Where Else Could That Ever Happen? The Reproduction of Heteronormative Masculinity on a Catholic College Campus

Personal Reflexive Statement

I graduated from college in 2012 with a degree in sociology. Much like Brookfield College, my college is affiliated with the Catholic Church, which deepened my interest in student culture at such institutions. During the time I conducted this research, I was codirector of my college’s gender equity center. In this position, I led student responses to hate crimes on campus, held meetings and campus events on gender equity and social justice, and led a campaign that successfully advocated for the addition of sexual orientation to the college’s nondiscrimination statement. These experiences informed my research and shaped my interest in this work. Following graduation, I completed a year of service with a Boston-based nonprofit, teaching peacemaking through social emotional learning and service learning in two Boston elementary schools and I continue to work in the field of education.

Order of Events: Opening Number (I need some hot stuff, baby, this evening, I need some hot stuff baby, tonight.), Beachwear Competition (Look out, Baywatch!) Talent Competition (Full Monty?) Formalwear Competition (Monkey suits? Why not birthday suits?) Interview (I plead the fifth) Crowning of Mr. Brookfield (Isn’t he lovely?) *Please do NOT rush the stage* (Mr. Brookfield Program 1999).

Since 1998, Brookfield College, a small private Catholic college in New England, has held a men’s beauty pageant in which 8 to 12 students first audition to be in the show and then vie on the night of the competition to win the title of “Mr. Brookfield,” as voted by a panel of judges that often includes faculty, staff, students, and administrators. This event is well attended, with close to 1,000 students or nearly half the student population, arriving up to an hour beforehand to watch the show (Campus Newspaper 2004). As one of the college’s best attended events, the spectacle is a critical site for articulating the messages about what it means to fit in at Brookfield and, in particular, perpetuating heteronormative masculinity on campus. Performances include highly sexualized elements such as jokes about sexuality and scantily clad contestants to elicit laughter from the audience. Furthermore, the widely known competition is often used to promote other events on campus with the promise of the Mr. Brookfield contestants being there. This relies on the popularity of Mr. Brookfield and emphasizes the student culture of drinking and (heterosexual) sex that goes hand in hand with the pageant.

Performance is an important aspect of any culture—as seen on this college campus, it can promote solidarity, celebrate shared identity, and reinforce who we are as a group of people. Within the context of a college, these features of performance are amplified by the proximity that students have to each other, by the heightened sense of college as a time and place to construct meaningful personal identity, and by the ways in which these performances can spill over into all other aspects of life. In regard to the Mr. Brookfield event, solidarity is both an aspect of performance—the solidarity between the contestants—and the outcome of performance—the solidarity between students (particularly men) on campus.

Heteronormative masculinity is constructed and reinforced through the Mr. Brookfield pageant. One student I spoke with described the stereotype of men on campus as “alcoholic, blonde, muscular. [They] sleep with all the girls [and] take school lightly.” The event’s marketing and presentation to students underscores the importance of heteronormative masculinity on campus through routine, frequent references to pop culture. This frame of reference allows the specific content of the event to change over the years while ensuring that the pageant consistently promotes heteronormative masculinity as the ideal men’s identity within Brookfield’s culture. In this context, the event becomes a sacred space, as the competition and its winner take on a symbolic and glamorized significance within the student culture.

Mr. Brookfield has significant implications for gender and sexuality at Brookfield because it promotes the degradation of women through both the event itself and the ways in which it is endorsed and discussed in campus media. The event relies on the objectification and domination of women, who are presented as escorts, as a way of advertising the event; and are sometimes even featured prominently within an act. They do not compete in the pageant but rather are used as a means of proving the contestants’ masculinity, power, and heterosexuality.

The marginalization and lack of visibility of women and the gay community are significant issues at Brookfield, amplified by policies informed by the school’s Catholic affiliation. While these are societal issues that permeate the outside world as well as campus life, I argue that the institutional forces at Brookfield further negate the validity and agency of women and gay people on campus and that the pageant has become an important way of maintaining the power associated with heteronormative masculinity and discouraging dissent among students.

Literature Review

Method

This research was conducted through an analysis of the media in which the Mr. Brookfield pageant is advertised, promoted, and discussed. Brookfield’s archival collection includes papers, articles, and photographs about the college’s history, including a collection of various Brookfield publications from the 1980s to present. Materials used for this research included 12 sources of media created for and about the program by students, such as programs from the event, articles in the student newspaper, archived notes from the planning of the event, flyers, and student e-mails sent through the e-mail listserv. All current students have access to the listserv through their Brookfield e-mail and can use it to communicate with their peers in a variety of ways. Uses of the student listserv vary from updates about club meetings to party invitations, seemingly trivial banter, and occasionally a political debate. Students receive about 20 to 30 listservs a day, and many more than that around popular events such as Mr. Brookfield. More recently, YouTube videos have become a way of recording and promoting the event, with musical performances in the pageant being recorded by students in the audience and uploaded to YouTube and Facebook. This analysis allowed for a historical sense of the progression of the event over the years, particularly in how it is advertised and presented to students, and the prevalence of this advertising within the student culture. Of all of the archived materials reviewed, none offered a critical analysis of the event, and none suggested that it had problematic connotations for gender, masculinity, or sexuality within student culture at Brookfield.

There were limited materials available for analysis, as some of the event programs from past years of the event were missing from the archival collection and there were few other “official” materials about the event available, other than articles featured in the campus newspaper. These parameters limited my analysis because there could be gaps in my understanding of the event. Since these materials provided very little explicit discussion of the meanings and reasons for the event and changes in the event, I analyzed these within the context of the student culture to draw conclusions about how Mr. Brookfield fits into the culture on campus. I acknowledge that in doing so, I may have inserted personal bias based on my own experiences. If there has been past resistance or critical analysis of the event, it is not surprising to me that this was not present in my findings, since it is likely that such resistance would not be popular opinion or publicly documented on campus. The college is given a pseudonym and the names of students are not used. Because of the efforts to maintain anonymity, some sources, such as newspaper articles and YouTube Videos that include the contestant’s name in the title, are not cited in detail, although the general source of the quote (newspaper, program, etc.) is given. Additionally, several other distinguishing factors have been changed. This article does not intend to deny the agency of the people working for change or the possibility for a more inclusive college campus, but rather is an acknowledgment of the cultural parameters and institutional policies that may limit how change can occur.

Campus Culture and the Evolution of Mr. Brookfield

Brookfield College is a small Catholic undergraduate college in the Northeast. Founded in the 1940s as a men’s college, Brookfield began to accept women in the 1950s to avoid closure due to low enrollment (Brookfield College Website 2012). Over more than 60 years later, the gender balance at the college has shifted. By 2011 to 2012, there were about 2,500 students enrolled, including 1,500 women and 1,000 men (Brookfield Quick Facts Sheet 2011-2012). Given these changes in enrollment, events such as Mr. Brookfield continue to emphasize the focus on masculinity within the student culture which becomes particularly important, as the student body has an increasingly higher ratio of women to men.

In order to understand the significance of the Mr. Brookfield event, it is important to recognize the gender-based conflicts that are a part of the cultural context in which the performance takes place. There is a prevalence of sexual assaults on campus, in addition to racial and homophobic “incidents of bias.” In terms of a gender breakdown, both sexual assaults and incidents of bias are more likely to be committed by men than women (Sociology Project YouTube Video 2011). Both the bias incidents and the sexual assaults are thought to be underreported, and although the college has issued official statements saying that such behavior is not fitting with the college’s mission statement, the issue of inaction among students, faculty, staff, and administration remains a relevant one.

The college’s nondiscrimination statement has historically not prohibited discrimination against faculty, staff, or students based on sexual orientation. The Catholic affiliation of the college likely has something to do with this. This perpetuates a culture of fear among students, faculty, and staff, as some people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) choose to not be out, or choose to leave Brookfield. Although there is a supportive subculture among students, faculty, and staff, the overarching policies and culture of the school seem to create a sense of tension. Some students, faculty, and staff challenge the dominant culture and policies by being out, by promoting programming to support the LGBTQ population on campus, and by responding to hate crimes, all of which suggest a possibility for further change.

In 1998, students, faculty, and staff confronted the school about the nondiscrimination statement and they have continued to do so in subsequent years, to no avail. In response to the concerns raised in 1998, the college issued a letter entitled “The Spirit of Inclusion,” which was modeled after a similar letter issued the year prior at Notre Dame and which sought to uphold a safe and supportive campus environment, while at the same time not extending policy changes to be inclusive of the LGBTQ community on campus. The letter states, in part: “We do not want civil courts to bring us into a future situation where the demands of the law would be in conflict with the Catholic faith-and-learning tradition in which the College was founded and in which it continues, in communion with the universal Church.” This indicates the degree to which the policies and viewpoints of the Church influence the daily life and culture on campus, despite attempts by both students and faculty to urge for a more inclusive community. In doing so, the college works to maintain an appearance of inclusion and nondiscrimination, while simultaneously not fully recognizing the LGBTQ community as legitimate.

In addition to the attempt to change the nondiscrimination statement, 1998 was the first year of the Mr. Brookfield performance. In this way, gender and sexuality were at the forefront of Brookfield’s culture during 1998, particularly in terms of recognizing marginalized groups. Interestingly, the first Mr. Brookfield event was markedly different from the more recent shows, particularly in terms of how it presented gender and sexuality. The changes in the event over the years may indicate changes in student culture or may reflect more effective marketing and event planning. I argue that although some cultural aspects have changed over the years, the Brookfield community continues to grapple with gender and sexuality, as evident through the ongoing activism and debate on campus about issues such as the inclusion of sexual orientation in the nondiscrimination statement, issues of sexual assault on campus, and the institution’s discouragement of the Vagina Monologues.

When the Mr. Brookfield event began in 1998, it was not nearly as popular as it is today, and it took a number of years for it to become a prominent part of the Brookfield culture, with changes being made in the performance over the years that may have helped to increase the popularity of the event. The event is now held in the Sports Complex, which has the capacity to hold several thousand people. Audience members pay US$5 to attend, and as they enter the event, spectators can stop at the team table of a contestant and pick up a life-sized picture of the contestant’s face on a popsicle stick, which they wave around to cheer on their contestant of choice during the performance.

While the archival documents that detail the planning of the performances do not include the reasons for the changes that have occurred over the years, one of the student organizers indicated after the first event in 1998 that she was not sure whether the show was popular among students and did not know whether students understood the purpose of the event (Mr. Brookfield Planning Notes 1998). Therefore, these changes in the event may have to do with tactics to make the event more popular among students, and, from the rise in popularity, seem to have worked, or at least to have been accepted. These changes show that the event went from being perhaps intended to be (at least partially) civically minded to one that focuses on masculinity, power, and men’s bodies.

Since the first year of the performance, one component of the pageant includes the student hosts of the show asking the contestant a question during the “formal wear” portion. While this has been a key aspect of the pageant since 1998, the substance of questions has changed drastically over the years. This portion has become an important way of marketing the show and drawing in an audience, as the questions are often included in the newspaper or the program, and the comical questions and answers are presumably an effective draw. In the 1998 performance, questions focused on critical issues about Brookfield’s culture, plans for improvements, and questions that raised issues of race and gender, such as “When you graduate, what will you have done to leave Brookfield a better place than when you arrived?” “What is the importance of ethnic diversity on campus?” and “What do you think are some major issues for women on the Brookfield College Campus and why?” (Mr. Brookfield Program 1998). In more recent years, the topics have been considerably less serious. Consider the campus newspaper’s coverage of this portion of the event in 2004, “he also captured the judges’ attention with his dancing skills and his answer to the final question, ‘What do you wish for as a superpower?’ (The contestant) answered he would like to fly, have nunchucks for hands and to have a voice that does not crack.” In 2009, a contestant was asked, “If you were a donut, what kind would you be and why?” (Mr. Brookfield Performance 2009). Clearly, these questions reflect a shift in the ideologies of the event. In 1998, this event included marketing certain moral and ideological values and promoting a certain image of Mr. Brookfield as a community leader because of his ability to think about and discuss the moral issues relevant to Brookfield. By 2011, there is an evident shift from philosophical and moral questions to superficial ones. While the winner of Mr. Brookfield is still considered a community leader, this is because of his ability to perform the ideal type of heteronormative masculinity, which includes comedic ability, his ability to “win” the attention of women, and ability to maintain popularity.

The beachwear portion of the performance demonstrates the ways in which heterosexuality and masculinity are reinforced, with the changes made over the years reflecting the importance of doing so in a way that pushes the boundary of what is considered appropriate. In the notes from the planning of the first performance in 1998, the beachwear segment was first written as “swimsuits,” but this was crossed out and replaced by “beachwear-shirts,” presumably with the intent that the contestants would not actually wear bathing suits and would not be topless. This has changed in subsequent years. The newspaper article on the 2004 event reads, “(the contestant), a psychology and elementary education double major, dazzled the crowd by wearing a coconut bra for his beachwear…” (Campus Newspaper 2004). In the 2011 performance, a contestant came onto stage during the beachwear portion with only a paper leaf covering his genitalia, presenting it as the theme of “Adam and Eve.” He won this portion of the show. In this sense, this event seems to no longer be either “bathing suit” or “beachwear,” but rather focused on getting a response from the audience, often accomplished by showing as much skin as possible. While there do not seem to be any official rules regarding the appearance or body type of the contestants, in recent years nearly all contestants were physically fit and of similar appearance and build. Occasionally, there would be a contestant who did not fit this body type; they would still be accepted by the audience and judges and would show off their body like other contestants. In this sense, the contestants do not have to be attractive; they just have to appear confident and willing to show off their body and in some cases use it to demonstrate domination over women. However, the winner of the pageant is always athletically built and fits the traditional “masculine” body stereotype.

While the use of sexualized men’s bodies is an important selling point of the pageant, I argue this has a different significance than the objectification of women’s bodies that is often associated with women’s beauty pageants. Because men’s bodies are portrayed in this pageant as being in a position of domination, they are not objectified in the ways that women’s bodies are. In fact, women’s bodies are used in the pageant primarily to assure the domination of men’s bodies, an idea explored further in a later section.

While Mr. Brookfield was not originally covered by the college media, the event eventually became institutionally sanctioned and popular among students, faculty, and staff. From 1998 through 2003, the event was not featured in the college’s student newspaper, but since 2004 it has been featured on the campus newspaper’s front page. Furthermore, the advertisements crossing into other events seemed to pick up steam in 2004, as the event became widely advertised through the student e-mail listserv. Over this period of years, it became more clear what “worked,” and what did not, in terms of getting people to attend the event and promoting its popularity and significance within Brookfield’s culture. What works is surface-level comedy, a heavy reliance on pop culture, sexually explicit content, and the promotion of all these concepts through campus media.

In recent years, videos of the performers are often posted on YouTube, and some receive nearly 1,000 hits. One of the most popular videos from the 2011 performance is a contestant’s song he wrote about his time at Brookfield and performed for the talent portion of the show. Lyrics include, “When I root for Brookfield, I’m wearing yellow and white, and when I’m rooting for them, I’m drinking keystone light” (Mr. Brookfield 2011), to wild cheers from the audience. He draws upon common experiences at Brookfield, from complaining about the distance to the parking lot to joking about parties. Later in the song, he sings, “Yes I am a super fan, I’m the number one Hawk, in my skintight yellow suit you see an outline of my…bicep,” as the audience roars with laughter. He sings about a night at a popular bar, “My phone is blowing up, because my friends are showing up, and there’s a kid who’s throwing up, but don’t worry we checked on him and he’s ok.” As he ends the song, he concludes about Brookfield, “It’s hands down the single best ever creation, a fifty grand a year non-inclusive vacation” (Mr. Brookfield 2011). The cheers and screaming from the audience solidifies the importance of the event as a way of promoting a unifying Brookfield experience, with frequent references to drinking and sexuality.

The Perpetuation of Heteronormative Masculinity

The Mr. Brookfield performance plays with the boundaries of “acceptable” gender performance, occasionally crossing this line for a comedic effect, but ultimately reinforcing heteronormative masculinity. One key mechanism for transgressing and sanctifying these boundaries is playing with the relationships between the contestants.

The Mr. Brookfield contestants frequently refer to being friends. One contestant summarized the event by saying “It comes down to 12 friends doing what they love to do, being themselves in front of tons of people, and acting like fools to make people laugh” (Campus Newspaper). In doing this, he reinforces the ideals that being Mr. Brookfield is built on. “(The contestant) said the first thing he did after winning was party with all the contestants. ‘The contestants are what make this,” (Campus Newspaper 2007:12). When asked, “What was your favorite aspect of competing this year?” One contestant responded, “Surprising 1,400+ people with the long-awaited return of my purple speedo. Where else could that ever happen? On a more serious note, sharing the stage with nine great friends was a true privilege and honor” (Campus Newspaper 2008). In this sense, the contestants themselves talk about the performance as a type of brotherhood, a way of creating and celebrating a bond with each other.

Every year, the contestants are asked why they want to be Mr. Brookfield or what they think it means to be Mr. Brookfield. Their answers are featured in the pageant program or the campus newspaper. Advertising answers before the performance underscores the significance of Mr. Brookfield as a community event and also provides a mechanism to build excitement among students.

Answers are remarkably similar from year to year, falling into four categories: a desire to be known or recognized on campus, a desire to represent Brookfield, a desire to make people laugh, or a desire to flaunt their appearance and sex appeal. While one could simply read these answers as comical and playing off the beauty pageant motif, I argue that when considered in the context of Brookfield’s culture, the answers all convey central truths about identity and heteronormative masculinity on campus.

One category includes the desire to be known and recognized. These contestants spoke of their desire to be popular and to be remembered, seeing the pageant as a way of making a mark on Brookfield. One contestant claimed, “It would be a great memory for me and also a great legacy to someday be carried out by my kids” (Mr. Brookfield program 1999). Another contestant said, “So that people will walk by me on campus and say, “There goes Mr. Brookfield, the coolest guy I’ve ever seen in my life” (Mr. Brookfield program 1999). These responses serve as way of reinforcing the status and popularity accorded to the contest winner. The winner becomes the face of Brookfield, a method of marketing an ideal form of heteronormative masculinity within the Brookfield culture.

Like the ideas promoted through the bicentennial celebrations analyzed by Spillman, this definition of masculinity is broad enough to allow the majority of Brookfield men to identify with it, and discourage dissent from this ideal. One student I spoke with had attended Mr. Brookfield with friends (both men and women) during her freshmen and sophomore years, prior to her involvement with the gender equity center. She reflected that she had felt “uncomfortable” during parts of the pageant but at the time was unsure why. She reported that she and the friends she attended with, most of whom now identify as queer, all identified as straight or were not out at the time they attended. She said that the event promoted a sense of community that they found appealing. She reflected that the sexism and homophobia were just hidden enough for her to pretend that it was not there, which made it easier to feel included in the excitement around the event and included on campus in general.

A second category includes the desire to represent Brookfield. These contestants spoke of the ways that they symbolize the best of Brookfield, and should therefore serve as an icon for it. One contestant said, “I want to be Mr. Brookfield because I feel like I would be a good representation of what Brookfield should be. I love Brookfield very much and would be honored to represent this fine institution…” (Mr. Brookfield program 1999). Another contestant explained, “I feel that my dedication to service and my love for the Brookfield community make me want to represent Brookfield as Mr. Brookfield. These are qualities that are very important to me, and that I feel are very necessary for anyone that would seek to understand Brookfield” (Mr. Brookfield Program 1999). This message reaffirms the centrality of the event to Brookfield culture and is a way of marketing the ideals of college and the ideals of Mr. Brookfield as one and the same.

A third reason for being Mr. Brookfield is to make people laugh and to entertain. One contestant said, “I did it last year, and I had so much fun. It is a great time to make a fool out of yourself. Hope you guys like the show” (Mr. Brookfield program 1999). Here, the contestants seem cognizant of the fact that the event allows for behavior not usually explicitly permitted at Brookfield. In this setting, contestants are encouraged and allowed to “make fools” of themselves. This provides an arena in which sexually explicit behaviors can be performed, celebrated, and reinforced. Another contestant explained, “One of my goals in life is to make a complete ass of myself. It keeps me humble. Plus, it’s fun. But it’s hard sometimes to find the right arena. This should be perfect” (Mr. Brookfield program 1999). Under the guise of making fools of themselves through behavior not explicitly condoned outside of the performance, the contestants perform and reaffirm the importance of heterosexuality and masculinity, and the audience readily receives this message.

A fourth reason that contestants give for wanting to be in the performance is to show off his good looks and sex appeal. A contestant quipped, “Because dancing on stage is good practice for my future job. Now get your money out, ladies” (Mr. Brookfield program 1999). Especially, considering the wide audience reached by the publication of their answers, all of these categories have to do with how the contestants want to view themselves and how they want others to view them. Another contestant stated, “I appreciate the opportunity to show off my talent, wit, and good looks to the Brookfield community” (1st Annual Mr. Brookfield Pageant Program 1998). Relevant to Kimmel’s (1994) definition of homophobia as a way of men claiming their masculinity, the explicit references to sexuality is a way of the contestants reinforcing their heterosexuality. Both of these men assume that the event is an effective way of demonstrating their sex appeal to the women in the audience. This speaks to the position of women in the pageant, which is not discussed as problematic by any of the contestants or any of the materials about the event. For the men who are contestants, getting up on stage and showing off their bodies and sexuality, in addition to their charisma and sense of humor, affirms their security in their masculinity. In the ultimate eschewing of all things deemed gay or feminine, they prove their power in their masculinity and heterosexuality.

The Role of Women

Relying on the idea that masculinity is socially constructed and can be reinforced by approaching the boundary between masculine and feminine within the arena of performance, examining the role of women in Mr. Brookfield is a crucial aspect of this analysis. Women do not participate in the event as contestants, and there is currently no equivalent event for women at Brookfield. This becomes particularly relevant when examining how the media covering Mr. Brookfield portrays women, or whether it includes them at all.

Women are featured in the show as “escorts” to the contestants during the formal wear portion. Contestants typically choose their girlfriend, a woman who is a close friend, or a relative such as their mother or sister. When a woman commented on a photo of the first event posted on Brookfield’s Facebook page, she asked, “Do women get to also participate?” (Brookfield College Facebook 2011). The administrator of the Brookfield page responded that women appear as escorts, and by saying this, solidified the college’s official stance on this by not addressing these gender performances as problematic. In addition to this, women are sometimes involved in dance routines on stage, in planning the choreography of the show, and occasionally even featured prominently in an act. For example, in 2011, a contestant had a woman sing the chorus of a song while he rapped the verses. Her experience and vocal ability far surpassed his, and although she got a lot of applause and cheering from the audience, it was the man, not the woman, who got the credit for this in terms of scoring (Brookfield State of Mind 2011). This affirms masculinity as the central spectacle of the event, while the presence of women serves merely to reinforce the binary between men and women and essentially make men look good, including giving the men credit for work done by women. In addition to the contestants always appearing with women as escorts at the end of the show, the gendered dynamics of this relationship is sometimes exaggerated by scripted performances by the contestants.

The men finally got fully dressed for the formalwear segment, donning tuxedos and strutting across stage with their female escorts. Senior [contestant] kept the crowd entertained by sending his escort out with another man, then “surprising” them from behind and taking out his competition with a cane to the back of the knees. Luckily, he didn’t need to resort to more violence to be chosen as the winner of the segment. (Campus Newspaper 2005)

By doing this, and by recapping the event in this way in the newspaper, the contestant performs his masculinity by “claiming” the woman as his own. Featured toward the end of the performance, the formal wear portion of the event presents the contestants accompanied by women as escorts, upholding the importance of heterosexual relationships and alleviating the homoerotic nature of the show.

Part of Mr. Brookfield’s incredible popularity seems to be reliant on its connection to pop culture. This ensures that the show is always current, relevant, and popular with students, while at the same time reinforcing and perpetuating a message about Brookfield. Socially constructed manhood is reinforced within the culture through both day-to-day occurrences and cultural rituals (Kimmel 1996). Many of these messages rely on explicit references to sex, particularly those derived from pop culture.

One way that the event is advertised is through e-mails sent by students to the entire student body on the e-mail listserv system. Sent by students involved in the show, usually the person coordinating the event, the listserv titles largely draw on references to pop culture, particularly current rap songs, often with very sexualized, degrading, and sexist lyrics and messages. The success of this assumes that most students have a shared knowledge of these cultural texts and that they make the connection between the words in the title of the e-mail and the song that it references. Listserv titles are frequently written in all capital letters and include “TITTIES,” “MY HUMPS MY HUMPS MY LOVELY LADY LUMPS,” “I’M IN LOVE WITH A STRIPPER,” “ASS AND TITTIES,” and “SAN DIEGO: A WHALE’S VAGINA.” Interestingly, many of the titles reference women’s sexuality and body parts, despite the fact that the contestants are men and that the women are not allowed to participate as contestants. This reinforces that women are presented in men’s beauty pageants as sexualized objects and prizes (Pascoe 2007). Furthermore, the performances themselves have come to revolve around whatever theme, movie, or song is popular among the college student demographic at the time, usually with a focus on drinking and sex. Past Mr. Brookfield themes include the 2009 film The Hangover and the television series “The Bachelor.”

It is important to consider the larger hypermasculine and heteronormative environment in which Mr. Brookfield occurs. At the same time that this gendered event has become one of the college’s most popular and institutionally sanctioned events, Brookfield College has discouraged the performance of the Vagina Monologues, a play written by Eve Ensler to raise awareness about issues of sexual identity, sexual assault, and gender-based violence. Although the Vagina Monologues were initially held on campus in 2004, and the event was well received by many students and administrators on campus, there was pushback from Catholic groups outside of the school and the performance has not been held again in subsequent years, with specific critique in reference to women’s orgasms and gayness. One student leader of the event in 2004 summarized, “I thought the Vagina Monologues wasn’t going to be received very well by the campus. Some people didn’t want any part even though they didn’t know what it was about. I had no idea we’d receive the response we did when we performed” (Campus Newspaper 2004). Despite an acknowledgment of the play as “controversial,” one administrator spoke in support of the event, “I thought about it and decided to support these students who were attempting to offer a program that would promote critical discussion of important issues and raise money for a good cause” (Campus Newspaper 2004). Despite this show of on-campus support, the event has not been held in subsequent years, perhaps because of the pushback from Catholic groups. One Catholic group dedicated to monitoring the religious atmosphere at Catholic colleges spoke out against the Vagina Monologues on college campuses, altering and reducing the message of the show to the summary “students and faculty on campuses worldwide take to the stage chanting obscenities, telling tales of lesbian activity and masturbation” (Free Republic 2006). While unclear whether the performance is officially prohibited, it is openly discouraged on campus, to the point where current students hold “underground” versions of the event and travel to other campuses to attend and perform the Monologues.

While the Vagina Monologues remain controversial and discouraged, The Mr. Brookfield event continues to be institutionally supported and celebrated, and includes explicit references to both sexual performance and homosexuality. This suggests that Mr. Brookfield gets the institutional and campus support that the Vagina Monologues does not because of the specific ways that Mr. Brookfield presents sexuality, particularly homosexuality, and ultimately celebrates and reinforces heterosexuality and masculinity. In the event, women are used primarily to demonstrate the power and heterosexuality of the men who are contestants, which is a crucial aspect of the heteronormative masculinity that the pageant reproduces. While masculinity is constructed through the contestants’ interaction with each other, the presence (and marginalization of) women is crucial to alleviate the homoerotic aspects of the show and ensure that the men are seen as masculine and heterosexual.

The Implications of Heteronormative Masculinity on a Catholic College Campus

The literature about the climate for LGBTQ populations on college campuses, particularly in terms of how it is constructed and the institutional and personal implications this has for students, is an underexplored field. As one source points out, “RAIS (religiously affiliated institutions)—indeed all colleges and universities—exist within a societal culture that is homophobic and heterosexist” (Love 1997:381). That is to say, that all institutions struggle, to some extent, with issues of gender and sexuality. However, particular attention needs to be paid to religious institutions because existing research and literature often does not consider the institutional restrictions that such colleges face as a result of religious doctrines.

In a time where Catholic colleges are being called upon to add sexual orientation to their nondiscrimination statements, to offer benefits to faculty and staff with same-sex partners (particularly since the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act), and to make the student culture one that is more accepting and inclusive, Catholic institutions have reached a fascinating time of tension between “traditional” Catholic identity and social pressure to accept more progressive and inclusive stances.

While some colleges are very clear in what their religious affiliation means on campus and maintains strict rules against same-sex relationships and premarital sex, and other colleges fall at the other end of the spectrum by becoming more secularized and having laypeople as presidents, much of the tension between religious identity and social expectations are found at the schools that fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. As Estrada (2004:58) states, “These institutions that fall in the middle, however, must deal with questions about their religious identity every day. These are universities that ‘attempt to hold on to a serious commitment to the Church while simultaneously striving for academic excellence.’” I question what role the institutionally sanctioned event Mr. Brookfield has in maintaining or disrupting this tension.

Love’s article suggests the difficulty of shifting the culture on college campuses, and he outlines seven ways in which he thinks it can be done. He then rules out six of the seven as being viable options for Catholic schools, since they would require a degree of buy-in and support from institutional leaders. Given that the presidents of Catholic colleges are usually priests, and that they are overseen by religious orders, local bishops, and ultimately the Vatican, for Love (1997:395) the only way to change the culture is “to use conflict in creative ways to highlight the difference between espoused and enacted values.” Since many Catholic colleges emphasize the importance of educating “the whole person” and “care for the individual,” calling attention to the contradictions between these values and what is actually taking place on campus (in terms of both policy and cultural phenomena) is one way (and perhaps the only way) to create change.

As the event is increasingly celebrated, the winner of Mr. Brookfield becomes a living symbol of popularity, success, and what it means to “fit in” on campus. This speaks to Kaufman’s (2000:501) point that masculinity “exists as an ideology, it exists as scripted behavior, it exists within gendered relationships.” When examining the media that portray the Mr. Brookfield event, it becomes evident that the pageant promotes a certain ideal of who is popular at Brookfield and how this popularity is gained. In this sense, Mr. Brookfield becomes a brand in and of itself, despite the fact that it is only relevant on campus and it does not seem to hold weight outside of the confines of Brookfield.

When inquiring at the Brookfield library about the archives of the student newspaper to research the event in past years, I was told by the reference librarian, “You won’t have to look far. It will always be on the front page.” Indeed, in years 2004 to 2011, the event is featured on the newspaper’s front page, and sometimes there are additional stories or features on the event throughout the issue. Additionally, Brookfield promotes the event through its website and Facebook page, including photos of current and past events.

For the 2008 Mr. Brookfield event, the organizers distributed free calendars featuring the contestants. Many of the images featured the men in seductive and sexualized poses, such as laying in a bed of roses in such a way that the contestant appears to be naked. Other images include a shirtless contestant dripping with water and holding a bouquet of flowers, a contestant sprawled across a pool table, and a contestant sitting at a desk studying without a shirt on (Mr. Brookfield Calendar 2008). Products such as this demonstrate the type of images that are constructed and consumed, particularly because of the sexualized context of these messages.

The event is spoken of highly within the student culture, and is rarely, if ever, presented as problematic in terms of the messages it sends about gender and sexuality. The front page of the newspaper recounts:

Over one thousand students attended the annual crowning of Mr. Brookfield on Saturday, November 13, in the sports complex. Twelve contestants participated in the event, which is considered one of the most popular on campus, but it was [a] senior [contestant] who clinched the crown…. (Campus Newspaper 2004)

The way that the event is reported on and the things that audience members have to say about the event send the same message about the popularity of both the performance and the contestants, with one article quoting an audience member, “‘My heart was palpitating the entire time those hotties were up there,’ said [a] sophomore student” (Campus Newspaper 2005). Because the same message is sent by audience members, contestants, and the media, the event solidifies what it means to fit in within the Brookfield culture.

Both contestants and audience members speak of the event in the same way, highlighting the charm and charisma of the contestants, lauding their sex appeal, comedic ability, and fun loving nature. One newspaper article offers, “Other contests [sic], who describe themselves as being ‘kind of a big deal’ included seniors…” (Campus Newspaper 2004) In addition, the winner often speaks of their win in terms of the prestige and awe they feel, as if he won a contest that has significant implications. “It was utter, utter shock. I’m still in shock. You don’t go in there looking to win it. I can’t believe it. I really can’t” (Campus Newspaper 2010). In doing so, he reinforces the concept of the pageant as something to be lauded by all members of the community.

The event allows a certain amount of celebrity status and, when it is advertised, emphasizes that people want to be, be like, or know Mr. Brookfield. One campus newspaper article quips, “Being given the infamous title of ‘Mr. Brookfield’ here on campus has its advantages, but the winners insist they aren’t going to let it go to their heads” (Campus Newspaper 2005). This message is consistently conveyed by both the contestants and the audience members. Despite the contestants speaking (perhaps with the intent of being funny) of gaining work experience and credibility with potential love interests, participating in the show has little significance beyond campus. Yet within Brookfield, it has significant power as a symbol of popularity, and for this reason, it is used as advertising tool to advertise other events, ranging from the dance show to the cocktail party for the senior class and faculty members, with an e-mail that a student sent to the entire student body to advertise the cocktail party titled “WANNA GET AS DRUNK AS YOU DID AFTER MR. BROOKFIELD?????,” despite the fact that the cocktail party had no formal connection to Mr. Brookfield. This suggests that in a certain sense, many things at Brookfield are connected to the Mr. Brookfield pageant because it has to fit in to the ideals constructed and promoted through the event. The Mr. Brookfield pageant has significant implication for the student culture in which it takes place. When considering the gendered elements of a college campus with a number of sexual assaults and “incidents of bias” committed by men as well the feelings of homophobia and exclusion, the event becomes an important way of constructing and performing heteronormative masculinity. As evident through the ways in which the event is advertised and publicized, the role of masculinity is reinforced and upheld through the construction of men’s relationships, which revolve around a specific socially constructed men’s identity. Furthermore, the pageant allows for the degradation of women throughout the event by presenting them as objects and prizes, as their presence is a way of demonstrating the masculinity and heterosexuality of the contestants. The sexualizing of men’s bodies is markedly different from the sexualizing of women’s bodies, in that men’s bodies are sexualized in order to prove their dominance over women’s bodies and their power in being straight. The spectacle of Mr. Brookfield is central to the campus community because it celebrates the normative gender and sexuality roles within the culture, ensures that they permeate all aspects of campus life, and discourages divergence from these norms.

Mr. Brookfield functions as a way of reproducing heteronormative masculinity within a specific institutional setting of a small Catholic college. Rather than acting out various types of masculinities, the event ensures that men at Brookfield find a way to incorporate the same form of masculinity, as embodied by the emblem of Mr. Brookfield, into their own identity. My findings support and expand on the work of Pascoe, in that masculinity is both socially and institutionally constructed and is not just something that men’s bodies do. Pascoe’s findings in high schools seem to also extend into a college setting, as these institutions can function to reproduce dominant masculinities. There is a need for additional research on this topic and because this study was limited to one institution, it would be interesting to know how religiously affiliated colleges and secular college compare or differ. The pageant is an arena where social interactions and performances not typically overtly allowed in daily life (such as the objectification of women, the homophobic/homoerotic paradigm, and the power of men’s bodies) are presented, lauded, and endorsed by the entire campus community, ensuring that they continue to be an accepted and normative aspect of campus life. Although not all students buy into or participate in the sexist and heterosexist practices of the pageant and the college as a whole, the lack of public critique and dissent seems to make it difficult for students to feel like they can actively “opt out” of the event and of the dominant campus culture.

The quote used in the title of this article is not to suggest that heteronormative masculinity cannot be produced in other settings, but rather that the institutional context of the college (and, by connection, its religious affiliation) shapes the way in which gender performance happens at Brookfield. While the contestant quoted in the title is aware of the pageant as an arena for performing things that are not overtly allowed on a daily basis, exclaiming “Where else could that ever happen?” could be interpreted in several ways. Not only can this behavior happen only during the pageant; additionally, this pageant can only happen in the way that it does within this specific setting. The ways in which masculinity is conceptualized is specific to the setting of the college. The ways in which the pageant takes on meaning to the campus community happens within a context of sexism, homophobia, and patriarchal norms on campus, which are endorsed and perpetuated by the policies and teachings of the Church.

The Brookfield community needs to think critically about the implications the Mr. Brookfield pageant has for the campus community. Performance can also be an avenue toward social action and change, and it is my hope that students are able to reclaim and reinterpret the event as a celebration of all sexualities and identities. Perhaps if students take the lead on creating the kind of campus culture that is inclusive of all people, the policy changes will follow.