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

Exploring College Men’s Relationship (or lack thereof) with Diversity Experiences

I have always been astounded by the impact diversity may have on students as they encounter these new and profound experiences, perspectives, and ideas.  I know my personal experience as a college student was forever shaped by these opportunities college environments provide students.  At the same time, the important learning and development opportunities diversity provides for college students is being challenged.  Just last year, the Fisher v. University of Texas case argued affirmative action policies for public universities were unconstitutional to gain a diverse student body for educational purposes. 

Specifically, I continue to observe and process how these experiences of diversity in higher education influence men’s gender identity development.  Recent studies on college men’s gender identity development suggests diversity experiences in higher education may influence their gender identities in positive ways (Harris III, 2010; Edwards & Jones, 2009).  Typically, these insights to how college men’s engagement with diversity in college settings are not the exact purpose of the research but are recognized as findings that should be explored further. 

Relationships between college men and diversity experiences  

Sax’s (2008) research on gender difference of college experience and performance found “diverse interactions and learning experiences as particularly eye-opening experiences for male students” (p. 132).   Sax (2008) explained activities that included a diversity element alter college men’s worldviews and causes them to question their role in the world.  This is consistent with founded research on diversity and college students.  Interactional diversity, student interaction with people who are different, and classroom diversity, diversity-related experiences in the formal in-class curriculum, have continued to support student learning and development in college for all students (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002).   Harris III (2010) and Edwards and Jones (2009) studied men’s gender identity development and suggested diversity experiences in higher education may influence positive and healthy gender identities.

Harris III’s (2010) research on how men make meaning of masculinity in college found diversity of campus culture to generate awareness of masculinity alternatives.  Diverse campus cultures supported the cross-cultural interaction of men with different backgrounds yielding more complex ideas about masculinity gender norms and roles (Harris III, 2010).  Harris III (2010) argued interactions through diversity challenged college men’s conceptualizations of pre-college gender socialized masculine identities.  Interactions with male student peers from diverse backgrounds allowed for more acceptance of alternative masculine identities (Harris III, 2010).  Harris III discussed his findings as support for Sax’s (2008) findings of diversity interactions being eye-opening experiences for college males. The more meaningful diverse interactional experiences with men from different backgrounds challenged prior gender socialization and encouraged new gender identity formations.   

Edwards and Jones’s (2009) study of men’s gender identity development also found diverse experiences to be significant influencers that allowed for men to develop a more authentic gender identity opposed to the pre-college socialized identity.  Men discovered a more positive masculine identity through personal influences, literary and historical influences, and alternative versions of masculinity, academic courses, and critical events in their lives (Edwards & Jones, 2009).  Edwards and Jones (2009) suggest student affairs professionals expose men to historical and literary figures and other alternative versions of men who may provide different ways of being masculine that challenge traditional gender identities.  These studies suggests diversity experiences promotes awareness of masculinity alternatives that may potentially promote development of a more authentic masculine identity.  

How does masculinity identities actively promote or restrict diversity experiences? 

I believe it is also important to understand how college men and their identities may restrict attitudes and behavior towards actively engaging in taking classes that focus on diversity or having serious conversations and relationships with people who are different from them.  Due to the socially constructed norms college men navigate, they may not take classes that focus on diversity as they are not perceived as “manly”.  For example, men tend to be more interested in engineering and computer science compared to gender studies, sociology, ethnic studies, or the humanities (Sax, 2008).  College men who adhere to hegemonic masculinity ideals may demonstrate negative beliefs and behavior about others who are different than them, reducing in interactional diversity.  How are our academic courses and co-curricular activities, workshops, or programs that incorporate diversity strategically marketed and promoted to college men?

Many college men may feel internally insecure or face external pressures that restrict diversity experiences with other students, staff, and faculty.  When the “Mask of Masculinity” is worn, college men are going to be more likely to retreat from engaging in diversity experiences.  They will seek out comfort and safety by adhering to those traditional masculinity norms that gain acceptance by their peers.  College men that adhere to hegemonic masculinity are likely to also struggle with the emotional expressions, complex relationships, and new found challenges that diversity experiences may provoke.  I find a lot of young college men new to universities who also haven’t arrived from multicultural communities are overwhelmed by the challenges diversity experiences provide.  They are still learning the skills needed to successfully reflect, process, and learn from this engagement.  Sax (2008) found college men’s engagement with diversity activities are also accompanied by heightened feelings of discomfort.  I fear higher education and student affairs professionals do not do enough to support these men in their unique challenges produced by gendered norms during these important experiences with diversity. 

So what does this mean to me as someone who cares about college men’s student success?

I believe well documented positive learning and development from student diversity experiences and insights to diversity experiences influence on men’s gender identity development is a unique and powerful educational tool that higher education and student affairs professionals can foster for college men.  Meaningful diversity experiences with which a man may engage might be an opportunity to explore alternative paths of masculinity for healthy identity development.  Diversity experiences may create reflective opportunities to evaluate one’s own gender identity, experiment with other masculine identities, and challenge preconceived expectations of what a man should be to accept a more authentic masculine identity, one that does not construct gender role conflict.  For example, a college man who takes a course focused on gender equality or race and ethnicities may foster more authentic masculine identity development.  A college man who has serious discussions with a student from another country and/or whose political opinions are very different may also create an opportunity for healthy masculine identity development.  

The college years are an intentional time to help students explore who they are personally and in relation to the broader world (Settersten & Ray, 2010).  Settersten and Ray (2010) stated, “This makes college a prime setting in which young people can explore or wrestle with diverse perspectives and issues” (p. 164).  Laird (2005) argued students are best off with opportunities to experiment with different roles and ideas before making commitments into adulthood.  Without diversity, students may not have time to explore different options which leaves only a few pre-college ideas to select from (Laird, 2005).  What learning and development is being missed out when college men do not engage in diversity experiences? 

Moving forward

Considering the significance to learning and development diversity experiences have on college men and their gender identity development, it is critical to understand in more detail diversity experiences’ relationship to college men.  We should be not only promoting college men’s engagement with diversity in and out of the classroom, but also ensuring we follow up with those college men to support them through the challenges these experiences can produce.  I question how college men’s gender identity may influence their engagement with diversity experiences?  We need additional research on how diversity experiences through course work or interactional diversity experiences influences college men’s masculinity identity development.  I believe there can be a very highly impactful outcome between college men’s gender identity and diversity experiences, I continue to explore what these positive outcomes are and how I can best support them as a student affairs practitioner. 

Lucas Schalewski is an Assistant Residence Manager of McNutt Residence Center in Residential Life at Indiana University-Bloomington.  Bachelor of Science in Sociology from University of Wisconson-Whitewater and Masters of Science in College Student Services Administration from Oregon State University.  You can contact him via email at Lucas.Schalewski@gmail.com or Twitter @Luke_ski. 

References

Sax, L. J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of women and men. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harris III, F. (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 297-318.

Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 210-228.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., and Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review 72(3), 330–365

Laird, T. F. N. (2005). College students' experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365-387.

Settersten, R, & Ray, B. E. (2010) Not quite adults: Why 20-somethings are choosing a                 slower  path to adulthood, and why it’s good for everyone. New York, NY: Bantam            Books.

Recruiting Males to Higher Education Through A Strength Based-Positive Masculinity Perspective Part I

The late Mr. Nelson Mandela once said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” What a powerful deposition? Being a higher education professional myself, I am biased towards such a statement. I do agree with Mr. Mandela on the power and importance of education. Therefore, continuing education through higher education is important for citizens of the United States. In fact, Margaret Spelling who served as the United States Secretary of Education (2005-2009) once said, “Higher education is confronting challenges, like the economy is, about the need for a higher number of more adequately trained, more highly educated citizenry.”

 

Such a statement validates the importance that education, especially higher education, has in society. Ultimately, if higher education were not important, then higher education would not have began with Harvard University in 1636 and multiplied into 4,495 degree-granting institutions by 2010 (United States Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012).

In the beginning months of the blog site for ACPA Standing Committee for Men and Masculinities I submitted a blog titled Mentoring College Men to Close the Gender Gap: An Interdepartmental Approach for A Small Regional Campus, which can be found at http://acpascmm.blogspot.com/2013/08/mentoring-college-men-to-close-gender.html. It is clear through scholarship and research that there continues to be a definite gender gap in regards to college enrollment, academic performance, and college graduation between women and men.

 

My primary responsibility for Western Kentucky University’s Glasgow Campus is to recruit students. This has put me on the frontline of interacting with prospective students. My experience bolsters research and publications that explore the gender gap that exists in academics. While meeting and having conversations with prospective students, female students tend to be more interested in pursuing higher education (specifically a four-year degree).

 

My involvement in the ACPA Standing Committee for Men and Masculinities has developed an interest to do more to excite men of rural Kentucky to attend an institution for higher education. The obstacles that males in rural Kentucky face are plentiful. Such obstacles include socio-economic status, lack of resources, role models, culture, gender roles, home life, peer influence, etc.

 

Ultimately, higher education is important and continues to be important in society. While I am not under the belief that every male in the United States must enroll at an institution of higher education, I do believe that males should be enrolling in equal amounts as females. So, this begs the question: How can one best recruit men to higher education?

 

One way of bettering recruiting efforts towards men (specifically from rural areas) is through a positive psychology/positive masculinity model (PPPM) as a strength- based approach. People are familiar with the maladaptive aspects of males such as violence, competition, and aggression (Englar-Carlson and Kiselica, 2013, p. 402).  However, there are many redeeming qualities that males exhibit that are positive, healthy, and admirable forms of masculinity.

 

“Positive masculinity is about changing the dialogue to what men can strive for that transcends the sexist socialization they have experienced. Many men remain confused about who they are or who they should become in terms of gender roles. Therefore, positive-healthy masculinity can be a vehicle to mediate the essentialist and destructive stereotypes that cause much unnecessary suffering for men, women, and children,” (Englar-Carlson and Kiselica, 2013, p. 401). 

 

Essentially, the PPPM approach can be utilized in recruitment efforts by incorporating male strengths into dialogue about higher education. With less male students enrolling to college (specifically males from rural areas), I see the PPPM approach as a means to get behind the masculine stereotypes to show prospective males students the opportunities that can be had through higher education by expounding upon strengths.

 

This approach can provide an opportunity to challenge men who may lack purpose or direction in life (Englar-Carlson and Kiselica, 2013, p. 403).  Englar-Carlson and Kiselica (2013) suggests that using this approach consists of affirming and building upon male strengths in the following ways (p. 404-405):

1. Male ways of relating.  Recognize that boys and men, especially traditional males, tend to form fiiendships by engaging in activities that have a high action orientation, such as playing a game of basketball or working on a project together.

2. Generative fatherhood.  This refers to the way adult men care for the next generation by responding in a consistent way to the needs of children over time. For example, loving fathers stimulate the physical development of their children through rigorous play, promote the autonomy and socialized behavior of their children through the teaching of values and rules and the application of consistent authoritative discipline, and foster their children's cognitive development through various forms of intellectual stimulation. Older men, especially when they are in the role of grandfather, express their love by offering their wisdom and support to younger generations.

3. Male ways of caring.  Many men are socialized to protect their loved ones, to fix things around the house, and to offer solutions to others when they are faced with a problem.

4. Male self-reliance.  Western male socialization often teaches boys and men to use their own resources to solve problems and handle difficult situations. Psychologically healthy men enhance the expectation to be self-reliant with a consideration of the advice and assistance of others to address life's challenges.

5. The worker-provider tradition.  Being a worker and a provider is often a cultural expectation and a source of pride and fulfillment for many men.

6. Male daring, courage, and risk taking.  Healthy men express their courage by taking risks without being reckless. At times, they may be called upon to face peril for the sake of completing a task or protecting a loved one.

7. The group orientation of men.  Many men, across cultural groups, have learned to socialize and work in groups, such as athletic teams, fraternities, and military units.

8. Male humanitarian service organizations.  Throughout the history of the United States, numerous humanitarian organizations began as organizations of men dedicated to serving others, such as the Loyal Order of the Moose and the Lions Club International. Counselors should honor their male clients who participate in such organizations and help other male clients who are seeking positive companionship in their lives to explore and join male humanitarian groups.

9. Male humor.  Men tend to use humor as a way to diffuse tension, express affection, and find escape from their worries.

10. Male heroism.  Men look for and learn from their heroes, who represent a broad spectrum, from some of the great figures in history, to athletic stars, to everyday decent men.

Of course, this counseling approach is just conceptual in the realm of higher education and recruiting. More over, the decision of attending an institution of higher education is eclectic in regards to variables. However, I am curious to apply most (if not all) of the male strengths listed above in recruiting male students to an institution of higher education. This can be done through dialogue and engagement with prospective male students. Ultimately, the purpose of using such a model is to surpass barriers that exist due to negative aspects of masculinity to help encourage males to pursue higher education.

 

This is part one of a post. In the sequel to this blog post, I will share my experience in using the PPPM approach to recruiting male students to an institution of higher education.

Englar-Carlson, M. and Kiselica, M.S. (2013). Affirming the strengths in men: A positive masculinity approach to assisting male clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91. 399-409.

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Fast Facts. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Education of Masculinities Through Video Games

“BOOM, headshot!” can be heard echoing down the hallways of many homes, residential halls, and apartments complexes as adolescents and emerging adults go on a virtual shooting rampage with their friends in the latest video game to be released. While this may sounds terrifying to some, the reality is, it is happening. It’s no secret that that these games are now a common everyday activity that many men participate in. In a week, men play an average of about 13 hours of video games (Kimmel, 2008). Our new generation of students has always had technology in their lives, and it’s important to remember from here on out, they always will. Video games are beginning to fall to the front and center of the media as one of these technologies, but the question is, for better or worse? Blamed for escalation of violence in our youth, video games have been a defining influence in many of our students today (Kimmel, 2008). I urge our current and future educators to not focus their energy on stopping this industry, but instead to focus their aim on helping men understand their own development of masculinities.

            It is important to first recognize what values and societal expectations are being portrayed within these games. Think of a video game character. Odds are the character that you just thought of, was a heroic male. This is because predominantly male characters are the stars of the game. Let’s take Mario for example. Mario is the well-known plumber who has set off from the ‘Mushroom Kingdom’ to save the princess from Bowser, the main antagonist of the series, no matter what obstacle stands in his way (McLaughlin, 2010). It is in this way that gamers from a young age get an idea of what it means to be a man. The notion that they are expected to be brave and self-sacrificing is strongly emphasized within these games and throughout all media as a whole. Because of this, there is an unspoken expectation within society for men to take on these roles. This can be particularly stressful for men who are not yet ready to be a leader, but feel the pressure to step up.

            It seems now that every hero needs his “damsel in distress.” It is very common that games have females who portray this role. Thus, women are projected as objects of desire for men to seek out. Objectification of women through these games gives some men the sense that they are superior and creates a false sense of what women want from a guy and perpetuates the assumption that all men identify as heterosexual. Men’s perceptions become skewed and what they expect is not always what they get in real life. Family Guy, a popular cartoon targeted at young adults, depicts this discrepancy in a brief clip using the popularMario character discussed before.  Beyond this, woman are often used as sex symbols for men. Perfect slim, hourglass shaped bodies, large breasts, and a flirtatious personality are all the essentials of a well-liked female character. Often a side character, these females usually have clothes that show off their sex appeal.  These images become ingrained in many men’s mind as what women should look like. Though often unrealistic, it is no secret that sex sells. With men as the primary consumer, there is little chance that these depictions are changing anytime soon. 

             Another expectation that is portrayed in video games is that men become super macho killing machines. Popular games, such as Gears of War and Halo, have an emphasis on strong male protagonists with game play focused content of shooting and killing the “bad guys” with a variety of violent weapons. What draws men to these games? Power. Power is the value that is being illustrated in these games (Kimmel, 2008). What feels more powerful then picking up a rocket launcher and firing it at a crowd of enemy monsters? The answer is, probably not a whole lot. In real life, many of these men perceive that they have very little power or control over where they are or what they are doing in their lives (Kimmel, 2008). Thus, the video game becomes an outlet for them to feel the power and control they are missing in their own lives.  While this is probably not the reason for violent behavior itself, the fact remains that these games help construct a fictional reality of what it means to be man. 

            Who are these “guys” anyways? The way we describe them makes them sound like sex crazed, ruthless monsters. It might be surprising to find out that these killing machines are the stunning good-looking men featured here.

Looks are everything these days. Almost all the heroes of these stories are physically perfect. Being athletic, muscular, having six pack abs, and stunning smile are all the must haves of a lead character. But what does this image of an overly perfect body mean for the development of our youth. Studies have shown that men have similar body issues as females, but in different ways. Men seek the muscular physique that is so openly displayed in these games (Harper and Harris, 2010). Many underweight men view themselves as less desirable, felt as though they were more likely to be rejected, and were often found to be lonelier  (Harper and Harris, 2010). We must recognize that body issues are become increasingly prevalent in men, and video games are just one of the many media outlets that contribute to this type of thinking.

            Video games are evolving and rather then working against them, we, as college student educators, should be working with them. It will be impossible to instantly change the culture of the gaming industry, but it is not impossible to change the way men critically think about their own identity in relation to the games they are playing. I suggest 3 simple steps that will engage guys in their own development of masculinities through video games.

1.      Relate and understand the games that they are playing. Nothing is more off putting then someone trying to make a point on a subject matter they don’t know well. Take time to ask questions or independently research popular games, so that you can discuss things on their level. Knowing the details makes you more relatable and opens the lines of communication. If they start talking about something you don’t know, ask them to explain.  This places you in their playing field.

2.      Facilitate a discussion with them. Find out how they view the character’s roles, the story, and what they enjoy about it. This is a time for them to teach you about the game on a personal level.  Give them time to talk. Just through them talking alone they may pick up on some of the stereotypes and stigmas that are hidden throughout games. This will allow them to personally reflect on their own thoughts and opinions.

3.      Educate them about how you perceive characters and aspects of the game, and take some time to point things out that you see things differently. Get them actively engaged in the conversation, and have them discuss how they see things differently. The age of an individual is a major factor in the amount influence a game can have. Because of this, it is important to discuss how different ages may warrant different conversations.

            There is no way that, as an educator, you will be able to teach every guy everything you want to about this topic and completely open their eyes to everything that is being ingrained in their minds. But we can slowly make change if we try and engage these men in critically analyzing what they are being exposed to. As they set their aim on other players, we should be taking our best shot at getting them proactive at recognizing the depiction of masculinities in these games.

 

Kyle McAuliffe is currently an Academic Support Coordinator at the University of Maine for the Department of Residence Life.  After receiving his BA in Psychology at the University of Maine, he decided to return for graduate school in the Master’s program in Student Development in Higher Education.

References

Harper, S. R. & Harris F. III (2010). College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

KANOMI. (2013). Retrieved from http://metagearsolid.org/2012/04/mgs2-review-            chapter-1/female-video-game-characters/

Kimmel, M. (2008).  Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men.  New York, NY:
            Harper.

McLaughlin, R. (2010). IGN persents the history of Super Mario Bros. It’s-a Mario! A look back on the greatest franchise in gaming. Retrieved from http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/09/14/ign-presents-the-history-of-super-mario-bros?page=1

YSAFE. (2013). Retrieved from http://iheartbeingagirl.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/why-so-many-
            videogame-characters-look_19.html