When I visited a good friend at Morehouse College about ten years ago, I was envious.
As a 20-year-old black heterosexual male, I was immediately struck by the diverse representations of "blackness" and, more importantly, the opportunity to actually engage in dialogue with individuals who I might have naively considered "not black enough" in my younger days.
While at my predominately white campus we often (naively) tried to define ourselves as black men in direct opposition to whiteness, while visiting Morehouse, I encountered black men truly examining the construct of black manhood for themselves and often times coming to the conclusion that black manhood is a constantly evolving phenomenon.
Drawing upon that experience is just part of what makes Morehouse's recent actions so troubling.
In an effort to "get back to the legacy" of the "Morehouse Man", Morehouse College -- an all-male historically black college -- has implemented a dress code banning, among other things, "clothing usually worn by women (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at college-sponsored events."
What's immediately troubling is the notion that somehow one of the nation's premiere black colleges can "get back" to any sort of legacy with an action as superficial as a dress code that merely reinforces traditional heteronormative ways of being. In no way is that policy creating leaders in any sense of the word that I've ever imagined; it's creating mindless drones that can walk in step with the status quo with no justification other than a mandate.
However, even more troubling was a comment from a member of student government in support of the policy .
"The image of a strong black man needs to be upheld and if anyone sees this policy as something that is restrictive then maybe Morehouse is not the place for you," said Cameron Thomas-Shah, student government co-chief of staff.
While I certainly respect the effort of any educational institution -- including K-12 schools -- to have a vision for what its graduates should become, to reinforce a standard of black masculinity that has to make explicit the exclusion of femininity is problematic.
After a history of emasculation, yes, empowering black males is
critical. However, to define black manhood with a mandate without
examining how black manhood has been constructed historically, is
dangerous and in many ways anti-intellectual.
To say this
policy is dangerous is certainly not a call for the opposite extreme of
encouraging narcissistic political expression - self-absorbed personal
expression that represents only the individual absent a critique of
structure.
However, if the goal of Morehouse College is truly
to create and support black male leaders, it is essential to encourage
them to embrace the multiple ways that black men define "black manhood"
through their daily actions. Furthermore, for the sake of finding a
role for oneself in opposition to whiteness, it's essential to
encourage them to see the seemingly diffuse elements of their
individual situations as part of a greater whole of what it means to
establish one's manhood in the face of whiteness.
Moreover, black males have (re-)examine the relationship of black manhood to black womanhood.
In her book, From Black Power to Hip Hop: Racism, nationalism, and
feminism, Patricia Hill-Collins writes, "...when Black male leaders of
churches and other community organizations remain so focused on saving
Black manhood, they have difficulty seeing Black women as leaders and
persist in viewing Black women primarily as supporters of Black men (p.
148)."
There are many reasons that we should try to move
forward in our thinking about what constitutes black manhood, chief
among them being that it has traditionally subordinated black women and
rendered them invisible, even when they have at many times been most
responsible for the success of the grassroots effort that have always
upheld the struggle for black freedom in the U.S (as described well by
Collins in the aforementioned book).
Knowledge alone is not necessarily going to shift those attitudes, but why shouldn't becoming a black scholar include a critical stance on race and gender relations in the U.S.?
There are plenty of challenges facing Morehouse
that reflect the overall declining status of HBCU's -- declining
endowments and enrollment, mass layoffs, and competition for the best
and brightest black scholars with predominately white institutions that
can offer less bureaucracy, more money and more prestige.
Reinforcing narrowly defined notions of manhood is simply not going to help change an otherwise deteriorating situation.
The beauty of historically black colleges and universities to me is the
opportunity to appreciate the diversity of experience under the
umbrella of "blackness", understanding the absurdity of a monolithic
"black experience", and working together to find a place in working for
progress.
The notion that being a man is somehow determined
merely by the clothes one puts on in the morning is troubling enough.
To further define "manhood" in almost disdainful opposition to
femininity is even more troubling.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Morehouse College's "Appropriate Attire Policy.".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16662
I went to an HBCU for undergrad, and I can say that Morehouse isn't alone in having troubles dealing with men who aren't "masculine enough" - i.e., being threatened by femininity. Gender and sex roles are fairly circumscribed in my experience with the HBCUs, but that just tracks what we know about the larger African American culture in general. It's not surprising, although it is saddening, and it underscores the need to deal more with the particularly challenging intersectional issues that confront us.
You're right -- it's a huge problem in the culture at large, for a number of reasons...
However, after reading the piece about Michael Kimmel on the main Feministing page, I wonder when we can start having that conversation as black males...or if it's gone on somewhere and I am just not aware of it.
I tend to surround myself with friends who will read and understand the notion of intersectionality and the historical relationships between black men/women, but we very rarely get to the point of talking about what it means to be an ally to black women as black men...
Something for us to chew on...
"Gender and sex roles are fairly circumscribed in my experience with the HBCUs, but that just tracks what we know about the larger African American culture in general."
First of all, if you mean what you think about the larger African American culture please say that - don't say we because you do NOT speak for me and what I know about African American culture.
In other words, please speak for yourself - say "what I think" not "what we know" when you are expressing your opinions.
Second, you seem to be implying that only African Americans have rigid views about gender - which implies that every other ethnic group (including the biggest one - White people) are all LGBT friendly.
That is just not correct!
Remember, it was White Mormons who inflicted the LGTB movement's greatest defeat this century - Proposition 8 (but Black people got blamed for that too - because apparently we're the only homophobes in America!)
what? there are colleges that are allowed to be all male? That isn't right and maybe we need to think about fixing that, especially since it is so clear that they have an utter disgust for females and femininity
Morehouse is the companion school to Spelman, which is all female, if memory serves. The fact that they're gender-exclusive is a holdover from the old days when there wasn't much choice - they just never integrated, gender-wise.
Yes, they are close companions -- across the street from one another in fact. And they are both part of a consortium of HBCUs that constitute the Atlanta University Center...so in practice, the students aren't that isolated from women.
Uhm... there are all-female colleges as well. Not to say I don't disagree with this act to curb any kind of femininity. It's blatantly obvious that they're trying to keep sex roles as strict as possible.
I don't think that there needs to be all female colleges either. It just seems extremely sexist to keep students from attending a university because of their gender, and I think that it is racist to keep them out because of their race.
So you think Wellesley, one of the premier colleges in the nation, is built upon a fundamental principle that is "not right" and 'wrong"?
BTW, all-female colleges outnumber all-male colleges by like a hundred to one, so you really have no leg to stand on there.
So having all-female institutions is okay, but all-male ones aren't?
Talk about your double standards...
Not at all. I'm simply saying that, because rebekah apparently disapproves of all same-sex institutions, she must therefore disapprove of colleges like Wellesley.
So, all female colleges are OK, but all male colleges aren't?
Double standards - you has them!
As for the race thing, back in the day, we weren't allowed to go to your race's colleges, so we had no choice but to start our own.
Now, members of your race - as well as Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and anybody else - are more than welcome at HBCU's.
But, of course, the priority is on higher education for our race - because the mainstream White dominated educational system still discriminates against our race, even though it's been 55 years since Brown v Board of Ed.
Just to be clear, Morehouse does not deny acceptance on the basis of race -- in fact, the 2008 valedictorian was white.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/16/white.valedictorian/index.html
While women are not admitted into Morehouse, they are admitted into Spelman, which is right next door, and from what I've heard, students occasionally share classes...
Since I neither attended an historically black nor all female college, I can't speak personally to the merits of either, but there are legitimate historical reasons for the existence of both that are neither sexist nor racist...
Regardless, that certainly does not mean either should reinforce racial/gender norms...
Thanks for bringing attention to this. I agree, the whole "get back to legacy" thing by eliminating all things feminine is just weird.
It's troubling that the VP of Student Services acknowledges that the way someone dresses doesn't dictate someone's character, but all the same...they're still going for the dress code. And academic suspension? Really? Even if they don't actually enforce it, the idea that someone *could* be punished for wearing "feminine" clothing is seriously unsettling, to say the least.
So, black men, with all the struggles they face because of their race, are now being criticized for wishing to look more professional as to have better opportunities?
This is not just eliminating "all things feminine," but also eliminating clothes that are often times associated with black youth cultures. An examination of this story without looking into the racial factor is just, quite frankly, intellectually lazy.
If requiring a certain dress code, and eliminating certain clothings, means young men will stop shooting at one another over silly stuff, then by God, we ought to be able to support that legislation. Not everything marginalized men do is meant as an attack on women.
"If requiring a certain dress code, and eliminating certain clothings, means young men will stop shooting at one another over silly stuff, then by God, we ought to be able to support that legislation."
I'm sorry....what? Shrot answer: stopping violence among black males isn't going to dissapear just because we change the clothing. There are a variety of factors that will have to be worked on in order for this to work. Examples being: environment, resources, psychology, how black people view their community, black history, etc. The list goes on. I think it's incredibly superficial, and yes, intellectually lazy, to think that clothes are going to somehow something as deep, and ingrained as this.
But clothing defines young, African-American males' masculinity (it's among the factors), and if telling young men to dress in a certain way, as to not get into arguments about alpha-male and king-of-the-hill status, will stop them from killing one another, then it' a solution we ought to explore.
The fact is the poverty, as well as violence, within African-American communities are a result of many things, masculinity being among them. Many young, African-American males feel the need to assert masculinity because of society's prejudices against them, making them feel less "manly" for not being able to meet certain expectations of them.
If changing their clothes will mean that society looks at them differently and more professionally, and thus they will get a chance to rise above in society, then it's something we should be exploring.
I am not saying changing their clothes will be the silver bullet to solving the problem of violence within said community, but it's the first step of many, to rid a culture of hypermasculinity that plagues them.
What I find troubling, however, is that rather than engaging in conversations and solutions about race and how African-American view themselves through their skin color and gender - as well as how the rest of America views them - we're condeming them for not being feminist enough.
Sometimes, we have to stop passing the buck. Perhaps the problem here isn't African-American men themselves, as a gender and race, but rather, how we as a society look at them.
"This is not just eliminating "all things feminine," but also eliminating clothes that are often times associated with black youth cultures."
Fair enough. But it is *also* eliminating "all things feminine." And, sorry, I don't know of any "black youth cultures" that use feminine clothes for their "colors." So, really, the issues are conceptually and practically distinct, and a dress code that addresses the problems which clearly - and rightly! - concern you NEED NOT ALSO sweep in the issue of men who wear feminine clothing. The whole "gang violence" issue, *whether or not it will be ameliorated by a dress code*, is a red herring insofar as men-wearing-feminine-clothing is concerned.
"What I find troubling, however, is that rather than engaging in conversations and solutions about race and how African-American view themselves through their skin color and gender - as well as how the rest of America views them - we're condeming them for not being feminist enough."
I don't see why you would find it troubling. If we can find solutions to one problem (gang violence) that don't exacerbate another (rigidity of gender roles/crossdressing-phobia), why not shoot for that? I mean, seriously?
"I don't know of any "black youth cultures" that use feminine clothes for their "colors.""
LOL! I agree. I have yet to see gangs wearing dresses, pumps and carrying purses.
I find it troubling because we're excluding race and other social factors in this situation, thereby simplifying it.
This is an opportunity for us to speak honestly about gender and race, and the specific challenges that a marginalized community - in this case the African-American community, faces.
There are deeper issues than just African-American men wishing not to be "feminine," or why they so desperately wish to cling on to and assert masculinity, sometimes at the expense of their partners - African-American women, who already face their own sets of challenges.
By looking at this as an attack on gender, we're doing two things: we, as feminists from different privileged cultures, are passing the buck, and not examining what our contributions are to the plight of African-American men, and by default, the women in their lives.
Further, we narrow ourselves to simply the issue of gender, yet do not include men in this conversation. Given that the majority of women's plights are contributed by men, isn't it time we examine how men's worldviews are shaped in all of this?
Social justices - to include sexism, is a cyclical effect. In this case, the injustices African-American face are, in turn, thrust upon their partners, and the cycle continues. It's high time we start examining how we contribute to their plights.
Marc --
I agree with you wholeheartedly that it would be anti-intellectual to not talk about race in this situation.
And I think I get the general spirit of your comments: there are a number of challenges facing young black males today and we should seek to support them rather than making feminist critiques of those supports.
However, I'm confused about how you interpret anything either in the comments or the original post as "excluding race".
As a black male, what I would like to see more of is the honest discussion of how to navigate race, gender, and sexuality more effectively in the black community. That cannot happen if the discussion starts with the idea that adding a feminist angle to the discussion is somehow detrimental. To the contrary, being a strong black male SHOULD include a feminist analysis of the intersection of race and gender.
Collins makes a very clear argument that to speak about black men as the leaders of the “black community” to the exclusion of black women is detrimental to everyone because the fates of the two are intimately bound up with one another. We cannot continue to engage in discourse that subtly assumes that black men are the leaders while black women are supposed to hold together families/communities or be our secretaries.
As to your other claim about violence, written as follows:
"...if telling young men to dress in a certain way, as to not get into arguments about alpha-male and king-of-the-hill status, will stop them from killing one another, then it' a solution we ought to explore."
I think you're making a bit of a leap here -- stopping violence among black males/communities is clearly important. However, that is not necessarily applicable to what’s going on at Morehouse -- while shootings have occurred around Morehouse's campus and involved students as victims, very, very rarely have students actually committed a murder.
As such, to say that black males in a college need a dress code to stop them from killing one another when there is no evidence of that occurring within this population strikes me as a very, very disturbing argument underpinned by a whole host of problematic assumptions.
Actually, violence in our community has it's roots in your race's 400 years of discrimination against our race.
Basically, Whites as a group shut African Americans as a group out of good jobs, decent housing, educational opportunities and many of the other good things in American life.
This drives some of the more marginalized African American young men to illegal businesses like narcotics distribution.
In illegal businesses, business disputes cannot be settled through lawsuits and the courts (because those businesses are illegal - and if you admit involvement in those businesses, you will go directly to jail) so they have to be settled violently in the streets.
This is the explanation for most of the street violence you see in African American communities (and, for that matter, among all persons involved in illegal businesses irregardless of race).
It's really that simple.
The solution is just as simple - pay us what you owe us.
That is, affirmative action with quotas (and no whining and blubbering about "reverse discrimination!") and reparations for slavery.
If we had 17% of all the good jobs and the college admissions in this country - as well as each and every one of us having the cash equivalent of 40 acres and a mule paid out to us - that would solve most of the problems in our community (problems that your race caused when your ancestors kidnapped and enslaved us - and when your ancestors chose to persecute and discriminate against us for these last 400 years).
Dude - don't blame me for slavery! I wasn't even there!
Seriously, though - I see some of your points. But the question is this: African-American women also engage in illegal activities because of their marginalization. Why aren't they killing one another on the streets.
So, yes, race is an important issue in this all - as I previously stated - but, let's not forget that gender and how young, African-American men are socialized also plays a great part in this.
Gregory, dude - just one more thing - if we're going to talk about race, as well as gender, can we please stop assuming everything is, no pun intended, black and white?
400 years ago "my race" didn't even know "your race" exist.
It's a minute point, but I wanted to make it, because it seems that at times, we talk about race and gender and only assume that there are just two of each.
I dont think gangs wear dresses. Were talking specifically about the no feminine clothes aspect. Also, in regards to culture there are some traditional African garb that look like American dresses. Are they supposed to omit that? What about kilts? Some African tribes even wear make-up.
How short-sighted. We can't make progress until we get past being stuck on gender. That's essentially the problem with many feminist sub-groups, especially the older generations and 2nd-wave feminists - they are stuck on gender and do not check their own privilege.
How the hell are we going to progress as a society if, in this case, we're only going to talk about gender?
I got news for you - screaming "African-American men hate you" isn't going to help.
I am a feminist, and a supporter of women - but I think it's time we all mature in our feminist and move on beyond our own paradigms. Isn't that what we're prescribing to others, anyhow?
What are you talking about? I didnt overlook race in my post. Read it. I mention how many African cultures wear what would look like skirts or dresses and some even wear make-up. Having a rule against this would mean they couldnt wear these kinds of clothes (embracing their authentic culture). Anyways, your argument rests on claiming that black people have to have certain articles of clothing omitted from their everyday wear (unlike many white people) because it has been associated with gangsta wear. Dresses, pumps and purses are not gangsta wear nor is there anything inherently bad about dresses or pumps, ect, nor are these traditionally associated with gangsta wear.The omitting of traditionally associated womens wear has no rational basis, but arises out of fear that association with traditional womens wear will undermine men because its been associated with women its been labeled weak. Often racists use their 'sloppy clothes' as an excuse for discrimninating against them, when it has nothing to do with it. Trying to change their clothes is projecting blame on Black Americans rather than on the racists.
Who are you to be lecturing us about privilege? A.) youre not black and B). you often react out of privilege all the time. Youre no expert to be lecturing us all about intersectionality. Being as this has to do exclusively with females other factors do not come into play. Your alarm is just a transparent cover for the fear that ironically arises out of fear of losing YOUR privilege. You fear that supposed feminization of men will weaken them and they'll lose their privilege.
I'm having trouble understanding why someone who presents as female would want to go to an ALL MALE school thereby sounding a blaring alarm that they are a male who presents as female. My understanding of transgendered people were that for the most part they want to be accepted as and identified as the gender in which they present. How does one do that by clawing their way into an all opposite sex school? It seems assbackwards to say the least.
I just don't see how this new dress code is an *attack* on any group considering it did not end and begin with a ban on the male students wearing "traditional" female clothing. They are all being equally silenced in their preference for comfort clothing or expression to show ONE unified image of Moorehouse men. A lot of men express themselves and identify with certain cultures that are displayed via their choice of clothing.
You can still be a man and wear a dress. The two are not opposing. I am not a female because of the clothes I wear anymore than a male is a male because of the clothes he wears. You dont have schools telling females to not wear pants but you do mens. Why? Because it is considered okay to follow the supposed superior's dress code and mannersisms but for a male to wear anything traditionally associated with females he is stepping down. Also, many cultures in Africa wear what to us would look like dresses. Also, some wear make-up.
Lol, nice way to turn a double standard around to make it all about women. Feminists.
?
Troll.
?
Troll.
I have no problem with the polict in the code that says that the students have to wear thier pants above their waist, because should look presentable. However, I do have a problem with the feminine clothing, because it further perepetuates homophobia in the black community, which I think is the real issue here.
-Nikki-
First of all, Morehouse is a private college, with the right to impose any dress code they choose.
Second, I'm really sick and tired of White folks blaming all of America's homophobia on African Americans!
The Mormon Church, the Catholic Church and the evangelical churches are the main sources of homophobia in this country - and those are all White dominated institutions
You mean to tell me Baptist churches in the deep South aren't homophobic? Or that the reason African-American women are among the highest group with HIV because their lovers are on the "down low" isn't because of the African-American commnunity's negative attitude toward homosexuality?
The African-American community surely isn't the only group that perpeptuates homophobia, but it's not guilt free, either.
If you want to talk about race, let's talk about it honestly.
I'm not here to debate the homophobia in the black community, however "The DOWN LOW" phenomena (HYPE) has not stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny and it's role remains unclear.
Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2108724/) has a really good article on the latest understandings of HIV in the AA communities, and in particular women's rates of infection.
The thinking is that gender imbalance of reproductive age folks and the sheer number of men moving in and out of the prison system as being the key factors in behavior shifts that have lead to disproportionate rates of HIV infection in some AA communities. Of course there's poverty, education and heath care access as well.
from the article:
A fascinating CDC study published last year specifically looked at men who have sex with men and do not disclose their sexual orientation versus those who do disclose. The study recruited participants from only six gay bars (which already tilts the results away from DL men who may not go to gay bars), but the findings were startling. More black men were nondisclosers (18 percent)—that is, on the DL—than white men (8 percent), and all nondisclosures reported having more sex with women than with men. But nondisclosers of all races were also less likely to be infected with HIV than disclosers, and black nondisclosers in particular reported significantly less unprotected anal intercourse with men than did black disclosers. Several other recent studies have found higher proportions of bisexual black men than white men, but it's unclear whether how much of an HIV "bridge" they are to black women.
Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, suggests, rather, that the single biggest driver of the heterosexual spread to black women is the incarceration of black men. "The prison industry in America is an almost exact replication of the mining industry in South Africa, where you take large groups of men and move them from their families for an extended period of time," says Wilson. As studies conducted in South Africa have shown, men who leave their homes for the mines often have new sexual partners—as do the women they leave behind. The increased sexual mixing spreads HIV in both the migrant men and their regular partners. When they return home, the men may infect their regular partners—or vice versa. This pattern of sexual networking is called concurrent partnering, which means that relationships overlap, and there's nothing that HIV likes more.
Wilson and others argue that with so many men cycling in and out of the African American community, women end up at a greater risk because of similar disruptions of sexual networks and the resultant concurrency patterns: They mix with new partners when their men leave and often reunite with them when they are released. Incarceration also exposes many men to anal sex, whether by coercion or choice, and injection-drug use, the two most efficient ways to spread HIV. And if the locked-up man was the main wage earner, poverty can be a factor, too.
One superb study of concurrency in African Americans in rural North Carolina found that 53 percent of the men and 31 percent of the women reported concurrent partners during the preceding five years. Interestingly, 80 percent of the men in the study who said they had been incarcerated for more than 24 hours reported having had concurrent partners within five years; that percentage plummeted to 43 percent if a man had not been locked up for a day or longer.