Living in a society where conformity is synonymous for our comfort zone, it can be hard for one not to abide by what society expects of them, often by fear of humiliation or exclusion. As perfectly explained by Kilamrtin, “Boys and men are taught to be competitive with one another, but the establishment of intimacy rests partly on revealing one’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities to another.” (Kilmartin 165). The establishment of intimacy is done with people of trust ranging from family, to longtime friends. This being said, when dealing with large groups of strangers or acquaintances such as the hockey community or schools, the feeling of wanting to “fit in” is often a lot more present and so consequently, individuals will discourage their initial perceptions in correlation to the group’s reaction. This often leads to ever growing issues protected by social interpretation. The process by which institutions such as the education system or the NHL overlook the impact of specific issues such as school violence or fighting in hockey will be thoroughly examined. Precisely, why such powerful institutions gravitate away from the ideal of transparency at the expense of their reputation.
As described in the CBC documentary on school violence, students and their parents are kept clueless as to what happens when incidents occur within school boundaries. During the documentary, a mother explains her daughter’s incident on a school bus. When asked whether parents of the other children had received a notice of potential danger on the bus, she answered that no notices had been sent out, that “They just didn’t want to deal with it. They just wanted to sweep it under the rug.” (School Violence, CBC, 5:35). This lack of transparency is what causes the suspicion and curiosity into what these institutions might want to hide and ultimately makes people fear for their children’s safety. Independent research conducted by the CBC revealed that “students experience gender-based violence from a young age”. Evidence also proves that sexual harassment and assault are more often experienced by girls as opposed to boys which centers around bullying (Common, & Singh, CBC). For the education system to hide behind the redundant belief that “boys will be boys”, it’s reputation must be at great risk. How and why can they believe that transparency may harm their image? Another study was conducted in 2019 by the CBC on a sample of 4000 canadian students regarding experiences of assault in school. Results showed that 41% of boys claimed to have been sexually assaulted at high school, 26 percent of girls said yes to unwanted sexual contact and finally, 25% of students first experienced such kinds of assaults before grade 7 (Common, & Singh, 2019). These results are without a doubt shocking to anyone, but shouldn’t this information be well known by all of us who attend or send our children to school? The fact that this information is being kept secret is really no coincidence. If these statistics were commonly known, people would think twice about choosing the right school for their children, which to say the least, would not be very beneficial to the education system as a whole.
The issue of transparency is also present in the controversy surrounding the impact of hockey fights on athletes involved. For decades, the NHL community rose out of excitement to the fighting that takes place on the ice. Although this issue is similar in many ways to violence in schools, fighting in the NHL is surprisingly defended by thousands as being “necessary” in preventing more dramatic incidents to occur. Many well known advocates of the game such as Don Cherry call it “the code”, a code that supposedly makes the league “safer”. As Don Cherry explained in a CBC documentary, “…you don’t hit a guy when he’s down. No sucker punch. You fight with honour.” (McKeown, 2010). It seems as though the belief that men must be stoic and strong has evolved to new heights within the decades of hockey growth. But why must these athletes continue to risk their lives for the enjoyment of others? In his essay on masculinity, Micheal Kimmel explains this phenomenon as “Doing Gender” and states, “institutions accomplish the creation of gender differences and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes.”(Kimmel 3). Gender order refers to the socially constructed expectations between men and women in society which ultimately assigns roles or responsibilities to both in a gender biased manner. This suggests that while roughness and fighting is present in hockey, it is present because of how institutions have created and shaped our expectations of how men should behave. This doesn’t prove the point that fighting should remain in hockey, but allows us to understand why it is there, and why discussing the issue now is fundamental for possible change in the future. In the end, trying to overlook the serious impact that fighting has on athletes for the well being of a sport’s reputation is only a sign of guilt.
When looking at the institutional transparency problem through a substantially larger perspective, it becomes more and more obvious that this issue is everywhere and anywhere we look. This is because all social institutions’ foundations are largely based upon gender bias which assigns specific positions and responsibilities to both men and women in a very calculated way. For example, as Michael Kimmel explained in regards to the field of medicine, it is much easier for a male student to pursue his education with no interruption than it is for a woman and the burden that is to carry and raise a child whilst pursuing her education. Thus, it is fair to say that “such programs are designed for male doctors” (Kimmel, 3). Understanding the fundamentals of Kimmel’s example makes it much easier for one to understand how and why the expectations and responsibilities for the enforcers of the NHL are what they have become. For this same reason, the violence in schools is recurring because of how institutions choose to deal with the issues at hand, and because becoming transparent as to what really happens will only prove guilt. Finally, a boy with recurring acts of violence in school cannot be viewed as a lost cause because once given a label by society, similar to older offenders, individuals will live up to this label as an identity.
In the end, being transparent as to what really happens as well as its true consequences is needed when dealing with such a dilemma.. Yes “boys will be boys”, but why not act on the issue at hand as opposed to denying its existence? Not acknowledging their mistakes acts as a barrier to change. As Bruce Lee once said, “Mistakes are always forgivable if only one has the courage to admit them”.
Works Cited
Kimmel, M. (2000). Masculinity. Class readings.
Kilmartin, C. (1994) No man is an island: Men in relationships. Class readings.
McKeown, B. (2010). The Code. CBC News/MarketPlace. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/ fifth/episodes/2009-2010/the-code
Common, D., Singh, A., & Taylor, C. (2019) ‘I thought he was dead’: CBC survey reveals 4 in 10 boys are physically assaulted at school. CBC News/MarketPlace. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/school-violence-marketplace-1.5224865
SchoolViolence. (2019). School Violence: How to fight for safer schools. CBC MarketPlace.
https://gem.cbc.ca/media/marketplace/season-47/episode-4/38e815a-011d8f47088
Lovers and Fighters | Section 22 