Developing a Positive Masculinity Approach to Fraternity and Other College Men

Developing a Positive Masculinity Approach to Fraternity and Other College Men

On March 3 of this year, I posted a response to Caitlin Flanagan’s “The Dark Power of Fraternities” to the ACPA Men & Masculinities blog. The post briefly addresses a common occurrence when discussing fraternity life in the American higher education system. Media and commentators frequently highlight troubling statistics and pervasive attitudes that exist within Greek Life; a means to devalue the positive and developmental qualities we claim are espoused by fraternities. This often loud and critical perspective on Greek life creates a need for self-preservation. In the Winter 2014 issue of Perspectives, a publication of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Editor Heather Kirk writes:

When the media picks up an incident that seams sensational or shocking, we swing into reaction mode. ‘How could this happen,’ we ask. ‘What were they thinking?’ ‘Not again.’ Just as often, we say ‘But this is a small population; most of the students do the right thing.’ Or, ‘But fraternities also provide leadership and growth experiences.’ And of course, ‘The media is just trying to sell copies” (pp. 3). 

Kirk adequately describes the current state of affairs within conversations regarding the future of fraternity life in higher education. While we listen to external critics with little knowledge of fraternal structure and transformative experience call for an end to American Greek Life, we develop a “protect our house” defensive mentality that does not serve a productive purpose. In my previous post to the ACPA blog, I state:

Let’s stop debating the pros and cons of fraternity life. We cannot sit down with the statistics of philanthropy dollars raised and the 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 [also] harmful to the overall discussion.

While I continue to believe that we spend too much time defending the future of fraternity life, I am inclined to clarify my perspective. The often-hostile back-and-forth that exists between various campus and community partners adds little to the conversation. The time has come to adopt a new perspective on our college men. We must recognize that there are men inside (and out of) fraternities who are exhibiting dangerous behavior and attitudes. While not disguising this fact, it is important to affirm that most men are not responsible for such actions, and many college men add positive value and advance the mission of higher education.

In “Affirming the Strengths in Men: A Positive Masculinity Approach to Assisting Male Clients,” Matt Englar-Carlson and Mark S. Kiselica (2013) note that existing research on masculinity is problem-focused, emphasizing the “deficits of and the difficulties created by men” (pp. 399). When discussing the culture of fraternity men in “Beyond Bad Behaving Brothers,” Harper and Harris (2014) perfectly highlight this deficit-based approach to masculinity, summarizing the popular perspective on college men as follows:

They are 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, radically exclusive, homophobic fraternities (pp. 703).

When addressing men and masculinities, research and scholars often develop a foundation within the deficit model described by these previous authors. During the 2011-2012 academic year, I was a senior Sociology & Gender Studies major at Washington & Jefferson College. Through the senior capstone experience, I was able to foster a basic understanding of and interest in the area of men and masculinities. While fortunate enough to present my findings, titled Eliminating the Gender Gap: Research into Past and Present Achievement Levels Between Students of Washington and Jefferson College, at the 2012 North Central Student Sociology Conference, the entire focus operated on a deficit model. The paper cited decreasing percentages of males in higher education as well as persistence to graduation, lower participation in campus activities and leadership positions, and extrinsic factors as the motivating force to higher education. While the idea of assigning negative characteristics to masculine identity provides a foundation to the study of college men, we must remember that there are those achieving healthy masculinities and engaging campus opportunities (Harper & Harris, 2014, pp. 704).  

Englar-Carlson and Kiselica (2013) assert that our fixation on viewing men as defective has been culturally fostered through historical notions of success and expectations of gender performance. We assigned positive traits to women, inhibiting the productive conversations we have with our male college students. Through socialization, men are bombarded with biases that reinforce a preconceived lack of healthy and adaptive behavior (pp. 401). In essence, we continue to allow the extreme incidents of a few men to blind us from the empowering and productive experiences of others.

How can we foster the healthy masculinities that exist and promotes cultural competency? Englar Carlson and Kiselica (2013) cite a shift in dialogue to allow all men to understand the standards of which they can achieve. Examples of this shift may include the “protector” role. A historical deconstruction of this image reflects power, dominance over women, and physical strength; however, reframing this to illustrate new understandings of traditional masculinity can mean loyalty, responsibility, and courage (pp. 401-402). Using positive psychology, college men counter stigmatizing language with specifics of where and how healthy masculinity has been enacted. When we change discourse from “bad-dogging,” as Jason Laker would describe it, to conversations on what positive masculinity looks like in a community context, men are not felt to be inherently flawed by birth.

It is important to develop an understanding of a positive masculinity approach to college men before applying this theory to segments of the campus population; however, the same concept noted here can be implemented when fostering development in our fraternal organizations. Just as men are not biologically damaged, fraternities are not organizationally harmful. It is the culture of masculinity that has infiltrated these societies and been allowed to persist over time that must be changed. The foundation of fraternities is to bring together men to share in a common bond while advancing unique values. In theory, fraternities provide a prime space to initiate and test the positive masculinity approach. Refocusing the conversation to how our fraternity men have upheld these immutable principles provide a context to the expectations we require while reinforcing praise when healthy masculinities are achieved.

References:

Englar-Carlson, M. & Kiselica, M. S. (2013, October). Affirming the strengths in men: A

positive Masculinity approach to assisting male clients. Journal of Counseling & Development. Vol. 91, 399-409

Harris III, F. & Harper, S. R. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: Productive

performances of masculinities among college fraternity men. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 27, No. 6., pp. 703-723.

Kirk, H. M. (2014). Editor’s Note. Perspectives. Association of Fraternity/

Sorority Advisors. Winter. pp 3.

About the Author

Mike Prinkey serves as the Area Coordinator for Student Conduct under Residential Life & Student Activities at Champlain College. While studying Higher Education Administration at Northeastern University, Mike was the Program Assistant for the Office of Fraternities, Sororities & Independent Living Groups at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as the Graduate Assistant to the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs & GLBTQ Resources at Emerson College. Mike is a proud alum of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity from Washington & Jefferson College.

You can contact Mike through:

Email: michaelcprinkey@gmail.com

Twitter: @McPrinkey

Set Perfectionism Aside

Set Perfectionism Aside

I spent the greater part of the week torn over what I should write about for the Men & Masculinities blog. I had these grandiose ideas of writing something that would change the landscape and contain some groundbreaking original thought. Something that would move readers. I was so caught up in this idea of writing something profound or perfect that it actually kept me from writing. Where else does this happen in our lives?

I see this every day in my own life. We are so obsessed with making sure everything we do is perfect. The never ending quest for perfection is absolutely debilitating. It doesn’t breed productivity, but rather keeps us from engaging and moving forward. But before I making sweeping statements and claim that we all are always striving for perfection, I will say it’s cultural. For me, it’s a privilege I have to strive towards perfection. I am a white, heterosexual, temporarily able-bodied, male on a predominantly white campus. I have been told all my life that I should be creating and disrupting.

I am so afraid that this mission for perfection prevents us from action. And then I realize through my own identities that I also have the privilege to not so anything. I can perpetuate norms day in and day out and nearly never be questioned. I have the undeserved privilege to not even have to say a word. This ranges from the countless micro aggressions I see in person or the conversations I share with students about hetero and sexist norms. I don’t have to say anything.

These perfectionist tendencies leave us always straining our brains or sifting through the research to figure out how to have these conversations. We are left with thoughts of, “what if I say the wrong thing,” “what if this person then doesn’t like me,” “what if I don’t think I am the expert?” It’s absolutely paralyzing. So we are able to slowly back away and not say a thing. We have unreal expectations that there is only one way to make change. We have unreal expectations that there is only one way to have a conversation. It’s time to move the discourse from perfection to good enough. What if any conversation was good enough?

Dr. Stephen Quaye spoke at ACPA 2014 and left a sentiment that brings to light so much of our fear. Dr. Quaye suggests that we should move from being “Perfect to Good Enough.” He went on to say that the culture of perfectionism has become a defense mechanism for the fear of failure. And isn’t it just that? We are so afraid that the conversations we have with our students just might not work. But for a moment, think about one conversation that changed your life or your perspective.

Have the conversation even if you don’t think it’s perfect. Say what needs to be said even if it’s not perfect. Because without even starting that conversation, we perpetuate the cycle. Maybe that one conversation you have will be enough.

How does this relate to men and masculinity? As a white male, this is one of the biggest problems. We need to have conversations with the students we interact with and begin to help them to identify themselves within identities. Be a support for to our students as they begun to understand their identities and privileges that they hold. Empathize. But number one be willing to share the conversation. Because my silence perpetuates white supremacy and patriarchy. We need to guide our students through these conversations rather than hope someone else will bring it up.

1.       Have the conversation

If you can’t complete this, please go back to the beginning and read again.

2.       Seek their Story

There is so much humanity and so much community when you allow a space for someone to share their story. You both have now spent time and energy sharing and making meaning of what their young person’s life is like. You can begin to seek to understand why they say what they say or what they think. We can begin to then understand what questions to ask them in order to help them. We can ask them how they feel about their origins or how they fit into the world of binaries we have created. In particular with masculinity, sexism and our patriarchal society.

3.       Your story is your own

Do not expect your students to be where you are or to understand you immediately. Our nation is suffering from a lack of ability to take another’s perspective. We are surrounded by individuals that have rarely imagined life beyond their very own story. When you are sharing a conversation it is important to remember that you are where you are because you have spent your whole life as you.

But even more, my understanding of masculinity is not the same as one of my best friend’s understanding of masculinity. We must be aware of our identities and how culturally it impacts us all differently.

I know I haven’t said anything profound but I hope we can begin to shift our thinking from perfect to good enough. Any conversation is better than no conversation. Say something when you hear something. Because after all my silence perpetuates white supremacy and patriarchy so you can at least count on me.

About the Author:

Evan Knoespel is currently a Hall Director at Iowa State University. He earned his graduate degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs from the University of Iowa where he served as an Assistant Hall Coordinator. He earned his undergraduate degree in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Evan also previously served as an Intern at the Savannah College of Art and Design.

Skin Deep: On Being a Tattooed Man in Higher Education

Just a quick interaction…

I was in the middle of my 18th sit—wait, 19th? 20th? No, 18th. 18th sit! I was in the middle of my 18th sit when a conversation that changed my perception of tattoos occurred.

I was chatting with my artist, (who will remain nameless for the sake of privacy and will be referred to by pronouns 'they/their' or simply, 'artist'), when they asked, "What do the people you work with think of tattoos?"

"Oh, it isn't ever really an issue," I said, shrugging nonchalantly.

"I figured that not many people in student affairs would have tattoos."

"Tattoos are becoming more common these days," I said, thinking of many of my colleagues with visible pieces.

"Interesting," they said, eyes widening to focus on a tricky line of my tattoo.

"And the only reason I get away with tattoos is because I'm white dude."

"Yeah—" the artist said, laughingly, then they stopped tattooing when they saw I was serious. "What do you mean?" the artist said as they raised their head to look at me for clarification.

"I'm white. Tattoos are more accepted because I'm already in a position of power, so it's generally less frowned upon to have tattoos."

The artist explained how they hadn't really ever attached race to tattoos in the past.

"Think of when you randomly see a black man, or a Hispanic dude, on the streets with multiple visible tattoos—what's the first thing that comes to mind?"

"Trouble."

I was surprised by their word choice because it was almost instantaneous. And this was from someone who tattoos people of color all the time. So I asked the same question but about women.

"Trouble."

"Okay, what about a white man?"

"He can afford tattoos."

We launched into a conversation on how white men simply possess the power to have multiple visible tattoos without anyone batting an eye. It was incredible to have such an empowering conversation with someone who is surrounded with this culture on a daily basis. I could tell things were clicking with my artist because it seemed like this was the first time they'd really had a conversation like this during a tattoo session.

*          *          *

A recent study (Diaz, 2011) suggests America has shifted toward an acceptance of tattoo culture, as four-in-ten adults have at least one tattoo; yet, I feel there is still a blatant stigma associated with tattoo culture—explicitly in higher education.

In a field that sings the praises of motivating students to be authentic by constantly saying, "just be yourself!" how often do we stand by this notion in our own personal expression as administrators (and budding administrators—like myself)?

Further, living in a society that already suppresses male emotions, tattoos can be an essential form of personal authenticity and expression. However, the long discourse has been that, in order to move up in the world, men must cover themselves in business attire to be taken seriously among other administrative men. This is unacceptable because forcing men—across race, class, and sexual orientation; including women—to dress a certain way to be accepted perpetuates systematic oppression of authenticity.

How am I to be truly successful as a man if I am not allowed to be comfortable in my skin and express myself authentically as a creative person?

Insert: Tattoos.

Tattoos are therapy—representative of our past, our present, and future—and allow men to create tributes to our mothers, fathers, wives, children, struggles and/or successes in life, appreciation of music, art, and literature. If society and/or academia suppress men from expressing their emotions by literally wearing their heart on their sleeve, then where can men express ourselves fully authentically?

Tattoos are an important aspect of society because they carry a shared belief in transformation. Anyone can get tattooed for any reason and use the experience to process through that landmark in their life. Tattoos instantly transform skin into a story. Tattoos create conversation starters that intersect gender, racial, and class lines—these connections are important. I am willing to engage anyone in a conversation about their tattoos simply because I am curious to how their skin tells their story.

As I eluded to in my intro, much of this conversation on tattoos sadly looks different for me—given the privilege and power I inherit from being a white male—and isn’t completely accepted for everyone yet. And for that, I hope this article can create a new conversation on tattoos in higher education.

I do not appreciate the reality of tattoo stigma that exists across racial lines because no man (or woman) should have to hide any aspect of themselves in order to be accepted in society. I should not be able to “get away” with having tattoos (or anything, for that matter) because I am a white man. I can’t say I completely “get away” with having my tattoos because I still catch judging eyes from elder administrators and from faculty, but I refuse to hide who I am.

And yes, I get that tattoos are an active choice made by the person who accumulates them and that skin color does not operate that way—but I also recognize that, because of the stigma surrounding tattoos, many men of color might hesitate to go under the needle in fear of further stigma—that is what pains me.

Every man should be comfortable wearing some ink on his skin if he chooses to express himself in that manner.

As Leonard (2012) writes, men should feel free to express ourselves with tattoos as members of academia because tattoos can make us more human in the eyes of our students—challenging the myth of the professor as an untarnished vehicle of knowledge. Not only are we as learned men able to express our knowledge and our competencies, but we can display our personality and authentic pedagogy by distinctly displaying our art for the world to see.

Tattoos are a vehicle of learning because I firmly believe that my tattoos exist in order to aid in how I tell my story of emerging into adulthood as a professional in higher education. Working with students and aiding in their development is equally dependent on how we have explored our own development (Leonard, 2012)—our physical bodies play a significant role in this relationship.

When I roll up my sleeves, I almost have one entire full sleeve and a visible piece on my other forearm. I made the conscious decision to go below my elbows on both are because I have a story I want to share on my body. I am comfortable defending the tattoos I possess and genuinely love telling the stories behind my ink. There is always a story.

Students engage in this story. Students are curious to learn the significance of each of my pieces. Students often ask how many tattoos I have—I truly have no idea anymore—so I respond with my hour/sit ratio. (Note: I’ve sat 20 times for 55 hours.) With these tattoos, I make connections with students. I am human to them. I am authentic to them because I am not hiding.

I had a conversation with a heavily tattooed male administrator at the University of Kansas when I was interviewing there for graduate school. He told me something that stuck with me, “in higher education, no one cares what you look like so long as you do a good job and inspire students.” It was a simple comment that resonated with me because I was able to acknowledge the fact that higher education truly does operate that way. We have an incredibly welcoming field that caters to people from all walks of life. So why can’t we bring about a destigmatization of tattoo culture?

This interaction at Kansas stuck with me because, as we shared our tattoo stories, we came back to many frustrations over how tattoo culture is stigmatized instead of appreciated for artistic expression. Because what this all comes down to is my fundamental belief that tattoos are art. Art is brilliant. Men who desire expressing themselves with this form of art should not feel as though we should have to hide our personal authenticity.

Men already feel like we have to suppress enough of our authentic emotions and modes of expression—so why, too, tattoos?

People who do not understand, or actively refute, a specific culture are the first to make outlandish judgments of that culture. And it is a shame this topic has not been covered much in the realm of higher education because, like racial stereotypes, the stigma around tattoos is purely skin deep.

Dennis Ahlburg (2012), who is president of Trinity University (a small private liberal arts college in San Antonio, TX) presents a mockery of how tattoo shops and tattoo culture actually function. Ahlburg makes many outlandish claims to insinuate that tattoo artists are unintelligent and that those who are tattooed are predisposed to fail in the job search the moment the ink touches skin. Ahlburg claims to know “the facts” about tattooing and yet, claims to own no ink of his own. I am simply shocked and outraged that he would attempt to assert any form of judgment over anyone for their choice in permanent artwork seeing as he obviously has no knowledge of the culture itself.

Tattoo stigma like this operates as oppression of individualistic authenticity in men.

Much of Ahlburg’s (2012) conversation on tattoos centers on this misguided belief that all tattoos involve problematic content or that everyone who has tattoos should be viewed in some negative light—when, in reality, these misconceptions are inherently themselves problematic. I have a beautiful children's literature half sleeve with Max from Where the Wild Things Are, Milo from Phantom Toll booth and the boy from The Giving Tree. However, from afar, it might look as though I just have a black and grey half sleeve covered in skulls and messages of hate—but that's not the case at all. Children have literally jumped for joy when they saw my Max tattoo. My tattoos are strategically chosen to create an image I am proud to wear.

If an employer or an institution wants to hire me for my skills and yet refuses to hire me because I choose to present myself as an art-filled canvas of self-expression—or requires me to hide my work in order to do my job, then I do not want to work for that institution or employer. Forcing someone to hide who they authentically are is a form of oppression—this includes race, gender, gender expression, class, sexual orientation, and even tattoos.

I unapologetically identify with tattoo culture and I am proud to be a future student affairs professional. My only hope is that this will begin the conversation for institutions and supervisors to rethink how we think and view men with tattoos in higher education. There is already a great deal of change taking place in higher education and I see more acceptance of tattoos—which is great—but I will not feel tattoos are truly accepted until the day I no longer have to hear someone explain that they must strategically place a tattoo so it doesn't show at their work.

Get tattooed. Share your story.

About the Author:

Craig Bidiman is a first-year Higher Education MEd graduate student at UMass Amherst. He earned his undergraduate degrees in English and Secondary Education at Oregon State University, where he served as Memorial Union President for a year and was forever transformed to enter the realm of student affairs.

Craig currently holds assistantships in the Center for Health Promotion at UMass Amherst, where he serves as a Masculinity Educator and advises the sex positive comedy troupe, Not Ready for Bedtime Players. Craig also holds an assistantship with the UMass Graduate Student Senate, where he manages advertising and social media marketing.

Craig is also an avid music reviewer, tattoo and vinyl collector, and professional wrestling nerd.

Join the dialogue on Twitter at @CrigBididman

...or on Facebook at Facebook.com/bidimanc.

 References

Ahlburg, D. (2012, October 05). President Ahlburg on tattoos: What they won’t tell you at the tattoo

parlor. The Trinitonian. Retrieved from http://www.trinitonian.com/2012/10/05/president-ahlburg-on-tattoos-what-they-wont-tell-you-at-the-parlor/

Diaz, S. (2011, August 21). Think before you ink: Could that tattoo cost you a job one day? USA

Today College. Retrieved from http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/

career/think-before-you-ink-could-that-tattoo-cost-you-a-job-one-day

Leonard, D. (2012, October 25). The Inked Academic Body. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/10/25/the-inked-academic-body/

“Don’t Shame Me Bro” and other Pedagogical Considerations for Engaging Fraternity Men in Conversations about Healthy Masculinities

            Let me start by saying that I am proud of my fraternity affiliation. I initiated as a member of Phi Kappa Psi at Beloit college in 2005. I was “that guy” in the chapter who served in or ran virtually every committee including: Alumni Relations, Social, Risk Management, Student Government Representative, and Finance. My affiliation meant so much to me that I became a travelling consultant for two years before leaving Headquarter staff to get my masters in Higher Education and Student Affairs.

            All of which is to say though that even though I have immense pride and love for my affiliation, I don’t always love what I did during that time.

            The recent Atlantic Article highlighted many major issues facing fraternities (and missing a few crucial issues as well), but this blog posting isn’t about responding to these articles. My new colleague, Michael Prinkey (2014), has done an excellent job of that in a previous blog post for the ACPA Standing Committee on Men and Masculinities.

            This post is about how one can be a part of, even love, a system while simultaneously be able to engage in critical/challenging conversations around how to improve individuals, groups, and communities that comprise said system for the benefit of all involved.

            This post is about diving into promising practices around engaging men in critical conversations of socialized gender roles for the purposes of promoting pro-social, healthy, and authentic sense of self as well as community for fraternity men on college campuses.

            This post is about promoting authenticity, support, and encouraging inclusive space while navigating a world which cannot lose the momentum it has built in holding actions and organizations accountable.

            What Do I Mean By Critical Gender Conversation:

            This is a question I get a lot when I talk with other professionals. For the purposes of this blog entry, I follow bell hooks conceptions of critical theory. I apply that perspective to my own teaching practices as a means of engaging in reflective assessment as well as critique of society and culture (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002; Kinchloe & McLaren, 2002). Activities are varied, but ought to be cognizant of the following: systemic influences of power and oppression, intersecting & competing perceptions of masculinity, societal equity, challenge systems that also promote racism, sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination, as well as the cultural assumptions by the facilitator regarding appropriate and inappropriate norms of gender. (Harper & Harris, 2010).

            Admittedly, there has been a lot of talk about why gender is an important part of the conversation, but how can practitioner’s apply the developing field of masculinities studies to their own programs? Since I am neither a published author nor someone who has published a dissertation on the topic (yet…), the rest of this blog posting is based upon the articles I’ve read, my experiences as a travelling consultant for my fraternity, and my time at the University of Iowa as part of the Men’s Anti-Violence Council. In all regards, I invite you to challenge, think critically, and submit your own suggestions in the comments! I doubt this list will be all encompassing.

1.      It is time to stop shaming fraternity men – Regardless of how you feel about the interfraternal movement, condemning the whole community gets you no where as a facilitator. Many programs around violence prevention either focus solely on men as perpetrators or determine them helpless against their “biological nature”, there is a natural explicit or implicit tendency to discount this group of semi-autonomous, self-governing, (largely) 18 – 21 year old. Jason Laker has written at length about how damaging “bad dogging” has been for group facilitation and for the learning outcomes of men (Laker, 2011). None of which means we should discount the fact that a majority of perpetrators of violence against women and men is other men, but the quickest way to get fraternity men to tune out any relevant information is to shame them.

2.      Don’t avoid holding fraternity men accountable – The flip side of the above argument is the tendency of facilitators coddling fraternity men. This lets them off the hook for their explicit perpetuation of violence or implicit support of systems based in violence through silence. In my travels, I have seen fraternity go from arguing that they are independent, self governing organizations that should (in the same breath) be compared and held to the same standards of university managed student organizations. In my own experiences, if we’re “real” or authentic with fraternity chapters they respect that honesty. It isn’t always pleasant, but challenging students to lean into their own dissonance is one of the main ways to encourage critical thinking (King and Kitchener, 1994).

3.      It’s time to abandon the “frat bro” language – The “Frat Bro,” popularized by such sites as Total Frat Move, Bro Bible and the American Pie series, is just one facet of fraternity culture. Moreover, it often represents a higher socio-economic status, and traditionally white social fraternities of the Interfraternity Councils (IFC). While many chapter may joke about being “frat bros,” their representations often times over looks the intersection of race and class in fraternities. I once advised a student who ultimately ended up avoiding buying books so he could buy the right shoes, shirts, and alcohol of his peers not to mention the dues he owed. Even within the interfraternal movement, we often give short change to the many other types of fraternities and sororities in existence. In addition to the Interfraternity Council, there are 11 other organizations that cover a gamut of students from culturally based organizations to professional and service based organizations, to religiously affiliated organizations. All have their own processes, procedures, systems, and expectations. As we continue to focus exclusively on engaging the white, rich, heterosexual “frat bro” we not only create blinders on our own assumptions but we lose out on engaging many other communities on college campuses.

4.      Hegemonic Masculinities not Hyper Masculinity – It seems like a silly point, but I believe talking about hegemonic masculinities is a more productive place to lead conversations. When one “blames” hypermasculinity, you have to ask yourself what masculinity are you expressing too much of? Is it the white, rich, heterosexual Frat Bro, is it the blue collar worker, the cowboy, the artist/intellectual, musician, the thug, the scholar, or the token? Media often informs a lot of what archetypes we think about, but many are incompatible with each other even as we manifest multiple archetypes within each individual (Harper, Wardell, and McGuire, 2011). For a great example of the many types of masculinities, check out the Miller Lite “Man Law” campaign. Hypermasculinity essentializes a listener’s experience and also blames men for adopting common masculine narratives taught to them since birth.

Facilitating a conversation on hypermasculinty,  the process of soliciting feedback from a particular group about what hypermasculinity means might reinforce the dominant masculine narrative at the expense of other forms of masculinity. As a result, it can potentially fail to promote a safe space for multiple forms of masculinity, leaving men afraid to be open about all of their passions, goals, and fears.

The lens of hypermasculinity can also shame dominant narratives as being inherently “wrong.” Case in point, a fraternity that prides itself on physical strength may display hypermasculine tendencies through steroid abuse and physical hazing. But weight lifting by itself is not necessarily unhealthy, and as you challenge men to turn away from hypermasculine tendencies, they may adopt other crutches (such as alcohol) as an alternative to what they were trying to prove. Rather than encourage students to reflect and engage around various forms of privilege (and intersecting identities that might also confer oppressions), students are more likely to retreat from the conversation instead.

Hegemonic masculinity is broadly defined as masculinity in opposition to femininity. It depends upon the prioritization of certain manifestations of masculinity proven in the eyes of other men. It is not a deficiency model per se, but it is a compensatory model. Hegemony does not demand you be the “most manly” man ever, but it does compel you to prove you are more masculine (in whatever form is socially acceptable to your community) than other men around you. Klobassa and Davis’ (2009) article in combination with Edward and Jone’s (2009) demonstrate the effective power of societal influences on the internal identities of men. Specifically, the heavy social pressures compel men to mold themselves to traditional narratives of masculinity that propels them up the ladder of their own social hierarchies. If that fails, then masculinity can also be proven by degrading those around them (Kimmel, 2008)

5.      Healthy Masculinities – Healthy masculinities is rapidly developing a strong institutional and academic support base (Courtenay, 2010). Rather than situating masculinities on a scale that promotes considers it only on the two dimensional perspective of excess or insufficiency, we can instead talk about helpful or harmful behaviors in multiple dimensions or expressions. Public health programmers have seen significant gains in a similar model with alcohol consumption called “harm reduction” (Dimeff, Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1999). It moves away from discussing behaviors in all or nothing perspectives and instead situates them in terms of their impact on the individual and the community. Talking about masculinities in this way also allows for traditional norms of masculinity while also challenging how those norms manifest towards self and others. Rather than condemn or shame men for not going to seek help, we can discuss elements of masculinity (such as stoicism and perseverance as an ideal) and reflect upon how that might contribute towards decreased willingness to seek mental health support, increased use of drugs and alcohol, or even higher rates of terminal cases of diagnosable diseases due to failure to go to a doctor. All of these elements we can see as unhealthy actions, without giving up an individual’s preference for perseverance as an internal strength.

6.      Know Your Audience’s Language – At interviews, conferences, and workshops, I’ve always been asked by campus professionals who are not Greek “How can I connect with them?” My first response is that as much as fraternity men think their situation is unique, the problems they face are fairly common to many students. On the other hand, there is a great deal of social capital vested in the language, processes, and history of the interfraternal movement. Speaking in terms of leadership, autonomy, values, and ritual has resonance. If you do not have fraternity experience yourself, it is not difficult to find analogous experiences in your own life.

7.      Be Inclusive – Not enough can be said about this. Even when a “predominant number of crimes” are committed by men against women, highlighting gender neutral pronouns both de-antagonizes participants, but also models how to promote inclusivity at least in language. Further, the same mechanisms that fuel hegemonic masculinities also reinforce racism, homophobia, and trans*phobia as being “outside the norm” of rich, white, heterosexual “frat bro” masculinity (Wagner, 2011; Harper, Wardell, & McGuire 2011)

8.      Pro-feminism is not anti-masculinities – The critical study of gender owes its intellectual foundations to the feminist movement. While I could write a whole blog post about the nuances of labeling one self a feminist, pro feminist, humanist, etc. For the purposes of this post though, I personally stress in my programming that gender equity is an issue for everyone and cannot be seen in isolation of other issues in our society. I categorically reject that feminism is bad for men even as I remain cognizant of my privilege of being a cisgender, white, heterosexual male in the movement and in classroom spaces.

9.      Bystander Education is a Must – Talking about issues is good, understanding issues is better, acting to create a more inclusive fraternal community is the best. Every program, discussion, or exercise must contain some sort of take away or action point.  Research on reflective learning stresses the importance of putting into action what one has learned and reflecting on the outcomes (King & Kitchener, 1994). Bystander education has demonstrated particular effectiveness in preventing sexual assault, hazing, and other harmful behaviors (Vladutiu, Martin, & Macy, 2011; Berkowitz, 2011; Langford, 2008). By moving away from shaming masculinity towards a model of healthy masculinities, we decrease the barriers against men speaking out to other men to promote positive outcomes (Carlson, 2008)

10.  Environment Matters – Even when men self-identify as advocates for social change, environment remains a critical factor for whether they intervene and talk with other men. When it comes to addressing sexual assault paired with healthy masculinities, there are a few elements that stand out. Groups need safe space, most often created when all of the participants are able to have at least some time as a homogenous group. The facilitator’s affinity (gender, sexual orientation, participation in fraternity and sorority life) is less important, but the facilitator must be willing to model authenticity and be willing to tolerate some initial push back. Longer sessions tend to have better impact, especially when students are able to interact with each other and their material. Multiple sessions allows for more material to be covered and reinforced. Small groups tend to produce more openness (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; Casey & Ohler, 2012).

As I introduced this blog, this list is by no means exhaustive. It is meant to start a dialogue. I believe that fraternities are like an echo chamber. They can echo the best parts of being a student or the worst. Rather than get caught up in a debate over whether they are worth while or if they donate enough money, I would rather see them become the vehicles of positive change that many men and women have found them to be. I believe that the terms “Be A Man,” “Man Up,” “Don’t be a pussy,” “No Homo” and others are destroying the fabric of our fraternities and sororities.

The great news is that if these organizations echo society at large and hegemony is itself a social construct, then we can change the nature of the construct. Change the dialogue, change the world!

About the Author

Jacob Oppenheimer is a proud member of Phi Kappa Psi and served his fraternity in a number of capacities, including two years as a Leadership Development Consultant for the national headquarters staff. He earned his masters degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs at the University of Iowa where he served as the graduate assistant in Fraternity and Sorority Life, coordinator of the Men’s Anti-Violence Council, and the interim Academic Counseling Coordinator of TRiO Student Support Services. He now serves as the Assistant Director of Fraternities, Sororities, and Independent Living Groups (FSILG) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

You can reach him at Jacob.a.oppenheimer@gmail.com or follow him on twitter at @jacoboppenheimr.

He can also be found on facebook - https://www.facebook.com/jacob.a.oppenheimer