“The Bright Power of Fraternity Men: Redefining Masculinity”

There has been quite a wealth of articles and conversation coming out around the concerns of the American Fraternity system. Most notably, The Atlantic recently published Caitlin Flanagan’s piece “The Dark Power of Fraternities” in which she presents a year’s investigation of social and cultural trends within Greek houses and the liability that lurks behind the walls. Within a brief period, Flanagan captured the attention of individuals and organizations both inside and out of the Greek community. If you have not done so already, I highly encourage you all to read Flanagan’s article as she outlines very real concerns for our Fraternal men and undergraduates at-large.

In developing my thoughts and reactions to what immediately seems an attack on the Greek system, it is crucial for me to understand my background and how this affects my perspective. As an undergraduate student, I spent three academic years as a brother to the Washington & Jefferson College chapter of the Alpha Tau Omega National Fraternity. For those of you who have already observed the aforementioned article, you will recognize that this is the same National organization that Flanagan referenced within the first sentence. The poor publicity for Alpha Tau Omega continues with Flanagan later noting a fall from the University of Idaho house during the 2012-2013 academic year. My connection to the anecdotes do not stop there as she briefly makes note of a fall at a September 2013 fraternity party at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I have served as Graduate Assistant since August 2013.

With my connection to at least two of the entities noted, as well as the love and respect I have for my own fraternity experience, one would expect me to quickly take the role of defender to the Fraternity system. That’s not the case. Caitlin Flanagan is correct in every word. There is a culture of liability engrained within the walls of many fraternities across the country. Sexual and physical assault remains evident, hazing continues to be a concern for every administrator and potential new members, and unintended slips and falls will never completely be eliminated no matter the preventative measures by institutions, students, or national organizations. Lets stop debating the pros and cons of fraternity life. We cannot sit down with the statistics of philanthropic dollars raised and number of sexual violence reports and decide on which overshadows the other. Placing a quantifiable value on each positive and negative action to prove our stance is not only impossible, but harmful to the overall discussion.

My concern with this article, and frankly many stories in the media reporting on reckless and harmful behavior within fraternities, is not the negative attention. My concern is that we are not focusing on the appropriate issues. Fraternity houses and organizations are not the cause of sexism/sexual misconduct, racial discrimination, physical violence, homophobia, etc. as they have no fundamental values rooted in such harmful practices. The concern comes from the men who are entrusted to represent those organizations. We need to be asking ourselves why our undergraduate men are behaving in a manner that directly opposes the values they agreed to uphold when initiated into their organization.

From birth we are telling our boys that the essence of masculinity is to be strong and aggressive, athletic and cunning, composed with our emotions, and physically appealing. To be a man, we are to be a god on earth, the Adonis we see immortalized in unhealthy pursuits of masculinity. Boys grow to learn that men cease to have dreams. Financial stability and securing the future of our families—or destroying our bodies and minds in the process—defines our legacy. Furthermore, we are to protect this manhood from anything—and anyone—at all cost. We are providing our boys and young men limiting narratives that equate social capital and power with domination over others. I firmly believe that as we see the media continue to highlight the negative stereotypes and tragedies associated with our fraternities, we are witnessing first-hand accounts of the harmful realities that arise from our traditional thoughts on masculinity, brotherhood, and youth.

When we are developing a dominant culture of masculinity and an educational system that seem to directly oppose one another, we begin to understand behavior. The reality is that many men are not personally invested in the values of higher education (or any level of academia for that matter). College campuses, and fraternity houses most notably, then become a breeding ground for men to enact the culture we have long since prescribed on our young boys. This collegiate space can be a potentially hostile environment for our male students who are told they as individuals (not boy culture at-large) are a root cause for destruction of self and others. This dis-empowerment of our men only perpetuates the negative behavior we read about in pieces like Caitlin Flanagan’s “The Dark Power of Fraternities.”

There is a silver lining to all of this, however. Not only at Emerson College and MIT where I am employed, but across the nation, fraternity men are actively engaging their brothers and their peers outside the Greek community to redefine what it means to be a man. The majority of our young men―as the majority of all men are not perpetrators of these behaviors―are growing tired of themselves and their male peers being understood as "the enemy of the state." Their hopes are to raise awareness around issues of sexual assault, binge drinking, and lack of development and academic motivation. Not because they are atoning for the sins of the past, but but because they are invested in this redefinition and the future. With each new recruitment period, we move closer to a culture that embraces multiple forms of masculinity and espouses the love and respect that is central to the values of fraternity life. As internet blogs and comments are calling for an end to Greek life, it is now more important than ever to recognize the appropriate place these organizations have in dismantling our notions of masculinity. We must empower our undergraduates and allow them to be more than the “frat bros;” instead, rise to the worth of fraternity men.

Mike Prinkey is a Graduate Assistant (GA) to the Office of Fraternities, Sororities, & Independent Living Groups at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as GA to the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs & GLBTQ Resources at Emerson College. He is in the last semester for a Masters of Higher Education Administration from Northeastern University. You can contact Mike through:

email: michaelcprinkey@gmail.com

Facebook: facebook.com/mike.prinkey

Twitter: @McPrinkey

Men’s Fear of Femininity: Discussing the Media’s Perceptions of Masculinity with College Men

From early childhood into adulthood, young people are constantly bombarded with media advertisements showing them what behaviors are and are not socially acceptable. Advertisers push negative gender norms into the homes, residence halls, bars, and fraternity houses of our college men. Take into consideration the highly controversial Dr. Pepper 10 commercial, which presents its product in a hyper-masculine way. This commercial gives a stereotypical view of what it means to be a man. Thankfully, with some negatively stereotyped commercials, there are also positive ones that exist. Guinness, a popular beer company, recently released a heartwarming commercial with positive role models of masculinity. One way or another, both commercials address the fear of femininity many young men face today. This blog post serves to provide higher education professionals a way to confront negative male gender norms with a group of young men.

            Davis, LaPrad, and Dixon (2011) promote the use of men’s groups on college campuses to educate young men about male gender norms. The important keys to this chapter are education and communication in a group setting. Although presenting the Dr. Pepper and Guinness commercials on an individual basis may be helpful in talking about masculinity, confronting this issue via media might be more effective within a men’s group. The authors claim “the men’s group movement has been an attempt to provide the space for men to reflect on socially prescribed roles and help men reach a healthier, self-authored identity” (Davis, LaPrad, & Dixon, 2011, p. 152). This setting allows young men to talk about what they observe in the two commercials; at the same time, higher education professionals can educate them about masculinities. According to the authors, a great way to spark conversations “about hegemonic masculinity is to use commercials, television shows, and popular movies to illustrate how messages about gender are sold” (Davis et al., 2011, p. 155).

            Davis (2004) states, “using entertainment media to deconstruct powerful sex-role messages is an ideal method for promoting learning about gender identity development” (Davis, 2004, p. 50). Although Davis focuses on this learning in a classroom setting, I believe his methods could apply to something like a men’s group meeting. By showing the different ideas of masculinities presented in the Dr. Pepper and Guinness advertisements, perhaps student affairs professionals can explain society’s influence on young men, which often reinforces negative gender norms. Davis (2004) encourages educators to have their students critique the media, such as our commercials, in order to become “a critical consumer of potentially dysfunctional messages” (Davis, 2004, p. 52). In order to demonstrate this idea, I have critiqued and compared the Dr. Pepper and Guinness commercials in regards to their presentations of femininity.

            The main difference of these two commercials is how they each portray men’s fear of femininity. Kimmel and Davis (2011) give a brief overview of O’Neil’s gender role conflict, which basically states that people learn from society how to act based on their gender. They claim that “at the heart of men’s conflict is the fear of femininity” (Kimmel & Davis, 2011, p. 7). According to this fear, anything that may appear to be a feminine act lessens a man’s masculinity. To be a part of the male gender, men cannot show emotions or compassion and must act tough and strong (Kimmel & Davis, 2011). Kimmel and Davis (2011) stress that any sign of weakness makes men seem less ‘manly.’ By watching these commercials in men’s groups, higher education professionals can show college men how the fear or acceptance of femininity play out in each commercial.

            The Dr. Pepper 10 commercial takes place in a stereotypical action adventure movie.^[1] The characters are dressed in army fatigues, have ridiculously large laser guns, flaunt their strong muscles, and yell at the audience in their deep overpowering voices. The main character directs his dialogue to women. After asking them if they are enjoying the movie, the character assumes the female audience is unimpressed. He claims that “this is our movie,” meaning a movie for men (Jakthelombax mar, 2011). He then goes on to say that Dr. Pepper 10 is a man’s drink—even with its fewer “manly calories… It’s what guys want” (Jakthelombax mar, 2011). After a few more explosions, the commercial ends with the sentence, “Dr. Pepper 10, it’s not for women” (Jakthelombax mar, 2011).

[Insert Video #1 link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zza3GqEL5B0]

            The main takeaway from this commercial is the constant fear of femininity. According to the Dr. Pepper 10 commercial, men that drink Diet Dr. Pepper are more ‘manly’ than those who abstain. The overuse of violence in this commercial assumes all young men are obsessed with trucks, guns, and big explosions. According to societal gender norms, all these things are the farthest from feminine. Through violent acts men step away from the feminine and towards the masculine. It is upsetting that advertisers believe the only way to get men to buy their product is by constantly reaffirming it is not a “lady drink” (Jakthelombax mar, 2011). At every turn of this commercial, there is reassurance that Dr. Pepper 10 is not a feminine drink. This commercial reinforces the fear of femininity in two ways. First, the commercial exploits violent acts and images. Second, it promotes the beverage as ‘manly’ or not for women.

            In contrast, Guinness presents an uncharacteristically heartfelt beer commercial.^[2] Viewers would not know they are watching a beer commercial until the last few seconds of the commercial. The first scene begins in the middle of a fierce, yet good-hearted wheelchair basketball game. The young men in the wheelchairs are shown crashing into one another and falling to the ground, while yelling encouragements at teammates. As the game ends, all the men but one get out of their wheelchairs and leave the gym together. This simple commercial has little to no dialogue between characters, rather there is a man voicing-over with these simple words: “Dedication, loyalty…friendship” (Guinness, 2013). The commercial ends with the young men all gathered in a bar drinking Guinness, while the voiceover continues, “the choices we make reveal the true nature of our character” (Guinness, 2013).

[Insert Video #2 link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au8Y98Rgxbk]

            As opposed to the Dr. Pepper commercial, the Guinness advertisement seems to reject traditional hegemonic views of masculinity because the characters embrace weaknesses and emotions. It shows young men that being disabled is not a form of weakness, while emphasizing the fact that young men should not be discouraged by feeling weak or helpless. The young men that are not disabled accept their friend’s disability, and the weakness his disability produces by playing basketball in wheelchairs. Even though there is a sense of competitiveness, this quality is not presented in a negative light. Essentially, the commercial promotes an emotional connection between close male friends, feelings usually reserved for women. Although playing basketball and going for beers promote a distinct form of masculinity, the characters of this commercial also show emotional connection with one another. This connection is never explicitly stated, but silently understood. The most important part of this commercial is the statement, “The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character” (Guinness, 2013). This message encourages young men to be better than society’s strictly enforced gendered roles.

            With these critiques in mind, student affairs professionals can present these two commercials to young men and gauge how they feel masculinity was displayed in each. Engaging in conversation about the differences between these two commercials can show young

---

^[1] It must be noted that this commercial attempts to get men drinking diet soda drinks, which could be better for their health. Regardless, I think the ulterior message gets lost in the overbearing nature of the characters and the situation.

^[2] It must be noted that the act of playing basketball and drinking beer depicts a specific type of masculinity, but I believe the message behind this commercial is stronger than the generalized masculinity. This commercial is not perfect, but compared to the Dr. Pepper commercial could be a better model for young men in the long run. 

References

Davis, T. (2004). Using entertainment media to inform student affairs teaching and practice

            related to sex and gender. New Directions for Student Services, 2004, 49-59.          Doi: 10.1002/ss.141

Davis, T., 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). New York, NY: Routledge.

Guinness. (2013, September 9). Guinness basketball commercial [video file]. Available from

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au8Y98Rgxbk

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). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jakthelombax mar. (2011, November 30). Dr Pepper TEN action commercial [video file].            Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zza3GqEL5B0

Marie Elena Castellano is currently a first-year graduate student in the University of Maine’s Higher Education Program. She graduated from the Catholic University of America in May 2013 with a BA in History. She serves as the Graduate Assistant for the Higher Education Program at UMaine. In this position, she assists with program recruitment and faculty research.You can connect with Marie Elena on Twitter @lenacast91

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