Although violence in the hockey sphere is an important issue, I have decided to write about the Issue of the violence in school and the lack of actions taken to stop it. Coming from a high school that some could consider as ‘’dangerous’’, I was thinking that those types of behaviours are rare and represented an extreme minority in schools all around the country. In the first minutes of the documentary only, they proved me that I was wrong with numbers and testimonials that are more than shocking. 1 in 4 girls have experienced unwanted sexual touching, 1 in 7 girls said that they were sexually assaulted, 40 % of boys reported that they have been physically assaulted, etc. Marketplace’s documentary seems to have highlighted some of the problems and relations can be made with masculinity and some of its concepts to try to explain the causes of all this brutality.

The first thing that comes to mind with this documentary is the lack documentation or actions taken, more generally the lack of information on the subject for practically everyone. For example, in the case of boys being attacked. Students do not know what to do, Parents don’t know that such things happen, and Schools seems to voluntarily omit to document incidents. From the students’ perspective, I think that they refuse to talk to adults because it’s often seen as ‘’snitching’’ and getting labelled as a snitch could seriously harm their reputation and make them look like weak. For example, only half of them talks about what happens to them and some of them were told to ‘’toughen up’’ and this is concurring with the concept of the manbox ‘’ Inexpressiveness and Independence’’: Boys are expected to be strong and to be capable of enduring violence or insults without asking for help because boys are supposed to be tough and not suffer from such attacks. It is really a destructive belief as it gives aggressors impunity and the victims are doubly hurt.

But in the case of sexual aggressions, the problem seems to be a little different. When there are cases of sexual assault, not only the victims, mostly women, do not receive the help needed but they are also shamed for something over they had no control and where they were the victims. I personally think that Masculinity and its believes has something to do with it. In Brook’s case, the boy that assaulted her was also reported by two other girls came back to school after only a few days later. Victims feel abandoned by those supposed to defend them to a point where 3 out of 5 girls did not report sexual violence to their school. From what we read in this class It is possible to link it some biased notions. As Kimmel states in his writing ‘’ Masculinity’’: ‘’ The gendered identity of individuals shapes those gendered institutions express and reproduce the inequalities that compose gender identity’’. It is directly seen with the people working in the school where the incident happened. It is a good thing for a man to ‘’conquer’’ women, to get them. The example of Brook illustrates perfectly how even institutions are biased by this notion and are, consciously or not, accomplices of the wrongs done to the victims by not helping them and they reproduce the same demeaning behaviours towards women; unfortunately it is not a isolated case. It is also seen in boys altercation; for example, Jason stated that the principal hears and see things in the hallways but never does anything. It reflects how the assumption that boys will be boys and that fighting, or insulting is a normal and common thing is also anchored in formal institutions. At the end, it only results again in an aggressor’s impunity and a discreditation of the sufferers leading to a feeling of being let down and loneliness.

 The aggressors, whether the victim is a boy or a girl, are also following social constructs where they are questioned about their masculinity. In his writing ‘’Defining Men studies’’,   Kimmel wrote that ‘’ The combination of Antifemininity and Status and Achievement support the notion that men are inherently superior to women, and thus can be seen as justifications to sexism’’. Boys are taught that being a man means to be unlike a woman and rejects everything feminine. All of those assumption tend to make them think that aggression towards women are justified since they are superior. Those wrongs are also seen in male-male altercations where boys that have been attacked are seen as weak and are often the ones suffering from social repercussion. If a man is seen as weak, he will be compared to a woman and will be suffering from the same prejudices.

In conclusion, Violence in schools is not something rare nor isolated but institutions tend to hide it and do not take the right action in order to stop it. Masculinity and the concepts that revolves around sure have their implications in the problem. Boys have to be strong and not reports violence, Girls do not receive the adequate help after traumatising aggression and are sometimes held responsible as the institutions allows all this unfairness because of their own biases. Acknowledging the problem is already part of the solution but a lot still has to be made and, one step at a time, we will succeed.  

Sources:

Kimmel, Michael. “Masculinity.” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 1-5. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 9 June 2014. 1-5. Print.

Kilmartin and Smiler. “Defining Men’s Studies.” The Masculine Self, Sloan Publishing, 2019, pp. 1-7, Cornwall On Hudson, Accessed 25 Apr. 2020 

“How To Fight For Safer Schools.” School Violence. CBC, 24 October 2019.

Last Week’s presentations were really interesting, it covered important topics and did it with professionalism. I did not assist to many conferencs in my life but those are for sure two of the best ones.

The first conference about the climate changes and its effects on Women was really something I’ve never heard about. Everyone knows that climate changes have an effect on population but the fact that it has even more effect on Women was something that I didn’t know. The conference also covered the atrocities made to Indigenous Women. she talked about The pipelines project that goes through indigenous territory, that destroys their environment and does not give them access to the benefits of a such project.It raised awareness amongs us the public, and sensibilized a lot of people for a noble cause. Those populations are ostracized, they are victims of hundreds of years of colonialism and assimilation.

The speaker really put an emphasis on how Indigenous women and Indigenous population and general have been impoverished and how this poverty lead to all the problems that they encounter nowadays. The parrelel that she made allowed me to put an example on what Kimmel wrote in the text ” Fathers and Fathering” when he pointed out that ” there is substantial evidence that children raised in impoverished circumstances are not only at greater risk of abuse, but also at risk of psychological maladjustement in a number of domains ” (Kimmel 187-188). This quote is directly illustratred by the example of the sisters in the religious school were the precarious conditions stopped them for developping her full potential and, at the end, never realize their value and ending manipulated and forced to do things. Every new generations is doomed and nearly always condemned to a poor future. Unfortunately, every new generation, for now, grows in a situation as bad and as precarious as the older generations due to Canadian’s politics and their decision to exploit them.

The second conference was about a subject that I knew much better. The question of the religion and the hate and racism towards the religious people especially women is more mediatized and has sparked more debates. The speaker, Nadia Naqvi, gave a good and precise image and definition of what it is to be a muslim in society where racism is present. The life of a muslim woman wearing the hijab is full of micro aggression, deliberate or not. Nadia and Laity Fary Ndiaye are openly against the Bill 21 as it restrain religious people, especially muslim women to pursue their career and live in harmony with their religions. This bill forces them to choose between professional success and the religious and personnal fullfilment. Nadia’s speech highlighted the discriminations agaisnt muslim communities and how her family suffered from all that, especially after 2001. Laity Fary Ndiaye has put the emphasis of the difficulty of being a muslim women in our society but also how being a woman of color added a new level of difficulty to the process. She said that one of the way to interfere with these racist conditions was to be united between discriminated women and discriminated communities in general.

What Nadia Naqvi and Laity Fary Ndiaye showed is that immigrants and people for a different religion than the religion of the majority will be put aside as they do not benefit from the privilege of the majority and therefore, are not in position to effectively defend their rights and revendications. This make a good parralel with Kimmel’s writting ” Mens at work” where he states that majority of the people exploited in society and in the work fields are the one coming from the minorities since it is the majority group that has the power over the standards and decisions.

In conclusion, The conference about indigenous women and the effect of climate changes on women taught me how inequalities, in numerous situation, affected women even more than men even if it is not evident to see at first sight. And the conference about the Bill 21 made me think about the repercussion of discriminatory laws on religious communities and especially women of those communities.

For this blog, I interviewed my friend Mehdi: A 18 years old man.

1: How did you met your bestfriend ?

I met him because we have a common friend and he presented us. Since the first days, we got along and we started chilling together.

2: Why are you close to your friends ?

When we first met, we directly got along and since we are from the same country, we have a lot of cultural references in common. During the first months, we were good friends but not enough to consider ourselves best friends. But when I broke my ankle, he was the one of the only one that came to see me. Since then, I realized that he was a true friend and it has been now 6 years that we are best friends.

3:What kinds of things do you like to do together?

We are both sedentary people so we don’t go out so much. We would rather go to each other’s house and stay there and discuss, play video-games, or watch movies. We stay in my basement and discuss all day about everything while eating and it is like this all day, every day during all the summer.

4: 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?

No. We both come from an african country and disscussing of our emotions between men is not something that we do and it is seen as a weak thing to do. Even if we have never expressed our feelings, we both know really well that we mean a lot to each other and we both value a lot our relationship.

The relationship between Mehdi and his bestfriend has many of the characteristics described in the Kimmel’s writting. They both don’t express their feelings but still feel close to one another. Also and what struck me during the interview is how he really start considering him as his best friend after he came to see him when he broke his ankle. He really like the action and it changed their relation completely. It is written in Kimmel’s writting that ” the most important attributes of a close or best friend was knowing that he would be there for you…”. And for Mehdi, It was a really important thing and it created a true friendship between him and his best friend.

In Kimmel’s writting about Masculinity, he states that ” Institutions accomplish the creation of gender difference and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes.” From my interpretation, what he means by that is that not only we, human beings, contributes to the “gender difference and order” but also the institutions where we evolve. For example, In some schools, the dress code differs for you depending on your sex. Boys have less or restrictions compared to girls that have to follow a much stricter code. This show how even institutions that are supposed to demonstrate equality and integrity have biases and contributes to genders’ inequality. As the men said in the documentary, boys do not learns to break those gender codes and go beyond them in school and others institutions since those places creates gender differences themselves.

The author decides to use the word masculinity as a plural noun to put the emphasis on the fact that there is not only one way to be a man. Masculinity changes from a place around the world to another but also from a moment in your life to another. Some of the “manly” caracteristics at 20-25 years old becomes completely irrelevant when you grow up older and vice-versa. In the documentary “Man Enough”, it conveys the same message since every one of the six men had a different understanding of what being a man is and their views were decided by differents criteria each time depending on the job they had, the social status, their age and so much other things. Therefore, masculinity cannot be considered as something identical for everyone and this is why kimmel decides to make it plural.

If Antifemininity can be described as a lack or a rejection of the feminine needs and interests, this man is the complete opposite of what an antifeminist. The man on the picture is Denis Mukwege, a congolese gynecologist, born in 1964. He specialised himself in the treatment of women victims of rape by the armed rebels. He is the opposite of the stereotypical man that feels superior than women. In an era where many societies tolerate rape culture, Denis decided to do something against the problem. His actions are even more commendable because he operates in one of the most deprived area of the world.

In the article of we read, Antifemininity translates in a need to avoid profession considered as feminine. And for many, gynecologist is considered as a feminine job since it is directly related to women. Antifemininity is also not caring for women’s needs because it could makes man look feminine or even gay.

In conclusion, I consider Dr. Denis Mukwege a perfect counter-example of antifemininity. He didn’t gave importance to stereotypes and clichés and did what he think was good no matter what people said. He decided to help women and understood their needs.

Bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Mukwege

https://www.panzifoundation.org/dr-denis-mukwege/

a good example of antifeminity

a good counter-exemple of antifeminity is Denis Mukwege

The documentary was great and allowed me to learn a lot of things, it discuss multiples topics about about men in a very interesting way. For example, it really surprised me to see how men who have never been given the chance to express themselves on their masculinity could have a deep analysis and understanding of the wrongs that have hurt them; even if they have commited serious crimes, the prisoners understand that part of the problem comes from the fact that man grows to fit into a very specific mold created by society and if you don’t fit into this mold, you’ll be rejected. I also have been hit by how boys in high school really feels a constant pressure to look strong, confident, stoic and how they can’t show any signs of weakness; but as soon as you allow them to ” open up”, they immediatly allow themselves to show weaknesses and their true-self, which means that everyone undergo the damages of masculinity.

About Gomez’s book, I found the part where he goes to the Palladium during the gay night and where he was intrigued by what he saw pretty close to what the documentary was talking about. Since homosexuality is taboo and no one is allowed to ask about it, when he entered the club,he was introduced to a place where homosexuality was not something to hide and he got really shocked and thought about it multiple days. It is about the same in the documentary where as soon as you start questionning sexuality or not acting strong, rough or something considered as ” manly”, you are considered gay or not man enough.

This man is Hocine Aït Ahmed, an Algerian politician born in 1926 who died in 2015. He was one of the principal leaders of Algerian war. He joined the conflict when he was 15 years old. After the Algerian independence, in 1962, due to multiples disagreements, he decides to leave the principal political party in Algeria, FLN ( National Liberation Front), to create the principal opposition party FFS ( Socialists Forces Front). Since then, he fought tirelessly for democracy in Algeria and went to multiples international convention to change Algeria’s future.

This man is one of my principal inspiration because no matter how many obstacles or enemies there were, he never gave up and always defended the interests of the people. Even after being imprisoned, sentenced to death, forced into exile, he still had hope when everyone around had given up. I’m convinced that all country needs more man like him and that he should be an inspiration to everyone that considers justice and democracy as absolute priorities.

-Samy Lakabi

Favourite food : couscous