EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMMIGRATION DEPORTATION

RECOMMENDATIONS
6
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Illegal immigration is one of the abused issues in the United
States. The issue is of great concern as it not only changes the
economic, cultural, but also the social aspect of the nation of
concern. Immigration has been wrongly used in the political
arenas as political leaders strive to throw their weight around
while portraying their competitors how better they are. To the
citizenry, immigrants increase competition in the already scarce
employment opportunities. Immigrants cheaply provide easily
accessible labor hence being preferred over the hosts of the
country. On the other hand, they increase competition on
available social amenities such as education and health care,
hence at times referred to as a burden to the economy. People
migrate while escaping wars and natural calamities such as
hunger.
In contrast, others move illegally following societal ills such as
human trafficking, where they end up in social evils such as
prostitution. Whether migrating through the right or wrong
channels, deportation has far-reaching effects, especially with
the involvement of parents. Right measures should be
implemented in dealing with the issue of deportation.
Granting amnesty is one of the options that could be
explored in dealing with the deportation of parents. Amnesty
entails the granting of a formal legal status to individuals with
an illegal residence in a country and is awaiting deportation.

The issue of amnesty among immigrants is received with mixed
reactions. While some political leaders use the amnesty
programs as a means of benefiting themselves, the citizens of
the country view the move as a means of suppressing their
access to resources. According to Levy (2010), people in
support of an amnesty program among the illegal migrants view
the deportation of illegal immigrants as being an impractical
move. The deportation process is hectic for both the officials
and the involved parties. Levy (2010) noted that the deportation
process is time-consuming, requires a lot of effort, and is labor-
intensive.
The country would have to incur additional costs in trying to
correct a situation created by people who failed to take their
jobs seriously. Also, it is not a guarantee that all illegal
immigrants would be successfully deported as some may escape
detection, which means that the government goes through all
that trouble for nothing. Instead, the government should use the
challenge of illegal immigrants to its advantage. Numerous low-
skilled employment positions are unfilled because Americans
cannot fill the positions, despite being crucial to the nation's
economy. The country stands to benefit more with the illegal
immigrants given amnesty as opposed to when there are
deported. Levy (2010) added that the legalization of immigrants
through according them amnesty helps in ensuring the country
is secure. On the other hand, immigrants could be granted
citizenship.
Children born to immigrant parents in the United States
ultimately become citizens of the country by birth.
Undocumented immigrants can become citizens of the United
States by following the process dubbed. In following this
process, there are requirements. The individual must be a green
card holder with a maximum of 5 years of residency in the
country. There are more benefits reaped with the granting of
citizenship to illegal immigrants as opposed to forceful

deportation. When granting citizenship, the bone of contention
is the attitude s that the natives have against the undocumented
immigrants, which may ultimately affect their integration in
society. Waters et al. (2015) reported the claims in the CBS and
New York article. The results of a 2006 and 2007 poll had a
26% supporting the pathway to citizenship with a 33%.
Waters et al. (2015) highlighted the agreement among the
majority where the Latino and Asian Americans highlighted the
granting of the legal status to the undocumented immigrants as
being to the advantage of the immigrants and the American
citizens. The author highlighted the move as being
reinforcement to the U.S. economy while also improving the
livelihoods of the migrants. Labor is an important factor in
production, and immigrants provide cheap labor. As such,
various positions that lacked employees due to their low
qualifications will easily be filled by the migrants. On the other
hand, an influx in immigrants increases the demand for
particular goods and the need to meet the demand spurs
production hence boosting the economy. The need to fill the
meet the increased demand for goods and services relatively
raises the demand for labor. As outlined by Water et al. (2015),
when migrants fill much available employment positions, they
improve their standards of living as they can easily cater to the
needs of their families. It is a reprieve to the country's economy
as the migrants stop depending on the government wholly.
Advocacy groups could also come to the aid of parents facing
forceful deportation. While some cases of deportation are
worthwhile, others are wrong as they purpose to disappoint the
individuals in question while making them act as an example to
others. Incidents that may warrant depuration are such as the
violation of the visa terms, participating in criminal activities,
or even when the government feels that the immigrants are
becoming a burden due to their over-reliance on government
aid. There are instances where deportation is overly unfair and

marred by a lot of discrepancies. In such cases, deported parents
are helpless, especially when they have to choose whether to tag
along with their children or leave them behind. In such
scenarios, it is the role of advocacy groups to step in and speak
for the immigrants. Their voice should be heard and have the
ability to change the government and society's stand. Schneider
(2011) highlighted the position taken by the immigration
societies where they arrange means of supporting and defending
their members during the deportation proceedings. Adequate
arrangements help in validating the presence of immigrants in a
country. The author outlined these societies as capable of
making last-minute interventions to save an immigrant from the
pangs of deportation. Schneider (2011) stated that with a high
number of advocacy groups, there is the possibility of adopting
a formalized and articulate procedure to fight deportation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relevant authorities should consider
implementing measures that would eliminate the possibility of
deportation. The deportation of parents has far-reaching effects
on the victims, their children, and society at large. Amnesty
would save the country the costs and trouble of having to deport
immigrants while securing the country. Granting immigrants'
citizenships increase the demand for labor while boosting the
economy. Groups advocating for the rights of immigrants during
deportation helps in creating a concrete procedure that the
authorities should adhere to during the process. While
deportation may be the only option, relevant authorities should
explore means that maximizes the good for all.
References
Levy, J. (2010). Illegal immigration and amnesty: Open borders
and national security. New York: Rosen Pub
Schneider, D. (2011). Crossing Borders. Harvard University
Press
Waters, M. C., Pineau, M. G., National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering and Medicine., & National Academies Press.
(2015). The integration of immigrants into American society.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
Queering Masculinity: Manhood and Black Gay Men in College
Terrell L. Strayhorn, Derrick L. Tillman-Kelly
Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, Volume 1, Number 2,
Spring 2013, pp.
83-110 (Article)
Published by Indiana University Press
For additional information about this article
Access provided by Indiana University of Pennsylvania (10 Sep
2018 17:49 GMT)
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/503123
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/503123
Spectrum, Volume I, Number 2, pgs. 83–110, Spring 2013
©2013, Indiana university press
Queering Masculinity:
Manhood and Black
Gay Men in College
Terrell L. Strayhorn and
Derrick L. Tillman-Kelly

ABStrAct: This qualitative study explores Black gay male
under-
graduates’ construction of manhood and masculine identity(-ies)
as well as how these beliefs affected their academic and social
expe-
riences in college. Analyzing in-depth interviews with 29 Black
gay
male collegians, we found that participants construct and under-
stand manhood and their masculine identities in one of three
ways:
(a) accepting, adhering to, and performing traditionally
masculine
norms, (b) intentionally, or subconsciously, challenging
hegemonic
notions of Black masculinity through their behaviors and self-
be-
liefs, and (c) recognizing that their masculine identity(-ies) are
in-
fluenced by other social factors and locations. Implications for
re-
searchers, counselors, and higher education practitioners are
highlighted and recommendations for future research and theory
are provided.
College enrollment rates have increased dramatically over the
last half cen-
tury. Today, there are approximately 19 million students
enrolled in more than
4,200 colleges and universities in the United States, according
to the U.S. De-
partment of Education (2011). Women outnumber men in
college on most cam-
puses and historically underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities
(URMs) repre-
sent a much larger share of total student enrollments than ever
before. For

instance, less than 945,000 Black/African American students
were enrolled in
college in 1976; today, there are more than 2 million, reflecting
a 103% increase
in Black collegians in less than 40 years. There has been
enrollment growth
84 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
among other groups too. Although national statistics are not
available, several
scholars (e.g., Evans & Wall, 1991) posit that approximately 10
to 20% of today’s
college students identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB).1
And, despite these
trends, surprisingly little is known from research about the
experiences of those
who live at the intersection of the social locations referenced to
this point, such as
Black gay men in college (hereafter, Black gay male
undergraduates [BGMUs]).
Scholars have directed much attention to one of two areas with
Black
men: issues of gender identity and masculinity (e.g., Ferguson,
2000; hooks,
2004a; Westwood, 1990) or identity development of Black men
and/or
BGMUs (e.g., Cross, 1995; D’Augelli, 1994; Loiacano, 1993).
For example, re-
cent national reports document declining enrollments in college
for Black men
(Harper, 2006a; National Urban League, 2007), while other
studies turn their

attention to the role of (Black) college men and cases of date
rape and sexual
harassment (Foubert & LaVoy, 2000), alcohol abuse problems
(Todd & Den-
nis, 2005), judicial offenders (Harris, 2010), as well as the large
proportion of
suicides (82%) committed by Black men, with an ever-growing
percentage of
them among Black college students (National Urban League,
2007).
Similarly, as the scholarship on manhood and masculinity has
experienced
a shift in focus, research on Black gay men also has changed
over time. Prior re-
search on Black gay men focused on four major areas: (a) issues
of identity devel-
opment and the “coming out” process (Loiacano, 1993; McCarn
& Fassinger,
1996), unhealthy high-risk sexual behaviors and their attendant
consequences
(e.g., sexually transmitted diseases [STDs]) for “same-gender
loving” Black men
(Icard & Nurius, 1996; Millett, Malebranche, Mason, & Spikes,
2005), and col-
lege students’ experiences with various forms of harassment
typically visited
upon them by their heterosexual peers (Burns, 2000; D’Augelli,
1992; Strayhorn
& Mullins, 2012). A more recent line of inquiry (e.g.,
Strayhorn, Blakewood, &
DeVita, 2010) responds to Harper and Nichols’s (2008) clarion
call for research
on Black gay men by focusing on the nature of their academic
and social experi-
ences, as well as “how Black LGBT subgroups are treated by

other Black students”
(p. 212). For instance, Strayhorn and Mullins (2012) added to
the extant litera-
ture by interviewing BGMUs living in campus residence halls
about their aca-
demic, social, and interpersonal experiences on campus.
Despite these advancements in our substantive knowledge about
Black
masculinities and the collegiate experiences of BGMUs (e.g.,
Harris, 2010;
hooks, 2004a; Strayhorn, Blakewood, & DeVita, 2010), few
attempts have been
made to bring these two currently disparate scholarly areas of
study together to
examine BGMUs’ construction of manhood and their beliefs
about Black mas-
culinity or masculinities. This is the gap addressed by the
present study.
terrell L. Strayhorn & Derrick L. tillman-Kelly / Queering
Masculinity 85
purpOSe
The purpose of the study was to understand BGMUs’
construction of
manhood and masculine identity(-ies) as well as to identify how
these beliefs
affect their academic and social experiences in college. Rather
than treating all
Black men as equal—as a sort of monolithic group—we pursued
a detailed
analysis of BGMUs’ lived experiences to uncover the nuances

between them
and their peers who identify differently in terms of
race/ethnicity or sexual ori-
entation. Interrogating whether and how multiple social
identities intersect
and influence BGMUs’ negotiation and construction of
masculine identities
yielded insights into the ways in which campus- and other
professionals can
work with such students to promote their success in college.
Before describing
the study, the next section reviews the extant literature that was
relevant for it.
reVIeW OF LIterAture
Since there is little written about the construction of masculine
identities
by BGMUs, we drew upon literature from two distinct
intellectual areas to in-
form this study. First, we reviewed the theoretical and empirical
literature on
GLB people with a particular focus on topics related to
collegians of color. We,
then, summarized the growing literature on Black masculinity
and manhood.
The literature review is organized accordingly.
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual people
To be sure, there is a body of knowledge available on GLB
individuals.
Early scholars devoted most attention to developing plausible
explanations
about the “cause” of homosexuality (Ellis, 1901). Biological
explanations pos-

ited sexuality, and specifically same-sex attraction, as innate,
fixed, and deter-
mined at birth (Ellis). Sociological explanations, on the other
hand, empha-
sized the ways in which sexuality is sensitive to human
interactions,
environmental influences, and change over time (D’Emilio &
Freedman,
1988). Psychiatric epidemiology studies framed homosexuality
as a “diagnos-
tic category of mental illness,” which was carried in the DSM-
IV until the
1970s (Gibson, 2006, p. 33). Shifts in our understanding of
sexual orientation
from a mental illness to a more dynamic socially constructed
aspect of one’s
self led to new directions for research.
One such shift turned the early work on GLB adults to empirical
investiga-
tions on student populations. Indeed, research on GLB
adolescents and college
students has burgeoned in recent decades, largely focusing on
their constructed
identities (Abes & Jones, 2004; Dilley, 2005; Fassinger, 1998)
and gay identity
86 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
development experiences (Fassinger, 1991; Renn & Biloudeau,
2005). Still other
psychological and social scientists have devoted considerable
energy to formulat-
ing theoretical models that attempt to explain the process by

which individuals
come to understand themselves as GLB persons and how such
understandings
are reconciled with previously held perceptions of self (e.g.,
Cass, 1984; D’Augelli,
1991). For example, Cass (1979) hypothesized the “process by
which a person
comes first to consider and later to acquire the identity of
homosexual as a rele-
vant aspect of self ” (p. 219). Her model consists of six stages
representing gay
identity development as growth from “identity confusion” to
“identity synthe-
sis,” which continues through four other phases (e.g, identity
comparison, iden-
tity tolerance, identity acceptance, and identity pride). Although
this body of lit-
erature has been widely accepted and applied to college students
(Battle &
Bennett, 2000; Renn, 2010), the weight of empirical evidence
that currently in-
forms our understanding and practice was predicated largely on
White GLB stu-
dent samples and reportedly has limited, if any, applicability to
racial/ethnic mi-
norities who identify as non-heterosexual, such as BGMUs.
Only recently have scholars turned critical attention to the lived
experi-
ences of Black gay men generally and BGMUs in particular.
Prior research on
gay male collegians of color, some of which is our own (e.g.,
Strayhorn & Mul-
lins, 2012), can be organized into four major categories:
attempts to estimate
the number of Black gay or bisexual men in the country,

descriptions of their
“coming out” processes and whether and how they identify,
documentation of
Black gay males’ sexual behaviors and practices, and
examinations of BGMUs’
academic and social experiences in college. Studies that fall in
the first category
consist of book chapters and commentaries that estimate the
number of Black
gay men in America, describe the challenges they face as both
“Black” and
“gay,” as well as offer possible solutions to the social
pathologies (e.g., racism,
homophobia) that seem to stymie their cognitive, social, and
psychosocial de-
velopment (Harris, 2003; Washington & Wall, 2006).
While growing, the second category of research on BGMUs’
“coming
out” process(-es) is limited at best. For instance, contrary to
generally held be-
liefs that Black men conceal their affectional status (i.e., “live
on the down
low”), some BGMUs report going to college to “come out” and
live out as gay or
bisexual (Strayhorn, Blakewood, & DeVita, 2008). And though
prevailing the-
ories posit “coming out” as an orderly, stage-wise process of
publicly acknowl-
edging one’s sexual orientation to self, family, and others;
research on BGMUs
suggests a more complicated, and complex, process where men
make different
decisions to disclose or conceal their gay identity to different
people, in differ-
ent ways, at different times (Strayhorn et al., 2010).

Masculinity 87
Furthermore, we know that recognizing and publicly
acknowledging one’s
own sexual orientation can be seriously traumatizing, especially
for some gay
men of color who often find themselves rejected or
marginalized by members of
their own race—the very people and resources they tend to need
to productively
cope with life challenges (Icard, 1996; Icard & Nurius, 1996).
For instance, in
previous studies, researchers found that most of the BGMUs
with whom they
spoke reported being “kicked out” of their parents’ home,
dismissed by family
members and siblings, or rejected by church members when they
disclosed their
sexual orientation (Strayhorn et al., 2010; Strayhorn & Mullins,
2012).
Documenting Black gay males’ sexual behaviors and practices
is the focus
of a third set of studies. Research in this area focuses on the
engagement of gay
men of color in high-risk sexual behaviors and the associated
consequences (e.g.,
STDs, substance abuse, or suicide) for men who have sex with
men (MSM) or
“same-gender loving” men (Icard, 1996; Micah, 2002;
Washington & Wall,
2006). Results suggest that high-risk sexual behaviors can lead

to negative conse-
quences in terms of gay men’s psychological well-being and
self-esteem and place
them at-risk for distress, depression, and suicide (Loiacano,
1993), although we
do not know if this is true for all gay men in various contexts.
Other work in this area investigates whether and how Black gay
men iden-
tify sexually (e.g., Brown, 2005; Icard, 1986). For instance,
Brown employed a
case study approach to analyze qualitative data from 110
African American
men in Atlanta. Although all of his participants indicated that
they have sex
with men, relatively few identified as gay (37%); 13%
identified as “down low
bisexual,” 9% as bisexual, 7% as homosexual, and 17% even
identified as
straight. He found that some Black men engaged in same-sex
intercourse, but
rejected non-heterosexual identity labels. He concluded that
Black gay men
cannot accept a gay identity for reasons ranging from
homophobia to tradi-
tional notions of Black masculinity.
Finally, a fourth line of inquiry has centered on examining
BGMUs’ aca-
demic and social experiences in college. A review of the
literature suggests at
least three major conclusions. BGMUs at PWIs face social
isolation from other
Black and/or male students on campus (e.g., Strayhorn, 2012;
Washington &
Wall, 2006); the same is true for BGMUs at historically Black

colleges and uni-
versities (Strayhorn & Scott, 2012). Second, apart from
struggling to fit in,
BGMUs face challenges with “coming out” for fear of losing
friends, which can
be detrimental to their psychosocial development (Strayhorn,
Blakewood et
al., 2010). Third, the weight of evidence suggests that BGMUs
encounter rac-
ism, discrimination, and harassment frequently in college
settings such as
classrooms, Black cultural centers, and campus residence halls
(Strayhorn,
88 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
Blakewood, & DeVita, 2008; Strayhorn & Mullins, 2012).
While this literature
was helpful for framing our thinking about the study’s sample—
namely,
BGMUs—the next section provided an empirical base for our
analysis of Black
manhood and masculinity.
Black masculinity
There is an incredible literature base on masculinity generally,
so we nar-
rowed our focus to Black masculinity(-ies) and manhood
specifically. Previous
scholars have defined Black masculinity as a multidimensional
social concept
that includes the self-expectations, relations and responsibilities
to family,

worldviews, and philosophies that Black men accept and
acknowledge (Hunter
& Davis, 1994). In keeping with hooks (2004a), social theorists
and cultural
studies scholars further explain that Black manhood is shaped
by multiple so-
cial locations, including race, gender, social class, sexuality,
and religion,
among others (Butler, 2004; Strayhorn & Tillman-Kelly, in
press). And this is
not unique to Blacks only; indeed, “... every culture (or group)
has implicit
standards about the appropriate roles that men must enact to be
judged mascu-
line” (Franklin, 1984, p. 130), but social context, locations, and
pathologies
(e.g., racism and discrimination) indelibly shape those
perceptions of appro-
priate roles and behaviors for Black men.
Prior research in this area indicates that Black men generally
endorse
norms or attributes typically associated with heteronormative
notions of mas-
culinity (e.g., hypersexual, physical strength, and misogynistic
ideologies). For
instance, Strayhorn (2011) analyzed survey data and found that
Black male
collegians report that “real” Black men: (a) have sex with
multiple female part-
ners, (b) desire success, power, and competition, and (c) project
confidence
even if [they’re] not. Additionally, Hunter and Davis (1992)
conducted an in-
terview study with 32 Black men from central New York to
examine Black

men’s construction of manhood and their ratings of the
importance of certain
attributes to being a man. They found that Black men defined
manhood in at
least three ways: (a) self-expectations or self-determined
statements and ac-
countability, (b) relationships and responsibility to family, and
(c) worldview
or existential philosophies (e.g., spirituality). For example, self-
expectations
included “directedness... maturity... economic viability...
perseverance... free
will (control over one’s life)” (p. 471).
Not only have scholars provided definitions of Black
masculinity, but em-
pirical studies also have been conducted to investigate the ways
in which Black
boys and men negotiate their masculine identities in educational
settings. Spe-
cifically, Ferguson’s (2000) work on Black masculinity in
public schools deserves
Masculinity 89
mention. Ferguson explained Black masculinity as performance
through which
Black boys engender the respect of their male peers, oftentimes
at the risk of seri-
ous disciplinary consequences in school settings. In fact, she
suggests that Black
boys employ “three key constitutive strategies of masculinity in
[their] embrace

of the masculine ‘we’ as a mode of self-expression” (p. 171).
The three strategies
include: (a) being always marked as male, or what she calls
“heterosexual power,”
in which Black boys mimic the hypersexuality they see and hear
of Black men, (b)
engaging in classroom performances that challenge the standard
flow of power
(e.g., intentional class disruptions, joking, or directly
challenging the teacher’s
authority), and (c) regular engagement in fighting. In many
ways, Ferguson pos-
its that successful enactment of Black masculinity by African
American boys in
public schools is highly sexual, visible, violent, disrespectful,
and perhaps chal-
lenging of a social system that denigrates and discounts them
daily.
The weight of empirical evidence, similar to Ferguson (2000),
suggests
the pathologization of Black men and their lived “manhood”
experiences. But
not all Black men understand or practice Black masculinity in
such hegemonic
ways. For instance, McClure (2006) explores the role that Black
fraternity
membership plays in one’s construction of Black masculinity.
Drawing on in-
terviews with 20 Black male members of one historically Black
fraternity, she
demonstrates how the intersections of race, class, and gender
can shape one’s
acceptance or modification of gender norms established through
the hege-
monic and Afrocentric models of masculinity. Participants in

McClure’s study
coupled some ideals of White hegemonic masculinity (e.g.,
success and
achievement, individuality, and self-sufficiency) with other
ideals (e.g., coop-
eration and connectedness) that acknowledge or embrace the
Afrocentric mas-
culine ideal, thereby creating a more blended Black masculinity.
Black masculinity has been conceptualized in a number of ways,
one of
which is Cool Pose (Majors & Billson, 1992). Cool pose is a
“ritualized form of
masculinity entailing behaviors, scripts, physical strength,
expression manage-
ment, and carefully crafted performances [emphasis added] that
deliver a single
critical message: pride, strength, and control” (p. 4).
Masculinity as perfor-
mance has a long history in gender studies—indeed,
masculinities are observ-
able enactments, affectations, and performances that men use to
“act out” their
manhood (Franklin, 1984). However, performances of Black
masculinity often
reflect cultural stereotypes rather than biological or
psychological realities
(Bem, 1987; Butler, 1990; Hunter & Davis, 1994).
Another, and more recent, conceptualization of Black
masculinity was
published by Dancy (2012). Titled The Brother Code, the term
“refers to the
rules that govern manhood for African American males” (p. 2).
Like Hunter

90 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
and Davis (1992), Dancy uncovered the meanings that Black
men attach to
manhood and masculinity, along with the subsequent
performances of those
meanings. Based on qualitative interviews with 24 African
American men at
12 different four-year universities, he found that many of them
emphasized
self-expectations or a sense of self-responsibility. Participants
also were keenly
aware of the narrow masculine code in which they were to act.
Those who tran-
gressed the Brother Code or violated social norms about Black
manhood were
often labeled as “acting White,” “acting gay,” or other
insensitive and offensive
words (e.g., sissy, faggot, bitch, pussy), as has been shown in
previous literature
on the topic (e.g., Kimmel, 1996; Kimmel & Aronson, 2003).
Not only do Black male trangressors risk being labeled with
derogatory
terms for violating the sacred Brother Code, but hooks (2004b)
exposed another
serious limitation of the overly narrow social script for Black
manhood. She pro-
poses that intellectual pursuits often are judged as nonmasculine
and, thus, sub-
ject “smart Black boys,” or what Ferguson (2000) would call
“good boys,” to scru-
tiny, question, and unchecked ridicule. According to hooks,
Black boys who liked

to read were (and are still) perceived as suspect or “on the road
to being a sissy”
(p. 40). Labeling, teasing, and physical or verbal threats of this
kind have long-
since been used to patrol, police, and/or enforce Black
masculine behaviors, es-
pecially among Black male peers in educational contexts. For
violating the “code”
about which Dancy (2012) wrote, some Black men are labeled,
put down, joked,
teased, threatened, or even bashed. Riggs (2001) details the
ways in which Black
gay men, for instance, are marginalized even by other Black
male peers:
I am a Negro faggot if I believe what movies, TV, and rap
music say of me.
My life is game for play. Because of my sexuality, I cannot be
Black. A
strong, proud, “Afrocentric” Black man is resolutely
heterosexual, not even
bisexual.... My sexual difference is considered of no value;
indeed it’s a tes-
tament to weakness, passivity, the absence of real guts—balls.
Hence I re-
main a sissy, punk, faggot. I cannot be a Black gay man because
by the te-
nets of Black macho, Black gay man is a triple negation. I am
cosigned, by
these tenets, to remain a Negro faggot. And as such I am game
for play, to
be used, joked about, put down, beaten, slapped, and bashed,
not just by
illiterate homophobic thugs in the night, but by Black American
culture’s
best and brightest. (p. 293)

To avoid such sanctions, Black males are taught, explicitly or
implicitly, to
demonstrate strict adherence to the narrow code through the
display or perfor-
mance of traditional masculine behaviors (i.e., masculinities)
thought to reflect
social ideals of Black manhood in America, such as
imperviousness, stoicism, phys-
ical strength, and hypesexuality, to name a few (Dancy, 2012;
Franklin, 1984).
Masculinity 91
And though a number of studies have shown that some Black
men perceive
their social roles as boys, sons, fathers, and providers (e.g.,
Kimmel & Aronson,
2003) and other Black men adhere to rigid social constructions
of masculinity(-
ies), there may be other masculine beliefs, behavioral
manifestations, and re-
sponses to sanctions for transgressing heteronormative Black
masculinity
(McClure, 2006), particularly for Black gay men in college.
Yet, to date, the re-
search on BGMUs fails to address this issue. The present study
was designed to
fill this noticeable gap in our collective knowledge.
While certainly useful for deepening our knowledge about the
study’s focus,
the extant literature on Black masculinity has at least two major

limitations. First,
countless scholars have acknowledged the need to incorporate
multiple social
identities (e.g., sexual orientation) into the definition and
conceptualization of
Black masculinity(-ies) (Dancy, 2012); however, very few, if
any, demonstrate ap-
propriate and/or effective means for doing so through empirical
studies. Second,
much of the work on Black masculinity is based largely on
samples of men who
tend to enjoy the admiration and respect afforded to those who
follow traditional
masculine scripts such as Black male athletes (Messer, 2006),
“gents and jocks”
(Harris & Struve, 2009), and highly involved student leaders
(Harper, 2006b).
Little attention has been directed toward understanding
constructions of mascu-
linity and manhood among gay and bisexual Black men in
college who may not
enjoy such reputations but are more likely than their peers to
report being ha-
rassed, teased, bullied, or physically assaulted on college
campuses (D’Augelli,
1992; Strayhorn & Mullins, 2012). This is the gap that our study
was designed to
fill; the next section explains our methods for data collection
and analysis.
metHODS
This study is part of a larger research program that centers on
the experi-
ences of gay men of color attending predominantly White and
historically

Black colleges and universities in the United States. The present
study, how-
ever, focuses on BGMUs at PWIs only. And although the larger
study consists
of both quantitative and qualitative components, this article
reports findings
from the qualitative portion of the study. This decision was
made in conso-
nance with the study’s primary objective to reveal “what” are
BGMUs’ con-
structions of masculinity and manhood and to give voice to their
interpreta-
tions of such experiences (Patton, 1990).
methodology
A constructivist qualitative approach was employed in the
present study.
This approach was selected on the basis of its epistemic
underpinnings about
92 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
the very nature of knowledge and how participants in a social
setting construct
multiple realities (Glesne, 2006). Its utility in investigating
unexplored or
rarely explored phenomena, its potential for building a
foundation upon which
future research can stand (Hill et al., 2005), and its congruent
positioning with
our own ethics and values as researchers in terms of how
invisible and voiceless
people can be seen and heard without doing damage or

“violence” to their au-
thentic voice (Lincoln & Guba, 1986) also made it a logical
choice.
Site and participants
The study was conducted at six, four-year PWIs located in the
northeast,
southeast, and midwestern regions of the country. These
institutions could be
sorted into two major categories. Universities in Category A
were public, Re-
search-1 institutions and each enrolls approximately 20,000–
50,000 under-
graduate and graduate students, with approximately 47% being
“men” and less
than 10% being “African American” or “Black” at the time of
this study. Uni-
versities in Category B were private, highly selective, Research-
1 institutions
with enrollments ranging from 8,000 to 11,000 students. The
proportion of
male and/or Black students enrolled at Category B schools was
similar to their
public university counterparts, according to the universities’
institutional re-
search office. It is important to note that, with only one
exception, all institu-
tions included in this study have at least one GLBT student
organization on
campus as well as a GLBT student resource center or lounge.
Participants were selected purposefully using a snowball or
chain sam-
pling approach (Merriam, 1998). As Patton (1990) aptly
described, “The logic

and power of purposeful sampling… leads to selecting
information-rich cases
for study in depth. Information rich cases are those from which
one can learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
the research” (p.
46). Specifically, members of the research team worked with the
presidents of
the GLBT student organizations on each campus to identify and
recruit an ini-
tial pool of prospective participants—that is, members who met
the sampling
criteria. To participate in this study, participants had to: (a) be
enrolled at one
of the six universities included in the sample, (b) identify as
African American
or Black, and (c) self-identify as “gay,” “homosexual,” “same-
gender loving,” or
a synonymous term (for more, see Brown, 2005). All
prospective participants
were asked by the presidents of the student organizations to
participate in the
study and to share their e-mail address with the principal
investigator. This re-
sulted in the first wave of potential participants (n =10).
Willing participants were invited, via e-mail, to participate in a
one-on-one,
face-to-face in-depth interview with a member of the research
team. All initial
Masculinity 93

prospects agreed to be interviewed. As the research evolved,
additional partici-
pants were identified and invited to participate in the study; this
is an example of
snowball or chain sampling (Patton, 2002), wherein existing
participants were
asked to recommend the study to other BGMUs at their
university with whom
they were familiar. These steps yielded a second wave of
participants (n =19),
bringing the total sample to 29. Snowball sampling proved most
appropriate for
accessing this sample of students; therefore, the lead researcher
decided to use
these procedures to identify “cases of interest from people who
know people who
know people who know what cases are information-rich, that is,
good examples
for study, good interview subjects” (Patton, p. 182).
Table 1 shows several major demographic characteristics of the
partici-
pants, all of whom are identified hereafter by a self-selected
pseudonym.
Data collection
Data were collected via semi-structured, in-depth one-on-one
interviews
over a 24-month period. The purpose of interviewing is to “find
out what is in
and on someone else’s mind” (Patton, 1990, p. 278). In this
case, we wanted to

94 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
know about Black gay male collegians’ experiences and the
meaning they make
of manhood and their masculine identities. Interviews were
conducted in a
way to elicit stories from each participant about his
construction and negotia-
tion of masculine identity(-ies), as recommended by
methodologists (Vy-
gotsky, 1987). Interviews, on average, lasted approximately 90
minutes, al-
though they ranged from 60 to 200 minutes across the sample.
Consistent with
the study’s design (Kvale, 1996), interview length varied across
participants
because some needed more time than others to recall their
understanding of
manhood and masculine identities, to convey their feelings
through spoken
words, and to work through some emotions (e.g., crying, anger)
that were
evoked as they responded to our questions. In some cases,
ambiguities and ad-
ditional questions were resolved by follow-up correspondence
with the inter-
viewee via telephone, e-mail, or in-person.
A semi-structured interview protocol was employed that
included ques-
tions about each participant’s demographic background (e.g.,
“What is your race/
ethnicity?”); prior schooling experiences (e.g., “Tell me about
your time in high
school”); and his self-beliefs about, perceptions of, and
responses to Black mas-

culinity and manhood. Questions were designed to elicit
recollections of notable
experiences, people, and circumstances related to their
development of mascu-
line beliefs. Where necessary, follow-up probes were used to
prompt reconstruc-
tions of BGMUs’ experiences (e.g., “Can you tell me about a
time when… ?”).
As this qualitative study sought to understand one’s collegiate
experiences
and the meanings attached to such experiences, the amount of
time required for
serious reflection and critical analysis of data was great (Patton,
1990). Thus, all
interviews were digitally recorded and professionally
transcribed verbatim for
subsequent analysis. Transcripts were stored electronically
using NVivo®, a quali-
tative data analysis and management software. Storing
transcripts electronically
allowed the research team to retrieve data at any time to read,
re-read, and read
again the experiences shared by our participants.
Since we wished for our interviews to be candid, we promised
our partici-
pants confidentiality, which proved to be important to several of
our respon-
dents. For example, five interviews had to be conducted in
clandestine locations
away from central campus (e.g., a local coffee shop, a library
study room) and
some participants asked questions about how interviews would
be transcribed,
who would see the transcripts, and how they would be accessed

in the future.
Answering their questions, building rapport, and using
pseudonyms provided
by participants seemed to quell any concerns about anonymity
and confidenti-
ality (Glesne, 1989). Although pseudonyms may mask their
“real” identities
(Grinyer, 2002), participants can be described in “rich, thick
description”
Masculinity 95
(Geertz, 1973), which has come to be known as the hallmark of
good qualita-
tive research.
Data Analysis
Interview data were analyzed in three stages using the constant
compari-
son method, as described by Strauss and his colleagues (Strauss,
1995; Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). First, transcripts were read and re-read to
generate initial cat-
egories of information or codes that represented “an initial plot
of the terrain”
(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69); this is known as open coding
(Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). Coding is the process of “organizing the material
into ‘chunks’
before bringing meaning to those chunks” (Rossman & Rallis,
1998, p. 171).

Next, codes were collapsed by grouping categories that seemed
to relate
to each other while leaving intact those that stood independent
from all others.
This smaller list of categories was used to generate
“supercodes,” or prelimi-
nary themes. Lastly, themes were compared and contrasted to
understand the
degree to which they were similar; closely related themes were
collapsed or re-
named so that the “whole name” reflected the sum of its parts.
This iterative
process was repeated until no new codes or themes were
found—a point called
saturation in the literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A final
list of themes
was agreed upon by the researchers to represent the major
findings of the study.
Each participant reviewed the final list of themes and he was
able to clarify, re-
vise, ask questions, and add elements, if necessary.
trustworthiness and Quality
Several steps were taken to enhance trustworthiness and ensure
quality
of the data and subsequent findings in this study. Lincoln and
Guba (1986)
identify four measures by which rigor and accuracy in
qualitative research can
be evaluated: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability.
These four metrics “replace the usual positivist criteria of
internal and external
validity, reliability, and objectivity” used in quantitative studies
(Denzin &

Lincoln, 2000, p. 21). Credibility was assured through member
checks, follow-
up correspondence, and storage of all data sources that could be
easily retrieved
and (re)tested throughout the entire research process.
Additionally, members
of the research team discussed presuppositions, preliminary
ideas, and inter-
pretations with each other, as well as with three peer
debriefers—that is, disin-
terested but skilled peers who were qualitative research experts
and/or famil-
iar with BGMUs’ issues. For instance, the initial protocol
included questions
that asked about “gay life.” Peer debriefers offered helpful
advice to change the
wording so that those who meet the sampling criteria, but may
identify
96 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
differently (see Table 1), could respond without confusion about
terminology
and language.
To ensure transferability, rich, thick descriptions of both sites
and par-
ticipants are provided in the report. Findings from this study
will likely trans-
fer to BGMUs who face similar experiences in other PWIs. But
as many have
explained, ultimately, transferability is primarily the
responsibility of readers
(Denzin, 1989).

Finally, dependability and confirmability were ensured through
audit
trails conducted by members of the research team, peer
debriefers, and one ex-
ternal graduate student who became involved in the research
over time. De-
spite our many attempts to render findings that are credible,
transferable, de-
pendable, and trustworthy, according to Henstrand (1991), we
cannot promise
that these findings represent anyone’s truth but our own and our
best attempt
to “re-present” BGMUs’ experiences of (and with) masculinity
and manhood
as told through their stories, vignettes, and their own voices.
Indeed, partici-
pants’ perspectives have been interpreted in the section that
follows and inter-
pretation may distort their intended meaning; however, member
checking and
related procedures described above should have reduced, if not
eliminated,
this effect (Glesne, 2006).
FINDINGS
In our attempt to understand BGMUs’ construction and
negotiation of
Black masculinity(-ies) and manhood, three major themes were
identified
using the analytic approach described in the previous section:
(a) BGMUs, at
times, accept, adhere to, and perform traditionally masculine
norms, (b) some
BGMUs intentionally or subconsciously challenge hegemonic

notions of Black
masculinity through their behaviors and self-beliefs, and (c)
some BGMUs rec-
ognize that their constructions of masculinity and manhood are
influenced by
other social factors and locations. Each of these themes is
unpacked and ex-
plained below, using verbatim quotes from participants (where
possible) to il-
lustrate the meaning and significance of the finding.
performing traditionally masculine Norms
A majority of the BGMUs with whom we spoke seemed to
subscribe to tra-
ditional notions of masculinity and these beliefs were often
internalized and
shaped their behaviors in academic and social settings. For
instance, men in the
sample used a limited number of words to describe Black
masculinity (i.e., what it
means to be a Black man), typically reflecting hegemonic
masculine expectations:
“tough,” “physically strong,” “athletic,” “tall,” “[economic]
provider,” “father,”
Masculinity 97
“HNIC” (which they defined as “Head-Negro-In-Charge”),
“baller” (which refers
to men who flaunt their material wealth), and “on your grind”
(which implies that
one is taking care of his business, work, or personal matters).

That so many BGMUs in the study used words typically
associated with
heteronormative, traditional male roles to describe Black
masculinity is worth
noting, but it is equally as important to point out the ways in
which these mean-
ings affected their subsequent performances of masculinity. For
example, some
Black gay men, like Desmond, spoke at length about engaging
in certain campus
activities (e.g., intercollegiate sports, competitive debates, and
working out in the
gym) or social scenes (e.g., bragging about having sex with
multiple women on
campus) as a way of concealing one’s sexuality and asserting
their masculinity or
“proving themselves [as men]” to other (Black) men on campus.
Other BGMUs
in this study shared beliefs that Black masculinity has to do
with taking care of
one’s family, business, or personal matters. For example, Torre
shared how his
decision to major in engineering reflected his beliefs about
Black masculinity:
“When I had to choose a major, I chose chemical engineering
because I knew, as
a man, I was going to have to make money... lots of it... to take
care of my family...
my spending habit (laughing)... plus women don’t like broke
men.” Accepting
and adhering to stereotypically traditional notions of Black
masculinity power-
fully shaped the decisions and behaviors of BGMUs in this
study. In some in-
stances, masculine beliefs affected the extent to and ways in

which BGMUs dis-
closed or concealed their sexual orientation to others.
Not only did BGMUs in our study use a constricted list of terms
to describe
Black masculinity and report engaging in activities to conceal
their sexuality
while asserting their masculine identity, but several also talked
about how they
compensated for failing to meet traditional standards of Black
masculinity. For
instance, Blake talked about how he “intentionally used his
height” (standing over
6-feet tall) and “worked on developing [his] muscles and body
to sort of make up
for the fact that he was a cheerleader.” As another example,
Kameron described
himself as “sort of not the average Black guy... [he’s] short, not
thuggish, a little
girly and most of [his] friends are White.” He went on to
explain how he used his
athletic prowess (e.g., running fast) to compensate for the lack
of meeting his
peers’ more traditional standards of masculinity in terms of
height, thug-like be-
haviors, and style of dress. He shared: “I mean... I think they’re
[other Black men]
comfortable with me because I’m really athletic and I go to the
gym a lot and hang
out at parties so they see me... yes, I’m gay but I still do guy
stuff, you know.” By
engaging in stereotypically masculine activities or displaying
physical strength
and athletic talent, BGMUs in this study were able to mask or
conceal their sexual-
ity or “pass as straight” while also asserting their masculine

identity to peers.
98 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
Despite some subtle nuances, BGMUs in this study accepted,
adhered to,
and performed traditionally masculine norms and used a
constricted list of
words to describe Black masculinity. The words and their
meanings affected
their subsequent behaviors or performances of Black
masculinity—study par-
ticipants reported asserting their masculinity through various
activities and
scenes. Those who perceived themselves as failing to uphold or
embody tradi-
tional masculine standards also reported (over-)compensating
for such weak-
nesses or traits by overindulging in or overperforming
“maleness” in other are-
nas such as debate, sports, and play. Indeed, there were other
differences among
the men in the study, which are discussed below.
challenging Hegemonic masculinity through Behaviors
and Beliefs
Some BGMUs in this study attempt to challenge or redefine
hegemonic
masculinity through their pursuit of certain academic majors
(e.g., theater,
music, nursing) or meaningful engagement in extracurricular
activities (e.g.,
cheerleading, baton twirling) traditionally viewed as feminine

or, at least ac-
cording to them, as “less masculine.” Beyond taking actions that
demonstrated
their rejection of traditional notions of masculinity, some
BGMUs articulated
self-beliefs counter to previously discussed ideas about Black
masculinity. For
example, “Betsy” highlighted his intentional focus on his
academic pursuits,
suggesting that even dating comes second to academics. Betsy
goes on to say:
I’m very focused in school so I just really don’t want to deal
with men right
now. Like even now I’m just like I don’t want to date. I just
really don’t want
to date, and I don’t even want to hook up to be honest with you.
I don’t want
to do anything right now. I just want to just chill, you know,
focus on school
and not really get involved in, like, drama and, like, really with
the hook up
culture because it wasn’t necessarily satisfying, like, last year
or so.
Indeed, many of the men in our study reconciled stereotypically
masculine be-
liefs about Black masculinity with their self-perceptions and
interests, thereby
rejecting anti-academic or anti-intellectual conceptions and
intentionally fo-
cusing on their academic success without mention of fear of
reprisal from Black
male peers.
Several BGMUs shared how traditional conceptions of Black

masculinity
limited the ways in which they could meaningfully interact with
their same-race
male peers constructively, but not all participants engaged in
“masking,” coping,
or compensating activities to fit in with others; some
participants saw themselves
as markedly different from their peers. For example, study
participants spoke, at
Masculinity 99
length, about how most Black students tend to willingly accept
hegemonic no-
tions of masculinity, which assume that Black men are strong,
detached, and
competitive, while also being progenitor and conqueror of
women, as Kimmel
(1996) posited. Adopting social identities and preferences that
transgress hege-
monic masculine roles and expectations limited what some
BGMUs had in com-
mon with their same-race, heterosexual male peers and made
them “more differ-
ent than similar,” recalling one of our sophomore respondents’
words. Elliot
provides an example:
I don’t have that many Black male friends because I don’t like
to do what
they do, you know? Sitting around talking about girls, their
breasts, and
how many I laid over the weekend is not something I can talk

about. And
most of the guys don’t want me to talk about what I did for the
weekend
[laughing].
Another sophomore male discussed his reality as one of only a
few openly gay
men on campus. His willingness to openly disclose his sexual
orientation also
makes his interactions with “closeted” gay peers difficult. He
suggests:
Everybody else, there are probably like a couple of them, like,
one or two
more, but they are not necessarily that open about it. Everybody
else is ba-
sically in the closet, like, they are just in the closet. There’s a
lot of down low
action going on on this campus, like, a lot of the Black men on
this campus
are gay and they just don’t know how to deal with it. I don’t
know why.
Maybe it’s because of, like, the intersection of their, you know,
race and
sexual identity and they can’t, you know, deal with it, but I
don’t know why
there’s so many Black men on this campus who are in the
closet.
Although it often placed them at odds with their same-race
heterosexual
male peers, and at times with their gay peers, some BGMUs in
this study felt com-
pelled to be true to their own identities. This internal goal
compelled them to con-
sistently challenge hegemonic ideals, as they attempted to assert

new notions of
Black masculinity consistent with their gay identity. Other
factors, as discussed
below, affected BGMUs’ understanding of Black masculinity
and manhood.
Black masculinity and manhood
Affected by Social Factors
A number of participants alluded to the ways in which their
masculine
conceptions and ideals about Black masculinity and manhood
are influenced
by myriad social factors, sociopolitical contexts, and social
identities or loca-
tions such as race, gender, social class, and religion, to name a
few. For instance,
Angelo and Jeremy explained in great detail how their race,
gender, sexuality,
100 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
and other identities came together in ways that seemed to
separate them from
other Black men on campus. Consider the following from
Angelo:
At times I feel like I do belong and I do participate in some
events, but for
the most part I don’t feel like I fit in within the gay community
or the Black
community here and so I don’t really participate in their events.
I don’t do
a lot with the Black events because I don’t feel comfortable

most of the time
and it’s not like I can easily take my boyfriend there, even
though I’ve heard
it has improved somewhat. I don’t feel like I can be who I am...
who I really
am all the time. I have an isolated belonging and that kind of
shows how
different I am [from others].
Other participants were just as explicit in their explanation of
the ways in
which “who they are” (i.e., social identities) and “where they
are” (i.e., social
locations) powerfully shaped their constructions of Black
masculinity and be-
liefs about manhood. Cullen said plainly:
I feel like all of them are separate by default because we live in
a Black and
White, classist, racist, sexist society. The color line exists and
there are
going to be certain experiences that I’ll go through because of
my color and
someone else in the gay community won’t go through it because
of their
color. I’ll go through something in the Black community
because I’m gay,
but some other Black guy won’t go through it. This creates
barriers and for
the most part [at said college] the barriers really exist for me.
Even in the
academic world, people have no problem putting barriers on
you.
Cullen’s point alludes to the vivid illustration of the Black gay
male’s predica-

ment among other Black male peers, as described by Riggs
(2001), but Cullen
and other men in our study clarify that the same holds true for
BGMUs at
PWIs. And it’s not just that their social identities and locations
distinguish
them from their same-race male peers or subject them to
scrutiny and ridicule
at times, but they also simultaneously influence their beliefs
about masculinity
and manhood and are often internalized as self-beliefs, which,
in turn, can be-
come self-fulfilling or even self-defeating (Steele, 2000).
Religion also was identified as a major determinant of
masculine beliefs.
For instance, Kenny, a first-year dance major—or as he said, “a
real dancer”—
shared a firm belief that men are “providers” and “head of the
household.” When
asked about the origin of this belief, he replied, “I don’t know...
but mostly church,
I guess... I mean, that’s definitely what I was taught.” He was
not alone on this
point, as many others shared that their religious backgrounds
and beliefs often
intersected with their perceptions of masculinity and manhood
to challenge or
reify their self-beliefs about Black masculinity, who Black men
really are, and
Masculinity 101

what they do. That BGMUs’ notions of masculinity and
manhood are powerfully
and, at times, simultaneously influenced by race, class, gender,
sexuality, religion,
and other social locations is important to note as it may provide
a plausible expla-
nation for the within-group heterogeneity that we uncovered
amongst our par-
ticipants. This, along with the other major themes, are discussed
in the next
section.
DIScuSSION
Recall that the purpose of this study was to understand BGMUs’
con-
struction of manhood and masculine identity(-ies) as well as to
identify how
these beliefs affect their academic and social experiences in
college. Analyzing
interview data from 29 Black gay or bisexual male collegians at
six major PWIs
across the nation, we identified three overarching themes that
suggest several
important conclusions: some accept, adhere to, and perform
traditionally mas-
culine norms; some intentionally challenge hegemonic notions
of masculinity;
and they recognize the ways in which their masculine beliefs
and construc-
tions of identity are influenced by one’s social factors and
locations. Findings
from the present study also provide insights into the ways in
which campus-
and other professionals can work with such students to promote
their success

in college. These conclusions and implications are explained in
this section.
First, data from the present study suggest that some BGMUs
accept, adhere
to, and perform traditionally masculine norms. This
corroborates previous find-
ings that the internalization of traditional notions of masculinity
impacts Black
gay men’s acceptance of their gay identities (Brown, 2005). For
example, several
men in our study highlighted the ways in which they chose
activities and organi-
zations to compensate for their sexuality and masculine identity.
Similarly, other
students, such as Black and Kameron, readily acknowledged
their need to fore-
ground their physical stature or other observable attributes as
unequivocal sig-
nals of maleness to their Black male peers on campus. While
this supports previ-
ous findings about Black males’ subscriptions to hegemonic
masculine
expectations (Majors & Billson, 1992), it also highlights an area
that should raise
concern for scholars and practitioners alike. That some Black
gay men continually
feel compelled to conceal their sexual identity, and perhaps try
to compensate for
it, to be accepted by their campus peers as sufficiently
masculine, suggests addi-
tional barriers through which BGMUs must persist to be able to
affirm a healthy,
positive self-conception that successfully integrates their racial,
sexual, and even
religious identities. Time devoted to concealing one’s personal

identities or try-
ing to compensate for one’s true self may direct energies away
from important
102 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
tasks or activities such as studying, reading, and thinking about
course content.
While important to note, we also remind readers that not all
BGMUs in this
study felt pressured to accept or compensate for such rigid
understandings of
Black masculinity and manhood.
Second, similar to Butler (1990) and Riggs (2001), we found
that some
BGMUs intentionally challenge hegemonic notions of
masculinity—con-
sciously or subconsciously—through their behaviors and self-
beliefs. For in-
stance, recall Betsy’s focus on academics and his rejection of
anti-intellectual
expectations or Elliott’s insistence on being true to himself and
his rejection of
hypersexualized conversations about sex with women, all of
which demonstrate
the ways in which some BGMUs knowingly or unknowingly
challenge hege-
monic notions of Black masculinity through their behaviors,
expressed self-be-
liefs, and decisions. In fact, our one participant’s choice of
“Betsy” as his self-se-
lected pseudonym is another example of ways in which some
BGMUs resist or

reject dominant representations of acceptable male attributes or
“what’s manly.”
That some Black men reject hegemonic masculine norms in
hopes of embodying
a “truer self,” to quote one of them, is important for scholars,
practitioners, and
those in helping professions to keep in mind. Previous research
has often as-
sumed that all Black gay males subscribe to traditional notions
of masculinity
and that any deviation from that hegemonic norm is a facade or
masquerade (Ma-
jors & Billson, 1992; McClure, 2006). And though it is not our
point to dismiss
the possibility of masculine masking among Black men,
findings from this study
lend support to the idea that Black gay men differ in their
subscriptions to mascu-
line beliefs, the ways in which they accept or reject such
beliefs, and the ways in
which racialized masculine beliefs are internalized, challenged,
or, as Franklin
(1984) noted, enacted in observable and less observable ways.
Not only did BGMUs in the present study use a constricted list
of words to
define Black masculinity and those words influenced their
behaviors and deci-
sions, but we also found that BGMUs recognize the ways in
which their masculine
beliefs and constructions of identity are influenced by one’s
social factors and loca-
tions. In consonance with previous studies (Butler, 2004; hooks,
2004a), BGMUs,
like Angelo and Cullen, articulated the ways in which their
racial and sexual iden-

tities interacted with gendered masculine conceptions of
identity. They articu-
lated how the persistence of racism in the larger gay community
and homophobia
in the Black community contributed to their understanding of
self as Black gay
men and impacted their sense of belonging within particular
social contexts
across their collegiate experience. This finding suggests that to
further understand
how BGMUs’ sense of belonging is facilitated and the
university resources needed
to enhance their connection to campus, administrators must
contend with the
Masculinity 103
inherent complexities in BGMUs’ understanding of their social
identities (e.g.,
racialized understanding of sexuality and masculinity) in light
of the particular
campus context in which they are situated.
Results from this study are useful for several reasons. First,
they may pro-
vide insight into a complex issue—the diversity that exists
among individual so-
cial groups. For instance, scholars have often assumed that “one
size fits all” or
that members of a single group share a good deal in common
with other group
members. Indeed, this may be true, but not all Black men “are
the same” (Harper

& Nichols, 2008). BGMUs in our study demonstrate that social
identities, par-
ticularly gender, race, and sexual orientation in this instance, do
not interact for
all people in the same way. In other words, scholars and
practitioners should not
assume that all BGMUs will experience or understand their
social identities nor
respond to societal pressures (e.g., expectations to confirm to
hegemonic mascu-
line ideals) similarly. Much like Angelo and Cullen actively
recognized how so-
cial identities and social locations influenced the development
of their self-con-
cept, it is clear that scholars and practitioners, alike, must
consider such influences
as they work with and write about the experiences of BGMUs.
That is, while the
one size fits all approach may create parsimonious models to
understand a par-
ticular social phenomenon, its application to BGMUs may be
inadequate, falsely
positing that Black masculinity would manifest comparably for
all members of
this population. Results presented here suggest a plausible
explanation for such
heterogeneity among Black gay male peers.
Several groups may benefit from the results of this study, one of
which
would be campus counselors. Counselors are often called upon
to offer advice
about issues of identity (e.g., sexuality, masculinity), to educate
faculty and staff
about general trends and student issues, and to talk with
students like BGMUs

about difficult experiences negotiating aspects of their personal
identities. All too
often, counselors and those in related professions reach for the
“general rule,” the
“best practice,” or the “overarching theme” that may have more
universal appeal
but, consequently, give up a significant degree of accuracy and
specificity in ef-
forts to assist students in meaningful ways. Results from this
study provide coun-
selors with data about the diversity of masculine beliefs among
BGMUs, varying
responses to those beliefs, and the ways in which other social
factors intersect and
produce relatively distinct beliefs and enactments. As a result,
we learn that gen-
eral rules rarely apply and “best practices” may be “best” for
some but not all.
Campus counselors might use this information to (re)examine
the types of ad-
vice or directions they offer to faculty, staff, and students about
such issues.
Information from this investigation also may prove useful to
student affairs
professionals who work with Black gay male students regularly
and those who
104 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
work in Black cultural centers or serve as advisors to Black
student organizations.
Black cultural centers have been regarded as positively
supportive environments

for Black students, especially those attending PWIs—in fact,
cultural centers have
assumed the role of the proverbial “home away from home” for
Black students at
PWIs (Strayhorn, Terrell, Redmond, & Walton, 2010). Yet, not
all Black students
find the campus cultural center welcoming, affirming, or a place
where they be-
long. Although very little is known about why some Black
students feel this way,
the same is true for ethnic student organizations such as gospel
choirs (Strayhorn,
2011). Results presented herein may suggest one possible
explanation. To the ex-
tent that some students like BGMUs differ significantly from
their same-race
peers in their masculine conceptions and enactments, they may
be subject to ridi-
cule, physical threats, and social isolation. Without
intervention, they are unlikely
to feel safe, respected, or have a sense of membership in such
environments (Stray-
horn, 2012) and, thus, may seek acceptance elsewhere among
others who share,
accept, or affirm their self-beliefs. Cultural center directors and
student advisors
might consult this information to identify the needs and
challenges of diverse stu-
dent subgroups, to educate students on ways to relate to others
who do not share
their beliefs, or to foster a sense of belonging among Black
male subgroups that
may differ dramatically in their masculine behaviors.
GLBT campus directors might also consider findings from this
study as

they develop ways to signal the relevance of GLBT centers for
queer people of
color, especially BGMUs. Similar to how Cullen alludes to
racism in the larger
gay community as creating a sense of alienation and difficulties
not faced by his
White gay peers, many Black gay men in this study saw the
GLBT center as
serving the needs of White GLBT students on campus. This
suggests that while
GLBT centers have and could provide important resources for
coping and sup-
port to all students, BGMUs’ perceptions of them inadvertently
prevent these
students from accessing the resources available. In response,
directors of
GLBT centers could use findings from this study to
acknowledge that current
practices may be inhibiting their ability to reach all GLBT
people on campus.
GLBT center directors may want to intentionally consider how,
or if, queer
people of color are active in the life of the center, while also
thinking of ways to
reach BGMUs. For example, the GLBT center may establish
support groups
specifically targeted toward BGMUs, make intentional efforts to
collaborate
with the Black Student Union, or, if available, a Black men’s
group as a means of
outreach to Black students, LGBT and heterosexual alike.
There are several implications for future research and theory
that deserve
mention. First, this study employed naturalistic or qualitative
methods of in-

quiry to explore BGMUs’ masculine beliefs, perceptions, and
the ways in
Masculinity 105
which they influence their campus experiences. A strength of
this approach is
the ability to “give voice” to the experiences of students who
are rarely heard in
the research literature and to do so in a way that preserves their
authentic voice
on matters (Ferguson, 2000; Hunter & Davis, 1994). On the
other hand, a limi-
tation of this approach is its inability to yield findings that are
generalizable or
applicable to a wider group of individuals. Future studies might
advance this
line of research by estimating relationships between BGMUs’
masculine be-
liefs and their experiences using existing scales and correlation-
based statisti-
cal techniques on large, multi-campus samples. Such studies
would expand on
the information available about BGMUs in higher education.
Second, the present study explored differences in masculine
beliefs, be-
haviors, and campus experiences among BGMUs at PWIs. While
useful, these
results may not apply directly to those in related, yet different,
situations. Fu-
ture studies might examine issues of masculinity among BGMUs
at histori-

cally Black colleges and universities, Latino males at PWIs or
Hispanic-serving
institutions, or even sex differences amongst these populations
by paying close
attention to variations between Black gay men and lesbian
women, for instance.
Studies of this kind would expand the base of information
available on histori-
cally marginalized college student populations.
Finally, the study was significant for future theory. To date, gay
identity
development theory and Black racial identity theory have
focused on how indi-
viduals come to assume or accept a non-heterosexual or gay
identity (e.g., Cass,
1984), the process through which individuals “become Black”
(Cross, 1995),
and, with few exceptions (Fassinger, 1998), theorists treat these
two as sepa-
rate and distinct developmental processes. The present study
offers insight into
the ways in which BGMUs simultaneously negotiate issues of
racial identity,
sexuality, and other social identities (e.g., religion) within the
frame of their
masculine beliefs, no matter how restrictive or liberated. This
data might be
used to advance existing theory to include information about the
influence of
masculinity on racial and sexual identity development during
college. Future
theories might also be a bit more ecological in scope,
accounting for gay college
students’ multiple identities, contexts, and influences.

cONcLuSION
In closing, we conducted this study in hopes of understanding
BGMUs’
construction of manhood and masculine identity(-ies) as well as
to identify
how these beliefs affect their academic and social experiences
in college. Infor-
mation presented here adds significantly to what is known about
BGMUs,
106 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
issues of masculinity and sexuality, as well as their racialized
conceptions of
masculine identity. By turning to college men themselves and
asking them
about their experiences and capturing the “essence” of their
experiences in
their own words, we respond to important questions that
advance our collec-
tive understanding of masculinity(-ies), affirm some previous
results, and chal-
lenge some prior conclusions in ways that push existing
boundaries toward a
“queering [of] masculinity” that accommodates their unique
perspectives.
NOteS
1. We use GLB without “T” to avoid conflating categories of
sexual orientation
with gender identity (Renn, 2010).

reFereNceS
Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity
and the dynamics of
lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity.
Journal of College
Student Development, 45, 612–632.
Battle, J., & Bennett, M. (2000). Research on lesbian and gay
populations within the
African American community: What have we learned? African
American
Research Perspectives, 6(2), 35–47.
Bem, S. L. (1987). Masculinity and femininity exist only in the
mind of the perceiver.
In J. M. Reinisch, L. A. Rosenblum, & S. A. Sanders (Eds.),
Masculinity/
femininity: Basic perspectives (pp. 304–311). New York, NY:
Oxford University
Press.
Brown, E., II. (2005). We wear the mask: African American
contemporary gay male
identities. Journal of African American Studies, 9(2), 29–38.
Burns, S. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to
deride one another: A
contributor to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of
Homosexuality, 40(2), 1–11.
Butler, J. (1990). Performative acts and gender constitution: An
essay in phenomenol-
ogy and feminist theory. In S. E. Case (Ed.), Performing
feminisms: Feminist
critical theory and theatre (pp. 270–282). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins
University Press.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexuality identity formation: A
theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.
Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexuality identity formation: Testing a
theoretical model.
Journal of Sex Research, 9(1–2), 105–126.
Cross, W. E. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revising
the Cross model. In J. G.
Ponterotto et al. (Eds.), Handbook on multicultural counseling
(pp. 93–122).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Gay men in college: Identity processes
and adaptations.
Journal of College Student Development, 32, 140–146.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’
experiences of
harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 383–395.
Masculinity 107
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual
orientation: Toward a model
of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R.

J. Watts, & D.
Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in
context (pp. 312–333).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
D’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A
history of sexuality in
America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Dancy, T. E., III. (2012). The brother code: Manhood and
masculinity among African
American males in college. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Dilley, P. (2005). Which way out? A typology of non-
heterosexual male collegiate
identities. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 56–88.
Ellis, H. (1901). Studies in the psychology of sex. Volume 2:
Sexual inversion. Philadel-
phia, PA: F. A. Davis.
Evans, N. J., & Wall, V. A. (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals on
campus. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel
Association.
Fassinger, R. E. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and
challenges in working with
lesbian women and gay men. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 157–
176.
Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian and bisexual identity and
student development
theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender

college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp.
13–22). Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making
of Black male masculinity.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Foubert, J. D., & LaVoy, S. A. (2000). A qualitative assessment
of “The Men’s Pro-
gram”: The impact of a rape prevention program on fraternity
men. The NASPA
Journal, 38(1), 1–13.
Franklin, C. W., II. (1984). The changing definition of
masculinity. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Gibson, D. D., Schlosser, L. Z., & Brock-Murray, R. D. (2006).
Identity management
strategies among lesbians of African ancestry: A pilot study.
Journal of LGBT
Issues in Counseling, 1(4), 31–57.
Harper, S. R. (2006a). Black male students at public universities
in the U.S.: Status,
trends, and implications for policy and practice. Washington,
D.C.: Joint Center
for Political and Economic Studies.
Harper, S. R. (2006b). Enhancing African American male
student outcomes through
leadership and active involvement. In M. J. Cuyjet & Associates
(Eds.), African
American men in college (pp. 68–94). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Harper, S. R., & Nichols, A. H. (2008). Are they not all the
same? Racial heterogeneity
among Black male undergraduates. Journal of College Student
Development,
49(3), 199–214.
Harris, F., III. (2010). College men’s conceptualizations of
masculinities and
contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of
College Student
Development, 51(3), 297–318.
Harris, F., III, & Struve, L. E. (2009). Gents, jerks, and jocks:
What men learn about
masculinity in college. About Campus, 14(3), 2–9.
Harris, W. G. (2003). African American homosexual males on
predominantly White
college and university campuses. Journal of African American
Studies, 7(1), 47–56.
108 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
hooks, b. (2004a). We real cool: Black men and masculinity.
New York, NY: Routledge.
hooks, b. (2004b). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and
love. New York, NY: Atria
Books.
Hunter, A., & Davis, J. E. (1992). Constructing gender: An
exploration of Afro-Ameri-
can men’s conceptualization of manhood. Gender and Society,

6(3), 464–479.
Hunter, A., & Davis, J. E. (1994). Hidden voices of Black men:
The meaning, structure,
and complexity of manhood. Journal of Black Studies, 25(1),
20–40.
Icard, L. D. (1986). Black gay men and conflicting social
identities: Sexual orientation
versus racial identity. Journal of Social Work and Human
Sexuality, 4(1–2),
83–93.
Icard, L. D. (1996). Assessing the psychosocial well-being of
African American gays.
Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 5(2), 25–50.
Icard, L. D., & Nurius, P. S. (1996). Loss of self in coming out:
Special risks for African
American gays and lesbians. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 1(1),
29–47.
Kimmel, M. S. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history.
New York, NY: Free
Press.
Kimmel, M., & Aronson, A. (2003). Men and masculinities: A
social, cultural, and
historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Loiacano, D. (1993). Gay identity issues among Black
Americans: Racism, homopho-
bia, and the need for validation. In L. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel
(Eds.), Psycho-
logical perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences (pp.
364–375). New York,

NY: Columbia University Press.
Majors, R., & Billson, J. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of
Black manhood in America.
New York, NY: Touchstone.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual
minority identity
formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications
for counseling
and research. Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508–534.
McClure, S. M. (2006). Improvising masculinity: African
American fraternity
membership in construction of a Black masculinity. Journal of
African American
Studies, 10(1), 57–73.
Messer, K. L. (2006). African American male college athletes.
In M. J. Cuyjet &
Associates (Eds.), African American men in college (pp. 154–
173). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Micah, L. (2002). Suicide among homosexual youth. Journal of
Homosexuality, 42(4),
107–117.
Millett, G., Malebranche, D., Mason, B., & Spikes, P. (2005).
Focusing “down low”:
Bisexual Black men, HIV risk, and heterosexual transmission.
Journal of the
National Medical Association, 97(7), 52S–59S.
National Urban League. (2007). The state of Black America
2007: Portrait of the Black

male. New York, NY: Beckham Publications Group, Inc.
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher
education: The state and
status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.
Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005). Leadership identity
development among
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student leaders. The
NASPA Journal,
42(3), 342–367.
Masculinity 109
Riggs, M. (2001). Black macho revisited: Reflections of a
SNAP! queen. In R. P. Byrd
& B. Guy-Shetfall (Eds.), Traps: African American men on
gender and sexuality
(pp. 292–296). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Steele, C. M. (2000, February). “Stereotype threat” and Black
college students. AAHE
Bulletin, 52, 3–6.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Singing in a foreign land: An
exploratory study of gospel choir
participation among African American undergraduates at a
predominantly
White institution. Journal of College Student Development,
52(5), 137–153.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011, June 24). Stubborn and persistent
masculine beliefs: Insights

from a research study. NASPA Men and Masculinities
Knowledge Community.
Retrieved from http://naspammkc.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/
stubborn-and-persistent-masculine-beliefs-insights-from-a-
research-study/
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A
key to educational success.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L., Blakewood, A. M., & DeVita, J. M. (2008).
Factors affecting the college
choice of African American gay male undergraduates:
Implications for retention.
National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal,
11(1), 88–108.
Strayhorn, T. L., Blakewood, A. M., & DeVita, J. M. (2010).
Triple threat: Challenges
and supports of Black gay men at predominantly White
campuses. In T. L.
Strayhorn & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), The evolving challenges of
Black college students:
New insights for policy, practice, and research (pp. 85–104).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Strayhorn, T. L., & Mullins, T. G. (2012). Investigating Black
gay male undergradu-
ates’ experiences in campus residence halls. The Journal of
College and University
Student Housing, 39(1), 140–161.
Strayhorn, T. L., & Scott, J. A. (2012). Coming out of the dark:
Black gay men’s
experiences at historically Black colleges and universities. In R.
T. Palmer & J.

L. Wood (Eds.), Black men in college: Implications for HBCUs
and beyond (pp.
26–40). New York, NY: Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L., Terrell, M. C., Redmond, J. S., & Walton, C.
N. (2010). “A home away
from home”: Black cultural centers as supportive environments
for African
American collegians at White institutions. In T. L. Strayhorn &
M. C. Terrell
(Eds.), The evolving challenges of Black college students: New
insights for policy,
practice, and research (pp. 122–137). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Strayhorn, T. L., & Tillman-Kelly, D. L. (in press). When and
where race and sexuality
collide with other social locations: Studying the intersectional
lives of Black gay
men in college. In T. L. Strayhorn (Ed.), Living at the
intersections: Social
identities and Black collegians (pp. xx–xx). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Todd, F. L., & Dennis, L. T. (2005). Perceived risks and
normative beliefs as explana-
tory models for college student alcohol involvement: An
assessment of a campus
with conventional alcohol control policies and enforcement
practices. The
NASPA Journal, 42(2), 202–222.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2011). The
condition of education 2011 (NCES Report No. 2010-081).
Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office.
110 S P E C T R U M 1 . 2
Washington, J., & Wall, V. A. (2006). African American gay
men: Another challenge
for the academy. In M. J. Cuyjet & Associates (Eds.), African
American men in
college (pp. 174–188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westwood, S. (1990). Racism, Black masculinity, and the
politics of space. In J. Hearn
& D. Morgan (Eds.), Men, masculinities, and social theory (pp.
55–71). Cam-
bridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Wise 3
Redefining Black
Masculinity and
Manhood:
Successful Black Gay
Men Speak Out
Sheila J.
Wise
SHEILA J. WISE serves as an ethnography strategist for
Context-Based Research Group,
an anthropological consulting firm in Baltimore, Md. Her

primary responsibility is to
help companies understand and then use ethnographic
approaches to inform their busi-
nesses. Her research interests include the social construction of
gender and intra-group
difference.
This article explores the
literature on masculinity
and manhood,
specifically the masculine
socialization process and
hegemonic masculinity as
they relate to successful,
black gay men. In doing
so, the article reveals the
lack of an incorporation
of homosexuality into
discussions of black
masculinity and
manhood. Throughout
the article, the successful

black gay men, who
were the focus of a
research study, reveal
their own ideas,
perceptions and
experiences of
masculinity and
manhood.
Whenever someone asks me what the topic of my re-
search is, I normally take a deep breath and launch into my
sum-
mary, which goes something like this: I’m looking at successful,
black gay men and issues of social responsibility toward the
larger
black community. This summary is normally met by silence,
after
which I am invariably asked two questions, why? and how? Why
did I decide to study gay men, and how did I go about finding
them? It always intrigues me that out of all that I say in my
sum-
mary the one thing that stands out most, and what I think most
people react to, is the word gay. Interestingly enough, these two
questions, why and how, do not change, whether the person
asking is gay or straight, male or female.
My own interests in understanding the complexities of
the black experience in the United States fueled me. Having

spent 10 years doing development work in West Africa, I felt it
was time to study my own, meaning African Americans in the
United States. Anthropology seemed the natural choice, given
its unique qualitative approaches. I wanted to be able to ex-
plain as well as demonstrate the usefulness of anthropological
methods in a way that black people, particularly, could under-
stand and relate to in their daily lives.
4 Journal of African American Men
THE CONTROVERSY
In some ways, I knew that choosing to study successful,
black gay men would be, at the very least, controversial. Many
black people see the role of the black man as being integral to
the black family and the larger black community. Choosing men
who are not only successful but also gay puts an interesting
twist
on the role of black men. Certainly the word “success” for many
conjures up images of material assets. Even more so, success
im-
plies prosperity, wealth and position. To refer to a black man as
successful is to refer to his assets as well as his contributions.
Inherent in this discussion of success is the unwritten obligation
for successful, black men to “give back” to their families and
communities. I demonstrate that implied in this idea of a suc-
cessful, black man is the assumption that he is heterosexual. For
these reasons, the successful, black gay man may in some ways
contradict the idea of a successful, black man. My hope is that
this research will force black folks to examine their moral
“stan-
dards” and principles for inclusion within the black community.
The Impetus

October 1995, in Washington, D.C., as the nation’s capi-
tal, “Chocolate City” and the “black gay Mecca,” provided a
dis-
tinctive backdrop for the intersection of sexual orientation, race
and social responsibility. The occasion was one of the weekly
organizing meetings for the Million Man March. I was there, in
the role of researcher, for an applied anthropology course dur-
ing that semester. The following events described here provide
the foundation and impetus for this research.
The basement of the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. head-
quarters was filled to capacity. This was the site for the weekly
organizing meetings for the Million Man March. With each
week
the numbers grew; more and more black men came. The attire
of the men ranged from business suits to baseball caps and
jeans;
young and old; the healthy and the physically challenged. It was
the first time in a very long while since I had seen such a
diverse
group of men. There were Muslims, ministers, local officials
and
pan-Africanists, to name a few. They were all assembled in one
room for one purpose, to plan for participation in the Million
Man March. On one Wednesday, two weeks before the March,
a black man stood and stated that he had been—and is—an ac-
tive member of the D.C. community. Until this point, nothing
seemed out of the ordinary. In fact, this had been the typical
protocol for the meetings. Anyone who had something to con-
tribute to the March would stand, and begin by saying, “In the
Wise 5

spirit of the Million Man March, I . . . ” All of this was done
within
an open. forum setting. These “contributions” by the men were
like “testimonials,” heart-felt and emotional. This particular
black
man then went on to list his various outreach activities within
the community—voter registration, political activism through
the
local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC), and ward
cam-
paigns—most of which was centered in an economically de-
pressed area of the city. In my opinion, this was a black man
who appeared committed to the positive development of black
people. After summarizing his contributions, he then asked,
“whether a black, gay man was going to be represented on the
platform on the day of the March.” You could have heard a pin
drop in the room. Finally, after a substantial period of silence,
another black man responded from across the room, “This
March
is about MEN!” What followed was a flurry of gay-bashing
com-
ments including, “We don’t want any faggots in here . . . ” What
struck me most profoundly about this scenario was how all the
contributions stated by this man seemed to be discounted and/
or dismissed because he mentioned the word gay. I must stress
that he did not say that he was gay. He asked whether or not a
black gay man was going to be represented on the platform. I
came away from the meeting questioning the meaning and defi-
nition of black manhood.
MAIN ISSUES
Sexuality
A theoretical emphasis on sexuality can generate textured
and significant data on intragroup difference. Additionally, ex-

ploring homosexuality among black men allows for a deeper
investigation of the assumed connection between sexuality and
gender. The tendency within some of the literature is not to dis-
tinguish gender from sexuality. Gender refers most directly to
ascribed roles, i.e., man and woman and how those roles are
lived out daily. Sexuality refers to one’s sexual orientation, i.e.,
heterosexual or homosexual. When discussing gender, or more
specifically, men and women, the assumption is that those be-
ing discussed are heterosexual. I also explore how and why cer-
tain ideas of manhood are perpetuated and revered. In that vein,
I explore answers to the following question: How do black gay
men experience constraint in defining or redefining gender?
More specifically, I am interested in understanding how the suc-
cessful, black gay men in this study make meaning of manhood
and gayness in their daily lives and the lives of other black
people.
Gender
When conducting scholarly research on black men the
following three things should be considered: 1) black masculin-
ity; 2) black manhood; and 3) the assumption that black men
are or should be heterosexual. Black masculinity is a concept
that
denotes a form of male behavior or expression. For some, black
masculinity incorporates certain physical attributes and mate-
rial possessions while for others it incorporates more intrinsic
qualities. The behavior can vary depending on the situation and
the variables involved. Black manhood denotes a more perma-
nent state of being. Arriving at manhood is a process. This pro-
cess includes ascertaining certain values, morals, and
experiences

and enacting specific responsibilities. Black manhood also im-
plies understanding this state of being in relation to family,
com-
munity and the larger society. It is necessary to emphasize race
in relation to masculinity, manhood, and gender because the
definitions and characterizations within the literature reflect the
oppression and racism that black men have had to endure in
the United States. This reality reinforces the interlocking pro-
cesses, i.e., the intersection of race, class and gender, which are
currently being debated within much of the social science lit-
erature. The voices of the men in this study have not only inte-
grated these variables, they have the added variable of sexual
orientation. Their experiences as black men are compounded in
a city and society where “a black man in a $600 suit can not get
a cab” (Cary: 1999). As successful black men they are charged
with the task of giving back. Yet, their own community
oftentimes compromises their status as men because of their
sexuality. The factor of race distinguishes black masculinity
from
masculinity in general. For black men, their definitions of mas-
culinity are situated in the context of having been born, raised
and currently living in the United States. Their lived
experiences
include the historical and psychological effects of racial, politi-
cal and economic oppression. Many researchers have examined
how these factors impact expressions of black masculinity (Hare
1985; Hooks 1995; Julien and Kobena 1992; Majors and Billson
1992; Marable 1995; and Staples 1982).
Clyde Franklin argues that, “[M]asculinities are con-
structed. Black masculinities, in particular, are constructed un-
der the cloud of oppression” (1994b: 278). I agree with
Franklin’s
analysis that masculinities are not only constructed, but con-
structed under oppression. My hope is to shed light on how a
masculine ideology influences the lives of the successful, black

gay men in this study.
Wise 7
THE PERCEIVED AND REAL PROCESS OF BECOMING
MASCULINE WHEN YOU’RE BLACK AND MALE:
Clyde Franklin asserts that for most black men the social-
ization process of masculinity is triangular in that there are
three
different entities or influences that contribute to the process.
He characterizes these factors as follows: the “black male’s pri-
mary group,” “black male peer group” and “mainstream soci-
ety and black males” (1994). For the purposes of this
discussion,
I think it is important to examine this socialization process as
an
inverted triangle. This approach will reveal the unique, complex
and seemingly contradictory position of the black gay male in
this socialization process. Franklin argues that mainstream soci-
ety has constructed, maintained and perpetuated a hegemonic
definition of masculinity by focusing on “proscriptive” instead
of “prescriptive teachings” to black men (1994: 14). Thomas
Gerschick and Adam Miller broaden this argument, through
their
research with physically disabled men, by asserting that there
are certain characteristics associated with masculinity that are
established, maintained and revered within society such as: in-
dependence, strength, autonomy, sexual prowess, athleticism,
occupational accomplishment, and procreation ( 1997).
Franklin then examines the role of the black male peer
group as a critical aspect in this socialization process. He notes,
“the Black male peer groups often serves as an anchor. He [the

black male] often finds refuge with those who are undergoing
the same conflicts, apprehensions, pleasures, and preparation
for adulthood” (Franklin 1994: 13). Franklin delves deeper into
the role of the black male peer group and in doing so reveals
the dual role that the group plays in confirming one’s masculin-
ity. He states,
Fortunately or unfortunately, the peer group slowly becomes
more and more a significant self-validating agency supplant-
ing, for a time, the primary group’s importance to the Black
male. Certainly, it is not unusual for the Black male peer
group to become the young Black male’s most significant
other nurturing his masculine identity. 13).
Similarly Roger Lancaster states that “machismo” for Nica-
raguan men is not only about relations between men and
women. Of equal note is the fact that machismo is about power
relations among men. The following provides a good example
of how important it is to have other men validate your mascu-
linity:
Like drinking, gambling, risk taking, asserting one’s opin-
ion, and fighting, the conquest of women is a feat performed
with two audiences in mind: first, other men, to whom one
must constantly prove one’s masculinity and virility; and sec-
ond, oneself, to whom one must also show all the signs of
masculinity (Lancaster 1992: 236–237)
The first element that Clyde Franklin outlines as key to
the masculine socialization process for black males is that of
the

EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMMIGRATION DEPORTATION

EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMMIGRATION DEPORTATION

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from audeleypearl

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMMIGRATION DEPORTATION