Productive Healthy Gender Conversations and Bystander Intervention Tactics

Please pardon the excessive title. I am afraid it is the byproduct of far too many excellent academic conferences attended.

I also want to preface this blog entry as a foundational inquiry into the challenges of violence and hazing prevention. There is a great deal of research being conducted in a variety of fields that hold great promise for the practice of higher education and student affairs. I will cite as much as I can, but some of my questions, suppositions, and assumptions are based on either anecdotal experience or extensions of other arguments that while might not hold muster in front of a PhD dissertation committee, I feel have significant value added components to be considered.

This blog entry is all about not moving to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. It is my claim that bystander training has given us tools that students don't want to use, while traditional conversations around power, privilege, and healthy gender roles has given us the how with no tools to implement change.

Rather than go to the extremes of either type of conversation, I think we can see some very significant gains in sexual assault and hazing prevention by "threading the needle" of these two types of education through an intentional and approachable pedagogy.

The Power of Bystanders

"When you see bad behavior, say something."

"Real leaders aren't silent."

"Live your Ritual and uphold your Oath."

These are common statements made when I have talked with professionals as they have started their conversations around what is a bystander. As far as ice breakers go, they aren't bad. They tend to be pro-social, positive, and they don't assume that the audience is a perpetrator of the particular kind of violence or "bad act" that the presenter is trying to prevent.

Bystander education, as a practice and a theory, when done in isolation to challenge both sexual assault and hazing faces significant hurdles and here is why.

WHEN a person feels responsible to intervene and IF a person recognizes a behavior as a problem, and a person knows HOW to intervene, bystander intervention trainings have shown to be one of the few strategies that has consistently pushed the needle in the positive direction of safe, respectful, and healthy communities.

There is some very positive research coming out of the public health and social work fields that show if those assumptions are met, institutions of higher education (and society at large) has become very good at talking about the HOW of interventions. Yet we've been asking why people differ responsibility or ignore it since the 1970s when the term bystander first entered our collective conscious.

In one study of male advocates of sexual assault prevention (Casey & Ohler, 2012), a disturbingly high number of participants responded that they struggle to intervene when they see dangerous behaviors because they feel like they would be punished by the men and women in their social circles for a "wrong intervention."

In my own personal experiences working on a number of college campuses with fraternity chapters, I see similar fears with the individual men I work with. Peer attitudes have a significant impact on an individual's own perceptions of right and wrong.

One student I worked with put the common fear succinctly to me during a one on one conversation. "I watched one of my brothers being led back to his room by a [potential hookup] even though he was clearly too drunk to be making any decisions. I looked around and I saw my brothers cheering him on. I guess I thought that was what I was supposed to be doing too."

Peer attitudes don't just influence our perceptions about consent and sexual assault prevention, they also have a high correlation with drinking behaviors, hazing, and its more pervasive variant, bullying. More recently, we are seeing a higher amount of scrutiny being paid towards bullying and bystander education in elementary and middle schools (see the Men of Strength Clubs sponsored by Men Can Stop Rape). Perhaps one of the most striking examples of such bullying involved a group of children ganging up on an older bus monitor, making her cry. Meanwhile, the other children film the bullying on their phones and post it online! There are plethora of other examples, but it highlights a growing trend of high tolerance for aggressive behaviors earlier and earlier in childhood.

So here is the problem, if we don't identify certain behaviors as problems, then the likelihood of a student intervening (even if they felt both comfortable and knowledgeable) goes down significantly. I've seen this first hand when working closely with six different chapters and 19 different men over two semesters. Given, this was not an IRB approved program study, but the anecdotal evidence was striking the pre/post test questionnaire. Overwhelmingly, all of the chapters and participants showed marked increases in knowledge about harmful behaviors and talked about the need to work with other chapters about dealing with problems in their chapters. However, only TWO of the chapters (both colonies) talked about the need to address issues of sexual assault prevention and hazing within their own chapters.

Why is this?

My hypothesis is that two significant forces are at work within the undergraduate fraternal experience that overrides voluntary oaths, rituals, and founding values.

The first force is what various scholars have argued underpins a vast array of experiences around masculinity. "Don't snitch."

"Bros before hoes"

"Man up."

"Real men don't run from their problems."

"Real brotherhood means always having your brother's back."

It is a rule that permeates masculine cultures from grade school on. We see it formalized in the oaths undergraduates take when they join their fraternities. We see it when the military talks about "unit cohesion." We see it in police forces through the so called "thin blue line." We saw it clearly in the backlash against Jonathan Martin of the Miami Dolphins, David Byrd of the Buffalo Bills, and Dez Bryant of the Dallas Cowboys. While these organizations are not the only ones who condone hazing, we do see a preponderance of hazing rituals occur in so-called "masculine" activities.

Which brings me to my second point.

Many students come in with some form of tolerance, understanding, appreciation, or support of hazing or hazing-like behaviors. Cornell University summarizes many of the components that lead to hazing tolerances including group think, perceptions of masculinity, shared coping, "symbolic interactionism" and rites of passage.

Whether these tolerances stem from a need for ritual, presence of psychopathic tendencies, or a strong desire to be accepted, hazing is becoming a significant experience for students not just in college but High School as well.

The problem is these tolerances increase the threshold in which a given student would determine whether to intervene in stopping harmful behavior. There are several responses to this barrier (threats of liability, conversations around values, or personal leadership philosophies) but their effectiveness may be similarly limited due to the developmental stages of the audience (King and Kitchener, 1994), biological stimuli that overemphasizes success versus the fear of consequences (Steinberg, 2008), or poor facilitation environments.

Without a doubt, training students to identify and stop harmful behaviors is one of the most intuitive and well documented means of achieving success in preventing hazing and interpersonal violence. Dr. Gentry McCreary has written more eloquently than I in this area and has many great insights on the theory and practice of how bystander intervention strategies can get us closer to interrupting harmful behaviors such as hazing.

The question in my mind is no longer HOW but WHY ought students intervene in situations where violence (in its many forms) occurs. This is where we have to look more systemically at the motivations behind interpersonal violence and be able to help students process their own moral decision making mechanisms. Many of the students said they would intervene if they saw physical violence occur and have high confidence in their ability to intervene, but violence is so much more. Not to mention effective bystander interventions are significantly more complex when you want to de-escalate violent situations.

This hold true especially when we are looking at intimate partner violence (dating violence or sexual assault) or hazing. Both have significant underlying motivations that in my mind are deeply embedded in our perceptions of gender.

Reframing the Gender Conversation

Inclusive-ness isn't a buzzword. It isn't a box we check off. It isn't something we can say "been there done that." Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) have already demonstrated that members of fraternities and sororities are significantly less able to engage in awareness of and experience difference in their collegiate days. There are further studies showing significant income as a major component of the fraternity and sorority experience . Men and women who identify outside of the strict confines of heterosexual norms face routine discrimination. Even at places like the University of Alabama, race can still be a major stumbling block for potential new members in some organizations.

As our campuses and our society becomes more inclusive, we are seeing more Trans* individuals who are seeking membership in organizations across the United States. Regardless of your own campus or organization's policies, we at the very least must be capable of having informed, compassionate, and productive conversations with all people about these issues.

Enter my passion for enhancing our conversations around gender. Like race and ethnicity, gender is a formative binary in which we literally code every interaction from before a person is even born.

We demand to know a child's sex so we can buy them blue things or pink things. Boys get action figures, girls get dolls. Boys play sports, girls play princess or house. We directly tell young boys how handsome they are, while parents of little girls are told that their daughters are "pretty or precious." Boys must become men while every girl will always be "daddy's little girl." Boys must Man Up and Don't Cry while girls must be protected at all costs.

Social gender codes only become more complex and more rigid. We train boys to be independent automatons while we have deprived girls of agency and power in their own lives.

We also enforce these codes through social and personal attitudes that reward unhealthy behaviors. This is especially true in fraternities and sororities where group think generally tends to lead towards some particularly bad behavior but then celebrated in movies (like old school and the upcoming Neighbors). In fact, the founder of Snapchat emailed a friend saying that he and his friends were "certified bros" because their fraternity had just been kicked off campus.

So here are a few challenges that come from this socialization:

-Biological sex and gender identity are not the same thing. Neither exist on a binary.
-The current structures reinforce binary notions through self-selection and give preference to white, wealthy notions of privilege and power.
-Gender performance is a choice and one that can manifest in many different forms.
-Previous efforts when talking about gender have gotten bogged down into the "men are from mars, women are from venus" track which tends to essentialize and problematize masculine and feminine experiences without providing effective tools to challenge problematic behaviors.

So let me start with the elephant in the room. I do not think that talking about masculinities and feminities ALONE will solve our problems. Far from it, I fear that reinforces systems of power and privilege. So often we talk about "hypermasculinity" as one monolithic enterprise. Jackson Katz of "Tough Guise" discusses hypermasculinity in terms of excess - violence, stoicism, silence, excersize, drinking, sex, etc. It is true that hypermasculinity is both present and very much a problem in acts of hazing, but it isn't the only lived experience out there. In various cultures, there are MANY definitions of masculinity, each archetype complete with overlapping and competing demands simultaneously. The dandy, the thug, the billionaire, the factory worker, the metrosexual, the bro, the nerd, the cowboy, the father, or the playboy. These are just SOME of the archetypes that serve to confine and define modern masculinity. The picture becomes increasingly complicated as you look at the intersection of race and sexual orientation (Guardia & Evans, 2010; Liu, 2010; Harper, 2010)

I also think that, relatively speaking, starting a conversation around gender in college is almost too late. The most promising work in anti-bullying work involving critical conversations on healthy masculinity is being shown in high schools and elementary schools involving mentors, families, and friends. In fact, fraternities and sororities offer some great developmental opportunities both personally and academically even in their first year of membership (Martin, Hevel, Asel, & Pascarella, 2011).

But I think we short change ourselves and our students if we think that student's development as men and women stop when they get in college and we sure as heck know that many develop stronger senses of their own sexuality and gender expression on spectrums as they find new safe spaces. In fact, from my own observations, college as a whole (and fraternity and sorority involvement in particular) is a time when students attitudes and behaviors are significantly shaped by the social environment around them (F&S Advising, CAS Standards).

Students may not understand or find immediate appreciation for terms like "hegemonic masculinities," "patriarchy," "internalized oppression," or "gender role conflict" but they live it none the less.

They live it every time a sorority woman can be either a slut or a frigid bitch / tease. They live it when the term "don't be a pussy" or "no homo" is used to inoculate the speaker or attack the recipient. They live it when no one is surprised that more judicial cases involve men (Harper, Harris, Mmeje, 2010). They live it every time they feel the need to drink to be social or an angry sorority woman sends a regrettable email that becomes an internet sensation over night.

The impact of gender norms and gender conflict reverberates throughout our practices whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

Though I would like to think that statistics alone is enough to motivate students to change student behavior, but unlike smoking, STI testing, or seatbelts, gender norms are being set up and reinforced early, often, and with regrettably tragic consequences. The problem is that gender conflict has been normalized: in media, in personal interactions, in systems of power and privilege. Where the so-called "war on men"is commonly accepted, we buy into standard practices because we THINK THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE ELSE buys into.

Let me give you an anecdotal example of the mutual buy in. During my first ever Risk Management College sponsored by the Fraternal Executives Association, I vividly remember Dave Westol giving his "Too Late To Apologize" speech about hazing. It resonated and it shocked me. I remember turning to a group of sorority consultants and seeing them nod sagely along to the discussion around alcohol use.

Why, I asked?

"Our women would never go to a predominantly dry chapter" one of the consultants said. It just wasn't done for social events.

I reminded them that they've been talking all afternoon about how few women actually liked being in fraternity chapter houses for prolonged periods of time.

"They certainly wouldn't go alone and I would always encourage them to make sure no one got left behind!" The consultant replied. That was just the way it was she reminded me. I've seen men make the same arguments against their own brothers who tried to promote non-alcoholic mixers.

This story was echoed by my experience two years later at the University of Iowa. One graduate student remarked during a parent orientation that fraternity houses were the safest place to go when drunk. He assured the parents that fraternity men look after others. The parents, so I was told, laughed in his face. Few believed that platitude.

I've seen it during my two years as a consultant. Many fraternity men from chapters large and small at a variety of institutions. In my one on one meetings with the brothers, many complained about the expense of alcohol, the drop out rates of potential new members and older brothers, the fear of rejection, the drug use. I've even had a few brothers break down and cry in frustration at it all. One enterprising chapter president in collaboration with several alumni and the fraternity and sorority life office request a voluntary membership review.

But more often than not, when I try to repeat these conversations with the whole chapter, I get the same blank look. Not. Our. Problem, their silence screamed at me. Not in our chapter at any rate.

So let us re-frame the conversation. Rather than blaming men for being masculine, what if we adopted the public health model and talked about healthy and unhealthy behaviors? This is why I am a firm believer in re-framing this debate as promoting healthy gender norms. It allows you to continue to pinpoint harmful and violent behaviors, avoid blaming the actor, and empower individual students to feel responsible for making a change.

Conclusion

In the example I gave above, speaking out is definitely the way to make change. In the case of the one chapter officer, he went to extraordinary lengths to help correct his chapter, blatantly making himself VERY unpopular.

The problem, as I stated above, is that even men who see themselves as advocates for change, report a strong deference to popular opinion. The brotherhood, and loyalty therein, becomes a major stumbling block in speaking out against unhealthy behaviors (Carlson, 2008).

Bystander interventions give us an excellent tool for stopping violence, but I have bigger dreams. By negating social change, I would argue that we leave in systems of power and privilege that demand future violence for their enforcement mechanisms. We are saying that "boys will always be boys" and that women will always be required walk two competing ideals of the sinner and the saint that left an entire senior class telling me that they don't think that a) men cared about consent or that b) they didn't have the power to give consent.

I am distinctly uncomfortable with those two options. Especially because without a broader conversation around gender identity we continue to reify the very mentalities that promote violence against anyone who is outside of their respective boxes be it through their sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the gender conversation goes beyond just sexual assault prevention, it deals with hazing too. If hazing is about a rite of passage or ritual, then gender informs our rhetoric around what it means to be an adult and we can facilitate the intellectual and moral development of the students through intentional conversation.

If hazing is purely about using and abusing power, then we not only interrupt but subvert the very system that tells us that "real men" need power and women ought not have direct control over others.

In regards to sexual assault prevention, I believe we are at a crucible moment where the various title ix investigations and public outcry has brought unprecedented levels of attention to what has for too long been a hidden crime. Thanks to the work feminist groups and allies around the country and abroad, we are finally having a public conversation. Where we know that most perpetrators tend to be men, very few men are themselves rapists. Rather than reinforce notions of fear and entrapment that has categorized various backlashes against sexual assault responses, we are now in a position to promote respect, equity, agency, and communication as primary means of a pro-social advocacy of consent.

In turn, we can minimize the consequences of trying to "fit within the gender box" while simultaneously raising awareness of how individuals respond to implicit and explicit pressures to be a "real man" or be a "real woman."

Healthy gender expressions, not hyper gender expressions, is my rallying cry. It is a nuance to be sure, but an important one in my mind. It is based on the principle of universal design. Rather than "accommodating" 100 different identities, we foster environments where by students become comfortable with their own identity because it no longer needs to be proven at another's expense.

That means learning a new language, one that is inclusive, diverse, welcoming, and all encompassing. It doesn't require "correcting" the deficiencies of a given gender but allows individuals to find their own strengths regardless of whether society deems it "masculine" or "feminine."

But don't get me wrong, this isn't a post racial, post gender kind of argument. This is a recognition of Audra Lorde's famous quote: "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences." Even within our own selves versus what we think society (and our friends specifically) think we should be.

If bystander interventions bring us closer to interrupting poor behavior and acts as a well crafted arrow, then gender becomes a lightweight composite bow capable of being handled expertly by many. Intersectionality would then be the fundamental, high strength bowstring that allows us to project the arrow not just into our immediate target to to send it far, true, and target issues we haven't even talked about yet.

I would agree that past efforts have not yielded the results I would have liked, but much of our understanding of the nuances of gender did not really come about until the feminist intellectual movements in the 60s and 70s. Most of the contemporary literature on masculinities in particular wasn't authored until the late 1990s. Even now the people I have talked to have predominantly been working around measuring men and women through their biological sex. Gender roles are changing, that is for sure. What we need is not to give up on the gender conversation, but refine it; develop better instruments so we can better understand our impacts and as a result refine our ongoing conversations around how gender enforcement contributes to the verbal, physical and emotional violence not just on our selves but against those around us as well.

I dream of a world where violence is not the norm. Call me weird, but I think we have the potential to help shape and develop that world in college, in high schools, and elsewhere. But only if we are intentional, research based, and use effective assessment to make sure our implementation of programs are relevant and appropriate to our individual campuses.

Different students have different needs. No one stich, response, target, or approach will work for everyone. But I believe talking about gender roles gives us a power value added component and will help engage our chapters in preventing hazing and interpersonal violence going forward. We're just in the process of learning more complex and nuanced approaches.

Citations:

Casey, E. A., & Ohler, K. (2012). Being a Positive Bystander: Male Antiviolence Allies' Experiences of "Stepping Up". Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 62-83.

Carlson, M. (2008). I'd rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and bystander intervention.Journal of Men's Studies, 16(1), 3 - 17. doi: 10.3149/jms.1601.3

Guardia, J. R., & Evans, N. J. (2010). Factors influencing the ethnic identity development of latino fraternity members at a hispanic serving institution. In S. R. Harper & F. Harris (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 391 - 414). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harper, S. (2010). Peer support for african american male college achievement: Beyond internalized racism and the burden of "acting white". In S. R. Harper & F. Harris (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 434 - 456). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harper, S., Harris, F., & Mmeje, K.C. (2010). A theoretical model to explain the overrepresentation of college men admong campus judicial offenders: Implications for campus administrators. In. S. R. 

Harper & F. Harris (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 221 - 238). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Langford, L. (2008). Preventing violence and promoting safety in higher education settings: Overview of a comprehensive approach


King, P. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., Asel, A. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). New evidence on the effects of fraternity and sorority affiliation during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 543 - 559. doi: 10.1353/csd.2011.0062


Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005) How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Steinberg, L. (March, 2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. National Institute of Health, 28(1): 78-106. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 http://www.acui.org/publications/bulletin/article.aspx?issue=22642&id=12585fff

Liu, W. M. (2010). Exploring the lives of asian american men: Racial identity, male role norms, gender role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes. In S. R. Harper & F. Harris (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 415 - 433). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.