"The Mean Girls of Morehouse": Gender at Same-sex Colleges

A recent vibe article entitled "The Mean Girls of Morehouse" focuses on a group (self-named "Plastics") who are current and former students at Morehouse - an all male historically black college in Atlanta, but whom have felt stifled at the overt criticism of their lifestyle. The group often cross-dresses, wears makeup and takes female hormones. And, while I don't agree with Morehouse defining what a man is and what a man is not, I am hesitant to say that these students belong there.

Simply put, women do not belong at Morehouse.

In the same vein, I don't believe men belong at all-women's colleges like Spelman or Barnard, for example. But, let me be a little more specific: I recognize the difference between gender and sex. Gender is self-identification -- do you identify as a man or a woman? Sex is physically identified. So, the Morehouse Plastics are male in terms of sex and what in terms of gender?

“I’ve always been into clothes, shoes, hair and everything,” says Diamond, who was born and raised in Providence, R.I. He says there’s a good chance he’ll transition into a woman at some point. “My mother says I always played dress-up in her clothes, my grandmother’s clothes. I’d even get my brother to do it sometimes. That’s just always been me—pushing the envelope of what I’m supposed to be as a man.”

So does Diamond really consider herself a man? At the question, he groans. “Yes, I refer to myself as a man, you know, to relieve any confusion. Sometimes people don’t understand the whole androgyny thing. There’s always the question: Well, what are you? Yes, I’m a man. I like women’s clothes. And yeah, I’m gay. But I don’t want that to define me. How come people can’t just see me as a person?”

What's problematic is both Diamond and the author can't seem to make up their mind as to Diamond's gender. The author uses both female and male pronouns to describe Diamond; and, Diamond declares himself a man, but add the qualifier ("to relieve any confusion") and talks about eventually transitioning to a woman. 

And, Diamond really doesn't have to choose which gender he/she is... unless he/she has expressly placed himself in an environment in which is predicated upon him being gendered as a man. 

Same-sex colleges are special places designed to help men and women achieve in environments designed to help them thrive. Morehouse is an all-male college. So, unless Diamond truly sees himself as a man, he shouldn't be there. There are plenty of colleges where the questioning of his gendered identity would be more acceptable, but at a same-sex college it becomes contentious. Diamond, if she identifies as a woman, misidentified herself and lied in order to insert herself into the college. If, she entered as a man, then when she decided not to be a man anymore she should have withdrawn or at least consulted with someone at the college. However, if Diamond is resolute in his identity as a male, then he belongs there as much as anyone does.

One last thing, this is not a gay/straight issue. This has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with gender.

the objectification of gay men

in belated honor of national coming out day and in celebration of the federal judge who today made "don't ask don't tell" illegal, a subject on sexuality. so, this blog post was supposed to be about the objectification gay men by straight women codified as "he's my gay best friend!" it's something that's irked me for a while. it seems that no matter how many friends a girl might have, their arsenal isn't complete until one of them is gay (and male - no lesbians allowed!). and he can't just be your gay friend, but he needs to be your best friend. it's an oversimplification and stereotypical way of viewing gay men. the gay best friend is supposed to be basically what your friends are: catty, into clothes, into boys and validating.

but i say supposed to because when i was researching some information for the post, i ran into this post on Salon from a couple of months ago called, "gay best-friend: the 'it' accessory" needless to say, i was dissappointed. it's an interesting read; i like how she describes the gay best friend "as that new knight in shining armor: the mystical, magical gay boy who'll always have your back" -- it's remiscent as the "magical negro" (google search spike lee magical negro if you don't get that one).

the only thing i would add is that many gay men are complicit in this objectification. they act out the stereotype to adhere to the idealized "gay best friend." i'm not going so far as to say that gay men like to be stereotyped, but i am saying that it is highly problematic that they choose to play into this role. speaking to one of my gay male friends, he acknowledged the role that many gay men play and said it was theatrical and truly acting - a sort of turning on for a specific audience. this, however, does nothing to help the community in fostering images that combat the (idealized?) simplified stereotype of what it means to be gay. not cool, guys.

thoughts/comments?

gender normativity in jobs

 

In the recent issue of Psychological Science, Victoria Brescoll from the Yale School of Management contributes, "Hard Won and Easily Lost: The Fragile Status of Leaders in Gender-Stereotype-Incongruent Occupation." Her findings aren't really surprising, but the analysis is. Brescoll isn't exactly groundbreaking: basically if you are a female in a traditionally male role and make a one small mistake than you are seen as incompetent. She goes on to say that a male in a traditionally female role is held to the same (silly) standard. It's the glass cliff.

What I find a bit troubling is how she uses the results to distance the phenomenon from gender discrimination. She writes,

We hypothesized that this effect is driven by reactions to individuals in roles inconsistent with their gender—and not simply by discrimination against women—and we predicted that a similar penalty would be evident for men and women in gender-incongruent jobs.

However, the below findings suggest that women do not suffer from discrimination the same way that men do.

Status conferral is calculated using four factors: status, power, independence and respect. Although the two jobs: that of President of a women's college and police chief were chosen because they are seen to be on par with each other, the President of the women's college (whether male or female) is seen as having less status as a police chief. And, not to knock police chiefs, but there are a lot - one in every single city across the whole of the united states. There are not many women's colleges. In order to be a President of a women's college you have to have advanced degrees, substantial research and prestige and respect within the scholarly community. In order to be police chief of a small town, you don't need nationwide recognition of your work. So, why are they seen as equal by the researchers? And, why is a Preisdent of a women's college seen as less prestigeous by the research participants? I can venture a guess that if they used President of a co-educational college v. President of a women's college - the results would not be the same. 

Additionally, the fall from the glass cliff is steeper for women than for men. I just don't get how this isn't a gendered issue - how this isn't an example of gender discrimination. Because, let's face it, most high-powered jobs are dominated by men and seen as male terrain. The fact that the most prestigious female gendered job they could find was president of a women's college (when there are probably less than 10 women's colleges in the nation) is telling. This is a female issue. This is not to say that it shouldn't be recognized that it occurs to men as well - but by and large it happens to women. To frame this as not part of a larger gender issue is a mistake.

pre-professional networking events or why i wanted to rip my eyes out this weekend

so this weekend, i attended a law school fair in new york. basically, it looks a lot like the above picture - where each law school gets a table and students line up to speak to admission representatives. my purpose in going was to try and get a feel for the schools and see if i felt like i would be a good fit. i knew i had to narrow down where i was going to apply unless i wanted to go broke and live off of ramen next fall. fortunately, the fair helped me narrow this list down.

i have a bunch of interests in going to law school but they all are associated with an interest in race, gender and the law. (surprise, surprise - thus the theme of my blog!) i've learned that simply engaging in discussions of race and gender does not guarantee a good time, and trying to do that in an environment where people really aren't feeling your radicalism is probably a guarantee of a bad time. instead, i am looking for a campus full of professors and students who wish to engage in these topics, in addition to professors who are knowledgeable, critical and interested in this work. having come from an all women's college, i also understand the importance of having female professors. (side note: i'm truly surprised that numbers skew slightly in favor of men, that is, more men are in law school than women) so, my stock questions for the admission reps had to do with whether there was a program, institute or classes devoted to critical race theory; what professors were actively engaging in critical race theory and feminist legal theory; and how many professors of color were at the school.

now that i'm at my second job since graduating from college, i have come to truly appreciate the fact that you need to be interviewing the employer/school as much as they are interviewing you. in other words, i came with the expectation that the reps would try to sell their school to me more than any of my efforts to impress them. having been in a work situation that was not a good fit, i want to be very careful that i don't end up at a school that is not a good fit.

anyways those where my goals, and here are some of my observations:

• for the top 20 schools and the nyc schools, there was usually a 15-20 minute wait time. i should've expected this. what i shouldn't have expected (and didn't expect) was waiting behind a girl while she spent 10 minutes asking questions that included, "should recommendations be single or double spaced?" "do you have a preferred font?" and "what kind of margins do you think look the best?" really? REALLY? the worst part of this show was that the admissions rep was actively engaged with her and giving a genuine response to this. that added to the fact they were dismissive of my questions makes me not even want to bother to apply.
• some schools were especially rude. to the point that it makes me feel lukewarm about their school altogether. i asked them how many faculty where faculty of color? They were like "uh, well i dont keep statistics. it's not good, but it's comparable to other elite schools." ....... whereas others were like "that's something we're def. concerned about. we have a good handful, but we really are concentrating on recruiting more."
• one big named school was really standoffish and uninformative. i was concerned about the huge class and feeling like I might feel lost, especially coming from such a small undergrad institution. in response they gave me some textbook answer instead of actually engaging with my question. i was like oh and you just inadvertently answered the question by giving me some stock answer and not even really looking at me. i am just a number, thanks. 
• on the flipside, my alma mater was mad real with me. i admitted that i was frankly a bit unsure if it's a good fit because I want to be in a community where many people are interested in public service, CRT, feminist theory, etc. and they were like well I'm not sure if we would be a perfect fit if those things are important to you but you should try to talk to some of the students to get their perspective. made me want to apply more.

so hopefully a little advice to the younger readers: it's really important that you interview people even when you feel under pressure. you don't want to be stuck in a situation that you don't like. and for those that this post is completely irrelevent for, a question on admissions processes in general - how can we accurately assess what a school/employer is all about, and whether we'd fit into that or not (regardless of rankings)? my undergrad school ended up being a good fit, but i think that was more good luck than a good applying process.  and, finally, a question for myself: why do i simultaneously think rankings are stupid but at the same time want to get into a top 5 school so badly?! ah! 

oh and a final request: do not bring your parents to law school/med school/grad school/job fairs. it is not cool. not cool at all.

can't even to begin

so a while ago, one of my girls brought a couple blog posts to my attention written by a young asian girl, Lillian Wu. one of them is affectionately entitled "how to get girls for asian guys" and the other "how to date an asian girl (for white guys)." where to begin, where to begin?

i don't think there is a sentence on either on of those posts that isn't highly problematic. it would be funny in its ridiculousness if it wasn't so frightening. in all honesty, i had to read through some other blog posts to make sure it wasn't some "tongue in cheek" commentary... it isn't. even worse, she seems to fashion herself as critically engaging with the idea of false stereotypes while replicating all the problems of stereotyping and essentializing a racial group. the fact that she does this to herself makes the entire project more disturbing.

i'm not even sure how to engage with her. or if i want to at all. what i will say is that it is a great example of self-hate, a lack of education about the history of people of color, and an extremely childish racist view of relatioships, power dynamics and cultural practice.

in her first post, aimed at helping asian men secure girlfriends her solution is to defy stereotypes in order to date women, this said while she simultaneously emasculates them and tells them the stereotypes are more often than not true. for some examples:

• she says that asian men need to try and emulate white men
• she refers to non-asian women as exotic
• "the rumor that Asian guys are bad in bed does not help. The negative stereotypes will continue to be an obstacle, especially the ones that carry truth"
• "The drastic difference between white guys and Asian guys is state of mind. White guys score dates because they act like men and take command."
• "Stop being the nice guy if you want to be the one who takes her home."
• "If she is straight, she will not be into a man who is more feminine than she is."

in her second post, aimed at white men who want to date asian women, she essentializes asian women as greedy, spoiled, manipulative and shallow. while acknowledging it's a stereotype, she says it's one that's quite true!

and while, i can go on and on about how messed up wu's view is. i think the bigger question i can pull out of this is how children have become so hateful. instead of brushing aside negative stereotypes, they embrace them. what is the best way to teach children to be more critical (of the themselves, their social and identity groups, and the world around them)? i know that i didn't concretely develop a critical conscious until i went to college and i was taught how to think. and it seems that this lack of critical thinking skills is due in large part to the emphasis on high stakes standardized testing where the correct answer isn't always the critical one.

for example, in middle school we often practiced responding to writing prompts for the standardized tests. two sides of a story were presented, and you had to pick the one you agreed with and argue your point. i distinctly remember my ILA (english) teacher telling us that we shouldn't weigh or consider both sides nor make concessions of any kind for the other side. when we wrote, we had to be 100% on one side, or we wouldn't score well on the test. similarly, students have become less politically active and less willing to challenge group norms in order to pursue "success" in school. pressure from all sides, raising rates of tuition (and debt), etc. create a climate that doesn't encourage critical engagement with material.

i think we need to have a complete reimaging of education, and with that which skills are valued. i strongly believe that if miss wu would have been taught to make critical assessments and to understand her role in either combating or perpetrating negativity and essentialism, the only way that would have been written would be as tongue in cheek commentary to someone else!

anger misdirected

so, first, two personal vignettes to frame this post.

- i was riding the metro north train from new york to new haven on a friday evening after work. i had a business suit on because i, at the time, still worked at a corporate firm. the train was very pretty full, but i found a seat in a 3 person row where there was only an old white woman sitting there. to put it lightly, she looked pissed and uncomfortable when i sat down. i framed this by what i looked like, in other words, professional-looking asians usually don't even get noticed by anyone, nor are they really the target for racist white people because of our model minority status. but this woman was not feeling me sitting next to her. i could just feel her discomfort and there was something telling me it was because of my race. not surprisingly, a couple minutes later she got up and walked throughout the (crowded) train to find a new place to sit. i felt like shit. and i have to admit that i cried. it was cruel. it was racist. and i ended up being really angry with myself for even caring.

- yesterday, i was supposed to go out with this man i met. he seemed cool and i thought the little time we spoke at the bar, we connected. apparently not. anyways, day of he starts texting me comments that i felt were sexually inappropriate and disrespectful. it's funny odd fucked up how a man can make a woman feel objectified and, frankly, dirty through a couple of choice words. even worse, he feigned being offended when confronted. and he insinuated that i was just a non-sexual person because i refused to respond to his sexual advances. it was fucked up. and i was upset. i felt dirty, used, gross, and objectified. i wanted to cry. and i ended up being really angry with myself for even caring.

so, i was talking to my boss about how i had been having a bad day and was just ashamed that this worthless man was able to make me feel any kind of way about myself. at the time, i had immediately discounted his words as worthless and sophomoric, but i still was affected. i still felt bad. and it made me sad that i couldn't control my feelings enough to not let insignificant people effect them. but she told me that my anger was completely misdirected. why would i be mad at myself when the only person i should be mad at is him. it was just another example of gender imbalance, when i should be blaming a man, i end up blaming myself for not being able to brush off his disrespectful de-feminizing comments. it reminded my of my first vignette and how i was so angry with myself for even being upset, when really i should've been angry with that woman for making me feel like i was worth less because of the shape of my eyes and the color of my skin.

why do we so often turn back social injustices that occur because of power differences on ourselves instead of critically examining the power dynamics working behind the scenes? will the eventual disruption of these imbalances change how i would feel? or am i just too sensitive? (which would be another example of blaming myself for the deliberate actions of others... ugh a habit that's difficult to break.)

Perceived Intelligence

editor's note: this was the post for Tuesday, but somehow my blackberry didn't actually post it. sad face. anyways, enjoy!

So I'm auditing a seminar on colorblindness at the law school I work at. Taught by my boss. Intimidating, no?

So after class was over today, one of the girls mentioned that she wasn't sure she was going to stay in the class because she didn't feel like she belonged - like everyone was operating here and she was operating down there. Now, homegirl was smart and had a lot of both insightful and "let's get real people" comments that I always thoroughly enjoy. Nothing in the content of the class should've made her feel less than, but she did.

And, I did too. Why is that? Why is it so difficult for me to have confidence in the classroom? The classroom - a place where I have always excelled. I'm not sure why exactly, but here are some things I'm considering:

• gender: I feel most comfortable in a group of all women (or mostly women) than a co-ed group. Studies have shown that women's colleges (of which I have attended) generally are places where women tend to succeed in the classroom - where vestiges of patriarchy and male dominated classrooms aren't so common. I know the more co-ed classes that I was in, I felt more reserved as the men in the class often dominated the discussion especially in classes like political science. Yet, I would've hoped that my gendered instincts around whether my opinion mattered would have died and gone away never to return. I do believe I'm more comfortable asserting myself in front of men, but how much does patriarchy rear its angry head in my life still?
• education level: Its just difficult to speak up in a room full of ivy league grad students when I'm simply an employee. Have I come into the seminar from the back door? Will I ever be able to attend some of the illustrious top 10 law schools I have worked in? I vacilate between feeling like I'll never get into law school and feeling like Ima make it for sure. But, what makes some students deserving and others not? What knowledges, abilities and backgrounds are favored and celebrated and which ones are not? Is my opinion any less important because I have yet to be (arbitrarily) chosen? Na, can't be that, but, why then do I still feel like I'm some sort of undercover intruder?
• workplace politics: Simply put, I don't want to look stupid in front of my boss, and I secretly worry that they (my bosses) think I'm smarter than I really am. I know people were shocked when I got my position ("how did she get that? She isn't experienced/intelligent/old enough for that!") - and I guess I was too. 
• age: I realize now how smart I thought I was and how dumb I really was. So, of course I worry that I come off as a know-it-all little kid who doesn't know anything. I think my age gets in the way a lot and I don't get taken as seriously as I want to. How should one measure age? Time that passes, experiences one has or mind set one possesses? Why am I lumped as peers with people who live at home and have never left it, don't work and spend their time bickering with people on social media all day long?

 In the end though, I don't think a man would ever feel this way to the point of dropping out of class. Why have I been socialized to believe my opinion wouldn't stack up and why am I am able to express myself through this medium without getting flushed but not in an academic setting?

Thoughts/comments/disagreements welcome.