As a prominent masculinities theorist, Kimmel’s ethnography takes hegemonic masculinity to task and, in line with O’Neil‘s (1981) ‘Male Gender Role Conflict’ theory, explores how guys in Guyland understand, experience, embody and act out the tensions of attempting to live up to a particular, inherently unattainable, kind of hegemonic masculinity and its confining, socially constructed masculine script. Much theory has been devoted to this purpose (Connell, 1995; Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Messerschmidt, 2000; hooks, 2004; Edwards, 2007; Pascoe, 2007; Courtenay, 2011; Berkowitz, 2011; Kimmel, 2011; Kimmel, 2013; Williams, 2014; Wagner, 2014; Reidy, Berke, Gentile & Zeichner, 2014). Violence, rather than being a biological fixture of men, becomes a strategic means for guys to respond to and compensate for any perceived lack of conformity (Messerschmidt, 2012). Within homosocial spaces, guys police themselves and other men rigorously (Kimmel, 2008; Wagner, 2014) and masculinity is performed under duress.
In Guyland, a place where young men are seen as “coming of age in an area with no road maps, no blueprints, and no primers to tell them what a man is or how to become one” (Kimmel, 2008, p. 42), everyday acts of men’s violence, or the threat of violence towards other men and women is a critical constituent of the ‘Guy Code’, “a regime of peer-influenced and enforced behaviours” (p. 6), to which men turn for guidance. Briefly, violence is seen as restorative of thwarted entitlement to power, respect and women, productive as a means to continuously test and prove manhood in front of the critical gaze of other men, and coercive, as a means to make those who do not measure up pay or conform. Everyday widespread violences become an accepted way of being a man; it becomes the norm, a point of reference and is taken-for-granted.
In Guyland, violence is particularly prevalent in the brutal, humiliating hazing practices of fraternities but also emerges in contact sport (Messner, 1990) and as dating violence, sexual assault and rape. In that homophobia “is the animating fear of American’s guys’ masculinity” (Kimmel, 2008, p. 50; Kimmel, 2013), violence is also gay-bashing. Violence, ‘ubiquitous bullying’, ‘hazing practices’ and a ‘pervasive predation’ are often used interchangeably and take a mostly physical form, although verbal abuse is also common; it is unfortunate that in Kimmel (2008), violence is never explicitly defined, nor is it clear what college men and women consider to be violence. This has several troubling implications for how we make sense of the diverse experiences of young adults and for designing resiliency building and violence prevention initiatives (Difulvio, 2004; McMahon & Banyard, 2012).
Why make gender visible to men? Or to rephrase the question, what is the use of certain kinds of knowledge if they do not stop men’s domination, violence and sexual violence? (Widerberg, 2005 in Hearn, 2014). Here, in essence, we have the feminist challenge to men as gender theorists. While some men are “disempowered by virtue of class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, age, able-bodiedness… all men are privileged vis-à-vis women” (Kimmel, 1998, p.64 in McCarry, 2007). In effect, making gender visible implies making privilege visible; for is not “the very point of departure of feminist theorising that women are oppressed/exploited/discriminated/excluded by virtue of their being women?” (Gunnarsson, 2011, p. 24).
“But it’s not men on trial here; it’s masculinity, or, rather, the traditional definition of masculinity, which leads to certain behaviors that we now see as politically problematic and often physically threatening” (Kimmel, M., 2004, p.565). The realization that a long-standing hierarchical distribution of power, resources and regard inform gender relations at all levels of social organization and that violence is an integral constituting component by which structural imbalances are (re)produced, re(enforced) and maintained within patriarchy, (Hearn, 2014) raises practical complications and implications for men and men as (pro) feminists (McMahon, 1993; Connell, 1995; Hearn, 2001; McCarry, 2007; Holmgren & Hearn, 2009; Hearn, 2014). The ‘feminist man’ is, if not quite an oxymoron, fundamentally ambiguous (Holmgren & Hearn, 2009). In this context, is the rigour of attention that a theorist pays to the use, generation, threat and reproduction of men’s violence, not then a critical test for the social and political significance of their work?
It is only when violence is recognized and named for what it is, that experiences of violation are not left ‘unspeakable’ and that violence can be effectively prevented (Morgan & Björkert, 2006; Staudigl, 2007). ‘Female masculinity’ theories (Halberstam, 1998; Francis, 2010), transgender studies (Gardiner, 2013; Catalano, 2014) and research pointing to the limitations of and the ambiguity within inclusive and egalitarian masculinities, particularly as related to gender relations (Anderson & McGuire, 2010; Becker & Wright, 2011; Bridges, 2014; Lamont, 2014 ) leads some to emphasise men’s violent practices and the conditions that enable them, rather than abstract masculinity/ies; some speak of ‘manhood acts’ (Schrock & Schwalbe, 2009) and caution that too much focus on masculinity may serve to re-naturalize men as a social category and construct steeped in power (McCarry, 2007; Schrock & Schwalbe, 2009; Hearn, 2012). Hearn (2012) therefore argues for a ‘multi-faceted power analysis’ of men’s violence that critiques men’s relations to women and other men within patriarchy and combines “materialist and discursive perspectives, across micro and macro levels [to address] individual and collective, including violent, men’s practices, in the context of construction of men as a social category – rather than the gloss ‘masculinities’” (Hearn, 2012, p. 598).
In order to change the conditions that produce and sustain men’s violence, power, control and responsibility must be addressed explicitly and the materiality and bodily effects of everyday variable forms of violence be foregrounded (Hearn, 2001; Hearn, 2014). The bridge between how violences are ‘lived’ and how we theorize and act upon them, must be strengthened (Staudigl, 2007).
The violence and sexual violence prevention literature identifies numerous strategies that we have available to support safe and respectful environments (DeGue, Valle, Holt, Massetti, Matjasko & Tharp, 2014). In Bystander Awareness Campaigns (McMahon & Banyard, 2012), noticing an event and understanding it as a violation where intervention is appropriate is a crucial first step to action. In Social Norms Approaches, misperceptions are assumed to guide behavior, particularly in environments where fear of social disapproval is a strong motivating factor (Berkowitz, 2011; Gidycz, Orchowski & Berkowitz, 2011). By shifting the focus of prevention from individuals (i.e. risk reduction / self-defence) to peer and community members these initiatives seek to educate individuals and challenge common misperceptions in order to reduce the incidence of violence perpetration as well as empower bystanders to intervene; ‘rape-supportive’ norms and the normalization of some types of aggression and violence, which are associated with increased risk perpetration among men (Casey & Lindhorst, 2009), are challenged. An awareness that in a homosocial world the strongest predictor for men to intervene is their perception of other men’s – not women’s – willingness to step in and prevent potential sexual assaults, is informing, if not driving these initiatives (Fabino, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenback & Stark, 2003; Stein, 2007).
To take up Kimmel’s (2008) challenge of breaking the twin cultures of silence and protection that maintain Guyland culture, the importance for having a clear conception of what acts are (perceived as) violence and how they impact people, cannot be emphasized enough. In Guyland, where violence is normalized and taken for granted, one can expect men to fail to recognize the diverse forms of violence as they appear, writing them of as ‘boys will be boys’ (Kimmel, 2008). Studies on men and partner violence support men’s narrow definition of violence (Hearn, 1999; Johnson, Frattaroli, Campbell, Wright, Pearson-Fields & Cheng, 2005; McCarry, 2009). In Hearn (1999), men understood partner violence primarily as “physical violence and even then physical violence of certain kinds” (p.8); perhaps, Hearn (2012) states, it is the complicit – an implicit normalization of violence and the corresponding perpetuation of the everyday acts of unrecognized violence -, which is hegemonic in men’s relation to violence.
Violence, as ‘material-discursive’, is a discursive culture that is continuously being practiced by men (Hearn, 2014). This means that the way men talk or don’t talk about violence – how they define, explain, excuse, justify it -, shapes the way it is reproduced, explained, understood and prevented; “talk is material in its being and in its effects” (Hearn, 1999, p. 9). The construction of what counts as violence, the exclusion and inclusion of particular behaviours and their effects, matters.
If violence is understood merely as flowing from a confused, struggling and entitled masculinity within a framework of interpersonal relationships, what we miss is both its symbolic and structural component (Critical Resistance and Incite!, 2003; Morgan & Björkert, 2006; Hearn, 2012; Dominguez & Menjivar, 2014; Phipps & Younh, 2014; Cote-Meek, 2014; Huber & Solorzano, 2015). If violence is primarily understood as “physical violence and even then physical violence of certain kinds” (Hearn, 1999, p.8) then we are neglecting a ‘whole world’ of invisible, insidious, pervasive, emotionally and psychologically debilitating violences (Sue, 2010) that may rupture our sense-making frameworks, close our “intentional openness to the world and force us to consider a body typically taken for granted in immersed activity” (Freistadt, 2011 citing Staudigl, 2007, p. 240) as a precarious and inherently vulnerable lived body within asymmetrically determined relations. Finally, if we consider mostly white, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-class guys, as Kimmel does, then we make invisible and risk rendering banal the everyday distinctive violences that people with disabilities, queer, trans and racialized guys and women in general experience (Grossman, Haney, Edwards, Alessi, Ardon & Howell, 2009; McCabe, 2009; Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2011; Catalano, 2014; Clark, Kleiman, Spanierman, Isaac & Poolokasingham, 2014). Rather than mapping the terra incognita of Guyland, as Kimmel hopes to do, much remains obscured, and dangerously so.
In order to make Kimmel (2008) more relevant and practical, particularly for violence prevention initiatives, we need a framework that more clearly elucidates the nuances of interpersonal violence in ‘Guyland and beyond’ and effectively locates these within broader contexts and inequalities that lie at the root of multiple and interconnected forms of violence in the lives of women and many men. We need to explore what gets normalized, taken for granted or remains largely invisible in order to, as theorists and practitioners, effectively combine the personal and political to contribute an anti-sexist politics in alliance with feminisms (McCarry, 2007).
Violences differ, intersect and coalesce, both in their form and effect, so that any conceptual framework will be inherently incomplete in capturing the nuances of a lived experience. But it is from this realization that we need to do our work, recognizing ambivalences, ambiguity and seeing it as an ongoing iterative process continuously striving for a more accurate, self-reflexive and useful understanding to guide our practice.
Kimmel’s uncritical use of the hegemonic masculinity framework is troubling, particularly given that most (pro)feminist theoretical and practical work on men’s violence against women use it with caution (Hearn, 2004; Christensen & Jensen, 2014). Most relevant here is Christensen and Jensen’s (2014) differentiation between external (male dominance and oppression of women) and internal (hierarchical classification of masculinities) hegemony followed by a critical intersectional analysis of each. This allows accounting for a ‘multiplicity of sense-making masculinities’ (Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Noble, 2009) and to more explicitly ground men’s micro psychological identity formation within a macro sociological understandings of gendered power relations. Furthermore, evidence that there are plural ways of being a man that perpetuate violence, often in ambiguous relation to hegemonic masculinity (Hearn, 2012), demands that we look at how other identity markers such as sexuality, race, ethnicity, and class, frame men’s violent practices and the norms according to which groups of people are allowed to live (Boesten, 2010).
I therefore agree with Butler that an analysis of violence that solely recognizes male power over women should be rejected in favor of examining the differing and relational meaning of gender as it intersects with race, class, sexuality, etc. The effectiveness of violence and sexual violence prevention programs is limited if sociocultural relevancies are not critically integrated; to date, the majority fail to do so (DeGue et al., 2014). I therefore argue that Kimmel’s (2008) account is essentialist and ‘single-issue’ in that he does not commit to a multidimensional understanding of subordination (Hutchinson, 2001; Mutua, 2013); the intersectional complexity of men and women’s everyday experiences with violence are erased by sweeping generalizations. The inclusion of Butler’s normative violence (Butler, 2004; Boesten, 2010) in combination with the micro-aggression framework (Sue, 2010; Huber & Solorzano, 2015) would have been effective in mapping Guyland’s terra incognita. Crucially, both take the link between various forms of interpersonal and structural violence into account.
The concept normative violence can expand our understanding of the persistence of intersecting inequalities: powerful and inherently violent processes of normalization act to naturalize and sustain structural inequalities (Boesten, 2010). Normative violence – the restrictive violence of the norm -, foreshadows actual violence perpetrated upon bodies perceived to be breaking norms-as-hegemonic; “a racialized, heteronormative sexual organization draws boundaries around people’s bodies and desires, and makes abuse possible” (Boesten, 2010, p. 18) and invisible. Violence, as a tolerated and normalized response to social transgression, is socially not understood as violence and becomes invisible (Boesten, 2010). Critical violence prevention work must make violence visible and unsettle that which is normalized.
Macro-aggressions, a set of core beliefs and/or ideologies, inform the particularity of individual micro-aggressions as well as the types of systemic formal and informal structural mechanisms (Huber & Solorzano, 2015) that subordinate, marginalize or exclude non-dominant groups. Micro-aggressions are ‘‘brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative… slights and insults” (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder, Nadal & Esquilin, 2007, p. 273) towards individuals because of their group membership. The cumulative often traumatic impact of the constant and everyday reality of micro-aggressions, particularly for bodies transgressing norms, has been reported (Sue, 2010). Since they are so ingrained in our society, however, many regard them as innocuous (Sue, 2010; McMahon & Banyard, 2012), and so they fall into the ‘boys will be boys’ response category. The violence prevention literature emphasises that most bystanders will not encounter ‘high risk’ violence situations but rather will be witness to ‘low risk’ behaviours that occur every day and that support violence and sexual violence; it is during those frequent situations where individuals could intervene, but do not for various reasons, one being an inability to recognize the violent event, that much impact can be had (McMahon & Banyard, 2012).
In that micro-aggressions often leave their targets uncertain and confused as to what happened and unable to effectively articulate and act upon their experiences (Sue, 2010), we can furthermore draw in Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘symbolic violence’ framework, wherein the power of violence rests precisely in its misrecognition and lack of visibility (Morgan & Björkert, 2006; Dominguez and Menjivar 2014).
to be continued…
** Thank you to my co-conspirators, Andrew and Peter, with whom I have had many long conversations about masculinity and what it means to be a man… I hope for many more
Anderson, E., & McGuire, R. (2010). Inclusive masculinity and the gendered politics of men’s rugby. The Journal of Gender Studies, 19, 249–261.
Becker, J.C. & Wright, S.C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Using how college men feel about being men and “doing the right
thing” to promote men’s development. In Laker, J. & Davis, T. (Eds.), Masculinities in Higher Education: Theoretical and practical considerations (pp. 161-176). New York:
Blazina, C., & Watkins, C. E.,Jr. (1996). Masculine gender role conflicts: Effects on college men’s psychological well-being, chemical substance usage, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 461.
Boesten, J. (2010). Inequality, normative violence and livable life: Judith Butler and Peruvian reality. POLIS Working Paper No. 1 University of Leeds.
Bridges, T. (2014). A very “gay” straight? Hybrid masculinities, sexual aesthetics, and the changing relationship between masculinity and homophobia. Gender and Society, 28(1), 58-82.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
Casey, E.A. & Lindhorst, T.P. (2009). Toward a multi-level, ecological approach to the primary prevention of sexual assault: Prevention in peer and community contexts. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 10(2), 91-114.
Catalano, D. C. J. (2014) Welcome to Guyland: Experiences of Trans* Men in College. Doctoral Dissertations 2014-current. Paper 60.
Christensen, A.D. & Jensen, S, Q. (2014). Combining hegemonic masculinity and intersectionality. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9(1), 60-75.
Clark, D.A., Kleiman, S., Spanierman, L.B., Isaac, P. & Poolokasingham, G. (2014). “Do you live in a Teepee?” Aboriginal students’ experiences with racial microaggressions in Canada. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 112-125.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cote-Meek, S. (2014). Colonized classrooms: Racism, trauma and resistance in post-secondary education. Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.
Courtenay, W. H. (2011). Best practices for improving college men’s health: Designing effective programs and services for college men. In J. A. Laker, & T. Laker (Eds.), Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations (pp.
177-192). New York: Routledge.
Critical Resistance and Incite! (2003). Statement on gender violence and the prison-industrial complex. Social Justice, 30(3), 141-150.
DeGue, S., Valle, L.A., Holt, M.K., Massetti, G.M., Matjasko, J.L. & Tharp, A.T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 346-362.
Difulvio, G.T. (2004). Stories of risk and resilience: Understanding violence against lesbian, gay, and bisexual, and transgender youth. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Dominguez, S. & Menjivar, C. (2014). Beyond individual and visible acts of violence: A framework to examine the lives of women in low-income neighborhoods. Women’s Studies International Forum, 44, 184-195.
Edwards, K. E. (2007).“Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. (Order No. 326043, University of Maryland, College Park),
ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, 252.
Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A. D., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52, 105-112.
Francis, B. (2010). Re/theorizing gender: female masculinity and male femininity in the classroom? Gender and Education, 22(5), 477-490.
Freistadt, J. (2011). Understanding others’ experiences: Phenomenology and / beyond violence. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1, 1-42.
Gardiner, J.K. (2013). Masculinity’s interior: Men, transmen, and theories of masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 21(2). 112-126.
Gidycz, C.A., Orchowski, L.M. & Berkowitz, A.D. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence against Women, 17(6), 720-742.
Goodley, D. & Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). The violence of disablism. Sociology of Health and Illness, 33(4), 602-617.
Grossman, A.H., Haney, A.P., Edwards, P., Alessi, E.J., Ardon, M. & Howell, T.J (2009). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth talk about experiencing and coping with school violence: A qualitative study. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6, 24-46.
Gunnarsson, L. (2011). A defence of the category ‘women’. Feminist Theory, 12(1), 23-37.
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female Masculinity. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Hearn, J. (1999, 20-26 June). The violences of men: Men doing, talking and responding to violence against known women. Paper presented at Interdisciplinary Congress on Women (Tromsø, Norway).
Hearn, J. (2001, 15–16 March). Men and gender equality: Resistance, responsibilities and reaching out. Keynote Paper. Men and Gender Equality, 1−27 (Orebro, Sweden).
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5(1), 49-72.
Hearn, J. (2012). A multi-faceted power analysis of men’s violence to known women: From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Sociological Review, 60, 589–610.
Hearn, J. (2014) Men, masculinities and the material(-)discursive, International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9:1, 5-17.
Holmgren, L.E. & Hearn, J. (2009). Framing ‘men in feminism’: theoretical locations, local contexts and practical passings in men’s gender-conscious positionings on gender equality and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 18(4), 403-418.
Hooks, B. (2004). We real cool: Black men and masculinity Theatre Arts Books.
Huber, L.P. & Solorzano, D.G. (2015). Racial micro-aggressions as a tool for critical race research. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 18(3), 297-320.
Hutchinson, D.L. (2001). Identity crisis: “Intersectionality,” “Multidimensionality,” and the development of and adequate theory of subordination. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 6, 285-317.
Johnson, S.B., Frattaroli, S., Campbell, J., Wright, J., Pearson-Fields, A.S. & Cheng, T.L. (2005). “I know what love means.” Gender violence in the lives of urban adolescents. Journal of Women’s Health, 14(2), 172-179.
Kimmel, M. S. (2004a). Clarence, William, Iron Mike, Tailhook, Senator Packwood, Spur Posse, Magic…and us: A second look. In M. S. Kimmel, & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (6th ed., pp. 565-579). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kimmel, M. S. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York: Harper.
Kimmel, M., & Davis, T. (2011). Mapping guyland in college. In J. Laker, & T. Davis (Eds.), Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations (pp. 3- 15). New York: Routledge.
Kimmel, M. S. (2013). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of gender identity. In, Adams, et al (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice, 3rd edition (pp. 329-334). New York: Routledge.
Lamont, E. (2014). The limited construction of an egalitarian masculinity: College educated men’s dating and relationship narratives. Journal of Men and Masculinities, 1-22.
McCabe, J. (2009). Racial and gender microaggressions on a predominantly white campus: Experiences of black, latino/a and white undergraduates. Race, Gender & Class, 16(1/2), 133-151.
McCarry, M. (2009). Justifications and contradictions: Understanding young people’s views of domestic abuse. Journal of Men and Masculinities, 11(3), 325-345.
McMahon, A. (1993). Male readings of feminist theory: The psychologization of sexual politics in the masculinity literature. Theory and Society, 22(5), 675−695.
McMahon, S. & Banyard, V.L. (2012). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 13(1), 3-14.
McCarry, M. (2007). Masculinity studies and male violence: Critique or collusion? Women’s Studies International Forum, 30, 404-415.
Messerschmidt, J.W. (2000). Becoming ‘real men’: Adolescent masculinity: Challenges and sexual violence. Men and Masculinities, 2(3), 286−307.
Messerschmidt, J.W. (2012). Gender, heterosexuality, and youth violence. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Michael Messner (1990) When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in Sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 25: 203-218.
Morgan, K. & Björkert, S.T. (2006). ‘I’d rather you’d lay me on the floor and start kicking me’: Understanding symbolic violence in everyday life. Women’s Studies International Forum, 29, 441-452.
Mutua, A.D. (2013). Multidimensionality is to masculinities what intersectionality is to feminism. Nevada Law Journal, 13, 341-367.
Noble, G. (2009). ‘Countless acts of recognition’: young men, ethnicity and the messiness of identities in everyday life. Social & Cultural Geography, 10(8), 875-891.
O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s lives. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203-210.
Pascoe, C.J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. California: University of California Press.
Phipps, A. & Young, I. (2014). Neoliberalism and ‘Lad Cultures’ in Higher Education. Sociology, 1-18.
Reidy, D.E., Berke, D.S., Gentile, B. & Zeichner, A. (2014). Man enough? Masculine discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence. Personality and individual differences, 68, 160-164.
Schrock, D. & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277-295.
Staudigl, M. (2007). Towards a phenomenological theory of violence: Reflections following Merleu-Ponty and Schutz. Human Studies, 30(3), 233-253.
Stein, J. L. (2007) Peer educators and close friends as predictors of male college students’ willingness to prevent rape. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 75-89.
Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., Bucceri, J.M., Holder, A.M.B., Nadal, K.L. & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.
Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender and sexual orientation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wagner, R.L. (2014) ‘Safe space for hard conversations: College men’s experience in diversity education. Doctoral Dissertations 2014-current. Paper 138.
Wetherell, M. & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism Psychology, 9(3), 33-356.
Williams, R.A. (2014). Men of color in higher education: New foundations for developing models for success. Virginia: Stylus Publishing, L.L.C.