BIG MAN ON CAMPUS: CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON MASCULINITIES AT

THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

by

Riya Chandiramani

AN HONORS THESIS IN COMMUNICATION

Presented to the Faculty of the Annenberg School for Communication

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors

2017

On behalf of the Faculty of the Annenberg School for Communication

and the University of Pennsylvania, I hereby accept this thesis:

___________________________________________________________________________
Sharrona Pearl, Ph.D. Thesis Faculty Supervisor

___________________________________________________________________________
Kimberly Duyck Woolf, Ph.D. Thesis Seminar Supervisor

THE ANNENBERG SCHOOL FOR COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Acknowledgements

To my advisor, Dr. Sharrona Pearl: you are one of the most fascinating people I have ever had
the privilege of meeting. Thank you for getting to know me for who I am, for encouraging me to
follow my interests and passions, and for always having confidence in my abilities. Also, thank
you for your honest (and impressively quick) responses, which were much appreciated given my
tendency to overthink, well, everything. I thoroughly enjoyed our chats, one of which inspired
this thesis topic, so you are to thank for all the knowledge I accumulated on this enlightening
yearlong thesis journey most notably, that maybe I should cut the men at Penn some slack.

To my seminar advisor, Dr. Kim Woolf: you are simply amazing. I dont know how you do it all
so perfectly, and still manage to retain your sanity and your smile. Thank you for keeping us so
organized and on track, for listening (and responding) to my rants, and for reassuring me in my
moments of uncertainty and caffeine-induced freak-outs. Most importantly, thank you for telling
me when to stop working. Very few people succeed at that. You deserve a medal! And a nap.

To my interview respondents, who must remain anonymous (that is what those consent forms
were for, after all): Thank you, firstly, for responding to my e-mail and for being so willing to
participate in my study I know how busy you all are! Without you, I would not have a thesis,
and probably also would not view this university and its students the way I do now, with much
greater understanding and empathy. Thank you for letting me into your lives, and most of all, for
exemplifying the range of incredibly unique and talented individuals at this school.

To my friends (you know who you are, I hope): thank you for always checking up on my thesis
(and me) and inquiring about my latest discoveries. Your interest and encouragement made me
all the more motivated to keep going. Thank you for sitting with me as I typed and talked to
myself, and for being the most rewarding reasons to take a break from my computer screen.

To my parents: thank you... for everything. I wouldnt be here, let alone writing this thesis, if it
werent for your brains, hearts, and unconditional, unshakable faith in me.

ii
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Abstract

Despite widespread discourse on masculinity, few studies specifically relate factors that

are contextual to a given college to the belief systems its male students hold about their gender

identities. The purpose of this study is to contribute to the discussion surrounding the display and

effects of male dominance at college by investigating the contextual factors at the University of

Pennsylvania that contribute to specific performances and manifestations of masculinity on its

campus. 11 male and 10 female undergraduate students participated in 45-minute interviews

about their experiences in Penns culture, with an emphasis on gender norms. The results suggest

that gender roles are not traditional in the academic sphere of campus, but are bifurcated and

support a structure of hegemonic masculinity in the dominant social sphere at Penn. The

expectations of Penn students to be the best and most accomplished academically, succeed

professionally, party hard, and appear perfectly put together, collectively influence the way men

develop and perform their gender identities. Further, there is a double pressure on men to adhere

to certain societally defined male norms alongside these Penn norms, which reinforce their need

to conform toward certain behaviors and attitudes. Overall, the presence of dominant male

gender norms on campus are created and upheld due to a combination of factors at Penn,

including men, women and structural influences. Based on analysis of the results, this study

offers recommendations for fostering a campus environment with fewer gender role pressures

and a more diverse, close-knit community.

iii
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction 1

II. Masculinity and its Development 6

A. Development of Male Gender Identity 6
B. Learning to Be a Man 10
C. Summary of Research on the Development of Masculinity 19

III. Masculinity and the College Experience 21

A. Pre-College Gender Socialization 21
B. The College Context 23
C. College Fraternities 30
D. Bro Culture 32
E. Impacts of Masculinity at College 34
F. Summary of Research on Masculinity and the College Experience 39

IV. Summary & Research Questions 41

V. Methodology 42
A. Study Design 42
B. Analytic Plan 51

VI. Findings 52

VII. Behind the Mask: Gender Role Stress on a Campus Under Pressure 101

Reference List 112

Appendix A. Conceptual Model 116

Appendix B. Interview Guide: Men 117
Appendix C. Interview Guide: Women 121
Appendix D. Undergraduate School System at Penn 124
Appendix E. Brief Description of Participants 126

iv
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

I. Introduction

The behavior of male college students has recently attracted an upsurge of attention, both

in popular press and scholarly literature, in light of recent events on campuses across the nation.

In the Stanford-rape case of 2016, a 20-year-old male student sexually assaulted a 23-year-old

woman while she was unconscious on the universitys campus, an event that sparked outrage in

the media (Koren, 2016). The same year, Harvard penalized students that were members of Final

Clubs prestigious, independently owned, all-male societies due to their discriminatory

membership procedures, misogynistic attitudes, and the fact that 47% of women that had

partaken in events at these clubs had experienced non-consensual sexual contact (Nir, 2016). In

2011, a Yale fraternity paraded around the universitys campus chanting, No means yes! Yes

means anal! They became the subjects of a federal investigation after being accused of creating

a hostile environment for women (Reitman, 2012). The Claremont College Consortium recently

held a workshop dedicated to the mental health problems specifically caused by masculinity. The

events organizers stated, Masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health, both to the

people who are pressured to perform it and the people who are inevitably influenced by it, and

another student added that there was a common consensus that masculinity is harmful both to

those who express it and those affected by it (Glick, 2016).

Male students at Dartmouth University and Tufts University spoke out recently about

their abusive experiences as members or pledges of fraternities on their respective campuses

and both strongly recommended the abolition of fraternities altogether. The Dartmouth student,

who has since left the university, charged fraternities with perpetuating a culture of pervasive

hazing, substance abuse and sexual assault, as well as an intoxicating nihilism that dominates

campus social life (Reitman, 2012).

1
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

The Tufts student wrote:

I have to come to the conclusion that fraternities must be abolished. That I will not and
cannot stand to have this culture pervade my campus, a culture that propagates violence,
that enforces rape culture, that administers binaried ideas of gender, that tokenizes and
fetishizes queerness, simultaneously using it as a way to seem progressive and as a tool
of hazing (Kesslen, 2016).

Recently at the University of Pennsylvania, an off-campus fraternity sent emails to a list

of freshman women, telling the fun ones to wear something tight to their parties, which

vowed to be wild nights of inebriation (Spinelli, 2016). After a student collective publicized this

message on campus, it garnered significant media attention around the nation as a prime example

of rape culture on college campuses. An article in the Daily Pennsylvanian, the universitys

newspaper, stated the email exemplified Penns culture of coercing women to have sex, and the

incident has since joined the nation-wide discussion about acts of masculinity on college

campuses (Spinelli, 2016). The same article also noted that a third of Penn women who

responded to a 2015 survey reported that they had been sexually assaulted during their time at

the university. As another writer for the Daily Pennsylvanian articulated, The notion that Penn

guys will be Penn guysand that Penn ladies should either ignore them or make adjustments

to fit the resulting college landscapeis one that enables many onlookers to trivialize the

severity and prevalence of sexual assault on campus (LaBerge, 2016). Here, the writer

specifically notes the pervasive boys club nature of the university, and the disturbing

implications it can have in promoting a set of values and beliefs that provide an environment

conducive to rape, and in a larger sense, the subjugation of women (Boswell & Spade, 1996, p.

133).

2
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Although there is no one way to define masculinity, in a nutshell, masculinity can be

understood as the possession of traditionally male characteristics and qualities; norms of the

male gender role, which is comprised of the behaviors, expectations, and values defined by

society as masculine (Capraro, 2000, p. 308).

Despite widespread discourse on masculinity (Bird, 1996; Capraro, 2000; Anderson,

2007; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Harris & Struve, 2009; Kimmel, 1994; Reeser, 2015),

both scholarly, and in the popular press, a gap in literature exists with regard to how this

masculinity is constructed, particularly by factors pertaining to the college environment.

Literature on college males often focuses on relationships or conflicts between men, particularly

in fraternities or sports teams, and associations between their masculine behavior and drinking

culture, sexual aggression or rape-supportive attitudes (Vandiver & Dupalo, 2012; Engstrom,

2012; Cowley, 2014; Capraro, 2000; Boswell & Spade, 1996). There are few studies that focus

on the gender identity development process of males at college, and specifically, relate factors

contextual to a given college to the belief systems that its men hold about their gender identities.

Furthermore, popular press articles tend to correlate campus culture and men on campus with

rape culture, and there is a lack of scholarly articles that address the true reasoning behind

mens apparent problematic behaviors. Despite Penns globally recognized status as a large,

prestigious, Ivy League institution, it has not been the subject of many recent academic studies,

especially regarding the contemporary controversies and issues regarding masculinity that its

students encounter on an everyday basis.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the greater conversation

surrounding the display of male dominance at college and its subsequent effects on campus

3
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

culture by investigating the contextual factors at the University of Pennsylvania that might

contribute to the specific performances and manifestations of masculinity on its campus.

Largely, this study aims to examine how aware Penn male students are of the societal

expectations of their gendered behavior, and how they learn these meanings. It also aims to find

out if men aim to meet these societal expectations, and what challenges they face if they do so, or

if they do not. It also seeks to understand how certain contextual factors shape and give rise to a

Penn-specific masculinity. It aims to find out what male gender norms manifest from these

interactions of masculinities, and what their effects are (if any) on campus; and how and why

students, including women, might be complicit in upholding and maintaining these norms.

Scholars of higher education and student affairs (e.g. Davis & Laker, 2004; Davis &

Wagner, 2005; Edwards & Jones, 2009; Harper & Harris, 2010; Harper, Harris, & Mmeje, 2005;

Harris, 2010) argue that an increase and improvement in services interventions that are gender-

specific and catered towards college men will decrease the destructive acts on campus that are

correlated with misguided masculinities (Harper & Harris, 2014). Thus, by gaining a more

thorough understanding of the gender identity development process for college men grounded in

empirical research and theory, the masculinity-related issues that have been occurring at Penn

and other campuses might be better anticipated, prevented, or solved.

Whilst masculinity and the adherence to traditional male gender roles are considered the

norm for males who want to be viewed as real men, some male theorists postulate that

traditional notions of masculinity do not reflect the true nature of men, and that it is actually an

external social pressure that gets internalized by men, and in doing so, hinders their personal,

individual growth (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985). This can lead to a conflicted or strained

4
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

gender-role identity, which can present obstacles to healthy psychological development,

especially with regard to the specific cohort of males in college, who are undergoing arguably

one of the largest and most significant transitions in their development at this age. College

educators would therefore benefit from learning how masculine identities are shaped and

reinforced in college, through what channels, and how they manifest, so that they might be able

to recognize healthy and unhealthy performances of masculinity and more significantly, their

effects, on campus.

Specifically, this study focuses on three research questions:

1. How do male students at Penn understand the meanings of masculinity?

2. What factors that are situated in Penns campus contexts influence mens concepts of

masculinity and gender identity development?

3. How, if at all, are female students complicit in upholding male gender norms on

campus?

II. Masculinity and its Development

The literature on masculinity explored in detail below traces the shift from a biologically

based concept of sex-roles to explain maleness up until the 1970s, when its meaning then shifted

to a measure of mens adherence to socially constructed male gender norms (Carrigan, Connell

& Lee, 1985; Connell, 1985). Throughout the literature that emerged on studies of men from the

1980s onward, masculinity became viewed as a social construct; a dominance ascribed to males

in society for possessing the appropriate qualities, and adhering to the norms, values and

behaviors that being a man entails.

5
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

A. Development of Male Gender Identity

Early Frameworks of Masculinity: Sex-Role Theory

What originated as research on the differences between the sexes in the early 20th century,

fueled by the desire to show that females are naturally inferior to males, and explain differences

such as male toughness and aggression through biology, developed into a field of social science

dedicated to studying sex-roles - i.e., biologically determined differences between males and

females.

Studies that focused particularly on women only flourished in the 1970s, following the

Womens Liberation (Feminist) Movement. Before this, a version of sociology on masculinity

had come about, which focused on explaining the problematic behavior of boys and men. One

theory suggests that whilst feminine roles in society were shifting rapidly, adults were

maintaining traditional masculine socialization patterns. Boys subsequently experienced anxiety,

which they sought to relieve by distancing themselves from doing or being anything feminine,

and even from females themselves (Connell, 1985, p. 560).

A seminal piece in 1969 articulated what it meant to be masculine; holding male values

and following or displaying male behavior norms, including courage, forms of aggression,

autonomy, mastery, technological skill, group solidarity, adventure, and physical and mental

toughness (Connell, 1985, p. 562). These male gender norms contributed to the conditioning

that created the artificial product of masculinity, which became a common societal perspective

in the 1970s (p. 565).

6
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

The Birth of Masculine Studies: The Social Construction of Masculinities

Whilst the 60s and 70s called attention to the fact that gender mattered, and particularly,

that a relationship between gender and power existed, in the 1980s, new social science work on

masculinity rejected the sex-role theories of the prior decades, giving rise to the social

construction of masculinities, a perspective offered by pro-feminist mens studies scholars. One

of them, the psychologist Joseph Pleck, criticized the emphasis on sex roles and social

expectations and noted the fact that both conforming towards and violating them would lead to

psychological dysfunction in males (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985).

Carrigan, Connell and Lee (1985) critiqued male sex-role literature, and made the key

point that the male role is acquired through conditioning, social learning, and influence not

biology or genetics as earlier theories had postulated. Further, these authors suggested that a

central fact about masculinity is that men in general are advantaged through the subordination

of women (p. 590). Their new ideas were integrated into the sociological theory of gender.

In the 1980s, masculinity and feminist studies were closely interlinked (Reeser, 2015).

However, by the 1990s, masculinity studies began posing questions about the relationship

between men and patriarchal power, and changes in masculinity over time and shifts in context,

as well as the existence of multiple kinds of masculinity. Scholars started to look at the

relationship between dominant (hegemonic) and subordinate forms of masculinity whereby

hegemonic forms held social power and approval, whilst the less dominate forms did not.

Hegemonic Masculinity

In general, asymmetries exist between men and women, as well as among men and

women. However, the idea that a power dynamic between normative and non normative

7
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

masculinities exists is a relatively new concept within the already recent notion of masculinity as

a social construct (Bird, 1996, p. 120). The concept of hegemonic masculinity was first

formulated in the 1980s, but became a seminal theory within the study of men and masculinities

through R.W. Connells (1987) research. Whilst it is held by this body of scholarship that men

appear to hold an overall position of privilege in society, specific masculinities, e.g. White,

heterosexual, able-bodied, can be considered positioned higher on the dominance scale than

others, namely gay, racial or ethnic minorities, physically disabled and lower-class (Reeser,

2015).

Inspired by the political theorist Gramscis notion of hegemony, Connell (1987) revised

the definition of the concept with relation to gender, as the maintenance of practices that

institutionalize mens dominance over women and is constructed in relation to women and to

subordinate masculinities (p. 185-86). It embodies the currently accepted answer to the

problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant

position of men and the subordination of women (Connell, 1995, p. 76). Hegemonic

masculinity is described as a question of how particular groups of men inhabit positions of

power and wealth, and how they legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate

their dominance (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985, p. 592). Bird (1996) claims that delineating

relations among masculinities helps to better recognize the maintenance of the structural order of

gender. Within this structure, hegemonic masculinity is maintained by supporting meanings and

behaviors that support these ideals and norms, whilst meanings supporting behaviors that

challenge hegemonic masculinity are marginalized or suppressed. Bird (1996) postulated three

specific ways in which male homosocial interactions maintained hegemonic masculinity

identities: emotional detachment, which entails the withholding of expressions of feelings and

8
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

intimacy; competitiveness, which is constructed and maintained through other relationships with

men; and the sexual objectification of women, whereby being male is seen as not only different

from being female, but better than being female.

However, male theorists claimed that hegemonic masculinity should be recognized as a

social pressure that gets internalized, and in this way, an obstacle to personal growth (Connell,

1985, p. 579). Hegemonic masculinity thus connects masculinity studies with popular anxieties

about males, feminist interpretations of patriarchy, and sociological views of gender (Connell,

2005, p. 830). The most important features of this masculinity are that it revolves around the

dominance of men over women, it is heterosexual, and race plays a role in constructing this

power too. Hegemonic masculinity does not point out one specific character type; it is not going

to look the same everywhere. Rather, it is the masculinity that occupies the hegemonic position

in a given pattern of gender relations, a position always contestable (Connell, 1995, p. 76).

The theory was criticized by some scholars, such as Michael Flood (2002), for not being

explicit enough about whether hegemonic masculinity is a particular configuration of gender

practice related to patriarchal authority, or describes whatever type of masculinity is dominant in

a given social order (p. 208). Furthermore, since the dominance of males over women is a

given in the model, the question of how or whether women could function as part of it in any

way other than subordinate is overlooked.

The dominance and superiority of men over women is built into the theory of hegemonic

masculinity. Feminist theory proposes that our society at large has established a patriarchal

society, where men hold higher statuses and have more power than women (Vandiver & Dupalo,

2012). Kimmel (2008) claims that everyday, women and girls are affected by Guyland, a term he

9
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

designates to describe the world in which young men live (p. 4). Men set the terms of

friendship, of sexual activity, of who is in and who is decidedly out (p. 14). Kimmel (2008)

further states that girls can be considered fun, sexy, even friends, but only if they respect the

centrality of guys commitment to the band of brothers, and play by guy rules or they dont

get to play at all (p. 14). They cannot be a threat to the boys sense of masculine power or

dominance, and must comply with their tacitly delineated domains and hierarchical structure.

Furthermore, social ideals of hegemonic masculinity can be internalized or

interiorized (Bird, 1996, p. 122). The former refers to a mans inner, core self having

centralized the social ideals of masculinity, whilst the latter describes the acknowledgement of

these social ideals without being central to the persons identity. The following section outlines

the formation of a mans gender identity.

B. Learning to Be a Man

Gender Identity Development

Kimmel (2008) writes that Freudian theory introduced the belief that boys develop into

men by way of separating from their mothers, because they learn that connections to their

mother will emasculate them. They therefore suppress all associations and feelings with the

maternal, such as compassion, nurturance, vulnerability and dependency, and instead switch their

identification to their fathers. According to Kimmel (2008), this is where the Boy Code

originates, which converts into the Guy Code as boys become adolescents. The Guy Code

reinforces these previous messages and suppresses what remains of the boys childhood

innocence and liveliness, transforming it into sullen indifference (p. 54).

10
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Bird (1996) demarcates the difference between gender identity and gender role, whereby

the latter refers to behavioral expectations associated with more or less static social positions,

whilst the former is a continual process whereby meanings are attributed by and to individuals

through social interaction (p. 122). In other words, gender is relational, and mens

conceptualizations of masculinities are unique, based on the specific social institutions and

contexts they have experienced. As Kimmel (2008) elaborates, it would be a mistake to assume

that each [guy in America] conforms fully to a regime of peer influenced and enforced behaviors

that I call the Guy Code, or shares all traits and attitudes with everyone else. Its important to

remember that individual guys are not the same as Guyland (p. 6).

Some fundamental notions offered by the social constructionist perspective are that firstly,

gender is a performed social identity and focuses on the how traditional male gender

socialization and the performance of masculinities based on social norms manifests (Harris, 2010,

p. 299). Masculinity manifests differently across social contexts and structures, and is subject to

change, not just as perspectives shift, but also as the men themselves age. It also acknowledges

that whilst males overall appear to hold an overall position of privilege in society, specific

masculinities (e.g. White, heterosexual, able-bodied) occupy a higher position on the dominance

scale than others, namely gay, racial or ethnic minorities, physically disabled, lower-class. Hence,

the traditional notion of masculinity is that which is followed and supported by the dominant

culture, and other versions (e.g. individual, cultural) are constructed either in conjunction with or

response to the established, normative version (Edwards & Jones, 2009). This dominant version

of masculinity is hegemonic, in that it is primarily organized around the subordination of women

and the placement of certain men above others (Edwards & Jones, 2009). This traditional

hegemonic definition of masculinity used for male gender socialization has, according to

11
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Kindlon and Thompson (2000), cultivates qualities of emotional illiteracy and cruelty amongst

boys at a young age, and continues to affect men throughout their lifetimes (p. 5).

Gender Role Stress and the Crisis of Masculinity

Masculine gender role stress is the stress resulting from a mans belief that he is unable

to meet societys demands of what is expected from men or the male role (Capraro, 2000, p.

308). This is a result of gender role conflict, a psychological state in which gender roles have

negative consequences on the individual or others, through the restriction, devaluation, or

violation of oneself or others (p. 308). When there is a dissonance between ones real self and

their gender role, the individual is said to experience gender role strain, which produces feelings

of shame, inadequacy and inferiority (Capraro, 2000). Pleck (1981) further explains that

manhood is achieved through approval from peers and more importantly, a violation of these

norms and social rules results in negative psychological consequences.

As reflected by Kimmels (2008) rules for masculinity, in order to really be a man, men

should not be seen as physically or emotionally weak, effeminate, or gay. Being masculine, in

other words, involves the rejection of all that is traditionally associated with the feminine.

Masculinity is also constructed by success and power. Wealth and status are important

contributors toward masculinity. Masculine men need to be reliable and sturdy, able to respond

to crises without an emotional reaction. Last, men should be bold, edgy, risk-takers. They should

be perceived as confident and unafraid, aggressive and inattentive to what other people think of

them (Kimmel, 2008).

In his model, Capraro (2000) incorporates the idea of the Paradox of Masculinity, which

implicates that masculinity is contradictory in its nature. Men are both powerful and powerless;

12
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

men are powerful when they are in a group, but singularly and subjectively, men do not feel

powerful (Capraro, 2000, p. 308). This feeling of powerlessness is an example of masculine

gender-role stress. However, Kimmel (2008) states, even when they feel powerless, unlike

women, men feel entitled to power (p. 59). This is essential to his understanding of masculinity,

since traditionally, men have been socialized to understand that positions of power, superiority,

and dominance are rightfully theirs.

According to Hoover and Coats (2015), men today are suffering from gender role strain,

and this theme in contemporary discourse refers to a broader masculinity crisis (p. 4). In

particular, boys social and moral developments are being challenged, and this discourse tries to

address the specific roles men should play in reinvigorating social spaces and reanimating

social capital (p. 5). This crisis arises because men are now caught in a situation where their

traditional roles and rights look very different: labor markets are more competitive, the womens

movement has been successful; the world operates differently thus forcing men to renegotiate

their identities. Furthermore, Hoover and Coats (2015) propose that shifts in gender roles have

put men into question about their roles and identities because they do not have helpful models for

what should be normative masculinity, and as a result, has left some young men wondering

what it means these days to be a guy (p. 12). Society used to assign certain characteristics to

men, including power, aggressiveness, professional success and autonomy, but as a result of

shifts in gender roles today, mens traditional roles have been displaced (p. 12).

Hoover and Coats (2015) conducted extensive interviews and participant observation

with Evangelical and non-Evangelical men to contrast the roles of religion and media as factors

of masculinity. Although their study was conducted with older men, for a focus different from

this study, some of their findings are useful in gaining a broader perspective on mens concepts

13
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

of masculinity. Their informants provided myriad ideas about the masculine in flux and

negotiation, particularly when the researchers found a consensus amongst their informants

about three basic things that define masculinity, which they define as elemental characteristics:

Provision, i.e. being the provider for the family; Protection, i.e. being the protector of the family;

and Purpose, which is something that cannot be tangibly demonstrated, but means a man has a

passion and cause that he would die for (p. 19). For the men that were interviewed, these three

Ps acted like ideals, norms or values, and lay at the core of what it meant to be a man.

Furthermore, they conflicted with the practical realities of modern life, since the opportunities

for men and women have changed (p. 19). Hoover and Coats (2015) posit that the crisis arises as

a result of this shift, as well as the fact that men are not talking about it; whilst Feminism has

provided women with a discourse to identify themselves and exist in the world, the same has not

been done for men: that we lack languages and consensual frameworks can be a discursive

crisis and thus an identity crisis (p. 18; 24). Some even directly blamed Feminism at fault for

the supposed crisis in contemporary masculinity: these symbolic constructions of masculinity -

so the argument goes- have displaced mens and womens attention from their concrete,

everyday lives and replaced them with representations and expectations that are both misleading

and unrealistic (p. 68).

Learning from Culture

Hoover and Coats (2015) suggest that these representations and expectations of

masculinity come from the resources and symbols from the culture (p. 40). In many cases, they

found men could not talk about masculinity and mens roles without automatically mentioning

women or the media. The dominant image of men arises in traditional cultural contexts,

including sports, situation comedies, and their relations to women and womens prospects.

14
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

However, the question still remains as to whether these representations construct masculinity, or

simply depict it. Through their interviews, the researchers found that it was not one or the other,

but a complex interaction of the two (p. 69).

They found further evidence to support the idea that components of elemental

masculinity, i.e. the three Ps, derive just as much, if not more, from the common culture, as

they do from their family of origin, through male figures in their life such as fathers (Hoover &

Coats, 2015, p. 72). Kimmel (2008) states that mens ideas of masculinity are informed by the

other men in their lives, including fathers, coaches, brothers, grandfathers, uncles and priests (p.

47). However, although Hoover and Coats (2015) informants were able to identify the core

values that they had learned from their fathers, these values did not always relate to what it

meant for them to be a man or father in the world today. The reason the media is a popular mode

of masculine-teaching today is that it expresses the most salient themes, symbols and ideas in

the common culture: the broad marketplace of consensual ideas and resources that become its

imaginary, the common touch points of cultural conversations and interactions (p. 106). In

other words, the media communicates culturally relevant examples of masculinity, even though

they may be fictional. As the writers conclude, After these conversations, we are still not

entirely sure where masculinity comes from. We can say it comes from culture (consistent with

our own intellectual commitments to constructivism and interpretivism), but beyond that, we can

say little else definitively (p. 111). However, they did note that the men were negotiating the

received ideas of masculinity found in culture and society; for example, when presented with a

list of model male role norms, men were selective, rejecting some and accepting or qualifying

others (p. 113). Rather than the existence of a clear-cut set of characteristics or a traditional

normative model of masculinity articulating and describing exactly what it means to be a man,

15
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Hoover and Coats (2015) posit instead that men today inhabit zones of ambiguity:

boundedbut also unsettled zones with room for movement, negotiation and change (p. 113).

Male Gender Role Norms

Social norms are rules and standards that guide people towards behaving in ways that are

expected of them in social interactions (Cialdini & Trost, 1999). Social norms influence peoples

customs, traditions, standards, rules, values and fashions, conveying what is acceptable and

unacceptable behavior (Sherif, 1936). Mahalik (2000) explains that gender role norms act in the

same way as social norms, guiding men and women to adopt specific, gendered behavior and

attitudes and apply them in social situations. He posits that the expectations and standards that

establish gender norms are primarily shaped by sociocultural influences, namely, the impact of

the most dominant and powerful groups in society. The extent to which a person adopts or

experiences these gender role norms, if at all, depends on group and individual factors shared

with those communicating the norms, such as belonging to the same sex or race. Furthermore,

Mahalik (2000) clarifies that after an individual understands the normative social expectations of

his or her behavior, they may or may not choose to conform to them.

Thompson & Pleck (1986) suggested that three norms in particular, toughness, success,

and anti-femininity formed the masculine ideology that constituted the male gender role. They

constructed the Male Role Norms Scale to measure mens adoption of these norms, based on 26

statements. Toughness included physical, emotional and mental toughness; the expectation that

men should be physically strong, highly knowledgeable and able to solve their emotional issues

and never show vulnerability. For success, men were expected to succeed, particularly with

regard to careers and income. Anti-femininity referred to men needing to avoid activities,

16
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

behaviors and occupations that were regarded as traditionally feminine. A few years later, the

Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI; Levant et al., 1992), a 56-item scale, added the norms self-

reliance, homophobia, aggression, and sexual attitudes. According to Mahalik et al. (2003), these

studies were not representative enough of salient masculine norms, since they assessed a very

small number.

Therefore, Mahalik et al. (2003) developed the Conformity to Masculine Norms

Inventory (CMNI) to evaluate the extent to which an individual male might conform, or not

conform, to the actions, thoughts, and feelings that constitute the dominant culture in U.S.

societys masculine norms. This study provides the most inclusive and in-depth assessment of

norms, given that it tested and measured conformity along multiple dimensions. It identifies

eleven male norms for the CMNI: Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence,

Dominance, Playboy, Self- Reliance, Primacy of Work, Power Over Women, Disdain for

Homosexuals, and Pursuit of Status, determined through a literature review and two focus groups

comprised of both men and women, followed by item tests with hundreds of men and women.

Mahalik et al. (2003) are careful to warn, however, that these 11 masculine norms were by no

means the definite number present in U.S. dominant culture, let alone across cultures all

around the world. The study provides extensive coverage, in that it does not just assess mens

behavioral conformity to norms, but also affective conformity, i.e. how proud or happy men are

when conforming to norms, or feel ashamed if they do not. It also measures nonconformity, as

the researcher argues that not agreeing to conform does not necessarily mean agreeing not to

conform, based on Plecks (1981) thesis that the expectations conveyed to men are often

contradictory. Overall, the researchers reported that CMNI scores are significantly and positively

correlated with masculinity measures such as psychological distress, social dominance,

17
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

aggression, and the desire to be more muscular; and are significantly and negatively correlated

with attitudes toward psychological help seeking. Mahalik et al. (2003) note that the results of

their study are limited, in that their samples were mostly composed of heterosexual, Caucasian

college students in the US, which is not representative of the broader US population or other

countries. They advise recognizing that as masculinity is a social construct that differs based on

life stage, race, ethnicity, and historical context, it is important to investigate conformity to male

norms amongst other diverse groups of men to determine if the CMNI has the same 11-factor

structure.

Homosociality

Homosociality refers to social bonds between persons of the same sex and, more broadly,

to same-sex-focused social relations (Bird, 1996, p. 121). Masculinity studies scholars argue

that there are is a strong correlation between homosociality and masculinity; i.e. mens lives are

said to be highly organized by relations between men (Flood, 2008, p. 341).

Flood (2008) also presents ways in which homosociality organizes heterosexual male-

female sociosexual relations. One way, he claims, is that male-male friendships take priority over

male-female relations. This supports Kimmels (2008) identification of the motto of Guyland as

Bros before Hos; just about every guy knowshis brothers are his real soul mates, his real

life partners (p. 13). Additionally, sexual activity is an essential part of gaining masculine status,

and a mans sexual activities are performed for an audience of other men (whether imagined or

real), often in a competitive sense. These examples help present masculinity as a largely

homosocial experience: performed for, and validated (or rejected) by other men, in an attempt to

both compete against, as well as identify with, their male peers (Flood, 2008).

18
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Despite the strength of the bonds male peers make with each other, including upholding a

culture of silence, protecting and defending each other; when it comes to being vulnerable,

doubtful, or fearful, men are afraid of being outcast, marginalized, shunnedso they learn to

keep their mouths shut, even when what theyre seeing goes against everything they know to be

good (Kimmel, 2008, p. 64; 62).

C. Summary of Research on the Development of Masculinity

The key assumptions made above are that firstly, gender is a performed social identity

and the beliefs and performances of masculinity manifest from the ways in which males are

socialized (Harris, 2010, p. 299). Secondly, masculinity exists in multiple forms across different

social contexts and structures, and is subject to change over time. Hegemonic masculinity,

defined as the maintenance of practices that institutionalize mens dominance, particularly

over women, acknowledges that there is a power dynamic that differentiates the normative, or

dominant, from non-normative, or subordinate masculinities, and that there are behaviors that are

not accepted as masculine by social forces (Bird, 1996, p. 120). Masculinity can also be

viewed as a state of perpetual crisis and anxiety. Crises could be triggered by changes in the

status of women or homosexuality, or by cultural shifts in labor, capital, or the nation (Reeser,

2015, p. 20). Concepts of masculinity are not isolated or standardized, nor in a vacuum: they

depend on experiences and a range of familial, institutional, environmental and social contexts.

The media often proposes norms that guide men (and women) to behave in acceptable ways.

Group and individual factors impact whether men and women conform to norms or not.

Inventories assessing male norms factoring into the masculine gender identity have been

postulated over the years, but it is ultimately important to note that norms differ with regard to

context, so it would not be reliable to generalize norms across societies. There is a strong

19
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

relationship between a mans concept of masculinity and his homosocial male peer group, where

norms are likely to be adopted and circulated.

III. Masculinity and the College Experience

According to Michael Kimmel (2008), the American college campus is Guyland Central

(p. 11). College is a time and place of an imaginative assertion of manhood outside of civil

society, away from home and family, where a kind of heroism is possible (Capraro, 2000, p.

311). In higher education and social science literature, male undergraduate students are often

presented as 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, racially exclusive, homophobic fraternities (Harper

& Harris, 2010, p. 10). Common themes in scholarship about masculinity in college relate it to

mens alcohol use (Cowley, 2014; Capraro, 2000; Engstrom, 2012); sexual aggression, assault,

or rape-supportive attitudes (Berkowitz, 1992; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997; Flezzani &

Benshoff, 2003; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010; Burgess, 2007; Trumati, Tokar & Fischer, 1996;

Barone, Wolgemuth & Linder, 2007); and homosociality and fraternal bonding (Flood, 2008;

Harris & Harper, 2014; Barrios & Hickes Lundquist, 2012).

A. Pre-College Gender Socialization

According to Harris (2010), men come to college pre-socialized to strive toward and

reproduce traditional male gender norms and masculine ideals. In his model on college mens

conceptualizations of masculinity and contextual influences, he gathered information on 68

undergraduate mens pre-college meanings of masculinity (See Appendix A for model). His

study was based on the premises of the social constructive theory of masculinities and the

20
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

multiple dimensions of identity (MDI) model, which recognize that men as a group are not

homogenous, and that other salient identity dimensions (e.g., race/ethnicity, sexual orientation,

age, ability, and socioeconomic status) are not mutually exclusive of gender, but rather, interact

and intersect with it.

Harris (2010) used semi-structured interviews, then focus groups, to ask men to convey

their gender-related attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, i.e. defining characteristics of men, that

they had learned before they enrolled in college (p. 305). These meanings lay at the core of his

model. Some of the responses that Harris (2010) found in his data about what it means to be a

man included being respected, being confident and self-assured, assuming responsibility,

and embodying physical prowess (p. 305). According to his participants, respect involved

being revered and admired by other men, as well as having the ability and willingness to stand up

for ones own beliefs and not be ashamed of doing so. Men were also respected for being strong

willed with regard to academics, and able to balance grades amongst campus involvement such

as athletic participation. Confidence and self assurance reflected mens abilities to perform

masculinities based on what they considered appropriate in other words, they did not just

conform to popular notions or others expectations, and acted in ways that reflected who they

were most comfortable being. Some men reached this conclusion before they had arrived at

college, deciding to be the person they were regardless of what the notions of masculinity were

at the school (p. 305-306). Responsibility related to the roles and expectations they had learned

from fathers and other male role models in their lives, as well as their positions of leadership,

and the need to make tough decisions, another behavior conflated with masculinity (p. 306).

Mens physical bodies, as well as the degree of their involvement in heterosexual sexual

relations with women, were considered more masculine than men who were not visibly active

21
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

across these paradigms. However, many participants agreed that their masculinity was least

defined by their relationships (i.e. sexual engagements, hook-ups, etc.) with women, in

comparison to the aforementioned factors. Of course, this study was limited to the men in the

given context of that university, and therefore not generalizable across other college campuses,

but provided a useful and applicable model for looking at contextual influences of a college

campus on the meanings students make of masculinity.

B. The College Context

Gender Identity Development in College Men

College can be viewed as a male developmental moment; a unique period of time during

which all students come into contact with experiences and issues that make them face their

previously unquestioned identities and values independent of their pre-college backgrounds and

experiences (Harris & Struve, 2009, p. 3). In general, at college, students develop not only with

regard to their intellectual knowledge, but also enhance their expressions of other identity

dimensions, like gender, which will affect them and play out for the rest of their adult lives.

Scholars have come to realize several problematic behavioral trends in college men,

such as the fact that males are responsible for most of the acts of violence, sexual assaults, and

sexual harassment on college campuses (2009, p. 3). Furthermore, Kimmel (2008) claims that

Guyland, the period in which men are navigating the path from adolescence to adulthood, is

one that demands examination and not just because of the appalling headlines that greet us on

such a regular basis. As urgent as it may seem to explore [it] because of the egregious behaviors

of the few, it may be more urgent to examine the ubiquity of Guyland in the lives of almost

everyone else (p. 7). Lyman (1987) situates the developmental time and place of college

22
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

between the high school years under the authority of home and family, and that of work and

family following graduation from college. College men fear losing control and power, and thus

do not want to leave the bubble of college where they have the balance of independence, and not

growing up. According to Lyman (1987), they internalize anger about the discipline that

middle-class male roles impose upon them, both marriage rules and work rules (p. 157). This is

in line with Kimmels (2008) belief that fear and shame the fear of being unmasked, and shame

that would result from being revealed as not being real men lie at the very core of the social

construction of masculinity.

Expanding on this concept further, Edwards and Jones (2009) proposed the Grounded

Theory of College Mens Gender Identity Development, a product of multiple in-depth interviews

with 10 men at a particular college that were carefully selected and analyzed. Their study

primarily identified that college men are socialized into, and then internalize dominant societys

expectations of them as men. Men spend their lifetimes wearing a mask and perform these

expectations, which is difficult because it does not line up with their authentic inner selves and

values (p. 216). Furthermore, the performance had consequences for women, other men, and for

the participants themselves. Throughout the interviews, men identified a narrow set of societal

expectations placed on men, which included being viewed as competitive, in control of

emotions or unemotional, aggressive, responsible, the breadwinner, in a position of authority,

rational, strong, successful, tough, and breaking the rules, and not being perceived as gay,

feminine, or vulnerable and shedding tears (p. 215). According to Edwards and Jones (2009)

theory, specifically, in response to insecurities about their manhood, i.e. not feeling like enough

of a man by falling short of societys expectations, men wear a mask of masculinity (p. 215).

This is the first phase of the model: recognizing that a mask is needed. The second stage involves

23
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

wearing the mask at college drinking to excess, doing drugs, having meaningless or

competitive heterosexual sex with many women, not studying or pretending not to study or care

about academics, and breaking the rules (p. 216).

The third phase of the mask involves experiencing and recognizing the consequences of

wearing a mask, specifically, holding demeaning attitudes towards women, reflected in

behavior that degrades them; lacking close relationships with other men, including fathers; and a

loss of authenticity. The men in Edwards and Jones (2009) study acknowledged that they had

fallen so deep into societal expectations that they had ended up doing things they regretted,

contradicting their own values and belief systems, without even realizing. These instances

included making homophobic comments, objectifying women, drinking too much, and hiding

their emotions. After this phase, men acknowledged that aspects of their individual personalities

did not match the social expectations; in other words, they accepted the ways the mask of

masculinity did not fit them. However, none of the men in the study (2009) had transcended

these boundaries yet. Although this study was limited to only 10 men at one particular college

campus, it was nevertheless very thoroughly researched and men offered honest, rich responses

to the interview questions. Edwards and Jones (2009) acknowledged however, that the purpose

of their study was to explore the experience of these specific participants in depth; not to develop

a theory that would be applicable to all college men (p. 226).

Capraro (2000) offers a model that draws a connection between college mens use of

alcohol, levels of sexual aggression, and masculinity. As aforementioned, he proposes that a

paradoxical relationship exists between men and feelings of power, and suggests that college

mens drinking reflects this paradox, as drinking is not only used to enact male privilege, but

also to help men negotiate the emotional hazards of being a man in the contemporary American

24
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

college (p. 307). He claims that drinking is a male domain, in that it is male dominated, male

identified, and male centered (p. 307). To avoid and manage these negative feelings of insecurity,

men drink alcohol, which acts as a disinhibitor and dissolver of shame, vulnerability and anxiety,

and instead give men a false sense of power and status and control. In this way, men seek and

obtain an alternative to social power though alcohol (p. 310). Kimmel (2008) asserts that

drinking behavior is very much related to peers, rather than intergenerational factors, such as

alcoholism running in the family. For these men, he states, drinking is less about having fun and

getting drunk, than it is about experiencing the freedom of being a man without the

responsibility they are able to hang on to their boyhood while still in college (Kimmel, 2008, p.

109).

Locke and Mahaliks (2014) study fits into Shame Theory, which is grounded in the idea

that to prevent feelings of shame, boys feel they need to distance themselves from their mothers,

and later, the feminine in general, because of the considerable discomfort with dependency

needs at the level of the peer group (Krugman, 1995, p. 107). As such, college men, particularly

when in groups, consider homosexuality and intimate emotional relationships with women to be

a threat to their homosocial world. In response, men encourage each other to perceive women as

sexual objects, thus confirming their heterosexuality, but ultimately preventing genuine intimacy

with women (Capraro, 2000). According to Kimmel, many college men are insecure,

unprepared for sex, and desperate to prove themselves to their friends (Khazan, 2015). Majority

of these young men adhere to male gender norms, which instruct males to be strong and

dominant over women and assert their heterosexual masculinity, often through the sexual

objectification of women (Anderson, 2007). This in turn, has a harmful effect for women on

campus, who fall victim to men their age, 90% of which think of women as merely a means to

25
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

sex, and thus do not treat them with respect, particularly when they are in groups with other

men (Boswell & Spade, 1996, p. 141).

Contextual Influences of College on Masculinity

As the second component of his study on masculinity at college, Harris (2010)

investigated the various contextual influences that formed the interactive sociocultural factors

that constructed the meanings and ways of expressing masculinities by participants. The

influences that emerged from his interviews either reinforced mens previously learned lessons

about masculinities; or challenged these ideas, which caused participants to acknowledge notions

of multiple masculinities, as well as rethink their own beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions about

masculinity.

Campus Culture

According to Peterson & Spencer (1990), campus culture is defined as a set of deeply

held meanings, beliefs, and values by a given campus (p. 4). This environmental context

construct is comparable to those used in other fields, like school climate, organizational climate,

family environment, or work-place culture. The campus culture variable of the model represents

the context or the location of events and incidents that influence the central category or

related phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96).

Harris and Struve (2009) interviewed and conducted focus groups with 68 men that

represented a diverse range of races and ethnicities, group memberships, socioeconomic statuses,

and academic majors of study, in order to ascertain how specific aspects of their colleges

campus culture affected the meanings of masculinity held by these men. The study did not

provide information on what kinds of questions were asked, but it is implied that following the

26
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

interviews, the researchers grouped responses together to deduce shared themes amongst the

interview data collected. If this was the case, there are limitations to keep in mind, such as the

interpretation of the author factoring into the theme they chose for that response; in other words,

the authors might have put a subjective experience into a box or label that it did not necessarily

fit into. According to the responses of this particular study, the participants described three ways

in which the campus culture had taught or reinforced their meanings of masculinity and its

associated attitudes and behaviors. They were diverse, patriarchal, and competitive (p. 5).

They then elaborated on how each of these cultural aspects individually influenced male campus

norms. From diverse, the researchers deduced that when men engaged with men who were

different from them, they came to understand notions of masculinity that varied from what they

had observed and understood prior to college. From patriarchal, it became apparent that

although masculinity could be represented across a diverse group of men, there was a hierarchy

of masculinity, and certain men were more dominant than others in this case, fraternity men

and male students athletes. These men were the recipients of certain social benefits that other

men were not entitled to, because of their status (p. 6). These privileges ranged from the respect

and attention of women, to access to exclusive parties. Further, their popularity and influence

extended to affect campus norms at this university, to the extent that the masculine

characteristics these especially dominant men embodied set the standards according to which

men at the school were judged. From competitive, it was understood that every stereotypically

traditional masculine activity, such as sports, and consuming alcohol, was a competitive activity,

as were academic endeavors. Although the participants stated their frustration at the competitive

nature of the campus culture, they still partook in these challenges instead of not competing.

Therefore, in summary, the campus culture of this college reinforced three lessons about

27
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

masculinity that influenced the gender-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the men in the

study (p. 7).

Students involvement on campus affects aspects of mens gender identity development

gender being one of them. The participants in Harris (2010) study described being involved in a

variety of activities on campus. Some were traditionally masculine, like sports teams and

fraternities, whilst others were more typically gender neutral, such as a political science

association, residence hall council and ethnic student organization (p. 311). He found that when

students held leadership positions in their organizations, they drew connections between those

roles and their beliefs about masculinities.

Harris (2010) interviewed his participants about the value they held for academic success,

whether these achievements were viewed desirably and positively amongst their male peers, and

if a man could possibly be perceived as both smart and masculine. He found that majority of the

men agreed that it was conceivable, and academic success was always desirable. However, the

perception was that the male had to be well-rounded, i.e. highly competent in multiple areas

alongside academics, such as popularity and leadership, in order to be truly considered masculine

(p. 310). The majors the participants had chosen to study also correlated strongly with

traditionally masculine career fields, such as law, medicine and engineering, and men held

additional beliefs that making the correct career decision was very important and stressful. As

men, they had to fulfill the breadwinner role, and some of the participants presumed that

women did not experience the same career pressures because they would eventually settle down

and stay home to raise children (p. 310). These notions resonate with Hoover and Coats (2015)

elemental masculinity component provision (p. 19).

28
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Harris (2010) data also found evidence of a relationship between mens participation or

membership in male-only subgroups and the subsequent meanings they ascribed to masculinities,

particularly with regard to the interactions and conversations that they recalled having within

these male peer groups. Men reflected on the ways these interactions clearly influenced their

behavioral expressions of masculinities, such as strongly adhering to the stereotypes attached to

fraternities, where We do the things that men are supposed to do. We entertain women, we

drink a lot, and for me, thats what it is and I act that same way (p. 312).

Other respondents in this study drew attention to the fact that they expressed masculinity

with close male peers very differently from when they were in mixed-gender groups. For

example, majority of the heterosexual participants reported talking sexually about women as a

popular topic of conversation among male peers. When in the presence of a woman, they would

be more respectful and less sexual than if she were not there. Often men claimed to disapprove of

the ways that they talked about women, but they would participate as to avoid disrupting the

dynamics of the group and maintain their status and acceptance (p. 312).

C. College Fraternities

Some view fraternities as the quintessential emblems of traditional college life, and

believe they can constitute a significant portion of a mans college experience (Capraro, 2000, p.

312). They provide a sense of belonging, especially when students are seeking out meaningful

relationships and accepting spaces or communities with like-minded people during their college

years.

However, most of the research on fraternities points toward the harmful, rather than the

positive, implications of college fraternities. Majority of the scholarship focused on gender in

29
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

fraternities looks at homophobic attitudes and/or behavior (Hesp, & Eberly, 2005; DeSantis &

Coleman, 2008; Hesp & Brooks, 2009; Rhoads, 1995; Trump & Wallace, 2006), binge drinking

and alcohol abuse (Borsari & Carey, 1999; Cashin, Presley, & Meilman, 1998; Caudill et al.,

2006; Kuh & Arnold, 1993; Park, Sher, Wood, & Krull, 2009), hazing (Jones, 2004; Kimbrough,

1997; Nuwer, 1999; Sutton, Letzring, Terrell, & Poats, 2000), and sexual violence against

women (Bleecker & Murnen, 2005; Boeringer, 1996; Boswell & Spade, 1996; Koss & Gaines,

1993; Menning, 2009; Sanday, 2007).

Boswell and Spades (1996) study focused on rape culture and rape-supportive attitudes

in fraternity men. Although males may openly or verbally objectify and disrespect women when

in groups of only other males, they posit that the effects of adhering to these male norms do not

play out solely in male spaces, but rather, significantly affect women. In summary, they claim

masculinity is inextricably tied to the dominance of men over women. Their study (1996)

attempted to identify the social contexts that linked fraternities to a culture that promoted or

supported rape as a result of their abusive attitudes towards women through observations of

social interactions, interviews, and informal conversations with students. On their chosen campus

of study, men were seen as initiators of sex, whilst women were passive partners or active

resisters, which linked with their finding that fraternities on that campus determined the settings

in which men and women interacted, reinforcing the idea that men are dominant and thus set the

rules (p. 134). Within the fraternity culture, brothers are highly regarded and women are viewed

as outsiders, and the overall system intensifies the groupthink syndrome by solidifying the

identity of the in group, thus creating an us vs. them atmosphere (p. 145). However, it

should be taken into account that their study is old, and took an ethnographic, observational

approach to looking at fraternity life and rape culture on one particular college campus, and thus,

30
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

is not generalizable or necessarily applicable to any other college campus. However, what may

remain common across campuses are the aspects and effects of fraternity culture that they touch

upon. As Kimmel (2008) explains, in Americas fraternities, military boot camps and schools,

and on athletic teams, its always peers who are initiating peers, which draws attention to the

peer-pressure and influence that occurs within groups of male peers (p. 101). Taking this into

account, where beliefs and norms of masculinity exist, it is likely they will circulate and be

adopted within a peer group, given the influence that each male has on the other.

However, the influence is not limited to the confines of a fraternity, or another group of

men, but can have a larger impact on campus life in general. As social norms are initiated by the

dominant in a society, or in this case, a college campus, Capraro (2000) writes that drinking in

fraternities is perhaps best understood as an extreme on a continuum of college mens drinking,

dramatizing what may be going on to a lesser extent in traditional student life among a range of

men (p. 312). If this is to be applied in other aspects, it might suggest that the male norms set

and established within fraternities diffuse through campus, albeit maybe at a lesser scale,

especially due to the rise of Bro Culture, a popular culture with a particular set of norms that

contemporary youth of this generation have adopted.

D. Bro Culture

Bro Culture is a contemporary youth subculture that has yet to be theoretically studied,

and lacks a single definition. Urban Dictionary defines Bros as obnoxious partying males who

are often seen at college partiesnearly everyone in a fraternity is a bro, but there are also many

bros who are not in a fraternity, whilst an article on the popular womens blog, Jezebel, defines

Bro as an adult male whose social life revolves around collegiate homosocial bonding and who

31
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

also presents himself in a way that assimilates to the prevailing aesthetic of men with similar

socialization patterns (Urban Dictionary; Ryan, 2014). Despite variations in the definition,

physical appearance, habitat, and vernacular of the Bro, the homosocial bonding of

heterosexual males is a key shared aspect of the culture; specifically the fratty masculinity

performed by its raunchy young men (Quittner, 2010). Bro Culture tends to appear in groups

of heterosexual males who hang out and party together (Quittner, 2010; Friedman, 2013).

Despite being described as a subculture, within male groups, Bro Culture is dominant and

mainstream, whilst other campus subcultures goths, punkers, anarchists, politicos, are really

counter-cultures as Kimmel (2008) claims (p. 17). If bros are the dominant males in a given

social context; for example, in a high-school, college campus, or workplace, then they possess

the influence to affect the meanings of masculinity, and male norms that circulate within that

context.

Kimmel (2008) explains that as a result of these young mens efforts to prove their

masculinity, without much guidance or real understanding of what being a man is really about,

they act in ill-conceived and irresponsible ways:

These are the guys who are so desperate to be accepted by their peers that they do all
sorts of things they secretly know not to be quite right. They lie about their sexual
experiences to seem more manly; they drink more than they know they can handle
because they dont want to seem weak or immature; they sheepishly engage in locker
room talk about young women they actually like and respect (p. 18).
The Bro Code, like Kimmels (2008) Guy Code is a friendship etiquette or set of

rules that men, specifically, members of Bro Culture, are required to follow. A popular example

of one of these rules is "Bros Before Hoes," (or, to translate, "male friends before women")

which dictates that a bro does not abandon his male friends to pursue relations with a woman.

32
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Given this rule alone, the denigration of women (calling them hoes, which is slang for whores)

is even built in to the vernacular of the culture, but is overlooked with regard to the possible

larger implications of this dominant culture on women.

E. Impacts of Masculinity at College

Male Gendered Norms was the final component of Harris (2010) three-part model (p.

312). Through his interviews with 68 men, Harris (2010) determined the main three shared male

gendered norms; i.e. specific attitudes and behaviors men were expected to conform to, shaped

by the sociocultural context of that campus, as well as the participants general meanings of

masculinities. The first was the Work Hard Play Hard mentality, which referred to the

challenge of achieving a balance between a publicly visible social life and a privately successful

academic life and other responsibilities. This was due to the belief that this period of time,

suspended between adolescence at home and real adulthood, was valuable and limited, and

needed to be used wisely, to minimize having regrets upon graduation from college. One of the

respondents in Edwards and Jones (2009) study similarly described feeling pressured as a guy to

cram as much partying into his four years of freedom, stating They try and cram as much of

this stereotypical machoness in while they can before I guess, they are snapped into reality and

have to start really living as what they really think a man should be (p. 217).

The second norm found in Harris (2010) study was Hypermasculine Performance,

referring to expressing masculinity in stereotypical ways, using behaviors such as abuse of

alcohol, objectification of women, and pursuit of exclusively sexual relationships (p. 313).

Furthermore, Harris (2010) explained that there was a general fear of femininity in these

heterosexual men, and particularly, a fear of being perceived as gay. This affected how they

33
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

might treat a gay friend, teammate, or fraternity brother in public, and they felt uncomfortable

with the idea of being the object of a gay peers affection, which Harris connected to both a

fear of femininity and hypermasculine performance (p. 313). The third norm that was shared by

all the participants was Male Bonding, or fostering close, homosocial relationships with other

males, especially with those possessing similar interests. They considered this an important and

healthy aspect to a fulfilling college experience.

A principal note that Harris (2010) makes about his study draws upon Jones and

McEwens findings (2000) about the salience of identity dimensions. This is the notion of a

dominant masculinity and subordinate masculinities that emerged in his findings, where some

male groups had more power and a higher status on campus than others.

Further, the key findings from this study mirrored the study of college mens gender

identity development by Edwards and Jones (2009). Participants in both studies had similar

perceptions of masculine behavior and attitudes, fears and anxieties about being perceived as

feminine by peers, and these culminated in hypermasculine performance (Harris, 2010).

However, academic interests, campus involvement, and campus culture were not considered

influential on gender performance of the men in the other study, which is indicative of the

variance between contexts.

Ultimately, given that the majority of literature on masculinity at college explores

categories of mens dangerous or harmful behavior, such as uses and effects of alcohol; hazing or

initiation rituals, and sexual victimization of women, negative effects can be surmised, and also

have been discussed at large in the popular press, about the overall effect of mens dominance on

the culture of a given college campus. As mentioned in the second phase of Edwards and Jones

34
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

(2009) theory, men wearing the mask in college feel pressured to meet expectations of rebellious,

unhealthy, harmful or inappropriate behavior in college, which not only has implications on the

men themselves, but women too, and the college environment at large.

For example, Cowley (2014) found that links could be drawn between the physiological

effects of alcohol, beliefs about alcohol, gender norms, sex scripts, and rape myths that

ultimately normalize male dominance and violence against women in college. Through in-depth

interviews, Cowley (2014) notes that men and women are socialized to adhere to specific gender

roles, which come into play during interactions. According to these roles, men are supposed to be

dominant and strong, whilst women are weak, dependent and subordinate (p. 1261).

Furthermore, during their socialization, women learn that their self-worth is based on their

relationships with other people, and the success of these relationships. Additionally, negative

consequences will ensue for both men and women if they break these constructed roles and do

not adhere to their gendered expectations. This would make the adherence to gender roles highly

likely in a social context like a college campus where there are particular norms set for men and

women, where men are dominant and women are submissive; and thus would render acts such as

sexual victimization normal and expected, which is highly problematic.

Locke and Mahalik (2005) predicted that greater conformity to masculinity norms, higher

levels of problematic alcohol use, and greater involvement with college athletics would relate to

higher levels of self-reported sexual aggression and greater endorsement of rape myths. They

used the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) to

measure mens endorsement of myths about rape; the Sexual Experiences Survey to measure

mens sexually aggressive behavior toward women; the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification

Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993) to assess problematic drinking; and used the

35
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

aforementioned Conformity to Masculinity Norms Inventory to measure conformity to masculine

norms, (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003). An online survey was administered to a sample of 254

men from various colleges and athletic divisions. The study found a positive relationship

between masculinity, problematic alcohol use, and sexual aggression (but not with athletic

involvement). Out of the CMNI male norms tested, the ones that related specifically to women,

i.e. Playboy and Power Over Women; interpersonal power, i.e. Dominance, and anti-homosexual

attitudes, i.e. Disdain for Gay Men, had stronger correlations to levels of sexual aggression,

which would suggest, for the sake of this study, that male norms are predictive of larger effects

on campus, such as sexual aggression and rape myth acceptance, which can contribute to the

prevalence of rape culture (Locke & Mahalik, 2005). Limitations for this study included

generalizability, as the survey population was mostly White, and did not include variation with

regard to class, race and education level. There were also procedural limitations, in that the data

was correlational, not causal; and more importantly, the survey utilized was a self-report, and

therefore, answers may not have always been honest or accurate, especially since the questions

asked were of a nature that might have prompted defensive answers from the male respondents.

The fact that the survey was online could have either increased or decreased levels of honesty in

responses, depending on participants faith in the anonymity and confidentiality of the study and

the website.

Boswell and Spade (1996) claim, the pressure to be one of the guys and hang out with

the guys strengthens rape culture on college campus by demeaning women and encouraging the

segregation of men and women (p. 145). Boswell and Spades study focused on rape culture

and rape-supportive attitudes in fraternity men, but its research includes notions of the

misogynistic and victimizing attitudes men might hold toward women. A shared finding across

36
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

multiple studies mentioned so far (Bird, 1996; Connell, 1987; Vandiver & Dupalo, 2012) is that

masculinity is inextricably tied to the dominance of men over women. The effects of male norms

thus do not play out solely in male spaces, but significantly affect women too.

For example, a study on slut shaming, the practice of maligning women for presumed

sexual activity, at a given college posited that this stigmatizing practice is a symptom of sexual

inequality that reinforces male dominance and female subordination (Armstrong et al., 2014, p.

100). It is a direct result of the double standard of sexual behavior between men and women.

Harris and Struve (2009) refer to this double standard as an effect of the patriarchal campus

culture at their particular college of study, which subsequently reinforced beliefs of male

superiority and dominance (p. 6). Armstrong et al. (2014) claim that in line with hegemonic

masculinity, labels like slut for women, as well as fag for men, are used to establish

dominance not only across the genders, but also within them; regulating the performance of

gender on campus as a whole (p. 102). When a group of individuals, even a gender, is

stigmatized, they respond in different ways, one of which is a process called defensive othering,

which in this study, was showed by women participating in slut stigma, but in general refers to

deflecting stigma onto others (p. 102). Hence, this is an example of how the oppressors on

the college campus; who are more often than not male, define the categories and meaning

system, which the subordinates react to (p. 102). As such, an identity code, or set of norms, is

proposed by the dominant gender onto the subordinate gender as well as its own.

However, in Edwards and Jones (2009) study, the responses from men implicated that

although the traditional form of masculinity subjugates women, it oppresses men too. The men

interviewed stated that they wore masks primarily to adapt to, and protect themselves from, their

perceptions of the surrounding environment. They also claimed that most of the time, despite

37
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

disagreeing with the expectations that were imposed on them, they still imposed them on other

men. The most common way of performing masculinity based on the socially expected norm was

through the degradation, objectification and debasing of women. Furthermore, other norms such

as homophobia, competition between men, and a fear of showing vulnerability or emotion

hindered the formation of close relationships with male peers. As a result, the men had become

emotionless, to the point where even when they wanted to cry, they couldnt. Instead, they felt

pressured to be violent and engage in risky behavior with regard to substances and sex. As a

result, a relationship is maintained between the dangerous behaviors of college-men and their

well-being, which appear to be trapped in a vicious cycle. However, studies like these help put

mens outwardly troubling behaviors into perspective; rather than being deviant, they are

conforming performances that men feel subject to in order to prove that they are indeed men (p.

224).

These findings provide justification for the investigation of masculinity as it manifests in

a specific social context, such as Penn, not only to observe what factors unique to Penn influence

its male students meanings of gender identity, its development, as well as how it is effected,

accepted, reinforced, and/ or rejected across campus, particularly by women. It might also

provide insight to educators at the school as to how they might encourage men to be the versions

of themselves that they want to be, rather than feel pressured to be, by offering the appropriate

resources and interactions.

F. Summary of Research on Masculinity and the College Experience

College is an important developmental stage in adolescents lives, as it is where they

develop their gender identities that will affect the rest of their adult lives. College is a unique

38
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

period of time that is almost suspended between the authority of home and family, and

responsibility of adulthood after graduation. Men explore their freedom, and relieve their stresses

and fears by being more masculine through the use of alcohol, sexual objectification and overall

exertion of dominance over women, which fits in with Shame Theory, the idea that men reject

the feminine and turn towards male peers to satisfy their dependency needs. Harris (2010)

model showed how college males meanings of masculinity were made up of various contextual

factors, and these meanings and influences interacted to give way to a set of gendered norms that

were enacted on campus. Fraternities are often a large component of male college life, and the

site of male homosocial bonding, which, when combined with social power, gives them the

influence to circulate the norms on a campus. Bro Culture is a contemporary male youth

subculture that has its own set of discourses and masculine norms, established under a code. It

can be described as a dominant, influential enactor of male norms amongst adolescent males who

identify with the culture in current society. Men are viewed as the dominant gender in most

social contexts, and this can allow them to define the status and roles of women in these given

contexts as well.

IV. Summary & Research Questions

In the larger scheme of literature, particularly on gender, studies of masculinities are a

relatively new area of research. Masculinity is viewed as a social construct a product of a

mans socialization process. College is an important and unique time in a mans life, in which his

gender identity will be constructed and play out for the remainder of his adult life. Despite this,

though there is a wealth of information on males in college with regard to sexual aggression;

peer groups; rape myth acceptance; and alcohol use, particularly within fraternities, there is a

lack of research on how the context campus culture itself might reinforce or challenge mens

39
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

meanings of masculinities once they matriculate into college. Therefore, this study asks what

might happen to a mans notions and manifestations of masculinity when he comes to Penn,

specifically? Furthermore, it would be beneficial to learn how much of a role men play on

defining the status of women in this given college context, and to what extent these assigned

gender statuses are perceived and reinforced by the women here. This study attempts to address

these inquiries through the following research questions:

1. How do male students at Penn perceive the meaning(s) of masculinity?

2. What factors that are situated in Penns campus contexts influence mens concepts of

masculinity and gender identity development?

3. How if at all, are female students complicit in upholding male gender norms on campus?

V. Methodology

A. Study Design

Penn offers a timely and substantial context for examining masculinities in college. It

possesses a diverse male student population, an Ivy League culture of athletics, Wall Street

finance culture at Wharton, a school of Engineering, and an active, visible fraternity system, both

on and off-campus. The existing literature on college men and masculinities supports the notion

that these various factors may affect ways that college men understand and perform masculinities,

and the ways male norms are effected on campus at large (Harris, 2010; Kimmel, 2008).

This study took a qualitative research approach to uncover how the culture of the

University of Pennsylvania affected mens concepts of masculinity, and how in turn, the

established male norms affected the way students socialized and interacted on campus.

40
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Qualitative research is geared toward promoting a deep understanding of a social setting

or activity as viewed from the perspective of the research participants (Bloomberg & Volpe,

2008, p. 7). Hence its aim is to observe a social situation from the point of view of those

experiencing it, and interpret the meanings of their experiences, which made it an appropriate

approach toward conducting this study of the constructions and effects of masculinity at Penn on

its students, under a case study design. Interviews were chosen as the primary method for data

collection because it would allow the extraction of detailed descriptions from participants, and

communicate their personal experiences and perspectives in their own words. It also gave way to

opportunities to request additional information or clarification from interview respondents.

Interviews were conducted using a two-prong approach. Overall, the aim was to

investigate how campus culture constructed or reinforced male students meanings of

masculinity and its associated attitudes and behaviors, and if, or how, subsequent male gender

norms simultaneously fed back into the campus culture, thus affecting both male and female

students. The first set of interviews intended to investigate male students specific notions of

masculinity, and how these meanings had changed, been reinforced, and/or manifested, if at all,

during their time at Penn. They were also asked about their perceptions on the so-called Penn

Culture. The second set of interviews served as a comparison study to the first, by asking

women about their perceptions of Penns campus culture and the behavior and attitudes of its

men; and to what extent, and in what ways, they felt affected by the culture of male students on

campus. Prior to data collection, approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was

obtained.

In depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 of Penns

undergraduate male students and 10 undergraduate female students at Penn. A set of questions

41
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

was pre-determined as a guide, to ensure consistency across the format and themes covered in

interviews, but flexibility was maintained in the interview process, allowing the freedom to add

follow-up questions if necessary (see Appendices B & C for guides). To enable as well-rounded

an investigation as possible, the participant sample for both genders was varied across ethnic,

racial and socioeconomic backgrounds; sexual preferences; ages; classes within the sophomore,

junior and senior year undergraduate bracket; and affiliations with a range of organizations and

activities on campus. See Appendix E for a summary of Penns undergraduate school system,

including information on student organizations and Greek life.

Prior to each interview, participants were required to read and sign consent forms after

receiving a verbal disclaimer. To maintain confidentiality, names of the interview participants

have not been disclosed. Information that might breach confidentiality by identifying participants

was changed slightly, but still conveys the original sentiment of the collected information.

Part 1: Interviews with Men

In this portion of research, interviews aimed to determine the meanings the male subjects

had constructed of masculinity, both before enrolling at Penn, as well as how they felt (if at all)

the cultural dynamics of the university or their peer groups had impacted these meanings after

their time spent in Penns environment.

Description of Sample

Interviews were conducted with 11 male students who attended the University of

Pennsylvania. The men ranged in age from 19 to 22 with an average age of 21 years. All

participants were enrolled in an undergraduate program at Penn: 8 men attended the College of

Arts and Sciences (the College), 2 attended the Wharton School of Business (Wharton), and 1

42
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

attended both the College and Wharton. With regard to academic standing, 1 participant

identified as a sophomore, 1 as a junior, and 9 as seniors. The racial distribution of the sample

included 6 Caucasian Americans, 4 Asian Americans, and 1 African American. See Appendix E

for a brief description of participants.

Measures

This section of the study aimed to uncover how male students at Penn learn the meanings

of masculinity, what factors contextual to Penns campus influence these meanings for men at

Penn, and what male gender norms manifest from these interactions of masculinities. Questions

were divided into 2 main parts to address each of these aspects. The full interview guide is

available in Appendix B.

After a brief introduction and overview of the study procedures, confidentiality, and

consent forms, participants were asked general questions about their backgrounds (Can you tell

me a bit about yourself?; Do you have siblings?; Where did you grow up?). These

questions aimed to find out what the men regarded as the most salient aspects of their identities,

whether they had a sister or brother who might have influenced their concept of masculinity at an

early age, and to see if any patterns, geographic, or otherwise, arose between men who provided

similar answers. Participants were also asked what they had wanted to be when they grew up

when they were children, to find out if any notions of male gender roles (e.g. fireman vs. nurse)

might have existed when they were boys.

Students were then asked about their lives at Penn (What year/ school/ major are you?;

Do you have a job?), their perceptions of campus culture (How would you characterize

Penns campus culture?; What adjectives or phrases would you use to describe the social scene

43
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

or culture at Penn?; What makes you happiest/ proudest about being a Penn student?), their

social life (How would you describe your circle(s) of friends?; How would your close friends

describe you?; What do you do with your friends? Where do you typically go?), and their

time spent on campus (Where do you feel you spend most of your time on campus?; What

extracurricular activities/ organizations/ clubs do you participate in?). These questions were

asked to gauge the mens level of sociability on campus, their perceptions of the culture, as well

as with whom and in what kinds of situations mens socialization and conformity toward norms

might be occurring.

Questions then did not focus directly on masculinity, but asked about aspects that past

studies found to be positively correlated with the adoption of masculine behavior and attitudes

(MRNI; Levant et al., 1992; CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003). For example, peer influence (have

you often felt pressured by peers (implicitly or explicitly) to conform to be or do things that are

not typical of you?; Do you find people at Penn are generally like-minded?), stress (Do you

ever feel troubled or stressed about your friendships or relationships at Penn?; Have you

experienced feelings of unworthiness or low self-esteem at Penn?), competition (To what

extent do you feel a sense of competition at Penn?), hierarchy (Do you feel any hierarchy of

power exists amongst Penns students?), and diversity (Do you feel like Penn is a diverse place

with regard to culture/ race/ socioeconomic status/ sexual preference/ gender preference?). The

answers to these questions would give a better sense of the contexts or factors at Penn

specifically that might have constructed their notions of masculinity.

Next, the men were asked questions more specific to masculinity, starting with the

meanings that they had made of the concept (What is your understanding of the term

masculinity?; As a child, [where] did you observe examples of masculinity?; What does

44
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

being a man mean to you?), and then moved on to meanings they have gathered about

masculinity at Penn specifically (What does a guy here at Penn need to do to be manly?;

What do you feel a man who has studied at Penn should do post-graduation with regards to

occupation?; To what extent do you feel self-conscious or judged on campus?). These

questions aimed to discover whether aspects specific to Penn had changed or reinforced mens

concepts of masculinity, and how; and if there were other pre-college factors that may have

contributed to these notions. It was also important to note if it seemed like there were shared

experiences across men, or if there were disparities and if so, what these differences might be

attributed to. In order to gauge the information received by interview subjects, special

consideration was taken of the use of language to answer the questions, the themes of the

responses, and whether participants seemed hesitant or unsure in responding and whether these

uncertainties were shared across men.

The final set of questions aimed to address the third research question regarding male

norms on campus; in other words, the consequences of the linkages between participants

understandings of masculinity, and the influences of campus contexts. In accordance with the

third section of Harris (2010) conceptual model, men were asked about their concept of the

ideal manly man, (What would the typical or ideal Penn male look like?; Do you aspire

to behave in ways that make you adhere to this image?;) the behavioral norms expected of men,

(How do you fit the expectation for men here? Do you want to?) and whether the culture had a

great impact on these norms (Do you believe that if certain aspects of culture at Penn were

different, the students would have different concepts of how they should perform their

gender?).

45
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Study Procedures

As it was crucial that the sample was representative of the diversity at Penn, both in

background, and in interests and majors of study (which can influence friend groups, activities,

career aspirations, etc.) participants were recruited from a number of different social circles and

organizations. Members with overlaps in experiences at Penn, e.g. a member of a fraternity and a

performing arts group, were especially useful as they could answer questions on multiple

accounts. The researcher constructed a list that condensed the variety of student groups, whether

a fraternity; a cappella group; cultural group, e.g. South Asia Society, race-specific group, e.g.

Black Wharton Undergraduate Association, professional group, e.g. Wharton Investment and

Training Group, service organization, dance group, theater group, or sports team. A few

examples of each type of group were collected, and were then contacted by email. Because it was

important to note whether if the man was older, (and hence had a longer opportunity to be

influenced by Penns culture), his beliefs or performances of masculinity would be greater, it was

pertinent that men belonging to a range of class years was interviewed.

Interviews were conducted in person over a period of 3 weeks. On average, interviews

lasted 50 minutes in duration, with the shortest being 31 minutes and the longest being 73

minutes in length. All interviews were audio recorded using the Voice Recording application on

the iPhone. The audio files were stored on a secure, password-protected server and were deleted

after this study was complete.

46
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Part 2: Interviews with Women

Description of Sample

Interviews were conducted with 10 undergraduate female students attending the

University of Pennsylvania. The women ranged in age from 19 to 21 with an average age of 20

years. 7 students attended the College, 2 attended Wharton, and 1 attended the School of

Engineering and Wharton. 1 participant identified as a sophomore, 3 as juniors, and 6 as seniors.

The racial distribution of the sample included 5 Caucasian Americans, 1 Asian American, 1

African American, 1 Asian, and 1 European. See Appendix E for a brief description of

participants.

Measures

This section of the study aimed to uncover how undergraduate women at Penn perceived

masculinity, particularly on campus, and to what extent, and in what ways, they felt their campus

experiences and/or interactions were impacted by it. Questions were divided into 2 main parts to

address each of these aspects. The full interview guide is available in Appendix C.

Participants were first asked general questions about their backgrounds, as was done with

the male students, such as their year, school and major at Penn. The following questions were

also the same as the ones asked to men about the schools culture, with some exceptions and

additions, such as (Have you felt the need to act differently from how you would before/ outside

Penn in order to fit the culture here?) Aside from trying to find out their perceptions of culture,

the aim of these questions included learning if the women had felt the need to fit in by adhering

to certain norms or acting like one of the guys, as was suggested by Boswell and Spade (1996)

in their study about fraternities, and to see if any of the problems the women experienced at Penn

47
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

were gender-related. This would ultimately try to find out if women were complicit in upholding

male gender norms that might harm them, but without asking this directly. The women were then

asked about their social life, but were asked fewer questions than the men, as the purpose was to

get at whether the women interacted with men in social situations on a regular basis, and in what

situations these interactions took place. Women were also asked how they spent their time on

campus, to find out if there were any overlaps with the males that had participated and thus offer

a comparison, and if not, what that might say about the groups males and females joined

respectively. The last part of this section on Penns culture addressed hierarchy, which related to

the concept of hegemonic masculinity, which is structured around mens dominance over women.

In the final section, women were asked questions that directly related to masculinity.

Women were provided responses about the men they encountered on campus (Do you feel there

is a typical Penn man or certain types of men you have interacted with on Penns campus? Can

you describe him/ them?). Next, the participants were asked whether they felt there was equality

between the genders at Penn, particularly with regard to extracurricular organizations and social

life, as these are not regulated in the same way classes and housing might be (To what extent

do you feel there is gender equality at Penn?; Do you feel you have the same opportunities and

privileges as men with regard to job recruitment, social organizations and events?; Is there

competition between the genders?) Participants were then asked about the perceived norms or

standards for mens behavior and womens behavior according to campus culture (According to

the cultural/ social gender norms, how should men and women behave? What should they do?

How should they look?; When do you typically interact with men and how do you feel you are

treated in comparison to how other men would be treated?) These formed the basis of the final

research question addressing the whether women played a role in circulating or maintaining any

48
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

male gender norms that had been mentioned by the men prior or any had any new ones to bring

up.

Study Procedures

The female participants were recruited from a number of different social circles and

organizations in order to ensure a diverse sample. As was done with the men, the researcher

constructed a list that condensed the variety of student groups, whether a sorority; a cappella

group; cultural group, e.g. South Asia Society, race-specific group, or, professional group,

service organization, dance group, theater group, or sports team. A few examples of each type of

group were collected, and were then contacted by email. As this part of the study focused mainly

on how male (and female) gender norms were perceived or accepted on campus, the researcher

sought to obtain at least two members to interview from each group category on the list, that

were years apart at Penn.

Interviews were conducted in person over a period of 3 weeks. On average, interviews

lasted 50 minutes in duration, with the shortest being 11 minutes and the longest being 59

minutes in length. All interviews were audio recorded using the Voice Recording application on

the iPhone. The audio files were stored on a secure, password-protected server and were deleted

after this study was complete.

B. Analytic Plan

All 21 interviews were audio recorded. Additionally, the researcher took detailed notes

throughout the interview sessions and started the analysis using these notes. Next, all interview

notes were qualitatively analyzed by examining the exact words, synonyms, and related words

that could qualify as a shared theme or idea that were then assigned to a category related to one

49
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

of the research questions, which were divided into: meanings of masculinity how they are

made, and why; campus contextual influences on understandings and performances of

masculinity; and the behaviors and attitudes (norms) of men. After the data was grouped into

related categories, relevant quotes from the audio recordings were transcribed based on the

responses received from the participants and compiled into the response theme categories.

VI. Findings

Through analysis of the interviews, four major ideas emerged that indicate how the

University of Pennsylvanias specific cultural contexts influence the meanings that its

undergraduate men held of their masculine roles and male gender identity.

First, students identified that the campus is characterized by a culture of competition and

pre-professionalism. Further, the typical Penn student, regardless of gender, was said to be high

achieving and driven toward being the best, most accomplished, and most marketable. These two

norms create a level of gender role equality between men and women in the academic sphere of

studying and job recruitment.

Second, a Work Hard-Play Hard culture is pervasive on campus, whereby the

competitive, high-achieving mindset of the academic realm transfers into the social life of

drinking and partying. This aspect of Penns culture bifurcates the social structure of gender,

encouraging a pattern of hegemonic masculinity within this sphere of students lives.

Third, the broader campus is made up of smaller spheres of social groups that are

segmented based on common interest, organizations; and lifestyles, including drinking and

spending money on social activities. These groups, composed of like-minded people, determine

50
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

the extent to which a person adopts or experiences gender role norms, which are primarily

shaped by the impact of the most dominant and powerful groups in society.

Finally, there is an expectation on campus to appear a certain way that denotes an

element of higher status, whether social, financial, or academic; and more often than not, a

combination of all of these factors, where students must be perceived by their peers as having it

all together. This implies that men at Penn are not only subject to societal pressures to be a

certain kind of man, but also specific Penn cultural pressures to be a certain kind of student. As a

result, male students at Penn are subjected to double the pressure to meet certain male norms,

which could heighten their gender role stress if they fail to meet these expectations.

Be a Man: Pre-Conceived Notions of Traditional Masculinity

All male respondents acknowledged their pre-college socialization to traditional

masculine gender roles, although not all men felt they had been pressured to adhere to these

norms. Four men also specifically indicated how these notions had changed after coming to Penn.

When male respondents spoke of their notions of what it traditionally means to be a

man, answers ranged from physical to emotional and behavioral characteristics that they felt are

expected of men in todays society. According to these responses, physically, traditional

masculinity, includes qualities such as strong, confident and tall. Emotionally, men are to be

independent, self-supportive, unemotional, and as strong on the inside, as they are to be on the

outside: dont cry and no emotion were common phrases used.

A few respondents said they had been directed, either explicitly or implicitly, to hold it

all in and suck it up by adult male role models during their childhood. Most men reported that

their fathers had been their primary male role models growing up. However, not all of the mens

51
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

male role models had represented traditional masculinity. One respondent stated that although

his father was his male role model from childhood to present, he would not consider him

traditionally masculine because of his lack of interest in sports and tools, and passion for

cooking. Three male students also noted that they had grown up significantly influenced by male

role models who were not traditionally masculine, such as professors, but had viewed them with

the same respect, or more respect, than their fathers. One man noted that this had also diluted

his traditional notions of masculinity.

Most men reported that they had fortunately not felt pressured by their parents growing

up to meet masculine norms, and were given the freedom to be whoever, and adopt whatever

interests, they wanted. Three men specifically pointed out that this is what a man should be,

and that the problem is feeling like you have to be a certain way traditional masculinity

should be being whatever you want to be. Some men noted that they conformed to some

traditional masculine norms because they felt they were just good things to be, rather than

because they were pressures they were expected to meet.

Tall, buff, hair on your chest being independent, self-supportive, maybe not aggressive,
but at least assertive I think I try to fit some of those things... but not because I view
them as masculine, its because I just view them as good things to be; I think its a good
thing to be assertive in life, its a good thing to be independent, and I think its a good
thing to be healthy - like strong, maybe not buff and tall, like who gives a s*** but I
dont try to be them because they are defined as masculine. Senior man
Men talked about various pre-college factors, such as high school, culture, and family

values that had shaped their views on masculinity. Two men that had attended all-male high

schools drew attention to the importance of having female perspectives when in an all-male

environment in order to prevent the adoption of sexist and male-dominant attitudes and

behaviors. One said that the lack of female voices in his classes often led to sexist comments that

52
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

went overlooked, that do not occur to the same extent at Penn because of the presence of women.

The other said that having close female friends outside school helped prevent him from forming

sexist opinions in this all-male environment, especially at this important developmental stage in

his life.

Being a man in high school, or in general, you just get away with a ton more, so
comments people make that here at Penn would be called out or be properly addressed,
go unaddressed in an all male environment I was left rigorously interrogating myself
I wasnt having anyone really test out my principles.
By the time I was really getting to be aware of the gender divide, I was already having
very close, smart, talented female friends that helped me, I hope at least, avoid negative
stereotypes it might have been different if Id gone to an all-guys school and didnt
know any girls; I would have had a different view.
Two men noted that although they were not explicitly forced to conform to the kind of

traditional masculinity emphasized in their cultural backgrounds, certain norms were nonetheless

present as they grew up, and had an implicit effect on how they viewed their gender roles. One

talked about the Irish-American machismo of his family, and the other mentioned the

patriarchal nature of the Chinese culture he had grown up in.

Furthermore, three men whose fathers and grandfathers had owned businesses and been

the primary breadwinners of the family talked specifically about the role of the man as the

provider as Hoover and Coats (2015) described as one of the core values of being a man.

These students, who said they had previously held notions of having traditionally male careers,

and thus, a need to study traditionally male subjects in university; as well as be the higher-earner

in the household, reported that these ideas had changed after coming to Penn.

One of these men reported that he is engaged to his girlfriend of five years. This senior

said that although he would probably still feel bad if she [his fianc] was the primary

53
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

breadwinner, coming to Wharton, Penns prestigious school of business, changed his pre-

conceived notions of this aspect of traditional masculinity:

Because Im in business school with a lot of women that are gonna make a lot of money
Im like, Oh women being the primary provider, I can see how that wouldnt be the
worst thing in the world, whereas before, I would have been more uncomfortable with
it; but now I can see these girls have a lot of skills that are going to make them a lot of
money you dont come to a school like this just to get married and become a
housewife well Ive met girls that do wanna do that, they have admitted they came here
to find a rich husband but I think most people come to a school like this because you
wanna do something, you wanna be accomplished. So I feel like you cant deal with
women like that while being like, Women shouldnt be in the workforce I would say
most guys [here] would want to be the higher-earner in their household, but its not a
huge deal.
This man also explained that he had not expected women to be as qualified or capable as

men academically, but was proved wrong by taking Wharton classes with women, which often

involve group projects, presentations and meetings:

Especially in Wharton, youd think like, Im not so sure shes gonna be great, shes a
girl she may not be that aggressive in this thing we need to be aggressive in, you
might think that at first, but then when you start dealing with more and more of them
youre like Oh I was completely wrong, theyre doing a great job, this stereotype I had
in mind, it's true some of the time, but its true of guys some of the time too, and if I apply
this to women and not men, Im disadvantaged in group projects because Im not
allowing myself to pick the best people to work with.
Another senior man who is pursuing a career in medicine, and therefore taking subjects

on the pre-med track at Penn, explained that he also had held ideas about what men studied

that would lead to, professional, or higher-end business jobs such as medicine or finance.

However, after coming to Penn and interacting with women in his pre-med classes, who he

found to be as qualified and successful as men, his notions changed:

[In high school] there were definitely more guys than girls interested in science and
science jobs and so I did think there would be more guys than girls in my major or doing
pre-med but that definitely changed when I got here, I saw lots of women doing that
maybe I had a preconceived notion that men would pursue more of those really high-end
business jobs but if anything, I know so many women who have done the same thing

54
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

here and who are very, very successful. I do think objectively theres probably less
women in those jobs but the women Ive seen who do that are just as successful as the
men are.
Based on these results, it appears that at Penn, gender roles with regard to traditionally

male subjects and careers are viewed relatively equally by men, even if they did not feel that way

before coming to the university.

Womens responses supported these ideas of equality in both traditionally male-

dominated subjects such as engineering, the sciences, and business; as well as drew upon their

experiences at jobs in male industries such as finance, and technology, which had not been as

equal as Penn with regard to gender.

Five women noted that at Penn, however, they feel the need to assert themselves more in

coed, intellectual spaces such as in the classroom or during job recruitment, in order to be heard

and taken as seriously as men. Furthermore, they credited specific programs, such as all-

womens hiring days or diversity programs, with enabling them to use their gender as leverage

in order to compete for the same jobs as men. Women said that as a result, Penn has made them

more confident and less intimidated by men throughout their time here. Most female respondents

emphasized that women who are self-assured and confident at Penn can be successful in

obtaining jobs that are traditionally seen as mens jobs, although they often still are male-

dominant in the outside world. This suggests that at Penn, women are provided a space and

opportunity to be like men, but given that assertiveness is a traditionally masculine norm, it

women cannot be themselves entirely, but must try to be one of the guys in order to have a

fighting chance to work with, as well as against, male peers.

Two years in a row Ive gotten [the jobs Ive wanted] like I was [at a high-profile
bank] in derivative trading last summer and I got that as a sophomore through not the

55
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

womens, but a diversity program, and I was the only female trader they had it was not
a very female- friendly culture. And then this summer Im going to be [at another firm] in
restructuring, which I got through the womens superday, and Im like the first
Caucasian girl theyve had in like 10 years. I keep finding myself in these places that
don't have women like I went to math camp for so many years so I think Im used to
it but I mean I dont know if I would have gotten those jobs had I been a random male,
you know? Maybe, but I feel like I had the opportunity to interview earlier, or got an
interview because of my gender. I think that theres the outspoken crowd of girls that's
not the majority by any means but being a woman really helps them to kinda leverage it
but I think there are a lot of people who don't realize they should leverage it and/or are
too shy and dont come off as like super-not aggressive, but are like, I can keep up with
you Junior woman in Wharton
Three female respondents also noted that they had only realized Penns equality in this

particular regard through their experiences in the real world, and found that gender roles in

these types of industries were viewed more equally at Penn than outside it:

My friend told him [an unaffiliated man outside Penn] she was going to be an electrical
engineer, and he was like, WHAT? so actually the guys here [at Penn] are used to
no-nonsense-taking, intelligent, powerful women, but when you go back to reality, its not
always the same. Sophomore woman
Responses like these suggest that mens traditional ideas about playing the role of the

provider had somewhat been displaced after they had come to Penn and encountered women

who were equally qualified and interested in the same, supposedly higher-paying subjects and

jobs as men.

Leveling the Playing Field: Penns Competitive & Pre-Professional Culture

Every respondent identified two particular cultural norms at Penn: competition and pre-

professionalism, which upon analysis, seem to support the lack of traditional masculine norms

with regard to subjects and careers, which might have implications for mens meanings of

masculinity at Penn.

56
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

According to respondents, competition is one of Penn cultures most salient

characteristics. Pressure to be the best, most accomplished, the coolest, and the busiest

were mentioned as experiences shared by all Penn students. This was often attributed to the fact

that those who come to Penn had been the crme de la crme of their high school classes, and

therefore, were used to being the best.

The university was also seen as fostering and encouraging a cutthroat environment, for

example, through the discouragement of collaboration in Engineering and through the

implementation of steep grading curves in Wharton classes. As one senior man said, in Wharton,

people not only do their best, but also try to make everyone else do their worst. Respondents

claimed that the academic and job competition diffuses out into all other aspects of student life.

Hence, men and women both face equal competition and pressure for the highest grades and the

best jobs; the busiest and best social lives; and highest positions in student clubs and

organizations. Two senior men described competition in the academic and social spheres:

Competition isnt drowning me, but its at least shoulder high my sophomore and
junior years, it was close to drowning, frat position wise, club position wise, also where
you are interning over the summer people act like theres competition in every other
area, like with friends, girlfriends.
The Penn kid is super competitive. He wants to be the coolest, know the coolest girls, be
at the hottest parties cool means better. Cooler parties, cooler people basically,
you want to be them.
However, two older students recalled that although they had initially felt the need to

conform to these extreme expectations in their first two years, they had since changed, as a result

of realizing that being the best was not actually attainable, and not worth it. One junior woman

said, I was trying to be the best at everything, and you know how it is when you try to be the

best at everything youre the best at nothing.

57
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

A senior woman who had also changed her mindset alluded to the aspect of pre-

professionalism in Penns culture as a reason for the norm of competing to meet unachievable

standards. A junior woman tied competition to pre-professionalism as well, saying that being

the best means being the most marketable or demanded type of person in the post-Penn

professional world.

It is a relatively higher pre-professional culture for sure, there is a sense of wanting to do

many things very well, I dont know if this is just Penn or the age that were in but theres
a need to feel validated all the time, which is I think natural at this age its easy to
internalize what other people are doing and therefore start feeling insecure [In my first
two years] I was using other people and other experiences as benchmarks but as I got
more confident in my own interests and in my own skills I felt a lot more confident and
immediately started depending less on external validation.
Theres a lot of competition to be the best [which means] to come out the most
marketable. I feel like theres a lot of talk about being the most hirable, being what
capitalism wants you to be.
This norm for pre-professionalism was considered Penns main distinguisher from its

other peer institutions, and often, the reason why you go here. It stems from the idea that

students come to Penn and want a job right away - more specifically, a job in high-paying,

professional industries such as investment banking, consulting, medicine or law, which are

traditionally male dominated industries. One senior woman referred to this as the Penn Path,

the most visible path for people to take, even if it is not the majority of people that take it. Many

students linked this aspect of the culture explicitly to Wharton, based on the types of jobs its

students most often strive toward, namely in finance and consulting.

Like competition, pre-professionalism was described as pervading almost every aspect of

students lives, such as the way people dress, write e-mails, conduct meetings, organize things,

to the way they talk, and forming the basis for why they join certain clubs and organizations. An

example of how professional lingo is used by students was when a senior man said, think of my

58
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

position as the COO of [my performing arts organization], and a woman talked about the

equity and usefulness of student organizations, friend groups, and even clothing brands, as

important factors for why Penn students would choose to associate themselves with them. This

reflects the influence of real world, cutthroat, competitive industries traditionally male

industries and the trickle-down effect of their cultures into Penns. According to respondents,

typical Penn students emulate a specific, Wall Street lifestyle, based on money, status, and

where you work a top-down backbone, which causes students interested in that professional

world to adopt the same mentality and cultural norms in their everyday lives as students, such as

by placing emphasis on networking and building social relationships based on usefulness, and

investing their time in groups that will provide high returns.

This Wall Street culture influence is also exemplified by the presence of students

walking around in suits; large on-campus recruiting efforts specifically for these types of jobs;

and the presence of MBA students in campus buildings such as Huntsman Hall, where most

undergraduate Wharton students study and gather for meetings. Respondents emphasized that

students at Penn take the job search very seriously, especially compared to other schools.

One of my sisters friends is a McKinsey [large consulting firm] recruiter and she came
to Penn and she said it was like 700 kids in suits, scribbling things down in their little
Moleskin notebooks and then she went and did a similar thing at Yale, and it was like 20
kids in their jeans and backpacks. Senior woman
A senior man described how both men and women feel subject to the same norm of

finding a professional job, despite different pressures being the cause:

I think theres different kinds of pressures for men and women for men, the pressure
would be to be a man, especially if this guy had a pre-conceived notion that men
should be taking these jobs over women so then they would go into jobs that wouldnt be
embarrassing and for women theres pressure to break the glass ceiling and prove to
herself that she can do the same things that men can.

59
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

These responses indicated that Penn students are immersed in an intense culture of stress

due to the widely held expectation to be as strong and accomplished as possible academically,

and attain careers that are perceived as high paying and successful and thus competitive and

difficult to obtain in society at large. Given that these pressures are traditionally designated to

males by societal norms, there is a chance that men not only feel the insecurity and pressure to

accomplish these goals propagated by Penns culture, but also feel especially insecure due to the

fact that women are striving to attain the same goals too. These two norms, competition and pre-

professionalism, imply a culture than does not foster masculinity as dominant, because women

on Penns campus are expected to compete with men academically, and ultimately, for the same

end goal: a high-paying, professional job.

A senior man explained how this expectation creates insecurity in men, which in turn

prevents them from discovering what they are really passionate about. He believed that men

would feel less pressure in other aspects of their life if they soul-searched and enjoyed their

time learning at Penn, rather than seeing it as a means to an end, which many respondents

drew upon.

I think people in Wharton definitely have a bit of a superiority complex and I dont
know if Wharton caused the pre-professional culture or if people are trying to be as good
as Wharton, and that breeds the pre-professional culture I also think that the job
hunting thing, at its core, people think be successful, and you have to be assertive, and
independent, and competitive, and so if less of that were there, then I think men would
feel less pressure to be like that in every part of their life I think the two support each
other. For example if we went to a small liberal arts school where people didnt care that
much, or looked at their education a more of a self-enriching thing instead of a
competition, career-driven, rat race, that people would be much more self- exploring and
into their own thing and not trying to assert themselves all the time. Theyd be more
comfortable with themselves. Senior man

60
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Trickle Down Effect: Male-Dominant Spaces in the Academic Spheres

However, there were some opinions that contrasted these ideas of more equal gender

roles in the academic and career-oriented spheres of Penn. Most men and women reported that

certain majors and jobs are considered more manly than others. Some men feel judged if they

are studying un-manly majors, and students expressed that the expectation for men to go into

finance is higher, particularly if they want to do the cool thing, whereas for women, it is seen

more as a choice and way to break the glass ceiling and subvert gender stereotypes.

In particular, Wharton was described as a more male-dominated place compared to other

schools at Penn. Women talked about being one of three girls in a class, and both men and

women said that although the gender ratio is probably 60-40, it feels like 80-20 a lot of the time.

Therefore, men in Wharton could be said to occupy a certain level of dominance and power

compared to students in the rest of the school.

Some respondents noted a trickle-down effect or reflection of industries in the real

world in the management of clubs at Penn, as upper-level positions in the majority of industries

tend to be held by a higher proportion of men than women. For example, one respondent talked

about her female friend, who served on the board of a finance and energy (student) club, and said,

She was the only female, and the rest were all white men [its] an example of women trying

to infiltrate male dominated fields. A junior man recalled that he only realized the presence of

gender inequality at Penn through a specific incident at the newspaper, where the three people in

charge are all men, and a female peer voiced her frustration with this disproportionality:

I ran for an executive editor position [and got it] and the other executive editor and
business manager are all men, and one of the people that ran for, but didnt get the
position she was going for, said a couple of times in passing to me, Great, just what we

61
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

need, three men running this as a media organization were obviously supposed to be
representative of the community [we] clearly have a diversity problem, and heres
three men calling the shots. And it made me very upset, when I first heard that, because it
seemed that that she had been saying was devaluing my accomplishment, but the more I
thought about it, the more I realized I was actually acting like the men I criticized, and
that I wasn't listening to what she was really saying and I was taking it personally when
what she was saying was actually very sensible and true, which was that three men
calling the editorial shots of a company is inherently not going to be representative of
52% of campus. But I saw it as an attack on myself, when the way I should have seen it
was a commentary on the state of affairs.
Furthermore, differences in gender in academic settings were described as supporting

societal expectations of men and womens professions, for example, that men are traditionally

expected to hold Wall Street type jobs, whereas women have been more closely associated

with the humanities and arts, and implicate a culture of dominant masculinity where women are

regarded as subordinate based on their occupation and status in society. For example, women in

un-manly majors and job paths reported that they do not feel the effects of a gender bias

because there are fewer men in their classes. One woman studying psychology in the College

said that her major is skewed towards girls, so in academic settings I havent felt different

treatment the guys that choose psych have a certain way about them. If I was in a different

major I would feel different because the demographic would be different.

Whilst gender biases at Penn were reported to often be situation specific, it was largely

held that as a whole, Penn gives women a fairly equal chance against men, coupled with when

women make an effort to assert themselves. Women who had encountered sexism and gender

bias said they had made conscious efforts to fight against it. One senior woman said, There is

general competition amongst everyone, but women are fighting for more presence. Another a

senior woman emphasized that although Penn is more equal than the real world, gender bias

still exists at Penn and therefore she feels the need to consciously prove her competence in order

to gain equal status with men:

62
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

When [my new job in the tech industry] flew us out for [an event] I was the only girl in
a group of 20 and you know those moments when you stick out like a sore thumb and
youre acutely aware of that? Thats how I felt. I think Penn is better in terms of gender
balance but I think in high-school I was ok with my gender, not that Im not okay with
it now, but I had no qualms about it this niche of people would recognize I was good at
science and good at math and respected it. Here [at Penn], unconscious gender biases
come into play a little bit more. I noticed people were never asking me first in meetings
so I care about making myself heard and counterbalancing... really making sure that I
overturn any unconscious biases very quickly its about proving my confidence in some
sense.
Due to the competitive and pre-professional aspects of Penns culture, the traditional

masculine role of provision could be undermined in Penns academic and occupational realms to

a large extent. Coupled with the general insecurity and stress that might arise from not meeting

these high expectations of the culture, a result might be a crisis in masculinity, rooted in

gender role stress, the stress resulting from a mans belief that he is unable to meet societys

demands of what is expected from men or the male role (Capraro, 2000, p. 308).

Locke and Mahaliks (2014) Shame Theory posits that college men, to prevent feelings

of shame and insecurity, distance themselves from the feminine. This is achieved by adhering to

traditional male gender norms, which instruct males to assert their heterosexual masculinity,

prove themselves to their male friends, and ultimately, be strong and dominant over women by

subordinating them, most often through their sexual objectification. These themes are exhibited

largely in Penns social scene, suggesting that men make up for their lack of dominance in

academic life by exercising specific male norms in other aspects of their interactions with

women, such as in social contexts. This social sphere of Penns culture is structured by

hegemonic masculinity, the dominant version of masculinity in society, which is primarily

organized around the subordination of women and the placement of certain dominant men above

others (Edwards & Jones, 2009).

63
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Work Hard-Play Hard: An Unleveled Play Field

The work hard aspect of this cultural norm at Penn appeared to be self-explanatory and

obvious to students who explained it, and is connected to the competitive and pre-professional

nature of the school. Most respondents articulated that the commonalities shared by typical

Penn students are that they are all high achieving, driven, and passionate not just about

academics, but their social lives too. Together with play hard, this phrase refers to the norm at

Penn to work hard during the week, and go hard on weekends.

Work hard-play hard was often described in relation to Penns pre-professional norm and

the emulation of a Wall Street lifestyle, describing a hierarchy that involves specific types of

jobs, and spending a high sum of money on leisurely activities that most often involve drinking.

As aforementioned, this Wall Street culture, which is seen as male-dominant, impacts this area of

social activity at Penn.

The work hard-play hard isnt necessarily true all the time, but its the image, the idea
people have I dont know if its this emulation of these elite professions and being like,
We work super hard but then we have this excess of money to socialize with Penn is
sort of inherently this nerd school and people are generally going to work hard and do
well, but at the same time you have an immense amount of wealth, so they sort of come
together in some weird way. Senior man
Going out, which is synonymous with drinking, is normative for Penns culture and

entails going to frat parties, especially during the first two years of school. For juniors and

seniors, it most often means going to bars downtown or on campus, the most popular one being

Smokey Joes, commonly known as Smokes. Respondents described Penn as party-oriented,

and noted that regardless of the social event or occasion, drinking alcohol will be involved.

There is an appreciation for drinking all social events involve drinking. People have
forgotten how to have fun without it. Any event after 8pm includes alcohol. You dont
have to drink, but you will be the one not drinking at a drinking event. Senior man

64
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Most students considered this an expectation and pressure to keep their social lives

alive; something they should do, rather than want to do. Often, students feel forced into the

going out culture because they find there is no alternative for a social life, especially during

freshman year, when everyone attends frat parties.

My first semester, I was trying to stay away from alcohol, but my roommate wasnt, so
she would go out it wasnt peer pressure; there just were no alternative options. If you
dont drink, you will be sitting alone in your room we all work hard, but play hard
means, I need to go black-out at a frat and get MERT-ed [A term referring to when the
Medical Emergency Response Team is called to take care of someone who is intoxicated].
Sophomore woman
If were not in Huntsman [a Wharton building] or Van Pelt [the main library on campus],
we therefore need to be somewhere beyond intoxicated I think it's a social stigma, more
than anything. Junior woman
According to Capraro (2000), college mens drinking reflects the insecurity and

powerlessness that men feel individually. He claims drinking is not only used to enact male

privilege, but also to help men negotiate the emotional hazards of being a man in the

contemporary American college (p. 307). The appropriation of alcohol and designation of

drinking spaces to what Capraro (2000) refers to as male domains, where men seek and obtain

an alternative to social power though alcohol, is pervasive on Penns campus (p. 307; 310). As

Kimmel (2008) also posits, at college, drinking is less about having fun and getting drunk than it

is about experiencing the freedom of being a man without the responsibility (p. 109).

An interplay of factors related to the norm of drinking privileges a certain type of man in

the dominant social sphere on campus. This dominant, social scene on campus is characterized

by the going out culture, which is centered on the presence of alcohol. Three respondents

believed that visible people determine the play hard, go out and drink social norms at Penn,

and agreed that these visible people are usually men in fraternities, those who spend a lot of

65
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

money; and predominantly, a unification of these two features, namely, the wealthiest fraternities,

which one respondent said comprises of 9 organizations. A social structure marked by

hegemonic masculinity can be seen here, whereby dominant forms of masculinities fraternities

at Penn hold social power and approval, and follow the traditional notion of masculinity, whilst

the less dominant forms are constructed either in conjunction with or response to the established,

normative version (Edwards & Jones, 2009).

Greek life was said to hold significant presence, and thus power, on campus. Many

students mentioned that although Penn advertises that only 30% of students are part of Greek

organizations, it does not feel that way because of the presence that these organizations and its

members appear to have. Some students mentioned that this occurs because the organizations

self-select, or it seems that way because the people that arent involved in Greek life, you dont

see them out anyway, so it just seems like proportionally a lot more people are in Greek life.

Students also mentioned that this significant presence is due to the occupancy of prime real

estate on campus of fraternity chapter houses down Locust Walk and Spruce Street.

Furthermore, as Penn has 27 on campus fraternities, and only 8 sororities, not counting the

intercultural Greek council organizations, there is a power imbalance between men and women

within Greek life based on the number of organizations, despite sororities recruiting more

members per pledge class than fraternities.

However, the most dominant form of gender imbalance was described as fraternity

parties being the only place that both men and women under the age of 21 can freely access

alcohol although, this does come at the price of adhering to norms, for both women and men.

The parties that constitute the dominant social life at Penn are dictated by frats, subsequently

giving fraternities groups of mostly heterosexual, like-minded males the highest form of

66
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

social power on campus, at least from this particular standpoint. One junior woman said, Men

have control over the environment frats host everything social within walking distance. A

senior man noted, Underage people can only drink at frats alcohol gives [frats] power over

school, [and] over women.

Fraternities were described as possessing power over both male and female students in

various ways. Men noted that in the early stages of freshman year, joining a fraternity is seen as

the cool thing to do. One senior man learned that the cool guys rush fratsprobably because

NSO (New Student Orientation, held by Penn for incoming freshmen the week before the

academic year begins) organized events were seen as lame and so people want to go to frats

during NSO. My sophomore year, I realized that this was not true, because he met men that he

considered cool who were not members of fraternities.

All seven of the male respondents that are in fraternities said they had come to Penn

without specific intentions of joining one. When providing reasons for why they rushed, they

either said that their freshman hallmates had dragged them there, or that there was free food,

so they decided to check it out, and felt a fraternity would provide them with an alternate social

group; a built-in group of guys to hang out with. Initially, one man had been adamantly against

joining a fraternity, mostly because he had the impression that they would put a lot of pressure

on him to conform to traditional masculine norms. However, when he realized that they actually

did not judge him or prevent him for pursuing his interest in the theater arts, he changed his mind

and joined:

Surprisingly my fraternity doesnt have that much pressure on [traditional masculinity].

One of the reasons I didnt want to join a fraternity going into college was that I had no
interest in being involved in that kind of pressure dynamic but I think, while were not as
diverse as I wish we were, I do think theres much less of that pressure than I wouldve

67
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

expected in a generic frat if you asked me to describe [one] I wouldnt think it would
be supportive of a dude doing performing arts.
A junior man who is not in a fraternity claimed his decision not to rush during his

freshman year had partly been influenced by his experiences at his all-male high school, but also

by the negative portrayals of male Greek organizations in the media that he had read at the time,

which had related to sexual assault cases at fraternities at other universities. He also stated that

one-on-one, men in fraternities are nice, but believed that the homosocial all-male group

environment causes men to engage in sexist behavior, possibly as a way to prove their

masculinity to their male peers, as Kimmel (2008) also suggested is a way that college men

reduce feelings of shame and insecurity.

Any person you interact with one on one from a Greek organization, Id argue, strikes
you as a super nice guy, but I think when together, you find yourself saying things, either
for shock value, or because you feel thats whats expected of you that certainly cross
the line and it doesnt necessarily come from a place of malice just not having a female
or non-straight perspective.
Men were reluctant to comment on the pledging aspect of joining their fraternities, but

generally noted that during the spring semester of their freshman years, this took up a large

amount of their time. Hence, joining a fraternity was described as a competitive and sacrificial

process, and this explains why the group, along with its traditions and secrecy, is granted priority

and loyalty from its members.

Aside from being exclusive in selecting their brothers, fraternities are also selective about

who can enter their parties. Parties hosted at their houses often have a bouncer, or guy

standing outside enforcing the ratio, which refers to the ratio of women to men in a group that is

trying to enter a party. In order to succeed, the group needs to have a higher proportion of

women to men. This man also has the right to ask, Do you know a brother? and turn people

68
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

away at the door if they do not meet the required criteria. This exclusivity was described as

crucial to creating and maintaining fraternities social status and authority. Because of this power,

fraternities are utilized by other campus organizations in getting people to come to their events.

One man explained that the Greek network is vital events do better when a Greek name is

attached.

These examples thus not only exemplify how drinking is assigned as a male activity,

but could also take place because of the insecurity that Penn men feel as a result of the academic

sphere, which encourages their need to prove themselves as men by appearing dominant over

women, especially while trying to prove their masculinity to other male peers in their group. The

party exclusivity also suggests how non-normative men are excluded and subordinated by the

dominant men in order to uphold the hierarchy of male power, or hegemonic masculinity.

Double Standards: Mens Dominance over Women

Respondents also illustrated how the dominance of fraternities over social life at Penn

specifically affects women. Most participants referred to a hook-up culture as a large

component of Penns social culture, meaning that casual sexual relations are a norm for students,

particularly when they go out drinking or to parties. There were mixed views on which gender

this cultural norm is perpetuated by, but respondents acknowledged that a double-standard

exists between men and women; both in terms of hook-up culture; as well as structural

influences that determine rules for fraternities and sororities nation-wide. Respondents drew

links between rape culture and the hooking-up and drinking norms at the university, which were

seen as consequences of men at parties trying to exercise their dominance by acting entitled to

69
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

womens bodies, often using alcohol as an excuse to assert this masculinity. Respondents agreed

that men hold the dominant and traditional position as the initiator in these social interactions.

In the space of frat parties, which includes parties at fraternity houses as well as

nightclubs in center city Philadelphia, known as downtowns, casual hook-ups with the

opposite sex are considered normative for both men and women. A man in a fraternity explained

that men are perceived as cool when they have sex with many girls. This resonates with

Kimmel (2008) and Floods (2008) ideas that sexual activity is essential to constructing

masculine status, and a mans sexual activities are performed for an audience of other men, often

in a competitive sense. This exemplifies masculinity as a largely homosocial experience:

performed for, and validated by other men; and an attempt to both compete against, as well as

identify with, male peers. This also references the hypermasculine performance norms found

in Harris (2010) study, which referred to expressing masculinity in stereotypical ways such as

abuse of alcohol, objectification of women, and pursuit of exclusively sexual relationships (p.

313).

On the other hand, a woman described that her female friends feel obliged to have sex

with men whether or not they really want to; not because men pressure them, but because they

feel the need to adhere to the expectations of the hook-up culture, in order to be seen as having a

successful normative social life. One senior man described this as men and women playing a

game of hunting, whereby they participate in hook-up culture because both think they are getting

what they want from a hook-up, but really it is only the men that do:

Id say the bigger thing is on campus is where guys are the hunters, women are the prey,
sexually, like it's a game both are playing willingly I think guys view it in that
antiquated way whereas most women, especially those engaged in the culture, view it

70
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

more as like theyre both hunting for what they want, theyre both going after what they
want.
This exemplifies the double standard between how men and women are viewed in terms

of the hook-up culture: guys are crowned for sleeping with many girls, but for girls it is a poor

reflection on her girls have to worry about sexual assault and slut-shaming, whilst men are

expected to try and sleep with as many women as they can. Armstrong et al. (2014) define slut-

shaming as the practice of maligning women for presumed sexual activity, and a symptom of

sexual inequality that reinforces male dominance and female subordination (p. 100). Furthermore,

labels like slut for women and fag for homosexual men reinforce hegemonic masculinity.

I am not so much a fan of hook-up culture because I think it allows men to just not give a
sh*t at all, and I think the reverse is that hook-up culture can be seen as an empowering
way for women to engage in relationships or with sex in a way that isnt demeaning to
them or slut shaming to them but making a guy not feel like he has to care about you in
the slightest sort of fosters what is a very problematic culture of masculinity where you
just see women as currency and sexual experiences as currency. I dont know if its
just a college thing or a Penn thing, but I think most people at Penn virgin-shame, like
shame people for being virgins the way both men and women talk about each other in
sexual terms at Penn is very troubling, but its not a traditional sexist delineation, its
this person was so shitty in bed we physicalize people, especially people we've just
slept with once. Junior man
The respondent above noted that through the hook-up culture norm, men are given a false

sense of permission to not care about how they treat a woman, because they hold the power in

the situation. Women are therefore likely to feel more compelled to sacrifice their own values

and freedoms for men, under the impression that they are being liberated and put on an equal

level with men.

The five female respondents that are in sororities also noted that there is a double

standard in terms of the regulations on alcohol for sororities and fraternities. It is a national rule

that fraternities can host parties with alcohol, whilst sororities cannot. One respondent, whose

71
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

sorority had been suspended and moved to off-campus status due to an underage drinking

incident, articulated how the different disciplinary actions for sororities and fraternities

demonstrates unequal treatment:

I think theres a huge double standard I think the disciplinary actions in this school are
very unequal. I was on the board of my sorority when everything went down (the sorority
was suspended) like at the end of the day, we got in trouble for underage drinking, and
our sanctions were identical to fraternities that had done way worse things and that's just
not fair. I dont think anyone would think thats fair.
Respondents noted two effects of fraternity mens dominant status as compared to

women. Firstly, respondents identified the presence of a rape culture on campus, particularly

resulting from men feeling entitled to womens bodies at parties, which relates to the male

tendency to sexually objectify women in order to mask their insecure, conflicted identity with

power and confidence (Edwards & Jones, 2009). Secondly, both men and women acknowledged

that women are complicit in upholding these norms in order to boost their own social status and

maintain their presence on campus by partaking in the social culture of playing hard, which

complicates understandings of rape culture and how it is perpetuated.

A junior woman believed that rape culture emanates from frats. She and other

respondents connected rape culture to the hooking-up and drinking norms at the university,

which were seen in these cases to come from men at fraternity parties who feel entitled to

womens bodies. One senior woman illustrated this idea, stating, If a girl invites a man back to

her home, the guy will be upset if she doesnt want to have sex.

At frat parties, there is less opportunity for a deeper connection and appreciation for
people as people there are guys grinding up on you hovering like hawks watching
you Men think drunk girls, or girls with any alcohol in them, are easy. The reason
[men] hover is that its their social role the guy comes behind the girl its their
position... they have a sense of entitlement like, I want it right now, Im going to get it.
Senior woman

72
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

However, this woman, along with five other respondents, continued to say that although

women are objectified and sexualized by men at fraternity parties reinforcing masculine norms

that might stem from mens internal anxieties about their gender roles women are sometimes

complicit or active toward their own subordination that support this male-dominance.

Some girls have very little self-respect Ive seen it at parties where girls do things, and
then will push the guys away. Im not judging I just think there are people who want
attention at parties, they give in, and then push them away. But it is on the guys as well,
like, dont hover I think guys hover for two reasons. One, they have a sexual need. Two,
they perceive that its possible to satisfy that need there.
In saying that men perceive that it is possible to satisfy their sexual needs at parties,

this female student was referencing the fact that women feel the need to conform to the norms

that maintain mens dominant status in the party sphere, because by doing so, they are allowed

access into the male space of drinking.

In this way, social status was often described in terms of women seeking associations

with certain men, rather than vice versa. This points toward an engrained gender hierarchy,

within a further divided system of power. One senior woman, who presented the example of her

housemates, said:

So the girls Im talking about that Im not close with if they know the guys in [a
fraternity described as wealthy, White, Waspy men] are going to be at Smokes, theyll
go. If theyre not going to be there, theyll be like, Why would we go tonight? A lot of
the way they think is like who is going to be there and who is going to see them and how
they are going to be perceived its validating for them I think these people are also
very insecure, so they would play into this kind of stereotype.
One man agreed with this idea, saying, Girls, especially the ones who want to be really

social, know the guys in the different frats It is cool if they have relationships in the different

frats. For guys, it matters more to be in something, which will give you access to different levels

of cool girls.

73
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

A junior woman spoke about how she had initially joined her sorority to have more

girlfriends, but found that her sisters were more interested in attending mixers with fraternity

men than bonding with each other. She, like other female respondents, believed that this was not

only boring, but more importantly, indicative of an unhealthy social culture, in which girls

succumb to what men want in order to achieve what is held as a successful social life. She also

felt that if sororities could host parties instead, it would be much safer for women, thus

insinuating that the fault lies on both men and women for using certain modes to advance their

respective positions in Penns social hierarchy.

It was frustrating that outside chapter meetings, where were not really interacting
anyway, the only socializing was at frats with men... so at parties were paying attention
to meeting boys and dancing with boys and drinking with boys thats the norm, thats
what we do, we mix with frats parties are hosted at the guys houses, we [girls] are the
guests I dont think thats a healthy culture. Why cant we have parties at our house?
A senior woman said, Girls want to be seen by certain boys boys that are perceived as

cool. After the rape culture e-mail incident, many sororities said that they were no longer

going to mix with that fraternity, in an attempt to strike against their actions. However, the

women in her sorority did not follow through with the plan, because they still wanted to meet

with those men, as it was the cool thing to do:

I remember a DPS [Division of Public Safety] officer telling us freshman year, Girls,
you decide what is cool if you girls arent there, the boys cant throw a party. Girls
have the choice to go or not. But even when girls in my sorority said they wouldnt
stand for the e-mail they still went and mixed [with them] because the guys are cool,
despite the rape culture, sexism, domination
One junior woman felt that there is a pressure amongst women to conform to the hook-up

culture and put out if they are out with men. She believed that men are actually fine with

women saying no, but that women feel they are expected to say yes.

74
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Generally speaking, theres an expectation that if a guy takes you to a date-night or asks
you out that youre going to be willing to put out a lot more than what the girl might
necessarily want and I think a lot of girls as freshmen will do more than they feel
comfortable with because they feel a social pressure and norm that doesnt really exist,
like you can say no, I always did it was always like Id come back home from a date
night, and my roommate would be like, So did you sleep with him? and Id always say,
No, and theyd be like, How do you do that? How does that work? How do you go on
a date night with him and not do it? And thats a foreign concept to me like, you just
dont. And I have friends that very much feel pressure to do it, which is sad.
These women said that girls who feel pressured to conform to the hook-up norms also

conform to the drink until you get drunk norm, which constitutes the expectation to black out.

Some women also said that men are highly unlikely to do anything harmful because they fear

being charged with rape.

Its like this whole stigma of like girls need to drink and girls need to get drunk and girls
will say yes when theyre black-out and wake up the next morning and be like what did I
do? You know what I mean? I think that's the problem. I don't think the guys even mean
poorly, I think its a stigma on campus no guy would ever purposely put a girl in a
position she wouldnt want to be in the girl will say yes, even if internally shes like
noand my friends have yelled at me for thinking this - but I think if anything its more
on the girl, to be honest... everyones afraid of rape charges... I think that for the most
part when something like that happens I think it's the girl who doesn't want to say no
and/or the girl is just really too drunk and the guy should realize that. I think thats also
a thing too because blacking out here is a thing thats, I dont know its like, Oh my
god I blacked out, Im so cool.
Many women talked about the expectation for women to dress in revealing, sexy,

clothes, like skintight dresses, particularly in party settings. One said, If you want sexual

attention, there is a dress code. These responses suggested that women make the choice to dress

in this way, because this is the norm they are trying to conform to.

One senior man also said, Girls [at parties] are expected to dress and act a certain way

dress, scantily, you know, less is more and act, like, Oh my god, Im so drunkI need

another shot. He claimed these behaviors make it more likely for men to engage in sexist,

75
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

objectifying behavior, because it seems as though women do not mind or even want, that

attention:

Its like, combined with the norm that they [girls] need to be empowered and weary of
rape culture its a weird dichotomy because the first part [dressing scantily and
wanting to be drunk], kinda supports it it makes people dismiss what people say about
rape culture the objectification of women guys keep doing it because girls are saying,
I want to be more drunk and dress that way at parties [and] because girls dress and
act like that, it gives guys the excuse theyll sit in the corner saying, Shes so hot,
shes so drunk. Its a cycle.
This weird dichotomy refers to the fact that some men have the impression that women

are trying to be empowered, reject sexism and their objectification, whilst at the same time,

appear to be voluntarily participating in their own objectification and sexualization, which

confuses these men and encourages them to remain passive and reap the benefits of the culture.

A junior woman talked about the unpopular opinion that she had as a woman who felt that her

gender was sometimes more to blame than the feminists were willing to accept.

I think a lot of the time when two people sleep together and the girl regrets it, it's the girl
was too drunk and I think that you have to take responsibility for the fact that you were
really drunk and the thing is, yes, if hes sober and youre really drunk, thats his fault
cos he should know, but if youre both drunk maybe you just shouldnt have been there.
And Im not saying by any means you could suddenly take it to the next level and be like,
Shes wearing a short skirt, shes asking for it. No, I dont think that, I obviously think
girls can wear whatever they want Im very feminist but I just think that much undue
blame is being put on the guys I feel like that's something definitely people think is an
inflammatory opinion to have I wouldnt want my name on it, to be honest.
Regarding rape culture and sexism, one man said that he had been talking about the male

a cappella groups application form incident with his girlfriend. When he claimed that it was bad,

thinking it was sexist, he said that she claimed it was not a big deal, saying, Why are you telling

me what is sexist? Its just the way guys are this is not bad compared to the other stuff girls

deal with, this is just a distraction. He said that although her response made him feel that no,

its all related, this makes bad behaviors permissible, it now makes him less likely to criticize

76
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

mens behavior if the women are not criticizing it, he cannot be the one to talk about sexism.

The nature of this response applied to mens ideas about women at parties. They feel somewhat

permitted to objectify women, as they appear to want to be objectified by meeting the sexist

expectations of the hook-up culture, though women feel they are adopting them as their own

rights in doing so.

Another man talked about the need for a cultural change in the conversation regarding

rape culture and men. He said that currently, this conversation puts the blame on men; it is

hostile, confrontational, and not a collaborative discussion that pins the blame on men so

then [the frats] say, Back off. He noted that as a result of this current societal conversation,

men are always seen as the rapist, even if the woman is the one who is drunk and initiating

sexual activity. He noted that laws such as the Title IX protocol are problematic because theyll

believe the girl first, the role of the school is to take her side and therefore, the culture will not

change when there are unfair rules.

A lot of guys are actually kind of afraid of getting blamed when they feel theyre not
doing anything wrong. This girl was throwing herself at [my friend] but the reason he
didnt go through it was, he was like, Shes really drunk,and he didn't want to run the
risk of getting blamed and later getting accused of rape, but I think if you were to flip the
script, that could definitely not be the case, where if a guy was really drunk and throwing
himself at a girl and then she decided to have sex, the guy would still be more likely to be
the rapist there and not the girl. It would still be the guy.
These responses reflect a conflict in gender roles in the social sphere at Penn. Overall,

women see fraternity men as holding power granted by the structural forces of the Greek system,

which reflects a double standard; as well as creating their own power through the enforcement of

exclusive rules and norms for joining their groups and attending their parties, for both men and

women. For example, non-member men need to come to their parties with many girls (the ratio

rule), and girls should display behaviors such wanting to drink, wearing certain clothing, and

77
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

put out, even if they do not actually want to, so that they can partake in Penn cultures

dominant social life.

Some women, and most men, felt that women see dominant men as a means to influence

their own social status. One man said, Guys set the standard of who are the top dogs. Cool girls

want to associate with the cool guys. It is not common for that to come from the girls. This is in

line with Cowleys (2014) finding that during their socialization, women learn that their self-

worth is based on their relationships with other people, and the success of these relationships,

which is a product of the socialization of men and women to adhere to specific gender roles.

Here, success was seen as being socially successful associating, and hooking up with, the

dominant men on campus. As a result, despite mens sexist views or actions, women still

choose go to their parties, hence maintaining mens domination of the social scene. This also

falls in line with Kimmels (2008) notion that women cannot be a threat to the boys sense of

masculine power or dominance, and therefore must comply with their tacitly delineated domains

and hierarchical structure.

However, when women adhere to the norms of these male domains, for example by

saying they want to drink a lot, and wearing revealing clothing to parties, some men feel they are

receiving mixed messages, as it seems women are complying with or even voluntarily accepting

their objectification. This agrees with Cowleys (2014) postulation that men and women believe

negative consequences will ensue if they break their constructed gendered roles and do not meet

their gendered expectations. This makes the adherence to gender roles highly likely in social

contexts where men are dominant and women are submissive, such as this one at Penn; and thus

would render acts such as sexual victimization normal and expected, which is a problematic

implication.

78
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Im sure [my boyfriend] has slept with girls that were way too intoxicated, like I know he
has but thats like a normal guy thing, not like anyone is calling rape type of thing.
Junior woman
Furthermore, womens adherence to these gendered norms make men hesitant to speak

up for sexism, because they think that women do not see themselves as victims of sexist norms

because of their behaviors at parties. As a result, men in fraternities, and by extension, all men

who engage in the going out and drinking culture, retain their dominant status.

Hegemonic masculinity pervades Penns social culture, whereby a certain type of man,

the rich, fraternity man, can be considered positioned higher on the dominance scale than others

(Reeser, 2015). In the model of hegemonic masculinity, women are automatically considered

subordinate to men, and particular groups of men inhabit positions of power and wealth, and

legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance (Carrigan,

Connell & Lee, 1985, p. 592). Hegemonic masculinity is maintained by supporting meanings and

behaviors that encompass the dominant groups ideals and norms, whilst meanings supporting

behaviors that challenge hegemonic masculinity are marginalized or suppressed. Furthermore,

the effects of male norms that diffuse outwards from the dominant men in society can also

infiltrate the lives of women. As Boswell and Spade (1996) claim, the pressure to be one of the

guys and hang out with the guys strengthens rape culture on college campus by demeaning

women and encouraging the segregation of men and women (p. 145). Therefore, as Armstrong

et al. claim, an identity code, or set of norms, is proposed by the dominant gender onto the

subordinate gender as well as its own.

79
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Setting the Standard: the Dominant Penn Man

Based on Boswell and Spades (1996) idea that within the fraternity system the

groupthink syndrome is intensified due to the presence of relatively homogenous individuals in

a homosocial environment, coupled with the idea that aspects of fraternity culture extend into the

broader campus culture, it is probable that the dominant male norms diffuse through campus,

even if on a smaller scale (p. 145).

At Penn, these dominant men partake in the normative play hard social life, and often

also have money to spend on drinking at clubs and bars multiple times a week. When

respondents were asked to portray the typical man at Penn, they described this man as White,

upper to upper-middle class, cisgender, heterosexual, fratty, and physically attractive and fit.

Behaviorally, he is supposed to be social, charming, and confident. According to respondents,

men at Penn are supposed to act, look, and treat each other, other men, and women, in certain

ways, which reflects gender as a performed social identity that in this case, focuses on the how

traditional male gender socialization and the performance of masculinities based on social norms

Penn norms manifests (Harris, 2010, p. 299).

Drinking alcohol and doing drugs were mentioned frequently as norms for men,

particularly those in fraternities, though one of the men said he has not ever feel pressured to

consume drugs. Drinking was often mentioned in the same context as norms regarding having

sex and attending parties. Men said that there is a higher expectation on men than on women to

drink and do drugs.

For men, I think if you say you dont drink, people definitely are going to question it, I
think they are going to respect it, like I have had friends who have decided not to drink
just for personal reasons, and people were really curious about it, like why? I

80
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

personally have always gotten questions about like why don't you do drugs? So that's
definitely out of the ordinary. So when you meet someone new, you would assume that
they do do these things, until they correct you. Senior man
A senior male noted that to be in a fraternity, a man can only have one non-normative

thing about him. This respondent, who is gay and does not drink, said that both of these

characteristics would have made joining a fraternity impossible for him. He said that otherwise,

although being gay is not the norm at Penn, he has found it a freeing place to explore his

sexuality compared to his small-town, Catholic upbringing. However, he hid that he was gay

during his freshman year, when girls found him conventionally attractive, for the first time in

[his] life. He said that whilst some figured it out, I had to friend-zone women so that they

would realize he was not interested. He said that he had felt marginalized at Penn because as a

man, it was difficult to get into frat parties due to the ratio, but he had not felt marginalized for

being gay.

Responses suggested that at Penn, there are a certain set of norms that men make an

effort to conform to, with regard to social life and appearance. These norms convey broader

themes of an implicit sexism and gender hierarchy present, as well as an effort made by men to

physically appear a specific way to both men and women.

Caring about physical appearances was commonly brought up by heterosexual men, who

talked about the pressure to go to the gym and become huge.

I guess this whole workout culture is huge the whole I have to go to the gym
everyday, and specifically focus on muscles, upper body strength, not aerobic
exercise and you have to have a protein shake every f*cking day after the gym, sh*t
like that. I never really bought into that because somehow with very little working out I
stay skinny, but like all my friends have done it, and a lot came in freshman year, totally
not about it, like they just got convinced by the system or by other people that this is
how I need to work out, like, I specifically need to have a regimen that I do every
single day, then have a protein shake, and I have to be as big as possible. Senior man

81
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Most men and women also agreed that there is a characteristic way that men at Penn

dress. Penn is not the preppiest, but its preppy, was how one senior man described the typical

Penn males style. He noted that upon coming to Penn, he wanted to fit in with the certain way

everyone else looked. Men at Penn were described as dressing preppy, in Vineyard Vines, boat

shoes, and salmon shorts.

When I got here, I was like, Oh, people are wearing peacoats, so I went and got myself
a peacoat. The clothes that guys wear here Sperrys (boat shoes), salmon shorts,
Vineyard Vines Ive become more comfortable with the way I dress, and yes, I still do
own some of those types of clothing and will wear them occasionally, but if I feel like
wearing sweatpants to class I dont really care at this point what people think of me... I
think it was me going back home for break and stuff [that changed my mindset] and
wearing all those preppy clothes and my friends going, What the hell are you wearing?
And I said, Oh this is just the way Penn is.
The man mentioned above who identifies as gay noted that his freshman year, before he

came out, he played to the heterosexual Penn male stereotype by dressing a certain way, thus

emphasizing the performance of a specific type of masculinity:

I look back on pictures from the very beginning of freshman year and I had boat shoes
it was only one pair but there was this one picture, and I was wearing this mint green
button up and shorts, like chino shorts, and these kinda cheap boat shoes, but they were
boat shoes nonetheless, and its so confusing because Id never dress like that now I
think it was certainly figuring out the gender and sexuality thing, it was definitely a mask,
and as I went through freshman year I got more and more adventurous and started to
figure things out more I bought these acid wash jeans one time and those were the
gateway moments into being able to do more stuff that felt comfortable and natural to
me clothing and identity for me has always had a close connection to each other.
After coming out and starting to dress freely, he recalled a time when he felt

uncomfortable at Penn because of the way that he was dressed, a style that he regarded as not

stereotypically masculine:

I will wear very tight jeans, and I notice people will like give the lower half of my body a
lingering look, not to say in a way that theyre checking me out, its more of a stare of
confusion, and one time I was going in to Van Pelt [the library] and I was standing there
for a second and someone walked up to me probably this fratty guy, and he just

82
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

pinched my jeans and like laughed and walked away that actually was fairly
uncomfortable the way I dress is freedom and not that Im subverting gender in any
particular way, but if anything, I dress in a way that is less stereotypically masculine... I
think in some ways even just caring about aesthetics can be seen as non-stereotypically
masculine.
This response exemplifies homophobia as a common way of performing masculinity, and

the fact that heterosexuality is the normative, dominant masculinity, as mentioned by scholars

such as Kimmel (2008) and Edwards and Jones (2009). Homophobia was also included as a

component to measure masculinity on scales such as the MRNI (Levant et al., 1992) and CMNI

(Mahalik et al., 2003).

In general, certain men were seen as not only having access to more social freedoms, but

also feeling that they are entitled to these privileges. When describing the typical Penn man, five

women specifically referred to the fact that men at Penn generally feel more entitled and

privileged, and that the typical Penn man holds himself in high regard, and is not particularly

nice theres an aspect of you deserve things or are owed things if you are male and theres not

as much respect given to women, as one said.

A guy who thinks very highly himself not in a bad way, I mean, its good to have self-
confidence but I think my stereotypical Penn guy is very much shaped by my experience
he is very into finance and is going to be crushed as an analyst and while hes still [at
the] top here hell take advantage of it, and is macho and hes going to go get
somebody coffee for the next five years [My boyfriend] is a senior, also in a frat, also
doing finance, also a little bit of like the bro-ey girls think that hes a douchebag, that
type of thing he definitely sees things as much more male dominant I think. I think he
thinks generally that Wharton kids are smarter, I dont know if thats because hes a male
or partially the truth.
This womans note that her boyfriend will take advantage of the fact that he is at the top

of the social hierarchy here being a fraternity man in Wharton because he will no longer hold

a dominant position when he leaves Penn and becomes an analyst who gets coffee, is

consistent with theories by Kimmel (2008) and Lyman (1987) about the developmental time and

83
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

place of college between the high school years under the authority of family, and that of work

and a mans new family or committed relationship after graduation from college. They posit that

college men fear losing control and power, and do not want to leave the bubble of college where

they have a balance between independence and not growing up.

Therefore, due to a combination of their developmental stage and the high pressure on

finding a job and becoming an adult man, it is possible that men at Penn fear losing control and

power, and thus perform, or act out their masculinity in the social sphere. As Kimmel (2008)

postulates, as a result of young mens efforts to prove their masculinity, without much guidance

or real understanding of what being a man is really about, they act in ill-conceived and

irresponsible ways, such as objectifying women at parties.

Given that this typical man is a product of the diffusion of the dominant fraternity

culture, some influences of these specific norms were described as having trickled down into

other student groups on campus. This also further emphasizes the performative aspect of gender.

Whether or not a man is in a fraternity, actually White, upper class, or even heterosexual, he just

has to appear to conform to some of these standards in order to retain a normative status as a

man on Penns campus. Furthermore, male respondents that did not meet the dominant standards

with regard to upper class financial status or being of a White race, found that joining groups that

encompassed the dominant culture, such as fraternities or sports teams, was a ticket in.

For example, joining a predominantly White fraternity and participating in an affiliated,

predominantly, typically wealthy, White sport, lacrosse, was one senior mans way in to the

upper-middle-class American crowd, given that he was not White, rich, or socially connected.

84
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Joining this fraternity had not been his main drive before coming to Penn, but it had symbolic

implications for him:

It was a continuation of growing up here; it showed that I can be active socially in these
kinds of circles compared to other Korean Americans it was way of keeping my
American ties rather than being seen as Asian. [The fraternity] hadnt had an Asian in
4 or 5 years it was proof that there are barriers for Asian Americans that I could
always hop over, and that I still can.
Another man instead found a fraternity that was made up of men that resembled himself

and his friends from back home. This senior man noted his willingness to spend, along with

being Black, and his interest in going out, ultimately determined his social group.

There are very few Black males at Penn with money and who like to get f*cked up there
is a socioeconomic barrier with my friends only a certain type of kid can go out four
times a week and spend that money.
Another possible trickle-down effect of fraternities could be seen in other all-male

groups on campus, such as performing arts organizations. For example, one man addressed the

recent campus scandal involving a mens cappella groups new member application form, which

had requested men to list the top five hottest girls that had encountered on campus. This

respondent said that these men were probably not ill intentioned, but the homosocial group

mentality of all the men together would have made it unlikely for any one man in the group to

speak against it:

Do I believe that these guys were out to rate Penn women by their attractiveness? Like no,
theyre probably, by most measures, very woke guys, but when you have 30 or 40 men
crafting an application, no one thinks to say, Hey, maybe rating the hottest girls at Penn
doesnt belong on this sheet of paper in a way, its difficult as a man to say that.
A woman in a coed theater group attributed the lack of men in her organization and

similar coed groups to the fact that men interested in the traditionally unmasculine area of

performing arts still prefer to be in all-male performing arts groups, such as the Penn Glee Club

85
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

and Mask and Wig, as opposed to mixed gender groups. The woman said that these all male

groups are more desirable because they hold a higher cultural presence on campus.

Another influence of fraternity culture on other aspects of campus could be seen in the

culture of student groups, which were described by respondents as run like frats, in that

students often undergo lengthy processes in order to apply and get in to groups, get initiated

through forced drinking events, and once you get into one of those niches, its hard to get out.

Birds of a Feather: Segmented Social Groups of Similar Thought

Despite identifying specific norms for Penn men, and noting the overall dominance of

men over women in the dominant, going out social sphere of Penn, every student interviewed

felt that Penn is too big and diverse to assign universal cultural norms or contextual

characteristics to the campus as a whole. The respondents all agreed that Penns student body is

made up of smaller groups, which were referred to as bubbles, subsets; spheres; buckets;

circles; or pockets. According to responses, these miniature bubbles of social groups look

like themselves, in that they are comprised of people who are like-minded, and who most often

share demographic factors such as socioeconomic class and race.

Just as participants alluded to a hierarchy amongst fraternities, determined by which ones

have the coolest parties, hottest guys, and most money, a similar hierarchy within other types

of social groups on campus was identified as well. Each bubble was said to comprise its own

subculture and lifestyle. Most respondents noted that within the bubbles there is a hierarchy

different spheres of cool. If youre not in the circle, its like, who cares? But if you are in the

circle, they care a lot.

86
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

There is hierarchy within categories, like within a cappella groups, frats and senior
societies Penn Dems [Democrats] is more influential than College Republicans.
Here, this student drew the connection between the influence and social power that

groups or individuals at the top supposedly hold over the student body within their respective

categorical bubbles. Most often, the groups in the upper tiers of their hierarchies are the ones

that engage in the dominant kind of social life. Students often spoke to the social divide,

between students who go out and those that dont, as one said, You think you are more like-

minded because you see the same people out, but there are plenty that dont [think the same way

as you] but you dont overlap bubbles with them.

Students involved in the dominant culture, namely, where fraternity men and often

Wharton men hold power, and in which going out is the norm, identified that Penns overall

culture is an East-Coast, money-driven, status obsessed culture.

At Penn you can find all types of people, and you can find your niche, but there is an
overwhelming culture the East Coast culture. Its got a New York vibe, upper-middle
class, like in my classes here, 75% of the kids went to a private or prep school, like the
kids in my hometown [in New Jersey] but maybe thats more for Wharton. Senior man
When you come from the city, youre well off, do investment banking your social life is
spending on stuff like restaurant weeks, which are not accessible to most people. Senior
woman

Students that come from lower-income or minority backgrounds talked about feeling

marginalized from the dominant culture and thus making efforts to connect with their crowd of

similar people. Some also talked about finding another way to fit in with the higher-income or

predominantly White crowd. One woman said that she came from a low-income background,

and was at Penn on a scholarship program. She said through the scholarship, she was able to get

to know people similar to her that understood her: I didnt have to navigate normalized

87
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

circles. Given that the social scene skews towards people who can afford it, as one junior

woman explained, not everyone partakes in the dominant social life.

As a result, students implied that the male-dominant social culture does not exist for

every student at Penn, but depends on the diversity of lifestyles and values of its members. A

senior man explained that every students campus culture depends on the different bubbles, like

their activities or Greek life spheres. Furthermore, the culture of the group impacts who has

social power.

The existence of hierarchy depends on where you go, and who controls the space for
example, in a frats hierarchy, the guy at the door [sending people away or letting them
in] they dont have power in other spaces.
Notably, two men spoke of instances where the male-dominant, hierarchical norm was

broken, and in fact, men made a conscious effort to subvert these norms. One man that is in a

popular, renowned, all-male musical theater group acknowledged that his group is not

traditionally masculine and that it recently made further efforts to be more inclusive of gender

identities and sexual orientations, rather than exclusive, like other male-dominant groups such as

fraternities:

There are negative sentiments around fraternities we get around those, for example by
not having parties and forcing a ratio [a term used to refer to the ratio of guys to girls,
assessed by a man at the door of a frat, who let them in only if there is a higher
proportion of girls]; and by being socially aware, and inclusive of people regardless of
their gender identity and sexual orientation. I changed the wording in their constitution
from male to male identifying were not a traditionally masculine environment.
In this case, the all-male group changed the way they were structured, even though it

ended up making them less traditionally masculine. In the second case, a prominent on-campus

writing collective that this man wanted to join had subverted the norm of the White mans

88
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

position at the top of the hierarchy, and therefore, he had to show that he could subvert the

dominant norms he was associated with based on his identity as a heterosexual White man.

People were judging me [this student-run writing collective] is a very left group I
felt people were judging me and I had to prove that I was not a bad person for being a
white male [it] is very anti-Penn; theyre anti-Greek, anti-Amy Gutmann (the
universitys president), anti-Wharton like someone said to me, judgingly, YOU joined
a frat, right?
He said it felt good to be challenged, it was my first time exposed to that it was eye-

opening, and uprooted me from what I was used to. This man believed that diversity and having

a multitude of opinions and perspectives is important for combatting discrimination and

encouraging equality and understanding. Similarly, respondents identified that in social groups

where they interact with people who are different from them, their perspectives had broadened,

and experienced fewer instances of sexism, racism, and narrow mindedness. One man referred to

homogenous groups as echo chambers of thought.

If you have a lack of diversity, like, frats and sororities are not super diverse you will
have an echo chamber of privileged opinions, you dont have to consider what it like for
people with opposing lives they never question it and their jokes arent called out
because everyone is similar my friend group is super diverse, so its constructive. You
get called out in a friend group with diverse experiences you meet people that will
rewire the way you think.
This is in agreement with Harris and Struves (2009) finding in their study of men on a

college campus that when men engaged with men different from them, they came to understand

notions of masculinity that varied from what they had observed and understood prior to college.

Students said that although Penn is diverse as a whole, the groups within it are not, which seems

to have implications on mens masculinities that vary with the diversity of their social groups.

Furthermore, these responses are in agreement with Reesers (2015) ideas that men as a

group are not homogenous, and that other salient identity dimensions, like race and ethnicity;

89
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

sexual orientation; age; and socioeconomic status, are not mutually exclusive of gender, but

rather, interact and intersect with it. They also support the idea that Hoover and Coats (2015)

suggest that these representations and expectations of masculinity come from the resources and

symbols from the culture, whereby at Penn, the culture is determined by the group of people

one spends most time with, who are usually like-minded and similar to each other across a range

of demographic background factors (p. 40).

Mahaliks (2000) ideas about gender role norms indicate implications for masculinities

fostered in these kinds of group dynamics. He suggests that the expectations and standards that

establish gender norms are primarily shaped by sociocultural influences, namely, the impact of

the most dominant and powerful groups in society. The extent to which a person adopts or

experiences these gender role norms, if at all, depends on group and individual factors shared

with those communicating the norms, such as belonging to the same sex or race. Given that

social groups at Penn on the whole are diverse, and allow for non-normative ways of

socializing, some might not necessarily feel the presence of or need to uphold a hegemonic

masculine social order. However, given the very similar, homogenous, nature of the people

within each social sphere, it also implies that in groups that do adhere to this dominant social

culture, such as fraternities, and other groups of people who emulate their culture, the male-

dominant norms of hooking-up, drinking and sexualizing women, will be apparent.

As a senior man said, Money matters more in some groups, achievement matters more

in some; employment in others the emphasis differs on the factors that drive what happens.

This referred to the existence of different factors that give certain people higher status within

their groups on campus. Showing status or maintaining a specific kind of appearance were

mentioned by several respondents as a cultural norm at Penn, which, upon analysis, also has

90
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

probable implications for how men construct their notions of masculinity and develop their

gender identity at Penn.

How Do I Look? The Importance of Appearances on Penns Campus

According to respondents, Penn students typically aim to be perceived a certain way by

anyone that might be viewing and judging them from the outside; an imagined audience of

peers. As mentioned, maintaining social status through certain groups or group behaviors, such

as joining a fraternity or being seen with particular fraternity men or sorority women, were

regarded as important practices to Penn students in the dominant social scene. Respondents

also articulated other ways that students feel if they appear to be, will give them power or

status over their peers, which differed across modes and genders. Respondents discussed

physical attractiveness; status, which included social status and financial status; and most of all,

being put together in terms of physical and mental wellbeing, i.e. doing well in everything;

having it all together.

The word cool was often used to describe desirable, dominant people in various social

contexts. One man described what cool means within the top tiers of the Greek life hierarchy.

He noted that everyone in this circle already has a lot of money, so its not a factor. For these

men, being cool is based on attractiveness, the hot girls you get with, what you do in your free

time, and if you got a cool job, or internship. A cool job is typically investment-banking, but

if youre artsy, or you know art, film, music thats also cool. He said that the most important

cool factors for men are probably attractiveness and career prospects. For women, he said that

it is attractiveness, and how friendly and relatable she is initially its the same dimensions as

men but those two are the most important.

91
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

A junior woman drew together the ideas of intense academics, group hierarchy, and

pressure to conform to norms and looking cool; and emphasized the groupthink syndrome

culture at Penn that other respondents had also identified, expressing that it is easy to get swayed

by peer pressure on campus because everyone you see is doing the same thing. Furthermore,

she noted that Penn is an extreme place, where issues or norms that exist in larger society are

magnified on campus, which she related to the work hard-play hard cultural norm:

I think everything is just very intense, like difficulty level, people put a lot of pressure on
themselves but then the social life also, it's very hierarchical here its almost hard to be
an individual at Penn you need to belong to certain groups to validate yourself I see
a lot of people kinds being in that trap like people ask, What sorority are you in?
What extracurriculars do you do? How many nights a week do you go out? That kind of
stuff I think everything is just very extreme and that I think the drinking and drug use is
also amplified to the extreme, everything here is not at a normal level that I would
imagine other college campuses would be I think its like the work hard-play hard thing
but like in an unhealthy way in that, theres just not a lot of focus on the individual,
wellness, whats good for individual people, its more like whats perceived as cool.
Another common method that students use to show status was summarized as, the more

you can present yourself as upper class, the better. Showing financial status was mostly

described through dress. This was often described as looking outwardly put together and dressed

up. Students also show on social media you are friends with the right people and are having the

right experiences spending, or at least looking like you have money. Another senior woman

said, Just the way they go well go to smokes or were going downtown you wouldnt

know if they do not have money, everyone gives off that perception of money and status.

Brand equity is huge: even if youre not rich, youre judged by what you show
outwardly you spend on what you see. Junior woman
Students are also expected to show that they are physically put together by being fit

and in shape, as one senior man said, For both men and women, people will look down on you

if youre fat, out of shape [and] if you dont go to the gym.

92
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

However, the most popularly discussed norm that describes the daily, lived experience of

Penns typical student is the Penn Face. Coined in recent years, when mental health started

becoming a large discussion on Penns campus following a series of student suicides, the term

captures the idea that everyone [at Penn] is expected to have it all together. It in this case,

refers to social engagements, academics, finding a job, looking attractive and fit in other words,

meeting every high expectation of Penns culture but the most significant part of the Penn

Face was explained as never admitting you are not okay. Penn students always have to

present themselves as fine; never overburdened, or as if they cannot handle the demands

supposedly placed on them by each other and the Penn culture.

You have to maintain appearances by projecting that youre good, that you have it
together no signs of weakness, youre doing things the right way saying youre not
sure about what youre doing, like job-wise, makes people be like, That kid must not be
smart enough, he doesnt have his sh*t together. Like if I say Im not sure, Ill follow
up by saying, But Im looking at these startups even if Im not cos I need to
maintain the level that its okay no one here will be open about being poor or not good
at school or having a weird job you have to make it sound like youre doing something
that makes sense, I mean, when youre talking to people youre not very close to. Senior
man
This man not only reflected the effects of the Penn Face norm to have it all together,

but also the societal norm for men to need to have a good job, be smart, and have a purpose in

life reflecting two of Hoover and Coats (2015) three Ps: provision and purpose, which,

according to their research, act like ideals or values, and lie at the core of what it means to be a

man. More notably, a senior woman likened the Penn Face, or expectations placed on the

typical Penn student to be fine by Penns culture, with the expectations placed on men by

society to be masculine:

The Penn Face is real. You have to present yourself as fine. Men have society telling
them all this, so its harder for them there is double pressure on men. Women are seen
as more emotional by society, so its more socially acceptable for them to not be okay.

93
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

This response and the Penn Face norm resonate strongly with the literature surrounding

the Mask of Masculinity. Edwards and Jones (2009) study found that although the traditional

form of masculinity subjugates women, it oppresses men too. They found that since they

internally do not feel in line with the same masculine notions, men wear masks primarily to meet

societal norms of being traditional men; and to adapt to, as well as protect themselves from, their

perceptions of the surrounding environment. Within the sample of men they studied, the most

common way of performing masculinity based on socially expected norms was through the

degradation, objectification and debasing of women. Furthermore, other norms such as

homophobia, competition between men, and a fear of showing vulnerability or emotion hindered

the formation of close relationships with male peers. As a result, the men had become

emotionless, to the point where even when they wanted to cry, they couldnt. Instead, they felt

pressured to be violent and engage in risky behavior with regard to substances and sex. Therefore,

a relationship is maintained between the dangerous behaviors of college-men and their well-

being, in that given that it is a norm to always seem fine, according to this literature, men are

unlikely to seek help or support to prevent appearing weak, which can manifest in mental health

issues such as depression or substance use.

At Penn, men said that with regards to seeking help and support, they would mostly turn

to their families or close friends. One man said he would be embarrassed to go to CAPS (Penns

Counseling Services) but others said that if they really needed to go, they would be fine with

going, as well as telling people that they went. However, most of these men reported they had

never struggled to the point of needing to go, despite all men openly admitting that they had

faced overwhelming stress during their time at Penn.

94
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

The cultural norms at Penn to appear of a certain status and to wear a Penn Face, which

signifies being unemotional about personal insecurities and weaknesses, are also in agreement

with two specific male norms that Mahalik et. al (2003) used in the CMNI: Pursuit of Status and

Emotional Control.

Largely, these ideas imply that men at Penn are not only subject to societal pressures to

be a certain kind of man - physically and mentally strong; as well as dominant, over both women

and men, in spheres ranging from the academic to the occupational to the social; but also specific

Penn cultural pressures to be a certain kind of student. As a result, as the junior woman above

articulated, it would seem that male students at Penn are subject to a double pressure to be manly,

which could heighten their gender role stress if and when they fail to meet these ultimately

unattainable expectations. Subsequently, these feelings of insecurity could cause men to engage

in behavior that society deems as irresponsible, acting out, and sexist, as a consequence of

men trying to prove their masculinity.

Further implications that men at Penn are subject to pressures that are similar to those of

men at other colleges can be found in literature on college mens masculinity such as Harris and

Struves (2009) study, thus signifying a societal influence of male norms for college-age men.

Their findings showed a similar patriarchal culture pervaded their given college campus of study,

which suggested that although masculinities were represented differently across a diverse group

of men, a hierarchy of masculinity existed at the college, where certain men in this case,

fraternity men and male students athletes, were more dominant than others. These men were the

recipients of certain social benefits that other men were not entitled to, because of their status,

demonstrating a culture of hegemonic masculinity (2009, p. 6). These privileges ranged from the

respect and attention of women, to access to exclusive parties. Further, their popularity and

95
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

influence extended to affect campus norms at this university, to the extent that the masculine

characteristics these especially dominant men embodied set the standards according to which

men at the school were judged. These findings relate strongly to the dominant man at Penn,

who, as respondent identified, occupies a higher status based on his ability to control

predominant social activities; notably, parties with alcohol.

Two of three male gendered norms shaped by the sociocultural context of that campus, as

well as the participants general meanings of masculinities found in Harris (2010) study, Work

Hard Play Hard and Hypermasculine Performance, referring to expressing masculinity in

stereotypical ways, such as abuse of alcohol, objectification of women, and pursuit of

exclusively sexual relationships, also resonate with the findings from Penn. In their study,

Harris and Struve (2009) also found that competition was a campus norm that specifically

influenced mens notions of masculinity at college, as it was understood that every

stereotypically traditional masculine activity, such as sports, and consuming alcohol, was a

competitive activity, as were academic endeavors. Similarly, at Penn, as students noted that the

competitive aspect of their academic culture diffuses into other areas of student life, Harris and

Struves (2009) findings suggests that Penns competitiveness could specifically enhance mens

interactions with each other and attempts to dominate, based on masculine gender role norms.

Because of high peer pressure and groupthink syndrome at Penn, it is likely that men

will attempt to fit these norms and look for external peer validation in order to feel a sense of

belonging and self-worth. Furthermore, due to the other aspects of Penns culture such as

competition, and needing to appear the busiest and most successful, students may not be aware

of the fact that they are engaged in these harmful masking behaviors in the first place.

96
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Here its not individualistic We tend to have a skewed sense of self we forget our
individual strengths and values. There is a lot of noise around us, and it is rare that
someone can hear what they want to do personally. Getting out of the culture helps, but
we also create that culture as I started gaining greater strength in my individual
strengths, I felt a lot more confident and immediately started depending less on external
validation. Senior woman
At Penn, you are immersed in it it is hard to know what you want and how you are
being affected... My biggest frustration is that no one slows down to think you keep
going with it, jumping through hoops, and dont stop to think critically. Things keep
moving. Senior man
Because everyone is doing it around you, you feel you should do it too; so you can be
part of their conversation. Senior man
We Need Change: Culture vs. Society

When students were finally asked whether or not they felt students would perform

genders differently if Penns culture were to change, most argued that it would not. A few

students said that since people are a function of their surroundings and those that they spend time

with, if the culture changed, people would change. Some also blamed the pre-professional

culture for causing a certain kind of gender performance at Penn.

However, most blamed structural and societal issues for creating this pressure to be a

certain kind of dominant male at Penn that would need modification, but are probably too

widespread and deeply engrained to change.

You cant change the culture at Penn because its a bigger problem than just Penn the
whole system needs to be affected like look at people in media, you have rappers,
musicians they say get drunk, marginalize women and focus on looks... the
problem is within Penn, but you cant change it its like you have a whole ocean you
cant just change one tiny beach. Senior man
The fact that the powerful male at Penn is White, upper class and heterosexual,

respondents said, is a reflection of society at large, which, as the literature presented, is a

patriarchal, hegemonic masculine society. Furthermore, as the literature suggests as well,

97
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

fraternities hold power on most college campuses where they have a large enough presence,

given that the alcohol rule is national; not specific to Penn.

Its hard to say if the culture was different at Penn that people would be different Penn
is only a couple of blocks of Philadelphia. Penn cant shift the way the world people in
society think. aspects of Penns culture arent the most important thing the way
people perform gender is mostly societal. Senior man
Most respondents noted that their perceptions of power and social life on campus shifted

as they grew older. In upper years, students noted they had grown bored of the frat party scene

and hook-up culture, and had looked for ways to diversify their social groups and spend their

time more productively. One woman noted that she attended random round-tables in order to

meet new people and engage in stimulating conversation, rather than go to parties or bars to

drink. This would suggest that this dominant male culture in the social realm might affect

younger students, in their freshman and sophomore years, more than upperclassmen. This relates

to the idea that masculinity manifests differently across social contexts and structures, and is

subject to change, not just as perspectives shift, but also as the men themselves age, and

furthermore, according to Edwards and Jones (2009) theory, implies that a man will eventually

shed his individual mask of masculinity that he feels the need to wear in college, when he

accepts the ways the mask of masculinity does not fit his individual personality, realized through

regretful experiences that contradict his own values and belief systems.

98
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

VII. Behind the Mask: Gender Role Stress on a Campus Under Pressure

A gap in literature exists with regard to the gender identity development process of males

at college, and specifically, in relating contextual factors of a given college to the belief systems

that its students hold about manliness. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the greater

conversation surrounding the display of male dominance at college and its subsequent effects on

campus culture, by investigating the contextual factors at the University of Pennsylvania that

contribute to specific performances and manifestations of masculinities on its campus.

Based on the results of this study, it is likely that undergraduate men experience some

degree of gender role stress at the University of Pennsylvania. Respondents experiences suggest

that the traditional roles, expectations and norms for men are displaced at Penn because of its

hypercompetitive, pre-professional culture, where women are able and willing to compete with

men on an intellectual level.

As a result, the social sphere at Penn is extremely bifurcated, in that not only men are

privileged over women; but specifically White, upper class, heterosexual, fraternity men are

dominant, thus signifying a traditional hegemonic masculine culture at Penn. Due to the work

hard-play hard aspect of Penns culture, both men and women feel the need to hold a successful

academic and internship record, as well as a successful social presence on campus. Fraternity

men possess arguably the most social power on campus for several reasons, the most salient of

which being their ability to host open parties with alcohol whilst no other entities on campus,

including sororities, can. Their ability to exercise exclusivity in both deciding who joins their

fraternity, as well as who can enter their parties, causes younger or non-member men, as well as

women, to adopt subordinate positions and forces them to adhere to specific norms if they want

99
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

to engage in social life at Penn. Respondents also implied a trickle-down effect of hegemonic

masculinity, in that men attempt to perform their genders the right way in order to successfully

navigate the schools culture and assert their dominance, by adhering to appearance-based norms

such as clothing, drinking, and looking muscular, which supports the idea that gender is

performed.

Furthermore, respondents noted that social groups on campus tend to be homogenous,

self-selecting, and like-minded in thought, despite the large ethnic diversity amongst the

undergraduate student body. As a result, the dominant male culture does not necessarily pervade

every social group on campus, but it also means that groups on campus are unlikely to be

exposed to different viewpoints, so groups such as fraternities will not be called out for sexist

behavior.

Norms on campus regarding maintaining certain appearances resonate with societal

pressures and norms of traditional masculinity, particularly, the Mask of Masculinity.

Subsequently, it seems that in some aspects, there is a double pressure on men to act a certain

way, as they not only have societal expectations of manliness to live up to, but additional Penn

student norms that reinforce these expected behaviors.

Some respondents felt that even if the culture at Penn changed, students would not

perform their genders differently because it is influenced by society at large. The masculinities

that men at Penn construct are not that different from those of college men in other studies - but

the unique aspects of Penns culture can be seen as not just enhancing the pressure on men to be

manly, but to do this in specific ways, given the academically rigorous, high achieving nature

of the school.

100
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Most participants established that Penns culture is unique from that of other institutions

for various reasons, mostly its pre-professional, Wall Street culture. This implies that male

norms contextualized by Penns culture would be limited to the boundaries of its campus, and

therefore would be too specific to generalize and reflect those of Harvard, Yale, or any other

university campus. However, the findings of this study do suggest that men at Penn face similar

pressures to other college men around the nation, which might result from broader social

influences on men of this developmental stage. Secondly, it is likely that other elite institutions

share aspects of Penns culture such as competition, given that their acceptance rates are

notoriously low and maintains their prestigious status. Therefore, contextual influences on

masculinity would likely apply to other peer institutions, but it would be important to conduct a

preliminary study of the campus cultures of these institutions. Third, given that the problematic

behaviors attributed to college mens masculinity have occurred nation-wide, it would imply a

broader phenomenon of insecurity and stress in college-age male gender development that

should be researched further in order to prevent more problem instances that could cause harm or

damage.

Several recommendations can also be made to the University of Pennsylvania based on

the results of this study. This study started out as an attempt to understand harmful, sexist

behaviors reflecting male dominance on college campuses, and attempting to recognize if there

were specific campus cultural norms that contribute to this. Largely, responses indicated that

certain cultural norms at Penn do bifurcate gender roles and lead to characteristics of a

hegemonic masculinity. Although respondents noted that societally engrained norms and rules

could not necessarily be changed, there are some ways that gender equality can be fostered on

campus.

101
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Firstly, given that fraternities exclusive access to and control over alcohol gives them

power over social scene at Penn, it would be recommended to look into ways to equalize this.

Either sororities could be granted equivalent privileges to alcohol, as may female respondents

suggested, or more stringent rules on fraternities could be enforced, given that technically, the

underage consumption of alcohol is illegal, but nevertheless pervasive on campus. Given that

this is a nationally enforced rule, Penn could instead consider abolishing social fraternities

altogether, although this is an extreme and most likely unfavorable and unfeasible action to take.

To reduce the dominant presence of fraternities instead, Penn could relocate or lease from the

fraternities that occupy the prime real estate houses on Locust Walk, the spine of campus; so

that students particularly men, would feel less pressure to join a fraternity for the reason of

attaining social dominance and power on campus. Another option would also be to create more

social spaces for students who do not want to drink or go to frat parties, but do not want to sit in

their room alone either. Social groups supposedly provide this, but given the competitive nature

of applying and getting accepted to specific clubs, this is not always possible. Another

suggestion would be for Penn to be more transparent about the fact that Greek organizations do

occupy a significant portion of Penns social culture, for example in promotional materials or

campus information sessions and tours.

The pre-professional and groupthink-induced pressures might also be alleviated if Penn

invites alumni from fields other than male-dominant consulting and investment banking careers

to come in to recruit or talk to students about future opportunities in the same way that on-

campus recruitment occurs for these particular high-profile industries. Furthermore, given that

men and women implied that their freshman year often determined their social group and

activities, Penn could consider assigning freshman roommates based on conscious consideration

102
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

of students background, race, and class, and potential area or school of study. Freshman halls,

which often initiate students social lives at Penn, should comprise a diverse range of viewpoints,

backgrounds and experiences, which could encourage equality, understanding and reduce the

presence of a hierarchy.

Furthermore, pre-major advisors could play an important role by enforcing structural

rules such as limits on the number of clubs and on-campus organizations students can be part of.

Given that students, particularly freshmen and sophomores, must meet with their pre-major

advisors for regular check-ins on their academics to update their academic planning worksheets,

and in order to declare their classes and majors of study, advisors could also prepare an extra-

curricular worksheet to keep track of the engagements of students outside the classroom. Just as

there is an add/drop period for classes at the beginning of each semester, during which students

can try out classes to see if they like them, and drop them if they do not, there could be a similar

period for extra-curricular organizations. This would allow students a chance to explore their

options before settling on a limited number of main groups to devote their time to. Not only

would a restriction reduce the competitive pressure to try and be the busiest and most

accomplished student, but it would also allow students more time to focus on fostering closer

relationships, which would create a more supportive, rather than cutthroat, community

environment.

Lastly, for students who feel more comfortable talking to other students rather than an

adult advisor, a personal mentor or buddy could be an effective way for younger students to

get a grip on the fast-paced life at Penn and the many important decisions they will face.

Although peer advisors and resident advisors do exist for freshmen, they are in charge of a

relatively large group of students, and may not always have the same interests or backgrounds

103
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

and thus may not be relatable. What would be more effective is one senior or junior mentor

assigned to each freshman student, who is carefully selected based on students interests,

backgrounds, and involvements at Penn. This recommendation comes partly because most

respondents found that with age, their views on social life at Penn had changed and become less

reliant on traditionally dominant male roles, which could be seen as harmful for both men and

women. Furthermore, it would provide students with an outlet to express their concerns, thus

alleviating the Penn Face pressure by being able to talk with someone familiar and

approachable.

Limitations & Future Research

Several limitations should be taken into consideration when reviewing this study. Some

are simply related to the nature of qualitative research, and others are specific to the studys

procedures. Given the nature of qualitative research, findings were dependent on the researchers

interpretation of the answers received; thus analysis of the data was limited by researcher

subjectivity.

A major limitation of this study was that the research sample was limited, as Penn is an

incredibly large institution and host to a very diverse range of people possessing extremely

varied experiences and backgrounds. Even though this study was specific to Penns culture, and

there was no intention for it to ever be generalized to reflect or make claims about other

institutions or contexts, it is not representative of the entirety of the student bodys experiences

even within the Penn community.

First of all, the age range of participants was limited to upperclassmen. The youngest

respondents were two sophomore students. This occurred due to the studys participant

104
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

recruitment strategy, whereby students were contacted based on their positions in various student

groups on campus. As a result, freshman students, who do not hold positions in clubs, as they are

new, were not included. Although all respondents reflected on their freshman year experiences,

the study was limited by not including the fresh perspectives of students interacting with Penns

culture in real-time, as well as giving older participants hindsight and distance from that time to

reflect or change their minds.

Secondly, there was a lack of diversity with regard to participants sexual orientation and

gender identity. Only two participants identified as gay, and no trans or queer students were

interviewed. This may have been a limitation in understanding how students come to terms with

performing their gender at Penn.

Furthermore, the researchers role as an undergraduate female student may have affected

respondents willingness to be honest and open. Students may have been reluctant to be

completely transparent, especially regarding their Greek organizations, or doubted the

confidentiality agreement because a fellow peer was interviewing them. Moreover, the students

interviewed particularly men may have had pre-conceptions about the study, given the recent

issues on college campuses regarding men such as the 2016 Stanford rape case and the 2016

This is What Rape Culture Looks Like flyers at Penn itself. As a current student who has

experienced 4 years in the University of Pennsylvania, as a female, the researcher held her own

assumptions, interests and perceptions prior to the study, although measures were taken to

prevent any presumptions or biases from affecting questions, responses, and analyses. Another

limitation to consider is the fact that this position might have potentially impacted

methodological procedures. In general, interviewees may have had difficulties in adjusting to

being interviewed by a student, which reflects the concept of participant reactivity. Furthermore,

105
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

past studies have suggested that the gender of the interviewer affects the responses and results of

interviewers, particularly when the topic of the interview relates to gender (Flores-Macias &

Lawson, 2006). Some possible reasons for this offered by past research are that women and men

use language differently, and that when in the company of the other gender, men and women act

more formally and guarded than they would with a person of the same gender (Carli, 1991;

Benny et. al, 1956). As a result of this formality, it is possible that participants may have tried to

give the researcher the answers they thought she was looking for, rather than honest responses.

As gender is the most noticeable characteristic of an interview, it is likely to have had some

effect on responses, but the effect may be marginal.

On the whole, although the researcher made attempts to secure a wide range of students

within Penns culture that were engaged in different activities and lifestyles on campus, the most

significant limitation is that many students were left out, given that this study utilized very small

sample of 21 students relative to the close to 10,000 undergraduate student population.

Recognizing these limitations, measures were taken to reduce them as much as possible. Firstly,

the researcher acknowledged any assumptions when beginning the research collection. In order

to address the potential problem of participant reactivity, the interviewer was self-aware about

how she might possibly be influencing participants, and made conscious efforts to construct an

interview environment that would allow for honest answers, for example, by asking questions in

a more informal manner reflective of a conversation between peers, so that participants would

feel comfortable answering honestly and freely. Fine (1993) notes that in qualitative studies,

researchers should accept that biases are inevitable, so it is important to simply be cognizant of

the choices made in the study, and inform readers why these actions were taken. With regards to

reactivity, he claims that if a researcher is honest with the subjects about his or her research goals,

106
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

it is likely that responses will be skewed in some direction. Ultimately, in accordance with his

ideas, the researcher assumed the perspective that data, rather than aiming to be impossibly

clean of any biases, would be collected in the most appropriate and suitable way, as

objectively as possible; with acknowledgment of the researchers situational factors and potential

influence.

Future research should address these limitations; namely utilize a larger sample with

students of all four year groups and involvement in more areas of campus life, such as sports

teams and cultural groups, represented, that possibly might be more or less diverse or equal

regarding gender roles and norms. This would also suggest a different recruitment strategy,

perhaps with funding, a financial or gift incentive to participate in the study would help collect a

larger group of participants. Furthermore, more students of non-heteronormative sexual and

gender orientations, such as those identifying as LGBTQ, should be included to reflect a more

comprehensive understanding of various gender identities and roles on campus today, and

whether this is reflective of societys viewpoint at large.

A possible method to prevent the potential lack of trust or hesitancy to talk a student

researcher would be for a qualified third party, such as a counselor or a cultural anthropologist,

who is disconnected from the school and unknown to students, to interview participants. A

limitation of this could be that the student-to-student relatability would be lost, and that a student

of Penn might be better equipped to interpret and understand the cultural norms or details about

the school than an adult who has not experienced them at all.

There are many ways in which this study could be furthered to garner more information

about gender performance on Penns campus. It would be interesting to further explore the ties

107
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

between the real world of adulthood and jobs and Penn, and see how much of a trickle-down

or mirror effect exists. It would be notable to interview faculty of the school, to see what their

perceptions of gender performance amongst their students are, and if they feel their subjects or

teaching styles play a role in affecting this. It would also be of use to conduct a comparative

study with a different college or university to further delineate special campus cultural norms

from societal expectations or see if there is an overlap there as well. For example, a smaller

liberal arts college that perhaps does not have fraternities would provide an interesting

comparison, or even other elite, Ivy League institutions, to try and find out whether there are

specific differences at Penn or not, and why. Last, this study focused on masculinity, but a

similar study, conducted to investigate notions of femininity and what being a woman looks like

on Penns campus would also likely yield informative and useful results.

Final Thoughts

In a society where college men are often blamed for inappropriate, harmful, disruptive

behavior on campuses, these findings show that perhaps they are not as much to blame as

individuals, but if anything, a product of societal and cultural forces at work that influence the

way both men and women conceptualize their gender roles and treatment of each other. Society

must be willing to accept that a man cannot be the stereotypical macho, strong, unemotional

block without having his own insecurities, which will inevitably manifest in one harmful way or

another. From this study, we can see that individually, college men are aware of the societal

norms they are predisposed to, and when they are conforming to, or rejecting them. Most often,

the peer group influences an individuals adherence to norms, which means that students need to

learn to negate the pressures of society and think and act for themselves, particularly when in

group settings which is much easier said than done, especially in a competitive environment

108
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

where everyone appears to be doing the same thing as each other, but better. The nature of

masculinities at Penn reflects what is happening in society at large with regard to traditional

gender roles. Not only do the same men of a certain race and class feel entitled to more privilege,

but also, as women have worked over the years to shift their roles in society from the domestic

sphere to the working world, men have not made as large of a transition between the same

spheres, creating a gap in the understanding of traditional gender roles between the genders,

which the crisis of masculinity can be partially attributed to. At Penn, the potentially harmful

effects of these masculinities born of insecurity and shame are thus not restricted to women at

Penn, but are arguably just as impactful on men, who face societal pressures alongside Penn

cultural pressures to perform their gender as a certain kind of a dominant man.

109
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

References

Anderson, E. (2007). Inclusive masculinity in a fraternal setting. Men and Masculinities, 10(5).
604620.

Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L.T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). Good girls: Gender,
social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(2). 100122.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5). 518529.

Barone, R. P., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Linder, C. (2007). Preventing sexual assault through
engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5). 585594.

Benny, N., Reisman, D. & Star, A. S. (1956). Age and sex in the interview. American Journal of
Sociology, 62, 143152.

Berkowitz, A. D. (1992). College men as perpetrators of acquaintance rape and sexual assault: A
review of recent research, Journal of American College Health, 40(4). 17581.

Bird, S. R. (1996) Welcome to the mens club: Homosociality and the maintenance of
hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Society, 10(2). 120132.

Bloomberg, L.D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your Qualitative Dissertation: A roadmap
from beginning to end. Los Angeles : Sage Publications.

Borsari, B. E., & Carey, K. B. (1999). Understanding fraternity drinking: Five recurring themes
in the literature, 19801998. Journal of American College Health, 48, 3037.

Boswell, A. A., Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: why are some
fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender and Society, 10(2), 133147.

Brannon, R., David, D. (1976): The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role. Reading,
MA: Random House

Burgess, G. H. (2007). Assessment of rape-supportive attitudes and beliefs in college men:

Development, reliability, and validity of the rape attitudes and beliefs scale. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 22(8). 973993.

Capraro, R. L. (2000). Why college men drink: Alcohol, adventure, and the paradox of
masculinity. Journal of American College Health, 48, 307315.

Carli, L. L. (1991). Gender, status, and influence. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. L.

Ridgeway & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes, 8. 89113. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

110
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Carrigan, T. Connell, B., Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and
Society, 14(5). 551604.

Case, D. N., Hesp, G. A., & Eberly, C. G. (2005). An exploratory study of the experiences of gay,
lesbian and bisexual fraternity and sorority members revisited. Oracle: The Research Journal of
the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 1, 1531.

Cashin, J. R., Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1998). Alcohol use in the Greek system: Follow
the leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 59, 6370.

Caudill, B. D., Crosse, S. B., Campbell, B., Howard, J., Luckey, B., & Blane, H. T. (2006).
High-risk drinking among college fraternity members: A national perspective. Journal of
American College Health, 55, 141155.

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1999). Social influence: social norms, conformity, and
compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzy (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, 2,
151-192. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Connell, R. W. (1985). Theorising gender. Sociology, 19(2), 260272.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Connell, R. (2002). On hegemonic masculinity and violence: Response to Jefferson and Hall.
Theoretical criminology, 6, 8999.

Connell, R.W. & Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender and Society, 19, 829859.

Cowley, A. D. (2014). Lets get drunk and have sex: The complex relationship of alcohol, gender,
and sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(7), 12581278.

Davis, T. L., & Wagner, R. (2005). Increasing mens development of social justice attitudes and
actions. Developing social justice allies: New directions for student services, 110, 2941.

Davis, T., & Laker, J. A. (2004). Connecting men to academic and student affairs programs and
services. Developing effective programs and services for college men: New directions for student
services, 107, 4757.

DeSantis, A. D., & Coleman, M. (2008). Not on my line: Attitudes about homosexuality in black
fraternities. In G. S. Parks (Ed.), Black Greek-letter organizations in the 21st century: Our fight
has just begun. 291312. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). Putting my man face on: A grounded theory of college
mens gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 210228.

111
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Engstrom, E. L. (2012). Yesbut I was drunk: Alcohol references and the (re)production of
masculinity on a college campus. Communication Quarterly, 60(3). 403423.

Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten Lies of Ethnography: Moral Dilemmas of Filed Research. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267294.

Flezzani, J. D., & Benshoff, J. M. (2003). Understanding sexual aggression in male college
students: The role of self-monitoring and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of College Counseling, 6,
6979.

Flood, M. (2008). Men, sex and homosociality: How bonds between men shape their sexual
relations with women. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 339359.

Francisco, F. & Lawson, C. (2006). Effects of interviewer gender on survey responses: Findings
from a household survey in Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1).
100110.

Friedman, A. (2013, September 12). How do you change a bro-dominated culture? Retrieved
from http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/09/how-do-you-change-a-bro-dominated-culture.html

Glick, S. (2016, October 4). Claremont students say masculinity is hazardous to mental health.
Retrieved from http://claremontindependent.com/claremont-safe-space-masculinity-is-a-mental-
health-issue/

Harper, S. R., Harris, F., III, & Mmeje, K. (2005). A theoretical model to explain the
overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for campus
administrators. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42, 565-588.

Harris, F. III & Struve, L. E. (2009). Gents, jerks, and jocks: What men learn about masculinity
in college. About Campus, 14(3), 29.

Harris, F. III (2010). College mens meanings of masculinities and contextual influences:
Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 297318.

Harris, F. III & Harper, S. R. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: productive performances of
masculinities among college fraternity men. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 27(6), 703723.

Hesp, G. A. & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Heterosexism and homophobia on fraternity row: A case
study of a college fraternity community. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6, 395415.

Hoover, S. & Coats, C. D. (2015). Does God make the man? Media, religion and the crisis of
masculinity. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Jones, S. R. & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity.

Journal of College Student Development, 41(4). 405414.

112
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Kesslen, B. (2016, November 7). Abolish fraternities. Retrieved from

https://tuftsobserver.org/11051/

Khazan, O. (2015, January). The bro whisperer. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-bro-whisperer/383506/#article-
comments

Kimmel M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of
gender identity. Research on men and Masculinities Series: Theorizing masculinities. 119-141.

Kimmel, M. (1989). The contemporary crisis of masculinity in historical perspective in The

Making of Masculinities, ed. Griffin, C. Feminist Review, 33, 103-105.

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

Kindlon, D. J., & Thompson, M. (2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys.
New York: Ballantine Books.

Koren, M. (2016, June 6). Telling the Story of the Stanford Rape Case. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/stanford-sexual-assault-letters/485837/

Krugman, S. (1995). Male development and the transformation of shame. In: Levant R.F.,
Pollack W.S., eds. A New Psychology of Men. New York: Basic.

Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: A cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in
fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 327334.

LaBerge, P. (2016, September 11). From one bro to another: On complicity. Retrieved from
http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/09/peter-laberge-guest-column-from-one-bro-to-another

Locke, B. D. & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining Masculinity Norms, Problem Drinking, and
Athletic Involvement as Predictors of Sexual Aggression in College Men. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(3). 279283.

Lyman P. (1987) The fraternal bond as a joking relationship. In: Kimmel M. S., ed. Changing
Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Mahalik, J. R. (2000). A model of masculine gender role conformity. SymposiumMasculine

gender role conformity: Examining theory, research, and practice. Paper presented at the 108th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington DC.

Mahalik, J. R. et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms Inventory,

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1). 325.

113
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Nir, S. M. (2016, August 2). Are final clubs too exclusive for Harvard? Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/education/edlife/are-final-clubs-too-exclusive-for-
harvard.html

Park, A., Sher, K. J., Wood, P. K., & Krull, J. L. (2009). Dual mechanisms underlying
accentuation of risky drinking via fraternity/sorority affiliation: The role of personality, peer
norms, and alcohol availability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 241255.

Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of
its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of
Research in Personality, 33, 2768.

Peterson, M. W. & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 68, 318.

Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pollack, W. S. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York:
Henry Holt & Company.

Quittner, E. (2010, June 17). Bro Culture: Icing on the Social-Marketing Cake? Retrieved from
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1997489,00.html

Reeser, T. W. (2015). Concepts of masculinity and masculinity studies. DQR Studies in

Literature, 58, 1138.

Reitman, J. (2012, March 28). Confessions of an Ivy League frat boy: Inside Dartmouth's hazing
abuses. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/confessions-of-an-ivy-league-
frat-boy-inside-dartmouths-hazing-abuses-20120328

Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Whales tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case study of
fraternity life. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26, 306323.

Ryan, E. G. (2014, April 2) The United States of bros: A map and field guide. Retrieved from
http://jezebel.com/the-united-states-of-bros-a-map-and-field-guide-1550563737

Sanday, P. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York:
New York University Press.

Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993).
Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative
Project on Early Detection of Persons With Harmful Alcohol Consumption II. Addiction, 88,
791804.

Schwartz, M. D. & DeKeseredy, W. S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of
male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

114
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper.

Spinelli, D. (2016, September 6). Flyers cover campus with suggestive email, saying, 'this is
what rape culture looks like'. Retrieved from: http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/09/rape-
culture-flyers

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suarez, E. & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11). 20102035.

Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral
Scientist, 29, 531543.

Trumati, D. M., Tokar, D. M, Fischer, A. R. (1996). Dimensions of masculinity: Relations to

date rape supportive attitudes and sexual aggression in dating situations. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 74(6), 555562.

Trump, J., & Wallace, J. A. (2006). Gay males in fraternities. Oracle: The Research Journal of
the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 2, 828.
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Fraternity & sorority house addresses. Retrieved from
http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/ofsl/housingaddresses.php
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d). Office of fraternity and sorority Life. Retrieved from
http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/ofsl/greeklife.php
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d). Student activities. Retrieved from
http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/life-at-penn/student-activities
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d). Undergraduate. Retrieved from
http://www.upenn.edu/programs/undergraduate
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Academics. Retrieved from
http://www.college.upenn.edu/prospective/academics
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Majors and program options. Retrieved from
https://www.seas.upenn.edu/prospective-students/undergrad/majors/
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.) Penn Nursing Science. Retrieved from
http://www.nursing.upenn.edu/academics/
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.) Concentrations. Retrieved from
https://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/concentrations/
Vandiver, D. M., Dupalo, J. R. (2012). Factors that affect college students perceptions of rape:
What is the role of gender and other situational factors? International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(5), 592612.

115
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Appendix A.

A Conceptual Model of the Meanings College Men Make of Masculinities. (Harris, 2010, p. 303)

116
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Appendix B.
Meanings of Masculinity, Perceptions of Culture and Male Norms at Penn
In-Depth Interview Guide: Undergraduate Men
40 minutes
I. Introduction
Introduce myself
Talk about study: To inform undergraduate thesis looking at Penns culture with regard to gender
Reminders: Audio recording, anonymity (names will be changed/not mentioned in study),
confidentiality, answer honestly and to best of ability, there are no right or wrong answers, ask if
unsure, read and sign consent forms
II. Background Questions (5 minutes)
1. Can you please tell me a little bit about yourself?
- How old are you?
- Where did you grow up?
- What ethnicity/ race/ culture do you identify most strongly with?
- Do you have siblings?
2. As a child, what did you want to be/ imagine yourself being when you grew up?
III. Penn Experience (15 minutes)
1. Student Information
- What year are you?
- Which school(s) (/program) are you enrolled in?
- What are you majoring in, if you have decided?
- Do you have a job while at school?
2. Penns Culture
- How would you characterize Penns campus culture? Imagine you are telling your
friend from back home who is considering applying to school here.
- What adjectives or phrases would you use to describe the social scene or culture at
Penn?

- How might you categorize or characterize Penns undergraduate student body?

117
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

- What are the cultural norms on campus?

- What factors do you feel contribute toward campus culture?
3. Social Life
- How would you describe your social life at Penn?
Frequency, Where, With Whom, Types of activities/ groups/ events
- What do you do with your friends? Where do you typically go?
- How would you describe your circle(s) of friends?
Gender ratio, Interests, Diversity, Known from where, How long?
- How well do you feel that your friends at Penn know you?
- Do you actively pursue new friendships? Are you content with the people you hang out
with?
- Would you reach out to someone at Penn for support if you were struggling with
something (e.g. health-related problem, a family issue)? Who?
4. Time Spent on Campus
- Do you feel comfortable on campus?
- What extracurricular activities/ organizations/ clubs do you participate in?
Why did you join them?
How much time do you spend in these groups?
- Do you feel satisfied with your social life? Is there anything you would change?
5. Peer Influence
- Do you find people at Penn are generally like-minded?
- At Penn, have you often felt pressured by peers (implicitly or explicitly) to
conform to be/ do things that are not typical of you?
How often, if ever, do you feel pressured (implicitly or explicitly) to
drink alcohol when you do not actually want to?
How often, if ever, do you feel pressured (implicitly or explicitly) to do drugs
when you do not actually want to?
How often, if ever, do you feel you should go out even if you dont feel like it?

118
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

6. Anxiety/ Stress/ Troubles

- Do you ever feel troubled or stressed about your friendships or relationships at Penn?
- Do you ever feel stressed about finance related troubles at Penn?
- Do you feel overburdened by schoolwork at Penn?
- Do you ever experience feelings of loneliness at Penn?
- Do you feel marginalized at Penn?
- Do you ever feel unsafe at Penn?
- Have you experienced feelings of unworthiness or low self-esteem at Penn?
7. Competition
- To what extent do you feel a sense of competition at Penn?
In what situations? In what situations are you more/ less competitive?
8. Hierarchy
- How do you perceive the social structure at Penn to be organized? Who has more
influence?
- Are there some people on campus with more power than others?
- Do you feel any hierarchy of power exists amongst Penns students?
- What gives people social power at Penn?
9. Diversity
- Do you feel like Penn is a diverse place with regard to:
Culture/ Race/ Socioeconomic Status/ Sexual Preference/ Gender Preference?
- How representative do you feel you are of Penns student population?
IV. Masculinity (15 minutes)
1. Meanings of Masculinity
- Do you feel there are concrete differences between how men and women should behave
and appear?
- What is your understanding of the term masculinity?
- As a child, [where] did you observe examples of masculinity? (E.g. Family, Friends,
Teachers, Coaches, Priests, media)

119
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Do you feel you were being taught, explicitly, or implicitly, what being
a man means?
- What does being a man mean to you?
Do you actively try to be manly?
What words or phrases spring to your mind when you hear Be a Man?
- Who are your male role models?
- What does a guy here at Penn need to do to be manly?
- To what extent do you feel self-conscious or judged on campus? If you do, how much
of this do you feel stems from how much of a man you seem to be?
2. Male Norms
- What would the typical or ideal Penn male look like?
What proportion of the Penn population would you say fits this description? What
proportion strives to fit it?
Do you aspire to behave in ways that make you adhere to this image?
- How are men expected to behave?
How do you fit the expectation for men here? Do you want to?
Who influences the norm the most?
- Do you believe that if certain aspects of culture at Penn were different, the
students would have different concepts of how they should perform their
gender?
What aspects might these be?
V. Wrap Up and Debriefing (5 minutes)
Review what meanings participant holds about masculinity, ways they feel they have been
impacted, and how this has made them behave and adopt certain beliefs about how to be a man
at Penn.
Reiterate anonymity.
Thank participant.

120
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Appendix C.
Perceptions of Culture and Effects of Masculinity at Penn
In-Depth Interview Guide: Undergraduate Women
35 minutes
I. Introduction
Introduce myself
Talk about study: for undergraduate thesis looking at Penns culture with regard to gender
Reminders: Audio recording, anonymity (names will be changed/not mentioned in study),
confidentiality, answer honestly and to best of ability, there are no right or wrong answers, ask if
unsure, read and sign consent forms
II. Background Questions (5 minutes)
1. Can you please tell me a little bit about yourself?
- How old are you?
- Where did you grow up?
- What ethnicity/ race/ culture do you identify most strongly with?
- Do you have siblings?
2. As a child, what did you want to be/ imagine yourself being when you grew up?
Has this changed throughout your time at Penn? What do you want to be or plan to be
now?
III. Penn Experience (10 minutes)
1. Student Information
- What year are you?
- Which school(s) (/program) are you enrolled in?
- What are you majoring in, if you have decided?
2. Penns Culture
- How would you characterize Penns campus culture? Imagine you are telling your
friend from back home who is considering applying to school here.
- What adjectives or phrases would you use to describe the social scene or culture at
Penn?

121
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

- How might you categorize or characterize Penns undergraduate student body?

- Are there particular cultural norms on campus that you see?
Do you adhere to them?
- Have you felt the need to act differently from how you would before/ outside Penn in
order to fit the culture here?
- What factors do you feel contribute toward the campus culture?
- Do you think there are any problems with the culture at Penn?
If yes - what would you want to change?
3. Social Life
- How would you describe your social life at Penn?
Frequency, Where, With Whom, Types of activities/ groups/ events
- What do you do with your friends? Where do you typically go?
- How would you describe your circle(s) of friends?
Gender ratio, Interests, Diversity, Known from where, How long?
4. Time Spent on Campus
- What extracurricular activities/ organizations/ clubs do you participate in?
Why did you join them?
5. Hierarchy/ Social Power
- How do you perceive the social structure at Penn?
- Do you feel any hierarchies exist amongst Penns students?
- What gives people social power at Penn?
IV. Masculinity (15 minutes)
1. Do you feel there is a typical Penn man or certain categories of men you have interacted
with on Penns campus?
2. Is there equality at Penn with regard to gender? (If answers to this are yes, jump)
- Do both men and women have equal opportunities with regard to jobs and
recruitment?
- Do men and women have equal opportunities with regard to social organizations
and events?

122
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

3. Is there competition between the genders?

4. What are the cultural/ social gender norms on campus?
- How should women behave? What should they do? How should they look?
- How should men behave? What should they do? How should they look?
- Are there certain implicit rules or behaviors you have to follow when you are
interacting with men specifically?
5. When do you typically interact with men and how do you feel you are treated in comparison to
how other men would be treated?
6. Have you personally experienced the effects of male behavior or dominance on campus?
- How/ When?
- Are there only certain men that do? Who?
- Can you give specific examples of how they do? Is it behavior, attitudes, etc.?
7. Do you feel your behavior or attitudes towards men and women at Penn differ?
- Why? Is it with just certain men and women?
8. Does the way you interact with men at Penn differ from how you would interact with males
you know from before or outside the university?
9. Have you ever been in a situation at Penn where you have felt marginalized or less powerful
because of your gender?
V. Wrap Up and Debriefing (5 minutes)
Review ways participant perceives men at Penn, and how they or Penns culture have been
impacted by masculinity at Penn.
Reiterate anonymity.
Thank participant.

123
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Appendix D.
Undergraduate School System at the University of Pennsylvania

Penn, a private Ivy League institution, enrolls 10,000 undergraduate students and is

consistently ranked among the top 10 schools in the nation (Undergraduate, n.d.). The

undergraduate program at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) is comprised of four schools:

the College of Arts and Sciences (the College), the School of Engineering and Applied Science

(Engineering), the School of Nursing (Nursing), and the Wharton School (Wharton). The

College offers General Education requirements as part of its curriculum, and it is home to 56

majors in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences (Academics). Engineering

offers students the degree options of a Bachelor of Science in Engineering, with 10 majors, or a

Bachelor of Applied Science (Majors and Program Options, n.d.). Nursing is focused on

hands-on clinical practice and nursing research (Penn Nursing Science, n.d.). All Wharton

undergraduates graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Economics, with a concentration in a

focused area of study. Wharton offers 21 concentrations (Concentrations, n.d.). Every school

offers dual degree or combined programs in conjunction with the other three schools.

Penn is home to over 450 registered student-run clubs and organizations that classify

themselves as academic and pre-professional; arts; community and public service; cultural and

international; peer education and support; media and publication; instructional and competitive;

Greek life and honor societies; political and advocacy; religious and spiritual; sports and

recreational; student governance; university resource; or intramural sports (Student activities,

n.d.). As of 2016, Penn has 46 social fraternity and sorority chapters: 27 fraternity chapters, 8

sorority chapters, and 11 chapters in the Intercultural Greek Council. Fraternity and sorority

124
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

houses are mostly owned by the university; 2 are privately owned, and 6 are leased (Fraternity

and Sorority House Addresses, n.d.). There are also 7 off-campus societies, 5 of which are all-

male, and 2 are all-female (Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, n.d.).

125
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

Appendix E.
Description of Participants
Men
1. Senior, Wharton School
This participant is 21 years old and studies Marketing. He is White, from Brazil, but was raised
in Florida. He is part of a sports team on campus.
2. Junior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 20 years old and studies English. He is White, from Pennsylvania. He is one
of the heads of a student-run publication on campus.
3. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies Biological Basis of Behavior (BBB). He is Asian,
from China, but was raised in Texas. He is part of a sports team on campus. He is affiliated with
Greek life.
4. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies History. He is White, from New York. He is part of a
student-run publication on campus. He is affiliated with Greek life.
5. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE). He is
White, from Maryland. He is part of a theater group on campus. He is affiliated with Greek life.
6. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 22 years old and studies Sociology. He is White, from Connecticut. He is part
of a student-run publication on campus.
7. Senior, Wharton School
This participant is 22 years old and studies Operations and Information Management (OPIM)
and Legal Studies. He is Asian, from Korea, but was raised in New Jersey. He is part of a
community and public service group on campus. He is affiliated with Greek life.
8. Sophomore, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 19 years old and has not declared his major yet. He is Asian American, from
California. Part of peer support groups on campus. He is affiliated with Greek life.

126
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

9. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences

This participant is 21 years old and studies Political Science and Economics. He is White, from
Virginia. He is part of an international and cultural organization on campus. He is affiliated with
Greek life.
10. Senior, College and Wharton (Life Sciences & Management)
This participant is 21 years old and studies Molecular and Cellular Biology and Healthcare
Management and Policy. He is Asian American, from Texas. He is part of a male performing arts
group.
11. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies Cinema Studies. He is Black, from Georgia. He is
part of a community and public service group and an off-campus fraternity.

Women
1. Junior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 20 years old and studies Biological Anthropology and Classics in
Archaeology. She is White, from California. She is part of theater groups on campus.
2. Senior, Wharton School
This participant is 21 years old and studies Finance and OPIM. She is White, from Ohio, but was
raised in Paris and London. She is on the board of a mental wellness initiative on campus. She is
affiliated with Greek life.
3. Junior, Wharton School
This participant is 20 years old and studies Business Analytics and Management. She is White,
from New Jersey. She is the head of a pre-professional investment club. She is affiliated with
Greek life.
4. Senior, Engineering and Wharton Schools (Management & Technology)
This participant is 21 years old and studies Computer Science and Management. She is Asian
American, from Ohio. She is head of a theater group on campus.
5. Junior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 20 years old and studies Communication and Graphic Design. She is Asian,
from the Netherlands. She is part of an a cappella group on campus. She is affiliated with Greek
life.

127
 BIG MAN ON CAMPUS

6. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences

This participant is 21 years old and studies Political Science. She is White, from California. She
is part of a cappella and dance groups on campus. She is affiliated with Greek life.
7. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies Political Science and Public Administration. She is
submatriculating in 4 years. She is Black, from Connecticut. She is head of a community and
public service organization.
8. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies BBB. She is White, from Georgia. She is part of a
peer support group on campus.
9. Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 21 years old and studies psychology. She is Asian, from India. She is head of
a peer support group on campus.
10. Sophomore, College of Arts and Sciences
This participant is 19 years old and studies psychology. She is White, from New Jersey. She is
part of a peer support group on campus. She is affiliated with Greek life.

128