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

Instead of asking one of my friends my age, or an older person in my life, with more experience, I decided to talk with my girlfriend’s younger brother, Seadon. He is fourteen, only in his second year of highschool, and still developing stronger friendships. I started with asking who was his closest male friend and why he felt so close to him. Seadon said that he and his best friend were close because they share common interests, and really can’t get annoyed of each other. Seadon calls Thomas his best male friend but from what I have observed, they do not possess the same relationship qualities as female best friend relationship in terms of displaying emotions

I continued with asking him what they do together, to which he only answered activities such as skiing, playing video games and watching movies. These activities don’t leave very much room for intimate talks. As Kilmartin said in the reading, “Buddies may or may not share emotional support related to topics outside of the activity… buddies who play together in an athletic league may-or may not-talk to each other about their romantic relationships.”(Kilmartin 163). This strengthens the idea of how men must stay within the “man box” wherever and with whomever they go.

I then asked Seadon if he had ever asked his friend how much he and their relationship meant to him, to which he laughed and said, “we don’t talk about deep stuff like that.” He then added, “we can’t get serious about that stuff because all we do is joke around.” If we start talking about something serious he said, “it gets awkward and we turn it into a joke.” As Kilmartin described perfectly, “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). I don’t believe that the boys are purposefully trying to be competitive, but naturally, they have been socialized into not being vulnerable with or around other boys.

All in all, at the age that Seadon and his friends are right now, they are still learning how to function socially and how to be comfortable with being emotional and vulnerable with each other. “No Man is An Island: Men’s Relationships” by Christopher Kilmartin makes me realize that homophobia plays a much greater role in men’s relationship than I ever anticipated, especially at this age group. Being that this generation is a more accepting one, it is significantly harder for younger people to balance the acceptance of homosexuality with the socialized idea that men must be stoic and seen as having no weaknesses. This is why it can be hard for younger boys to be as open-minded as one would want them to be.

    Michael Kimmel wrote in his paper on “Masculinity” that, “institutions accomplish the creation of gender differences and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes.”(Kimmel 3). In this statement, Kimmel is explaining how institutions such as the workplace or schools have gender bias built into them which unintentionally assigns certain work positions to a specific gender, presumably male. As we saw in “Man Enough”, men are often expected to fit a specific mold. Whether it’s playing hard sports or achieving highly valued careers, in each case, men are contributing equally in maintaining what is known as the “man box”. With the expectation to conform, men often override their true feeling of “right” or “wrong” in order to feel included, or at least not excluded… The constant fear of feeling uncomfortable is what allows gender order and inequality to be so persistent.

In his conclusion, Kimmel uses the term “masculinities”, implying that there is no exact definition to qualify a man, and that as Don Zimmerman argued, “a person’s gender is not simply an aspect of what one is, but more fundamentally, it is something that one does”(Kimmel 5). Adding on to this, a man cannot be qualified by his gender, but rather by his actions. Kimmel used this term in order to broaden the idea of a man, and to help see stoicism as a simple trait, rather than a must. Relating back to the fourth episode of “man enough”, this quote seems to summarize the hope that all men at the table shared when their discussion was coming to an end. The fact that a simple discussion between a group of socialized men led to such a deep understanding of the issue can only bring  us hope. As Michael Kimmel said, “this opens up the unimaginable possibilities of social change.

“Stoick the vast” is a main character from the movie series How to train your dragon. Captain of his village, Stoick feels the need to stay as strong and fearless as possible. As described by Kimmel in his text, a man shouldn’t demand for help when faced with an issue (Kimmel, 5). This statement is closely linked with Stoick’s everyday life in that he must never be unsure about a certain situation, ensuring that his village stays calm. While he loves his son deeply, Stoick struggles to accept his son’s friendship with a certain dragon. Seeing his son become affectionate with the dragon, Stoick believes his son is “too weak” to be a viking. While re-reading through Kimmel’s definition of inexpressiveness and independence, I felt as though Stoick was being described word for word. Specifically where he says, “Men should be strong, sturdy, independent, and in control of themselves” (Kimmel, 5). Stoick is simply the perfect example of Kimmel’s claims, he is big, powerful, fearless and stubborn. 
    Being close minded definitely helps stoick fit Kimmel’s mold of independence. His stubbornness allows him to look and feel in control, even in the most stressful situations. Having lots of responsibilities as the captain of his village means he must never flinch. When his ideas are challenged by others, Stoick erupts in the only emotion he is not capable of hiding, anger. When he loses control, Stoick turns to coercion and fear to get his point through… As his name suggests, “Stoick the vast” is a hard headed man who believes in himself more than anyone else. He can only do things on his own and refuses help from others. Stoick is a great example of what Kimmel calls inexpressiveness and independence.

Bibliography:

http://www.schoolofdragons.com/lang/fr/how-to-train-your-dragon/vikings/stoick-the-vast

https://howtotrainyourdragon.fandom.com/wiki/Stoick_the_Vast_(Franchise)

While watching the documentary, what struck out at me was how boys/men must stay in line with the various aspects involving masculinity. From playing sports to not being aloud to cry, it is interesting to see how men are expected to be or act a certain way, a “man box”. The way men must keep their emotions and pain secret simply became more obvious to me. This caught my attention because I had never pictured the problem from this perspective. What also interested me was how any boys’ role model can have a significant impact on young kids. For example, a soccer coach can often become a second father to many aspiring boys and their influence can help create a sense of community among the team. When this idea was brought up, I couldn’t help but think about the negative influence that rappers specifically, can have on a young boy’s life and his perceptions. 

    Watching this documentary helped me better understand Carlos’s perception of masculinity and his way of expressing it. Thinking back to when Carlos experienced the differences of Zambia, I can understand why he felt free. Free from the non-written rules that keep a man masculine enough, free from the feminine stigmas that float around in society passed down to us by our parents. Most importantly, I think Carlos felt free from the “man box” as discussed in the documentary. After watching the documentary, I cannot help but understand all the experiences and feelings described by Carlos in his book. In Zambia, all the masculinity issues discussed in the documentary seem to have vanished, it is the land where masculinity has never been so genuine.

Elon Musk is who I have chosen for this blog post. Born in South Africa in 1971, Elon is now one of the most successful entrepreneur/engineer in the world. Due to his perseverance and great vision of what is to be accomplished, Elon has achieved what many would call “the American Dream”. While this is undoubtedly true, he has done much more. As a result of his company SpaceExplorations’ unthinkable achievements and drastic rocket improvements, Elon himself set a new standard for space missions across the world. How can one man possibly compete with an organization such as NASA?? Not knowing the answer to this question is why I cannot help but be inspired by his story. If we only look at what he’s accomplished in the space industry, it can be easy to forget that Elon is also responsible for the epidemic of “eco-friendly” cars who have been invading our streets. Already 17 years ago, in 2003, Musk founded the well-known company “Tesla” hoping to prove to the world that electricity was the future. While pursuing his dreams, Elon Musk has a positive impact on the world’s future as well as everyone’s lives which is simply admirable.

Poutine