There is an institutionalized violence between men that is unregulated and under reported. These incidents are usually brushed under the rug and not taken seriously because of the institution’s opinion of how these men should show their masculinity. Usually, the motto of ‘boys will be boys’ is a means of excusing violence, saying fighting is a natural part of boys being brought up. This theme exists in schools, teaching young impressionable boys a toxic view on masculinity.

In schools, children are exposed to violence at a very early age, and the lack of a proper response normalizes this behavior, therefore reinforcing the gender stereotype of male aggressiveness. Although both girls and boys are affected by bullying, they are generally subjected to different types; boys are most likely to face fighting, and while girls can also be victims of this, there is a clear division of violence showing that the majority of victims are men.

Since very young, children are bombarded with cultural notions of how to act in line with their gender, masculinity and femininity. There are harsh guidelines set in place to follow these gender norms, and taunts towards children for not following them is not only accepted, but encouraged: “[M]asculinity must be policed, defined as the use of insults and slurs to “encourage” boys and men to behave in ways that are more consistent with the cultural definition of masculinity”(Kilmartin, Christopher, and Andrew P. Smiler 6). Institutions like schools police boys into thinking violence is okay by using the phrase ‘boys will be boys’. 

Deborah David and Robert Brannon postulated that there are four primary characteristics to American masculinity. Among them, one is called Adventurousness and Aggressiveness (Kilmartin, Christopher, and Andrew P. Smiler 6). This characteristic talks about the physical risks a man takes and how he can become violent if necessary. In extreme cases, this characteristic can condone men’s violence. Since the heart of masculinity is antifeminity, it rejects emotions other than lust and anger. Because of this, boys grow up with an unhealthy way to express their emotions, which can bring about violence. When brought up in a way that promotes violence among boys, it is easy for society to brush off the issues of violence in schools that are brought up as boys simply being boys, which completely disregards the problem at hand. This can leave the victims of violence without help, and in extreme cases, the circumstances lead them to be unable to live their life as they did previously or continue their education.

Schools do not report these incidents of violence, which leads to the possibility for victims to be denied their right to education. In the CBC documentary “Violence in Schools”, schools are keeping secrets from staff, students and parents by hiding their number of cases of violence. Teachers and parents are asked about how many cases of violence they know their school had, and they had not heard of a single one, when in fact there were many cases. 

When CBC asks school boards to access their data, they are met with requests for money or refusals, justifying it through privacy (though CBC was not asking for names) or reputational risks. Schools are not doing enough to protect their children; they just want to protect themselves and their reputation. 

Teachers have a special power to be able to influence and mold children as they are people children spend most of their day with, a person of authority, as well as a role model. If a teacher has a certain mindset, it can easily be communicated to children. When the school does not take action to report violent behaviors, it is an indication that they are allowing problematic, violent behaviors to pass without consequence. By saying ‘boys will be boys’, they are normalizing this violence in boys, which is harmful not only to the victim of the violence, but also to the offender. The offender is taught that his actions are okay, and that he is acting like a man should. 

The statement also downplays the consequences the victim faces. In the documentary, a boy was punched and slammed into the ground, resulting in many injuries that affected his brain and hearing. These injuries hinder his ability to go through life as he once did and affect his education. The outcome of violent situations is many times very damaging, and excusing the offender’s behavior with a statement like ‘boys will be boys’ does nothing to help the victim. What people need is schools to acknowledge cases of violence to be able to prevent them in the future. All schools deal with violence, and if the schools accept that then there is no need for them to hide numbers. They can start creating an atmosphere for students that does not promote such a toxic view of masculinity as well as keep their students safe.

In conclusion, excusing violent behavior, like using the phrase ‘boys will be boys’, is a bad way to deal with violence. It focuses on the idea that men are violent by nature and there is nothing that can be done to teach them otherwise. However, this mindset only reinforces the negative stereotype of men, which keeps them locked in the man box, and does not offer an opportunity for reflection or growth. What can schools do to actively help boys who are affected by violence?

Works Cited 

“4k, A Concerned Teacher Talking to a Young Boy Teased at School. Slow Motion.” Shutterstock, http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-29205262-4k-concerned-teacher-talking-young-boy-teased.

“Dr. Janet Sasson Edgette.” Dr. Janet Sasson Edgette, janetedgette.com/2019/01/boys-will-be-boys-just-a-lousy-excuse-for-bad-behavior/.

Kilmartin, Christopher, and Andrew P. Smiler. “Defining Men’s Studies.” The Masculine Self, Cornwall On Hudson, NY, Sloan Publishing, 2019, pp. 1–7.

“Martech Today.” Martech Today, martechtoday.com/data-privacy-picking-lock-pandoras-box-193971.

“University of Minnesota Extension.” University of Minnesota Extension, extension.umn.edu/bullying-and-violence/bullying-big-problem-big-consequences.

“When Bullying Turns to Violence: Do Schools Know What’s Really Going on? (Marketplace).” When Bullying Turns to Violence: Do Schools Know What’s Really Going on? (Marketplace), CBC, 5 Oct. 2019, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9p-DAJZumg.

What I learned from the gendered experiences of both Indigenous and Muslim women is that the Quebec government has an ‘us versus them’ mentality towards non-caucasians, especially women.

In the talk about Indigenous women, the speakers Lucy and Jen connected the issues of climate change, pipelines and violence against women, and the issue became simple: the government does not actually care about the Indigenous community. The plans on the pipelines and oil sands did not have the consent of the Indigenous community, on which they would be invading their territory (their reserves) for the dirty process of oil extraction, which damages their way of life as well as their territory. In addition, the ‘man camps’ are often places of sexual assault of Indigenous women, who are statistically raped and murdered many times more frequently than women of other ethnicities. Through all this, it is clear that the message sent is that the opinion of Indigenous People’s does not matter to the government, nor does their health or safety.

Secondly, Nadia Naqvi explains how law 21 has affected her life and career. Since the government has itself passed a law based on the erasing of cultural and religious symbols, the (ignorant and unfortunately misinformed) citizens of Quebec will follow suite the ideologies portrayed through this racist law. The law prevents people who wear any religious symbols as a religious requirement working in the public sector. Under this law, Nadia cannot get promoted while her Caucasian colleagues can, solely because of the garment she wears on her head, the hijab. This is a discrimination enforced by the government, and she has faced other racist comments throughout her entire life as well.

These examples of oppression can connect to our course because we know that the systems put into place are gendered institutions. These institutions are not made for women to thrive or have their voice be heard. The Quebec government is acting exactly how the institutions do: oppressing women, not letting their voice be heard, and disregarding concern of their health, safety and livelihood.

.

1. Why are you close to your friend? Be specific.

“I’m close to him because I don’t really like a lot of people my age because they are really immature, but he’s not so it’s nice to be around him. We’re childhood friends so I’ve known him for a long time, around 7 years; he has a good personality and we have a good time together.”

2. What kinds of things do you like to do together?

“We don’t have to do anything big when we get together, like go to dinners or the amusement park every weekend. We can just chill at home and talk.”

3. Have you ever told your friend how much he means to you? If so, what did you say and how did he react? If you have never told him how much he means to you, why not?

“I haven’t, only because he already knows that I care about him and I don’t need to say it into words. If he didn’t know and he seemed like he needed to hear it, I would for sure tell him. I just haven’t because he already knows how I feel about him.”

In reference to the theories and ideas presented in “No Man Is an Island: Men in Relationships” by Christopher Kilmartin and Andrew P. Smiler, I can see that my friend has broken free of some of the stereotypical ways to behave around his friend. He does not abstain from speaking about his feelings about his friend, and would be ready to be vulnerable in a way of opening up and sharing feelings if his friend simply did not know, or seemed to need the reassurance that he had a friend who loved and cared about him very much.

Micheal Kimmel means that institutions such as a workplace or educational institute play a large role in gender identity, namely using the gendered jobs to reinforce the already established gender identity. For example, a job such as a secretary is usually performed by a woman, while the boss she serves is usually a male. The different characteristics of the jobs and the different experiences which the man and woman will have contribute to structured gender differences. I can relate this information to the fourth episode of “Man Enough” because one of the discussions in the film was how men could support female survivors of sexual abuse. Since much of the abuse takes place in the workplace, and since men predominantly have positions of power over women in the workplace, breaking the gendered institutions may result in less sexual assaults taking place.

Kimmel means that there is no singular ‘masculinity’; masculinity can vary based on different countries, cultures, time periods, and throughout the duration of someone’s life, but also in different individuals living in the same place at the same time. He prefers to use the plural term instead of the singular because it is ever-changing and the singular form cannot encompass all the meaning which the word holds. This information can be related to the discussion in the fourth episode of “Man Enough” because the hosts of the show are talking about breaking the traditional male stereotypes for a healthier self and relation with the world. For example, the thought of male predation on females is discussed as happening only because these males have the ‘consent’ of other males, who will not call out their behavior because of the ‘bro-code’. However, it is discussed that these thoughts need to be banished and it is important to stand up for the women and change this damaging stereotype.

I found that the way men want to be open about their feelings to their friends, but they are afraid of being judged. But the fact that almost every single guy is thinking this, their attitude towards sharing their feelings is what is stopping them from getting what they want. This is especially so because they always add “no homo” when they do something that expresses their emotions (that aren’t anger or rudeness). Another point I found interesting in the documentary was how they relate all this avoidance to their misogyny and homophobia. Since women and homosexuals are people who express their feelings a lot more than men, men are in fact denouncing these people in their avoidance of expressing sentiment. I think these points caught my attention because I had never thought that men would actually want to express emotion since I thought, if they wanted to, they would. However, now I know that it is a social stigma if they do, and that’s why they don’t, even if they want to. I also did not relate this fact to the looking down on women and homosexual people, which I now find very understandable.

A part of the book that caught my attention was when Carlos found himself kissing his friend in his sleep as he was dreaming of his ex girlfriend. This documentary helps me better understand his experience since the documentary showed me that even saying kind words to your friend could be seen as gay, let alone any type of physical contact. This shows that Carlos’ friend, as described in the book, was a really great person and a great man who broke free of these norms. Carlos’ friend asked him after the fact if he wanted to talk about anything, saying he was open to whatever Carlos’ sexuality was, instead of immediately getting away from him.

A man who inspires me is Harry Styles. I find that I usually do not find men inspiring; I usually find their accomplishments inspiring, but nothing about them as people, except that they had the intelligence, confidence, courage and capabilities to acheive what they did. What I find more inspiring are attributes that I find rare in men, like being humble, kind, and giving a helping hand to those in need, as well as talking about feelings. However, Harry Styles, a famous singer, is a man who not only has accomplished so much, but he uses his platform to encourage openness, like how he embraces his feminine side despite all the eyes and media on him. He has the courage to be true to himself amidst all the scrutiny he faces, and that is what I find so brave and remarkable.

Poutine