced messages that communicate societal information and expectations, informed what they knew to be masculine and how they should behave as men (Bucholtz, 2003). They described discourse in relation to how they learned to define masculinity, how they came to define masculinity as a member of a violence prevention group, and about their interactions with other men on campus in the context of challenging men’s violence. The role of discourse was emergent and significant. I used discourse as a theoretical framework for this study.
To conduct this qualitative study, I utilized a narrative analysis. A constructionist paradigm is consistent with my philosophical assumptions. I used a semi-structured interview process designed to illustrate responses to the following research questions.
8
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are:
1: How have undergraduate cisgender men involved in a group focused on men’s
violence prevention come to define masculinity?
2: How have these undergraduate cisgender men’s definitions of masculinity been
shaped and informed by their involvement in groups focused on men’s violence
prevention?
3: From the perspective of these undergraduate cisgender men, what motivates them
to become and remain involved in groups focused on men’s violence prevention?
Significance of the Study
The importance of this study lies in the results of men’s violence on college campuses.
The following statistic addresses men as perpetrators. The overall findings of the Campus
Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, a survey that looked at students across 27 universities in the United States, found that 11.7% of those surveyed reported
“experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force, threats of physical force, or incapacitation since they enrolled at their university” (Association of American Universities
(AAU), 2015, p. 76). According to the Community Attitudes on Sexual Assault (CASA) survey conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 23.1% of female undergraduate students reported experiencing incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct due to physical force, threats of physical force, or incapacitation (AAU, 2015, p. XV). According to National
Sexual Violence Resource Center, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college. Although alarming, most sexual assaults (more than 90%) are not reported (AAU, 2015).
Each of these statistics speaks to the victims of violence on college and university campuses.
9
According to Lisak, Gardinier, Nicksa, and Cote (2010), more than half (63.3%) of male respondents at one university who self-reported engaging in acts that qualify as rape or attempted rape admitted to committing repeated rapes.
There is a culture of violence on college and university campuses, and it has horrific effects on the students. The statistics previously discussed are but a few illustrations of those effects. The majority of college men do not engage in anti-social behavior or acts of violence
(Berkowitz, 2004, 2005). However, few choose to challenge men’s violence on their campus and fewer do so via groups, programs, or initiatives. Studying men who choose to challenge men’s violence on college campuses via groups, programs, or initiatives will allow interested parties
(student affairs administrators for example) the opportunity to better understand these men.
Definition of Terms
Cisgender: The term “cisgender (from the Latin cis-, meaning ‘on the same side as’) can be used
to describe individuals who possess male or female genitalia and reproductive organs
(sex) typical of the social category of man or woman (gender) to which that individual
was assigned at birth. Hence a cisgender person’s gender is on the same side as their
birth-assigned sex, in contrast to which a transgender person’s gender is on the other side
(trans-) of their birth-assigned sex” (Aultman, 2014, p. 62).
Gender: Gender is a social construct that is emergent and malleable within and across culture
(Coltrane, 1997; Connell, 1987). Gender is done according to West and Zimmerman
(1987, 2009). According to Butler (1988), gender is performed. Gender is a social
practice that “responds to particular situations and is generated within definite structures
of social relations” (Connell, 2005, pp. 71–72).
10
Gender display: Gender display is the outward display of gender (i.e., masculinity or
femininity) through clothing, movement, speech, and action (Goffman, 1977, 1979).
Gender identity: Gender identity describes an individual’s internalized appropriated sex
category and normalized gender ideals (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Gender non-conforming: Gender non-conforming refers to individuals whose gender
expression (i.e., behavior, mannerisms, and/or attire) and/or gender identity is different
than their perceived physical sex (Gonzalez, 2014; Stanley, 2014). Cisgender individuals
may consider themselves gender non-conforming.
Gender roles: “Behaviors, expectations, and role sets defined by society as masculine or
feminine which are embodied in the behavior of the individual man or woman and
culturally regarded as appropriate to males or females” (O’Neil, 1981, p. 203).
Gender role socialization: Gender role socialization speaks to how what is masculine, feminine,
and androgynous is understood. Children learn acceptable behavior patterns through
gender socialization, a process that instructs boys and girls on society’s gender rules
(Adams & Coltrane, 2005).
Hegemonic masculinity: Hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to women and to
subordinated masculinities. It involves the privileging of masculinity over femininity
within our society and describes how this ordering creates patriarchal hierarchy that is the
basis for all the relationships men experience (Connell, 1987).
Masculinity: Masculinity is a performed social identity that is informed and regulated by
socially prescribed notions of manhood (Kimmel & Messner, 2013).
Patriarchy: Patriarchy is “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over
women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in
11
society in general” (Lerner, 1986, p. 239). Patriarchy implies that men control power
throughout society, in powerful institutions, and women’s access to that power is
restricted (Lerner, 1986). Patriarchy is also the systematic subordination of women and
lower-status men and is made possible through demonstrations of behavior informed by
socially dominant gender construction that empower masculinity and subordinate
femininity (Courtenay, 2000).
Sex: Sex is a term associated with the anatomy and physiology of the individual in question;
specifically, the possession of certain genitalia has resulted in people being assigned a
certain sex (West & Zimmerman, 2009). When genitalia are equivocal, chromosomal and
hormonal criteria are often used by medical professionals to determine sex within the
binary of either male or female (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Sex roles: Sex roles are norms, beliefs, and behavior informed by societal expectations of
gender-appropriate identities (Messner, 1998).
Toxic masculinity: Toxic masculinity refers to a masculine identity defined by their engagement
in toxic, noxious, or asocial practices; such as, excessive alcohol use, physically
aggressive behavior, misogyny, and homophobia (Gross, 1990; Kupers, 1997). Some
researchers suggest that toxic masculinity asserts that men are granted power and
privileges afforded to them by patriarchy and that men are, by nature, aggressive,
misogynistic, and homophobic (Gross, 1990). Other researchers state that toxic
masculinity is a form of hegemonic masculinity where men engage in toxic behaviors
with the goal of ascending social hierarchy (Kupers, 1999, 2005).
Toxic practices: Toxic practices and behaviors include, but are not limited to, violent,
aggressive, misogynistic, and homophobic behavior and other characteristics often
12
associated with toxic masculinity. Toxic practices are commonly associated with
hegemony but are not, however, always defining characteristics of hegemonic
masculinity as hegemony is based on situational configurations that allow men social
ascension (Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005). Adams, Anderson, and McCormack (2010)
articulated toxic practices as behaviors that men use to express hegemonic dominance.
Transgender: Transgender has been used with a variety of meaning and to describe several
different communities since the 1970s; however, the current and most common use of this
umbrella term describes “crossdressers, and other gender-variant people” but can also
include various gender non-conformists and queer individuals (Williams, 2014, p. 234).
Summary and Conclusion
A large amount of the literature addressing college men and their behavior focuses on actions that are inappropriate, socially undesirable, dangerous, or violent. However, as Harris and
Harper (2014) queried,
But what about those who are actively engaged on campus, make good grades, achieve
healthy masculine identities, act responsibly and with honor, and respect women and
themselves? Who are they and what can they teach us? Unfortunately, little is known
about undergraduate men who act in these ways and embody such positive attributes. (p.
704)
Harper (2010), along with Harris and Harper (2014), presented a strong argument for
understanding college men who behave in socially desirable ways despite social pressures to
misbehave. In concurrence with this perspective, I implemented this study to offer insight into
men who participated in an anti-violence group on their campuses. I sought to present a more
nuanced perspective of these individuals by highlighting the stories they told about challenging
13 social norms. In doing so, I attempted to add to the ever-growing body of literature addressing masculinity and men’s studies.
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. In the first chapter, I provide a brief introduction summarizing the research project. In the second chapter, I offer a review of the existing literature. In the third chapter, I explain the proposed narrative methodology. In the fourth chapter, I discuss the findings in the form of four narratives: the first examines how the men of this study learned to define themselves as men; the second considers how they worked to address men’s violence on their college campus; the third determines what motivated them to remain involved in men’s violence prevention efforts; and the fourth focuses on the theoretical framework of discourse and its significance on the lives of the participants. And, lastly, in the fifth chapter, I provide an interpretation and discussion of the findings.
14
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Josselson, Lieblich, and McAdams (2003) explained that the literature review for a narrative study must “launch the study in such a way that the research question evolves naturally from it” (p. 265). They provided the following format for the theoretical background or review of literature section: present the phenomenon of interest, present a theory that was created to conceptualize that phenomenon, explain the theories’ shortcomings and various ways researchers have sought to address those shortcomings, and then state what you plan to study in relation to the research questions (Josselson et al., 2003). In consideration of these suggestions, I submit the following.
Each of the research questions guiding this study focused on examining the stories of men who participate in groups, programs, or initiatives designed to prevent men’s violence on college and university campuses. I highlighted how these men define masculinity, the stories they told in relation to how they define masculinity, and the stories they told about their interactions with other men in the context of their anti-violence initiative. This literature review addressed the following: an overview of masculinity including gender identity development and a discussion of various types of masculinity, information on initiatives designed to challenge men’s violence, critiques of those initiatives, and gaps in the current literature. This section will conclude with an explanation of the study I proposed.
Gender and Gender Socialization
Socialization, in its earliest and broadest stages, is the process through which children come to understand patterns of thought and behavioral characteristics espoused by the society in which they exist (Gleitman, 1986). According to Adams and Coltrane (2005), “all societies socialize children to internalize the shared rules and norms that drive collective behavior, thereby
15 allowing them to become self-regulating participants in society” (p. 233). Social learning theories explain socialization through observational learning. For example, children observe parental figures as models for appropriate behavior. They learn by imitating and performing the tasks they observe in their parents who, cognizant of their being modeled, demonstrate appropriate behavior and correct the performance of their children should the need arise
(Gleitman, 1986).
Butler (2004) discussed these behaviors as gender norms and illustrated the problematic nature of binary genders in relation to sex. According to Butler (1988), “there is a sedimentation of gender norms that produces the particular phenomenon of a natural sex, or a real woman, or any number of prevalent and compelling social fictions” (p. 524). Perceptions of normal behavior in relation to gender create restrictive constructions of sex and regulate what is considered natural.
Gender socialization is the process through which males and females learn acceptable behavior patterns and society’s gender rules; specifically, that males and females are to engage in masculine and feminine behavior respectively (Adams & Coltrane, 2005). Therefore, gender, as well as gendered behavior and rules, is determined by social expectations and interaction.
Gender is “a social construction, emergent, dynamic, variable within and across cultures, and historically situated, but also reflecting certain patterns within a given society” (Adams &
Coltrane, 2005, p. 233).
Gender
Early sociologists discussed gender as an emergent feature of social situations asserting that individuals “display” their gender by enacting roles deemed socially appropriate (Goffman,
1977). West and Zimmerman (1987) argued that gender as a role undermines the amount of
16
energy involved with “doing” gender on a daily basis and that gender as a display subjugates the process of “doing” gender to a product of social interaction. In summary, early descriptions of
gender role and gender display failed to emphasize the intentionality behind doing gender.
According to West and Zimmerman (1987), the terms gender role and display also failed
to illuminate society’s function in monitoring behavior for its alignment to social norms. In addition, gender role and display failed to illustrate how society distributed social consequences to individuals who do not adhere to normalized behavior. In the researchers’ own words, "we argue that gender is not a set of traits, nor a variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings of some sort" (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 129). West and Zimmerman (1987) explained that the "doing" of gender is "undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production" (p. 126). This suggests that for men and women to be perceived as competent members of society, they must understand and abide by social norms and rules.
According to West and Zimmerman (1987), gender is the result of the formation of gender identities and results in the social subordination of women by men. This notion critiqued previous doctrines stating that children as young as five “achieve” gender and, once set, gender does not vary throughout life ( West & Zimmerman, 1987). By the same token, Connell (1987) challenged early concepts of gender, which were based on dyadic male/female categories and roles, as limited as well as paradoxical when considered in relation to patriarchal power and hegemony. In other words, the rigid articulation of gender roles and corresponding behavior is inadequate in illustrating the nuanced and often situational relationship between gendered behavior and social hierarchy.
17
For example, early discussions of gender as a role or category would suggest that men are
violent, and women are passive. Gender roles and categories being rigid, individuals who behave
appropriately should gain society’s approval. Although there are circumstances where a man can
be violent and be considered a competent member of society, there are numerous instances where
violence is unacceptable.
Gender is a social practice that “responds to particular situations and is generated within
definite structures of social relations” (Connell, 2005, pp. 71–72). While informed by patriarchy and social norms, enacting gender requires individuals to determine the appropriateness of their behavior for the situation at hand. This perspective aligns with West and Zimmerman’s (1987) thoughts on gender being “done” and Butler’s (1988; 2004) articulation of gender as
“performance”; each definition is presented as a social construct instead of a consequence of biology.
Masculinity
Masculinity is fluid, an emergent social construct informed by patriarchy as well as
categories of gender and sex (Connell, 1987). Connell (1987, 1993) expressed masculinity as a
set of behaviors but cautioned against defining masculinity as an object, way of being, specific
set of norms, or character type. Instead, she asserted that masculinity could be defined through its
simultaneous occupation of gender relations, masculine practices in which men engage, and the
effects these practices have on men’s bodies, personalities, and cultures (Connell, 1987).
As an expression of gender, masculinity is also described through performance or action
(Butler, 2004; West & Zimmerman, 1987). According to Kimmel and Messner (2013),
masculinity is a performed social identity that is informed and regulated by socially prescribed
notions of manhood. Boys are socialized to understand and internalize these notions as normal
18 and appropriate (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In addition, they learn that behavior that aligns with masculine norms will be rewarded and that behavior which is not masculine will lead to their being ridiculed and ostracized (Davis, 2000; Levant et al., 2013). For example, fear of not being perceived as masculine motivates some men to engage in behavior they feel clearly communicates masculinity and, in turn, an absence of femininity (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003).
The remainder of this section will address the various behaviors and social identities associated with masculinity. In order to address these topics efficiently, a brief discussion of sex category, gender role, gender role socialization, and gender role conflict must occur prior as these terms explain masculine behavior and identities. The section will conclude with information on how masculine behaviors and identities can be challenged.
Sex Categorization
West and Zimmerman (1987) explained that sex categories are created and perpetuated by socially normative behavior, attire, and stature. The process of sex categorization involved the application of membership criteria to individuals based on their "appearance at face value" and the "use of category that seems appropriate, except in the presence of discrepant information or obvious features that would rule out its use" (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 133). Thus, if an individual appears to display as a man through their manner of walking, talking, and acting then they are categorized as a man and held responsible for behaving in a socially appropriate way
(e.g., opening the door for a woman). However, sex categorization and accomplishing gender are not synonymous.
Sex category and sex categorization are antiquated terms; each is a relic from when gender and sex were conflated. West and Zimmerman (1987) moved away from the terminology in favor of the notion of “doing gender.” This evolution was echoed by Connell (1987), who
19
focused on gender and masculinity, and later Butler (1988), who addressed gender through a
feminist lens.
Sex categorization was the process of society placing an individual in a specific sex category (i.e., boys and girls); conversely, sex-role socialization is the process of girls and boys
becoming girls and boys (West & Zimmerman, 1987; 2009). During this process, individuals
learn to produce behavioral displays that communicate male or female identity. Sex-role
socialization instructs boys and girls how to do gender and it is also the process through which
they learn to self-regulate and monitor their behavior regarding gender implication (Cahill,
1986).
A boy learns that playing with other boys, and roughly, is socially appropriate. He comes to understand that this behavior is normal and a "natural" act for him. He, as a result of sex-role
socialization, has internalized the sex-category he was assigned by society and appropriated
gender ideals that inform proper ways of being and behaving (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Once
an individual has internalized their appropriated sex category, normalized gender ideals, and
begun self-regulating their behavior to align with what boys "naturally" do, they develop a
gender identity that must be maintained by continually doing gender. However, boys soon learn
that their perception of normal behavior may not be appropriate in every setting. According to
West and Zimmerman (1987):
To be successful, marking or displaying gender must be fitted into situations and
modified or transformed as the occasion demands. Doing gender consists of managing
such occasions so that, whatever the particulars, the outcome is seen and seeable in
context as gender-appropriate or, as the case may be, gender-inappropriate, that is,
accountable. (p. 135)
20
Thus, doing gender is the act of adhering to one's perceived sex category by engaging in gendered behavior appropriate to the social interaction. It is the result of what someone routinely does when interacting with others and not just as aspect of what someone happens to be. Thus, doing gender involves an individual choosing to actively engage in a specific behavior or set of behaviors in adherence to socially prescribed norms (West & Zimmerman, 2009).
Gender Roles
The combination of socially and psychologically constructed ideals of masculinity creates rigid and restrictive gender roles (Levant et al., 2013). Gender roles are “behaviors, expectations, and role sets defined by society as masculine or feminine which are embodied in the behavior of the individual man or woman and culturally regarded as appropriate to males or females”
(O’Neil, 1981, p. 203). These ideals are acquired and internalized through interactions with family members in the home and male peer groups in school (Harper & Harris, 2010). Like West and Zimmerman’s (1987, 2009) notions of doing gender and sex-role socialization, O’Neil
(1981) asserted that gender roles and gender role socialization are a product of sexism and are oppressive in nature.
O’Neil’s (1981) theory of gender roles was produced during the second wave of the feminist movement. According to O’Neil (1981), the late 1970s and early 80s were a time when
“men recognized that they are also victims of restrictive gender role socialization and sexism” (p.
203). He defined sexism as “any attitude, action, or institutional structure which devalues, restricts, or discriminates against a person or group because of biological sex, gender role, or sexual preference” (O’Neil, 1981, pp. 203-204). This articulation of sexism considers the actions of an individual as well as those of institutions.
21
Personal sexism reflects the subjective belief that one sex, gender, or sexual preference is
superior to another and institutional sexism describes manifestations of personal sexism overtly,
covertly, or subtly through policies, practices, or instructional action (O’Neil, 1981). Although
this conception of gender role and gender role socialization focuses on boys and men, O’Neil
(1981) contended that both men and women contribute to the restrictive nature of gender roles and therefore both sexes need to take responsibility for the restriction of human potential created as a result of gender role socialization.
Gender Role Conflict
The rigidity of gender roles negates the ability of any man to adhere to these roles
consistently. Boys and men encounter issues aligning with gender roles and issues maintaining
that alignment. These issues restrict a person’s ability toward self-actualization and hinder their
ability to realize their full potential (O’Neil, 2008). O’Neil (2013) described the negative consequences gender roles have on men’s psychological state as gender role conflict. Four
themes are associated with male gender role conflict including fear of femininity, the importance
of self-expression and communication caveats, a sense of challenge without support, and
confusion about how to distance oneself from masculinity (Harper et al., 2005; Kimmel & Davis,
2011).
Gender Role Socialization
Gender role socialization is the process where children and adults learn and internalize
gender roles (i.e., “values, attitudes, and behaviors associated with femininity, masculinity, or both”) (O’Neil, 1981, p. 203). For men, this socialization process is reinforced by the
individual’s male’s encounter. Same sex, or homosocial peer interactions, are the most effective
moderators of social constructs of masculinity and, as a result, gender roles (Harper et al., 2005;
22
Kimmel & Davis, 2011). The interaction males have with each other, the social norms learned in the home and in schools, and the influence of sport perpetuate these notions of masculinity and inform normative behavior (Kimmel, 2009; Kimmel & Davis, 2011).
Boys trade personal insults, often sexually degrading in nature, and engage in dominating conversation that is loud and physically expressive. This process of dominance bonding, as
Messner (2002) described, allows boys to establish hierarchy amongst other boys through acts of physical and symbolic violence. Boys may become physically aggressive and engage in acts of violence against other boys and girls to assert dominance (Messner, 2002). Each of these behaviors occurs normally and is often praised in sport. Boys learn that behavior that is not dominant is not masculine and, therefore, not accepted (Kimmel & Davis, 2011). Moreover, dominance bonding is often the first time boys are introduced to sex and sexuality. As Messner
(2002) stated:
Boys and men learn to bond with each other through sexually aggressive, erotically
exciting talk that serves to forge an aggressive, even violent, hierarchical ordering of
bodies, both inside the male peer group and between the male peer group and any other
group. To thwart the dominant modes of one's peer group, then, is not simply to risk
ridicule and ostracism; it also threatens to undermine the major way that a young male
has learned to experience erotic excitement and pleasure with his peers. (p. 38)
In Guyland, Kimmel (2008) provided clarification regarding the homosocial peer interactions men experience: “Guys hear the voices of the men in their lives – fathers, coaches, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, priests – to inform their ideas of masculinity” (p.47). These “voices” explain gender socialization through gendered rules, which initially existed as what Kimmel
(2009) termed The Boy Code which evolved into The Guy Code. Socialization creates a duality
23 between males and females reinforcing the differences between boys and girls (Connell, 2005).
As a result, males are conceptualized as the opposite of females and masculinity as the opposite of femininity (Kimmel, 2009, 2010). In a like manner, men acting in dominant, and even violent, ways are normalized.
Men, beginning at childhood, watch and participate in sports to develop perceptions of masculine traits: strength, honor, and physical aggression (Anderson & Kian, 2012; Kimmel,
2009). They understand, without being explicitly told, that certain behaviors are met with positive regard and social privileges. They observe sports figures who are strong, fit, and fearless. These athletes run, dive, hit, and score. They sacrifice their bodies to make a play and, in so doing, demonstrate any number of seemly impossible feats. In return for these feats, sport figures receive praise and admiration. Boys are witness to the actions of sports figures and the positive accolades they receive. These ideals or standards for appropriate behavior are also applied to life away from sport but remain informed by notions of power and hierarchy associated with sport.
Boys and men also see what happens when these athletes fail to succeed. Sports figures who miss the basketball shot, allow the ground ball to pass between their legs, or are tackled before reaching the end zone do not receive praise. Their failures are the subject of ridicule and frustration. Boys witness sports icons, previously lauded for their good work, reduced to vulgar and insulting titles in the face of failed action. Boy’s witness, learn, and understand the consequences of succeeding and of failing. They are socialized to view these ideals as acceptable behavioral standards and use these principles to make meaning of the world around them
(Kimmel, 2009, 2010).
24
Men engage in masculine behavior empowered by systems of patriarchy (Connell, 2005).
Men’s violence, a socially defined form of that masculine behavior, is used to acquire power and obtain privilege (Kaufman, 2013). For example, men who engage in violence in contact sports are often revered. Men learn, as a result of gender socialization, that those who successfully engage in masculine or dominant behavior earn certain privileges (such as the respect of their peers). Men also develop belief systems based on observational learning, modeling, and positive reinforcement. This socialization process instructs men on traditional male roles (Adams,
Anderson, & McCormack, 2010).
Traditional male roles represent a culture of oppression supported by a series of beliefs and assumptions that men are entitled to high-status positions in society, must avoid stereotypically feminine behavior, and should conduct themselves in physically and emotionally toughened ways (Capraro, 2000). Men are taught to expect power and privilege on the condition of their adhering to accepted behavior patterns and society’s gender rules. For these reasons, men develop a sense of entitlement to certain privileges because of their being masculine or acting
“normally.”
Children as early as two years of age learn to classify themselves and others as boys or girls (Biernat, 1991). They also learn the roles they are to play as boys and girls (Adams &
Coltrane, 2005). Boys learn the social practices in which they are to engage, internalize these gender roles, and continuously strive to attain these ideals (O’Neil, 1981). Male bonding is an example of how boys learn gender roles, reinforce idealized notions of masculinity, and develop social hierarchies (Messner, 2002).
25
Hegemonic Masculinity
According to Connell (1987), there is an ordering associated with masculinity and
femininity within our society, and this ordering creates hierarchy that is the basis for all the
relationships men experience. In explaining this ordering, two terms are presented: hegemonic
masculinity and emphasized femininity. The hierarchical nature of each is informed by
perceptions of power, gender, and the interplay of each in relation to systems of patriarchy
(Connell, 1987). As such, hegemonic masculinity is uniquely suited for understanding men’s violence.
Connell (1987) discussed idealized gendered behavior through models of masculinity or archetypes. Sport figures and action movie stars are examples. This term archetype is described
in the same way as traditional male roles are discussed by O’Neil (1981), Capraro (2000), Davis
(2002), and Kimmel (2010). They argued that archetypes gain patriarchal power through men’s
adherence to traditional male roles. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) later discussed these
archetypes using the term “masculine exemplars”; sport figures and action movie stars continue
to represent some of the best examples.
A paradoxical and complex relationship exists between masculinity and notions of ideal
behavior in that men strive to adhere to the unattainable standard masculine ideals represent.
Connell (1987, 2012) discussed this hierarchical relationship through gender regimes. According
to her, “the structure of gender relations in a given society at a given time may be called its
gender order; and the structure of gender relations in a given institution may be called its gender
regime” (Connell, 2012, p. 1677).
26
Gender Regimes
Connell’s (1987, 2012) use of gender regimes allowed for a nuanced discussion of gender
in relation to patriarchal power and patriarchy (male dominance and female oppression).
Specifically, the relational and evolving nature of gender and gendered norms illustrate how behavior once found to be effective in accessing patriarchal power could become ineffective in the future. Gender regimes spoke to the structural inventory created from the interplay of sexual politics in society (Connell, 1987). Gender regimes also described how gender was a consequence of socialization and men’s behavioral consent to traditional masculine ideals presented as socially appropriate (Connell, 1987). Kimmel and Davis (2011) noted how hegemonic masculinity and gender regimes affect men in college.
Hegemonic masculinity affects how college men express gender, the actions they engage in to present themselves in alignment with traditional masculine ideals, and the effects these actions have on their health. Kimmel and Messner (1998) presented a concise explanation of how gender regimes affect men’s lives in stating:
The important fact of the men’s lives is not that they are biological males, but that they
become men. Our sex may be male, but our identity as men is developed through a
complex process of integration with the culture in which we both learn the gender scripts
appropriate to our culture and attempt to modify those scripts to make them more
palatable. (p. ix)
Power. Hegemonic masculinity describes practices, in which men engage, that are informed by patriarchy and traditional male gender roles (Connell, 2005). These practices may reflect dominating and often aggressive behavior that is misogynistic, homophobic, violent, and intentionally degrading (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). Men engage in these behaviors to convey
27 dominance and, subsequently, they target individuals perceived to be physically weak and/or vulnerable (Messner, 2002). Thus, social hierarchy is established by the subordination of the weak. Patriarchal systems reward men and boys with power and social privileges for engaging in dominating behavior (Kaufman, 2013).
For example, Stoudt (2012) noted that bullying and other forms of violent behavior used by adolescent males led to a creation of social hierarchy and the establishment of privilege that was respected by students and faculty alike. Stoudt (2006, 2012) highlighted an instance of high school senior males bullying a younger male on their school bus. This instance of bullying resulted in the parents of the younger student issuing a complaint. The following response is from one of the seniors who witnessed that incident:
When I got [to practice the next day] one of the coaches took me inside and he said,
“What happened yesterday?” and I told him the truth about what happened and he said,
“That’s ridiculous.” I was like “I know” and I meant that the seniors were abusing the
freshman. And he’s like, “That’s ridiculous that they [the freshman] disrespected you
guys and it shouldn’t be like that.” He made the freshman run [extra] for the next week.
[Those] freshmen ran like a total of 40 miles in a week because they rebelled against the
seniors. (Stoudt, 2012, p. 7)
Domination. Hegemonic masculinity results in the privileging of masculine ideals and practices which leads to the subordination of femininity (Connell, 1987). Men learn through socialization that various behaviors and ways of being are determined by society to be masculine, and they consent to these ideals through their actions to gain power (Connell &
Messerschmitt, 2005). Therefore, the football players discussed in Stoudt’s (2012) example of
28 bullying learned to act in socially dominating ways as boys and this behavior was reinforced through the actions of the coach.
Society’s Permissiveness. Kaufman (2012) explained that men who use violence to gain patriarchal privileges do so because their behavior is permitted through the action, or inaction of, legal systems. Although the scenario previously discussed by Stoudt (2012) did not involve legal systems per se, the coach as a representative of the school system holds a position of power and is tasked to address disciplinary issues observed in students. The actions and inactions of the coach created a set of expectations, or belief system that gave the football players permission to be violent as these actions were not met with resistance or punishment. In addition, the way the coach addressed the target of the violent act (the first-year students) communicated that the student was lower in social status than the football players and, that being the case, the freshman should understand the behavior expectations of his social status. The behavior expectations and the permissive actions (inaction) of the coach support Kaufman’s (2013) suggestion that men also commit acts of violence because they have a sense of entitlement.
Privilege. Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) explained that men can be privileged by patriarchy without “enacting a strong sense of masculine dominance” and/or choosing to forgo violent behavior but suggested that these men show complicity and compliance with dominant masculine norms (p. 832). Similarly, Messner (2002) suggested that boys who occupy lower positions in social hierarchies often support the violent actions of boys with higher social status through their silent complicity as witnesses of this act or, in some cases, showing admiration by cheering. Thus, men have been socialized to access privileges afforded them by patriarchy by performing in dominating ways but also to avoid loss of these privileges by being complacent/compliant with masculine social norms.
29
In support of this assertion, I refer again to Stoudt’s (2012) example of bullying. From the remarks of the student athlete, we can infer that he had not participated in the bullying. He had, however, witnessed the instance and believed that the conversation he was having with his coach would result in his being reprimanded along with the other student athletes. It is apparent from his comments that he did not challenge the bullying he witnessed yet believed the act to be
“ridiculous” (Stoudt, 2012, p. 7). Messner (2002) stated that men who witness violence may choose not to participate or challenge these actions as doing so would result in the loss of social status. Messner (2002) continued by describing the targets of male dominance bonding, in the eyes of males, as dehumanized and degraded, a status equated with being female and femininity.
Emphasized Femininity. Although femininity is often associated with those who
identify as female, the practice of subjugation through male domination often involves other men
as targets (Messner, 2002). Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) noted that hegemonic masculinity embodied the “currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it” (p. 832). It positions males as the opposite of females and
masculinity as the opposite of femininity (Kimmel, 2009, 2010). Men who portray femininity are
symbolically women or, at best, considered a man lower in status (Messner, 2002).
Connell (1987) defined femininity as “compliance with this subordination and [that] is
orientated to accommodate the interests and desires of men” (p. 183). Other forms of femininity and masculinity are defined by their various strategies of resistance, non-compliance, co- operation, and combinations of each position. In that, the power associated with hegemonic masculinity is relational but attached to domination.
Individuals are privileged by patriarchy through their compliance with ideals and, more importantly, practices that align with current representations of hegemonic masculinity. Men
30 often use violence to gain access to patriarchal power (Kaufman, 2013). However, violence is not necessary for men to enjoy the privileges and power patriarchy affords them (Messner, 2002).
Hegemonic masculinity does not necessitate violence, “although it could be supported by force: it means ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasions” (Connell &
Messerschmitt, 2005, p. 832).
Hegemony. Connell (1987) explained that the concept of “hegemony” used in hegemonic masculinity is derived from Gramsci’s (1971) work with class relations in Italy, and that hegemony reflects a “social ascendancy achieved in a play of social power into the organization of private life and cultural processes” (p. 184). In response to common misunderstandings of hegemony, Connell (1987) offered two clarifications: (a) hegemony “does not refer to ascendancy based on force” although it does describe and is compatible with ascendancy based on force and (b) hegemony does not imply “total cultural domination” leading to the
“obliteration of alternatives” (p. 184). Stated plainly, hegemony does not necessitate the use of force or violence; however, hegemony can describe how men ascend social hierarchy using force and/or violence.
Hegemony is used to illustrate the hierarchical ordering of individuals in society due to their actions and behavior. The way hierarchy is created, and the actions taken by individuals to obtain powers fluctuate as these actions are based on socially constructed norms, which themselves fluctuate (Connell, 2005). The notion of hegemony employed in hegemonic masculinity speaks to one’s ability to discern and engage with social norms to best affect their hierarchical position; therefore, the concept implies behavior consent of social norms (Connell,
1987).
31
This distinction is key in understanding why hegemonic masculinity is more about
establishing hierarchy through the dissemination of power and imparting privileges than specific practices or masculine qualities (Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005; Stoudt, 2012). The concept of
power associated with hegemonic masculinity is, therefore, relational and is not inherently
embedded in specific people or actions. There are, however, notions within hegemonic
masculinity that are idealized and more privileged than others; specifically, White, Western,
middle to upper class, strong, stoic, aggressive, and heterosexual (Connell, 1987; Hearn &
Morgan, 1990).
If the privileges and power associated with hegemonic masculinity are relational in
nature, then the potential for these concepts and those who use them to be altered also exists.
Therefore, ideals and identities that are currently more privileged than other are themselves
relational and subject to change (Connell, 1987). This implies that shifts in social norms and/or
models of masculinity (archetypes) can produce changes in what behavior is privileged.
Kaufman (2013) explained that men often use violence to access power and privileges
afforded to them through systems of patriarchy. This conceptualization builds upon Messner’s
(2002) illustrations of masculinity including how boys are socialized to use violence to enact
social dominance over others and why men continue to employ these tactics throughout their
lives. Connell (1987, 2005) along with Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) explained that men
may utilize violence toward hierarchical ascension, but that violence is not necessary for men to
access and retain power. Hegemony is more closely related to behavioral consent with social norms than specific actions; therefore, men who comply more successfully with the most honored concept of masculinity at specific times are granted more patriarchal power.
32
Masculinity as Behavior. Kaufman (2013) explained that men use violence to gain access to privileges and power granted by patriarchy. Moreover, Kaufman (2013) framed individual acts of violence perpetrated by men in male-dominated societies or systems of patriarchy; that men who engage in acts of violence demonstrate and/or achieve manhood, and that these men receive power associated with these dominant traits. In this articulation, masculinity is linked with dominating behavior and is associated with violence (Kaufman, 2013).
Therefore, men are motivated by the promise of patriarchal power to behave violently. This articulation of masculinity presents an interesting complexity by drawing a distinction between what a person does and that person’s identity; specifically, that a person’s behavior or behavioral motives can be separated from who they are as human beings.
Take, for example, men who play contact sports in college. Men enter college with an understanding that engaging in aggressive and often violent behavior will lead to various privileges (Harris, 2010). With this understanding, some men choose to play college football because of the prestige associated with the sport and the social accolades their participation brings. Sport, especially contact sports, offers men access to patriarchal power through enacting a form of violence that is socially accepted (Messner, 2002). Simply put, college men engage in violence to establish social dominance and acquire the social privileges that come with that status
(Kaufman, 2013). These men may not identify as violent or act violently in any other situation; however, while engaging in contact sports they exhibit extreme violence. This social practice contributes to a culture of violence that is prevalent on college/university campuses.
Men may also engage in dominating behavior that is not physically violent. College men active in fraternity life, for example, often serve as exemplars for these types of toxic practices.
Rhoades (1995), while conducting an ethnographic case study, observed college men engaging in
33 negative interactions with women. Their behaviors were categorized into three patterns: they promoted hostile representations of women, they positioned women as passive participants in activities or games, and they presented narrowed perceptions of gender (Rhoads, 1995). They treated women as objects to be conquered sexually, restricted women’s participation in activities to powerless and controllable positions, and admonished fraternity members whose behavior failed to resemble masculinity that was fearless or aggressive.
In each of these examples, college men were motivated to behave in ways that would ensure their dominance over others and allow them access to various social privileges. College men who play contact sports for the prestige associated with being an athlete are examples of this. However, men who are most successful in ascending social hierarchy can determine what behaviors are favored by society and engage in those behaviors (Connell, 1995). Take, for example, a college man who is not athletically inclined but is charismatic. Although he understands that college athletes are highly regarded, he also understands that physicality is not a viable option to him. After assessing campus culture, he may choose to participate in student government to gain the social status unavailable to him as an athlete.
Masculinity as Identity. Hegemonic masculinity can explain men’s behavior in relation to systems of patriarchy; however, the term speaks more to behavioral motivations and social ascendancy than to social identity. Kimmel and Messner (2013) defined masculinity as a performed social identity that is informed and regulated by socially prescribed notions of manhood. In other words, masculinity is an illustration of how one identifies that is restricted by social norms dictating how one should identify. Connell (1987) explained that men’s masculine identity is constructed in compliance or resistance to dominant masculine social norms, but that their sense of identity is constantly regulated by hegemonic masculinity. Men constantly engage
34 in behavior that aligns and does not align with dominant masculine norms. By engaging in various behaviors, they can re-assert their masculine identities and gain access to patriarchal power.
For example, Taub, Blinde, and Greer (1999) conducted a study looking at gay men and their construction of masculine identities. In this study, the researchers found that gay men used sport and displays of physicality to re-affirm their adherence to dominant masculine norms. Their social identities, which included identifying as gay, resisted masculine norms deemed by patriarchy to be dominant. Their engaging in sport, which is an activity that is complicit with hegemony, allowed for their sense of identity to better align with dominant masculine norms.
Kimmel (1990) noted that hegemony is accomplished by differentiating between “normative” and “non-normative” masculinities.
Connell (1987) further explained that hegemonic masculinity subjugates other masculine identities because of aligning with patriarchy. Men who identify as gay were presented as an example of a subordinated masculinity or masculine identity. Arxer (2011) presented hybrid hegemonic masculinity to explain how men constructed a unique and fluid sense of masculine identity to best access hegemonic masculine power. Arxer’s (2011) study contended that hegemonic masculine power, which speaks to men’s ability to maximize social ascendancy by adjusting their behavior to suit various situations, is locally produced (e.g., in small group interaction) and can inform efforts toward social change. Therefore, how a man identifies and the behavior in which a man engages can, and does, adjust in response to the environment in which he is interacting. This notion may provide insight into continued behavior modification.
However, as Arxer (2011) suggested, “whether hegemonic masculinity becomes a core part of self-identity or is simply acknowledged by persons, there is the assumption of a shared and clear
35
sense of hegemonic masculine characteristics” (p. 416). Men understand dominant masculine
norms regardless of their choosing to engage in behavior in compliance with those norms.
Hegemonic Masculinity Reconsidered
According to Connell and Messerschmitt (2005), hegemonic masculinity has
“considerably influenced recent thinking about men, gender, and social hierarchy”; a fact that
does not imply the theory is without its detractors (p. 829). After providing information on the
origin, formulation, and application of hegemonic masculinity, Connell and Messerschmitt
(2005) turned to address critiques they determined valid and invalid. The following section will summarize challenges to hegemonic masculinity, their reformulation of the concept considering those critiques, and other conceptualizations of masculinity that may be relevant to this study.
Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity
Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) outlined critiques of hegemonic masculinity and
placed them into five categories: the underlying concept of masculinity, ambiguity, and overlap, the problem of reification, masculine subject, and pattern of gender relations. In response to these critiques, Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) reformulated and/or clarified Connell’s (1987,
1995) theories of gender and power in relation to hegemonic masculinity. Thorpe (2010) explained that these more recent articulations of hegemonic masculinity remain problematic. In addition to being ambiguous, Thorpe (2010) also noted there was:
(an) overemphasis on structure and dualistic model of hegemonic power, a tendency to
focus on men and ignore women, a lack of attention to the relational aspects of gender,
the privileging of negative aspects of masculinity, and the narrow representation of men’s
subjectivities. (p. 177)
36
Although I agree that Connell’s (1987) definition of masculinity was ambiguous, I believe that this was intentionally done. In fact, Connell (1987) resisted an immutable definition of masculinity in terms of specific actions and identities. Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) explained masculinity as fluid and “not a fixed entity embedded in the body or personality traits of individuals” (p. 836). This is a re-occurring sentiment discussed in Connell’s (1987) initial work on hegemonic masculinity. In addition, hegemony and the behavior that allows one to ascend social hierarchy greatly depends on the ethnographic moment, which includes the specific time period, the milieu (social environment), and the social context (geographic location, cultural discourse) in which a person finds themselves (Connell, 2001).
Furthermore, masculinity was presented as relational with some forms being privileged over others (Connell, 1987). This was the basic notion of hegemonic masculinity; individuals who, through their behavior, consent to the ideals society lauds as honored will reap the benefits of engaging in these actions. Connell (1987) noted the ever-changing ideas associated with hegemonic masculinity and suggested that because what is viewed as an “archetype” of masculinity changes over time, the actions and behaviors necessary to align with idealized notions of masculinity also change. Therefore, Connell’s (1987) in-depth discussions on hegemony, gender ordering, and gender regimes are also transient.
In addition, critiques of Connell’s (1987) framing masculinity through a heteronormative lens are misleading. Although Connell (1987) explained that hegemonic masculinity is linked to the institution of marriage, and in that heterosexuality, she also stated that accessing hegemony is based on actions that sustain the power associated with the archetype and not the archetype itself.
Connell (1987) defined hegemonic masculinity within systems of patriarchy and, in doing so,
37
discussed the subordination of homosexual men and the policing of heterosexuality. According to
Connell (1987),
Hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to women and to subordinated
masculinities. These other masculinities need not be clearly defined – indeed, achieving
hegemony may consist precisely in preventing alternatives gaining cultural definition and
recognition as alternatives, confining them to ghettos, to privacy, to unconsciousness. The
most important feature of contemporary hegemonic masculinity is that it is heterosexual,
being closely connected to the institution of marriage; and a key form of subordinated
masculinity is homosexuality [sic]. (p. 186)
Connell (1987, 1993, 2005) did not frame hegemonic masculinity as heteronormative.
Hegemonic masculinity and patriarchal power are presented as relational to social norms informed by patriarchy. As Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) explained, violence and/or negative behavior are not essential in hegemonic masculinity. Connell (1987) described the nature of patriarchy as a system of oppression that intentionally suppresses various forms of masculinity through social norms of legitimacy. In the same way, patriarchy privileges negative aspects of masculinity and ignores women. In addition, Connell (1987) addressed the privileges patriarchy extends to dominant forms of masculinity in highlighting the institution of marriage.
Concisely, homosexuality is presently an affront to society’s honored forms of masculinity, which are heterosexual (Connell, 1987). The legitimizing of homosexuality would mean a shift of perceived “normality” and redistribution of power. This does not, however, mean that shifts in normality and the redistribution of power that would follow cannot happen, nor does it mean that masculine identities currently privileged will remain so. Gay sexuality is a modern example of a subordinated masculine identity and lends support to the assertion that
38 society’s notions of normality can shift. Historical views of gay sexuality did not subordinate this masculine identity, as previous societies (early Confucian Chinese and ancient Greeks for example) approved of and honored sexual relationships among men (Connell, 1993; Dover,
1989; Pickett, 2015). Thus, the behavior best suited to achieve hegemony greatly depends on the moment in time, the milieu (social environment), and the social context (geographic location, cultural discourse) in which a person finds themselves (Connell, 2001).
To clarify further, I offer the following example. A man can hold a subordinated masculine identity while still subscribing to hegemonic masculinity. Take, for example, a gay man who pursues traditional marriage. Although this may not be the case for all gay couples, an argument can be made that a gay man who pursues access to the institution of marriage in order to have society validate his relationship and obtain social privileges (such as visitation rights for hospital stays) does so in compliance with social norms and with the intention of accessing hegemony. Duggan (2002) outlined this argument when discussing homonormativity.
The forms of masculinity presently found deviant or alternative, as well as those found favorable and appropriate, are informed by historical patriarchal ideals. Normality, as a result of patriarchy, is heteronormative. Hegemonic masculinity, being relational, responds to shifts in social perceptions. If perceptions of masculinity change, the behavior necessary to align with these new norms also changes. As a result of systems of oppression being resistant to change, idealized notions of masculinity are persistent. Simply put, hegemonic masculinity is more about an individual’s ability to recognize society’s “currently most honored way of being a man” and their consent to “position themselves in relation to it,” than strictly adhering to notions of traditional masculinity (Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005, p. 832).
39
Hegemonic masculinity is, by the definition of hegemony, oppressive. The process of acknowledging, pursuing, and perpetuating social hierarchy suggests that there will be those who dominate and those who are subjugated. This does not mean that repugnant behaviors commonly associated with domination or subjugation are an essential part of hegemony or hegemonic masculinity. It is entirely possible for a man to subscribe to hegemonic masculinity and engage in supposedly good behavior while challenging toxic practices.
Most accounts of hegemonic masculinity do include such “positive” actions as bringing
home a wage, sustaining a sexual relationship, and being a father. Indeed, it is difficult to
see how the concept of hegemony would be relevant if the only characteristics of the
dominant group were violence, aggression, and self-centeredness. Such characteristics
may mean domination but would hardly constitute hegemony (Connell & Messerschmidt,
2005, pp. 840-841).
Other Forms of Masculinity
Researchers have coined numerous terms to reflect masculine identities. Each presents a unique concentration on behavior or emphasis on identity. Listing and describing each is beyond the scope of this investigation as the majority can be described via hegemony and this study will focus on toxic practices commonly associated with masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity illustrates how masculine identities can align or be misaligned with stereotypical masculine/dominant behavior. In addition, hegemonic masculinity informs the other forms of masculinity to be discussed.
To that end, I have intentionally selected three forms of masculinity in addition to hegemonic masculinity for discussion: heteromasculinty or heterosexual masculinity, toxic masculinity, and productive masculinity. First, heteromasculinty or heterosexual masculinity is
40
an example of a masculine social identity with corresponding behavior that is typical but not
restrictive. Second, toxic masculinity is an example of a masculine social identity with typical and essential corresponding behaviors such as physical aggression and men’s violence. For example, based on Gross’s (1990) arguments, he would likely proclaim that aggression is innate to males and an essential part of masculinity; therefore, men should not apologize for engaging in a behavior that is instinctual and society should not demonize them for being aggressive.
Finally, productive masculinity is an example of a masculine social identity with corresponding behavior that challenges stereotypical masculine/dominant behavior. This section will conclude with a discussion of productive masculinity and how the social norms approach is essential to challenging violent expressions of toxic masculinity.
Heteromasculinty or Heterosexual Masculinity
Connell (1987) highlighted the role heterosexuality plays in establishing social hierarchy
and patriarchal power. Since hegemonic masculinity is informed by systems of patriarchy and
patriarchy is grounded in the subordination of women and femininity, practices deemed feminine
and those who engage in them are regulated to diminished positions in social hierarchy (Connell
& Messerschmitt, 2005). Same-sex attraction and men who engage in same-sex acts are labeled
as effeminate and, therefore, regulated to inferior hierarchical positions than heterosexual men
(Dean, 2013). In addition, boys and men often use homophobia as a process of hegemonic oppression. This is done to develop social identities that are highly regarded, to obtain, and/or
improve, their positions within social stratification, and to raise their masculine capital among
peers (Adams, Anderson, & McCormack, 2010).
Anderson (2005), borrowing from Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of symbolic capital,
suggested that men may engage in non-masculine behavior and still be considered masculine if
41
they display an identity that is overall masculine. The concept of masculine capital is supported
by Kaufman’s (2013) suggestion that violence can be used as a compensatory mechanism
allowing men to re-establish their masculine equilibrium by denigrating and dominating others.
Masculine capital is also supported by Taub, Blinde, and Greer (2010), who found that gay men
and men with physical disabilities were able to use masculine activities (such as sport) to
compensate for their belonging to a stigmatized group.
Conversely, men acting out of fear of femininity, may engage in misogynistic,
homophobic, and hypermasculine behavior to establish a sense of identity (Kimmel, 2009, 2010;
Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). These behaviors “can be understood as both a gender and sexual identity strategy that solves the problem of identifying oneself as both normatively masculine and heterosexual by deriding gay men” (Dean, 2013, p. 536). The link between heterosexuality
and masculinity is so strong in these men that they are synonymous; to be masculine is to be heterosexual, and heterosexuals define their identity through homophobia (Pronger, 2012).
Homophobia and homophobic behavior, for these men, embodies who they are and what they do.
Still hegemonic in nature, the central aspect that differentiates hegemonic masculinity
from heterosexual masculinity is motivation. With hegemonic masculinity, men determine what
behavior is more likely to allow them access to patriarchal privilege and they consent to engage
in that behavior (Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005). For example, an undergraduate male attends his first college party and notices all the other men dressing in a similar manner. If that
undergraduate perceives this manner of dressing to be well-received, then he may choose to
adopt this behavior. Adopting behavior believed to be associated with a dominant or privileged
social status is a hallmark of hegemonic masculinity. What one does to ascend social hierarchy is
less a reflection of personal identity and more of what society has deemed acceptable.
42
With heteromasculinty, men are motivated by fear of femininity (Adams, Anderson, &
McCormack, 2010). Because of this fear, men engage in behavior they perceive as the opposite
of feminine which is dominating, often aggressive, misogynistic, homophobic, violent, and/or
intentionally degrading behavior (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). These men believe that their
engaging in this type of behavior will present them as heterosexual and clearly not homosexual.
For example, an undergraduate male attends his first college party and notices two men who
appear to be a romantic couple. The undergraduate perceives this manner of behavior as
effeminate and distances himself from the couple. This undergraduate may also lash out at the
couple, verbally or physically, to assert his status as a straight male and further distance himself
from aspects of femininity. In doing so, he believes he will gain the privileges and power
associated with heterosexuality as a social status. His choosing to reject this behavior is not
dependent on his environment or environmentally specific social norms, as how other men act
toward the couple perceived to be gay is irrelevant. According to this undergraduate, a
heterosexual man is defined by what he does and accepts, and femininity (i.e., same-sex attraction) as well as effeminate behavior is unacceptable in men.
Hegemonic masculinity motivates men to consent to society’s notions of cultural ideals and, in doing so, act in ways deemed as dominant (Connell, 2005). However, hegemonic
masculinity does not embody a specific set of traits or characteristics. This is because behavioral
patterns associated with ascending social hierarchy change as society’s notion of the cultural ideal, or exemplars of masculinity, shift (e.g., professional sports stars) (Connell &
Messerschmitt, 2005). Therefore, hegemonic masculinity can describe the social motivations of an individual and it may explain their behavior; on the other hand, behavioral fluidity is a tenant of this form of masculinity as what a person does is not necessarily a reflection of who they are.
43
In hegemonic masculinity, the link between behavior and identity is not rigid. The same cannot be said about heteromasculinity where identity is stringently linked to misogynistic, homophobic, and hypermasculine behavior (Kimmel, 2008, 2010; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003).
However, Dean (2013) offered research findings to suggest that heterosexual masculinities are shifting and do not consistently rely on homophobic practices. In response to these findings,
Dean (2013) presented a continuim of heterosexual masculinity in the form of a symmetrical bell-shaped curve, where the middle (mean) depicted variations in heteronormativity and tolerance to homosexuality being normalized. Men occupying the far ends of the continium exhibited the most dynamic anti-homophobic practices.
Moreover, the continuum links (micro) heterosexual masculine practices to the (macro)
production of the social institutional orders of gender and sexualities. On one hand, the
continuum demonstrates how homophobic heterosexual masculinities variably reproduce
gender and sexual normative social orders. At their most hegemonic, homophobic
heterosexual masculinities aim to return to a social order where heterosexual identity is
unquestionably dominant, while homosexual [sic] identity is repressed and circumscribed
to a double life of public invisibility and private shame; this is akin to the closet dynamics
of pre-Stonewall culture. These identity practices, then, affirm the theory of hegemonic
masculinity. At the other end of the continuum, we are witnessing the development of
antihomophobic heterosexual masculinities, which aim at their most counter-hegemonic
to subvert the reproduction of normative heterosexuality and normative masculinity.We
might ask then: Does hegemonic masculinity adequately theorize these heterosexual
men’s changing interactions with gays? (Dean, 2013, p. 557)
44
Adams, Anderson, and McCormack (2010), provided a list of behaviors that men use to express
hegemonic dominance: displaying overt physical prowess, distancing themselves from femininity and homosexuality through homophobia, and committing acts of physical violence.
Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) described these behaviors as toxic practices. Toxic
masculinity, similarly to heteromasculinity, illustrates masculinity as a social identity
accompanied by specific characteristics and behavioral patterns. However, the flexibility
apparent in heterosexual masculinity is less visible if non-existent in toxic masculinity.
Toxic Masculinity
Toxic masculinity takes an essentialist approach to masculinity suggesting that men are,
by nature, “beer-drinking, roughhousing, homophobic tough guys” and that this social identity
has been displaced by modernization and the feminist movement (Gross, 1990, p. 10). Gross’s
(1990) discussion of toxic masculinity aligns with hegemonic and heterosexual masculinity in
numerous ways. According to Kuper (2005), toxic masculinity “delineates those aspects of
hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and
violent domination; and those that are culturally accepted and valued” (p. 716). Although
Kaufman (2013) did not use the term “toxic,” his examination of men, why they feel disempowered, and how these perspectives inform their behavior advances the conversation on toxic masculinity. According to Kaufman (1994),
There are many things men do to have the type of power we associate with masculinity:
We’ve got to perform and stay in control. We’ve got to conquer, be on top of things, and
call the shots. We’ve got to tough it out, provide, and achieve; meanwhile we learn to
beat back our feelings, hide our emotions, and suppress our needs. (p. 148)
45
Each articulation presents masculinity as socially constructed and informed by patriarchy. Each considers patriarchal power, the behavior men engage in as a response to patriarchy, and the roles men are socialized to play. Staunch differences, however, are observed in perceptions of power and who feels the burden of oppression today.
Where Kaufman (2013) explained that men access patriarchal power through violence and notes that patriarchy, enabled through law and legal statute, gives men permission to be violent, Gross (1990) remarked that men have lost a great deal of power due to the work of feminists and stated that men’s loss of power can be found in the judicial bias they face in divorce court as an example (i.e., the perception of favors given to women in child custody).
According to bell hooks (2004), patriarchy is a system of oppression that is devastating to both men and women because of the ideals and behavioral expectations it dictates. Gross (1990) agreed and stated that today’s men are “plagued by sexism, gender bias, and objectification” (p.
12). On the other hand, Gross (1990) argued that men are an oppressed minority, victims of the
“Old Girls’ Network” that is set on “challenging traditional male dominance and turning the law against men” (p. 15).
This perception of masculinity, although a great departure from most scholarly perspectives on toxic masculinity, is important to highlight as it reflects beliefs some men have come to adopt (Kupers, 2010). Gross (1990) invoked “toxic masculinity” in the same way
Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) articulated toxic traits or practices; however, Gross suggested that the term may be better used to describe the “confused” place men find themselves in because of the actions of feminists. This articulation of masculinity is based in patriarchy but depicts men as the oppressed party that must be empowered through a men’s liberation movement (Gross,
1990).
46
Two articulations of toxic masculinity are presented here. Gross (1990) illustrated how some men develop social identities based on internalized masculine norms, patriarchal ideas, and prescribed gender roles for men and women. These men view their privileged social status in the world as earned, see the privileges they receive as appropriate, and possess a sense of entitlement
(Brod & Kaufman, 1994). This form of toxic masculinity is informed by a belief that the privileges and power intended for men have been successfully challenged and eroded (Gross,
1990). Men who subscribe to this form of toxic masculinity view themselves as victims; that feminists, for example, have successfully stolen the rights and privileges appropriate to men.
These men engage in toxic practices because they see this behavior as appropriate for men and/or as acts of civil disobedience perceiving social justice advocates as occupying powers.
Kupers (2005) presented toxic masculinity as the “constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (p. 714). This articulation aligns with Connell and Messerschmitt’s (2005) perspective of toxic traits or practices. Kupers (2005) also noted that those enacting toxic masculinity do so in alignment with “male proclivities” but in an exaggerated manner.
In either case, men who enact toxic masculinity adopt a social identity that is defined by toxic practices, such as misogynistic, homophobic, and hypermasculine behaviors. Thus, toxic masculinity, while informed by hegemony, differs significantly from other forms of masculinity in motivation even as the associated behavior patterns remain constant. These men may be motivated by an essentialist perspective that toxic behaviors represent who a man is and what a man does. In this case, their behavior is not defined by a desire to distance themselves from femininity or a desire to obtain social status, but a belief that they themselves, as well as the rights they are entitled to as men, are under attack. On the other hand, men who define their
47
masculinity through toxic practices may do so because they believe this manner of being
increases their ability to ascend social hierarchies. In either case, engaging in toxic behaviors
remains consistent. Toxic masculinity speaks to toxic practices, destructive social identities, and delusional perceptions of reality informed by patriarchy.
Productive Masculinity
Masculinity, as a performed social identity, can and will change in response to boys and
men maturing and in relation to different social contexts (Kimmel & Messner, 2007). This statement suggests that masculinity is a learned construct that is subject to corrective action through socialization. Numerous studies have focused on the social construction of masculinity
in college men, how college environments contribute to these men’s conception of masculinity, and what efforts can be enacted to influence the development of a sense of masculinity in college men that is productive in nature (Harris & Harper, 2014; Kimmel & Davis, 2011).
Harris and Harper (2014) coined productive masculinity to illustrate attitudes and
behaviors they noted in college men who contributed to a “safe and affirming campus
community for all students” (p.706). According to these researchers, those who enact productive
masculinity actively work to reshape campus social norms in positive ways (Harris & Harper,
2014). These men, according to Harris and Harper (2014), worked to disrupt patriarchy on their
campuses and challenged racist, sexist, and homophobic behavior in their peers.
Harris and Harper (2014) aligned productive masculinity with Anderson’s (2008) concept of “inclusive masculinity.” Inclusive masculinity values the social inclusion of men, ideals, and behavior traditionally marginalized by patriarchal norms. Men who subscribe to notions of inclusive masculinity are not influenced by other’s perceptions of themselves as masculine or feminine (Anderson, 2011a).
48
In studying fraternity men who enact productive masculinity while in college, Harris and
Harper (2014) interviewed men who intentionally performed masculinity in a manner
inconsistent with social norms. These men did not prioritize drinking, engage in homophobia, or
utilize hypermasculine sexuality to assert their social identities. They preferred sexual
relationships that were fulfilling and rich, “cultivated substantive, non-romantic friendships with women on campus,” and challenged sexist or misogynist behavior in their fraternity brothers
(Harper & Harris, 2010, p. 706). Yet these men were not subject to ridicule or other adverse consequences. Numerous reasons were provided for their lack of negative consequences. I
categorize these reasons as challenging and redefining patriarchal norms, masculine capital, and
environmental ethos.
Challenging and Redefining Patriarchal Norms. First, Harper and Harris (2010)
argued that college men often act out of pressure from pluralistic ignorance. Berkowitz (2004,
2005) explained that pluralistic ignorance involved individuals assuming that they are alone in
their perceptions of a behavior or behaviors being problematic and, as a result of their feelings of
isolation, they engage in the behavior or behaviors in which they disapprove because they
believe others endorse those behaviors. For example, a first-year undergraduate student who
believes that binge drinking is problematic behavior may binge drink if they feel that they are the
only one who is not engaging in this behavior. By intentionally acting against perceived social
norms, these college men challenged social perceptions of appropriate behavior and initiated
shifts in social norms. They challenged patriarchal systems previously thought to reward specific
negative behavior and masculine norms thought to be held by most men. Their actions align with
Kaufman’s (1994, 2013) suggestions for redefining masculinity and dismantling patriarchal
systems of power and privilege. Due to masculinity being both contextual and informed by social
49
norms, interceptive action that challenges commonly held beliefs of normality may be essential
to affecting positive change in the behavior and beliefs of college men.
Masculine Capital. Second, Harris and Harper (2014) explained that privilege had a large effect on the behavior of men practicing productive masculinity. The men in the study were predominately White, heterosexual, cis-gender, and members of a “well-resourced organization that is afforded substantial support from its alumni” (p. 718). Additionally, Harris and Harper
(2014) stated that the men observed enacting productive masculinity embraced diversity and were aware of differences in experiences of people from diverse background; however, these men did not appear to be aware of how their salient identities led to them being privileged nor were they observed attempting to unlearn privilege. The privileges these men held may have allowed for their challenging of social norms without experiencing adverse effect.
Environmental Ethos. The third and last reason men who were observed enacting productive masculinity may not have experienced negative consequences as a result of challenging patriarchal norms and promoting positive masculinities centers on environmental ethos. This term was presented in a previous study by Harper, Harris, and Mmeje (2005) and described “how the individual student’s background and characteristics, coupled with environmental factors, affect their behaviors in college” (p. 560). The term considers the impact social identities, traits, and socialization have on men prior to entering college, and places that in conjunction with the environment and people they interact with while in college to explain behavior.
In addition to the men from Harris and Harper’s (2014) study being able to access privilege with relative ease due to their dominant identities, these men surrounded themselves with like-minded individuals and took intentional action to create a social environment
50
conducive for challenging patriarchal norms. According to Harris and Harper (2014), the men in their study worked to put “the right guys in key leadership positions” to increase the likelihood of success when challenging patriarchal norms (p. 718). Furthermore, these men actively pursued other college men who shared their beliefs on challenging sexist, racist, and homophobic behavior to connect and interact (Harper & Harris, 2010). In doing so, they generated opportunities for men to reconsider their beliefs and behavior in respect to masculinity and they created a safe/supportive space for men to challenge stereotypical norms. These intentional actions align with suggestions presented by Harris (2010) and Kaufman (1994, 2013).
Connell (1987) and Kimmel and Messner (2013) postulated that multiple forms of masculine identity exist and that some forms are prioritized and positioned as dominant over others. These notions are centered in masculinity being informed by patriarchy and patriarchy honoring some social identities over others. Because patriarchy places more esteem on some traits and behaviors, it is easier for some individuals to gain access to patriarchal power and privilege. This is hegemony as discussed by Connell (1987). Men who are “White, heterosexual, able-bodied, Christian, and middle or upper class can enact male privilege more easily than can men of color, gay or bisexual, physically disabled, religious minority, and low-income men”
(Harris & Harper, 2014, p. 706). Because the men from Harris and Harper’s (2014) study could access privilege with relative ease, I submit that they possessed enough “masculine capital” to compensate for their engaging in non-toxic behavior.
Re-thinking Productive Masculinity
I believe productive masculinity and the study presented by Harris and Harper (2014) offer excellent insight into the present study. Within their study, Harris and Harper (2014) highlighted three goals: the importance of critically analyzing masculinity, the importance of
51
challenging social norms and toxic practices, and the importance of intentional action toward
facilitating the first two goals. They presented productive masculinity as the embodiment of desirable psychosocial, health, and student engagement outcomes for college men.
I agree that the behavior, social norms, and ideals attributed to productive masculinity are desirable, should be intentionally sought, and actively reinforced in college men. However,
Harris and Harper (2014) presented productive masculinity in contrast with hegemonic masculinity. As such, ideals and behavior associated with hegemonic masculinity are invariably equated with sexism, racism, homophobia, and sexual promiscuity. Although I note that numerous researchers and studies draw the same conclusions about hegemonic masculinity, I believe that making an invariable connection between hegemonic masculinity and toxic practices is both improper and not supported by the original articulations of the term. By the same token, I would also challenge Harris and Harper’s (2014) implication that enacting productive masculinity is not hegemonic in nature. In support of these statements, I present the following section.
Connell (1987) and Messner (2002) explained that men can enact hegemonic masculinity and gain access to patriarchal power while avoiding behavior that is overly aggressive, dominating, and/or violent. Connell and Messerschmitt (2005) stated that hegemonic masculinity is less about specific behavior as it is about men engaging in behavior that is honored by society to achieve privileges. Anderson (2005) noted that masculine capital can allow for men to engage in behavior that is not considered masculine or appropriate for men if their overall display of social identity is masculine. Thus, men who employ an overall competence in traditionally masculine behavior have “insurance” against being perceived as feminine (Anderson, 2011b;
Anderson & McQuire, 2010).
52
I believe the men observed in Harris and Harper’s (2014) study subscribed to beliefs in conflict with racist, sexist, and homophobic acts. They were able to enact productive masculinity because of privilege and masculine capital. I also believe that the individuals with which these men interacted and the microcosm (fraternity) in which they existed allowed for them to challenge patriarchal norms. I therefore submit that the men observed enacting productive masculinity in Harris and Harper’s (2014) study were motivated by patriarchal power and hegemony.
Patriarchal Power. Harris and Harper (2014) noted that the majority of men from their study held identities that are privileged, were not observed being aware of the privilege that accompanied their salient identities, and did not appear to be focused on trying to unlearn their privilege: “We did not observe a keen awareness of the privilege … nor did we see a link between the participants’ actions as good guys and an effort to unlearn privilege” (p. 718). These men’s privileged identities provided them a large amount of masculine capital. This is because social identities favored by systems of oppression (such as whiteness, masculinity, heterosexuality, and middle/upper socio-economic status) work in concert to perpetuate privilege and power (Connell, 1987; Johnson, 2010). In addition, their actions in challenging stereotypical behavior associated with college men can be viewed as aligning with traditional masculine behavior.
To be masculine is to be assertive, dominating, driven, powerful, and in control (Connell,
2005; Kimmel, 2017; Mahalik, 2000; Mahalik, Good, & Englar-Carlson, 2003). Hegemonic masculinity is grounded in power and authority (Connell, 1987; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005;
Messner, 2002). Harris and Harper (2014) stated that the men enacting productive masculinity in their study “called out” fraternity brothers who were engaging in behavior deemed unacceptable
53
by fraternity values, recruited individuals who subscribed to their views to join the fraternity to
create cohorts of “like-minded peers”, used formal disciplinary action to hold members whose behavior did not comply with chapter norms responsible for their actions, and utilized positions of authority to influence their peers to comply with expectations of appropriate behavior.
Although none of the behavior discussed in this study involved violence, all the behavior can be
classified as dominating, assertive, driven, and even aggressive.
Take, for example, these forms of sexism, hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Although both are informed by patriarchy and oppress women, one form appears less problematic. Glick and Fiske (1996) described these two interrelated forms of sexism. Hostile sexism (HS) refers to
the negative attitudes and discriminatory behavior men reserve for women who disregard
traditional gender roles, challenge men, or attempt to usurp their power (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
HS is associated with rape proclivity (Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003; Viki, Massey, &
Masser, 2005). Benevolent sexism (BS) calls for women to be protected and honored (Glick &
Fiske, 1996). Each form of sexism is informed by patriarchy and designed to subjugate women
(Durán, Megías, & Moya, 2018; Durán, Moya, & Megías, 2014).
The same system of oppression that empowers men to engage in sexually aggressive
behavior, including men’s violence, necessitates that women be protected. While HS and BS
would appear to contradict, researchers have noted these forms of sexism to be complementary.
HS is associated with men’s tendencies toward sexual aggression against women (Abrams et al.,
2003). According to Duran, Moya, and Megias (2014), men prescribing to BS justify sexual
violence against women in certain situations. Peer interaction and perceived peer-group support
compounds the relationship between sexism and violence against women.
54
Durán, Megías, and Moya (2018) found that “perceived peer-group support of HS is an
important factor that can influence men’s tendency to exhibit sexually aggressive behaviors
toward women, actually facilitating them” (p. 11). Durán et al. (2018) also noted that men with
strong views of BS were low in rape proclivity, which suggests that these men may act to protect
women in instances of perceived hostility. In addition, the researchers stated that “being high in
BS may not only lead to lower rape proclivity but may also protect individuals against hostile
sexist beliefs expressed by peers and make them less likely to express aggression motivated by
these beliefs” (Durán, Megías, & Moya, 2018, p. 12).
Although benevolent sexism may appear to offer positive results in relation to proclivity
toward men’s violence, failure to address dominant masculine norms and patriarchy allows
systems of oppression to remain unchallenged. Similarly, the behavior exhibited by the men in
Harris and Harper’s (2014) study aligned with patriarchal norms and traditionally masculine behavior although they challenged stereotypically masculine norms. Their behavior along with
their salient identities allows them a significant amount of masculine capital (Anderson, 2005;
Anderson & McQuire, 2010). As a result, these men had “insurance” against being perceived as feminine by challenging behavior stereotypically associated with college men (Anderson, 2005).
The privilege and masculine capital that allowed these men to challenge stereotypical masculine norms also protected them from being perceived unfavorably by other men; therefore, patriarchal power enabled these men to enact productive masculinity.
Hegemony. Connell (1987) insisted that hegemony does not imply violence, does not necessitate social ascension based on force, and does not mean total cultural domination in every aspect of life. Hegemonic masculinity is grounded in one’s ability to determine and comply with
social norms to best affect ascension of hierarchical position (Connell, 2012). Considering this
55
conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity, the behavior observed in Harper and Harris’s
(2010) study is, by definition, hegemonic. The men in Harper and Harris’s (2010) study engaged in socially acceptable behavior that challenged negative social norms often associated with hegemonic masculinity. However, their participants did not disrupt hegemonic masculinity as they neglected to consider how they were privileged by systems of oppression, specifically patriarchy, and their behavior still enabled their ascension of social hierarchy.
Kimmell (2009) explained that college-age men found difficulty in developing a sense of self in response of the “gender policing” of other men and that the development of their social identities were largely informed by interactions with male peers (p. 47). The men observed enacting productive masculinity belonged to a unique organization and interacted with peers that allowed for their challenging of masculinity norms as universally held and, in that, normal.
According to Berkowitz (2004), “most men want to ‘do the right thing’ and make healthy choices but may suppress this desire in order to fit in with what they think is true for other men” (p. 167).
It is my belief that the contextual environment and the privileges already held by the men because they practiced productive masculinity created a scenario that allowed the development of their social identities, their sense of self, in a context absent typical gender policing.
I therefore respectfully disagree with Harris and Harper (2014) when they state,
“fraternity men in our study were encouraged to disrupt hegemonic masculinities when other
like-minded peers who shared this commitment supported them” (p. 718). I believe that the
fraternity men in their study were encouraged to disrupt masculine social norms and stereotypes
typically associated with college men such as excessive drinking, homophobia, misogyny, and
sexual promiscuity but not hegemonic masculinity. Like Glick and Fiske’s (1996) articulation of
benevolent sexism (BS), the fraternity men who enacted productive masculinity called for
56 women to be protected and honored. In doing so, these men enjoyed social ascendancy and a hierarchical position over women.
My assertions that productive masculinity exists as another form of hegemonic masculinity should not be construed as wholly problematic. It is entirely possible for an individual to engage in socially acceptable behavior designed to elevate their social status without said behavior being detrimental, deplorable, or repugnant. Although I disagree with
Harris and Harper’s (2014) conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity, this does not negate the utility and importance of their study and findings. Their study of college men who engaged in productive masculinity is a significant addition to the literature. Harris and Harper (2014) examined individuals who chose to disrupt masculine social norms and negative stereotypes through their behavior, while the majority of research on college men and masculinity focuses on men behaving badly. The insights Harris and Harper (2014) present, employing Berkowitz’s
(2004) social norms approach, offer a template for continued research on college men reshaping campus norms in positive ways.
The Social Norms Approach
The social norms approach states that “our behavior is influenced by incorrect perceptions of how other members of our social groups think and act” (Berkowitz, 2004, p. 5).
College men often have misconceptions about what behavior is common, or normal, among their peers and comply with this behavior because they fail to realize that they are not unique. For example, first-year males often hold exaggerated perspectives concerning the amount of alcohol their peers regularly consume and, as a result, overindulge. The social norms approach postulates
57
that if students were aware of actual behavior in relation to perceived norms, such as those
related to alcohol consumption, they would feel less pressure to conform to misconceptions.
The social norms approach discussed misconceptions in three ways. The first is
pluralistic ignorance, which was addressed in Harris and Harper’s (2014) study. According to
Berkowitz (2004), it is the most common misperception. Pluralistic ignorance occurs when
individuals believe that their peers act or believe differently when commonalities are, in fact,
more prevalent.
In contrast to pluralistic ignorance, college students who represent the smallest
percentage of the population and subscribe to unhealthy attitudes and/or behaviors may
incorrectly believe that they are in the majority. This is an example of false consensus. It can be
seen in those who binge drink, incorrectly assuming that most of their peers engage in similar
behaviors. Berkowitz (2004) provided insight into the prevalence of this misconception by
explaining that “heavy drinkers have a personal motivation for believing in exaggerated drinking
norms because it allows them to justify their abusive drinking and deny that there is a problem”
(p. 7).
False uniqueness, the final misconception, is found in individuals who believe that their behavior is unique when it actually is widely practiced (Berkowitz, 2005). “The phenomenon of false uniqueness occurs when individuals who are in the minority assume that the differences between themselves and others are greater than is actually the case” (Berkowitz, 2004, p. 8). As a consequence of this misconception, individuals may self-isolate in the belief that they are alone.
Anti-violence groups, programs, or initiatives that target misconceptions in social norms can influence behavior by providing true representations of behavior that is common. Kaufman
(2013) suggested the importance of challenging masculine norms and doing so through
58 intentional initiatives. Davis, LaPrad, and Dixon (2011) echoed this sentiment explaining that men’s groups can provide unique and effective opportunities for men to promote positive masculinity, challenge social norms and behavior associated with patriarchy. This can be done through marketing campaigns that educate college men of true usage percentages and/or provide true representations of people, a concept, or “normal” behavior. Berkowitz (2004) referred to this as norm correction interventions. In addition to norm correction, anti-violence initiatives can focus on exposure and interaction. By creating or facilitating environments where various groups of individuals, who would otherwise remain segregated, can engage in controlled dialogue, misconceptions of social norms can be challenged through exposure to counter-narratives and new information (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007).
There is merit in considering the effects of a social norms approach in developing correction interventions. This approach, like the social identities espoused by college men, is informed by societal information and expectations for behavior. These messages are forms of discourse.
Discourse
Discourse, as explained by Bucholtz (2003), is a term used to describe nuanced messages, overt or covert, presented in the context of social situations. Discourse describes words, symbolic activities, coded language, and artifacts that are used to disseminate societal information and expectations; information and expectations about gender are conveyed via discourse. Of the several forms of discourse that exist, three forms of discourse were highlighted for this study: social, cultural, and gender(ed).
59
Social Discourse
As an umbrella term, social discourse speaks to society’s ideology of normality and has a regulating effect on people (Angenot, 2004). It is visible in media (e.g., television, movies, literature), as well as educational and religious institutions. For example, social discourse suggests that people eating in a restaurant should order in accordance to the customs of that establishment and consume their food while seated in the furniture provided. Anyone who fails to act in accordance to social discourse is believed to be behaving oddly, out of the norm, and/or in an uncivil manner.
Cultural Discourse
Within social discourse, there are numerous forms of cultural discourse. Similar to social discourse, cultural discourse encompasses widely disseminated messages of normality that are also communicated through media, educational, and religious institutions. However, the messages in cultural discourse are more nuanced and formative (Carbaugh & van Over, 2013).
For example, social discourse suggests that a heterosexual woman currently living in the United
States of America should feel free to dress as she pleases; however, a woman’s cultural discourse may subscribe to religious norms that suggest otherwise.
Gender Discourse
Gender discourse is a more subtle form of discourse situated subjacent to cultural and social discourse. Edley’s (2001b) notion of gender discourse described a form of masculine or gendered discourse where the subject’s behavior was informed by what he understood to be normative such as “symbolic activities, including styles of dress, pattern of consumption, ways of moving, as well as talking” (p. 191). Edley (2001) described gender discourse specific to
Great Britain in relation to masculinity in the following quotation:
60
Within contemporary British culture, for example, I would see masculinity as being made
up of things like watching football, drinking pints of beer at the pub, and trying to get
away from the traffic lights faster than the cars in the next lane. It is part and parcel of
putting up shelves, fixing the toaster, and digging over the vegetable patch. All these
things (and many more) are viewed as being typical of men within our culture. This does
not mean, of course, that all men will do them or even that they are the sole preserve of
men (after all, plenty of shelves are put up by women). Rather, they are understood as
normative forms of behaviour, the sum total of the practices and characteristics which we
conventionally associate with men. (p. 191)
Society, through numerous forms of discourse, prescribes what is and what is not normal; it explains what behavior is acceptable and what is unacceptable. In the previous quotation,
Edley (2001) described how gender discourse informs men of what is masculine and that being masculine is normal. Men, if they desire to be perceived as normal and masculine, are forced to abide by and contort their behavior to align with gender discourse (Edwards & Jones, 2009).
According to Connell (1987, 2005), men who are most effective in navigating social hierarchy are best able to understand shifts in social norms, adhere to models of masculinity, and can use these abilities to produce changes in their behavior to reflect what is privileged. By adhering to dominant gender discourse, men can ascend social hierarchy and gain status (Connell, 1987;
2005; Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005).
Weaknesses in Current Literature
After an in-depth assessment of relevant literature, I noted two weaknesses. First, the majority of research on college men is conducted using a deficit approach focused on men’s
“bad” behavior. Most of these studies involve collecting data from men who engage in negative
61
or toxic practices. Second, a large percentage of the literature in relation to college men presents
an essentialist relationship between hegemonic masculinity and engaging in negative or toxic practices. This study seeks to address these issues.
Conclusion
In this study, I drew upon a large body of literature. I discussed numerous topics including gender, socialization, masculinity, gendered behavior, and discourse. In respect to these topics, most of the research offered in this literature review was conducted via a constructionist paradigm. In addition, most of the literature that informed this study is the product of qualitative inquiry. Again, there are exceptions to this as well. Although many of the studies cited were conducted by sociologists, some were conducted by feminist writers, discursive psychologists, and scholars focusing on men’s studies. The following section will provide a brief summary of the literature informing this study and clarify the various methodologies and philosophical assumptions present.
Gender
In this study, I focused on gender, which is defined as an emergent social construct that is malleable within, and across, various cultures that describes masculine, feminine, and/or androgynous behavior and ways of being (Coltrane, 1997, 1998; Connell, 1987). The term is often discussed by sociologists and studied using qualitative methodology. Early sociologist such as Goffman (1956, 1977), West and Zimmerman (1987), and Connell (1987) discussed the relationship between gender, sex, and power. According to Connell (2005), gender is a social practice that “responds to particular situations and is generated within definite structures of social relations” (pp. 71-72).
62
Goffman (1956) stated that a sex category involves socially regulated external insignia of
sex such as the possession of female or male genitalia. West and Zimmerman (2009) presented the following on sex category and gender:
The relationship between sex category and gender is the relationship between being a
recognizable incumbent of a sex category (which itself takes some doing) and being
accountable to current cultural conceptions of conduct becoming to - or compatible with
the "essential natures" of a woman or a man. We conceptualized this as an ongoing
situated process, a "doing" rather than a "being." (p. 114)
Butler (1988) later discussed “doing gender” and focused on the problematic nature of binary genders in relation to sex. Butler (1988, 2006) also explained how gender is performed in the context of social power by offering the following:
The act that gender is, the act that embodied agents are inasmuch as they dramatically
and actively embody and, indeed, wear certain cultural significations, is clearly not one's
act alone. Surely, there are nuanced and individual ways of doing one's gender, but that
one does it, and that one does it in accord with certain sanctions and proscriptions, is
clearly not a fully individual matter. (p. 525)
According to Kelan (2018), the broad differences between each perspective is that West and
Zimmerman’s (1987) concept of doing gender emerged from an ethnomethodological approach while Butler’s (1982, 2006) perspective is based in poststructuralism. Butler (1988) positions her notion of performing gender within feminist theory, as a departure from a phenomenologist point of view, and in opposition to Goffman’s (1956) concept of gender roles.
Another difference between West and Zimmerman’s (1987) and Butler’s (1990, 1993) perspectives on the performative nature of gender is their ideas on how gender can be “undone.”
63
According to Deutch (2007), undoing gender is the process of disrupting social hierarchies created by systems of oppression; such as patriarchy. Similarly, Mackenzie et al. (2017) offered discussions on hegemonic masculinities involving an individual moving from being actively compliant, if not complicit, with social norms privileged by patriarchal power to challenging the legitimacy of hegemony with intentional action.
Masculinity
In this study, I focused heavily on masculinity that, according to Connell (1987), is an emergent social construct that is ever changing (fluid) and informed by patriarchy as well as categories of gender and sex. Connell (1987, 1995) noted that masculinity can be characterized by a set of behaviors and traits but cautioned against an essentialist definition of masculinity as a specific way of being or behaving. Kimmel and Messner (2007), in keeping with perspectives presented by West and Zimmerman (1987) and Connell (1987), described masculinity as a performed social identity that is informed and regulated by socially prescribed notions of manhood. These notions of masculinity, as well as the studies informing their perspectives, are primarily based on the work of sociologists conducting qualitative research employing constructionist paradigms.
Hegemonic masculinity, a term coined by Connell (1995), is the “configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (p. 77). Hegemonic masculinity extended Gramsci’s (1971) notion of hegemony, class relations, and writings on the “dynamics of structural change involving the mobilization and demobilization of whole classes (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 831). The concept, as examined by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), was initially proposed as a result of
64
a field study on social inequality conducted in Australian high schools. The theory presents
elements of a constructionist paradigm as well as notions of functionalism through Bourdieu’s
(2004) explanations of masculine domination.
Discourse
In this study, I also discussed discourse and its ability to inform behavior and provided
various definitions of the term. Of those presented, some find their roots within linguistic and
anthropological studies (Carbaugh, 2007; Carbaugh & van Over, 2013), while others are born out
of discursive psychology and sociological traditions (Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Wetherell,
Taylor, & Yates, 2001). Those associated with Foucault tend to utilize a post-structuralists lens
(McHoul & Grace, 1997).
Bucholtz (2004) broadly described discourse as language in the context of social situations. Foucault (1990) discussed discourse in the context of power, sexuality, knowledge, and law. According to Foucault (1972), “it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together… discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it” (p.100-101). Bucholtz (2004) provided more insight into Foucault’s (1972) view of discourses, referring to them as
“historically contingent cultural systems of knowledge, belief, and power” (p. 45). Discourse analysis within a Foucauldian framework, according to Bucholtz (2004), is less concerned with linguistics as it tends to focus on how language informs systems of knowledge and power.
This study considered three forms of discourse: social, cultural, and gender(ed). Angenot
(2004) described social discourse employing a heuristic paradigm where “the notions of intertextuality and interdiscursiveness contribute to the elaboration of a broad theory of social discourse” (p. 199). Social discourse, according to Angenot (2004), is comprised of “everything
65
that is said or written in a given state of society, everything that is printed or talked about and
represented today through electronic media” (p. 200).
Carbaugh and van Over (2013) described cultural discourse through the discussion of
local discursive practices and actions that illustrate “terms and forms of identity, personhood and
face, social relationships (and institutions), emotion, sequential action, and concerns about the
nature of things” (p. 143). Carbaugh and van Over (2013) presented a localized discussion of
discourse that considers discursive action, such as “small talk,” and the “implicit cultural
meanings associated with it concerning appropriate relationships, social actions, being a proper
person, the expression of emotion, and social living in specific places” (p. 144). Their research
illuminated a more nuanced perspective of social discourse as it, for example, analyzed
differences in intercultural dynamics such as how language is used and the interpretation of
cultural “logic-in-use” between English speakers in comparison to German Speakers.
Edley (2001) described gender discourse as a more subtle form of discourse situated subjacent to cultural and social that includes discussions of normative behavior, or symbolic activities, such as “styles of dress, pattern of consumption, ways of moving, as well as talking”
(p.191). His perspective; like those of Edley and Wetherell (1995, 1997, 2014), Gough and
Edwards (1998), Wetherell and Edley (1999), Wetherell et al. (2014; 2001), and Speer (2001), offer a discursive approach for analyzing gender and hegemonic masculinity.
Therefore, in response to the literature’s overall characteristics, including its weaknesses, in this investigation, I sampled men who addressed toxic behavior, specifically men’s violence on college and university campuses. I focused on understanding men who engage in socially desirable or positive behavior. This allowed for a better understanding of college men who embody the positive attributes found desirable by college and university administrators.
66
I used a conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity informed by Connell (1987, 1995,
2005), Messner (2002), and Connell and Messerschmitt (2005). Hegemonic masculinity is not invariably linked with toxic behaviors. It is, however, a tool for creating and perpetuating hegemonic dominance of women and subjugated masculinities. As a result of my conceptualizing hegemonic masculinity this way, less attention was placed on how college men can reject hegemony, and more was placed on how these men used their privilege to affect changes to perceptions of dominant social norms. By challenging social norms, perspectives on acceptable behavior (such as men’s violence) also change. This leads to creating positive change in campus and university culture.
67
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
This chapter contains the following seven sections: research questions, researcher’s values and assumptions, paradigmatic framework, methodology, methods, trustworthiness, and limitations. Framed within a constructionist paradigm, I employed a narrative approach to understand the stories of men involved in groups, programs, or initiatives designed to prevent men’s violence. This study was conducted from a Western or US perspective.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How have undergraduate cisgender men involved in groups focused on men’s
violence prevention come to define masculinity?
2. How have these undergraduate cisgender men’s definitions of masculinity
been shaped and informed by their involvement in groups focused on men’s
violence prevention?
3. From the perspective of these undergraduate cisgender men, what motivates
them to become and remain involved in groups focused on men’s violence
prevention?
Researcher’s Values and Assumptions
This section will focus on myself as a human instrument. Within this section, I discuss my values and assumptions. I also provide information on my personal interest, educational background, and professional experiences as they relate to this study.
Personal Interest
As the human instrument proposing this study of men combating men’s violence, I bring my own experiences, assumptions, and understandings to the research process. These
68 assumptions are grounded in my past experiences, education, and personal convictions. The role my professional life and personal experiences plays in informing my interest in the topic of masculinity cannot be overstated. I consider all these factors motivators that will propelled completion of this study and future research endeavors.
As a young man, I have long questioned how masculinity, gender roles, and expectations guide behavior. Although I only learned to conceptualize my observations in these terms through the completion of my master’s degree, I remember pondering questions along these themes as a grade school student. I questioned why men would engage in toxic behavior and why they would become violent with other men and women. I came to the realization that the gender roles and societal expectations placed on men, although they pale in comparison to those of women, seem to guide men toward behavior detrimental to themselves and others. I became intrigued by how men could better understand their actions, the effects of their actions, and the motivators that informed their actions.
Take, for example, a story from my time as an undergraduate. I, like many college students, felt a need to enjoy my time in college and to do what “college kids” do. So, I went to a few parties. I hated the taste of alcohol and did not drink, but I learned after going to a few parties that not drinking was not acceptable. My fellow college men informed me of this. In anticipation of being ridiculed at the next party, I purchased a brand of root beer whose bottle resembled that of a popular lager. Drinking this faux beer allowed me to socialize without the social stigma associated with not drinking. When other men found out what I was doing, they praised my ingenuity and copied my behavior. It became apparent that they did not want to drink, they were just doing what they thought college men did.
69
Instances like this caused me to become interested in the power of social norms and made me question how to create positive change in college. It also made me interested in men who choose not to engage in the stereotypical behavior associated with college men and how these men come to define themselves as college men. I have confidence that the knowledge constructed in this study will provide insight into these issues.
Educational Background
Human behavior has always intrigued me. This led to my earning a Bachelor of Science in Psychology and, later, a Master of Professional Studies with a concentration in Human
Resource Management, which is an interdisciplinary social science degree. However, my exposure to formal academic research began much earlier.
I was introduced to research methodology as a high school student. I learned that
“quality” research followed the scientific method and that research that did not, by definition, was not quality. I also learned that research is conducted by trained scientists or researchers; emphasis was placed on the necessity of training. As an undergraduate student studying psychology, my assumptions and understanding of research were reinforced. I learned that the supposedly proper way of conducting a study involved rigor, reliability, and validity. I learned to conduct quantitative research based upon an objectivist epistemology where theories of positivism and empiricism are linked and that the world is explained by “identifying universal law through solely measurable means … that things exist as meaningful independently of consciousness and experience, that they have truth and meaning residing in them as objects … and that careful scientific research can attain that objective truth and meaning” (Jones, Torres, &
Arminio, 2014, p. 15). I learned that quantitative research is purportedly objective and that
70
researcher positionality is not considered as it should be irrelevant. The researcher is not the instrument but the one who wields it.
Although I was first exposed to qualitative research as an undergraduate student, I did not
come to fully appreciate it as a form of research until I entered my doctoral program. It was here
that I learned to respect qualitative research and various epistemologies that are not based in
objectivism. I was interested in understanding masculinity and I made my interests known to my
professors. They suggested that I begin my journey in men’s studies by first learning feminist
theory. Trusting the opinions of my instructors, I enrolled in numerous courses that focused on
I quickly came to see that they were correct. I learned about each wave of feminism, the
integration of feminist thought into academia, and the issues associated with expanding women’s
studies to include gender studies. Around the same time, I was taking research methods through
my doctoral program. The combination of these influences allowed me to not only appreciate
qualitative methodology but to value it.
I have since, and continue to, evolve in my understanding and opinion of what counts as
quality research. Through the completion of my master’s degree and my experiences as a
doctoral student, I expanded my knowledge of academic research. I have taken courses in
quantitative, mixed methodology, qualitative, and applied research. I have also attended
academic conferences and participated in webinars to gain further insight into research
methodology. I have even gained experience in evaluation and assessment and data collection
and analysis through my work as a research assistant. Nevertheless, I am still a novice researcher
and refining my skills. This study was my first formal inquiry. In completing this study, I have
learned a great deal about myself.
71
Professional Experiences
My places of employment have been somewhat diverse; however, each contributed greatly to my education. As an undergraduate student, I worked primarily in student affairs. I became familiar with programming (educational, social, etc.), conflict management, human behavior, and student development. My interests in masculinity and the toxic behavior of men increased. Initially, I sought to channel this passion into a career in criminology and violence.
Personal experiences preceding my graduation caused me to abandon this path and seek another.
After graduating, I transitioned into a career path that would put all that I previously learned to test.
The transition to student affairs as a professional was made relatively smooth due to my previous employment circumstances. I began to remember my interest in human behavior and my passion for understanding toxic practices. I soon entered a master’s program, graduated from that program, and transitioned to a similar professional position with an increase in responsibility. Although I was in a different geographic location and the student population differed drastically, I witnessed similar toxic practices and noticed a distinct trend in men’s violence.
While attending Bowling Green State University as a doctoral student, I began to participate in organizations that advocated for positive social change: We are ONE Team
Services (WA1T), Not In Our Town (NIOT), and Vanguard. I was nearing completion of the course requirements for a women’s studies graduate certificate and my advisor for that program suggested I join because of our similar interests. The organization focused on gender equality, sexism, and sexist assumptions among other issues. As a member of this organization, I began to work with a local women’s shelter that served victims of domestic violence and rape. It was here
72
that I came to witness the effects of men’s violence. These experiences renewed my fervor for
gaining an understanding of men’s violence and men who participate in anti-violence
organizations.
As a doctoral student, I focused on studying masculinity and the behavior of men. I also
had opportunity to work as a research assistant. While in this position, I facilitated and conducted data collection including classroom observations and interviews (by phone and in-person). I have
conducted quantitative and qualitative data analysis. I have transcribed interviews, coded data
(open, axial, and selective), cleaned data for quantitative analysis, and performed content
analysis for local, state, and federal grants.
As I complete this study, I am now a faculty member. I currently teach two master’s
courses: Student Development Theory and Introduction to Higher Education Administration. My
professional history has provided me with experiences and the tenacity necessary to successfully
complete this study.
Paradigmatic Framework
According to Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2014), research positioned within
constructionism is focused on increasing understanding of a phenomenon for improved praxis.
Constructionism also proposes that individuals create multiple realities in response to their lived experiences and interactions with others (Creswell, 2013). In addition, constructionism positions the inquirer as the co-creater of knowledge, understanding, and interpretation that the listener and narrator work in concert to present a shared conceptualization of reality (Lincoln, Lynham &
Guda, 2011). In light of this information, constructionism or a constructionist paradigm is appropriate and best suited for this narrative study.
73
Ontology
Ontology, according to Creswell (2013), refers to the researcher’s assumptions about the
nature of reality. Ontological beliefs associated with a constructionist paradigm present reality as
socially constructed (Creswell, 2013). Riessman (2001) explained that the “truth” of narrative
inquiry is found in the shifting connections between past, present, and future instead of the
“faithful representation of a past world” (p. 705). This suggests that the perspective of reality
(ontology) is fluid, ever changing, and unique to the narrator. The goal of this narrative study is
to examine how participants make meaning of their realities, to highlight turning points within
their past experiences in relation to their definitions of masculintity, and to illustrate how the
cultural discourse surrounding masculinity affects men who seek to prevent men’s violence.
Epistemology
Epistemology describes how reality, or the nature of knowledge, is learned or known
(Creswell, 2013). The research findings that result from this study were co-constructed between subject and interviewer or, as articulated by Chase (2001), narrator and listener. In addition, research conducted using constructionism is informed by theory and practice, each mutually shaping the other (Broido & Manning, 2002). I employed a process of observation, verification, and mutual construction of knowledge which is recommended for narrative inquiry (Chase,
2011; Riessman, 2001).
I conducted interviews and wrote field notes. Data verification occurred through my sharing interview transcripts and field notes with participants. As appropriate to a constructionist paradigm, knowledge obtained as a result of this study was mutually constructed between interviewer and interviewee. In short, I acted as a research instrument. As such, reflexivity or
74
how a researcher situates themselves within a study was a necessary consideration (Jones, Torres,
& Arminio, 2014).
Methodology
Narrative inquiry allows the opportunity to disclose experiences through personal stories
(Creswell, 2013). This research approach is ideal for addressing men who prevent men’s violence because it centers on “how narrators make sense of personal experience(s) in relation to cultural discourses;” those using this approach see participant narratives as “a window to the contradictory and shifting nature of hegemonic discourses” (Chase, 2011, p. 422). In addition,
“qualitative research based on analysis of narrative material is inherently inductive” (Josselson et al., 2003, p. 261). As such, I used the stories shared with me to make broader generalizations toward transferability. Lastly, the use of a narrative approach, as an emergent form of inquiry, allowed the joint opening of windows to the contradictory and the exploration of the lived experiences of men who prevent men’s violence (Chase, 2011).
“Narrative analysis does not assume objectivity but, instead, positionality and subjectivity. The perspectives of both narrator and analyst can come into view” (Riessman, 2001, p. 704). Narrative inquiry is particularly suited for this study because this approach identifies oppressive discourses and “the ways in which narrators disrupt them” (Chase, 2011, p. 422).
Lastly, narrative analysis is suitable for such inquiries as “identity development; psychological, social, and cultural meanings and values … and documentation of the life course” (Saldaña,
2016, p. 155).
The purpose of this study was to understand stories told by men who participated in anti- violence prevention groups, programs, or initiatives. Methods of inquiry should be determined by the purpose of the study and by the study’s ability to effectively respond to the research
75 questions. Qualitative research, and narrative inquiry specifically, was appropriate to examine how these men defined their masculinity, what stories they told in relation to how they defined their masculinity, and the stories they told about their interactions with other men on campus. As the researcher or listener, I was the human instrument who observed nuances in each narrator’s stories (such as word choice and hesitation), highlighted themes in those stories, and illustrated the lived experiences of these men.
This section consists of the following topics: setting and context, participant selection, recruitment, data collection, data analysis, and trustworthiness. Data collection includes information on verification of data and ethical considerations.
Setting and Context
Fontana and Frey (2000) emphasized the importance of establishing rapport with those being interviewed and considering the setting in which the interview will be conducted. All interviews took place at a single location, an institution hereafter known as “Snowy State
University” and in a social context that energetically addressed men’s violence against women, misogyny, and sexism.
“Snowy State University” is a four-year, public university located in the Midwestern
United States. The institution is geographically remote and serves a population of less than 8,000 undergraduate students. The university enrolls students, both undergraduate and graduate, from all 50 states who represent various dimensions of race, creed, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and ability. Most undergraduate students attending Snowy State are
White, under 25 years of age, and hail from the surrounding counties. The men who participated in this study reflect this demographic profile.
76
In addition, this study took place during a time of accountability for individuals
perpetrating men’s violence, violence against women, and sexual harassment. For example, the
#MeToo movement founded by Tarana Burke helped shed light on the prevalence of sexual
harassment and other forms of men’s violence (Walsh, 2020). Powerful men, including Bill
Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, were indicted and later imprisoned for perpetrating men’s violence
(Aviles, 2020). In addition, powerful organizations like the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts
of America were held responsible for a culture of sexual abuse that had been causing harm for
decades (Baker, 2020; Benshoff, 2019; Elbagir, Arvanitidis, Polglase, Jones, & Platt, 2019). The
#MeToo movement, prominent universities like Michigan State University coming under
scrutiny for their handling of Title IX cases, and members of the WNBA and National Wo men’s
Soccer League wining more equitable salaries are each examples of events that signified a
growing intolerance for men’s violence and gender inequality. These events embody the social
context of this study.
Participant Selection
In this study, I aimed to collect stories of college men involved in groups, programs, or
initiatives designed to prevent men’s violence. Accordingly, participants for this study were
selected due to their engagement with a violence prevention group hereafter known as
Mensgroup. The defining characteristics of violence prevention initiatives included a focus on changing cultural and/or social norms that allow men’s violence to occur. The initiative placed attention on increasing awareness of men’s violence and addressed issues stemming from toxic masculinity, engaging in educational enterprises, working toward community building, and providing intentional support to male participants. Succinctly, I sought to understand men involved in groups, programs, or initiatives designed to prevent men’s violence through the
77 stories they told. Potential participants were involved with a group that placed clear and intentional efforts into addressing men’s violence. The following groups served as exemplar initiatives: Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) (Katz, 1995), Men Against Violence (MAV)
(Hung, 2010), and the White Ribbon Campaign (Kaufman, 2001).
Upon receiving approval from Bowling Green State University’s Human Subjects
Review Board, I contacted potential participants to participate in this study. A copy of this form is found in Appendix A. I contacted members of an on-campus undergraduate group focused on men’s violence, masculinity, and gender equity. All the participants in this study were members of this group. I share no relationship with the participants. I anticipated the need of a potential participant pool consisting of three to five undergraduate college men. Riessman (2001) provided insight into the number of participants appropriate for a narrative study by stating the following:
The methods are not appropriate for studies of large numbers of nameless, faceless
subjects. The approach is slow and painstaking, requiring attention to subtlety: nuances of
speech, the organization of a response, relations between researcher and subject, social
and historical contexts. Not suitable for investigators who seek an easy and unobstructed
view of subjects’ lives, the analytic detail may seem excessive to those who view
language as a transparent medium. (p. 706)
In response to Riessman (2001), I believed that a pool of three to five undergraduate college men was appropriate.
Further, the purpose of qualitative research is transferability. “Transferability requires that findings are meaningful to the reader,” according to Jones et al. (2014). Qualitative researchers, therefore, should provide a rich description of the phenomena being studied, the context surrounding the phenomena, and the participants. Doing so will allow the reader to assess the
78
“fit” of the data presented and transfer the data where applicable. Therefore, the nature of the
narrative study being proposed does not necessitate a specific number of participants.
Fontana and Frey (2000), in addressing how to “access the setting,” focused on how
researchers “get in” or gain access to a place where the individuals they desire to study are
located. Fontana and Frey (2000) also suggested that researchers understand the “language and culture of the respondents,” noting the importance of having some knowledge of cultural manifestations (p.652). I believed that my participation in national conferences on the topic of masculinity would allow me to gain access to potential participants due to the scope and nature of these events. Indeed, the knowledge and experiences I obtained as a result of attending these
conferences assisted me in learning the language and culture of the men I planned to study. My
knowledge of the language and culture of men conducting work in men’s studies and masculinity
allowed me to build rapport with the individuals in Mensgroup. Creswell (2013) cautioned that
researchers employing a narrative approach often have issues gaining access to individuals
appropriate to their studies, obtaining access to information appropriate to their studies, and
gaining a rapport necessary to facilitate an in-depth and personal interview process. I did not
encounter any of these issues.
“Deciding on how to present oneself,” according to Fontana and Frey (2000), is also
important in qualitative research because the initial interaction “leaves a profound impression on
the respondents and has great influence over the success (or lack of it) of the study” (p. 655). I
presented myself to potential participants as an individual interested in issues concerning
masculinity and men’s studies. This was done as my goal was to the gain trust of potential
participants and establish rapport with all members of the anti-violence group. I disclosed my
79
desire to conduct research on the topic of toxic masculinity and the possibility that I may contact
members of the group to participate in this study.
Recruitment
An initial invitation was distributed to potential participants via email (Appendix B).
Potential participants were recruited based on their participation in the violence prevention group. This invitation was divided into two sections. The first section consisted of a description of the study and an interest form in which participants indicated their willingness to be in the study. Chase (2011) stated that researchers using narrative inquiry should explain what this process will involve.
Those who indicated their willingness to participate were given the option of selecting a hyperlink found in the initial web-based invitation. This hyperlink led to a web-based survey
(Appendix C) that collected contact information, demographics, and information relevant to the
study (e.g., what initiatives he was involved in). Participants were selected through purposeful sampling, as the goal of this study was to gain an understanding of a central phenomenon and provide potential readers with rich and detailed information on said phenomenon (Creswell,
2013). I intentionally surveyed men actively participating in Mensgroup. Four individuals
completed the survey and, as each individual met the requirements for the study, all were
selected for interviews. Participants were provided information about the narrative inquiry
process and the written statement of informed consent (Appendix D) necessary to satisfy
institutional review board policies prior to the interviews taking place.
Once informed consent was obtained, the interview process began. An agenda or
conversation guide (Appendix E) was used to facilitate the dialogue between me (listener) and
each participant (narrator). Chase (2011) explained that the listener in a narrative inquiry should
80
focus on linguistic practices (such as word choice and use of personal pronouns) and pay close
attention to nuances in the stories narrators tell. In keeping with these suggestions, I maintained a
field log designed to keep accurate records of my contact with study participants and details from
each interview. This field log also allowed me to journal about the experiences associated with
conducting this study, reflections from my interactions with participants, and notations
concerning nuances in our communication.
The participants selected identified as White, straight, cis-gender men. Each was an
active member of the organization in question, and three were elected to executive roles. The
participants were undergraduate students, under 25 years of age, who hailed from the
surrounding counties. Although there was a desire for maximal variation in the sample, obtaining
a diverse sample given the demographics (race, ethnicity, age) of the institution in question and
the previously mentioned criteria proved difficult.
Data Collection
After setting a time frame to conduct interviews, I selected an interview location that was
clean, free of noise, free of distraction, well lit, and temperature controlled. Participants completed a consent form upon arrival at the interview location. A hard copy of the informed consent form was signed and then digitally scanned. After verifying the clarity of the scanned
forms, I gave each participant a hard copy. The interview began after these processes were
completed.
I collected data through a semi-structured interview process as informed by Riessman
(2001), Patton (2002), and Chase (2011). Chase (2011) stated that narrative inquiry differs from
other qualitative approaches as narrative studies require a shift from the “conventional practice
of asking research participants to generalize about their experiences, to inviting narrator’s
81
specific stories” (p. 423). Riessman (2001) provided further clarification of the unique process of data collection found in narrative inquiry by stating:
It is a common experience for investigators to carefully craft interview questions, only to
have participants respond with lengthy accounts—long stories that appear, on the surface,
to have little to do with the question … Subsequently, I realized that participants were
resisting our efforts to fragment their lived experience into thematic (code-able)
categories—our attempts to control meaning … We have made efforts to give up power
and follow participants down their associative trails. (pp. 701-702)
Therefore, as referenced earlier, I used an agenda or conversation guide to facilitate the interview
process (Appendix D). This allowed for the data collection process to be emergent and
naturalistic, which is appropriate for narrative inquiry and semi-structured interview (Jones,
Torres, & Arminio, 2014). The interview process focused on the narrator’s participation in
initiatives that prevent men’s violence. However, I encouraged participants to talk about their
personal lives and life experiences as they relate to their making meaning of masculinity.
I recorded interviews using a stand-alone digital recorder. I recorded a “header” prior to
each interview that included the date of the interview, time of the interview, and participant name
or “pseudonym” (Creswell, 2013). I took field notes to record non-verbal communication, initial
researcher analysis, possible themes, and time indexes for points of interest (Chase, 2003;
Creswell, 2013).
I conducted three interviews with each participant. The first interview primarily focused
on building rapport and establishing a relationship of mutual respect, but also began the process
of addressing the research questions. The second interview focused entirely on addressing the
research questions. During the third interview, I addressed the remaining research questions and
82
concluded the data collection process. I ended each interview by thanking each participant for
taking part in the study and presenting information on how the remainder of the data collection process would proceed. As a result, I developed transparency and increased trustworthiness.
After each interview, I spoke with the participant in order to schedule the next interview. I later verified this schedule via email and/or text message.
Verification of Data
After transcribing the interviews, I shared rough drafts of interview transcripts with the participants. In the same manner, I shared my conclusions and findings with the participants.
Interview data (audio recordings, field notes, and transcripts) were stored digitally, password protected, and backed up in a separate location.
Ethical Considerations
Watts (2006) illustrated several ways ethical issues may present in this study. Researcher positionality and the preservation of the narrator’s voice are just a few examples. Awareness of potential conflict allowed me to focus on self-correcting measures (Watts, 2006). Transparency of procedure and adhering to pre-established protocols helped to alleviate most issues. However,
Clandinin (2006) offered the following:
For those of us wanting to learn to engage in narrative inquiry, we need to imagine ethics
as being about negotiation, respect, mutuality and openness to multiple voices. We need
to learn how to make these stories of what it means to engage in narrative inquiry
dependable and steady. We must do more than fill out required forms for institutional
research ethics boards. (p. 52)
83
Creswell (2013) also provided information on ethical considerations for data collection in
qualitative research. Creswell stated that researchers should avoid deceiving participants. As this study employed narrative inquiry, the use of deception was unnecessary.
A theoretical framework offers “suppositions that inform the phenomenon under study and comes from existing scholarly literature. It links unsettled questions to larger theoretical constructs” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 22). Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2014) explained that the strategies employed to navigate ethical issues must be appropriate for the study’s theoretical framework and research method. Constructionism suggests that reality is co-created, that knowledge (understanding and interpretation of lived experiences) obtained through research should be constructed by the narrator and listener, and that control of the study be shared
(Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). I enacted this framework through the data verification process where participants reviewed transcripts, conclusions, and findings related to this study. I sought, and received, participant feedback.
Data Analysis
Josselson (2011) suggested four processes for narrative data analysis: overall reading, re- reading for narratives, re-reading for patterns, and dialoguing the themes. Creswell (2013) offered similar processes as well of clarification on how to utilize memos, coding, and interpretation. I used these steps for data analysis.
Chase (2011) tasked narrative researchers to begin the interpretation by listening to the narrators’ voices and stories within each narrative. Therefore, data analysis for this study began with my listening to each interview to hear the voice of the narrator. At the conclusion of each interview, I noted my interpretation of the narrator’s voice and include these findings in my field notes. The next step of data analysis involved an overall read of each interview transcript
84
separately from the audio recording. The purpose of this reading was to gain a general
understanding of what was being said, to determine general themes, to note points in the
interview that spoke to establishing meanings, and to begin to understand how those points help
to understand the entire interview (Josselson, 2011). After general themes are ascertained and
important points are noted, I revisited my field notes to add context to the analysis (Creswell,
2013).
Multiple readings of each transcript allowed for an understanding of narratives found in
individual transcripts as well as in comparison with other transcripts (Josselson, 2011). These
narratives, as well as how narratives of other narrators (interviewees) appeared to be connected,
were noted. As recommended by Chase (2011), I paid close attention to linguistic practices and
how “storytelling is embedded in the interaction between research and narrator” (p. 422). As
such, nuances like the frequency of word repetition were noted for each narrative (Creswell,
2013). Themes, or broad units of information, were created by combining aggregated narratives
into common ideas while remaining true to the stories the participants offered. Data analysis
concluded in the interpretation of this data.
Trustworthiness
“In qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the instrument” (Patton, 2002, p. 14). As a human instrument, I was able to collect data through nuanced observation. I organized and analyzed these data producing detailed descriptions of people, places, and events allowing for the reader of said data to understand various phenomena in the context in which it occurred. The credibility of these findings relied, to great extent, on my skill as a researcher and my ability to employ various strategies designed to ensure trustworthiness and authenticity (Stewart, 2010).
85
There are several strategies qualitative researchers can use to ensure trustworthiness and authenticity in their findings. Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2014) advised researchers to consider reflexivity in their performing as a human instrument. Researchers should take care to consider how they respond to those involved in the study, how the topic itself affects them, and how participants are situated (in relation to power dynamics) within the study and the findings (Jones et al., 2014). In keeping with suggestions offered by Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2014), I presented those interviewed in this study with copies of their interview transcripts, my initial findings, and conclusions. Participant feedback was solicited and, in one case, received.
The strategies utilized to ensure “goodness” (quality) should also be appropriate to the research approach and the paradigmatic assumptions (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guda, 2011). I employed a constructionist paradigm to conduct a narrative inquiry. Jones, Torres, and Arminio
(2014) explained that researchers and participants co-construct empirical knowledge in qualitative inquiry utilizing constructionism. In addition, Lincoln, Lynham, and Guda (2011) stated that data created using constructionism should exist as a co-construction.
Credibility
This study used member checking to ensure credibility, as described on the previous page and below. Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that member checking is
[t]he most crucial technique for establishing credibility . . . If the investigator is to be able
to purport that his or her reconstructions are recognizable to audience members as
adequate representations of their own (and multiple) realities, it is essential that they be
given the opportunity to react to them. (p. 314)
Participants received a copy of my interpretations of their interview. This included transcripts and initial thoughts on themes. Participants were also asked to review my
86
interpretation of their interview for accuracy and provide any feedback they determined appropriate.
At the conclusion of data analysis, participants received a copy of my final interpretations. This included general themes associated with the narrator, perceptions on the narrator’s “voice,” contradictory themes across all participants, and larger themes that were
common to all participants. This proposed process exemplifies the co-constructive relationship narrator and listener should share in the commission of narrative inquiry utilizing a constructionist paradigm. Member checking ensured that the findings of this study are credible and meaningful.
Each participant expressed appreciation for receiving copies of their transcripts, interpretations, and findings. Three participants (Bruce, Indy, and John) confirmed that their transcripts were accurate. One participant, Bruce, provided clarity on my interpretation of his words. Bruce offered feedback to clarify his statement concerning him being “heavily punished” if he were to be involved in a physical altercation as a high school student. Bruce confirmed my understanding of his statement. In Chapter 4, I address his feedback and how I made sense of it.
Transferability
Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that thick descriptions obtained through in-depth interviews and observation allow for the stories and knowledge of the narrator to be transferable.
In qualitative projects, it is important that “sufficient thick description of the phenomenon under investigation is provided to allow readers to have a proper understanding of it” (Shenton, 2004, p. 70). Doing so allows the reader the ability to compare the “voice,” instances, and nuances heard in the stories of the narrator in relation to the phenomenon, results, and/or conclusions described in the research and make “transferability inferences” (Shenton, 2004).
87
To allow for transferability, in this and the next chapter, I have provided information
about the setting of the study, the backgrounds of the participants, the nature of the organization
under study, and the socio-historic context. These, and other, transferable inferences are found in
my field notes, verbatim interview transcriptions, and interview observations.
Dependability
An audit trail was established through a field log and research journal. The information
stored in these articles included interview data arranged by interview date, participant
pseudonym, and findings. These data would allow another researcher to duplicate this study.
Both field log and research journal were stored digitally in one location.
Confirmability
A study’s confirmability ensures that another researcher can assert the accuracy and acceptability of the findings presented using comparable methods of analysis. I established an audit trail through a field log and research journal to develop confirmability. Through these measures of confirmability, another researcher can duplicate this study to determine the accuracy and acceptability of my findings.
Harm
Participants were informed that they were free to leave the study at will through statement of informed consent and via oral communication prior to each interview session. As I provided participants with information on anticipated time commitments, I did not encounter
undue hardship being placed on their calendars. In addition, the member checking process
allowed participants to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the information they
disclosed. These efforts were implemented in an attempt to avoid causing participants harm
through their engaging in this study.
88
Deception
The present study did not employ deception. Viewed as unethical in social science research (Creswell, 2013), deception was not used in this study as it was counterproductive to the researcher gaining the support of participants and establishing good rapport. Beginning with the initial letter of invitation and a statement of informed consent, I made every effort to be transparent in purpose, procedure, and findings.
Privacy and Confidentiality
This study was conducted in accordance to guidelines set by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) and participants’ rights of confidentiality were guaranteed within reason.
Participants were offered pseudonyms and attempts were made to remove specific identifying information. Participants chose their level of disclosure through the member checking process.
Participants also completed an informed consent form prior to the interview process. Consent forms were created in consideration of institutional review board (IRB) requirements and were provided to participants with the following information: survey purpose, procedure, voluntary nature, confidentiality/anonymity protection, risks, and researcher contact information. Student demographic information collected during the initial survey was stored separately from interview data and later discarded upon completion of the study.
Limitations
This study used narrative inquiry to examine the stories of men who participate in anti- violence groups. The findings of which may be useful toward behavior modification of college men. Upon completion of this research, one limitation was noted, and it is associated with maximum variation sampling.
89
Although the sample employed for this study was adequate in responding to the research
questions, the findings presented gave cause to consider how the identities of the participants
interacted with the outcomes observed. Those who participated represented a homogenous
community. The participants of this study were all White men, straight, cisgender, and able
bodied. In addition, they were all “traditional” college students. Future researchers could conduct studies with more diverse samples of college men to verify the transferability of my findings.
90
CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS
This study had three purposes. The first was to examine the stories told by men working to address men’s violence on their college campuses through university-based violence
prevention groups, programs, or initiatives. The second was to understand how these men came
to define their masculine identity and how their definitions of masculinity had been shaped and
informed by their involvement in the previously discussed initiatives. The third and last purpose
centered on what motivated the men of this study to become and remain involved in men’s violence prevention efforts. These purposes were realized through the stories of four undergraduate men who are profiled in this chapter. Their stories are summarized according to the following chronology: growing up, learning to be a man, journeying toward self-discovery, learning to challenge pre-conceived notions, understanding the significance of participating in a violence prevention group, and the importance of discourse in their lives.
Beginning in the Midst at Snowy State
“As researchers, we come to each new inquiry field living our stories. Our participants
also enter the inquiry field in the midst of living their stories” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, pp.
63–64). In this quotation, Clandinin and Connelly (2000) articulated how researchers began the
task of their research “in the midst” of the lives of their participants. In addition, they remind
those who would engage in an inquiry that they themselves, as the researchers, are also a part of
the study taking place. The places, communities, academic institutions, and interview spaces
each provide context to the story being shared and are also situated in the midst of the lives of
the researcher and storyteller.
In this study, I stepped into the lives of four men who agreed to speak to me about
masculinity and their experiences with a men’s group with which they were each affiliated.
91
These men chose the following pseudonyms: Bruce, Gregory, Indy, and John. I met these men through Mensgroup, which is a pseudonym I chose to represent the violence prevention group in question.
The participants all identified as White men, straight, cisgender, and able bodied. Most of the members of Mensgroup reflect these demographics. However, some members self-identified as genderqueer and transgender. All members are undergraduate students who reside on-campus.
The group is advised by a graduate student who is a live-in student affairs administrator.
Mensgroup meets weekly to discuss masculinity and issues related to masculinity, such as how men’s violence affects college men and how men can unlearn toxic behaviors taught to them in their childhood. I discovered this group by searching Snowy State’s webpage for student organizations focused on anti-violence initiatives.
When I conducted my interviews, Mensgroup was less than two years old. Bruce and
Gregory were in leadership positions. They also helped create the group. John and Indy joined
Mensgroup the second year of its existence and, while not in official leadership positions, are very involved in programmatic efforts and are committed to the success of the organization.
As a researcher, I also enter into the midst of my own story. My story, just as those who participated in this study, is marked by my inquiry and our shared interests. I stepped into the midst of their present realities, which were being created through their past experiences, changing perspectives on masculinity, and altering ideals in relation to life. I stepped out having observed men challenging their pre-conceived notions of gender, attempting to become better stewards for social change, but falling short of radical transformation. They, as participants, entered my life at a time when I was preparing to complete a research inquiry. I had received
92 training as a new researcher, was working as adjunct faculty, and had previous experience as a full-time student affairs administrator at a similar institution of higher education.
The participants also entered my life at a time when my relationship to masculinity is in flux. For example, I am recently married and developing in my role as a husband. This new union has caused me to reexamine and change my perspectives on masculinity in relation to how my wife and I solidify our new roles as partners in marriage. In many ways, we challenge our previously constructed gender roles. At other times, we model traditional notions of masculine and feminine gender roles perpetuated in gender and cultural discourse. This stage in my life marks the first time I have had to apply decades’ worth of gender role socialization to my life and I am in the midst of recreating my masculine identity in the context of matrimony.
Our shared sense of place was a four-year, public university located in the Midwestern
United States, hereafter known as “Snowy State University.” It is a geographically remote institution and serves a population of less than 8,000 undergraduate students. The university welcomes students, both undergraduate and graduate, from all 50 states who represent various dimensions of race, creed, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and ability. Most undergraduate students attending Snowy State are White, under 25 years of age, and hail from the surrounding counties. The men who have chosen to participate in this study reflect this typical Snowy State profile.
I moved to the city where Snowy State is located and began working at the university prior to beginning data collection for this study. I began attending Mensgroup meetings to build rapport, and because of shared interest. I found the members of Mensgroup to espouse a sincere desire to create positive change in their institution and themselves. The men who later volunteered to take part in this study exemplified this attitude.
93
Mensgroup was founded by a small number of undergraduate students living on-campus,
the majority resided in a men’s residence hall. Greg explained how he and the other founding
members were prompted to start the group by a visiting scholar, Michael Kaufman. According to
Bruce, the group uses feminist ideals to actively combat toxic masculinity through educational
programing and individual outreach. I witnessed them working with other social justice groups to create educational programing for the campus such as Slut Walks, Gender Fairs, and topic talks.
My position at Snowy State included access to a private office, which served as a convenient and comfortable place to conduct interviews. The office is in a building on-campus and is easily accessible to undergraduate students. Those who participated in the study could relax in the space and share their stories. Before each interview, we engaged in “small talk” and
discussed mundane topics for several minutes. This process often repeated after the interview
concluded.
I created four narratives in response to the stories the participants told. The first three
narratives represent events of the participants’ lives and are presented in three stages: Childhood,
Adolescence, and College. Through the act of storytelling, the participants shared their lived
experiences. Their stories, for the purposes of this study, are presented chronologically.
Polkinghorne (1988) suggested that the focus of narrative inquiry should be the “plot” of those
offering their stories. This plot could consist of interactions (personal and social) in which the
storytellers participate, places where those interactions occur (situation), and continuity or a
timeframe for the interactions to occur (past, present, and future) (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
The last narrative, Discourse, focuses on the theoretical framework of discourse and its
significance on the lives of the participants. Researchers using narrative inquiry liken a
participant’s narrative to a unique form of discourse. Bucholtz (2003) defined discourse as
94
language, symbolic activities, and/or artifacts employed to disperse information on various social
situations. Chase (2011) discussed discourse in relation to narrative inquiry “as meaning making
through the shaping or ordering of experience, a way of understanding one’s own or other’s
actions, of organizing events and objects into a meaningful whole, of connecting and seeing the
consequences of action and events over time” (p. 421). In both cases, narratives and discourse
serve as a means of offering information, insight, and understanding into a subject’s life by
bearing witness to their life experiences.
The findings for this study begin with a brief profile sketch of each participant. They conclude with each of the narratives as previously described. These stories examined how the men learned to define themselves as men (past), how they worked to address men’s violence on their college campus (present), and what motivates them to remain involved in men’s violence prevention efforts (future).
Profile: Bruce
Bruce, at the time of his interviews for this study, was a junior at Snowy State. He entered our first interview wearing a white button-down shirt, black slacks with no belt, penny loafers, and a pea coat. He identified himself as a straight White male and shared that two parents (father and mother) raised him.
He attended a socially progressive high school, where he served as a member of a violence-prevention group. He later enrolled in Snowy State University and started living in a
95
men’s residence hall. Once there, he was invited to help create another anti-violence initiative that became Mensgroup. He served as the first president of the group.
Childhood
One of the goals of this study was to understand how men came to define their masculine identity. To that end, I asked the participants questions concerning what masculinity meant to them, what it meant to be a man, how they learned about manhood and masculinity, and what that process looked like. Each participant offered rich and interesting stories in response to these questions. And, while each storyteller hailed from different backgrounds and familial structures, their stories were strikingly similar.
Bruce described learning to be a man as a child who was “reactionary” and “impulsive.”
He often discussed this youthful stage in the context of education. Many of the stories he presented took place in his school and involved him interacting with his student peers. However, his more prominent discussions about masculinity and manhood took place at home and involved his father’s instruction.
In the following quote, Bruce described what it meant to be a man. He discussed the utility of violence and explained how he was taught to use violence to define himself as a man.
Bruce stated that he was encouraged to behave in this manner “up to junior high school.”
Growing up, it was a lot more reckless. I needed to make a name for myself, as in, no
one's gonna fuck with me if I tell this person off or if I don't take [their] shit. Don’t take
shit. That was a huge part about masculinity growing up. That was probably the model,
and that was something that my father told me. Specifically, and deliberately growing up
[the message] was, “don't take shit from anyone.”
96
Although Bruce’s father did not explicitly suggest the use of violence, the implication to Bruce
was clear. The proper way for a man to respond to someone “fucking” with him was to do
something such as being active, assertive, and to advocate for himself. His father, in this
quotation, may not have been suggesting becoming physical as an initial recourse to someone
giving Bruce “shit,” but it was clear that responding passively to that offense would not be
acceptable.
When asked to elaborate on the statement, “don’t take shit from anyone,” Bruce responded by saying “anyone giving you a hard time. Anyone trying to annoy you or get you down.” In the following quotation, Bruce continued to explain the purpose of violence in how he came to understand masculinity. In this quote, he shared more insight that he received from his father.
As a kid, my father raised me saying, “I won’t tolerate you fighting in school, but if it’s
in reaction to someone else hitting you? If someone hits you, hit them back. And I will be
in that principal’s office next to you defending you. Whether you get punished or not.”
Again, the message was that Bruce, as a man, should not let anyone “fuck” with him nor should he take “shit” from them. His father provided clarity where his former statements were ambiguous. He stated that he approved of Bruce responding with violence in the case of being attacked, regardless of the consequences.
I understood the previous quotation to illustrate that Bruce’s initial conception of masculinity was complex and often contradictory. First, the quotation began with his father stating that “I won't tolerate you fighting in school,” which suggested that Bruce engaging in physical violence would not be tolerated. Therefore, Bruce, when encountering someone who was “fucking” with him or “giving him shit,” would be limited in his recourse. He was to
97
respond, in kind, but never provoke a fight. This is known from the second part of the quotation about fighting in schools; “but if it's in reaction to someone else hitting you? If someone hits
you, hit them back.” In the case of someone becoming physical with Bruce, he was to match
their response with more violence. Thus, according to Bruce’s father, violence is not only
sanctioned but advocated. A physical response was even encouraged.
Later, Bruce, provided a more direct definition of masculinity:
The definition of masculinity growing up was based off of, I would probably say, two
main things and that was, one, whatever you do, you have to prove yourself. Whatever
you want yourself to be, you have to prove it and you have to constantly be proving it.
And, two, don't take shit from anyone.
In these comments, Bruce summarized what his father taught him about masculinity. Much of
what his father taught him was not explicit but implied. His father explained to him that a man
should first, “prove himself … constantly” and, second, “not take shit from anyone.” The use of
violence, per previous instructions, is only warranted depending on the situation at hand;
however, assertiveness is always something a man should strive for. A man is always proving
himself in relationship to others. Therefore, he is constantly active in the process of being a man.
He is consistently performing his masculinity. And, a man never ever takes shit from anyone.
Adolescence
Bruce spoke of learning to use violence to affirm his masculine identity as a child. He
described how a man should behave in the face of controversy, specifically someone attempting
to “fuck with him,” “give him shit,” or if he should have to “prove himself.” As he aged,
however, he learned that being violent could result in various societal consequences such as
being suspended or expelled from school. He explained that this required him to reconsider how
98
he asserted his manhood and to redefine his previous methods of affirming his masculine identity
within social norms for adult men.
In the following quote, Bruce spoke of the transition to high school. As he described how he is expected to behave in high school, he noted the similarities in how he was expected to behave as a child. His assertion is that while some expectations are the same, the behavior associated is different.
My freshman year [in high school], which was when the transition pretty much happened
… you have to prove yourself. You have to be strong, physically and mentally, you have
to always be able to make a name for yourself. And, part of that still stands but just not in
the same way.
Within this previous excerpt, Bruce began to detail his transition from defining his masculinity as a child to doing so as a teenager. He called back to his previous masculine identity that centered on strength and physicality. This previous identity was based in “not taking shit from anyone” and used violence as a tool for masculine affirmation. Now that Bruce is no longer a child, he spoke about some of his perceptions of masculinity shifting. Where he previously spoke of violence, he now began to reference aggression.
I asked Bruce, “Are you saying that there's a link between aggression and masculinity?”
He responded, “Definitely in the way I was raised to believe and understand and define masculinity. Of course.” He later defined the relationship between aggression and masculinity by saying that the terms are “married.” Bruce elaborated:
Whether someone outwardly tells you that or not, it’s what you’re taught cause it’s “I
need a big strong man to [take care of something].” And, that's the other big thing. It’s
about being needed. Someone needs me to be a “big strong man” and to perform this feat
99
of strength or to protect this person with my fists. That’s a huge part of it. It’s feeling
needed cause that's what makes the aggression feel just in your heart, because it was a
necessity. Because I was protecting someone I love. Someone needed me.
While in high school, Bruce joined an anti-bullying group. Bruce stated that he joined to be of
service to his community and that he enjoyed being “needed” as a member of this group. He
acted as a mentor and teacher—positions of leadership and power—whenever the group went to
schools to teach. According to Bruce, the group was responsible for creating lesson plans,
teaching students, and leading classes. When acting as a member of this group, he stepped out of
the role of a student and into the position of an instructor. He defined his sense of masculinity
within this group.
In the following quote, Bruce explained how participating in this anti-violence group affected him in high school. He stated that regardless of what he was taught as a child, he now felt a desire to be completely non-violent. He began to articulate the conflict he felt in behaving
in opposition to how he was raised.
I was a part of a group that would get together and make lesson plans for 6th and 7th
graders, and one day a month we would go and take over all the social studies classes in
our local middle school and teach them about just the very basics of bullying. So, name
calling, diversity, [and] equal treatment [of others]. Just things like that … offensive
humor. We spent a whole class on that and that was where it really changed how I felt
about violence, cause ... maybe that’s part of the reason why I never got in a fight in high
school. I broke up a fight once and it’s just that I didn't want to see it happen. I didn’t
want to see violence happen. I just saw less and less of a reason for it, but then—there are
still those pieces from my childhood where there will be a reason to fight. That’s what’s
100
ingrained into my childhood. Whether it’s either in self-defense or in defense of someone
you love.
Hearing Bruce state that he has never been in a fight led me to reconsider his prior statements on his use of violence to define his masculinity. When Bruce and I discussed his childhood, he illustrated how his father instructed him to employ violence to define himself as a man and in what situations utilizing violence would be warranted; however, Bruce never described a situation of him being violent with someone else.
This realization prompted me to ask Bruce, “Ok, so … you’ve never been in a fight?” To which Bruce responded, “uh uh no.” Our conversation continued with my asking if he,
“consciously walked away from them?” Bruce said “yes.” I asked if he “disrupted a fight when you [he] saw it?” Bruce said “yes.” I then asked, “but you still feel, to use your words, that ‘fire in your belly’ if you were provoked?” Bruce responded with “yes.”
Bruce had previously mentioned the term “fire in my belly” in talking about his sister being threatened or placed in a position to be hurt. He associated the “fire” to adrenalin, or another chemical produced in reaction to seeing a family member in peril. Bruce continued to describe the “fire in your belly” term in the following comment. Within these comments, he revisited the notion of violence and aggression in defense of a loved one.
If I see someone hurt my sister and I’m there to witness it, it’s gonna take a lot to keep
me from trying to intervene and do something about it. Cause that’s something that lights
that fire in my belly about those situations. It’s where you can feel it in your actual body.
I don’t know if it’s adrenaline or maybe in the case of defending a family member, it has
to do more so with oxytocin cause that actually bonds people, the chemical compound
that represents love and familial connection. The thing that makes a parent say, “I will lay
101
my life down for my child.” I feel a chemical response. I’d feel it in my body. It’s not just
a thought. It’s almost like that response doesn’t come from my head. That response
comes from my chest, and my belly, and (as much as it hurts me logically to say it and
pains me logically to say it because I can’t defend it with fact) it’s there and it’s stronger
a lot of the times [then my head]. If I’m being completely honest.
Bruce has shared that he was taught to use violence and aggression as a tool for masculine identity development; however, he has also stated that he has never been in a fight. On the other hand, when discussing how he would respond to various situations where he believes violence and physical aggression is just, Bruce proclaimed that he would be unable to respond with any action but violence. He said that the physical drive to fight would override his better judgement.
Bruce continued to describe his drive to be violent and/or aggressive given the proper circumstances. In the following quote, we talked about his violent impulse as a part of who he is and suggested that that drive to be aggressive will always remain with him. Bruce, in these comments, described the impulse to respond to various situations with violence and aggression as “that part of [him] that he just can’t kill.”
So, there’s that part that you just can’t kill. Like we were talking about with racism
earlier. It’s not like it’s something that we deliberately follow anymore, but it’s there. Yo u
know, and we can’t fight the fact that it’s there and it’s always gonna be there. Cause it
was there when I was growing up. It was – it’s a part of the development of my brain. It’s
a part – it’s hardwired into my psyche and into my ancestors’ psyche.
Bruce divulged that he has an inability to forgo being violent and that he is unable to “kill” that part of him. Violence has found a place even in his analogies. He later charged this issue to his physiology (“part of the development of my brain”), his psychology (“my psyche”), and the
102
psychological state of his forbearers (“my ancestors’ psyche”). He saw the problem as ingrained
and not easily uprooted. The comments below are a continuation of those above. In these, Bruce
is saying that he was “almost bred to subconsciously believe that” being violent and aggressive was hardwired into his psyche and into his ancestors’ psyche.
I was almost bred to subconsciously believe that. I was just lucky enough to grow up in,
not only just the Millennial generation that supports anti‐violence more and more but
specifically the school system and the town I was raised in, I was lucky enough to be in
that so I could become more educated on these situations and be put in an environment
that allowed me to really think critically about violence and why it would ever be ok.
And, come to realize, that I’ve never been in a fight because I’ve never seen something
happen that was bad enough for me to throw a punch. I’ve been livid enough to points
where I would clinch a fist but I’ve, there’s always something that holds me back from
throwing a punch. I’ve never been to a point where my brain would let me hit someone.
Bruce strongly contends that violence and aggression is a part of who he is and has vividly described how he would engage in violent behavior if the situation warranted this action.
However, he noted that he has never been violent with anyone and stated that he saw “less and less of a reason” to be violent regardless of the situation. He also stated that “I’ve never been to a point where my brain would let me hit someone” which implies that his psyche, one of the parts of him he just stated drives him to be violent, has never been able to galvanize his body toward violence because he has not yet experienced a situation that warranted this action. Bruce’s previous discussions of how he was instructed to use both violence and aggression as tools in defining his masculinity led me to qualify his development as complex and often contradictory.
103
Although this moniker may still be appropriate, I also contend that his Bruce’s masculine
identity is performance based.
Although Bruce has described instances where he has engaged in aggressive behavior, his
inclination to be violent has never led him to act. Bruce said that he has never been in a situation
where he feels violence is warranted saying, “I’ve never been in a fight because I've never seen
something happen that was bad enough for me to throw a punch.” On the other hand, he stated
that when confronted with the opportunity to fight, he chose to walk away. Bruce’s masculine
identity would appear to be more grounded in portraying toughness to intimidate others. His
intention is to exude bravado—peacocking)—rather than to be violent toward another person.
Peacocking is a way of performing masculinity or displaying bravado where the subject exudes a
masculine bravado that he would not support with action (Baird, 2018a, 2018b; Hrynyk, 2015;
Rubin, 2016).
I spoke with Bruce about violence, aggression, and how he would react in various
situations compared to how he has reacted. During this discussion, he disclosed one situation where he was physically aggressive with another person and felt that violence would be appropriate. Again, it was a situation where a person threatened someone that he loved. His sister represents that loved one in this situation.
Closest I’ve ever come to be being in a violent, fisticuffs fight, with someone is my dad
and I pushed each other back and forth a couple times in high school. And that was really
the extent of any real aggression that I’ve ever, well, wrestling but that was for sport. But
I have no idea how I would react [to a situation that would call for me to be violent], but
my gut tells me that I would [fight].
104
In the previous comment, Bruce described the only instance of him being involved in a physical altercation. It is notable that this sole encounter involved his father, the person who instructed him on how and when to be violent as a child. This instance, while physical in nature, was not what Bruce would qualify as “violent.” He also stated, “that was really the extent of any real aggression that I’ve ever [taken part in].” Therefore, Bruce acknowledged that while he was instructed to use violence and aggression in his life as a man, he has not engaged in that practice and has actively avoided any “real aggression” when confronted with the opportunity. That
Bruce continued to suggest that his innate and learned responses to various situations would be violence and aggression despite having never engaged in such behavior, supports the stance that his masculinity identity is more grounded in peacocking than action.
College
While speaking about masculinity and manhood during college, Bruce painted a picture that continued several of the notions found in his childhood and adolescent years. He described instances of him defining his masculine identity through peacocking. Bruce also spoke of instances where he attempted to act as a provider and defined his masculinity through service to others. This behavior calls back to him saying that “a huge part” of being a man is “about being needed.” He described how his initial perspectives of college life and the college man were informed by movies and influenced by his peers. Bruce concluded his discussion on his masculine identity by sharing how he matured in his perspectives and behavior to balance enjoying the freedom of being a college man with preparing for adulthood.
Bruce initially said that his perception of college was authored by his parents and specifically his father. He, later, revealed that his opinions about college life were not solely influenced by his parents, but greatly informed by what he saw on television and in movies.
105
Bruce, in the quotation below, explained how his ideas about college and the college man were
more prominently informed by movies.
You have these movies like Project X or Super Bad [and] even though those films take
place in a high school setting, the idea behind these films is “this is what it's going to be
like when we leave home, so we need to show people that we can really succeed in this
aspect. We can throw the biggest party, we can provide people with whatever substances
[they want], and we can handle our drinks and things like that.” So, I’d say that a lot of it
is in the media but that then reflects on to you and your friends, and when you’re hanging
out with your friends and they’re talking about what they see in the media that passes
down the influence to you.
Bruce explained that his perceptions of college involving parties, drinking, and “substances” came from movies. Substances, in this context, would appear to imply illicit drugs or narcotics.
He remarked that his idea of college was shared by his peers. He also highlighted their influence on his perception of college and the behavior he felt he must engage in as a college student.
In addition, Bruce harkened back to the previous notion that masculinity is “about being needed.” Although he initially described being “needed” in the context of someone needing a strong man to perform a “feat of strength” or “protect this person with my fists,” the overall theme was one of being needed. In the previous quote, Bruce stated that he and his peers were influenced by the perceptions of college offered in media. Bruce also noted the role of peer pressure in his adhering to the perceptions of college offered in the media. The perceptions of college that Bruce held centered on Bruce and his friends hosting parties and providing the alcohol/drugs. Hosting parties was another way that Bruce felt that he could demonstrate his
106
capacity to fulfill others’ needs. To Bruce, a good man was one who stepped up to fulfill others’
needs. His masculinity was reaffirmed by being needed by others.
In the following comments, Bruce continued to elaborate on how he initially perceived
college life and college men. His comments underscored his maturing ideas about college life
and his transition in how he viewed what it meant to be a college man. Bruce also emphasized
the role stereotypes played on his perceptions and actions.
There’s a big stereotype that men, when they get into college, they start to exploit their
newfound freedoms which, in a lot of cases, is understandable. Sure, I went through it
myself and I’m still going through it ... understanding [it], coming to grips with enjoying
that freedom but also not abusing it and realizing the amount of responsibility that comes
with it. And the idea of what college men do, I would say, even amongst college kids in
general is just that partying becomes a main factor of their life … it just means that
people are being more reckless and, on the weekend, you’re out late at night and you’re
drinking a lot or you’re doing drugs. It’s just the fact that you can, and it’s easier to get
away with it. That it’s a stereotype that it’s going to happen. I would say a big thing, the
big stereotypes with men in college is partying, substance abuse, and predatorily sexual
acts.
Bruce now offered a few perspectives of college men. He was introduced to stereotypical notions of college life via movies. Media helped relay these stereotypes to Bruce and his friends, and his drive to align his behavior to those stereotypes was magnified by peer pressure. After experiencing college for himself, Bruce came to understand that while some stereotypes were true, college was also about realizing and living up to the responsibility of adulthood. Although he engaged in some of the stereotypical behavior, Bruce matured into an understanding of
107 college life that was more aligned with his parents’ notions. He moved away from his previous partying behavior to follow his parents’ advice of balancing newfound freedom with going to class. As he matured, he now perceived college as more of a time to prepare for his future and that his identity as a college man need not be defined through partying, sex, drugs, and alcohol.
Bruce, in the comments below, elaborated on his matured view of college life.
It took time for me to realize [that] binge drinking all the time isn’t cool. Smoking all the
time isn’t cool. You need to tone these things down and balance that with school because,
yeah, you’re here to enjoy your freedoms—these are supposed to be the best years of
your life, from a recreational stand point, but you are also here to start the rest of your
life. My dad always told me “it’s not just about your education” and my parents would
even be honest with me and say, “Partying will happen in college, and we acknowledge
that, but it is about balance.” And, even beyond classes and partying, networking is a
huge deal in college and that's something you have to really take into account and into
personal importance.
Bruce shared that college, unlike childhood and adolescence, was more about preparation for the rest of his adult life. On one hand, a man’s purpose is to get ready for adulthood and the obligations graduation will bring. On the other, college was a time for him to enjoy his freedoms.
Bruce’s views of college life matured to focus on balancing each of these perspectives. When asked, “what are college men supposed to do,” Bruce answered:
This is the emerging adulthood period of our lives. It’s not wrong to enjoy your freedom,
but [it’s time] to take control of your life. I think college men, amongst any other adult at
this stage in their life, should start to learn how to plan for their future. So, this could
mean, you know, just working to pay for school but, for all intents and purposes, focusing
108
on school, and making that a priority. I think it is something college men should do, but
also networking is a big aspect of [college]. Talking to people, if you have an idea what
you want to get out of college and you've declared your major, if you have an idea of
what you want your profession to be, then you start working on networking in that field.
So, this could mean anything from talking to building a good rapport with your
professors in that department. Getting internships ... making study groups with people in
your department.
Bruce’s comments are focused on the future. In his words he expressed a more developed idea of
college that centered on it being a time of opportunity and an opportunity to create pathways for
success as a diligent student and, later, a professional. He acknowledged that it “isn’t wrong to
enjoy your freedom” as a college man but asserted that to “take control of your life” one must prepare for the future.
In these last comments, Bruce addressed the goals a college man should strive to achieve.
His comments shifted to include discussions of making school a priority and increasing the likelihood of professional success after college through networking as an undergraduate. His
comments also included discussions of declaring a major, “building a good rapport with your professors,” “getting internships,” and “making study groups.” Bruce’s identity as a college man became more geared toward preparing for the future and meeting his obligations as an adult man.
This final point addresses his previous discussion that being a man is “about being needed.”
Despite this, his transition in perspectives and behavior illustrated the evolving way Bruce performed his masculinity as no longer centered on bravado and partying but on being responsible and future-oriented.
109
Mensgroup
Bruce was a member of an anti-violence group in high school. His participation in this group helped him define himself as a man and express his masculinity. While in college at
Snowy State University, he helped start another antiviolence initiative called Mensgroup. I inquired how Bruce’s perception of a college man changed as a result of his participation in his college antiviolence group, and what motivated him to become involved in the initiative.
An analogy of masculinity called the “be a man box” or the “man box” where certain
cultural aspects or characteristics of men are what we are constantly pushed into. So, if
you were to look at it on a piece of paper, there would be a box and inside would be:
strength, beer, camo, anger, atheism, power, money these types of things and outside of
that box would be feelings, sadness, submission, weakness, fear, (ummm) you know,
these kinds of things. Or even from just from a hobby standpoint. Inside the box would be
trucks, football, working on cars and these kinds of things. And, outside that box would
be poetry and theater, and heavy interest in academics. Being gay, for instance, having
any sort of effeminate qualities at all would be outside of the box. So, Mensgroup — [we
don’t try] to say that things that are inside the box are wrong but saying that we’re trying
to break the barriers of that box. Saying that you don’t have to … we won’t push you
inside that box but we’re saying it’s okay to step out. Ummm … you’re free to think and
say what you want at the group. We meet and we talk about different issues regarding
men, regarding suicide, regarding whether or not you can share your feelings and we
want you there so we can hear your opinion on these kinds of things. That’s what
Mensgroup is.
110
In these comments, Bruce noted how the anti-violence group that he helped form assisted in his maturing as a college man. Mensgroup provided a place for college men to discuss all aspects of masculinity and how each college man who enters the space is perceiving himself. Bruce presented Mensgroup as a place where college men can learn that, regardless of their perceptions of masculine identity, they are wanted and welcome. In fact, his comments suggested that the group primarily focuses on nontraditional aspects of masculinity and welcomes men who espouse those traits. He also spoke of Mensgroup providing college men with a support system to discuss issues, such as depression and suicide, which they may find difficult to discuss. Thus,
Mensgroup is a place and an initiative of acceptance for men and their many aspects of masculinity. He described Mensgroup as a space where there is no such thing as the ideal man who acts only in certain ways.
Bruce, from these comments, was motivated to help start Mensgroup to create a safe space for men to express traits not typically considered masculine, or “effeminate qualities” that
“would be outside of the box.” His words challenged the notion of authentic masculine and/or feminine traits, stated that men are simply individuals who espouse various traits they find interesting, and that those interests need not be defined by gender. The group served as a place where men would not be judged for their actions or interests. It was a place where they could be themselves without being concerned about aligning to notions associated with the masculine ideal. He described the group as a welcoming place where individuals could interact without consideration of social norms or rigid concepts of masculinity: the “man box.” His comments support his being motivated to participate in Mensgroup because he needed the support system the initiative entails.
111
Lastly, Bruce was motivated to participate in Mensgroup to make society more equitable.
His comments reflected a sense of duty to enact “progression” in his community and society in general. This goal is why he founded and stayed a member of Mensgroup. He added that it gave him a “reason to live.”
I don’t think this work will ever be finished. You know. There’s always going to be
inequality, oppression, [and] dissatisfaction with the world … Once we achieve one goal,
that’s just one on the list. A list that’s not finished being made, might I add, there is some
problems we don’t even know have happened yet but that’s the beauty of progression.
It’s that we’re an ever-seeking species, so I just feel like this work is never done … yeah,
and it’s never going to be and that’s part of the beauty of it and part of the beauty of that
job security … cause there’s always going to be something to improve upon. You know,
there’s always going to be something that we as people are dissatisfied with and it’s those
kinds of big issues that represent why I joined [Mensgroup] but why I stay in is because I
don’t think that work will ever be done. It frustrates me but it gives me a reason to live …
[It’s] personally rewarding and it rewards the community, and it rewards you to know
that you rewarded the community. So, yeah, I would say it’s my reason to live. It’s kind
of a part of that masculinity that stays with me - that need to feel needed.
Bruce returned to the idea that masculinity is defined by service and the “need to feel needed.”
He suggested that Mensgroup is a vehicle for service to his community and society, and that the work of progression is “never done.” Bruce, in addition, offered that engaging in this work is
“personally rewarding” and “it rewards you to know that you rewarded the community.”
Therefore, his desire to do “this work” is about himself and continuing to be needed, not affecting societal transformation.
112
Role of Discourse
In the comments that follow, Bruce discussed the role gender discourse played in his
childhood. These comments call back to his upbringing where he described his masculine
identity as reckless and reactionary. They also speak to his adolescent years where he
transitioned in how he defined himself as a man and opted to reframe his masculinity through his
involvement in a non-violence group.
Once you get past the male stereotypes, the guns, beer and camo, and trucks, and boobs
… cause that’s where it’s reckless, and that’s where it’s very reactionary and quick. But
then, I moved on to, how to put it—when I changed in high school, when I changed my
frame of reference of manhood, it was a fairly easy change. Not in the sense that it wasn’t
drastic but, in the sense, that it wasn’t unpleasant.
Bruce gave some examples of gender discourse in naming those attributes and behaviors that were considered manly: guns, beer, camo, trucks, and boobs. Bruce qualified these messages as
“male stereotypes,” “reactionary,” and “reckless.”
In another example of gender discourse found in the comments below, Bruce referred to the pull of society to align himself with the hero character. He defined this person as a “do- gooder” who is passionate about a cause, fights for truth, stands for justice, and defends the weak against those that would do them harm. These comments reiterate his notion that being a man is about being needed. I am quoting extensively from Bruce here because of the richness of the multiple examples he gives of gender discourses and how they continue to shape his perception of what it means to be a man.
As a little kid … if I was helping my family move but I was, like, seven and they’re like
“hey, can you move this refrigerator from the back of the bed of the pick‐up truck to the
113
front of the bed of the pick‐up truck?” and I would tear off my shirt, jump up in the bed of the truck and, with all my might, shove that fridge to the back of the truck and my entire family was there to watch me and they were all applauding when it was over. Of course, that would teach me, you get positively recognized as a big strong man if you can perform large feats of strength. But I would say the strongest form of teaching masculinity is when you’re shown that you’re needed or if you are regarded with a sense of heroism. So, like I said earlier, if, you know, I was going to school and my sister — she’s three years older than me and we were rarely in the same school building just because of that distance in age, but my dad would always tell me, “You need to protect your sister.” Or, we would see a movie wherein someone protects their sister by beating up, for instance, an abusive boyfriend or something like that and my dad would look at me and say, “You see that. That’s exactly who you gotta be. That's the way you gotta be there for your sister.” And that’s where you can get to a man’s heart is [by] telling [him] he’s gonna be a hero and he’ll eat it up. And that’s how you can teach him to be a man is tell him, “by doing this … you’ll be a hero.” It’s almost like a demented way of—by twisting the reward of letting a man show his feelings but only to get him to be reckless, in a way. So, perform these feats of strength. Be aggressive. Be reactionary. Don’t let anyone step on you. If you do these things, if you do these just feats of strength or aggression, you’ll be a hero and you’ll know it in your heart because you’re regarded, and we all regard this other person, who did this [feat of] strength or aggression— aggressive task—as a hero. I’ll never forget the first time I watched The Perks of Being a
Wallflower with my family. [T]he sister got slapped by her boyfriend and her brother saw it and he came in and he was about to beat the boyfriend up, but his sister said, “No, no,
114
no, it’s a total misunderstanding. Everything’s fine. I'm sending him home and
everything's gonna be okay.” And my dad said, “Now if that happens, you don’t let her
stop you. You beat the shit out of him. You don’t let anyone hit your sister.” I get that. It’s
those things that you can feel it. Like even now, I can’t deny the fact that that’s still—that
scene from that movie—the way that my father regarded that [action] as okay. I can tell
that that fire was lit in my father’s gut as well. Just by the way he immediately responded
and immediately turned to me and said, “this is how you respond in this situation.”
In this quote, Bruce is using “just” to mean righteous. In this, his acts of aggression are “just” or righteous feats. His comments reflect notions of heroism perpetuated in media. Bruce shared how gender discourse is disseminated by family members and other individuals to teach boys what is masculine. Several incidents portrayed within his comments suggest that gender discourse necessitates a man attempt physical action in the face of unlikely odds and probable failure regardless of the harm that may befall him. A man engages in the behavior, in the likelihood of pain and injury, in the hope he will be met with positive regard.
In aligning himself with society’s portrayal of the hero, Bruce explained that violence is an available option for him. He stated that a man who uses violence and aggression in a “just” manner can be regarded as a hero. In fact, Bruce shared how violence can be a prescribed response to a perceived injustice. These are the behaviors he associated with masculinity. Also, earlier he commented on how masculinity is “married” with aggression. Thus, gender discourse has informed his perspectives on masculinity and masculine identity development.
Bruce was also influenced by cultural discourses related to college life. Prior to enrolling as a first-year student, he had a perception of normalcy in relation to college life and how life would be for him as a college man. In the comments below, he talks about adjusting these
115
expectations and how his experiences as a college student led him to develop new ideas on
college life.
I’ve always considered the fact that there are men who try to stray from the cultural
narrative that we’ve grown up with that “you’re going to go to college and you’re gonna
drink a lot of beer and you’re going to have sex with all these women” and that’s what
you talk about with your friends when you think about college. But then you go to
college and you start realizing that you gotta plan out the rest of your life, and the
responsibilities set in whether you like it or not. The fact that college is very expensive,
the fact that you’re putting a huge amount of money and effort and time towards what
you wanna do to get paid for the rest of your life. And, I would say the difference is that
in college, your perception is that people realize the responsibilities that, of life, that start
to present themselves a lot more when you go to college. Whereas before, you will be just
amongst your friends and your peers; it’ll be more of a fun situation. More of a partying
situation.
Bruce explained that he expected his college life to entail drinking “a lot of beer” and having
“sex with all these women.” He received this information from his peers as they discussed
college prior to enrolling. The messages he received about college were perpetuated through
movies and television.
Cultural discourse, like social discourse, informs societal norms through nuanced
messaging; however, the messages of social discourse are more situationally specific and
nuanced. Social discourses dictate what is considered normal behavior in specific situations, such
as being in an elevator. Cultural discourses, on the other hand, speak to what is normal for people
116
with certain social roles and identities. For example, boys are supposed to have fathers with
whom they can play sports.
Bruce learned about college culture long before becoming a student. In watching movies,
he understood college life to be full of sex, drugs, and alcohol. The cultural discourses about
college and college men created expectations that they had to contend with after becoming
college students. These expectations were also adopted by his peers who, in turn, influence
Bruce’s behavior. Mensgroup was a place where he encountered other college men to realize that
the messages they received about college and what it meant to be college men were incorrect.
Profile: Gregory
Gregory is approximately 6 feet tall and over 250 pounds. He described himself as a straight, White male, but also as “feminine” and “comfortable being feminine.” He offered that he does not compare himself to or compete with other men. He credited this to being raised by a single mother. His father is alive but was not active in his childhood.
Gregory was a childhood bully. He stated that he bullied other children because of displaced anger. He stopped bullying others in high school and credited his brother’s guidance with showing him how to be different. As a first-year student at Snowy State, Gregory lived in a men’s residence hall. He, along with some other men living in the building, helped start
Mensgroup. Gregory served in a leadership position early in the group’s formation.
Childhood
When I asked Gregory, “what is your definition of masculinity?” he responded by explaining that his masculinity is defined by his “being comfortable with being more feminine and understanding that femininity doesn’t mean you’re more like a girl, and that masculinity itself doesn’t mean you’re, by social norms, ‘manly. ’ I’d say masculinity is being truly
117
comfortable being a man.” Gregory was then asked how his initial definition of masculinity differed from his current. I wanted to know how he came to such a definition and if he felt that
way since childhood. His response suggested that there was no change in his perspectives;
however, the stories Gregory shared concerning how he expressed his masculinity as a child
exemplified a masculine identity that was complex, contradictory, and violent.
Gregory stated that his initial definitions of masculinity were “not toxic” or
“hypermasculine.” He expressed that his definition allowed for more “flexibility.” In his words:
To be a man is to, well, within masculinity itself, let's say being comfortable with your
sexuality, being comfortable with presenting yourself as a man in a way that's not toxic so
… like hypermasculinity for example.
His definition of masculinity showed a familiarity with relevant literature on the subject. He also
suggested that his masculinity was performed in saying “presenting yourself as a man.” Gregory
often used jargon and other terms when discussing masculinity such as gender roles and
spectrum. When asked to define hypermasculinity, he stated the following:
It’s when you’re too overly aggressive. When you’re, for example, like someone who
weightlifts a lot and takes a lot of testosterone, supplements, and things like that. And, it
fills some type of void in their life and the result makes them hypermasculine to, kinda
like, compensate for something.
Gregory noted that the notions of masculinity and manhood he developed during his childhood
centered on his being self-aware but said “I feel like the idea of masculinity never was prevalent
in my life. Like, I never once used that word until I came to college.” He explained that he was taught to believe that masculinity was free from boundaries and allowed for individuals to be comfortable engaging with society as they wished. Regarding his father, Gregory said that he
118
“had a father who … wasn't a very good father so I pretty much did the opposite of what he did
because I felt that didn't accurately represent how just a person should be.”
In this statement, we hear Gregory explain one of the ways he defined himself as a man,
through antithesis. He considered the actions and behavior of his father to be poor role modeling,
so Gregory engaged in behavior he believed was in direct contradiction. In addition, Gregory
also shared how he learned about masculinity from his mother, who would use his father as an
example of what not to do.
I wanna say it’s like 8th (or) 9th grade. Maybe the 9th grade. My father since I was a kid
… he’s had to pay child support, my mom would always say, “don’t be like your father ...
don’t be like your father.” And I realize that, I didn't want to be like my father. He had
been to jail like a few times for not paying child support, and he tried to reach a
bargaining agreement with my mom trying to give us a little bit of money and I used to
have so much anger towards him and I, at that time, I'm like he's not a man.
In this quotation, Gregory revisited the idea of defining himself as a man by being everything his
father was not. His comments also clarified his previous statements suggesting that his father
“wasn’t a very good father” and “didn’t accurately represent how just a person should be.” In
these comments, Gregory stated that his father’s inability to financially provide for his family
made him feel “anger towards him” and also made him feel “like he’s not a man.” These comments speak to his aligning a man’s masculine identity with his ability to provide for his family. They also introduced his mother’s influence and Gregory’s anger, which are significant in how he defines his masculine identity.
119
Gregory’s Mother
Many of Gregory’s comments place his mother as the primary architect of his masculine
identity. Although he shared stories that showed him learning vicariously from his father or
brother, Gregory gave sole credit to his mother for teaching him how to be a man.
My mom, even though she’s my mom, kinda helped me develop my masculinity. I don’t
know, really, how that worked out that way, but I just grew (up) … I didn’t really realize
how important it was having a single mother … I guess I kinda viewed it more as a
blessing ... I felt like I got both sides of the perspective. I felt like it [his definition of
masculinity] was more reasonable or better for me to get the more feminine perspective
because now I align a lot more with those kinda perspectives. So, anything my mom was
into, what she based her morals off of, I probably based them off the same thing.
Gregory’s words not only place his mother as the sole author of his masculine identity, but his comments expressed how “important it was having a single mother.” He said that he defined his sense of manhood in concert with femininity, which he portrayed as “both sides of the perspective” in these comments. He also viewed having his mother helping him develop his masculinity as a “blessing.”
Gregory’s Anger
Despite gleaning his masculinity from a more feminine perspective, Gregory also acknowledged the role of anger in his childhood and an inability to share this with his mother because she was not a man. While discussing his childhood, Gregory shared that he bullied other children. He explained that this behavior was caused by the anger he felt for his father. He added that he felt that he could not speak to his mother about his bullying.
120
I did some minorly bad things. I bullied kids sometimes. I obviously knew that bullying
wasn’t a nice thing to do, but I thought I was just teasing them. I had some emotional
problems when I was younger. I had a lot of anger issues when I was a kid, so I didn’t
have a proper way to deal with them. I felt like I couldn’t share those things with my
mom because she wouldn't understand, because she wasn’t a guy. So, I guess I took out
that anger at ... I mean, I never really hit kids or anything, but I guess I emotionally
bullied kids and verbally and things like that.
Although Gregory qualified his bullying behavior as non-physical or implied that it was by saying he “never really hit kids,” he remarked that his actions toward his peers were verbally and emotionally abusive. He stated that his initial definition of masculinity was influenced by his mother’s femininity, and that her “morals” and “feminine perspective” helped him develop an identity that was more “reasonable.” Gregory also noted “some emotional problems” and “a lot of anger issues” as a child. He said these issues contributed to his bullying his peers. He credited his displaced and unaddressed anger toward his father for his bullying.
In his statements, Gregory said that he had “displaced anger” that he “didn’t have a proper way to deal with” because he felt like he could not share his emotions with his mom
“because she wouldn't understand, because she wasn’t a guy.” The implication is that while his mother was the individual who helped develop his masculine identity and Gregory saw her contributions to this effort as a “blessing,” he still felt unable to completely express the full range of his emotions to her because she, as a woman, would not understand what he was experiencing.
The result of his not having a “proper way to deal with” his anger was him “taking it out” on his peers. Gregory attested that he engaged in the toxic behavior of bullying because he had no other way to express his emotions.
121
Adolescence
Gregory’s definition of masculinity, as he articulated it in childhood, was characterized by a man being comfortable with his feminine side; “understanding that femininity doesn't mean you're more like a girl, and that masculinity itself doesn't mean you're by social boundaries
‘manly’.” He explained that his perspective of masculinity was informed by his interactions with his mother as a single parent. His father was not an active participant in his childhood, and
Gregory shared that this led to him experiencing feelings of anger toward his father. He explained that one of the ways he expressed his anger was through the bullying of his peers and said that his inability to fully express his emotions to his mother lead to the displacement of that anger. The influence of his mother and the anger attributed to his father were paramount in how
he defined himself.
As an adolescent, Gregory began rethinking how he expressed his anger and enacted his
sense of masculinity. He was moving to better personify the definitions of masculinity presented
through his mother’s influence and was trying to become more comfortable showing the world
his “sensitive” side. In the comments below, Gregory spoke about this transition and how he was
able to become comfortable with changing his behavior. The influence of his peers as role
models in his transition is apparent in his comments.
Going through high school, 9th and 10th grade, I thought I should probably learn to
control the anger that’s inside of me, and I guess I started [to] ... I never really put my
faith in other people, and things like that ... so I started putting faith in friends ... trusting
people. Through trusting other people and having positive results, I learned to trust
myself. So, I’ll say, junior or senior year that I'm a sensitive person. I shouldn’t be hiding
being a sensitive person. I guess what brought that out, actually, is my brother, who used
122
to be [a] macho guy, [who] came to terms with him being a little more sensitive and I’m
like, “oh well my brother used to be this super masculine guy and now he’s being
sensitive ... “and I’m like, “it’s ok to do that, I guess ... it’s ok to be sensitive.”
In these comments, Gregory disclosed that he is a “sensitive person.” His remarks suggest that he
has always been a sensitive person but he was not comfortable expressing this aspect of his
identity to others. Gregory credits his brother for modeling how he could unveil this aspect of
himself to others: “I shouldn’t be hiding being a sensitive person. I guess what brought that out,
actually, is my brother.”
Gregory observed that his brother’s masculinity transitioned later in life. This maturation
gave Gregory permission to transition in his views on masculinity and how he portrayed himself.
He stated that his brother showed him how to be more sensitive. He said that his brother’s
change in behavior, as well as Gregory learning to trust himself, allowed him to move away from
bullying. Gregory “putting faith in friends” and “trusting people” encompassed the second instance that allowed for his maturing masculine identity to take place.
Gregory, in the previous comments, clarified the impetus of his bullying. Previously, he believed the behavior stemmed from an inability to positively address the anger he felt concerning his father not being an active part of his life, the anger he felt toward his father being unable to provide for his family, and his own incapacity to feel comfortable fully expressing the emotions he felt. Now, he talked about his anger being resolved by “trusting other people,”
“having positive results” after trusting them, and learning to trust himself as a result. Each of these occurrences, along with having his brother as a model, worked in concert to create an environment where Gregory could fully express his emotions and mature in his masculine
123 identity. As a result of this maturation, Gregory was able to discontinue displacing his anger into bullying behavior.
Gregory intimated that another role model helped him change his ideas about masculinity and manhood. He said, “I started watching more educated TV … I used to watch a lot of documentaries, and then there was this one guy that stood out to me.” This “guy,” Neil DeGrasse
Tyson, is an astrophysicist and serves as director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York
(American Museum of Natural History - Hayden Planetarium, 2017).
I thought he was the coolest guy because he was super smart, but he also taught things in
a way that was fun. And I’m in no way a very academically focused person, so I’m not
usually interested in that kinda stuff but he just seemed really cool in the way he taught
things, and I never really had an idol or anything, but at that point I’m like, ‘oh I have an
idol and he’s a dude and he’s cool’, and I watched some videos he had where he didn’t
really talk a lot about masculinity or anything like that, but he was talking about what it
was to be a man. And it didn’t hit me or anything, it wasn’t a crazy revelation, but it just
made me think he was cool.
Gregory was also inspired to transition from bullying by his brother’s positive role modeling.
Through observing his brother’s behavior, he was able to understand how to be masculine without being a bully. In his recent quotation, Gregory talked about finding an “idol” in Neil
DeGrasse Tyson who is “super smart,” “cool,” and “a dude.” The influence of peers and role models on Gregory’s behavior led him to positive changes. Their influence gave him permission to fully express his emotions and enact a more mature form of masculinity.
124
College
Prior to entering college, Gregory said that his notions of masculinity and manhood centered on being self-aware. He said, “I felt like the idea of masculinity never was prevalent in my life. Like, I never once used that word until I came to college.” His initial definition of masculinity was broad, accepting, unrestrictive, and non-judgmental. He added that his initial masculine identity was not toxic or hypermasculine
Gregory’s perception of masculinity and men shifted in the context of college. His initial
thoughts about college and college men were informed by the media, movies, and television. He
believed college would be conducive to the image portrayed on the silver screen including
parties and sex with numerous people. For Gregory, being in college, though, was different from
these fictional portrayals. I asked him directly, “How did you learn what a college man is
supposed to be? Who taught you?” He responded saying:
Who taught … well, no one. No adult or my brother even told me [about college]. I just
learned from movies pretty much. I guess it was the same for high school. When I was
going to high school, I thought it was going to be like TV shows from high school, which
… I mean, it wasn’t. And when I got to college I thought, it was going to be like some
party movie like American Pie or something stupid like that. I thought it would be way
blown out of proportion.
I asked him, “what does it mean to be a college man?” Gregory clarified the messages he
received about college life from “party movies.” He explained:
I think it’s [college] just about going on a journey [to] figure out who you are with also
doing the academic things. But what I did think it was, was just going to parties and
having sex with lots of people. Drinking all the time and having these huge circles [of
125
friends] … Like stereotypical, like when you watch a movie, when people are in college,
they have this huge friend group and they all know each other and they all party together.
And it’s like this clique kinda thing. Boy was I wrong about that.
Once Gregory entered college and began to experience college life for himself, his perspectives changed. In the comments below, he discussed participating in university sponsored educational programming. He noted how those programs reinforced his perspectives of college life and the activities in which college men engage. He later described living on campus and how his interactions with his peers also reinforced his initial thoughts of college.
Ok so, when I came here [college] they [university administrators] … well, my
freshman… first semester, we were just loaded with all these events that were, like,
sexual assault awareness; obviously anti-rape things. And it seems like they [university
administrators] almost tried to scare people into not having sex and they made it look like
everyone in college is like ... sexual assault is really huge. And it [sexual assault] is a big
deal but they made it seem like it happens all the time. Like, they [university
administrators] kinda blew it out of proportion a little. Even though it is an important
topic, but it made me feel like that’s all that guys were doing. Well ... not all guys but that
a lot of guys were participating in sexual assault, [and] domestic violence and things like.
Then I was thinking, “What about men? Doesn’t that happen to men?” They never talked
about that except with a side note, [an] asterisk ... this happens to men too sometimes.
During all these presentations, I guess I have this idea that a lot of people in college just
went to parties and were sleeping with girls. And, they [college men] got in trouble for
sexual assault all the time.
126
According to Gregory, the educational program put forth by the university inadvertently
reinforced the perspectives he formed about college life as a result of watching “party movies.”
He noted that the university administration made him feel as though many college men were
engaged in toxic behavior: “not all guys but that a lot of guys were participating in sexual assault
[and] domestic violence.” He noted that the programming was skewed toward heteronormativity
because discussions of men being victims of sexual assault were not widely discussed. Gregory
continued to describe his initial perspectives of college in the comments below. He addressed
how his perspective of college life changed as a result of his peer interaction and his developing
his own “friend groups.” Below Gregory says, “Let’s go out. Let’s do stuff.” In this comment, he
is referring to the toxic behavior in which he initially believed college men engaged.
I don’t really know exactly when my perspective of men in college changed but I guess it
changed when I actually started forming my own [friend] circles. I realize that at first I
was like, “Hey you know. Let’s go out. Let’s go out. Let’s do stuff.” I was trying to
recommend doing these things because that’s what I saw in the movies, and I thought
that's how it [college] was. And not everyone seemed to want to do that kinda thing, and I
realized that everyone was different and I'm like ... “I don’t really want to do those things
either. I thought that's just what guys did.” And upon making these friend circles I
realized that people don't really do that stuff all the time or often at all. They just hang out
with their friends in their dorm rooms and go out on adventures. I just realized through
other people, I guess vicariously that that [toxic behavior] doesn’t really happen.
Gregory initially believed college life and being a college man would involve his engaging in toxic behavior, specifically “going to parties and having sex with lots of people” as well as
“drinking all the time.” This perspective was informed by “party movies” set in college. His
127
perspectives of college life were reinforced through the university sponsored educational
programming he attended after entering college as a first-year student. His perspectives changed
as a result of forming his own “friend groups” and coming to realize, after attempting to align his
actions with the toxic behavior he initially thought common, that “not everyone seemed to want to do that kinda thing.”
As was the case when Gregory was an adolescent, the influence of peers on his behavior led him to change his perspectives and engage positive changes in his behavior. Their influence gave him permission to forego the perspectives of college perpetuated in “party movies” and
engage in the behavior he would have absent these movies’ influence. As he said, “I [didn’t] really want to do those things either. I thought that's just want guys did.”
Mensgroup
After entering college, expecting one thing and finding another, Gregory could have opted to do numerous things. He decided to help create a unique college experience for himself and other men. He co-founded Mensgroup, which is the “friend group” referenced in the
preceding quotation. Gregory described the organization in the following quotation.
Mensgroup aims to redefine the cultural narrative of men’s society. It is a group that
provides a safe space for men to talk about issues that are of concern to them. We try to,
or we are trying to, talk about issues like domestic violence, bullying, father figures or
father roles, double standards in sports, topics that are very relevant to men and how they
grew up and what we mostly have done so far is advocacy for – or advocacy against
bullying and for, I guess, gender equality.
Through this group, Gregory sought to correct the narrative he was wrong about, that college
was just about sex and partying. He stated that he aimed to “redefine the cultural narrative of
128 men's society” through Mensgroup. This spoke to his motivation for helping to create the initiative. As a member of this group, Gregory also engaged in dialogue with other men about various topics associated with masculinity. Mensgroup served as a support system and “safe space” for men across campus. In addition, this group created educational programming for the campus and the neighboring community.
Gregory’s pre-college notions of college culture were incorrect or at least skewed. He explained that his obtaining a “friend group” and experiencing college for himself led him to re- evaluate the messages he received about college culture from movies and television. But, until he was able to re-evaluate these nuanced messages of normality, Gregory believed that how he saw college portrayed in the media was normal and that he, as a normal college male, should align his behavior with the characters in those shows.
Role of Discourse
Gregory initially defined masculinity as non- restrictive and stated masculinity should be broad enough to accept individuals who do not align with traditional norms. In the comments below, he is speaking retroactively about his childhood. He encountered gender discourse that he knew to be false but counteracting the influence of that discourse proved difficult.
I feel like it’s becoming harder and harder to define masculinity. I mean, I’m even having
to struggle with defining what it is to be a man, and when I was a kid—obviously, I mean
… at least we thought it was simple. You know, even though it’s not correct. It’s like, you
know, you play sports and you do these macho things. So, I would say definitely the idea
that being a man is just what you see on TV, that's what I thought, and now there’s like a
whole spectrum. I didn’t know, I didn't know guys could just be. I didn’t know there’s
like a scale, like, you can be more masculine. You can be more feminine. I thought it was
129
like, you’re a man, you're a woman, and I mean–as I got older, I learned about gender
roles, things like that and different spectrums for genders, and I just became more open
minded about it.
This quotation is an example of Gregory’s progression in how he defined masculinity. His
comments closely resemble his initial articulation of masculinity that was influenced by his
mother. In this definition, he described masculinity as being comfortable with being more
feminine and understanding that femininity doesn’t mean you’re more like a girl, and that masculinity itself doesn't mean you're manly.
In the comments above, Gregory discussed being influenced by the various forms of gender discourse he observed from watching television and attempting to reconcile those messages of dominant discourse with the information his mother provided him on masculinity existing on a spectrum. This conflict can be seen in his use of the words “I feel like it's becoming harder and harder to define,” “I’m even having a struggle with defining,” and “I didn’t know.”
He spoke of experiencing this conflict before he came to understand that he could “just be more feminine” and “just became more open minded.” Gregory’s perception of what was normal, as it relates to masculinity, was informed by the hegemonic gender discourse which contradicted the messages he received from his mother in childhood. He, however, was able to disavow the dominant gender discourse to accept that he could incorporate a more expansive masculinity beyond those narrow confines. In this way, his masculinity reflected a spectrum.
According to Gregory, he learned about college and the college man from movies and television. “When I got to college I thought, it was going to be like some party movie like
American Pie or something stupid like that. I thought it would be way blown out of proportion.”
Gregory’s perceptions of university life were influenced by the cultural discourse about college.
130
Social discourse is broad; it tells its members how to behave in society. Within this broad
social discourse, there are multiple contextualized cultural discourses. Some of these cultural
discourses include the workplace, the home, in public, or, for the purposes of this study, in
college. Cultural discourse encompasses widely disseminated messages of normality communicated through media, educational, and religious institutions (Carbaugh & van Over,
2013). Gregory was influenced by cultural discourses of what constituted normal college life.
Profile: Indy
Indy is about 6 feet tall with a slender build. He described himself as a straight, White,
cis-gender man from a nuclear family. He is introspective and able to clearly articulate his
emotions. When asked about his openness, emotional competence, and feelings on masculinity,
Indy credited his upbringing and his relationship with his father. While he primarily spoke of his
father’s influence, Indy explained that he grew up in a household with his mother, father, and
older brother.
Indy described his childhood as full of autonomy. An example of this was seen in Indy’s ability to dress in the manner of his choosing as soon as he was able to successfully dress himself. He dressed as firefighters and policemen. While in high school, Indy got very serious into weightlifting. He described his exercising as excessive and “toxic,” working out numerous times weekly, often more than once a day, and to the point of physical injury. He moved away from excessively working out when he entered Snowy State University. He credits joining
Mensgroup for aiding in this transition.
Childhood
Indy described growing up in a household where he was allowed autonomy at an early age. His stories painted a picture of a childhood where he could fully express himself. He was
131 supported by his family in whatever form of masculine expression he chose. His masculine identity, from its conception, can be categorized by self-expression and independence. Within these stories, Indy mentioned his parents and brother but often favored his father in relation to lessons in masculinity.
I’ve had a couple of different views of it (masculinity), and most of them have come from
either personal experience with my dad, brother, and my people … there are also things
I've seen on TV … (but) from my dad, he was a good example. He exemplified a lot of
things I would think of as masculine. Like, he was a contractor and so he built stuff. He
was pretty strong … but at the same time, he was always very open with his emotions. I
saw my dad cry on many occasions. I think the way I learned to define masculinity was
strong when you need to be but soft when you need to be.
Indy clarified that his father, brother, and family (“people”) all helped him develop his masculine identity. His father, however, had a more prominent influence. Indy described his father as
“pretty strong” in the context of his working as a contractor. “Pretty strong” would appear to refer to his father’s physical strength. Immediately after discussing his father’s physical strength,
Indy stated that he was, “at the same time … very open with his emotions” and that he witnessed his “dad cry on many occasions.” Initially it seemed that Indy’s use of the phrase “but at the same time” placed his father’s physical strength in direct opposition to his expressing emotions openly. I later, after continued discussion with him, reconsidered this belief.
Indy concluded his comments in support of this assertion by saying, “I think the way I learned to define masculinity was strong when you need to be but soft when you need to be.” His words, and specifically his use of “but,” seemed to suggest his masculine identity was contradictory and expansive. There is an implied contradiction between hard and soft, but Indy’s
132
description suggested that his masculinity was situational and, thus, expanded on traditional
norms. I later came to reconsider these initial interpretations considering other evidence.
To better understand if Indy perceived his childhood masculine identity as contradictory
and expansive, I engaged him in the following questions. I asked, “What does the process look
like for a boy, specifically you, to learn to be a man?” Indy responded as follows:
I think learning to be a man is something that you do mostly by watching the men you
look up to, and so I was lucky that my dad was a pretty good example for me, and I could
look up to him. So, when I thought of being a man, I could exemplify and try to become
what he was. And, that’s where I learned I can be emotional. I can have emotions and
express them to people, but then I also—I liked, I've always like movies (film and tv
shows) and a lot of times the men in those, who I also looked up to, you don’t always see
them being emotional.
Indy’s perception of masculinity appeared, in the comment above, to be more expansive than contradictory. In following the role model set by his father, Indy believed that he could “have
emotions and express them to people.” In this, Indy attested that the “pretty good example” of a
masculine role model he had in his father showed him that a man could be soft but strong
without embodying contradiction. Indy concluded his statements by illustrating the conflicting
narratives of masculinity presented by his father and the male characters found in media.
I watched a lot of war movies or like action-oriented things, so they [men] weren’t
extremely - they weren’t very emotional. Something would happen and no matter how
crazy it was, they were always level and they never really - nothing got to them. So, I
also saw that, and I exemplified those men even though they weren’t real. They were just
[portrayals], but I thought that that is also what being a man was. So, sometimes I would
133
try to be the man that nobody really was. I thought [my masculinity] should be based off
of the movies and TV shows I watched.
Indy was exposed to conflicting narratives of masculinity. He observed his father embody a man who was physically strong but able to express himself emotionally and, following that example,
Indy strived to be that type of man. He said, “I think the way I learned to define masculinity was
“strong when you need to be but soft when you need to be.” On the other hand, Indy saw masculine role models in the media and these men embodied the mantra of “never break,” an ideal that he later came to espouse instead of his father’s model. The men in movies and television did not show their emotions. According to Indy, these men “were always level” and
“nothing got to them.” He felt a pull to align himself with their influence even though he knew their characterization of masculinity to be false.
After engaging in this conversation, I have come to understand Indy’s comments as suggesting that his childhood masculine identity was not contradictory, but rather expanded conventional definitions. He did, however, express a tension attempting to align his behavior with his father’s masculine example while also feeling a drive to align his behavior with the masculine role models presented in media. These two perspectives clarified Indy’s first statement when asked about his masculine identity as a child; “I’ve had a couple of different views.”
In hearing Indy describe how he came to define his masculine identity, I better understood the man to whom I was speaking. In my field notes, I noted my initial observation of him was that I found him to be confident and assertive without being brash. My observations were based on his mannerisms when he arrived for his initial interview.
When Indy arrived at the door at our scheduled interview time, he did not knock but he slightly opened the door while asking to be excused. Indy did just enough to let me know that he
134 was at my door without entering my office without permission. When I asked him why he had not knocked, he responded saying that there was a sign on the door that read, “Do not disturb.”
He expressed a desire to respect my wishes but was convinced that the sign was placed there in anticipation of our interview; however, as he was not positive that his knocking would ruin someone else’s interview he decided not to do that.
While his actions were assertive, they were also considerate of what may have been transpiring in my office and respectful of the sign placed on the door. Indy was assertive in how he addressed the issue of a “Do not disturb” sign being found on my door. Although many would have simply waited at the door without knocking for fear of disturbing me, he found a way to make me aware of his presence while taking care not to be disruptive. His actions showed active engagement in a situation where it was easier for him to be passive, therefore I consider those actions to be assertive. This interaction, as well as the following quotation, clarified another word
I scribbled in my field notes in relation to my first interaction with Indy: autonomy.
My parents, both, always pushed me to be my own person. They had a rule ... from the
moment you can dress yourself, you are whatever you want [to be]. So, my entire
preschool year [I was] a cowboy. Kindergarten, I was an army man and a fire fighter ... I
always dressed up in costumes. I never wore actual clothes ... they just kinda pushed me
to do whatever I wanted, they never challenged my idea of what being a man was, but
they always pushed me to think for myself.
The parenting situation Indy described was based in his self-determination. His parents allowed him the freedom to choose what he wanted to wear at an early age (preschool and kindergarten).
Although his parents allowed him autonomy in his actions, they also created a situation where
135
Indy had to mature into self-determination early in life. This created a scenario where Indy’s identity and his expression of masculinity developed along with his ideas of individualism.
He confirmed this saying, “so they [my parents] just kinda pushed me to do whatever I wanted ... they never challenged my idea of what being a man was, but they always pushed me to think for myself.” Indy explained that his notions of masculinity and manhood began with the example his father set and were solidified in his early childhood experiences. He later shared this about his father’s explicit instructions on being a man: “[My father] never set me down and said
‘Hey - stop trying to emulate being a man. Just be your own person.’ But he ... pushed me so it did come of my own [volition].”
Indy was encouraged to be an individual from childhood. When discussing his childhood and his rearing, Indy primarily referenced his father as a model; however, the comments presented above are an example of his addressing the influence of both of his parents. While he felt inclined to follow the model of masculinity set forth by his father, his father pushed him to develop his own identity and be his own man. Indy also explained the pull he felt as a child to align his behavior with masculine role models found in media. Although Indy was exposed to conflicting masculine role models in his father versus the male characters he saw in media, he initially adopted a masculine identity that embodied being “strong when you need to be but soft when you need to be,” expansive enough to include a man being physically strong but emotionally expressive.
Adolescence
As a teenager, Indy transitioned in how he wanted to enact his masculinity. In the quotation below, Indy described his developing into a young man and the issues he faced being physically smaller in stature. His perceptions of masculinity were more grounded in physicality.
136
I didn't think much about being a man [as a kid]. I just thought about growing up and,
when I was really small, being a man was just being taller and being stronger. And then
around the time I turned 16, 17—even before that, I was always a really small kid, and
being a man was [being good at] sports and being strong, but pretty quickly I realized I
wasn't going to be really good at sports or anything, so kind of earlier on I dealt with that
idea of being like well—“Can I be a man if I never really get good at sports or become
tall or strong?”
As an adolescent, Indy believed being strong, being good at sports, and even being tall was what it meant to embody masculinity. However, many of those avenues were not available to him. He stated that he realized he “wasn’t going to be really good at sports or anything,” and he described being a smaller man. He had to find another way to define himself as a man.
He decided to pursue masculinity by becoming more muscular. He talked about going to the gym daily and taking nutritional supplements. As he put it, “I was just going to try and be the strongest person that I knew … that was my idea of manhood.” Indy elaborated by saying, “I would go into the weight room and I would find the biggest guy, and I would be like ‘he’s a man;
I want to be like him.’”
Indy began this quotation describing his searching for a new masculine role model. His parameters were simple. He wanted to find the “biggest guy” because his definition of masculinity equated “being big and strong” with the epitome of manhood. He explained, “For a long time in high school, I pushed really hard to be a man in that term.” I asked, “In what term?” and Indy stated the following:
In being stronger. I woke up at five o’clock every morning and worked out. I was looking
at everything trying to see what to eat [to get stronger]. So, I tried really hard that way
137
and I would work out in school and I would work out again after school. I ate so much
food and, it wasn’t all good, but I ended up getting my cholesterol to like 240 or 260
[mg/dL].
Indy illustrated how he defined his masculine identity in the previous quote. He woke up several hours before he was to be at high school to work out, and he ended his school day with another work out. He ate large amounts of food with the intention of becoming larger. In the comments below, Indy described how his adolescent perspectives of masculinity existed in the context of discourse found in the media.
You watch a movie and the main character, if he’s a man in an action movie, he's going to
be just like this tank. Like I just watched Logan. Great movie but if you wanted to be
Logan [the character], I mean apart from having to be a superhuman, you’d have to be
ripped. Nothing gets to this kinda guy. Even though in the movie, you can see that
somethings do get to him. But I still will constantly get this idea. I see that movie, and
I’m like ‘Man, I wanna be like that. Looks like I gotta gain 50 pounds of muscle. And be,
you know, just this tank of a man.’ And the idea of being a man, I have to be the one who
protects everyone even if it may not necessarily be true.
As a child, Indy spoke of being affected by messages he received from television and movies. He stated that the influence media presented him was male role models which, according to him were unrealistic in nature, drew him to develop a masculine identity that existed absent of emotional expression. When he was a child, Indy opted against espousing a masculinity such as this. However, as an adolescent, he described how these same models of masculinity steered him to be the man that “nothing gets to.” His notion of masculinity during high school centered on physicality and the usefulness being muscular afforded him. As a “tank of a man,” Indy
138
suggested he would be better able to “be the one who protects everyone.” The various forms of
gender discourse he observed in television and movies served as reinforcement for that
perspective.
College
As a teenager, Indy defined his masculinity through his physical stature and specifically,
trying to become “the largest guy in any room.” During his first year in college, he began to
question his behavior in relation to unhealthy weightlifting and asked himself, “why am I doing
this? Why am I working out [in an unhealthy way]?” When discussing his weightlifting and
workout regimen, he said “I didn't necessarily like it, and I realized what I was doing was pretty unhealthy.” He disclosed that his cholesterol reached dangerously high levels, and his workout regimen led to muscle injury.
In the following quotation, Indy described this transition. He started with conceptualizing masculinity and what being a man meant to him. He then considered his previous actions in relation to masculinity and how he could enact his identity in a more constructive manner. He began his statement found below saying “that’s not necessarily what a man is and what he does.”
He is addressing the “pretty unhealthy” workout regime of his high school days.
First of all, I realized that's not necessarily what a man is and what he does. I started to
realize maybe being a man isn’t all about being big and strong. It started more with the
mindset of being [healthy] and then, that’s when I started to change over into more, I
would say, healthier. I stopped working out for a little bit, and then I started recently
working out in a way that is working on being healthy, not just getting strong. Being a
man isn’t necessarily being strong. It’s about being who I am and accepting that I’m not
going to be a 6’4” athlete, I’m going to be someone who enjoys their life.
139
Indy transitioned from defining his masculine identity through physicality, “being big and
strong,” to being healthy and someone who “enjoys life.” He stopped his unhealthy workout
regime. He focused on accepting who he naturally was, including his natural stature and abilities,
and began working on developing a “healthy” identity. He ended his previous comments saying,
“It’s about being who I am and accepting that I’m not going to be a 6’4” athlete, I’m going to be someone who enjoys their life.” I asked him, “Can you be both?” Below is his response.
Well yeah. If I was 6’4” and an athlete, I could definitely be a man, but I think, at this
point [in college], if you're 6’4”, that you’re 6’4” and you're a man but you can also be 5
foot and be a man. There’s no—you don't have to be tall and an athlete. You can be
anything as long as you’re comfortable in who you are and have a good reason for doing
what you’re doing. Not striving to be like someone else’s image of what they think you
should be.
While in college, Indy moved toward acceptance of who he was naturally. He engaged in intentional actions to facilitate a healthy lifestyle instead of his previous toxic behavior of excessively working out. He postulated why he chose to express his masculinity in such a destructive manner and concluded that he was greatly influenced by the male characters he observed in television and movies. These characters pushed him to engage in an “unhealthy” work out regime to adhere to their model of masculinity.
Indy charted how the influence of media and the opinions of his peers had more of an effect on him than his father and brother. In this, he described the draw of those dominant influences over the sway of role models like his father and brother. The influence of media also had a strong effect on how Indy conceptualized college men and college life prior to his enrolling in Snowy State. He explained that what he thought he knew about college was informed
140
primarily by movies. He said, “I mean, my dad didn't have much of a college experience. His
college experience lasted a weekend before he got kicked out of the dorms.”
Indy mentioned that his brother went to college, graduated, and later graduated from
medical school. Indy, in a later conversation, credited his brother with teaching him how to
discuss hard topics without being confrontational. Nevertheless, Indy’s perception of the college
man was fueled by media’s portrayal of male characters. He explained that “whenever you see
college portrayed in movies or TV, it’s always a party. Not really much else is portrayed. And that's all people talk about when they talk about college. It's like the parties and then class.”
Indy grew up with positive reflections of what it meant to be a man from his father and
older brother and adopted these for himself. However, as he prepared to enter college, media
portrayals that showed men partying influenced his own perception of what college would be
like. It took time during college to realize that those portrayals were false and to reestablish his own perception of what it meant to be a college man. His involvement in Mensgroup played a
role in this maturation as well.
Mensgroup
In the following quotation, Indy explained how Mensgroup changed his perspective on
being a college man. In addition, his words showed a transition in what he thought college men
did. His comments highlighted his preconceived notions of college life as well as his thoughts on
college now that he is a student.
When I came to college and before I got into this group, what a guy did in college was go
to college, get a degree, and party and have fun. But, you learn that not everyone wants to
do that, myself included, so it's kinda funny to realize that what you think you’re
supposed to do in college; just have fun and party, but if that's not what you want to do,
141
what do you do in college? And so, it’s kinda changed my views. I’m like less of a
framework of what you should do and more of a guideline.
In this quotation, Indy discussed the conflict between his perceptions of college prior to enrolling as an undergraduate in contrast to his lived experiences as a student. He explained that he discovered individuals in Mensgroup who, like himself, also found college to be different than they previously thought and were now faced with a choice on how to proceed. In this quotation,
Indy begins to separate the depictions of college and college men offered in media from the reality of college life and the life of men he observed while attending school.
In the following comment, he spoke of the partying life portrayed in media as the
“surface level” of college and explained that life as a college man included much more. He also illustrated how his time with Mensgroup involved men adjusting to a college experience beyond this “surface level.” He noted how his time with this group positively affected him as an undergraduate student. His comment spoke to why he was motivated to join and continue to participate in the group.
It’s kinda cool to see, not just like surface level, but like really have people open up even
after meeting them for the second or third time. They’ll talk about pretty deep stuff. So
that's changed me the most, and that—it goes to show that people are willing to open up
and talk, but they just—they don’t need to get to know as much as they just need to know
that you won’t judge them for what they say.
This quotation exposed one of the purposes of Mensgroup, which was to be a support system for
Indy and several other men on his campus. Mensgroup provided a place for men to speak freely, be vulnerable, be candid, and not be judged. Participation in the group changed the way Indy defined his masculinity.
142
In these last quotations, Indy described the process he endured in trying to align himself
with dominant gender discourse. He used an analogy commonly utilized by Mensgroup, which
was “the box.” Indy described how liberating he felt in allowing himself to be unbonded from
those standards of normality.
A little bit of personal experience … trying to fit myself inside the box didn’t work. It
kinda failed. Like, I wasn’t feeling happy. The closer I got to being inside the box, the
worse it felt. It’s like stuffing yourself into too small of a shoe. Like it feels best when
you're not in it in the first place. And, so, the closer I got to being where I thought I
should be, the worse I was feeling. I realized that I needed to be outside the box when I
stopped trying to fit myself inside of it. And I was like, “Wow, this feels pretty good.”
And also, [when] I was coming out [of the box] and ... figuring out what felt best for me,
it was looking around at the other guys around me and realizing that the guys who are
having the most fun were the ones who didn’t care what other people thought. And, even
if other people made fun of them, they still didn’t care and they would make fun of
people making fun of them.
Within this story, we hear the resolution Indy went through toward deciding to live “outside the box,” to attempt to live a life that did not adhere to traditional notions of masculinity. Indy noted
that he felt better and happier after deciding to change. He also spoke of “other guys” and the role these men played in reinforcing his chosen behavior. This showed the importance of
Mensgroup as a support system and highlighted one of his motivations in participating in the initiative. Indy continued to clarify these points in the context of Mensgroup in the next quotation.
143
I had to figure it out personally that the closer you get to fitting inside the box, the worse
it feels. It would be my goal to help other people, even before they’re fully crammed
inside the box or as they’re stepping into it being like, “You don't have to go through that;
you don't have to be in there.” So, just kinda bring it to guys that like. Everybody is
different. Every guy is different. There is no mold and you just have to figure out what
works for you, and what makes you happy. And so, I think, the reason I’m a part of
Mensgroup is because I think it's one of the best ways, between that and my job—they
are the best two ways I can think to make sure that everyone is working toward what they
want to be and not what they think other people want them to be.
As Indy explained, he found Mensgroup advantageous in helping him become and remain comfortable existing outside of “the box.” He made it clear that having a social support network was essential to his development and was adamant that other men would need similar individuals to be successful in moving away from the dominant gender discourse they observed in television and movies. Peer support is another motivation for his participation in the initiative.
Indy, in this last quote, has come full circle and begun espousing the messages reflected by his parents and older brother. He has moved back to espousing a masculine identity of “strong when you need to be but soft when you need to be.” His college masculine identity promoted individuality and expressed the importance of self-determination. Indy is stating that what has worked for him may not work for another. He is also careful to use expansive language in his discussions of his group as he often says “everyone” instead of “guys,” “men,” or other gender specific terminology. He does this because the membership of Mensgroup is not restrictive and includes individuals who identify as women, gender non-conforming, and transgender.
144
Role of Discourse
Although he credited his brother and father for providing him with constructive perceptions of men as a child, Indy stated that these positive influences could not compete with those of television and his peers. He spent far more time watching TV and at school than at home. In these comments, he illustrated the draw of dominant social discourse he observed through media.
I would have an hour with my parents, but then I would spend like eight hours at school
and my dad worked full-time, and he would get back late, and my mom, she was a
teacher so like, I would have eight hours without my parents and then another four hours
watching TV, so the majority of my time as a child was with other kids my age or
watching TV.
Indy was exposed to social discourse through television and other media far more than he was to his parent’s influence. Indy summarized the effect media had on his perspectives of men. He provided a clear explanation of why the role models in his father and brother could not compete with those found in television and movies. Indy explained that he was fully cognizant that James
Bond, who was a character who came up numerous times during his interviews, was portrayed in movies in an unrealistic manner. According to him, “I think even though it was fake. It wasn’t real. It was all made up. What he was doing … looked so desirable … I so badly wanted to be him that I would do what he did to get there.”
Indy felt conflicted in his views of men. He was confronted with ideals he knew to be unattainable. He classified them as “fake,” stated that they were not “real,” and knew that the depictions of men offered on television and movies were “all made up.” However, he was still drawn to their example and strived to adhere to their standards.
145
Another example that highlights the influence of gender discourse was previously
presented while discussing Indy’s adolescent perspectives of masculinity. He discussed the
movie Logan and the feeling that he would have to gain “50 pounds of muscle” to live up to the
model of masculinity presented in this movie. Indy described the unrealistic expectations
associated with how the character Logan was illustrated in stating, “Nothing gets to this kinda
guy. Even though in the movie, you can see that some things do get to him.” Yet, Indy noted that he still felt a need to adhere to those unobtainable standards of masculinity and be like that character “even if it may not necessarily be true.”
While discussing a childhood experience, Indy described how he dealt with schoolyard bullies on the playground. He illustrated how boys “puff up” to make themselves appear tough to avoid ridicule. The comments below begin with Indy recounting a story about being bullied as a child, move to a discussion between me and Indy, and conclude with his explaining how the movie After Earth offered a “good analogy” for why fear and weakness are unacceptable emotions for men to express. My comments to Indy are placed in brackets below.
Kids can be merciless. So, it was a lot easier, you know, on the playground, if there was a
real tall kid instead of being afraid of him, cause if I was, if I showed - Yo u alwa ys
thought if you showed weakness, that you’d get picked on more. So, if you just would
push back, maybe he wouldn’t push you again.
[So, that explains why you—that explains why even though your parents had a very
welcoming and understanding home, you still went for the tough and rugged guy persona.
It also gives me some insight into why you might—can I say puff up?]
Yeah.
146
[Puff up just to get people off of you, but why anger over fear? How did you—Why
anger? Who taught you that? Who taught you that fear is bad?]
I think if you watch movies like from one movie in particular which obviously—this
movie didn’t influence me [as a child] but it is a good analogy. It’s the movie After Earth.
In the movie the monsters, like the bad people, they smell fear and whenever they talk
about being found out the demon or the monster or the bad guy will smell your fear, but
anger is never really talked about and anger is usually like—you will see something
happen and the good guy will just get really angry and then something cool happens. And
so, in movies, fear is portrayed as weakness. If you have fear, they will find you but if
you have anger you will be able to push through anything. And so, anger is looked at like
this really great either weapon or protection, but fear is just a weakness. And I think that’s
kinda where my idea of don’t show fear, show anger [came from]. Use anger to cover up
the fear. Even though in After Earth, you’re supposed to not have emotions but that's
beside the point.
Indy began his comments describing how he dealt with bullies as a child. He said, “if you showed weakness, [then] you'd get picked on more.” He talked about being motivated to avoid showing weakness because “kids”; a boy who was taller than him in this case, would increase the level of ridicule already being delved out in response. Indy discussed how he would respond to being bullied saying, “if you just would push back, maybe he wouldn't push you again.” His comments show that he did not want to respond to violence with violence; however, given that displaying weakness in this situation would undoubtedly lead to more bullying, he opted to feign going on the attack to stave off further abuse. This speaks to how Indy performed masculinity in order to fend off bullying; through puffery.
147
In keeping with the discussion of puffery, Indy explained how he would mask his true
feelings of fear with anger. He used a movie and the gender discourse found within that medium
to illustrate his perspective on fear. He addressed three points in this analogy.
The first communicates that fear is an unacceptable emotion for men to have and/or
express. The movie After Earth places fear as the force that drove “the monsters” to attack. Indy suggested that this movie parallels others in their depictions of fear saying, “In movies, fear is portrayed as weakness. If you have fear, they will find you but if you have anger you will be able to push through anything.” This quotation also leads into the second point.
If a man is to express an emotion, it should be anger as this emotion is not only acceptable but useful. With anger “you will see something happen and the good guy will just get really angry and then something cool happens,” Indy said. He added that anger enables you to
“push through anything. And so, anger is looked at like this really great either weapon or protection.” Because anger is an acceptable and useful emotion, it can be used to cover unacceptable emotions such as fear. Fear, which Indy equates with weakness, can be undone by approximating or becoming angry. This extends his previous response to bullying where Indy suggested disguising fear and weakness by attacking those who would attack you.
Indy concludes his analogy with his final point: “Even though in After Earth, you're supposed to not have emotions.” The movie in question takes place in the distant future, approximately one thousand years after humanity has abandoned earth due to catastrophic environmental damage (Shyamalan, 2013). Therefore, Indy’s comment suggested that men will
still see fear as weakness, something that may cause you to lose your life, even in the distant
future.
148
Social discourse informs people of societal norms through nuanced messages that can be found in media. In the previous comments, Indy came to understand what society determined
was normal for men by watching television and movies. He talked about the dominant position
these messages played in his life by describing the amount of time he spent watching television
and illustrating the appealing nature of the reality social discourse presented. Indy, fully aware
that what he was idealizing in the media’s portrayal of “life” was not realistic and was unattainable, desired the fantasy and wanted to be like the idealized character. Indy was more persuaded by the idealized model of manhood portrayed in movies and on television than he was the realistic and attainable model his father exhibited.
In the comments below, Indy talked about the influence of gender discourse on his masculinity. He describes the pervasive nature of discourse stating that gender discourse is perpetuated in the media and taught in homes, classrooms, and religious institutions. His quotation calls back to his previous notions of men “never breaking” and seeing fear as weakness.
I think it’s just something that's passed down. You know, as a kid, if you get hurt, you’re
supposed to just suck it up. Keep moving on. Don’t cry about it and then as you get older,
your friends are doing it because they were told the same thing. Then they’ll tell you that
and you'll build on that, and so it just kinda gets passed down and it’s–I couldn't say how
far back it goes but I'm going to assume it goes pretty far back.
Indy explained that teaching and learning gender discourses can be generational as the lessons taught to children are learned and then taught to their offspring. He goes beyond the family to note that messages of discourse are even perpetuated among one’s peers. What Indy describes is
149
an echo chamber where members of society repeatedly hear messages that perpetuate the
hegemonic gender discourse in media, from peers, in school, and at home.
Gender discourses inform societal notions of gender normativity, specifically for these
participants, what was normal for men to think, do, and believe. These nuanced messages
communicate that men should be masculine in certain ways and dictate what that masculinity
should entail. Each of the participants shared stories of being influenced by gender discourses
where these messages regulated how they should behave, what activities they should participate
in, and what to expect from various situations. Be it college or baseball, gender discourses
created expectations of normality that the men in this study had to re-evaluate.
Profile: John
John is a short but muscular man. He is a straight, cisgender White man. Upon first
meeting him, he presented himself as someone who aligns with more traditional masculine
norms. While the other men talked about guns and ammo, John discussed it deeply and showed
an extensive understanding of the subject matter.
John’s father passed away at an early age. He was raised by a single mother and several
other individuals who stepped in to help him along. One of the most influential male role models
in his life was his Kiwanis brother, an older man who taught him to hunt and golf. According to
the mission of Kiwanis International, the organization “empowers communities to improve the
world by making lasting differences in the lives of children” (Kiwanis International, n.d.).
John graduated from high school as part of a graduating class with less than 20 people.
He and many of those individuals matriculated to Snowy State University. While living in a men’s residence hall, John joined Mensgroup.
150
Childhood
John’s father passed away at an early age. He shared that he was raised by a single
mother. He credited her and several individuals his mother placed in his life for helping him
determine his views on masculinity and manhood. In addition, John shared stories of how he came to develop his masculine identity through the influence of other men.
I started hitting puberty at 11 or 12 … This is the time when you’re able to stand up for
yourself and make your own decisions. I think I really started to realize it after my father
passed away. (It was) a couple years later and my mom started dating again. I was able to
have a few male figures along the way [who told] me that “you’re in a transition point in
your life and you're able to do more than when you were younger. You’re trying to find
your way into the world. You’re changing. Your ideas are changing. Your body’s
changing and you’re just trying to find a way. How to fit.” And that’s where I think a lot
of masculinity comes in. You’re trying to find a fit with your friends and your family, just
the exterior world and finding your place.
According to John, a large aspect of masculinity is determining your place in this world. This included where you “fit with your friends and with your family” as well as the external world.
His synopsis of masculinity is in concert with the direction and guidance he has received from other men he noted as role models. He echoed their ideals as if they were his own and, as a result, moved to embody the masculine identity prescribed to him.
Another aspect of becoming a man, as John stated, involved understanding where he was needed. This included finding his “place” in the world. These comments speak to John’s perspectives on masculinity, which were purpose-driven. On the other hand, the comments do not address how John went about defining himself as a man. They speak to his adopting the
151 ideals of others. This aspect of his identity, as mentioned previously, appears to mirror the expectations of various male role models he has encountered as a child. The following comments continue describing how John developed his masculinity. In his words,
I learned to be masculine just by being surrounded by a lot of boys my age and having a
lot of athletic coaches [when I was] growing up training me to be stronger, faster; more
agile for whatever I was doing. Whether it was soccer, basketball, or anything like that.
You know, really put your dick in the dirt for something. In terms of being masculine,
that kinda goes along with that Hollywood definition where you look up to people like
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the biggest and the baddest.
In the quote, John reiterated that he learned to be a man by observing the example of his male peers and coaches. His comments illustrated how sport served as a vehicle for gender discourse, or messages explaining how men should be in society. The comments then shifted to describing criteria used to measure manhood. He evoked strength, quickness, and agility as measures of masculinity. I was drawn to his statement involving putting “your dick in the dirt for something.”
To be honest, it was a statement I was familiar with and I was not shocked to hear it during my interview with John. I had not heard the phrase since I was a student-athlete. In the context in which I learned the phrase, it was about commitment. In men’s sports—and in baseball as in John’s example—teammates who make plays but seem to have an aversion to getting dirty are viewed as less committed to the sport. A dirty uniform in sports is a sign of playing hard and a player who is giving it his all. The idiom “put your dick in the dirt” is a vulgar expression equivalent to “putting your nose to the grindstone” or “put your back into it.” Each of these idioms signify a person’s intense engagement in an activity and their preparedness to do whatever is necessary to be triumphant including but not limited to enduring physical discomfort
152
and personal/physical pain. John added commitment to other tenets of masculinity like being
strong, being fast, or being agile.
After he referenced “Arnold Schwarzenegger, the biggest and the baddest,” John talked
about the influence of the Catholic Church on his perspectives about masculinity. These ideals
have had a lasting effect on his outlook on life. Just as John’s previous discussions of sports
illustrated how sport perpetuates traditional gender roles, so do his discussions of religion.
And that’s one way you could look at masculinity in that regard, but you can also look at
it in how you treat other people and how you provide for a family. That was always what
we were taught when I went to Catholic school, you know. I went there from 4th to 8th
grade in [redacted] before I moved to [redacted] where I graduated high school. I
remembered taking a lot of religion classes where they emphasized a lot of core family
values. How they separated roles between like matriarchs and patriarchs. How they
explained that it was natural, and it was never anything that I remember from … a
feminism standpoint or like a general standpoint. Cause I mean, that just wasn't
something I was exposed to at that age. Masculinity, when I was growing up, [I] was
indoctrinated into being that providing role whether it’s you're providing for family or
providing for other people. I think we’re just in this world to give to each other what we
have.
In this quotation, John remarked on the last way he was taught to define himself as a man. Each
of the methods he shared are derived from traditional male roles. John explained that a man must have purpose and know his place in this world. He described what a man should be: fit, strong, agile, and committed. He should be committed to his team, his family, and his church.
153
His last statement showed another aspect of his masculinity and expounded on the
lessons on masculinity he was taught as a child. In this sentence, John explained that “we’re just
in this world to give to each other what we have.” His comments spoke to two roles for people under the teachings of Catholicism. The first addresses the role of men: “Masculinity, when I was
growing up, [I] was indoctrinated into being that providing role, whether it's you're providing for
family or providing for other people.” The second speaks to how everyone is to behave: “I think
we're just in this world to give to each other what we have.”
John initially learned to define himself as a man based on the model presented by other
men. Those men guided him to believe being a man was defined by his place in this world, and
“trying to find a fit with your friends and your family.” He also learned “to be masculine”
through the influence of his peers and other male models like athletic coaches. These men taught
him that masculinity had everything to do with being stronger, faster, and more agile. These men
also suggested that being masculine involved showing commitment to something, to “really put
your dick in the dirt for something.” He was also influenced by perceptions of masculinity he
observed in media. These men, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, were presented as masculine role
models because they represented “the biggest and the baddest.” John presented another “way you
could look at masculinity,” and it was based in how men treat other people and how they provide
for a family. This last perspective is based on traditional gender roles, “matriarchs and
patriarchs,” as prescribed through the Catholic Church. It also encompassed service to others and
represented an ideal that John articulated as his own rather than simply mirroring the opinions of
other men. As he stated, “masculinity, when I was growing up, [I] was indoctrinated into being
that providing kinda role whether it’s you’re providing for family or providing for other people.”
154
Adolescence
Adolescence is a time of transition. John and I discussed how he thought of masculinity
as a teenager. He stated that his definition of masculinity and manhood had evolved, and that he
had a “bigger, broader definition.” He continued by saying in reference to his ideas on
masculinity, “you don't realize how malleable it is until you are older.”
John credited being exposed to different people and perspectives for helping him adjust
his definition of masculinity. He remarked on the influence of summer camps and being exposed
to individuals from diverse backgrounds. John shared that these camps, as well as psychological
counseling with a therapist, had helped him to cope with the loss of his father. He also stated that these experiences allowed him to be open to a more nuanced idea of manhood.
The following two quotations are a part of a longer statement clarifying how John adjusted his definition of masculinity after being exposed to different people and perspectives n.
The quotations are presented in two parts to allow for discussion and interpretation. In this first
part, John spoke about meeting more diverse crowds at summer camps and how those
individuals allowed him to reconsider his previous conceptions of masculinity. I asked John, “so what experiences changed your ideas” about masculinity. His answer is offered below.
I think a lot of it just has to do with—once I was exposed to more diverse crowds. Once I
was able to go to summer camps and live with different people than my own family, I
was opened up to a lot more perspectives about how people interacted and how different
personality traits suited each other.
John, in this comment, is thinking back to his time in summer camp. Amid being at summer camp and interacting with the different people, he was exposed to “a lot more perspectives about how people interacted and how different personality traits suited each other.” This provided John
155 exposure to alternative perspectives and people, which allowed him the opportunity to challenge the ideals he developed as a child. He elaborated on his changing ideology in the comments below.
I had like 20 kids in my high school. You only learn so much about so many different
people. I guess having diversity is huge and just learning about [different people] you can
really start to grasp just how different people were raised. In terms of how they treat other
people, you know, one thing I definitely notice is that a lot of people pick up things from
their parents. A lot of habits. A lot of ideology comes from what they’re taught [them] as
a kid, and I think you notice when you see a lot of different people you see a lot of [how
they are] is just how they were raised.
John described his high school and what led him to develop the ideology he held as a child. His comments explain how his being born and raised in a homogenous environment limited his exposure to people who differed from him. He spoke about his childhood peers and how they came to develop their perspective ideologies. In each case, John asserted that “how they treat other people” and the habits they developed “comes from what their parents taught [them] as a kid.” He, like his peers, was raised with these limited perspectives. Like an echo chamber, John suggested that absent of external influences and perspectives, his view of the world would only reflect the views of his parents, peers, and immediate community. Once he was exposed to a more heterogeneous population and was exposed to differing ideologies, he was able to reconsider his ideals in response to new viewpoints. He continued to explain the context of his changing ideology.
I had the benefit of going to summer camp many years, so I was used to being away from
home. Being away for the first time, you’re kinda trying to find your identity. You’re
156
trying to find what crowd you fit [in], you’re trying to find what is going to be best for
you.
His comments reference statements from his childhood. He spoke of trying to find his identity and “trying to find what crowd you fit [in].” These comments, considered in concert with his previous one, suggest that his time at summer camp provided him an opportunity to learn about himself, find his identity, and try to “find what is going to be best for” himself. His exposure to
“more diverse crowds” and “different people than [his] own family” allowed an opportunity for
John to alter his identity in response to differing perspectives. He continued to reflect on how participating in summer camp allowed him to reconsider his ideology prior to and during high school.
I thought of the kids that I realized were like the “big shit” in middle school or high
school [because they] were strong and just deflected anything that came their way. They
had that bad ass image to them … Kids would herald those people who are just tough as
nails, you know, not letting anything phase them and I think that being able to have a
more feminine side ... feminine? Feminine would be the right word. Having a more soft,
nurturing side to people. That’s something you start to realize you can have and still be a
likeable person.
According to John, he began to look at peers from middle and high school differently after spending time in summer camp. When he was a child, he admired characteristics such as being strong, “tough as nails,” and the ability to deflect anything that comes along. John’s use of the word “herald” spoke to the admiration he and his peers had for individuals who embodied these traits. Now, as an adolescent, he began to see those characteristics in a new light.
157
John, in his most recent comments, now considered having “a more feminine side,” being
“more soft,” and nurturing to people to be desirable. He expressed this sentiment by saying,
“That's something you start to realize you can have and still be a likeable person.” Considering
that John was raised in a homogenous town where everyone’s “ideology comes from what their
parents taught [them] as a kid,” it can be inferred that his change in perspectives were due to him
being exposed to new and/or differing ideals. “I guess having diversity is huge and just learning
about [different people] you can really start to grasp just how different people were raised.” This
last statement addresses his previous childhood ideology. In saying “that’s something you start to
realize,” John asserted that he had previously not considered being soft, nurturing, and feminine desirable or, in his words, something you “can have and still be a likeable person.”
John is transitioning in his thoughts of masculinity. His sentiments showed him willing to
question his previously conceived notions. The diversity he experienced in summer camps
provided him with differing perspectives. Having “a more feminine side,” being “more soft,” and nurturing to people are now considered attractive traits. Going to summer camp allowed him to see different ways he could express himself and that he did not have to be “tough as nails” in order to be liked by others. John later spoke of an older male role model figure, whom he called his “Kiwanis brother,” that taught him how to fish and hunt. John also said this individual helped him to cope with the “void” left in his life by the death of his father:
So, I had a Kiwanis brother, a Marine Corp veteran … he lived in the town over, and he
had a lot of his sons that graduated college and he was looking [to fill] a void and kinda
help somebody out. And he was another person I was able to go to. He was older in age,
and he was living in the house [by] himself. So, every Saturday, he was always the guy
that I went to ... he took me out shooting; shooting guns obviously. We went out golfing a
158
few times. He just kinda wanted to teach me things that he knew, and he got me into
playing instruments. He got me into woodworking a little bit, like we made some benches
together. Just kinda having those two [his psychologist and Kiwanis brother] - having
those two [fill] like a void, I guess, was something that really was a pivotal transition into
how I viewed masculinity today.
The part role models have played in John re-defining his sense of masculinity is notable. These individuals offered him different perspectives on masculinity and how a man can behave. They also played a role in giving John a safe space to form new concepts of masculinity without ridicule or judgment. John’s perspectives on masculinity are, in his words, now more inclusive.
He talked about ascribing to a more open definition of masculinity and stated that he wanted to help other men do so as well. John offered that he found yet another role model, and that he was one that aligned with his new definition of masculinity. That role model’s name is Pee Wee
Herman.
As crazy as it sounds. He was this goofy little dude. He did his own thing. He had his
own wild imagination. Those were all traits I really looked up to, and the one thing I
really admired with him was that he always had a smile no matter what was going on. He
would always have his moments, but he would also find what was right for himself. He
really cared about the people around him whether it be people in his town or his
neighbors or people that were his friends. He was always looking out for them.
From his comments, it is apparent that he still associates masculinity with being protective and providing for others. Although he previously expressed affection for men like Hulk Hogan,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Chuck Norris, John has now allowed room for a character like Pee
Wee Herman to be considered masculine in his own way.
159
College
John entered college with the expectation that it would be a setting far more diverse than any he had experienced prior. He imagined a place full of people from varying backgrounds and espousing varying ideals. John affirmed that his initial thoughts were accurate in the following comments.
I think that when I came into college, I knew it was obviously going to be a big crowd
full of people that fit all over the spectrum in terms of interests [and] in terms of
personality. I figured there was going to be something for everybody and that’s an
assumption that’s held true for me so far. I think, I wouldn’t say, it so much changed my
perspective of men, but it more validated the issues that we face.
In the next passage, John shared how movie and television stars informed some of college men’s behavior. His comments harken back to characteristics, such as being big and strong, that he admired as a child. John, in the same statement, went on to explain the role
Mensgroup played in changing his perspectives on diversity.
I think college men are all over the board. You can tell that a lot of college men who have
that masculinity that you find portrayed by Chuck Norris [and] Arnold Schwarzenegger
movies, where they want to be the biggest, the strongest. Push anyone around if they have
to. You see a lot of college men who are soft spoken, a little bit more meek than other
people, and it’s just kinda all over the place. It’s just a lot of different spectrums. It’s
kinda hard to grasp into where they all exactly are. I’ve always noticed that there's
diversity in college men, but because of this group [Mensgroup], I’ve actually been able
to have an easier grasping of how they feel.
160
John recognized that college men existed along “a lot of different spectrums,” and recognized that men could espouse different traits. Mensgroup helped him to understand how all these men feel.
In previous conversations, John pointed out the prominence religion and the Catholic
Church specifically played in how he formed his masculine identity and the messages on masculinity to which he was directly exposed. John discussed being confronted with differing views on masculinity and later accepting them. His acceptance of differing views was an acknowledgement that another view of manhood existed and that it had merit. I am reminded of how John spoke of Pee Wee Herman.
Just after introducing Herman as an example of masculinity, John acknowledged that his premise “may sound crazy” and that Herman is a “goofy little dude.” Only after making it clear that his notion borders on odd did John explain how Herman is a positive role model to him. This quotation is the first time he spoke of empathizing with individuals different than himself and sincerely trying to understand their perspectives.
Mensgroup
John shared stories of him becoming more open to differing aspects of masculinity starting in his teenage years. He was a resident in the residence hall where Mensgroup was founded and joined after being invited to a meeting by Bruce. John stated that he joined
Mensgroup because the group seemed “interesting” and he was looking for a place to “belong.”
Mensgroup allowed him a place to continue to develop and transition in his thoughts and perspectives on masculinity. I asked John, “Do you ever feel conflicted in your personal thoughts on masculinity?” He responded:
161
Do I ever feel conflicted? I could say that. I could say that because I’ve been
indoctrinated in a lot of different ways. I went to a Catholic school for many years and
we’ve always been aware of their positions on masculinity. They want to preserve the
nuclear family. “Homosexuality is a sin. You’re a man, you have to provide [for your
family and community].” Diversity makes you–being exposed to a diverse platform on
issues allows you to figure out where it fits you best, cause when people take sides on an
issue–they can’t take a side until they know both sides. Because when I was growing up,
I didn’t have influence from people in the LGBT community. I didn’t have a lot of
[differing] influence. I didn't know a lot. I wasn’t exactly exposed [to] a lot and being
able to share emotional feelings ... having a level of understanding is something that I
wasn’t able to grasp in my teenage years. But as I’m thinking, probably a lot of that just
has to do with I didn't understand it enough.
I noted his use of the word “indoctrinated” in my field notes. I recall John looking uneasy in using the word. He shifted in his chair, glanced at the ceiling, and avoided eye contact. This was unusual behavior from John who, throughout the interview process, had maintained eye contact and remained relatively still save articulating his points with arm movements.
John now says that “diversity makes you–being exposed to a diverse platform on issues allows you to figure out where it fits you best.” These comments show a shift in his perspectives.
When he was thinking back on his childhood and how he initially came to understand masculinity, he stated that “a lot of masculinity” has to do with fit and “finding your place” in this world. He last elaborated on this in saying that a man’s place, his “fit” in this world, had everything to do with being in a “providing role whether it’s you’re providing for family or providing for other people.” John expanded on this notion of fit and, in that, a person’s place in
162
this world by saying that “being exposed to a diverse platform on issues allows you to figure out
where it fits you best.” He is saying that being exposed to new information and ideals allows
people, and himself in particular, to reconsider where they “fit” in society. He is also saying that
the influence of individuals he previously had no exposure to allowed him to reconsider his
initial perspectives. Where he was formerly indoctrinated to believe, for example, that
"homosexuality is a sin. You're a man, you have to provide [for your family and community]" as
a child, he now, as a man in college, has a more matured “level of understanding” through being exposed to diversity.
John stated that Mensgroup helped him alter his thoughts on masculinity and is assisting him in re-conceptualizing his perspectives on the college man. The group is another example of his being exposed to diversity. Below, John’s comments speak to his interactions with
Mensgroup, its role in helping him understand what college men do, and who college men can be.
I’ve always noticed that there’s diversity in college men, but because of this group I’ve
actually been able to have an easier grasping of how they feel and how they view
themselves among other people. I have a lot of guy friends who’d love to just talk about
sports, and beer, and chicken wings, and stuff like that, and I have another spectrum of
guy friends who are big into RuPaul’s drag race. I mean, I’ve never heard anyone in
Mensgroup talk about drag queens but I'm sure it comes up. Who knows? A lot of guys in
Mensgroup that I know were big into music, big into memes, big into a lot of pop culture
things going on. There’s a lot of jokes on the internet and things like that. Gaming
obviously is a big thing too. But I think just the interests kinda vary all over the place
honestly.
163
In describing the myriad of peers he encountered in Mensgroup, John noted there were individuals who enjoyed some experiences that are typically associated with traditional notions of masculinity and some that are not. He commented on the duality present in the group and noted how Mensgroup has helped him “understand how they all feel.”
I asked John, “So how has participation in the group changed your perspective of what
college men do? Because it sounds like your understanding of who a college men was
broad, but …” John interrupted and said that his perspectives were “still developing.” He
elaborated: I think college men—I guess a lot of them try new things and try to find new
niches, and I think college men are very adventurous. Sometimes they want to push the
edge, try something they’re maybe not supposed to do but they have the freedom to do it.
I think that fits into that quality that they are adventurous. I think college men are
overall—they’re enumerated in the different messages that they see on the media, I guess
you could say. We—before I remember going to college, I just remember watching
movies like American Pie or Revenge of the Nerds. You know, you get all these different
stereotypes of what college is. That sometimes college men try to fill the model of that.
They try to feed into an image that’s not really set in stone.
John’s initial perspective of college men was informed by movies and television. The media’s perspective of college men informed him that these men should push the envelope and be adventurous. Mensgroup provided John with a different narrative. His following comments support this assertion. The following quotation is his reply to this inquiry.
I’ve always thought that college—[well] going back to my definition of masculinity and
that men—I guess humanity in general—we are supposed to be unselfish beings [and]
there for other people. We are in this world together and whatever that may mean; just
164
having that big heart there for other people. This group validates that those kinds of
people exist and now that [this] group exists, I think that will be a message that we can
spread. I always knew that there would be a diverse crowd of men on campus. I think
Mensgroup just tackles—I would not necessarily say the issue, but the awareness that
there are infinite amounts of ways that you can perpetuate this term ‘masculinity’ that's
thrown around in society. You know, and it kinda proposes that it is really an open-ended
definition. I know that my definition of masculinity is different from somebody else’s.
And [Mensgroup] kinda showing that that can be an open-ended discussion [and]
definition is something that I think could lead to a healthier campus and could lead to a
healthier awareness of the issues that men face, because men's violence is a real issue. I
don’t think that—you know, you wouldn’t be writing a paper on it if it wasn’t.
John, in these last comments, settled into his definition of college men including how they define
masculinity and the behavior that defines them. He explained in the first statement that he
currently views college men as “very adventurous” because “sometimes they want to push the edge, you know, try something they may not supposed to be doing but they have the freedom to do it.” However, he now provided his rationale for why these men may engage in this type of behavior. John thinks that these men, himself included, try to “emulate” what they see in television and movies. As he puts it, “they try to feed into an image that's not really set in stone.”
Or, the men attempt to “fill the model” presented in the movies they watched about college. John said he remembered watching the movies American Pie and Revenge of the Nerds, which are examples of movies that John believed college men often emulated when engaging in “very adventurous” behavior.
165
In this final comment, John returned to how college men define masculinity and how
Mensgroup helped him understand that there are numerous ways of defining masculinity. He
used the phrase “an open-ended definition.” He also stated that men being able to define masculinity without restrictions could lead to a “healthier campus” and “a healthier awareness of the issues that men face.” In this comment, John returns to his original thoughts on masculinity:
“being that providing kinda role—whether it's you're providing for family or providing for other people. I think we're just in this world to give to each other what we have.”
Although John’s views on masculinity have evolved, much of his initial ideas remained.
His definition of masculinity did not change. It expanded to include new information and accept individuals previously unaccepted. Where John first said men are supposed to take care of other people, he now says “we” and “humanity” to be inclusive.
Role of Discourse
I asked John, “how has your current idea of manhood or masculinity changed since you were younger? Or has it changed?” His response reiterated that he has matured in his perspectives of masculinity. Within his words, we hear the role of discourse and how “the media” informed how he believed men should act.
I think it’s changed a little bit; in some ways. I know that, as I’ve grown older, I’ve
grown more comfortable with sharing my feelings. When I was 12, I always felt like, for
some reason, I was a little more timid to share things than I am now. And that kinda goes
with a big theme, that grown men don’t cry. You hear that in the media. You hear it in the
mainstream, and I think with growing; with being able to share my feelings more
comfortably, I think that definitely adds a realm to masculinity.
166
He said that “grown men don’t cry” and asserted that this notion was “a big theme” in masculinity. In these few words, John explained how society has different expectations for boys than it does for men. The statement that “grown men don’t cry” suggests that crying is only
acceptable for boys. He continued by explaining that “you hear that in the media.” This “theme,”
that crying is not something grown men do clarifies why he used to believe that kids in school
who “were strong and just deflected anything that came their way” were admired. They did not
engage in behavior that would have been acceptable for their age, for example, being affected by
things and crying as a result. Therefore, they were considered “big shit.”
In the following quote, John spoke about the men involved in Mensgroup. He described
the group in relation to other individuals on campus and noted how those who participate in
Mensgroup are different. He also spoke to Mensgroup promoting an “open-ended definition of
masculinity.” In his words:
The men who participate in Mensgroup are a little different? College … when you go to
college, you’ve got all walks of life. You know, people of all different backgrounds. I
definitely notice how there's a difference between people in Mensgroup. I’ve seen more
understanding [and] more accepting of people of different genders and different binary
walk—you know, of life, compared to people who haven’t been in Mensgroup … We’re
trying to push this open-ended definition [of masculinity]. I don’t really think about
whether we’re like in the minority or the majority, I feel like I’m just going in with the
message [and] I feel like it kinda fits into the majority [perspective] because it’s
becoming more mainstream on college campuses. I think a lot of the student
organizations on campus, between LGBT and minority groups, I think there’s an overall
consensus that we appreciate diversity. I think it’s something that a lot of colleges
167
champion themselves on and the notion that we’re [Mensgroup] there pushing that idea is
something that most people feel is a good thing.
After hearing John’s response, I intended to ask another question. He, however, looked as though he had more to add. I offered him the opportunity to continue and he did.
I mean—I guess it kinda ties into—I always see a lot of things on like right-wing media
sites that are like “men are becoming pussies and so soft in comparison to our old
generation.” You know … *laughter* I might even feed into … an argument against that.
I've been in plenty of online arguments and ... [in-person] arguments [stating] that the role
Millennials [play] in society is better. The way you always hear about the older
generation kinda throwing shit at the new generation. So, I think that Mensgroup kind of
addresses that. It’s like “men aren’t what they used to be, and they should go back to that
way,” but you know. To elaborate on that … I guess that a lot of people in that crowd
believe in more of the box definition of masculinity. And that by going outside the box,
you're becoming softer to those ideals. Apparently, that’s a problem [for many people in
society] but we believe that's not a problem.
In these last comments, John talked about gendered discourse promoted in “right-wing media.”
The sentiment that “men are becoming pussies and so soft in comparison to our old generation” aligns with his previous comments stating that “grown men don’t cry” and that this notion was “a big theme” in masculinity. Each of his comments, when considered in concert, illustrate an interesting position on masculinity; “the big theme” of masculinity of his childhood, that “grown men don’t cry,” is counter to the “open-ended definition [of masculinity]” currently being promoted by Mensgroup and John’s generation is more accepting of this definition. In addition, this open definition of masculinity is not wanted or accepted by everyone in society. John added
168
that “right-wing media” is vigilant in promoting more traditional notions of masculinity, which include tenets that are “more of the box definition of masculinity.” However, various groups on college campuses, namely Mensgroup, “Millennials,” “LGBT and minority groups,” ascribe to notions of masculinity that are “softer” and “outside the box.”
Summary
The participants of this study shared stories concerning their masculinity development over time. I framed the stories they told through their childhood, adolescent, and college years.
These narratives highlighted the effects of their socialization, the role of discourse, their motivations to transition their definitions of masculinity, and their participation in Mensgroup.
Childhood
Bruce first learned to define himself through violence and showing the capacity for violence. Indy discussed using the threat of violence to reinforce his masculine identity as a child. Gregory enacted violence through bullying, and John employed a symbolic notion of violence through his participation in sport.
Each of the men illustrated violence and/or aggression as a useful tool for masculinity development and reinforcement. They learned to behave in this manner from role models who were primarily men. Their relationships with male peers reinforced these notions of masculinity, and the discourse they absorbed from media perpetuated these ideals.
Adolescence
Bruce was motivated to abandon his feelings about aggression and violence as a tool for masculine identity development in fear of the new laws and legal statutes his age would make him accountable to, and as a result of participating in an anti-violence group while in high school. Gregory’s motivation to stop bullying was tied to the positive role modeling of his
169
brother. Indy, differing from the other men, started engaging in more toxic behavior by working
out in excess in high school as he was influenced by television and movies to become “big and
strong” and “just this tank of a man.” John, lastly, was motivated to transition in response to
being exposed to new and differing perceptions of masculinity.
In fact, each of the participants shared stories concerning the influence of role models
who were men and how they learned vicariously from their experiences. Peer influence and the
role of media are notable in the teenage years of their lives. Bruce was influenced by his peers
who were also working in his high school anti-violence group. Gregory’s brother showed him
how to be a more “sensitive person,” and modeled how to let the anger he felt for his father go.
He also showed him how to be a man absent from being a bully. Indy was driven to work out in excess by the “unrealistic” male characters he saw in television and media. John’s Kiwanis brother helped fill the “void” the passing of his father created, which allowed him space to mature and transition in how he conceptualized manhood.
College
Bruce, Gregory, Indy, and John each told similar stories involving their college experiences. First, they all had expectations of college life that did not reflect their lived experiences. Second, each participant shared that their false perspectives of college life were all
informed by the media, specifically, popular movies and television shows about college. Third,
their participation in Mensgroup either 1) served as an emotional support group, 2) allowed them
a means to redefine the false cultural narrative in media, and/or 3) provided them a safe space for challenging dominant gender discourse.
Mensgroup was founded by a small number of undergraduate students living on-campus.
The majority of whom were residing in an all-male residence hall. Each of the participants
170
(Bruce, Gregory, Indy, and John) were residents in that same residence hall. Greg explained how he and the other founding members were prompted to start the group by a visiting scholar,
Michael Kaufman. In the following excerpt, Greg mentions being apprehensive about the group and its mission. He was initially worried that those who desired to start a men’s group wanted to do so in effort to promote men’s rights and toxic masculinity.
We all received emails from our residence directors that a guy named Michael
Kaufman was coming to campus, and they were like “do you wanna come in on this? Do
you wanna be part of this … to meet with him? He kinda wants to help start this men’s
group.” And I’m like, “I don't really know what that means but it sounds really cool. I
guess so. Why not?” So, all the all-male houses were invited to this program including
the RA’s and my house was the only one that showed up. The rest of the people there
were just RA’s from the other houses. Michael Kaufman and, trying to think of his name,
he’s another professor here [NMU] in sociology ... oh, Alan McEvoy. Kaufman started
talking about how he started this “White Ribbon campaign” against domestic violence.
How he goes to college campuses to try to start these groups to try to get men to start
thinking about these topics. So, I guess, a lot of us had this thought that this guy was
going to want start one of these men’s rights groups here. We were kinda like scared
about it. But, he wanted us or he suggested that we create a men's group on this campus
for men to talk about issues that they have, and one of the RD’s who ... there’s an RD
who is in our group and he said that they had been trying to make a group like this for a
long time but never gained traction. So, we ... he (Kaufman) had an event later that night.
We went to the event. He was talking ... it was kinda like funny it. It was kinda
educational. I don't really remember a lot about what it was about, he was just talking
171
about how guys are ... He left and we created the Mensgroup. He just suggested it, and
then we did it cause it sounds like a great idea.
Bruce and Gregory attended the program presented by Kaufman. They founded Mensgroup.
Indy and John joined soon after its founding and, later, took leadership positions.
Role of Discourse
Each participant of this study shared how discourse influenced how they came to define their masculinity. The men told stories involving social discourse and how they learned society’s
more general expectations of their behavior. They also talked about cultural discourse in the
context of high school and college and noted how television and movies informed their
expectations of normal behavior. In addition, each participant discussed the pull of gender
discourse and how they were to behave as men.
Lastly, the participants each described status seeking behaviors as an example of gender
discourse. The participants discussed seeking status in the realm of doing good, making a
difference on their campus through educational programming, being a hero, or being in a
position to fix societal problems. Mensgroup served as a vehicle for Bruce, Gregory, Indy, and
John to align themselves with various forms of discourse, and obtain the positive social status associated with that alignment. Each described how gendered discourse informed that this behavior was masculine, normal, and necessary. They discussed being motivated to be the change in the world they would like to see because they, as men, were in a unique position to affect change.
Status Seeking Behaviors - Bruce
Bruce, in an example of gender discourse, described how society pushed him to align himself with the hero character. As mentioned previously, he defined this person as a “do-
172 gooder”; someone passionate about truth and justice. In the comments below, he explained how gender discourse informed his notion that being a man is about being needed.
But I would say the strongest form of teaching masculinity is when you’re shown that
you're needed or if you are regarded with a sense of heroism … And that’s where you can
get to a man's heart is [by] telling [him] he's gonna be a hero and he'll eat it up. And that's
how you can teach him to be a man. Is tell him, “by doing this … you'll be a hero.” If you
do these things, if you do these just feats of strength or aggression, you'll be a hero and
you'll know it in your heart because you’re regarded, and we all regard this other person,
who did this [feat of] strength or aggression—aggressive task—as a hero … immediate,
strong, violent, and dominating. That is how you teach a man. You get to his heart if you
tell him “you'll be a hero.”
Bruce’s comments show how he was extrinsically motivated to seek the status of a hero. He stated that, “We all regard this other person, who did this [feat of] strength or aggression— aggressive task—as a hero.” Bruce was motivated by the admiration of others. Bruce also suggested that he was intrinsically motivated to seek the status of a hero in saying, “If you do these things, if you do these just feats of strength or aggression, you’ll be a hero and you'll know it in your heart because you’re regarded … as a hero.” His comments explain how aligning to gendered discourse by filling the role of a hero will lead to feelings of self-worth.
Status Seeking Behaviors - John
John exemplified status seeking behavior through his discussions of being a provider. He explained that the church (Catholic) helped inform his perspectives of masculinity and what role he, as a man, should play in society. In the following comments, John illustrated how religious doctrine served as a vehicle for gender discourse.
173
One way you could look at masculinity … [is] it in how you treat other people and how
you provide for a family … I went to a Catholic school … I remembered taking a lot of
religion classes where they emphasized core family values. They separated roles between
matriarchs and patriarchs. It was definitely about masculinity when I was growing up,
when I was indoctrinated into being [in] that providing role whether it’s you’re providing
for family or providing for other people. You know. I think we’re just in this world to
give to each other what we have.
John, in the previous comment, used the word “indoctrinated.” He was taught to embody the role of provider for his family and for other people. The Catholic Church instructed him on his role as a man; the church explained, through gender discourse, that being a provider was masculine.
John heard these messages of normality and he sought to achieve the status of provider.
Status Seeking Behaviors - Gregory
When Gregory initially entered college, he was required to attend university programming that reinforced his negative perspectives of college. He saw Mensgroup, and the programing the group would offer, as means of remedy. When asked about one of the programs
Mensgroup presented, Gregory stated the following:
We tried to answer people’s questions about what our [information] board was about,
redefining masculinity. We talked about what our group is about and we talking about
these words that were on our boards. Words like, "grow a pair" and things like that.
Things that men often hear and we talked to people about gender roles, about nature
versus nurture [and] how these things go all the way back to being tribal almost and how
these terms are structured towards men, and then we tied it back to how our group tries to
deal with these things. I guess we tried to convince people. If they didn’t believe us, that
174
feminism was an important topic and that gender equality is a fight for men and women,
we just talked about that stuff … I mean, a lot of these events have also helped [with]
sexual assault awareness things. [They] helped change my perspectives of men in a
posit ive way.
Gregory saw a problem in how his university was educating students, and he sought to affect
positive change through educational programming offered by Mensgroup. He, through
Mensgroup, sought to “redefine masculinity” on his campus.
Status Seeking Behaviors - Indy
Indy explained how Mensgroup addresses men’s violence on their campus and within society. Indy stated that the group focuses on affecting positive change in their campus culture through programming and educational initiatives. He presented, in the quotation below, an example of how Mensgroup targets inappropriate speech on their campus and in other college men. He also spoke to the importance of addressing the underlying cause of men’s violence, and the role he has determined men should play in counteracting men’s violence.
First, the most basic level thing is [that] if I hear someone say something like, “aww man,
that test just raped me” [or] stuff like that, I try to curb it. But that's a lot of just surface
level, which is very important to address and so I do. But I also try to do things like
recognize ... because that’s not why people commit sexual violence. It’s not because they
say the words, it’s what they felt and what lead them to say those words and why they
think that’s a funny thing to say. And, a big part of it was the idea that because men are
pushed to be emotionally like strong men, that can lead to a lot of the problems when
they do crack. And so, I try to, more personally, get men to open up about that their actual
emotions. I feel a need to be, and do better.
175
Indy continued:
Whenever you hear about sexual violence, it’s always … not always, but very frequently
told about from the women’s perspective and what women should do to help to stop it. It
always just makes you think that it's the women’s job to stop it. But, because of
Mensgroup, I realized that it's not the women’s thing. It’s just as much as an issue with
guys because not only are we predominately committing violence, there's long standing
social factors that influence men to do what they do. And so, this has changed my
perspective of the guy’s role in stopping sexual violence.
Indy began his comments by explaining what he has learned in relation to the causes of men’s violence and he noted what he does to address men’s violence on his campus. He then shifts to explain how those perspectives lead him to work within Mensgroup to affect positive change at
Snowy State. He ends by clarifying a misconception he has been made aware of, that it is the role of men to stop sexual violence.
His comments concerning the role men should play are reminiscent of John’s in that both are suggesting a role men should play in society. Indy’s comments are also like Bruce’s as both found cultural issues on their campus and saw Mensgroup as a means of positively affecting it.
And, lastly, Indy and Bruce’s comments suggest an intrinsic motivation to be better or do good.
Each participant, in the stories they told, illustrated how discourse informed how they should behave as men and the roles they should play in society. They described how they were motivated to be better men who “do good” and affect positive change in society. They also discussed the draw to be heroes, providers, or fixers in societ y.
176
Conclusion
Three research questions guided this study. In the first question, I sought to understand how the participants came to define their masculine identity. Bruce, Gregory, Indy, and John responded to this question through the stories they told from childhood to their teenage years.
Definitions of masculinity were generally informed through family, peers, and media. Despite differences in family structure, each participant initially noted similar definitions of masculinity as children.
The second question focused on how their definitions of masculinity were shaped and informed by their involvement in Mensgroup. The participants responded to this inquiry through the stories they told as undergraduate students and as college men. Mensgroup allowed these men to recognize the validity of different kinds of masculinity and variance in who is considered a man. However, Mensgroup did not influence these men’s practice of engaging in more benevolent forms of hegemonic masculinity.
The third and last question, which centered on what motivated the men of this study to become and remain involved in men’s violence prevention efforts, was also addressed by their reflection on their college years. These men were motivated to become, and remain, involved in
Mensgroup because the group fulfilled of a desire for community with other men, a place to belong on campus, and a desire to attain reputations as good guys characterized their motivations.
Some common themes emerged from the participants’ narratives. However, Indy generally stood apart from Bruce, Gregory, and John in how he defined his sense of masculinity and how those definitions evolved. Media played a significant role in these men’s lives and
177 therefore, cultural discourses were largely evident in their narratives. Further discussion of these research questions is presented in the next chapter, Chapter 5.
178
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to understand how college men who participated in a
campus organization that addressed men’s violence understood and defined their masculine identity and masculinity in general. Specifically, three research questions guided this study. The first asked: how have undergraduate cisgender men involved in a group focused on men’s violence prevention come to define masculinity? In the case of this study, the initiative discussed was Mensgroup. The second: from the perspective of these undergraduate cisgender men, how have their definitions of masculinity been shaped and informed by their involvement in groups focused on men’s violence prevention such as Mensgroup? The last purposed: from the perspective of these undergraduate cisgender men, what motivates them to become and remain involved in a group focused on men’s violence prevention such as Mensgroup? In this chapter, I answer my research questions, discuss my findings in the context of existing scholarship, and make recommendations for theory and practice.
Defining Masculinity
Through the first research question, I sought to understand how the participants defined masculinity. I organize my discussion by definitions of masculinity through acts of aggression, discourse, and transitions in definitions of masculinity. Based on my findings, these men (Bruce,
Gregory, Indy, and John) defined masculinity in complex and contradictory ways. Their
definitions were complex in that they consisted of several different and connected parts. The
participants’ definitions reflected the incorporation of relationship to self, relationship to others,
role models, mentors, and media influences. Multiple contradictions were also evident. Although
each eschewed aggression or violence generally as a method to solve problems and some
(Gregory) rejected bullying behaviors they enacted as children, these men also saw violence or
179 physical domination as a legitimate response to defend someone they cared about. Another contradiction was reflected in the participants’ embrace of vulnerability when exhibited by men they loved (i.e., fathers, brothers) while they also admired media portrayals of masculinity that showed men as invulnerable, emotionless, and engaged in toxic behaviors.
Defining Masculinity Through Acts of Aggression
“All societies socialize children to internalize the shared rules and norms that drive collective behavior, thereby allowing them to become self-regulating participants in society”
(Adams & Coltrane, 2005, p. 233). This process of socialization informs children about patterns of thought and behavioral characteristics inherent to the society in which they exist (Gleitman,
1986). Gender socialization is the process through which males and females learn acceptable behavior patterns and society’s gender rules, specifically that males and females are to engage in masculine and feminine behavior respectively (Adams & Coltrane, 2005). In a similar process, males experience gender role socialization; a process in which they learn restrictive and gender specific roles society has deemed appropriate (O’Neil, 1981). These terms (gender socialization and gender role socialization) are often used interchangeably and the behaviors they describe intersect; however, there is a distinct difference between them. Gender socialization is the process through which boys and men learn what behaviors are masculine. Gender role socialization is the avenue through which boys and men learn what roles they should play as masculine men. Each socialization process informs men about masculinity in relation to what society has traditionally accepted as appropriate.
The use of violence, aggression, and/or signaling the capacity for violence are among the many way’s boys and men “do gender” (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2005). Young boys learn at an early age that aggression and violence are important signifiers of manhood. Through dominance
180
bonding, boys establish hierarchy amongst other boys using acts of physical and symbolic
violence (Messner, 2002). Boys insult each other and engage in sexually degrading behaviors.
They speak loudly and use physically expressive gestures to dominate conversations.
My findings support this premise. Bruce described learning as a child that men “don’t
take shit from anyone.” He explained that not taking “shit” meant becoming aggressive and
violent if the situation called for it. John learned to be a man through sport. He stated that being
aggressive and physically dominating were among the characteristics he was taught to adopt
while playing “soccer, basketball, or anything like that.” He added that men were also agile, fast,
and strong. Indy also learned that men were supposed to be strong. As such, he opted to define
his masculinity by excessively lifting weight and attempting to become as muscular as possible.
Gregory bullied his peers as a youth. He engaged in this behavior because he did not know how to process his emotions; specifically, the anger he felt for his father. Gregory stated
that he did not have anyone he could talk to about his emotions as his father was not in his life
and his mother “wouldn't understand, because she wasn't a guy.” Connell (1992) and Arxer
(2011) both note that men enacting hegemonic masculinity may suppress anything associated
with non-hegemonic identities. Men who display emotions; such as sadness and pain, embody non-hegemonic identities (Kimmel, 2008).
Indy’s discussion of discourse in the context of After Earth supports Arxer (2011),
Connell (1992), and Kimmel’s (2008) comments on how men are taught to repress emotions.
Indy explained that discourse instructs men to see emotions like fear as signs of weakness and
that anger, which he presents as a useful emotion, can be used to mask fear. Both Indy and
Gregory described using anger to mask emotions associated with non-hegemonic identities such
as fear or sadness.
181
The concept of doing gender was presented by West and Zimmerman (1987) as well as
Butler (1990, 1993). West and Zimmerman (1987) argued that “gender is not a set of traits, nor a
variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings of some sort” (p. 129). They explained that
“doing” gender is “undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production” (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126). For individuals to be considered competent members of society, they must understand and abide by social norms and rules. The differences in these approaches, according to Kelan (2018), are that Butler’s “key concern is how the gender binary can be subverted through unusual and unexpected connections whereas for
West and Zimmerman the category of gender has to lose importance for gender to be undone” (p.
545). Deutsch (2007) offered an examination of doing gender that is easy to grasp and concise saying “rather than internalize a set of behaviors and practices or identities that were rewarded and modeled by parents, teachers, and other authority figures, men and women create gender within social relationships throughout their lives” (p. 107).
Sport provided a platform for two of the men in this study to develop their gender identity through social interaction. Indy stated that he knew he would not be “good at sports,” so he sought another manner of defining his masculinity, gaining muscle through excessive exercise.
He stated that he would “go into the weight room and I would find the biggest guy, and I would be like ‘he’s a man; I want to be like him.’” John described most of his homosocial relationships in the context of sport and said that his coaches and teammates taught him what a man should be.
Each of the men in this study shared stories illustrating their use of violence, aggression, and/or signaling the capacity for violence in effort to perform their masculinity or do gender.
Bruce’s stories reflected an individual who initially spoke of using violence as a tool for developing, asserting, and reaffirming his masculine identity. Continued discussions revealed
182 that he advocated for the use of violence; however, he did not become violent when confronted with situations where violence, as he asserted, would be warranted. Bruce later disavowed violence altogether and opted to define his masculinity through his antiviolence service and initiatives while continuing to view violence as an effective means of conflict resolution which should be used given an appropriate situation arising. In short, Bruce stated that he could not imagine a situation where he would willfully be violent but emphatically proclaimed that he would become violent in defense of a loved one and that such violence would be justified in this scenario.
Bruce displayed a contradictory if not complex expression of masculine identity by advocating for the use of violence while, at the same time, rejecting violence as a tool. Aware of social and cultural norms that perpetuate hegemonic masculinity, he stated that he would become violent if the situation warranted; however, he abstained from engaging in violence. Traditional male roles tell men that they must avoid stereotypically feminine behavior and should conduct themselves in physically and emotionally toughened ways (Capraro, 2010). Aggression and violence represent one way men can show themselves to be masculine, one of many ways of men
“do gender,” and behaving this way allows for men to align themselves with social and cultural ideals (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
Aggression in Action
Bruce’s behavior was aggressive while refraining from being violent. It aligns with signaling the capacity for violence as articulated by DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2005). His behavior showed an acceptance of violence as appropriate in the right circumstances, congruent with his belief that violence is normal, and suggested an intention to embody traditional masculine norms commonly associated with hegemonic masculinity.
183
Another participant, Gregory, believed that one’s masculine identity should not be
restricted to traditional norms and that a man should be able to express himself as feminine by
being soft and nurturing. Yet, he came to define his masculinity through the anger he felt toward
his father and shared stories where he emotionally and verbally bullied his classmates as a youth.
He stated that he bullied his peers because he had no way to fully express his emotions. Gregory was raised by a single mother. He explained that he could not share his feelings with her because she would not understand as she was a woman.
According to Rosen and Nofziger (2018), boys who bully through physical violence or threats are enacting hegemonic masculinity. Bullying and other forms of violent behavior can be used by adolescent males in the creation of social hierarchy and the establishment of privileges
that are respected by students and faculty alike (Stoudt, 2012). Boys who bully partake in
physical forms of violence and/or intimidation to appear in control and masculine. They may
also engage in violence and aggression to compensate for feelings of depression, shame, and hurt
(Bergman, 1995). “Instead of recognizing, understanding, and coping with their hurt or scared feelings, males may externalize their distress by ‘taking it out on others’” (Mahalik, Good, &
Englar-Carlson, 2003, p.125). Gregory stated that he bullied his peers because he was unable to fully express the anger he felt for his father. He explained that he stopped bullying after
observing his older brother mature and become more sensitive. He stated that once he learned to
“put his faith in friends” and “trust people,” he was able to stop displacing his anger and fully
express his emotions.
A third participant, Indy, told a story of him using intimidation in response to a
potentially violent situation. He described how, as a youth, he was confronted by bullies on the
playground. He stated that he knew that showing “weakness” would lead to his bully escalating
184
(getting “picked on more”), so Indy opted to use a minimum amount of violence to rectify the
situation.
Indy’s behavior, like Bruce’s, depicted a capacity to become violent. Although Indy
explained how he would engage in violence, his description of the scenario suggested an
unwillingness to fight. Bell and Bayliss (2015) noted that boys and men put up a tough guise to
hide traits not considered masculine and, in doing so, stave off ridicule and shaming. In addition,
boys use a tough guise to control a situation through intimidation (Bell & Bayliss, 2015). Indy’s behavior indicated an acceptance of violence as a means of conflict resolution and a willingness to use it to that effect. His behavior, as described by Rosen and Nofziger (2018), is tied to hegemonic masculinity as he acted to recapture power after being a victim of bullying. Indy put
on a “tough guise” to appear in control of a situation where he felt fear. He masked feelings he
knew to be unacceptable for a man to express and “puffed up” to present himself as masculine
and physically dominant instead.
Men also learn to signify their manhood through displays of a fighting spirit (Schrock &
Schwalbe, 2009). This “fighting spirit” is a symbolic form of masculinity often perpetuated in
sport where aggressive play is praised by coaches, teammates, and spectators (Fine, 1987;
Messner, 1994, 2000, 2002). In sport, violence and aggression are normalized. Boys learn that
behavior that is not dominant is not masculine and, therefore, not accepted (Kimmel & Davis,
2011). Boys and men learn to embody perceptions of masculine traits such as strength, honor,
and physical aggression through watching and participating in sports (Kimmel, 2008; Anderson
& Kian, 2012).
Gregory and Indy each spoke of displaying their manhood through a fighting spirit,
aggression, or violence. Indy described portraying himself as tough when he was being bullied.
185
He stated that displaying aggression when he felt fear made the bullying stop. Gregory felt sadness because his father was absent in his life. Instead of expressing his sadness, which
Connell (2011) noted is an emotion linked with a non-hierarchical identity, he bullied his peers because expressing anger and aggression are acceptable emotions for men to display.
Indy and John both shared stories of learning to be men through sport. Indy stated that he learned at an early age the he “wasn't going to be really good at sports or anything,” so he opted to define his masculine identity through excessive weight lifting. His goal was to become the
“biggest guy” in any room. His definitions of masculinity were aligned with and informed by cultural and gender discourse, which is a topic that will be discussed in the next section under that heading.
John described learning how to be a man through sport. He told a story involving baseball and putting your “dick in the dirt for something.” His story epitomizes a fighting spirit as described by Schrock and Schwalbe (2009). Putting your “dick in the dirt for something” is a vulgar idiom signifying a person’s intense engagement in an activity and their willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed. Enduring physical discomfort, personal/physical pain, and being injured are all included within this concept.
John’s perspective of masculinity and willingness to put his “dick in the dirt for something” is reminiscent of Cowan’s (1995) discussion of warrior narratives, where the “mantle of the warrior is inherited by the sportsman” (p. 729). Cowan (1995) argued that violence is subject to discipline in civil society and, as a product of modernity, sport provides a means of allowing men to learn and perpetuate warrior narratives symbolically.
John also described engaging in sport as an activity for learning masculinity from other men. According to him, sport (“soccer, basketball, or anything like that”) involved being
186
“surrounded by a lot of boys” his own age and learning to be strong, fast, and agile. Kimmel
(2008) described the significance of homosocial peer interactions for men learning about
masculinity. Kimmel echoed sentiments offered by Connell (2005) that spoke of how men reinforce differences between boys and girls in situations such as these, and that doing so placed masculinity in opposition to femininity. The result of which teaches men to be dominant, that their dominance of women and subjugated masculinities is normal, and that aggression/violence is a means of achieving dominance (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
The men of this study initially learned to be masculine through acts of aggression,
specifically engaging in physical violence, displaying the capacity for violence, using
intimidation, and/or exhibiting symbolic violence in sport. The men, in each of these examples,
perform their masculinities or “do gender” in alignment to social and cultural expectations. They
learned what behavior and gendered roles were appropriate for them as children and attempted to
align themselves with social and cultural ideals. In addition, the men of this study enacted
hegemonic masculinity. This was done because they perceived dominating behavior to be
normal. They wanted to ascend social hierarchy and/or to stave off appearing weak or fearful.
Lastly, one participant, Gregory, enacted physical violence through bullying because he could
not fully express his emotions. His actions reflect how men often experience trouble coping with
emotions they find to be uncomfortable, and how feelings of depression, shame, and/or hurt can
be expressed as anger, violence, or aggression. In short, Gregory embodies the adage, “hurt
people hurt people.”
Defining Masculinity through Discourse
I found the participants’ definitions of masculinity to be the product of gender and gender
role socialization as the influence of parental figures, peers, religious institutions, and, to a larger
187 degree, the media was ever present in each narrative. I also found evidence to support their past behavior, and perhaps current, as an expression of hegemonic masculinity. The influence of discourse is also apparent in many of the stories told by the participants in this study.
Discourse represents nuanced messages presented in the context of social situations that describe words, symbolic activities, coded language, and artifacts, which are used to disseminate societal information and expectations (Bucholtz, 2004). Boys and men draw on these messages to inform their everyday lives and allow them to adopt masculine behavior appropriate to the social and/or cultural setting in which they find themselves (Toerien & Durrheim, 2001).
Although there are numerous forms of discourse, this study highlights three that informed these men’s definitions of masculinity: social, cultural, and gender(ed).
Defining Discourse
Beginning with the most overarching form of discourse, social discourse is an umbrella term that illustrates society’s ideology of normality (Angenot, 2004). This form of discourse speaks to how an individual, as a competent member of society, would be expected to behave.
Although similarly overarching in nature, cultural discourse is situated in a subsidiary position to social discourse and reflects messages that are more nuanced and formative (Carbaugh & van
Over, 2013). This form of discourse speaks to how an individual, as a competent member of society in the United States of America, would be expected to behave. Gender discourse, a subtler form of discourse than those mentioned prior, describes nuanced messages that inform what is understood to be normal regarding masculine and feminine behavior respectively (Edley,
2001). This form of discourse speaks to how a man, as a competent member of society in the
United States of America, would be expected to behave.
188
Brannon (1976) noted that traditional definitions of masculinity are informed by social
norms of dominant culture. Gender socialization, for example, suggests that a man should be
masculine and, in that, assertive and confident. Discourse is a means of communicating these
messages and perpetuating them as social norms, thereby reinforcing the stereotype that leaders
should be assertive, confident and, by the transitive property, men. These social norms are
disseminated as gender discourse and viewed on television, in movies, and in literature (Edley,
2001).
Gender Discourse in Action
The participants all described how discourse informed how they developed their
masculine identities, what they knew to be masculine, and the role they were to play as men.
Bruce depicted how his father used a movie, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, as a tool to teach
him how he should be a protector to his sister and how he should respond if she were assaulted.
Bruce’s example supports Edley’s (2001) presentation of gender discourse and gender roles as articulated by O’Neil (1981). In the example, discourse instructed Bruce on what traits he should embody (aggressive and violent), and the roles illustrated were rigid.
In addition, Bruce’s example shows how family units use discourse to inform acceptable
behavior. According to Collins (1998), gender discourse is often communicated through familial interaction. John, for example, was taught by a father figure (his Kiwanis brother) that men are strong protectors who uplift others and empower their community. As such, the perception that
these roles are intrinsically masculine and normal for men to occupy is created and perpetuated.
Men being assertive and confident and, as a result, natural providers are ideas that are reflected
in traditional masculine ideals and roles (Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005; Kimmel & Davis,
1998). This thinking is also a product of gender role socialization (Adams & Coltrane, 2005).
189
Gender is something continuously performed by everyone (Anderson, 2008). Various forms of discourse provide content to masculinity that is “both produced and constrained by our history and our social/cultural settings” (Toerien & Durrheim, 2001, p.36). Individuals who successfully perform masculinity do so by engaging in behavior consistent with current social, cultural, and gendered norms rather than by performing specific actions. “Those performing masculinity are therefore constructs and constructors of symbolic orders; simultaneously productive and produced, loci of action and participants of interaction, they may perpetuate and/or resist hegemonic social arrangements” (Brickell, 2005, p. 37).
Gender Discourse Exemplified through Masculine Archetypes. The men in this study often defined their masculine identities in alignment with ideal notions of masculinity that are reflected in movies and media. Connell (1987) discussed this type of idealized gendered behavior through a model of masculinity or archetypes. Sport figures and action movie stars are examples of masculine archetypes. Masculine archetypes embody traditional male roles and, in so doing, gain social status and patriarchal power through their behavioral adherence (Capraro, 2010;
Davis, 2010; Kimmel, 2010; O’Neil, 1981).
Take, for example, a college football player who models his playing style after a well- known, and admired, professional football player. When that college player successfully performs his masculinity on the field and dominates his opponents, he is rewarded with admiration and an elevated social status. As he continues to win, he becomes more admired. He enters a bar and those who recognize him cheer. He finds that those patrons want to buy him drinks and take pictures with him. The college player has effectively modeled his behavior in alignment with the professional athlete and, as a result, has reaped similar rewards. The men of this study modeled their masculine identities with various archetypes observed in media. They
190 spoke of being motivated to perform their masculinities in this manner for similar reasons as the college football player in the previous example. In the following section, I present examples of how each participants idealized gendered behavior.
Although Indy described using violence as a tool during his childhood, he also talked about modeling his masculine identity after his father. Indy’s father embodied traditional masculine roles by working as a contractor and being “pretty strong,” but he also showed his emotions and was not afraid to cry. Indy, as a result of his father’s influence, initially defined his masculinity as “strong when you need to be but soft when you need to be.”
He defined his masculinity differently as an adolescent. He used excessive weight lifting as a means of asserting his manhood. He described walking into weight rooms, seeking out the
“biggest guy” there, and working to make himself look like that individual. Indy said he was inspired by the characters he observed in television and movies similarly to how he was inspired to become like the biggest guy in the weight room. He mentioned Indiana Jones, James Bond and
Logan from X-Men, and remarked that he was drawn to these characters for their physical attributes and personas. Indy characterized these icons as strong, fearless, and protectors. They embodied attributes he admired, and he desired to live up to their image. He felt compelled to align himself with the image these characters presented even while being cognizant that each portrayed a masculine identity that was unrealistic and unattainable. He spoke directly to their
“fake” portrayal of masculinity but attested that each of the characters presented a persona that
“looked so desirable” he would attempt to align himself with their image despite it being futile.
Indy’s behavior supports Connell’s writing on hegemonic masculinity and is a good exemplification of the masculine archetype. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) explained hegemonic masculinity as a “normative” practice that “embodied the currently most honored
191
way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it” (p. 832).
Viewed through the lens of hegemonic masculinity, Indy was drawn to make himself like a largest guy in the weight room and the aforementioned characters because he saw them as personifications of what a man should be and how men should normally exist. To be like those men meant to adhere to the best examples of masculinity and doing so successfully meant that the life of those characters could be theirs.
John, like Indy, was drawn to conventional or traditional masculine attributes personified by characters in media. His initial definition of masculinity was informed by “people like Arnold
Schwarzenegger, the biggest and the baddest” and reinforced through his peer interactions while playing sports. He shared that he “learned to be masculine just by being surrounded by a lot of boys” when he was a child and qualified his notions of masculinity in qualities such as strength, quickness, and agility. John’s conceptualization of masculinity and his interactions with peers support the assertion that same sex, or homosocial peer interactions, are the most effective moderators of social constructs of masculinity and, as a result, gender roles (Harper et al., 2005;
Kimmel & Davis, 2011). He idealized Arnold Schwarzenegger for being “the biggest and the baddest.” His actions supported Connell’s (1987) notion that men model their behavior to align with what society deems as idealized role models, archetypes, or exemplars, who have gained
access to patriarchal power by epitomizing masculinity.
Masculine archetypes represent the most honored way of being a man and embody
idealized gendered behavior (Connell, 1987). Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) later discuss
these archetypes using the term “masculine exemplars”; however, sport figures and action movie
stars continue to represent some of the best examples. Indy followed the example of these
masculine archetypes because he believed their behavior to exemplify the best concept of
192
masculinity. The same can be said of John. These archetypes existed in a way that both found
appealing.
In each of the previous examples, participants enacted hegemonic masculinity in relation
to archetypes who embodied traditional/conventional masculine ideals. The characters they
modeled were strong, fast, agile, and cool. However, these examples can perpetuate a false
equivalency between hegemonic masculinity and traditional/conventional masculine ideals.
Indeed, the perception that hegemonic masculinity presents an essentialist concept of masculinity
based in heteronormativity, dichotomy of sex and gender, and/or an association with
conventional/traditional/ “macho” ideals is a common critique (Martin, 1998; Wetherell &
Edley, 1999; Whitehead, 1998; 2002). However, Connell (1987) stated that hegemonic masculinity describes how individuals can ascend social hierarchy by performing gender in alignment with the most idealized form of masculinity of the day.
Connell (2001) stated that hegemonic masculinity is an “expression of the privilege men collectively have over women. The hierarchy of masculinities is an expression of the unequal shares in that privilege held by different groups of men” (p. 17). Men gain access to these privileges through culture, institutions, and persuasion (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), men can ascend social hierarchy through their consent to cultural narratives of masculinity; men note societal norms of masculinity and they align their actions with masculine exemplars.
The participants of this study aligned their behaviors with cultural norms of masculinity.
They opted to embody the roles of protectors, fixers, and heroes. Gregory noted that Snowy
State’s educational programming perpetuated toxic masculine norms, and helped create
Mensgroup to address this issue. John said that he was “indoctrinated” by the Catholic Church to
193
believe that men were created to serve as protectors and providers. Although the men of this
study chose to embody masculine norms that are socially acceptable in nature, the roles and
behaviors they subscribe to still grant them access to patriarchal privilege.
Connell (2005) offered that social norms can and do fluctuate and specified that those
who most effectively attain power and privileges imparted through patriarchy do so by
recognizing shifts in socially constructed norms and modeling their behavior to adhere to them.
Thus, hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily correlated with static characteristics of
masculinity (Connell, 1987). There are notions within hegemonic masculinity that are idealized
and more privileged than others, specifically White, Western, middle to upper class, strong, stoic, aggressive, and heterosexual (Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 1990). Just as discourse
that informs who and what is masculine is ever changing, so too does who is considered a
masculine archetype or exemplar. In addition, the characteristics they embody change with the
passing of time and as an effect of social construction. “Consequently, ‘masculinity’ represents
not a certain type of man but, rather a way that men position themselves through discursive
practices” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 351).
John provides an example of a masculine archetype who, in his perception of Pee Wee
Herman, exemplified masculinity while adopting a persona that is not normally associated with
traditional masculine ideals. He described Herman as a “goofy little dude,” which are
characteristics that are not commonly associated with masculinity. However, Herman was
masculine because he took care of the people around him, and he “always had a smile no matter
what was going on.” These behaviors are reflected in Mahalik et al.’s (2003) conception of
“more traditional” masculine ideologies, which include “the ability to remain calm and problem-
194
focused in times of crisis, to subsume personal needs to the greater duty of protecting, and to
provide for one’s family or country through personal sacrifice” (p. 129).
A Place for Heroism in Hegemony. This last example of masculinity in discourse was
unique among the participants; however, Herman does embody a common thread of heroism that
resonated in every archetype discussed in this study. Numerous researchers have asserted that the
hero exists as a symbol of masculinity (Andersson, 2008; Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Whitehead,
2005). Wetherell and Edley (1999) found that men instantiate hegemonic masculinity and self-
identify through their alignment with conventional ideals depicted in heroic characters that are
found in the media. Bruce spoke to these positions in his discussions of masculinity in discourse.
Bruce remarked that the way “you can get to a man's heart is [by] telling [him] he’s gonna be a hero.” He added “that’s how you can teach him to be a man … he’ll eat it up.” Bruce then illustrated how men who perform “feats of strength” and display aggression, as long as those actions are committed in a “just” manner, will be considered heroes. He explained how a movie was used to help him learn this, that his father strongly reinforced the lessons of the film, and that men “get positively recognized” as “big” and “strong” if they “can perform large feats of strength.”
According to Jordan and Cowen (1995), young boys learned to express two definitions of masculinity while in school: warrior narratives and discourses of civil society. The discussion of
warrior narratives is reminiscent of Edley’s (1999) discussion of gender discourse, heroic
characters, and hegemonic masculinity. The latter, discourses of civil society, evokes the “basis
of school discipline,” and includes acts of “rationality, responsibility, and decorum” (Jordan &
Cowan, 1995, p. 728).
195
By “warrior narratives,” we mean narratives that assume that violence is legitimate and
justified when it occurs within a struggle between good and evil. There is a tradition of
such narratives, stretching from Hercules and Beowulf, Superman, and Dirty Harry,
where the male is depicted as the warrior, the knight-errant, the superhero, the good guy.
(Jordan & Cowan, 1995, p. 728)
Bruce’s story supports men aligning their behavior with dominant gender discourse for positive regard or social privilege. According to Connell (1987, 2005), men who are most effective in navigating social hierarchy are those most able to understand shifts in social norms, adhere to models of masculinity (archetypes), and use these abilities to produce changes in their behavior to reflect what is privileged. By adhering to dominant gender discourse, men can ascend social hierarchy and gain status (Connell, 1987; 2005; Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005). Being assertive allows men to obtain more lucrative jobs. Being confident may allow a man to experience success in attracting a mate. Bruce, in the previous example, performs “feats of strength” and received positive reinforcement from his family.
Masculinity, as defined by Kimmel and Messner (2007), is a performed social identity that is informed, regulated, and affected by socially prescribed notions of manhood. Connell and
Messerschmitt (2005) noted that masculinity is fluid and “not a fixed entity embedded in the body or personality traits of individuals” (p. 836). Connell (1995) explained that men are often motivated to enact certain traits or behaviors associated with, and favored by, society as masculine to ascend social hierarchy and receive social privileges.
Indy shared stories that support Connell and Messerschmitt’s (2005) statement that masculinity is fluid and not fixed when he spoke of his father. He said that his father taught him that a man is “strong when he needs to be and soft when he needs to be.” In describing his father,
196
Indy reinforced this notion as he said his father was a contractor possessing a large amount of
physical strength but that his father was also not afraid to cry in front of him. Indy described both
his father’s physical prowess and ability to be vulnerable in front of his as masculine.
Hegemonic masculinity also normalizes the dominance of idealized masculinities over subordinated ones, such as men over women, heterosexuality over gay/lesbian, and contemporary (traditional) masculinity over effeminate” (Connell, 1987). While hegemonic masculinity could be enacted through force and/or violence, this way of performing gender “did not mean violence… it meant ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasion”
(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). Wetherell and Edley (1999) described hegemonic masculinity as an “aspirational goal rather than as a lived reality for ordinary men” (p. 337).
Their definition adheres to the model of masculine archetypes, or what Wetherell and Edley call
“macho masculinity,” as exemplified in popular films, is unattainable (p. 337).
Indy understood that he would never be able to fully reflect the idealized definition of
masculinity he observed in television and movies, but he was committed to the attempt. He was
motivated in his attempts by the situations these characters find themselves in, circumstances he
noted as “so desirable.” John presented archetypes that differed in how they enacted hegemonic
masculinity. Although his examples embodied divergent characteristics, each personification adhered to traditional masculine roles. And, lastly, Bruce’s thoughts on heroism informed his
relationship to himself and his relationship to others. He was to be a protector and a provider,
and, in this, he enacted hegemonic masculinity and benevolent sexism.
Discourse is the language of socialization. It communicates social norms and those norms
typically embody traditional definitions of masculinity. Men, in order to be perceived as
competent members of society, hear and abide by messages of discourse. They hear these
197 messages in media, the messages are taught in school and at home, and discourse is reinforced through peer interaction.
Gender discourse is personified in idealized models of masculinity known as archetypes or exemplars. Men can most effectively navigate social hierarchy by understanding shifts in social norms and effectively aligning their behavior with the examples portrayed by masculine archetypes. Those men who successfully navigate social hierarchy receive privilege. According to Wetherell and Edley (1999), men can reproduce male power by taking on the characteristics of models whose embodiment aligns with attributes conventionally associated with hegemonic masculinity. They were strong, and that strength enabled them to be able to protect others. They dominated every situation they were placed in, which meant they were invulnerable. Nothing got to them and they were incapable of showing fear, which added to their invulnerability. These characters were heroes because of their embodiment of conventional (traditional) ideals. On the other hand, one can be a hero while enacting non-conventional masculine ideals. John offered an example of this. Therefore, masculine archetypes are primarily determined through their ability to personify the most honored form of masculinity of the time, and less through their enacting traditional or conventional masculine ideals.
Transitioning Definitions of Masculinity
Although the participants initially constructed their masculine identities as children, they began to question their socialization and started the process of re-defining themselves as adolescents. My observations led me to believe that the narrators hold views of manhood that, while still aligned with traditional norms of masculinity, have been intentionally altered to include variations on masculinity that deviate from those typically socially accepted and depicted as traditional. These altered definitions of masculinity allow for additional behaviors which may
198
not align with dominant gender discourse. Each participant, apart from Indy, described adjusting
his ideas of masculinity to be more inclusive and accepting of non-traditional masculine ideals while in high school.
In Guyland, Kimmel (2008) noted that men are socialized to understand society’s rules for boys, The Boy Code, and learn to understand the rules for men, The Guy Code, as they age.
Thus, Kimmel (2008) noted that there are different social expectations for boys and men. Bruce, for example, defined his masculine identity as a child through violence and his willingness to be violent if the situation warranted. He stated that he was initially taught that a man “doesn’t take shit” from anyone and that violence was an appropriate recourse for disrespect; however, he amended his perception of masculinity in response of the new laws and legal statues his age would now make enforceable. According to the men of this study, their rationales for changing how they defined themselves as men included laws and legal statutes they recently aged into, new social environments (high school), and more intense pressure to adhere to gender discourse.
Bruce talked about re-learning to define his masculine identity within the confines of society’s regulations for an adult male. He stated that he still had to prove himself and make a name for himself but noted that the “recklessness” of his youth would lead to his being “heavily punished” and “it’s not worth it.” Although Bruce never specified what he meant by “heavily punished,” I understood what he meant. As Arum (2003) noted, the fighting in elementary schools usually results in two institutional reactions: punitive action enforced by that educational institution and informing the parental units of the student’s behavior. Fighting in high school may result in more serious consequences that include punitive action enforced by that educational institution, the parents of the students involved being contacted, and possible police involvement (Arum, 2003; Kulkarni, 2017)). High school students, because of their age, may be
199
treated as adults and, consequently, engaging in physical violence could be considered assault
and/or battery (Henry, 2000). These disciplinary processes are not standardized between students
of color and White students as Black adolescents, for example, are disciplined at higher levels
(Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010). This disparity is more pronounced in Black men and boys, who are more likely to receive disciplinary action than Black and White women and girls
(Gregory, 1997; KewalRamani et al., 2007).
Gregory bullied his peers as a child. Unlike Bruce, he did not disavow his use of violence because of fear of legal consequence. He explained that his bullying was a result of displaced anger associated with his father. He described an inability to fully express his emotions which led to him experiencing a form of childhood adversity. Although he credited his mother with raising him and teaching him how to be a man, Gregory stated that he was unable to talk with her about his anger “because she wouldn't understand, because she wasn't a guy.” He stopped bullying while in high school and credited his brother as well as other male role models he admired for showing him that being sensitive and trusting in others was acceptable behavior.
This transition is consistent with research by Jewkes, Flood, and Lang (2015) that characterized childhood adversity as an individual factor associated with men perpetrating violence on others. Furthermore, the stated cause of Gregory’s bullying (displaced anger) can be read as restricted emotionality. According to Mahalik (2000), men who are emotionally restricted are more likely to engage in hostility. Once Gregory addressed his displaced anger, he was able to move past his bullying behavior.
Indy, in contrast to Gregory and Bruce, transitioned in his definition of masculinity differently. As a child, Indy espoused a masculine identity grounded in self-actualization and independence. As a teenager, he began working out in excess and modeled his masculinity
200 around trying to be the “strongest person” that he knew. Indy stated that he transitioned in his perspectives on masculine identity because he spent more time watching television and interacting with his peers then he did his parents, and that “kids can be merciless.” Thus, his motivations are grounded in peer pressure and media’s gendered discourse.
Indy’s attempt to become a larger man supports Anderson’s (2005) notion of masculine capital, where men engage in a compensatory mechanism to re-establish their masculine equilibrium. Men, for example, may use violence or homophobia to raise their masculine capital
(Adams, Anderson, & McCormack, 2010). Indy opted for excessive weightlifting. He defined his masculinity through this activity and his attempts to become a physically dominating individual.
In this, he engaged in hyper and toxic masculine traits (Kuppers, 1999; Olivardia, 2004).
Kupers (2005) defines toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (p. 714). Kupers (2005) continues by describing toxic masculinity through physical violence and hypercompetitive behavior. Indy’s excessive weightlifting exemplifies toxic masculinity as it is hyper competitive and physically violent.
Indy described going into weight rooms, finding the “biggest guy”, and working out in excess to mold his body to align with that individual’s image. Indy also described taking supplements, excessive weightlifting, exercising while injured, and consuming large quantities of fatty foods (bulking) to increase his physical stature. He exhibited hypercompetitive behavior by competing with subjects who were not aware they were in a competition, and Indy sustained internal and external injury in the process. Indy’s behavior revolved around domination, hyper- competiveness, and physical violence.
201
According to Olivardia (2004), “muscularity signifies many hypermasculine traits, such as strength, sexual virility, aggression, and dominance” (p. 9). Gates (2004) highlighted examples of hypermasculinity in movies by describing the “pumped-up bodies” of action heroes and the “heroic” behaviors of men, such as responding to the threat of violence against women with action/violence. Kuper (2005) offered toxic masculinity as a form of hegemonic masculinity that solely encompassed aspects that are socially destructive. In the case of hyper and toxic masculinity, the objects of aggression and/or violence are more often women and men who embody subjugated forms of masculinity, such as gay men (Connell, 1987). Indy, however, engaged in a version of hyper or toxic masculinity where he focused on becoming physically dominating and strong, which eventually lead to physical injury. In a similar manner, Spencer
(2004) found that professional and amateur MMA fighters “conform to masculine ideals through attempts to assume ideal states of embodiment and withstanding pain associated with participation in sport” (p. 117). These athletes interpret pain and bodily injury as a normal part of developing their masculine identities. The idea of enduring pain in sport also harkens back to
John’s statements concerning “putting your dick in the dirt for something.”
Conclusion
As teenagers, the participants began to reconsider their socialization in relation to masculinity, rethinking how they were taught to understand masculinity (gender) and what roles men were to play (gender role). Although three participants moved toward a masculine identity that was more socially acceptable, a fourth adopted an identity that was toxic. Again, the function of role models and homosocial interaction is notable.
Indy’s depiction of masculinity, in relation to his excessive weight training, was toxic in that it was a form of violent domination. Kupers (2005) stated that toxic masculinity “delineates
202
those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny,
homophobia, greed, and violent domination” (p. 716). When discussing toxic masculinity as
socially destructive, the target of that destruction is often women or men who align with
subordinated masculinities (Kupers, 2001). However, in Indy’ case, his actions were self-
destructive. He inflicted pain on himself by disregarding personal injury caused by excessive
exercising and continuing to lift weights, and he caused himself internal injury by pushing his
cholesterol into dangerous levels (“240 or 260 [mg/dL]”).
Involvement in Mensgroup
In the second research question, I was interested in how the definitions of masculinity
espoused by the narrators in this study had been shaped and informed by their involvement in a
men’s violence prevention group. According to my narrators, participation in Mensgroup
affected how the narrators defined their masculinity in three ways. First, through Mensgroup, the
participants were able to meet and interact with individuals who espoused masculine identities
that were less traditional and differed from the examples often presented to them during their
childhoods. This allowed the participant’s definitions of masculinity to be challenged, expanded,
and/or reinforced through interpersonal interaction. Second, Mensgroup served as a support
system for the participants to express aspects of their masculine identities they often suppressed.
This led to them expressing more holistic masculine identities that were less restricted by social
norms. Lastly, Mensgroup was a “safe space” for the participants to continue to learn and expand their knowledge on topics regarding men and masculinity.
Bruce helped to establish Mensgroup to create a safe space for men to express traits not
typically considered masculine. Thus, the group was designed to challenge the notion of
authentic masculine and/or feminine traits. The example presented by Bruce depicts Mensgroup
203
as a social norms intervention that contests false consensus held by men on their campus. False
consensus, according to Berkowitz (2005), is a type of misconception where a minority of people
who ascribe to unhealthy behaviors and/or attitudes incorrectly believe that they represent the
majority. In creating a safe space for their members to explore behavior and beliefs that are not
considered authentically masculine, Mensgroup corrects false consensus perpetuated on college
campuses and challenges pluralistic ignorance: “the majority who engage in healthy behavior
may incorrectly believe they are in the minority” (Berkowitz, 2005, p. 7). The group helped
Bruce define his masculinity in a more inclusive way.
Second, Mensgroup created an opportunity for their members to express aspects of their
masculine identities they often suppress. Participants shared that Mensgroup meetings involved
talking about issues they felt men often avoided, like emotions and suicidal ideation.
Additionally, members of Mensgroup confided in each other for emotional support.
An example of this can be seen in Indy, who said that Mensgroup helped him become and remain comfortable engaging in behavior inconsistent with traditional masculine norms. The group helped him successfully move away from behaviors endorsed through dominant gender discourse because he realized he was not alone in his desire to be different. A support system like
Mensgroup disrupts the “spiral of silence” that allows false consensus and pluralistic ignorance to perpetrate toxic behavior as the norm. According to Berkowitz (2005), a “spiral of silence” occurs when individuals believe their attitudes, behavior, and/or beliefs are not supported; “when the minority in opposition are outspoken because they believe themselves to represent the majority (false consensus) while the majority in support are silent because they believe themselves to be in the minority (pluralistic ignorance)” (Berkowitz, 2005, p. 8).
204
Lastly, Mensgroup served as an educational outlet and provided their members with a
“safe space” to learn and expand their knowledge on topics associated with men and masculinity.
As a result, the men participating in this study presented masculine identities inclusive of social
activism and a sincere desire toward educational attainment. These behaviors exemplify
productive and inclusive masculinity as articulated by Harris and Harper (2014) and Anderson
(2008). For instance, John stated that he was exposed to diversity in college; however,
Mensgroup helped him to better conceptualize the differences he observed and understand how
his peers “all feel.” As a result of interacting with members from diverse backgrounds and
educational programs offered through Mensgroup, John was able to expand his definitions of
masculinity and embrace individuals representing varying identities. As a member of
Mensgroup, he interacted with individuals who identified as queer, gender non-confirming, and transgender. John stated that these interactions allowed him to expand his definitions of masculinity. This can be seen in his stories about visiting summer camps, being exposed to individuals who were different (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) then those he grew up with, and his learning to admire and accept those differences.
Harris and Harper (2014), in describing productive masculinity, illustrated how the fraternity men in their study created opportunities for their brothers to unlearn toxic behaviors and attitudes through workshops, brotherhood building activities, and leadership development seminars. When men perform their masculinity in a manner inconsistent with “stereotypes typically associated with college men in general,” they enact productive performances of masculinity (Harris & Harper, 2014, p. 717). Their organization opted to disrupt sexism, homophobia, and racism in their chapter and on their campus, created educational opportunities for their brothers to learn how to transcend racial, religious, and sexual orientation differences.
205
Mensgroup created similar educational opportunities, which allowed John and other members to appreciate diversity.
The participants of this study initially defined their masculinity through acts of aggression in alignment with discourse observed in media. They threatened physical violence, displayed the capacity for violence, used intimidation, and/or exhibited symbolic violence in sport. They performed their masculinities in alignment to social and cultural expectations, and showed evidence of enacting hegemonic masculinity, to ascend social hierarchy. They sought to align themselves to idealized models of masculinity that they observed in media. Discourse
(social, cultural, and gender) informed the perspective of normality and influenced their behaviors.
The participants began to reconsider their socialization in relation to masculinity as adolescents. The majority reconsidered their socialization and came to accept an inclusive form of masculinity. The influence of male role models was pronounced.
The participants joined Mensgroup while in college. As of result of their interaction with this organization, their definitions of masculinity became more holistic and less restricted by social norms. They moved toward masculine identities that were productive and inclusive.
Motivations to Become and Remain Involved
In my last research question, I wanted to know what motivated undergraduate cisgender men to become and remain involved in groups, programs, or initiatives focused on violence prevention. In speaking to the men in this study, I concluded that they were driven to work with
Mensgroup: (1) because they benefited from the services the group provided, (2) to redefine the cultural narrative found on their campus, (3) to create a safe space for the challenging of dominant gender discourse, and (4) to create a college campus that is safe and inclusive for all.
206
First, the participants became and remained involved in Mensgroup because they
benefited from the group’s existence. Gregory described Mensgroup as a “friend group” and
support system. Bruce illustrated how Mensgroup served as a vehicle for progressive outreach
that he found “personally rewarding.” Indy stated that the group helped him become and remain
comfortable being himself, and John said that Mensgroup assisted him in accepting “an open-
ended definition” of masculinity. Mensgroup not only helped the participants of this study
redefine their masculine identities, it provided them with a set of likeminded individuals to
support their newly formed definitions.
Second, the participants became and remained involved in Mensgroup because the group
focused on redefining cultural narratives found on their campus as they believed that their
campus culture created and perpetuated toxic masculinity. They perceived this as a problem and
set out to rectify it. John suggested that a “healthier campus” would be created by obtaining “a healthier awareness of the issues that men face.” Bruce stated that he felt driven to make society more equitable. He declared that this goal gave him a “reason to live” and associated the mission with his masculine identity.
Harris and Harper (2014) presented a set of salient contextual factors that enabled the men in their study to enact productive performances of masculinity. First, the men in their study were committed to the core values of their organization and that commitment drove them to become active in attempting to create positive change in their community. A part of these core values included “being men of character” and “serving others” (Harris & Harper, 2014, p. 712).
In addition, the men who participated in this study were also motivated to challenge negative stereotypes associated with fraternity men. As Harris and Harper (2014) stated, “participants
207 assumed that they were responsible for being the type of fraternity men they wished others to see and that they themselves desired their brothers to be” (p. 713).
The participants of Mensgroup, like those described in Harris and Harper’s (2014) study, were driven to create positive change in themselves, their organization, and their campus. Their masculine identities became more inclusive through their participation in Mensgroup. Seeing the benefit of being more inclusive, they sought to create educational opportunities to promote learning about men and masculinity, and attempted to make their campus more inclusive through those educational programs and initiatives. The participants in this study, and Mensgroup by extension, felt a mandate to challenge toxic masculinity and a campus culture that allows toxic behavior to flourish. Their actions and their attitudes are, therefore, in alignment with productive masculinity.
Third, Mensgroup was established to be a safe space for men to express traits not typically considered masculine. Thus, the group was designed to challenge the notion of authentic masculine and/or feminine traits. Kelan (2018) noted that doing gender entailed performing gender in accordance with normative expectations. Thus, men who perform gender do so in accordance with traditional masculine behaviors that have been normalized in society.
The act of doing gender also creates gender difference as the behavior men enact presents them as different than women (Deutsch, 2007). Conversely, undoing gender reduces gender differences and subverts power structures and hierarchies created by patriarchy. Undoing gender creates opportunities for gender equality; however, the process does not dissolve power structures or hierarchy. Mensgroup offers a safe space for men to reconsider behaviors and traits they previously considered normal. The group allows men the chance to not only reconsider what they believed to be authentically masculine behavior but allows the members a place to
208 exist without normative expectations being placed on them. The safe space Bruce described created an opportunity for their members to undo gender by challenging normalized perceptions of masculinity and reducing the gender differences between women and men.
The last reason the men in this study were motivated to participate in Mensgroup, to make society more equitable, has previously been discussed. Bruce’s comments reflected a sense of duty to enact “progression” in his community and society in general. Therefore, he joined, and stayed a member of, Mensgroup. John, in a similar manner, intimated that the goal of mankind is to serve each other, “whether it's you're providing for family or providing for other people. I think we're just in this world to give to each other what we have.” Gregory began his college career and found an institution that did not reflect his expectations. He believed, prior to entering college, that his experiences as an undergraduate student would mirror the discourse he had observed in movies. He was motivated to correct the perception that toxic behaviors are a normal part of college life. Each of their motivations falls in line with Harris and Harper’s (2014) description of productive performances of masculinity or productive masculinity.
Hegemonic Masculinity Revisited
The men in this study presented numerous examples of their enacting hegemonic masculinity. Although many of these examples included their engaging in toxic behavior, there were also examples of the participants enacting hegemonic masculinity through socially acceptable behaviors. In this section, I will revisit the concept of hegemonic masculinity and discuss the steps in undoing gender.
Hegemonic masculinity is, by the definition of hegemony, oppressive (Connell, 2001).
Enacting hegemonic masculinity involves acknowledging, pursuing, and perpetuating social hierarchy to become dominant. These actions ensure that others will be subjugated. However, it
209
is not necessary for a person to actively engage in any behavior for them to maintain the power
afforded to them by patriarchy (Connell, 1987). Hegemonic masculinity holds that various
identities (White, Western, middle to upper class, strong, stoic, aggressive, and heterosexual) are
idealized and more privileged than others (Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 1990). Patriarchy
and other systems of oppression privilege these identities over others (Kaufman, 2013).
Therefore, an individual can benefit from patriarchy by aligning themselves with privileged
identities. Men, for example, can enact hegemonic masculinity without engaging in a “strong
version of masculine dominance” by presenting themselves as strong, stoic, or heterosexual
(Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005, p. 832). In addition, men can be complicit in maintaining patriarchal power structures and the hegemony created in how they perform gender (i.e., complicit masculinity) as the behavior associated with both is normative and often beneficial to men (Mackenzie et al., 2017).
Likewise, hegemonic masculinity privileges the most idealized personification of masculinity to date (Connell, 1995). These models of masculinity, or archetypes, change in respect of the ethnographic moment. An ethnographic moment consists of a moment in time, the
milieu (social environment), and the social context (geographic location, cultural discourse) in
which a person finds themselves (Connell, 2001). For example, although sport figures and action
movie stars are often presented as masculine archetypes, the “dynamics” of masculinity associated with these models may differ in respect of the ethnographic moment (Connell, 2001).
Stated plainly, the traits and behaviors depicted by an action movie star in the 1950s may not be reflected in the action movie star of today; however, both can still represent an idealized model of masculinity with respect to their individual ethnographic moment.
210
As previously stated, hegemonic masculinity is a normative practice where men perform
gender (Connell 2005). It involves “ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, and
persuasion” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). That is to say, men who enact hegemonic
masculinity effectively gain social privileges (e.g., positive regard, acclaim, praise) that allow them to ascend social hierarchy.
In addition, it is possible for men to enact hegemonic masculinity through seemingly
benign behavior. For example, men who work together and share similar interests; such as
playing golf, may choose to interact with each other away from their workplace. Their
engagement in activities, in which they have a common interest, allows for the building of
informal workplace relationships. Kelan (2018) described how building informal workplace
relationships, especially when done in exclusion of women, is a means of doing gender,
perpetuating gender hierarchy, and enacting hegemonic masculinity. A group of men who work
together playing a round of golf is an example of a benign behavior; however, if the informal
relationships which stem from this activity privilege those who play golf over those who do not
then this behavior perpetuates hegemony.
The men in this study learned that of the negative effects of men’s violence and toxic
masculine norms. They created Mensgroup to affect positive change and began offering
educational opportunities to their campus. These are benign actions. However, the men of this
study offered these educational programs prior to their fully understanding the concepts they
sought to teach others. They were eager to learn about masculinity and issues associated with
men’s violence; however, they were not proficient in their understandings of the concepts. In
their exuberance and sincere desire to “do good work,” they failed to first educate themselves. In
211
this, they perpetuated the idea that men are the one who fix societal problems and educate the
masses; each of these ideals in embedded in hegemonic masculinity.
Continuing with this example, I am not arguing that people be dissuaded from building
informal relationship with those in which they work. I am, however, stating that gender
inequality can be inadvertently perpetuated through the actions of men. Martin (2001, 2003)
described how men in the workplace can propagate gender inequality by privileging masculinity
through unconscious or unacknowledged action. Much of these gendered behaviors are embedded in workplace culture, considered normal, and exist as unintentional/non-reflexive practices (Martin, 2006). In addition, men often enact hegemonic masculinity on a subconsciously level as they view their actions to be normal and have not gone through the cognitive process of unlearning this behavior (Mkhize & Njawala, 2016). Therefore, men perpetuating hegemony and patriarchy can be inevitable unless deliberate action is taken.
Hegemonic masculinity privileges traits often perceived as intrinsic to men’s identities.
Being White, Western, middle to upper class, strong, stoic, aggressive, and heterosexual are examples of this (Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 1990). Therefore, men who embody these identities are depicted as the societal default for masculinity as “normal men.”
According to Connell (1995), hegemony is resilient and when conditions are created that seek to delegitimize patriarchy; a new form of hegemony is created. New discourse emerges that
legitimizes gender power differences and, as a result, reinforces patriarchy (Toerien & Durrheim,
2001). For example, a college athlete may seek to embody characteristics traditionally privileged
by patriarchy such as physical aggression and strength. His beliefs are reinforced when aligning
himself and his behavior with those attributes earns him praise and admiration. He has even
found that these social privileges result in tangible benefits such as sports fans purchasing him
212 drinks at the local bar. However, physical aggression and strength are not privileged attributes in academia. He, therefore, ascribes to a different model of masculinity as a student. He substitutes assertiveness for physical aggression and intellectual fortitude for physical strength. His behavior shifts; however, his motivation to ascend social hierarchy and obtain social privileges remains.
The results are also consistent as both behavioral sets reinforce patriarchal power structures.
This example illustrates a notion previously articulated, which is that hegemonic masculinity is more about establishing hierarchy through the dissemination of power and imparting privileges than specific practices or masculine qualities (Connell & Messerschmitt,
2005; Stoudt, 2012). Physical aggression and strength may be favored “dynamics” of masculinity given a specific ethnographic moment (Connell, 2001). On the other hand, privileged ideals and identities are relational and subject to change (Connell, 1987). In fact, Connell and
Messerschmitt (2005) rejected the idea that hegemonic masculinity implies fixed character types or “an assemblage of toxic traits” (p. 854). Thus, presenting hegemonic masculinity as an assemblage of negative traits misreads the theory (Connell, 1995; Morrell, 1998; Toerien &
Durrheim, 2001; Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005; Messerschmidt, 2012; Jewkes et al., 2015).
Therefore, it is entirely possible for a man to enact hegemonic masculinity and behave in a socially acceptable manner while reinforcing gender inequality and perpetuating hegemony. In the end, men who are most successful in ascending social hierarchy can determine what behaviors are favored by society and engage in those behaviors (Connell, 1995).
The participants of this study enacted productive masculinity. Much like the men in
Harris and Harper’s (2014) study, the participants as members of Mensgroup challenged patriarchal norms that reinforced toxic behavior on their campus and promoted positive performances of masculinity. In addition, the participants as members of Mensgroup did not
213
prioritize homophobia, misogyny, or toxic dating habits. They consciously acted to challenge
toxic masculinity, sexism, and traditional masculine norms. The members of Mensgroup, like the
fraternity men in Harris and Harper’s study, sought substantive relationships with women on
campus and confronted male peers they observed engaging in toxic behavior.
Subsequently, the participants as members of Mensgroup also exemplify Anderson’s
(2011) conception of inclusive masculinity as they demonstrated “tolerance and acceptance of
homosexuality; they value emotional intimacy; and they engage in acts of physical tactility with
other men in order to shore-up homosocial bonds” (p.741). Anderson (2005) coined inclusive
masculinity to describe men who challenge orthodox or traditional masculine values to create a
masculine archetype that embodies inclusivity, contests homophobia, and resists misogynistic
discourse.
However, the participants of this study stopped short of challenging hegemony on their
campus. They, in fact, illustrated examples of their enacting hegemonic masculinity before
entering high school (childhood), as high school students (adolescent), while in college (college),
and as members of Mensgroup. For an individual to disrupt hegemonic masculinities and
actively reject being complicit in sustaining hegemony, that person must do the following: (1)
actively work to become aware of and understand their privilege and (2) intentionally engage in
actions that challenge inequality. This practice can also be understood as undoing
gender/masculinity.
Undoing Gender and Challenging Hegemony
Disrupting hegemonic masculinities involves an individual moving from being actively compliant, if not complicit, with social norms privileged by patriarchal power to challenging the legitimacy of hegemony with intentional action (Mackenzie et al., 2017). Men are often
214
influenced to perform their gender in a manner complicit in sustaining hegemonic masculinity to obtain patriarchal power and, because they were socialized to see this behavior as normal, these men are not always conscious of being motivated by hegemony (Robertson, 2007). For example,
a man will wear a suit to interview for a job because he believes the outfit to be appropriate for
the setting. However, his true motivations lie in the traits associated with a suit, such as
professionalism and competence. He, therefore, wears the suit because he wants those with whom he is interviewing with to see him as professional and competent, and he desires to be associated with those traits because he believes they will help him get the job. Performing his masculinity in this manner perpetuates hegemonic masculinity. It also re-enforces gender differences. The effects of his actions are not diminished by him being unaware of his motivations.
This example supports the notion that challenging hegemonic masculinity will involve intentional action. This intentional effort is considered a method of undoing gender. West and
Zimmerman (1987) originally presented the concept of doing gender arguing that gender must be continuously socially constructed in alignment with social norms. Butler (1990, 1993) presented a concept of doing gender but through a post-structuralist lens. The differences in these approaches, according to Kelan (2018), are that Butler’s “key concern is how the gender binary can be subverted through unusual and unexpected connections whereas for West and
Zimmerman the category of gender has to lose importance for gender to be undone” (p. 545).
Kelan’s research used a more recent conceptualization of doing gender which was presented by
Deutsch (2007). This conception entailed “doing gender as creating gender difference and
undoing gender as reducing gender difference” (Kelan, 2018, p. 548).
215
Bruce, Gregory, Indy, and John all expressed a sincere desire to affect positive change on their campus in relation to men’s violence. They created Mensgroup to do that. Mensgroup was a vehicle for educating themselves and their campus. It was also created to be a support system for men at Snowy State. However, the educational programming efforts by Mensgroup did not undo gender because those efforts did not reduce gender differences. As a result of the men in this study’s failure to address their privilege, they unintentionally reproduced many of the same gender hierarchies already in play at their universities.
Mackenzie et al. (2017) explained that disrupting hegemonic masculinities involves not only moving away from being actively compliant and/or complicit with social norms privileged by patriarchal power but challenging the legitimacy of hegemony through intentional action. The men of this study successfully moved from being actively compliant/complicit with some social norms privileged by patriarchal power. They challenged social norms associated with toxic masculinity as described by Kupers (2005). However, Connell (2001) stated that hegemonic masculinity has less to do with an adherence to a specific set of traits as it does an acknowledgement of and compliance with the most idealized personification of masculinity at that time.
The men in this study engaged in behavior that, while socially acceptable, inadvertently perpetuated gender hierarchies. They, as men, were still the ones educating their peers and they were still in positions of authority. Martin (2006) stated that gendered behaviors are embedded in workplace culture, considered normal, and exist as unintentional/non-reflexive practices.
Therefore, if those behaviors are not intentionally unlearned and challenged, they will be reproduced. The men in this study, while unintentionally, perpetuated hegemony and patriarchy.
216
Challenging Gender Inequality
Mkhize and Njawala (2016) argued that hegemonic masculinity is a tool for perpetuating patriarchal stereotypes and reinforcing gender inequality. Thus, disrupting hegemonic masculinity necessitates challenging gender inequality. Mkhize and Njawala (2016) noted that interventions designed to counter hegemony should focus on empowering women to embrace their personal agency, socializing boys to see women as their equals, and educational programming created to help men unlearn socialization supporting gender inequity (Mkhize &
Njawala, 2016).
The participants of this study described creating educational programming focused on challenging social norms associated with toxic behavior. Bruce stated that Mensgroup uses feminist ideals to actively combat toxic masculinity through educational programing and individual outreach, such as, Slut Walks, Gender Fairs, and topic talks. Gregory expressed disappointment with the educational programming offered by his institution as he felt it reinforced toxic behavior in men as the norm. He stated that Mensgroup would engage in initiatives to redress this issue. Although elements of the programs described by the participants address gender inequality, the participants did not present initiatives that centered on countering gender disparity; specifically, they did not present educational programs that focused on how patriarchy intentionally creates gender differences.
Kelan (2018) stated that “gender difference is reduced by men enacting practices either associated with women or practices that reduce gender unequal outcomes” (p. 554). For example,
Kelan (2018) explained that men can do gender by occupying space, undermining events that are designed to support women, and creating male dominated spaces by expansive gestures. In contrast, undoing gender may involve men sharing space equally, intentionally removing
217 themselves from spaces, and/or creating an environment where women can enter should they desire to do so (Kelan, 2018). In addition, men can undo gender by promoting and attending events designed to support women.
The men of this study, as members of Mensgroup, presented examples of them promoting and attending events designed to support women. Additionally, they described partnering with another social activist group designed for and by women. On the other hand, the participants, in their exuberance to be of service, often took up space and presented themselves as authorities to correct problems that they observed. Although this action, in of itself, is not problematic, that the participants described engaging in educational programs and outreach prior to obtaining a solid grasp of the topics they wished to correct is an issue.
Addressing and Understanding Privilege
According to Jewkes et al. (2015), “it is not enough to create more ‘gender equal men’, but gender binaries and gendered power hierarchies have to be deconstructed since their gender order is upheld by the constant differentiation between masculinity and femininity” (p. S120).
Stated plainly, men engaging in positive performances of masculinity that are designed to address gender inequality are not enough to challenge hegemony. Patriarchal privilege, as it maintains and is perpetuated by the illusion that hegemonic masculinity is natural, must be addressed in order to disrupt hegemony (Mkhize & Njawala, 2016). In addition, challenging hegemonic masculinity necessitates changes in societal norms (Jewkes et al., 2015).
Hegemonic masculinity privileges men who are White, middle to upper class, strong, stoic, aggressive, and heterosexual (Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 1990). Although many of these identities remain idealized throughout time, exemplars of masculinity can change in respect of the time period and the social context of that moment in time (Connell, 2001). So, while a
218
straight White male will consistently have access to patriarchal privilege because multiple
hegemonic masculinities can co-exist, it is possible for masculinities often subjugated to be
revered. According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005):
Hegemony may be accomplished by the incorporation of such masculinities into a
functioning gender order rather than by active oppression in the form of discredit or
violence. In practice, both incorporation and oppression can occur together. This is, for
instance, the contemporary position of gay masculinities in Western urban centers, where
gay communities have a spectrum of experience ranging from homophobic violence and
cultural denigration to toleration and even cultural celebration and political
representation. (p. 848)
The men of this study embodied some masculine identities that have continually been idealized throughout time and across social contexts. Bruce, Gregory, John, and Indy are straight White
heterosexual men and they are privileged because of these identities. In addition, these men
sought to be providers, heroes, and fixers. These roles, especially that of a hero, represent a
persuasive symbol of manhood and an idealized form of gendered performance that has endured
throughout time (Andersson, 2008). However, the manner in which the men of this study fulfill
the role of hero differ from historical perceptions.
The men of this study are not especially strong, stoic, or aggressive, which according to
Connell (1987) and Hearn and Morgan (1990), are also identities privileged in hegemonic
masculinity. They do not use these attributes to be heroic. However, they are intelligent and
assertive. Connell (2001) stated that exemplars of masculinity can change in respect of the ethnographic moment, or the time period and the social context in question. Thus, the men of this
study enacted masculinity centered in heroism by using their intellect and assertiveness to
219 undermine toxic masculine norms on their campus. Therefore, masculine identities that were once idealized may change in the future. Thus, the men of this study sought to fulfill the role of hero using their intellect and assertiveness to undermine toxic masculine norms on their campus.
McIntosh (1988) explained that privilege is a set of unearned benefits dispensed to powerful social groups within systems of oppression and noted that individuals who hold privileged identities are often unaware of their advantages. Mkhize and Njawala (2016), in a similar manner, noted that men engage hegemonic masculinity subconsciously because they consider their actions to be normal. Connell (1987, 2001) and Johnson (2010) suggested a link between White and male privilege asserting that these social identities that are favored by systems of oppression work in concert to perpetuate privilege and power. Harris and Harper
(2014) supported this notion stating that men who are “White, heterosexual, able-bodied,
Christian, and middle or upper class can enact male privilege more easily than can men of color, gay or bisexual, physically disabled, religious minority, and low-income men” (p. 706). Effective intervention measures must make privilege visible as well as promote ally behavior among those who are privileged (Case et al., 2012).
The men in this study engaged in numerous activities designed to address gender inequality. They sought to educate themselves and their peers on the adverse effects of toxic masculinity and they challenged social norms that promoted toxic behavior in college men. The men in this study also engaged in positive performances of masculinity, or productive masculinity, as described by Harris and Harper (2014). In addition, the men in this study exemplified inclusive masculinity as described by Anderson (2011).
However, the men in this study, in concert with Mensgroup, like the men discussed in studies by Harris and Harper (2014) and Anderson (2011), never showed an awareness of their
220
privilege nor did they attempt to understand how their privilege affected their behavior. The participants of this study were four straight, White, cisgender men. They, as members of
Mensgroup, sought to do “good” work on their campus. However, to quote language from Harris
and Harper (2014), I “did not observe a keen awareness of the privilege that accompanied their
salient identities. Nor did [I] see a link between the participants’ actions as good guys and an
effort to unlearn privilege” (p. 718).
Therefore, regardless of their positive efforts, the men in this study did not disrupt
hegemonic masculinity or challenge hegemony supported by patriarchy. In fact, they showed no
evidence of their being cognizant of how their privilege affected their lives. They became, and
remained, involved in Mensgroup to redefine cultural narratives that they believed perpetuated
toxic masculinity. They, to use John’s words, “were motivated to create a “healthier campus” and
to make society more equitable. Bruce declared that this goal gave him a “reason to live” and
associated the mission with his masculine identity. They, like the men in Harris and Harper’s
(2014) study found it important to be “good men themselves” and they took responsibility to
help others be the best they could be (p. 712). Like the men in Anderson’s (2011) study, they
“value a broader range of gendered behaviour” than traditionally associated with college men
(p.740).
Addressing and Understanding Hegemonic Masculinity
“Hegemonic masculinity is not only about masculine qualities, it is also about power and
privilege; the systemic advantages and opportunities given to men (particularly wealthy, White,
American, straight men) at the expense of women and other marginalized men” (Stoudt, 2012, p.
29). Hegemonic masculinity does not privilege a fixed set of traits or a concrete assemblage of
characteristics. One attempting to ascend social hierarchy need only to determine what traits and
221 characteristics are currently idealized and mimic them (Connell & Messershmidt, 2005). The men in this study exhibit behavior that does not align with traditional or conventional masculine roles. They are not intolerant or misogynistic. They are intrinsically and extrinsically motivated and feel an obligation to do good work. John, for example, joined Mensgroup to create a
“healthier campus” and assume a providing role: “whether it's you're providing for family or providing for other people. I think we're just in this world to give to each other what we have.”
Members of Mensgroup, as John noted, are the “good guys” and because of this they perceived themselves to be admired and respected on their campus.
In addition, the men of this study and Mensgroup by extension, are intrinsically motivated to do good work. Consider Bruce’s comments on why he works with Mensgroup to improve the world: “[It’s] personally rewarding and it rewards the community, and it rewards you to know that you rewarded the community. So, yeah, I would say it's my reason to live. It's kind of a part of that masculinity that stays with me - that need to feel needed.” They see themselves as heroes, fighting the good fight and trying to make the world a better place. Heroes, a persuasive symbol of manhood throughout time, represent an idealized form of gendered performance (Andersson, 2008). They have just traded aggression for assertiveness and physical strength for strength of character. They are righteous and just.
Wetherell and Edley (1999) found evidence that men are abandoning “macho masculinity” to act in socially acceptable, and often inclusive, ways. These researchers reiterate that hegemonic masculinity entails conforming to social norms and suggest that models of masculinity are evolving to represent rebellious positions; such as, “authoritativeness, rationality and independence” (p. 350).
222
Perhaps what is most hegemonic is to be nonhegemonic!—an independent man who
knows his own mind and who can ‘see through’ social expectations. What seems to be
happening here is that the realm of hegemonic masculinity cannot be sealed off from
other hegemonic ways of being a person in western societies, such as demonstrating
individuality and autonomy from social forces. (Wetherell & Edley, 1999, p. 351)
This quotation speaks to the resiliency of hegemony and men being able to access patriarchal power via multiple behavioral sets. Men can employ violence and secure a dominating status over women and subjugated masculinities (Messner, 1994). If becoming violent, threatening violence, or exuding the capacity to be violent can offer men a way of validating their masculinities and accessing patriarchal power, then some men will engage in these behaviors
(Andersson, 2008). On the other hand, men can also engage in positive behavior such as sustaining a healthy sexual relationship or being a father and enact hegemonic masculinity
(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). In addition, men can be complicit with hegemonic masculinity, opting against challenging social norms while enjoying the patriarchal power allotted to them for simply existing as a representative of a privileged identity (Mackenzie et al.,
2017). However, men can also show themselves to be independent, flaunt their individuality, and continue enacting hegemonic masculinity (Wetherell & Edley, 1999).
Connell (1995) used protest masculinity to describe individuals who contest the most current hegemonic articulations of masculinity. However, Connell noted that there is a possibility of numerous forms of masculinity co-existing and that those choosing to challenge one notion of the masculine ideal (protest masculinity) often remain tied to hegemony in their alliance with other masculine scripts, specifically autonomy and independence. Stated plainly, the participants
223
of this study engaged in socially acceptable behaviors, challenged the normalizing of toxic
masculinity, and still engaged in hegemonic masculinity.
Summary
In closing, this study confirms Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005) perspective that
hegemonic masculinity is less about a list of toxic behaviors and more to do with ascendancy of
social hierarchy “achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasion” (p. 832). The study also
confirmed Connell’s (2005) perspective that men can enact hegemonic masculinity via socially
acceptable behaviors.
This study contradicted some aspects of Harris and Harper’s (2014) study where men’s
challenging of patriarchal norms, promoting, and engaging in positive performances of
masculinity was equated with disrupting hegemonic masculinity. In the same manner, this study
contradicted some aspects of Anderson’s (2011) study where men’s enactment of inclusive masculinity was equated with disrupting hegemonic masculinity. The participants of this study, like the men who participated in Anderson’s (2011) and Harris and Harper’s (2014) study, engaged in inclusive and productive forms of masculinity that stopped short of challenging hegemony on their campus.
And, lastly, this study extends Connell’s (1995) perspective that hegemony is resilient and when conditions are created that seek to delegitimize patriarchy, a new form of hegemony is created. The men of this study were successful in challenging negative social norms that reinforced toxic behavior on their campuses. On the other hand, they did not actively work to become aware of and understand their privilege in relation to systems of oppression; namely patriarchy, and they did not intentionally engage in actions that challenge inequality. They, therefore, enacted hegemonic masculinity.
224
Implications for Future Research
This study presents important implications for future research. The first opportunity is associated with sampling. Future researchers should conduct studies with more diverse samples of college men. Maximum variation sampling would be an effective way of achieving diversity in sampling. My participants were all White men, straight, cis, and able bodied. Each of these is
a privileged identity. In addition, they were “traditional” college students in that they were all
between 18 to 25 years of age. Studying men who choose to challenge toxic masculinity and
social norms that perpetuate male misbehavior is important. These studies can help expand our
understanding of productive masculinity and present a model for promoting inclusive
masculinity. However, this study, like the majority of those focused on productive performances
of masculinity, was conducted with men from various privileged identities. Because most of the
research has primarily focused on these populations, the findings and implications of these
studies may not be applicable to all men.
Future research could also reproduce this study using a cross gender sample consisting of
individuals who are not cis-gender. I believe there is value in including transmen and gender
queer individuals in a study about men and masculinity. The voices of these men have been
systematically silenced, and these individuals have been marginalized in discussions about
masculinity.
This study did not include transmen and gender queer individuals because I do not
possess the knowledge to do so effectively. Thus, I intentionally positioned transmen and gender
queer individuals beyond the scope of this study to avoid an inadequate portrayal of their
narratives. This study should be replicated and reframed in a manner that considers the differing
perspectives, experiences, and socialization these individuals embody There is current work that
225
engages the multiple ways that trans men come to understand and enact their masculinity
(Catalano, 2017) that could be a guide for this future research.
The second opportunity addresses transferability. I could have utilized intentional
sampling methods to ensure diversity in the participants. A sample consisting of individuals from different racial background, sexual orientations, and/or socio-economic status would have improved transferability, or after observing the homogeneous sample population of this study, I could have expanded the sample population to intentionally include participants representing varying backgrounds. Doing so would have increased the amount of rich data available to the
reader and, as a result, increased the potential for a reader to find meaning in the findings.
Third, Mackenzie et al. (2017) conducted a study examining hegemonic masculinity in
the context of complicit and counter masculine discourse. Although their participants were not
racially diverse as they were all White men, their study is unique as the men’s mean age was 70
years of age. There is value in reproducing this study with non-traditional college students
including individuals older than 25, graduate students, and veterans.
Lastly, Connell (2001) noted that hegemonic masculinity is successfully enacted by
individuals who consider masculine exemplars (archetypes) in relation to the current
ethnographic moment, specifically a society’s conception of the masculine ideal is dependent on factors such as geographic region, time period, and other dynamics. This suggests that masculine identities that are privileged in the United States of America may not be revered in mainland
China. Thus, future research could reproduce this study in a non-Western society. Mkhize and
Njawala’s (2016) as well as Connell’s (2016) research illuminates the effects of hegemonic masculinity on a global perspective and offers insight that grants a broader understanding of the
226 topic. Future studies should continue this trend and analyze hegemony in local, societal, and global perspectives.
Implications for Practice
This study presents important implications for practice in interventions offered by higher education institutions and student affairs administrators. First, institutions focused on addressing toxic behavior or social norms that reinforce toxic behavior should take care in the way those interventions are presented. Gregory spoke of his attending educational programming as a first- year student at Snowy State and described how the initiative left him with the impression that toxic behavior was extremely prevalent on his campus. His description of the event suggested that the goal of those presenting was to decrease the prevalence of toxic social norms on campus.
Gregory later concluded, through prolonged personal interactions with other students, that most of his peers, and college men, do not engage in excessive drinking, drug use, and violence. In this case, the intervention presented by the staff at Snowy State had an unintended effect in that it normalized toxic behavior.
Interventions offered by postsecondary institutions should be designed in alignment with recent empirical data on the topic and implemented by individuals (faculty and/or staff) who are intentionally trained (Laker, 2009). This study illustrated the importance of interventions focused on masculinity that are intentionally designed by knowledgeable facilitators. These participants shared stories of the adverse impact of programming presented by those who did not have current understandings of masculinity. Gregory explained that he helped create Mensgroup because he believed the educational programming presented by the university reinforced toxic behavior. Laker (2019) cautioned individuals (faculty and/or staff) attempting to create education
227 initiative against reinforcing negative social behavior, such as toxic masculinity, and provided ways of reducing a likelihood of this happening.
Edwards, Foste, and Taylor (2019) suggest two considerations for building campus coalitions that are supported in my findings and relevant to future practice. First, the researchers call for individuals focused on designing interventions to consider their social identities and avoid creating approaches that are void of critical reflexivity. Reflexivity calls for one to consider one’s lens, one’s personal perceptions of a thing, and how those perceptions color one’s actions, when creating interventions or engaging in research (Bourdieu, 2004). Stated plainly, those who intend to develop interventions to address toxic masculinity should first consider their perceptions of the phenomena and how those beliefs show up in their interventions. The beliefs of those who presented programming at Snowy State may have affected how they presented their interventions and, in the case of Gregory, led to toxic behavior being perceived as normal.
Secondly, Edwards, Foste, and Taylor (2019) suggest employing systematic accountability when creating programming or interventions centered on issues involving men and masculinity. “Systematic accountability is about moving beyond openness to feedback. It is about setting up systems that provide input about how you are doing whether or not you are seeking it, open to it, or want it” (Edwards, Foste, & Taylor, 2019, p. 70).
There is a distinct difference between men engaging in productive or inclusive forms of masculinity and men engaging in behavior that challenges hegemonic power structures. While both behavioral sets should be welcomed as they encompass men adopting inclusive and productive masculinities, student affairs administrators should note the capacity for men enacting these masculinities to reinforce systems of oppression. In addition, men enacting inclusive and productive masculinities who also engage in behavior that perpetuates patriarchal power
228 structures should be confronted. Systematic accountability is a necessary means for these men to examine their social privilege and how the work they are engaged in resonates with the communities impacted. It is a means of confronting individuals who, intentionally or unintentionally, reinforce systems of oppression or engage in behavior that perpetuates patriarchal power structures.
Systematic accountability can be initiated by being critical of how decisions are made within these organizations, and through examining who is making decisions. In addition, systematic accountability can be introduced by examining the membership of an organization; who is represented and who is not. Mensgroup is an organization that consists of individuals who identify as men, women, and members of the transgender community. In addition, Mensgroup has partnered with other campus organizations whose membership primarily consisted of women. However, straight, White, cis-gender men lead Mensgroup and represent most active members. These individuals are socially privileged. Despite being committed to, or actively engaged in, doing good work, social privilege can leave many unaware of “the ways privilege and oppression function” (Edwards, Foste, & Taylor, 2019, p. 70).
Edwards, Foste, and Taylor (2019) stated that those doing work on men and masculinities; establishing programs and launching initiatives, must build in systems to be held accountable and specifically accountable to the “leadership of women and transgender people”
(p. 71). I agree with this stance and believe Mensgroup would benefit from systematic accountability. I would add, and Edwards, Foste, and Taylor also caution, that women and transgender people should not be sought to police the unintentionally or unlearned behavior of men. I suggest systematic accountability through partnerships with individuals who can offer differing perceptions on the effect of initiatives.
229
When attempting to recruit men for a group like Mensgroup, Smith et al. (2019)
suggested collaborating with cultural organizations and fraternities, partnering with academic
departments and/or disciplines, and incorporating new programs or initiatives into first-year experience programs. Mensgroup was able to recruit new members by partnering with residential staff, holding their meetings within residence halls for improved visibility, collaborating with other cultural organizations, and producing educational programs to draw in likeminded individuals. Initiatives like Mensgroup often find difficulty recruiting new members. Capraro
(2004) stated that making programs and initiatives like Mensgroup mandatory is one of the best ways of ensuring their success. Regardless of the recruitment strategy, I recommend utilizing robust and varying methods to whomever (students, faculty, staff, or administrators) is interested in increasing the likelihood of participation in programs like Mensgroup.
Lastly, Berkowitz (2004, 2005) suggested the utility of social norming theory in creating interventions to counteract toxic social norms on college campuses. The application of this theory is well supported (Harris & Harper, 2014). This research illustrates the usefulness of challenging false consciousness and pluralistic ignorance among college men. According to
Laker (2009), student affairs administrators, in creating interventions to address toxic masculinity and men’s violence, should focus on challenging problematic masculine scripts and should also work to create opportunities for men to adopt more inclusive forms of masculinity.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to listen to the stories of college men involved in anti- violence initiatives. The initiative in the case of this study is Mensgroup. Through their narratives, four participants illustrated how they initially came to define masculinity and how their definitions of masculinity were affected by participating in this organization. Their stories
230
showed that each participant initially learned to define their masculinity through acts of
aggression, such as engaging in physical violence, displaying the capacity for violence, using
intimidation, and/or exhibiting symbolic violence in sport. Their stories also emphasized the role
of gender and gender role socialization in communicating nuanced messages of discourse and
how that discourse informed the social norms that guided how they enacted hegemonic
masculinity. The participants described attempting to contort themselves to mimic these
exemplars, which often personified masculinity through conventional/traditional/ “macho”
ideals.
Although the participants were still drawn to traditional notions of masculinity as
adolescents, they began exhibiting identities that were more inclusive and productive while in high school. Yet one, Indy, adopted a toxic display of masculinity in the form of excessive weight
lifting. The role of discourse and masculine exemplars was pronounced in each of these cases.
Each of the participants became involved with Mensgroup while in college. It was here
that their masculine identities matured to personify inclusivity and productivity. Mensgroup served as an emotional support group for the men, it allowed them a means to redefine false cultural narratives in media, and it provided them with a safe space to challenge dominant gender discourse. Although each participant engaged in positive performances of masculinity and worked to create campus cultures that were more inclusive of all masculine identities, they continued to enact hegemonic masculinity. The most prominent reasons for this lie in the fact the participants did not center their initiatives on redressing gender inequality and that the participants failed to consider how their privileged identities reinforced patriarchal norms.
This, in my opinion, is why the goal of undoing gender is important when creating programs like Mensgroup. If the program or initiative in question is solely focused on addressing
231
toxic masculinity then success can be achieved in numerous ways. Berkowitz (2005), for
example, suggested that challenging pluralist ignorance can be effective in responding to
undesired social norms. This can be done through an advertising campaign designed to correct the skewed perspectives of students who believe problematic behavior is more prevalent than it is. Diminishing the prevalence and effect of toxic masculinity by challenging negative gender norms is admirable and effective in creating positive change on college campuses. However, if the goal of the program or initiative is undoing gender; described by Deutch (2017) as disrupting social hierarchies created by systems of oppression like patriarchy, then more intentional action must be taken.
The findings of this study confirm the utility of supporting inclusive and productive masculinities as these individuals positively affect toxic social norms by challenging false consciousness and pluralistic ignorance among college men. These findings reiterate the importance of rejecting articulations of hegemonic masculinity that convey an essentialist relationship between fixed characteristics and hegemonic masculinity or toxic behavior and hegemonic masculinity. In addition, these findings contradict the notions that men performing positive or productive masculinity are, due to these actions, opposing hegemony or undoing gender. How can an individual defy a system of oppression and all the privileges it bestows without considering their place in that system and how their behaviors reinforce social hierarchy?
Straight, White, cis-gender men do not own masculinity. Future studies should extend our understanding of masculinity to be truly inclusive and productive. In doing so, we can intentionally grapple with undoing gender.
232
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and
acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape
proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111–125.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
Abreu, J. M., Goodyear, R. K., Campos, A., & Newcomb, M. D. (2000). Ethnic belonging and
traditional masculinity ideology among African Americans, European Americans, and
Latinos. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1037//1524-
9220.1.2.75
Adams, A., Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2010). Establishing and challenging masculinity:
the influence of gendered discourses in organized sport. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 29(3), 278–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10368833
Adams, M., & Coltrane, S. (2005). Boys and men in families: The domestic production of
gender, power, and privilege. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. Connell (Eds.), Handbook
of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 230-248). Sage Publications.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452233833.n14
Anderson, E. (2005). In the game: Gay athletes and the cult of masculinity. State University of
New York Press. http://dx.doi.org/978-0791465349
Anderson, E. (2011). Masculinities and sexualities in sport and physical cultures: Three decades
of evolving research. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 565–578.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.563652
Anderson, E., & Kian, E. M. (2012). Examining media contestation of masculinity and head
trauma in the national football league. Men and Masculinities, 15(2), 152–173.
233
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X11430127
Anderson, E., & McGuire, R. (2010). Inclusive masculinity theory and the gendered politics of
men’s rugby. Journal of Gender Studies, 19(3), 249–261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2010.494341
Anderson, E. (2011). Inclusive masculinities of university soccer players in the American
Midwest. Gender & Education, 23(6), 729–744.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.528377
Andersson, K. (2008). Constructing young masculinity: A case study of heroic discourse on
violence. Discourse & Society, 19(2), 139–161.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507085949
Arum, R. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority. Harvard University
Press. https://doi.org/978-0674018143
Arxer, S. L. (2011). Hybrid masculine power: Reconceptualizing the relationship between
homosociality and hegemonic masculinity. Humanity & Society, 35(4), 390–422.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016059761103500404
Association of American Universities (AAU). (2015). AAU Climate Survey on Sexual Assault
and Sexual Misconduct. https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/aau-climate-survey-sexual-
assault-and-sexual-misconduct-2015
Aultman, B. (2014). Cisgender. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2), 61–62.
https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2399614
Aviles, G. (2020, February 25). Bill Cosby’s publicist calls Weinstein verdict a “sad day” for
judicial system. Culture Matters. https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-
news/bill-cosby-s-publicist-calls-weinstein-verdict-sad-day-judicial-n1142451
234
Baker, M. (2020, February 18). Boy Scouts Seek Bankruptcy to Survive a Deluge of Sex-Abuse
Claims. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/boy-scouts-
bankruptcy-sex-abuse.html
Bartholomaeus, C. (2012). ‘I’m not allowed wrestling stuff’: Hegemonic masculinity and
primary school boys. Journal of Sociology, 48(3), 227–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783311413484
Beasley, C. (2008). Rethinking hegemonic masculinity in a globalizing world. Men and
Masculinities, 11(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X08315102
Benshoff, L. (2019, May 30). Survivors Of Sexual Abuse By Nuns Want Greater Visibility For
Their Accusations. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/30/722119046/survivors-of-
sexual-abuse-by-nuns-want-greater-visibility-for-their-claims
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated
bibliography. Alanberkowitz.com.
http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf
Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C. Lederman & L.
Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health
communication campaign. Hampton Press.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpjaAAAAMAAJ
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Otto Schartz & Co
Bourdieu, P. (1986b). Distinction (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/978-0415567886
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity (R. Nice, Trans.). University of Chicago
Press. https://doi.org/978-0226067384
235
Bridges, T. (2014). A very “gay” straight?: Hybrid masculinities, sexual aesthetics, and the
changing relationship between masculinity and homophobia. Gender & Society, 28(1),
58–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503901
Broido, E. M., & Manning, K. (2002). Philosophical foundations and current theoretical
perspectives in qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 434-
454.
Butler, J. (1982, Dec 04). Politics, pleasure, pain: The controversy continues; diary of a
conference on sexuality. Gay Community News.10(1).
https://nmu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.nmu.idm.oclc.org/docview/199305328?accountid=2745
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and
feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. Routledge. https://doi.org/978-0415969239
Cahill, S. E. (1986). Language practices and self definition: The case of gender identity
acquisition. The Sociological Quarterly, 27(3), 295–311.
Capraro, R. L. (2000). Why college men drink: Alcohol, adventure, and the paradox of
masculinity. Journal of American College Health, 48(6), 307–315.
http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/07448480009596272
Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural
encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 167–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750701737090
Carbaugh, D., & van Over, B. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics and cultural discourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 58, 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.013
236
Catalano, D. C. J. (2017). Resisting coherence: Trans men’s experiences and the use of grounded
theory methods. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(3), 234–
244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1254301
Catalano, D. C. J., Wagner, R., & Davis, T. (2018). Approaching masculinities through a gender-
aware practice framework. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(164), 11–17.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20279
Chase, S. E. (2003). Learning to listen: Narrative principles in a qualitative research methods
course. In R. Josselson, A. Lieblich, & D. P. McAdams (Eds.), The narrative study of
lives. Up close and personal: The teaching and learning of narrative research (p. 79–99).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10486-005
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender equity. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/9780195119091
Coltrane, S. (1997). Families and gender equity. National Forum, 77(2), 31-34.
Connell, R. (2016). Masculinities in global perspective: Hegemony, contestation, and changing
structures of power. Theory and Society, 45(4), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-
016-9275-x
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics (1st ed.).
Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10978-0804714303
Connell, R. W. (1993). The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history. Theory and
Society, 22(5), 597–623. www.jstor.org/stable/657986
Connell, R. W. (2001). Understanding men: Gender sociology and the new international research
237
on masculinities. Social Thought & Research, 24(1/2), 13–31.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23250072
Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality
in the global arena. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1801–1825.
https://doi.org/10.1086/427525
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the
concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being:
A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–
1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1
Courtenay, W. H. (2011a). Dying to be men: Psychosocial, environmental, and biobehavioral
directions in promoting the health of men and boys. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
https://images.routledge.com/common/jackets/originals/978041587/9780415878760.tif
Courtenay, W. H. (2011b). Best practices for improving college men’s health: Designing
effective programs and services for college men. In J. A. Laker & T. Davis (Eds.),
Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations (pp. 177–
192). Routledge.
https://images.routledge.com/common/jackets/originals/978041587/9780415874649.tif
Cowburn, M. (2005). Hegemony and discourse: Reconstructing the male sex offender and sexual
coercion by men. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7(3), 215–231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660500231665
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
238
approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v
052/52.4.cullaty.html
Currier, D. M. (2013). Strategic ambiguity: Protecting emphasized femininity and hegemonic
masculinity in the hookup culture. Gender & Society, 27(5), 704–727.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213493960
David-Ferdon C. & Simon T.R. (2014). Preventing Youth Violence: Opportunities for Action.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/pdf/opportunities-
for-action.pdf
Davids, C. M., Watson, L. B., & Gere, M. P. (2019). Objectification, masculinity, and
muscularity: A test of objectification theory with heterosexual men. Sex Roles, 80(7–8),
443–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0940-6
Davis, T. (2000). Programming for men to reduce sexual violence. New Directions for Student
Services, 2000(90), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.9007
Davis, T. L. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men’s
identity. Journal of College Student Development,43(4), 508-521.
Davis, T. L., LaPrad, J., & Dixon, S. (2011). Masculinities reviewed and reinterpreted: Using a
critical approach to working with men in groups. In J. A. Laker & T. Davis (Eds.),
Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations (pp. 147–
160). Routledge. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nmich/detail.action?docID=684066
Davis, T., & Moody, B. (2018). Practices for promoting mindful masculinities. New Directions
for Student Services, 2018(164), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20287
239
Davis, T., Sewalish, C., & Thomas, A. (2006). Exploring the constructions of masculine
identities among St. Lucian men. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(3), 292–310.
https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1403.292 de Visser, R. O., & McDonnell, E. J. (2013). “Man points”: Masculine capital and young men’s
health. Health Psychology, 32(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029045
Dean, J. J. (2013). Heterosexual masculinities, anti-homophobias, and shifts in hegemonic
masculinity: The identity practices of black and white heterosexual men. The
Sociological Quarterly, 54(4), 534–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12036
DeKeseredy, W. & Schwartz, M. (2005). Masculinities and interpersonal violence. In M. S.
Kimmel, J. Hearn & R. W. Connell (Eds.). Handbook of studies on men &
masculinities (pp. 353-366). SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452233833.n20
Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and
Society, 30(3), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017596718715
Demont, P. (1981). Review of symposium, Plato [Review of Review of Symposium, Plato, by
Plato & K. Dover]. Revue Des Études Grecques, 94(445/446), 257–258.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
SAGE.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th
ed). SAGE.
Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender and Society, 21(1), 106–127. https://doi-
org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0891243206293577
Dover, K. J. (1974). Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle. University of
California Press.
240
Dover, K. J. (1989). Greek homosexuality. Harvard University Press.
Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R.
Castronovo & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy (pp. 175–194). Duke
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822383901-007
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine
identities. Discourse & Society, 8(2), 203–217. https://doi-
org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0957926597008002004
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (2014). Roles, roots, and rifts: A rejoinder to Mahalik, Silverstein,
and Hammond. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 375–376.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038008
Edwards, K. (2012, October 10). Man in a box. https://www.keithedwards.com/2012/10/10/man-
in-a-box-the-traditional-hegemonic-definition-of-masculinity/
Elbagir, N., Arvanitidis, B., Polglase, K., Jones, B., & Platt, A. (2019). Pedophile priests
operated at a California school for decades. In-Depth Report.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/us/salesians-of-don-bosco-intl/
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp.
645–672). SAGE.
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/2591329/mod_resource/content/0/Fontana%20
%20Frey%20%282000%29%20The%20Interview%20struct%20questions%20negotiated
%20text.pdf
241
Foste, Z., & Davis, T. L. (2018). “Am I doing this right?”: A qualitative exploration of how
college men make meaning of gendered expectations. Men and Masculinities, 21(5),
583–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17696188
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–
512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Goff, P. A., Di Leone, B. A. L., & Kahn, K. B. (2012). Racism leads to pushups: How racial
discrimination threatens subordinate men’s masculinity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48(5), 1111–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.015
Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3),
473–502. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1956.58.3.02a00070
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. Macmillan International Higher Education.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452206905.n308
Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., O’Neil, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., DeBord, K. A.,
Bartels, K. M., & Braverman, D. G. (1997). “Male gender role conflict: Psychometric
issues and relations to psychological distress:” Correction to Good et al. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 44(4), 432-432.
http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-0167.44.4.432
Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., O’Neil, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., DeBord, K. A.,
Bartels, K. M., & Braverman, D. G. (1995). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric
issues and relations to psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1),
3–10. http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.1.3
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. ElecBook.
242
Harper, S. R. (2004). The measure of a man: Conceptualizations of masculinity among high-
achieving African American male college students. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 48,
89–107.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41035594.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acf01749f350eaea9
14532c60e5f7de9d
Harper, S. R., Harris, F., & Mmeje, K. (K. C.). (2005). A theoretical model to explain the
overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for
campus administrators. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42(4).
https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1541
Harris, F., & Harper, S. R. (2008). Masculinities go to community college: Understanding male
identity socialization and gender role conflict. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2008(142), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.322
Harris, F., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: Productive performances of
masculinities among college fraternity men. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 27(6), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.901577
Harris, F., & Struve, L. E. (2009). Gents, jerks, and jocks: What male students learn about
masculinity in college. About Campus, 14(3), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.289
Hearn, J. (2012). A multi-faceted power analysis of men’s violence to known women: From
hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. The Sociological Review, 60(4), 589–
610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02125.x
Hey, V. (2006). The politics of performative resignification: Translating Judith Butler’s
theoretical discourse and its potential for a sociology of education. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 27(4), 439–457.
243
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30036155.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Adb40f73bed8478f
3c5cf710b71bd0ea6
Holter, Ø. G. (2004). Social theories for researching men and masculinities: Direct gender
hierarchy and structural inequality. In M. S. Kimmel, J. R. Hearn, & R. W. Connell
(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (1st ed., pp. 15–34). SAGE.
Jackson, L. (2000). The rights and the rites of youth: Fraternity and riot at eighteenth-century
Harvard. In R. L. Geiger (Ed.), The American college in the nineteenth century (1st ed.,
pp. 46–80). Vanderbilt University Press.
Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G., Quayle, M.,
Sikweyiya, Y., & Gottzén, L. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and
practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(sup2), 96–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094
Jhally, S., Ericsson, S., Talreja, S., Katz, J., Earp, J., & Media Education Foundation. (2002).
Tough guise: Violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity. Media Education
Foundation.
Johnson, A. G. (2017). Privilege, power, and difference (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2007). Violence against women: An international
perspective. Springer.
Josselson, R., Lieblich, A., & Mcadams, D. (Eds.). (2003). Up close and personal: The teaching
and learning of narrative research. The narrative study of lives. American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10486-000
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Queen, B., Lowry, R.,
Chyen, D., Whittle, L., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Bradford, D., Yamakawa, Y., Leon, M.,
244
Brener, N., & Ethier, K. A. (2018). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States,
2017. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 67(8), 1–114.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1
Katz, J. (Creator & Writer), Earp, J. (Writer, Director & Producer), & Jhally, S. (Executive
Producer) (2014). Tough guise 2: Violence, manhood & American culture. Media
Education Foundation.
Kaufman, M. (2013). The seven P’s of men’s violence. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner
(Eds.), Men’s lives (9th ed., pp. 543–547). Pearson.
Kelan, E. K. (2018). Men doing and undoing gender at work: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 544–558.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12146
Kimmel, M. S. (1993). Invisible masculinity. Society, 30(6), 28–35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02700272
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction
of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of
gender (pp. 223–242). Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Kimmel, M. S., & Aronson, A. (Eds.). (2004). Men and masculinities: A social, cultural, and
historical encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO.
Kimmel, M. S., & Davis, T. (2011). Mapping Guyland in college. In J. A. Laker & T. Davis
(Eds.), Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations (pp.
3–15). Routledge.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nmich/detail.action?docID=684066
Kimmel, M. S., Hearn, J., & Connell, R. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of studies on men &
245
masculinities. Sage Publications.
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence:
Random school shootings, 1982-2001. The American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–
1458. http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0002764203046010010
Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (Eds.). (2013). Men’s lives (9th ed). Pearson.
LaBrie, J., Earleywine, M., Schiffman, J., Pedersen, E., & Marriot, C. (2005). Effects of alcohol,
expectancies, and partner type on condom use in college males: Event-level analyses. The
Journal of Sex Research, 42(3), 259–266. JSTOR.
Laker, J. A., & Davis, T. (2011). Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Routledge.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nmich/detail.action?docID=684066
Leone, R. M., & Parrott, D. J. (2019). Misogynistic peers, masculinity, and bystander
intervention for sexual aggression: Is it really just “locker-room talk?” Aggressive
Behavior, 45(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21795
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 27(3), 259–265. http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0735-
7028.27.3.259
Levant, R. F., Stefanov, D. G., Rankin, T. J., Halter, M. J., Mellinger, C., & Williams, C. M.
(2013). Moderated path analysis of the relationships between masculinity and men’s
attitudes toward seeking psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3),
392–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033014
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Lomas, T., Cartwright, T., Edginton, T., & Ridge, D. (2016). New ways of being a man:
246
“Positive” hegemonic masculinity in meditation-based communities of practice. Men and
Masculinities, 19(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15578531
Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 755–765.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.755
Mackenzie, C. S., Roger, K., Robertson, S., Oliffe, J. L., Nurmi, M. A., & Urquhart, J. (2017).
Counter and complicit masculine discourse among men’s shed members. American
Journal of Men’s Health, 11(4), 1224–1236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988316685618
Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role conflict in men as a predictor of self-ratings of behavior on
the interpersonal circle. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(2), 276–292.
http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.2.276
Mahalik, J. R., Good, G. E., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting
concerns, and help seeking: Implications for practice and training. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-
7028.34.2.123
Mahalik, J. R., Levine Coley, R., McPherran Lombardi, C., Doyle Lynch, A., Markowitz, A. J.,
& Jaffee, S. R. (2013). Changes in health risk behaviors for males and females from early
adolescence through early adulthood. Health Psychology, 32(6), 685–694.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031658
Majors, R., & Billson, J. M. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America.
Lexington Books.
Malebranche, D. J., Fields, E. L., Bryant, L. O., & Harper, S. R. (2009). Masculine socialization
and sexual risk behaviors among Black men who have sex with men: A qualitative
exploration. Men and Masculinities, 12(1), 90–112.
247
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X07309504
Martin, B., & Harris, F. (2006). Examining productive conceptions of masculinities: Lessons
learned from academically driven African American male student-athletes. The Journal
of Men’s Studies, 14(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1403.359
Martin, P. Y. (2001). Mobilizing masculinities: Women’s experiences of men at organization.
SAGE Social Science Collections. 8(4), 587–618. https://doi-
org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/135050840184003
McConnell-Ginet, S. (2014). Meaning-making and ideologies of gender and sexuality. In S.
Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and
sexuality (pp. 316–334). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch16
McHoul, A. W., & Grace, W. (1997). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject.
New York University Press.
Mellinger, C., & Levant, R. F. (2014). Moderators of the relationship between masculinity and
sexual prejudice in men: Friendship, gender self-esteem, same-sex attraction, and
religious fundamentalism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 519–530.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0220-z
Merritt, R. D., & Harrison, T. W. (2006). Gender and ethnicity attributions to a gender- and
ethnicity-unspecified individual: Is there a people = white male bias? Sex Roles, 54(11–
12), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9046-7
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2000). Nine lives: Adolescent masculinities, the body, and violence.
Westview Press.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2012). Engendering gendered knowledge: Assessing the academic
248
appropriation of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 56–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X11428384
Messner, M. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men, and sports. University of Minnesota Press.
Messner, M. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Beacon Press.
Messner, M. (1998). The limits of “the male sex role”: An analysis of the men’s liberation and
men’s rights movements’ discourse. Gender and Society, 12(3), 255–276. JSTOR.
Morrell, R., Jewkes, R., & Lindegger, G. (2012). Hegemonic masculinity/masculinities in South
Africa: Culture, power, and gender politics. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 11–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X12438001
O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in
men’s lives. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-
4918.1981.tb00282.x
O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Complexity, contextualism, and multiculturalism: Responses to the
critiques and future directions for the gender role conflict research program. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008314781
O’Neil, J. M. (2013). Gender role conflict research 30 years later: An evidence-based diagnostic
schema to assess boys and men in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development,
91(4), 490–498. http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00122.x
O’Neil, J. M., & Crapser, B. (2011). A conceptual model to deliver men’s services in higher
education using gender role conflict theory and research: A call to action. In J. A. Laker
& T. Davis (Eds.), Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Routledge.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nmich/detail.action?docID=684066
249
O’Toole, L. L., Schiffman, J. R., & Edwards, M. L. K. (Eds.). (2007). Gender violence:
Interdisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.). New York University Press.
Peralta, R. L. (2007). College alcohol use and the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity among
European American men. Sex Roles, 56(11–12), 741–756.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9233-1
Pickett, B. (2018). Homosexuality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
(Spring 2018). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/homosexuality/
Pickett, B. L. (2009). The A to Z of homosexuality. Scarecrow Press.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nmich/detail.action?docID=467296
Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Whales tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case study of
fraternity life. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 306–323.
Rosen, N. L., & Nofziger, S. (2019). Boys, Bullying, and Gender Roles: How Hegemonic
Masculinity Shapes Bullying Behavior. Gender Issues, 36(3), 295–318.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-018-9226-0
Sallee, M. W., & Harris, F. (2011). Gender performance in qualitative studies of masculinities.
Qualitative Research, 11(4), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404322
Schaub, M., & Williams, C. (2007). Examining the relations between masculine gender role
conflict and men’s expectations about counseling. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
8(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.1.40
Schrock, D. P., & Padavic, I. (2007). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity in a batterer
intervention program. Gender & Society, 21(5), 625–649.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243207304975
250
Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of
Sociology, 35(5), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Speer, S. A. (2001). Reconsidering the concept of hegemonic masculinity: Discursive
psychology, conversation analysis and participants’ orientations. Feminism &
Psychology, 11(1), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353501011001006
Steensma, T. D., Kreukels, B. P. C., de Vries, A. L. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Gender
identity development in adolescence. Hormones and Behavior, 64(2), 288–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.02.020
Stewart, D. L. (2010). Researcher as instrument: Understanding “shifting” findings in
constructivist research. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(3), 291–
306. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.6130
Stroud, A. (2012). Good guys with guns: Hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns.
Gender and Society, 26(2), 216–238. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23212214
Stoudt, B. G. (2006). “You’re either in or you’re out”: School violence, peer discipline, and the
(re)production of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 8(3), 273–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X05282070
Stoudt, B. G. (2012). From the top on down it is systemic. Boyhood Studies, 6(1), 17–33.
https://doi.org/10.3149/thy.0601.17
Szymanski, L. A., Devlin, A. S., Chrisler, J. C., & Vyse, S. A. (1993). Gender role and attitudes
toward rape in male and female college students. Sex Roles, 29(1–2), 37–57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289995
251
Taub, D. E., Blinde, E. M., & Greer, K. R. (1999). Stigma management through participation in
sport and physical activity: Experiences of male college students with physical
disabilities. Human Relations, 52(11), 1469–1484. https://doi-
org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1023/A:1016928901982
Thomas, K. D. (2013). Deconstructing hegemonic masculinity: Understanding representations of
Black and White manhood in print advertising. Advertising & Society Review, 14(2).
https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2013.0013
Thorpe, H. (2010). Bourdieu, gender reflexivity, and physical culture: A case of masculinities in
the snowboarding field. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(2), 176–214.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723510367770
Toerien, M., & Durrheim, K. (2001). Power through knowledge: Ignorance and the ‘real man.’
Feminism & Psychology, 11(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353501011001003
Trautner, M. N., Kwan, S., & Savage, S. V. (2013). Masculinity, competence, and health: The
influence of weight and race on social perceptions of men. Men and Masculinities, 16(4),
432–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X13502667
Walsh, C. (2020, February 21). Me Too founder Tarana Burke discusses where we go from here.
Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/me-too-founder-tarana-
burke-discusses-where-we-go-from-here/
West, J., & Austrin, T. (2002). From work as sex to sex as work: Networks, ‘others’ and
occupations in the analysis of work. Gender, Work & Organization, 9(5), 482–503.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00172
West, L. (2001). Negotiating masculinities in American drinking subcultures. The Journal of
Men’s Studies, 9(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0903.371
252
Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., O’Neil, J. M., & Danforth, L. (2012). Development and evaluation
of the gender role conflict scale short form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 13(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025550
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and
psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9(3), 335–356.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353599009003012
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (2014). A discursive psychological framework for analyzing men
and masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 15(4), 355–364.
http://dx.doi.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/a0037148
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (Eds.) (2001). Discourse as Data: A Guide to Analysis (1st
ed.). The Open University. https://doi.org/10.1177/9780761971580
Whitehead, S. (1999). Hegemonic masculinity revisited. Gender, Work & Organization, 6(1),
58–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00069
Williams, C. (2014). Transgender. TSQ: Transgender studies quarterly, 1(1–2), 232–234.
https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2400136
Wong, Y. J., Horn, A. J., & Chen, S. (2013). Perceived masculinity: The potential influence of
race, racial essentialist beliefs, and stereotypes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4),
452–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030100
253
APPENDIX A. IRB APPROVAL LETTER
254
APPENDIX B. E-MAIL INVITATION LETTER
Dear «First_name»«Last_name»
Greetings. My name is Keenan Colquitt and I am Doctoral Student in the Higher Education Administration Program here at Bowling Green State University. We met at «conference» Conference in «M_1» around «date_of_conference». As I mentioned during «conference», I am in my dissertation process and I’m contacting you to solicit your help.
I know we spoke about my topic during «conference», but I will provide you a short description so that we are on the same page. I am interested in understanding men who challenge men’s violence through their participation in anti-violence programs or initiatives. I am proposing a narrative study, and I would like to interview a small group of men. Specifically, men that meet the following minimum criteria: at least 18 years of age, o be an undergraduate student, o identify as a cisgender man (one whose gender is consistent with the they were sex assigned at birth), o involved in a group, program, or initiative on campus designed to prevent men’s violence
I anticipate conducting three interviews lasting approximately one hour, or sixty (60) minutes, and I would like to start that within the next «M_2»; hopefully on «M_3». I look to conclude all interviews by «M_4». The questions I anticipate asking will focus on your experiences with masculinity and your experiences participating in anti-violence programs or initiatives. I basically want to know the following:
1. What were some of the activities the group was known for?
2. What was your role in the group?
For this study, I am interested in college men who participate in anti-violence groups, programs, or initiatives; specifically, those that include the following characteristics:
1. Operating with a clearly articulated focus on changing campus cultural and/or social norms that allow men’s violence to occur. 2. Instituting initiatives that place attention on increasing awareness of men’s violence and the resulting issues, educational enterprises, community building, and providing intentional support to male participants.
If you fit these criteria and are interested in participating, please click these words to continue. The hyperlink leads to an on-line form to collect demographic information and some more detailed information on the initiative you’ve participated in.
255
If this isn’t something you’re interested in or you just don’t fit the criteria of my study, then thanks for your time and I hope to see you at the next «conference». If you have questions, I would be happy to address them. Just respond to this email.
Again, thank you for your time and hopefully your participation. Have a great day.
Sincerely,
Keenan Colquitt, Jr. Doctoral Student, Higher Education and Student Affairs Bowling Green State University 330 Education Building E-mail: [email protected] Cell phone: 201-293-6063
256
APPENDIX C. ON-LINE SURVEY FORM
257
258
259
APPENDIX D. INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Informed Consent (for «First name» «Last name»)
Introduction: Thank you for your interest in my research project. I am I am Doctoral Student in the Higher Education Administration Program (HIED) here at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. In order to complete my program, I am conducting an original research study under the guidance of my faculty advisor, Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart (Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at BGSU). The study will help me understand more about men who challenge men’s violence through their participation in anti-violence groups or initiatives. Based on your earlier responses to my e-mail and on-line survey, I invite you to continue participating in this study!
Purpose: The purpose of this project is to explore the experiences of men who challenge men’s violence. Specifically, this study seeks to understand men involved in groups, programs, or initiatives designed to combating men’s violence through the stories they tell. Your participation in this portion of the study will help to establish a greater understanding for educators and students alike. Your participation may also provide you opportunities for self-reflection, learning, and development. You will be one of «M_8» participants in this narrative study, each of whom self-identified (via my e-mail survey) as having participated in anti-violence groups or initiatives.
Procedure: After an initial screening survey, participants may be selected for study participation. Participation in this project will involve completing ~ three (3) interviews that will last approximately 60 to 90 minutes each. Each of these interviews will take place on the campus of Bowling Green State University or via mutually agreed upon video conference technology and/or telephone communication device. Interviews taking place on BGSU campus will be conducted in a private space that is clean, free of noise, free of distraction, well-lighted, and temperature controlled. Every effort will be taking to ensure that interviews conducted via mutually agreed upon video conference technology and/or telephone communication device are conducted free of distraction and excessive noise. Interviews will be audio recorded. I anticipate your entire participation (interviews, follow-up conversations, transcript verification, etc.) in this portion of the study taking eight to ten hours.
After completing each interview, arrangements will be made for the second and last. In addition, you will be provided a full interview transcript in (.pdf) format after each session. You will also receive a summary of my ideas and themes that help to describe your experiences. I will welcome any feedback you feel appropriate on the accuracy and how well your experiences are represented. Should this change and the need for more time arise, you will be contacted.
260
Voluntary nature: Your participation is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw at any time. You may decide to skip questions or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. Deciding to participate or not will not affect your (grades/class standing) or your relationship with (Bowling Green State University, your teacher, and your school).
Confidentiality/Anonymity Protection: The project will be completed by «M_4». Data from this interview will be stored digitally. This will include the audio recordings of your interviews, transcripts, my notes, my interpretations, and your contact information. Digital information will be password protected and storage off line. All records will be accessed only by me until the submission of a final dissertation text, at which point all recorders will be destroyed. Results of the study will be shared in the dissertation text; however, in all materials, all personal and institutional identifying data will be kept in confidence and pseudonyms will be assigned. Documents with identifying information, such as your name and/or pseudonym, will be stored separately from all data collected during the interview process.
As this study will utilize an electronic survey, please note the following: (1) some employers may use tracking software so you may want to complete your survey on a personal computer, (2) do not leave survey open if using a public computer or a computer other may have access to, (3) clear your browser cache and page history after completing the survey.
Risks: The process will involve a minimum of three interviews. The anticipated risk to you is minimal; however, we can stop this interview at any time and information from the counseling center will be provided. I ask that you communicate with me and let me know how you are feeling.
Contact information: For your information, I am provided you with my contact information. Keenan Colquitt, Jr. – [email protected] – 631-632-7194 Please find the contact information for my course professor as well Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart - [email protected] - 419-372-6876
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this study or your participation in the research. You may also contact the Chair, Human Subjects Review Board at 419-372-7716 or [email protected], if you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research. Thank them for their time.
I have been informed of the purposes, procedures, risks and benefits of this study. I have had the opportunity to have all my questions answered and I have been informed that my participation is completely voluntary. I agree to participate in this research. ______Participant Signature ______Desired pseudonym
261
APPENDIX E. CONVERSATION GUIDE
Script
• Hi. Thanks for agreeing to participate in this study. I am looking forward to speaking with you. • My name is Keenan Colquitt and I am a doctoral student at Bowling Green State University. But before we get started, I would like you to read this form. Place your name at the top of the form and sign on the back if you are willing to participate in this interview. *wait… verify signature* Thank you. I will email you a copy of this. • Let’s begin. • I’m conducting this study to fulfill one of my requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education and Student Affairs. So, I appreciate your agreeing to participate in this study and completing the survey prior to today. • This is an initial interview so we will keep things light today. I’ll ask you questions like “what does masculinity mean to you?” o We will take approximately one hour. Before we continue… • We are meeting face to face, so this cannot be an anonymous interview. However, I would like to give you the opportunity to decide how I refer to you. If you are fine with my using your first name, I will use your first name throughout the interview. If you would like to be called something else, I can accommodate you there as well. • Although this study rates as “low” risk, personal and possibly sensitive information will be discussed. I will take all appropriate procedure to ensure your confidentiality. So… what should I call you? *wait* *note name* Is this a pseudonym? *wait* o If yes, note as such… refer to participant by pseudonym o If no, note… refer to participant by given name • Thank you ______I would like to record this interview so that I can accurately transcribe this session it later. I will make sure you receive a copy of the transcript. May I record you? o If no… note and take extensive notes and continue o If yes, continue. • In form Header o Date, time, given name, interview number Interview Protocol – initial interview Interview #______
Initial interview Date______
262
• Please know that if at any time during this interview you wish to discontinue the use of the digital recording or the interview itself, please do not hesitate to let me know. If there are any questions, you do not want to answer. Please just say “next question.” You can stop the interview at any time as well. Do you agree to take part in this interview? o No, stop… yes, continue • The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of men who challenge toxic masculinity via violence prevention initiatives. According to the information you provided on your on-line survey, I believe that you may have some insight into this topic. o Ok… let’s begin. I’m going to ask you a series of open-ended questions.
263
Conversation guide Themes and questions – First interview Meaning making, creating a personal masculine identity
a. What does masculinity mean to you? i. Is this definition different then it was prior to participating in the anti- violence group? a. Please explain. 2. If your definition of masculinity is different, what lead to this change? a. How has your perception of masculinity changed? ii. What does it mean to you to be a man? 1. How did you learn about manhood and masculinity? a. Who or what taught you what it meant to be a man? i. What did that process look like? 1. How did you learn to be masculine? a. Please explain iii. Has your current idea of manhood and masculinity changed since you were younger? 1. If so, how? a. If not, why not? 2. What experiences changed your ideas? 3. What people were influential, if any, in changing your ideas about manhood and masculinity? b. If I were watching your life like a television show, how would I see you perform masculinity? i. Has this changed since you participated in the violence prevention group? 1. If so, how? 2. If not, why not? c. What kind of interactions do you have with other men about manhood and masculinity? i. What do you think of men whose ideas about masculinity differ from yours? d. How do you work toward preventing men’s violence on your campus? i. How do you deal with the conflict that arises between other men on campus? ii. Do you ever feel conflicted in your personal thoughts on masculinity? 1. Please explain e. Why did you decide to become involved?
264
Themes and questions – Second interview
** Begin interview by addressing any questions left unanswered **
Anti-violence/violence prevention initiative
f. How would you describe the anti-violence/violence prevention initiative you participated in? And why? i. Tell me about an aspect of the group/initiative you are especially proud of. 1. What made you join… what did you start participating in the group? 2. What were some of the activities the group was known for? 3. How has participation in this group, program, or initiative changed your perspective of college men? a. How has participation in this group, program, or initiative changed your perspective of what college men do? i. How has participation in this group, program, or initiative changed your perspective of what college men are supposed to do? 4. What does it mean to be a college man? a. Has your conception of a college man change as a result of your participating in this group/initiative/program? i. If so, how has that conception changed? b. Who, or what, taught you what a college man should be like? i. How did you learn about what college men should do? g. What aspect of the program had the greatest impact? i. Why does that aspect have the greatest impact? 1. How does is have the greatest impact? ii. What was your role in the group? iii. How long did you participate in the group? h. What else should I know about this group/initiative? i. Why is that important for me to know? ii. Tell me a story that conveys the strengths of this initiative?
265
Themes and questions – Second interview ** Begin interview by addressing any questions left unanswered **
Toxic masculinity, dominant masculine norms
i. What are your thoughts on these statements?
i. the majority who engage in healthy behavior may incorrectly believe they
are in the minority (pluralistic ignorance)
1. How does that apply to your college experience?
2. What do you think about that statement?
ii. the minority of people with unhealthy attitudes and/or behaviors may
incorrectly think that they are in the majority (false consensus)
1. How does that apply to your college experience?
2. What do you think about that statement?
iii. an individual may enjoy thinking that their behavior is more unique than it
really is (false consensus)
1. How does that apply to your college experience?
2. What do you think about that statement? j. How would you define men’s violence? i. How does it show up on your college campus? ii. What behavior is associated with men’s violence? 1. What allows men’s violence to occur? 2. What stops men’s violence from occurring? k. How do college students express social hierarchy (i.e. how students are arranged in social status in relation to each other)? i. Who are the guys at the top? 1. Why are they there? a. What would cause someone on the top to fall… How do college men loose social status?
266
Summary questions
• Is there anything I should have asked you that I have not? • Is there anything you would like to add to your comments? Closing and Appreciation
1. Thank you for sharing your time and stories with me. In the coming weeks, I will send you a
transcript of our visit. Some of my thoughts and findings will be attached. I invite your
feedback… feel free to make comments and corrections if necessary.
The research questions that will guide this study are: 1. How do (men) involved in groups, programs, or initiatives designed to prevent men’s violence define their masculinity? and 2. What stories do they tell of how they came to define masculinity in this way? 3. What stories do (men) involved in groups, programs, or initiatives designed to prevent men’s violence tell of their interactions with other (men) on campus in the context of the men’s violence initiative?
The Social Norms Approach - Berkowitz (2004), p. 5 • pluralistic ignorance o the majority who engage in healthy behavior may incorrectly believe they are in the minority • false consensus o the minority of people with unhealthy attitudes and/or behaviors may incorrectly think that they are in the majority • false consensus o an individual may enjoy thinking that her or his behavior is more unique than it really is
Source: Anonymous (2008). Assignment #1: Interview protocol. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjsu.e du%2Fpeople%2Fedward.cohen%2Fcourses%2Fc2%2Fs1%2F242_Assignment_1___Interview_Protocol.doc&ei=GG9rVLrtBo ubyQT__IIo&usg=AFQjCNGe5fMgsMCd3Bj5LFQ7i9TpF5N7xg&sig2=0AsDuLiOrdyzNuNIim1FbA&bvm=bv.79908130,d.a
Ww