A Delicate Balance: Developing Straight White College Men as Social Justice Allies

I have recently begun a qualitative study on exploring how to best develop positive social justice ally attitudes and behaviors in heterosexual White college men (hereinafter abbreviated as STR8WCM).  This blog post is about my thoughts and reflexive comments as I begin analyzing the first of many focus groups with an estimated 300 participants at 15 institutions around the country.  I am a straight White male faculty member in a student affairs preparation program.  I am not an American citizen, but outside my resident alien status I benefit from unearned racial, gender, and sexual identity privilege.  As the father of three young daughters and the partner to my spouse, I am committed to reducing White male hegemony and patriarchy in this society.  I lean on the work by Ellen Broido who defined social justice allies as members from dominant groups who work to end the system of oppression that provides greater privilege and power based on their membership in culturally dominant groups. 

At a recent national conference, I attended a session on the apparent alienation of heterosexual White men in higher education administration.  The main presenter was an African American woman and recent Ph.D. graduate.  Despite her best intentions and balanced approach, the topic seemingly polarized the room and tension between attendees was palpable.  Her research findings suggested that White men in higher education administration displayed perspectives of powerlessness and disappointment in affirmative action policies.  The topic had divided the room, not to the fault of the presenter but because the audience failed to see alternative experiences and viewpoints.  On the one side, the polarizing comments stemmed from racial and gender privilege, and speaking for rather than to those perceived oppressed.  On the other side emerged deeply felt pain and perceived oppression even in a session intended to tackle threats to inequality and social justice. As I sat there, I became frustrated at many of my White colleagues (men and women) for voicing their privileged perspectives about “always being blamed for everyone else’s struggle” or for displaying obviously colorblind points of view.  I was also saddened by comments from a few Colleagues of Color in the room who indicated dismissively, “White men will never understand what we go through” (that may be true but developing empathy for the experiences of underrepresented individuals is an important outcome for which all Whites should strive).

I too struggle with creating a balance with this clearly difficult and potentially contentious topic, but I don’t think the discussion on STR8WCM and social justice is a mutually exclusive one.  Certainly, college educators must appropriately challenge and instruct STR8WCM on their unearned gender and racial privilege and the history of White supremacy, racism, homophobia, and sexism.  On the other hand, my training as a qualitative researcher compels me to advocate for the continued exploration and understanding of the lived experiences of STR8WCM with diversity, their perceived benefits and barriers to engaging in diversity discussions, and their sense of responsibility in advocating for social justice on campus and in society.  Contrary to popular beliefs of many college educators, we do not yet know everything there is to know about White college men and new research needs to challenge outdated androcentric notions.  Our target learning outcomes include open and honest discussions among all students alongside social justice and human difference; after all, over 60 years since Allport’s original Contact Hypothesis, intergroup and cross-racial dialogue remain among the most significant predictors of decreasing stereotypes, racial prejudice, and other forms of discrimination.  Judging by the interactions among the attendees of the conference session, we are farther away from that goal than we may think.  White men need to listen to colleagues from underrepresented backgrounds who have experienced racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.  At the same time White men must not retreat when issues of discrimination or hate speech surface on campus.  Our colleagues rely on us to help put a stop to these behaviors that are most often displayed by members of majority groups.  This forces us to speak openly and honestly about topics in which we may not consider ourselves experts.  Yet, muddling through to find a solution is always better than remaining silent and standing idly by.   

Along with the listening STR8WCM must do, they should also be invited to share their own life experiences with diversity (we may be surprised about many of these experiences).  Appropriately developing STR8WCM as social justice allies never means we apply the deficit model as a lens and throw a pity party for White men at the expense of others.  Nor does it mean stopping to serve members from underrepresented groups.  Yet, when college educators utter the words inclusive excellence, we commit to serving all students all the time, regardless of their development along a positive social justice ally continuum.  If STR8WCM display an unbending sense of privilege and seem to lack a sense of empathy for the historical and current experiences of underrepresented populations, we check them on that in the context of holistic learning and development.  Hitting them over the head with education under the guise of political correctness the first chance we get is not a recipe for success.  I have had several focus group participants who have perceived faculty to be biased against STR8WCM from day one, likely due to their experiences with other White men in the past.  While we must never justify discriminatory actions by Whites against people from underrepresented groups, we should also hope that faculty can find more effective ways to reach and teach White men in college than criticizing or blaming them.  I guarantee the confrontational approach does nothing to ignite learning about human differences.  In a way, the blame game reinforces White privilege as White men retreat away from the discussion to continue to live unchallenged existences in the campus community.  Because, as one of my participants noted, “As a STR8WCM I have the advantage to slip into the background and not needing to care about diversity.”  We can no longer afford to give White men reason not to care or to turn off being receptive to or engaging in all things diversity.

In the context of social justice ally development of STR8WCM, I have asked myself the following questions and invite others to do the same:

1)     Do STR8WCM have the capacity to develop empathy for, appreciation and perhaps celebration of people who are different relative to power and privilege?  Further, do we think STR8WCM can become positive social justice allies to women, LGBTQ individuals, and people of color?

2)     Do we as educators have the capacity and the will to invite STR8WCM to participate in critical discussions around race, equality, and social justice?  If so, are we willing to engage men meaningfully without blaming or shaming them on their perhaps under- or undeveloped viewpoints that likely display perspectives of unearned privilege, intolerance, or racism?

If you answered yes to any or all questions, perhaps we can begin to think about inclusive excellence as creating a space to hear and engage STR8WCM on all matters of diversity and social justice while checking their conceptualizations of privilege, power, and patriarchy.  A relatively large body of research suggests (along with some of my own) that many STR8WCM are indeed interested and committed to playing a role in inclusive excellence discussions and initiatives.  Further, researchers such as Linda Sax have found that college men actually benefit more from diversity programming and courses than women; however, men also express more discomfort about learning about the topic because of the perceived work they have to do in self-awareness, advocacy of underrepresented groups, and social justice ally development.  Yet, college educators struggle mightily in getting men in the seats where learning can occur.

I close by paraphrasing a brilliant quote by Larry Roper, Vice Provost for Student Affairs at Oregon State University, from an article about perceptions White college students had about diversity programming on campus: Can college educators and their institutions create space at the center for all students they intend to serve? If the answer is yes, I am certain most STR8WCM would love to share that space with all other students and in it engage in critical questions and discussions about social justice.  May men from majority groups already do. However, we should be aware that STR8WCM will not likely flock to us with outstretched arms ready to embrace learning about diversity unless we as educators show we are open to them joining the space and the discussion.

Dr. Jörg Vianden is Assistant Professor of Student Affairs Administration at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. He has taught and published on men and masculinities in higher education.  Jörg invites others to follow him on twitter (@jvianden) or to connect via e-mail (jvianden@uwlax.edu). He would love to hear from readers challenging his assumptions and perspectives.

Resources:

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

           

            Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of social justice allies during college: A phenomenological          investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 3–18.

           

            Roper, L. D. (2004). Do students support diversity programs? Change, 36(6), 48–51.

            Sax, L. J. (2009). Gender matters: The variable effect of gender on the student experience. About

                              Campus, 14(2), 2–10.

The Melting Pot of Masculinity

What does it mean to be a man? This is a constant question, not just for college men still forming who they are at their core, but also for researchers, parents, and college administrators. Is there one answer, one definition of masculinity, or is a person’s gender identity and expression one that is fluid, defined by that person, a post-modern “what you believe is right” answer? It would appear that the latter is becoming the more accepted answer on campus, but what consequences does this have for men on campus and in life? And, if the former is accepted, what culture provides the model for masculinity, in a society made up of many cultures?

Let us begin by unpacking the idea that there is one cultural definition of masculinity. This is to say that each group of people, each tribe if you will, has set up an expectation of masculinity and male behavior and traits; this will differ from tribe to tribe. While primitive cultures are highly gender-segregated in rights, roles, and privileges, studies of them have shown that they have some success in initiating boys into masculinity and teaching them the cultural expectations of men.

David Gilmore paints scenes of this initiation in his book “Manhood in the Making”, offering descriptions of rites of initiation that include boys being taken from their mothers, taught the expectations of men in the society, and being returned triumphantly to their tribe once their initiation is complete. After this initiation, these men are now held to the standard of masculinity of the tribe. Of course there is often gender discrepancy and inequality in these tribes, but it appears that men and women generally respect and care for each other, with less of the abuses and struggles that one might expect.

Is this possible in a melting pot society like America? Given that such a society is one nation, it would seem that providing a similar tribal initiation and male definition would be easy. However, encompassed in that one nation are many different tribes, coordinated and defined by nationality, religion, and other factors. Each of these tribes will have their own definition of masculinity, some close in similarity to others but many quite distinct. With many definitions of masculinity come many ways to teach and initiate young males into manhood, thus making it hard to provide a meaningful initiation. What happens if another culture does not recognize your masculinity, your initiation? Are you less a man?

Obviously there is some difficulty in allowing for culture to define masculinity. Even though it may work in primitive cultures, the divergent beliefs and representations about masculinity in a melting pot society may cause men to always have their manhood in question unless they always remain in their own “cultural bubble”.

One solution to the difficulty of culturally defined masculinity is individually-defined masculinity, the post-modern approach. This allows males to say “This is what I believe being a man is, this is how I will behave, and I am secure in this belief.” No one is forced into a box with this, at least not openly. One could argue, however, that if a person believes a man is X, then they will judge people who do not conform and try to put them into “their box”.

The problem with this approach is that we must consider what the purpose of defining masculinity is. Is the purpose individual or societal? An argument can be made that it is both. Individual definitions, then, may not meet the societal purpose. Additionally, Michael Kimmel in “Guyland” speaks to the innate need of males to be initiated, to have their masculinity affirmed and confirmed. If they do not receive it from elders, they seek it out from their peers. Thus, their definition of masculinity may never be solely theirs but rather is sculpted and verified by those around them. Finally, this need for initiation and affirmation of masculinity, if not met, may have harmful consequences down the road, as middle-aged men begin to have a crisis of gender and confidence.

An option that is less talked about in answering this question of what makes a man is a combination of these two. Michael Kimmel, in “The Gendered Society”, argues that the differences between men and women are small, but the differences between men and other men can be quite large. It is not about differentiating men from women, then, but men from boys, the mature from the immature.

Imagine a definition of masculinity that did not include what a man does, but rather focuses on how he does something. In this definition, masculinity and the quest for manhood becomes about character and maturity. The opposite of manhood stops being womanhood and starts being boyhood. It requires effort and maturity to be a man, not fitting a certain role. In our melting pot, this seems to makes sense. Granted we are trading defining one attribute (masculinity) for another (maturity), but it seems that maturity and the characteristics that come along with it are much less disputed and more applicable to a wide range of gender behaviors. In this approach, we allow for expressions of masculinity to be defined by an individual, but also allow society to express expectations of maturity (which exist for all genders).

There are pros and cons to every approach to a definition of masculinity. I think Norman Mailer said it best: "Masculinity is not something given to you, something you're born with, but something you gain. ... And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." Perhaps allowing masculinity to be won with honor, with character, will make it a more developmental and meaningful process. And perhaps this will decrease the questioning and challenging around manhood, allowing our men to embrace masculinity as they want, but as mature males.

Matthew Deeg works as Assistant Director of Fraternity/Sorority and Residence Life at Hanover College. In his daily work, he advises fraternity men to reach their potential as leaders and as men. You can reach him via email at deeg (at) hanover.edu, on Twitter @mattdeeg, and find his blog at navigatingthewild.org.

Resources:

Gilmore, D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kimmel, M. (2008). The gendered society (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kimmel, M. (2009). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York: Harper Perennial.

It Takes A Village to Develop Men

They say it takes a village to raise a child. Well, the same can be said about developing men on our campuses.

I recently had the privilege of hearing a young man at my institution share his story of manhood. Sitting across from me in the steamy non-air-conditioned office, he maintained a calm and cool confidence that only a fourth year senior can personify. He had been through a lot in his life and that was before he even started his college career. Growing up in Mexico City, he had the distinct challenge of navigating his sexual identity as a queer man in a machismo culture. When he came out to his parents the night before he was to board a plane for college, his world was thrown into disarray. His parents did not understand and could not accept that their son was gay. Not only did he lose the support of his two biggest fans in his parents, he was forced to reevaluate his own identity as a man when his father asked if he had unknowingly raised a daughter instead of a son.

This question spun inside the head of this student as he left his home in Mexico to start his life as a college student in the United States. He had come to terms with his sexuality, but had never questioned his identity as a man. As soon as he touched down on campus, he began his search to better understand the complexities of gender in conjunction with his other intersecting identities. He began dancing and taking Women and Gender Studies courses. He picked up books about deconstructing traditional notions of masculinity by authors like Michael Kimmel and William Pollack. He also got involved in the gender center on campus, organizing a campus White Ribbon Campaign and lobbying for sexual assault prevention and support for all students. When he wasn't actively seeking out opportunities to explore his masculinity, he carried these thoughts and experiences with him all across campus as he interacted with staff in the registrar's office, career services, residential life, Greek Life, and others. Needless to say, his quest to understand his own masculinity led to a rich and meaningful college experience that didn't end when he left the doors of the gender center.

The occasion in which this student was sharing his story was somewhat serendipitous. As he sat on a panel with three of his peers, his misty eyes looked out into the audience to discover many of the staff and faculty, including Dr. Michael Kimmel who was visiting for a campus lecture, that had helped support him in his journey listening attentively to what they already knew to be true. He had come full circle in his search for defining his own manhood and in his pursuit, he brought along a band of supportive mentors that helped facilitate his journey. Not only could he see the full scope of his development reflected back by the people in the room; each person who worked with him was pulled into the world of men and masculinites work through supporting his process.

Whether we work directly with a men's program or gender center on our campuses or somewhere completely unrelated, our work undoubtedly influences the development of men. To illustrate the point, consider a few emerging truths about men at college…

1.  Men's recruitment and retention at our institutions is slumping.
2.  Men's engagement on our campuses is low.
3.  Men's behavior on our campuses is risky.

Given these trends, the time is right for staff and administrators of all functional areas to start considering how to engage men more actively. From attracting more men and keeping them on our campuses to engaging them in and outside of the class as a means for alternative choices to unhealthy behavior, higher education professionals are no strangers to the unique dynamic men bring to our institutions. Students like the one who shared his story on the panel are shining examples of how different areas across campus can work toward supporting a college student's male development, but they are seldom that obvious or direct in their purpose. As educators, we need to be intentional in all of our work about how we engage the men on our campuses.

Here are just a few ways that you can work toward supporting men at your institution, regardless of what area you work in.

•  Support the male students who walk through your door. It might seem like an obvious one, but decades of social justice training that has informed us about the problems of male privilege can sometimes influence our ability to affectively support male students. Certainly male privilege is complex and problematic but it doesn't mean that men on our campuses don't still need our support. When working with men in your area, start by meeting them where they are at and work toward challenging them after you've had a chance to build trust.
• Reach out to male student on your campus. Given that nearly all spaces on our college campuses are safe spaces for men, very little programming tends to focus explicitly on the specific needs of male students. While they may generally be taken care of given the predominance of their identities on campus, men experience unique challenges around many issues from academic achievement to mental health. Reaching out to men and providing programming and support that meets their needs may be one way to ensure their success at college.
•  Support gender equity efforts on your campus. No matter what area of campus you work in, there are opportunities to challenge tradition notions of gender and provide equitable solutions for both women and men. Whether it be creating gender neutral bathroom spaces in the residence halls or using inclusive language in your departmental handbook, gender equity benefits all genders on our campuses. Men feel restricted when they are limited to fitting a rough and rugged stereotype just as much as women do when they are told they must be passive, quiet, and sensitive. Start by making small efforts toward gender equity in your functional area and branch out by getting involved with large scale programs on your campus like the Vagina Monologues, Take Back the Night, The White Ribbon Campaign, or others.

We may not all directly engage in developing men on our campus through the many different functional areas we work in, but with a bit of intentionality we can actively work together toward creating campuses where men can be more successful, engaged, and healthy. This collaborative "village" approach in developing our male students will not only serve to benefit them, but will also serve to make our communities stronger and our institutions better.

This post is from Kyle Carpenter, who works at Dartmouth College as the Director of the Center for Gender and Student Engagement.  You can connect with Kyle by email  kyle.carpenter@dartmouth.edu.

Conference on College Men Reflections

Before attending this year’s Conference on College Men at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, I attended the two previous CCMs at Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis and the University of Pennsylvania.  This cross-disciplinary conference focusing on the topic of college men was created by a collaboration between NASPA and ACPA members interested in creating a space to dialogue about challenges facing college men. With each new conference iteration every two years, an unofficial conference theme emerges. This year’s thematic subtext highlighted the psychological toll entailed with one’s conformity to traditional male gender roles. Though many of the conference presentations focused on disparate college male populations and their respective experiences, a common topic surfaced regarding the theoretical and pragmatic implications of addressing young men’s emotional livelihood, as well as the internal emotional world of those practioners who develop and implement programs designed specifically around gender and masculinities.

As individuals who work in higher education and who are devoted to the success of college men, we too, have been affected by hegemonic masculinity (for better or worse). Throughout formal conference sessions and informal settings at meals, conversations amongst conference attendees entailed discussions of how to create and sustain a healthier model of masculinity for the young men with whom we work. It is my contention that in order to realize this new vision on our campuses, we have to appreciate and address the ways in which our own male socialization impacts personal and professional relationships. While attending CCM, I witnessed and was apart of such discussions, which I hope to depict here with my conference reflections. 

Starting with Carlos Gomez’s opening keynote address / performance, he cited his own developmental path of defining and refining his sense of self as a gendered being. By also acknowledging the intersections of his racial / ethnic and class social group identity memberships, he created a lens with which he described the broadening of his emotional landscape. Specifically, he spoke about complimenting anger, as the only “acceptable” expression of negative affect, with identification of sadness and fear. Later in the conference, the other featured speaker, Dr. Robert Heasley, gave a unique talk masculine gender performance and sexuality. He spoke on the need for further fluidity of masculine self-expression beyond “the binary” and rigid notions of gender presentation. In addition, he suggested that hetero-normative and heterosexist ideology regarding men’s relationships has hampered their abilities to create open and expressive male connections.

The real strength of the conference was the concurrent sessions that incorporated varied views on college men seen today on our campuses. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to bring in the aforementioned theme of suboptimal psychological functioning with an analysis of current unconscious and conscious racial and sexist oppression. During my talk I hoped to illustrate the manifestation of race and gender as requisites for White male entitlement, privilege, and the related psychological costs of privilege within racism and sexism. After presenting my conceptualization of this phenomenon, I facilitated an active discussion on its impact related to student affairs practioners working with White college men. I left the discussion humbled by hearing from so many audience members and their tireless work with this unique demographic. I was equally excited about the numerous direct interventions yet to be created and implemented on behalf of White college men.

I attended engaging presentations on intersectionality of identity existing for college men (including veteran, Latino, gay, Black, and other identities). I also attended an innovative program about outreach, another on the creative utilization of Motivational Interviewing (MI), and finally one a comprehensive plan for developing a retreat for college men. 

As if the formal keynotes and sessions did not provide enough “food for thought” on the lived experience of today’s college man, getting the chance to build relationships with other male conference attendees during informal down time greatly supplemented my experience. Getting to sit with a racially diverse group of men and hear about how they experienced their individual male development was a conference highlight. Together, we reflected on our sexual development and identity (both gay and straight). We spoke about our expanded emotional expression, especially to important male figures. In particular, we shared our understanding and meaning surrounding our first articulation of, “I love you,” to our fathers. We collectively opened up to each other (essentially as strangers) in the spirit of the conference’s re-visioning of healthy masculinities and it’s positive effects on the college men with whom we work.  

  

Dr. Benjamin Neale is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Illinois Chicago Counseling Center. In his position, he performs psychotherapy with UIC undergraduate and graduate students. He can be reached via email at bhneale@uic.edu
 

The Fabric of Masculinity: Professionalism, Fraternity Letters, and Family Roles

                     I thoroughly enjoy competition, watching others compete in particular. Project Runway, a reality-television competition to find the next top American fashion designer, has taken up the free time I have between visiting my family in Texas and traveling the U.S. I was excited to see the creativity that all the contestants brought to the show, more for the designers that played with gender roles and designed clothing with androgyny in mind. Somewhere within the last couple of seasons, I began exploring how clothing has been used to shape masculinity and the identity of ‘man’ at work, in college, and in family roles.

                   The design and style of our clothes indicates much more at first meeting than we are willing to admit. Much like in “The Devil Wears Prada” movie when Miranda (played by Meryl Streep) talks about how fashion choices from ‘the top’ trickle down to the everyday consumer, so too do the designs of Giorgio Armani, Donatella Versace, and Kenneth Cole (among others) shape the way men should look for their status. The sociologist in me could spend years observing cities like New York and Los Angeles to formulate how men display themselves and what their choices in clothing indicate to others around them. What does the whimsical tone of a print do for pants that it does not for a shirt? Would a man be followed at a department store for wearing baggy clothes regardless of styling? What outfits are appropriate for all men, and what outfits are designed for certain occasions and people? Professional dress (for the most part) seems to have the clearest expectation of men.

                  Forensic competitions (literary interpretation, extemporaneous speaking, moot court, and the like) shaped much of what my idea of professional dress is supposed to be. Simple formula for the guys: wear a suit, complementary shirt and tie, dress shoes, and a watch if jewelry was necessary. My time at the University of the Pacific has shaped the image of a student affairs professional to be different than the consulting I received and conducted in competition. When I interviewed for the position as a residence director, I wore my suit and three shirt and tie combos each day I was on campus. I wanted the competitive edge, to which I met full force against the other male candidates invited to campus. I laugh at the realization that I wore my suit less than five times this past year. I spent a great deal of time experimenting with professional standards and gender lines that were much more flattering and comfortable than stiff dress shirts and boxy blazers. I think it’s commendable that the men in leadership roles at Pacific each have their own distinct images that reflect their personalities, ranging from bowties to polo shirts. The ‘minimal requirement’ approach to workplace dress is likely not a standard at every institution, and it would be nice to see professionalism as a whole loosen its belt and unbutton the collar every now and then.

                  A particular image of masculinity in college I have noticed over others is that of a fraternity man. Pacific’s social fraternities each have their own image on campus, and within them an expectation for how their members live up to that image. Living in a fraternity house as a residence director has its clear moments where masculinity and manhood are shaped and challenged. The brothers will size each other up for competitions and recruitment, and have discourse on how their image among the other fraternities is more or less masculine based on the ‘expectations’ of men’s fraternities. Partying, academics, and relationships with sororities were the three major indicators of a fraternity’s success at the beginning of the year for some of the men. It’s a formula that I imagine is negotiated nationwide across fraternities. A conversation sustained throughout the year involved how to accept the gay, bisexual, and transgender community into fraternities on campus without losing masculinity and brotherhood. (Suggestions that arise are definitely welcomed, as I am still formulating with campus partners and national groups if this is a possible reality.) Aside from the letters themselves, the style and color of fraternities’ paraphernalia has become a sign of masculinity through the upholding (or lack of) traditional expression. Some fraternities argue within their own membership the allowance of clothing with letters on it to be in any other colors besides that of the organization. Certain clothing styling has also turned the image of a fraternity man into a ‘frat star’, bringing both anger and excitement for almost all organizations. I see students come to college and change their wardrobe based on the types of clothes that their preferred organization wears. A power of clothing that I presume someone has research on, though I have so far been unable to discover.

                  If I asked you to dress the typical father figure in America, what would he be wearing? What about his son? Does a brother have different style of dress from his dad if he has only sisters? What if there is no father? How does the son’s image change then? The media paints quite the picture for all family roles involving men. In many ways, the college environment has a hand in shaping what these can and will be for their male population. After this past week, I am excited to see society and colleges explore and further the role of husband in the family. After the monumental wins for marriage equality at the Supreme Court with Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, same sex marriage will be supported federally in several states and the District of Columbia and be restored in the state of California. Will this produce catalogs for weddings that have male couples on the cover? (I sure hope so.) Families built and born into will hopefully be engaging in dialogues on how marriage equality has and will shape the fabric of society.

                  I challenge all who read this to ask themselves the following question: if I could pick a fabric that embodied masculinity, what would it be? What qualities would it have? Is it the star of the outfit, or does it have a supporting role? While I am still picking up the trade of clothes making and design, I have come to realize that fashion is a tool of expression that has been called a tool of oppression. Dividing clothes under two categories might be a way to flatter different sexes and genders, though having buttons to a shirt on the right can make all the difference to someone raised to wear them on the left.

One stitch makes all the difference.

Juan Martinez is a second year residence director for Greek Life at the University of the Pacific. They are also a second-year higher education graduate student. Follow them on Twitter (@pacificjmar) and Blogger (jmarsagrad.blogspot.com).