Unpacking Masculinity Among STEM Students With Minoritized Identities of Sexuality and Gender (MIoSG)

• In Event: Reconstructing Postsecondary STEM as an Equitable Educational System for Queer and Trans* Justice

Abstract

While decades of literature point to the internal and outward impacts of masculinity on students’ experiences in STEM (e.g. El-Hout et al., , 2021; Simon et al., 2017), studies focusing on students who hold minoritized identities of sexuality and gender (MIoSG) and who also hold a masculine identity are rare. This study reveals complex collegiate navigations among STEM students who hold both a masculine identity of privilege but are still marginalized by their gender and/or sexual identity.

Constructivist grounded theory (GT) methods (Charmaz, 2014) were used to explore how STEM students with MIoSG experience and navigated campus learning environments and their disciplines/fields. The study included interviews from 56 STEM students with MIoSG, but this paper focuses on 28 participants who identified as masculine or masculine-leaning. Through GT constant comparative analysis (Charmaz, 2014), we uncovered a nuanced picture of STEM masculinity and deeper understandings of the ways hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) impacted participant navigation through STEM. Emergent GT categories led to theorizing that highlights how past and present socialization perpetuates the complex and oppressive gender[ing] of STEM collegiate environments as well as student navigations through those spaces.

Students often used their proximity to masculinity and the over-representation of men in STEM to ‘cover’ their marginalized (sexual and/or gender) identities. Rowan, who identifies as man, used his cisgender identity to protect himself from a potential loss of privilege, “I guess being cisgendered has given me the advantage to not be discriminated against, because I'm also very masculine...I don't want to lose some kind of privilege because they might have a problem with me being gay.” Other students used their STEM degree to promote a masculine identity. Cole, who identifies as a transgender man, spoke to how he chose engineering to prove his masculinity, “... I want to prove that I'm not a female...sometimes I'm not sure if I really like it [engineering]...[but] I want to show people... I'm a man”. While some students promoted a masculine identity to keep privilege or be seen as a man, other students used masculinity to pass in situations that may be unsafe. Zane, who identifies as male, discussed how he used traits purportedly associated with masculinity to pass as straight in “situations where [he] might feel unsafe because of [his] identity...or somewhere that [his] identity is not as represented as it could be.” Given that students with MIoSG are not well represented in the STEM fields, this may leave students like Zane attempting to pass for the majority of their STEM careers, which has shown to cause high levels of stress and mental health conditions (Cech & Pham, 2017).

This research adds to the small body of literature seeking to understand the power and nuance of hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) on students holding MIoSG in STEM. Our paper will offer educational institutions strategies for addressing complex, intersecting systems of oppression and creating environments in which all students (especially MIoSG) feel supported and thrive.

Authors

• Desiree L. Forsythe, University of Rhode Island

• Annemarie Vaccaro, University of Rhode Island

• Rachel Friedensen, St Cloud State University

• Shawn Knight

• Ryan Miller, University of North Carolina - Charlotte

• Ezekiel Kimball, University of Massachusetts - Amherst

• Rachael Forester, University of North Carolina - Charlotte