Fighting is unarguably a central aspect of the game of hockey. It has been an integral part of the game essentially since its invention. One reason for the popularity of fighting in hockey can be explained by one of the features of Christopher Kimmel’s man-box: aggressiveness (Kimmel 6). Kimmel argues that masculinity is “characterized by a willingness to take physical risks and become violent if necessary”. In the CBC’s documentary, “The Code” (2010), several former National Hockey League Players including Nick Kypreos and Georges Laraque, explain the code among players with respect to the merits of fighting, known simply as “The Code”. The Code explains that on a given National Hockey League team, there are star players, the celebrities of the team, and there are enforcers. The enforcers, players who are stronger and tougher than their colleagues, have a role to protect their teammates. This means that if the enforcers feel that one of their teammates, especially one of the stars, has been treated disrespectfully, it is their role to instigate a fight with the player who disrespected their teammate. This behaviour is exactly in line with the above man-box characteristic of aggressiveness in that the enforcers feel that if their teammates are disrespected, violence is necessary.

One ritual of hockey fights is the removal of the helmet prior to fighting. This is supposedly done to minimize the risk of hand injury, but it simultaneously increases the risk of head injury. One such example of head injury is Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. CTE is linked with repeated traumatic brain injury (such as concussions), and symptoms include “cognitive decline, emotional or behavioural changes, and motor impairment” (Ventresca 73-98). Wade Belak played with the National Hockey League as an enforcer for many years, fighting many fights. At one point, his behaviour started to change and he became depressed. He ended up committing suicide in August of 2011. The most important piece of information from this not uncommon tragic story is that the player’s depression was a result of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. People die as a result of hockey fights. Is the respect of an opponent really worth a life?

1. The Code – Episodes – The Fifth Estate. CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2009-2010/the-code.
2. Ventresca, M. (2019). The Tangled Multiplicities of CTE: Scientific Uncertainty and the Infrastructures of Traumatic Brain Injury. Sports, Society, And Technology, 73-98. doi: 10.1007/978-981-32-9127-0_4
3. Hockey fight: Wives reveal the cost of concussions – Episodes – The Fifth Estate. (2020). Retrieved 4 May 2020, from https://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2019-2020/hockey-fight-wives-reveal-the-cost-of-concussions

The talks at the International Women’s Week provided me with insight that I did not previously have. Both talks shared messages of the infringement of women’s rights by men.

My greatest take-away from the first talk might well have been about the “man camps”, the camps where workers (usually in the sector of resource extraction) set up camp in indigenous land. Lucy Everett informed us that there is evidence that when these workers are there, rates of kidnapping, and violent crime (murder, rape, assault, et cetera), increase. This indicates that the workers commit these atrocities, usually at the expense of indigenous women.

In 2007, the United Nations released the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). As the name indicates, this was a declaration of rights that the UN found to “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world”. 144 countries adopted this declaration and four countries voted against it: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America. One significant reason that these countries likely rejected the declaration was because it would hinder natural resource extraction (even though it’s not their land to extract resources from). And, now, Canada is extracting resources from Wet’su’weten land.

Though I missed the second lecture, I have read about Bill 21 and I do believe it is an infringement on women’s freedom. Bill 21 was tabled on March 29, 2019, and went into use June 16 of that year. The law is officially titled: “Act Respecting the Laicity of the State”, and its main function is to ban people working in Québec government jobs from wearing religious symbols. Despite being a religious symbol, the hijab is a fundamentally different issue than the other religious symbols as I will elaborate. In the Québec government’s eyes, and the eyes of those whose support Bill 21, women who wear hijabs are victims of misogyny and the hijab is itself sexist. There is a line in the official text of Bill 21, “the Québec nation attaches importance to the equality of men and women”. The origins of the hijab are not entirely clear. Some believe it started as a symbol of status, whereas others believe it started to curb sexual desire. In Iran, women are required by law to wear hijabs, which makes it a sexist issue as women are forced to do something hey may or may not want to do at the behest of men. Anyway, all this to say, that these conditions are not the case in Québec. Women who wear the hijab in Québec want to wear the hijab, they are not under any obligation to do so. Personally, I know a family of Syrian refugees who are muslim. They have a little girl who has not yet started wearing her hijab but she is excited to do so, she sees it as a rite of passage, a symbol of growing up or becoming a woman. I think it’s this idea that a lot of Muslim women relate to, the idea that the hijab was an important milestone in their life and a constant reminder of their faiths. To be banned from wearing this item, so meaningful to your life would be very unpleasant.

Sources

UNDRIP- UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/un_declaration_on_the_rights_of_indigenous_peoples/)

Official text of Bill 21- Légis Québec (http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/L-0.3?langCont=en#ga:l_i-h1)

Bill 21 Dates- Projet de Loi Nº 21 (http://m.assnat.qc.ca/fr/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-21-42-1.html)

Reasons for Wearing a Hijab- Why do Women wear a hijab? (http://theconversation.com/why-do-muslim-women-wear-a-hijab-109717)

Women are Required to Wear a Hijab in Iran- Milani, Farzaneh (1992). Veils and Words: The Emerging Voices of Iranian Women Writers, Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. 37–38, ISBN 9780815602668

History of the Hijab- Aslan, Reza, No God but God, Random House, (2005), p.65–6

I interviewed my father for this assignment. He indicated that he was close to his friend because they share a lot of the same interests, they make each other laugh a lot, and they are comfortable talking about anything. My father recounted that he does not have any shared activities with his best friend, but indicated that talking is how they spend their time together, often about meaningful topics. Christopher Killmartin describes stereotypical two-men friendships as being emotionally shallow, and consist mainly of doing activities together. My father and his friend do not generally do activities together, and they have serious conversations, therefore his friendship is not a stereotypical one. My father indicated to me that he has in the past told his friend how much he means to him by telling his friend that he values their friendship and by thanking his friend for being a good listener. His friend responded well by thanking my father. This too goes against the stereotypical men friendships as Christopher Killmartin notes that it is more typical for closeness to come about in friendships by helping one another with tasks or continuing to spend time together, rather than direct statements, like one my father made to his friend.

Michael Kimmel states that gender is a social construct whereas one is born with sex, for this is biological. Kimmel further indicates that gender is conditioned by one’s environment, and that it is a product of our daily interactions. Certain institutions propagate the classical view of masculinity that encompasses all or any of the characteristics that were written of in Blog 3. Man Enough Episode 4, #MeToo, refers to the entertainment business being a vehicle for the message of classical masculinity. As Scooter Braun says, “We glorify the idea of crossing the line. We’ve made it, you know, you come into the entertainment business, fast cars, fast women”. As he points out, this ideology is built upon the objectification of women, as items to obtain once one gets into the entertainment business. Furthermore, the institution of society and the justice system perpetuate the classical view of masculinity and the objectification of women. As Yazmin Watkins remarks, “I think the culture that we live in allows for this sort of behaviour and I don’t think people are supported when they do come forward “. Furthermore Susan Brison furthers this point when she tells how people did not believe that she had been attacked by a man, and thought instead that she was hit by a car, when she was in fact brutally attacked by a man.

Kimmel prefers to use the term ‘masculinities’ rather than singular ‘masculinity’ because he feels that there are different varieties of masculinity, thus the characteristics he outlines. In Man Enough Episode 4, #MeToo, Justin Baldoni indicates to Susan Brison that boys are taught to be the protector. This is indeed one characteristic of masculinity. Susan Brison argues that this is part of the problem because women should be taught to defend themselves instead of relying on men. All of the men at the table have had completely different experiences, they simply do not fit under the same umbrella of maculinity. Furthermore, Michael Kimmel claims that the only factor that remains constant in masculinities is anti-femininity, and masculinities can be of wide variety, changing across time periods, in a state of flux, as long as they include anti-femininity.

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was the first gay man to advocate for gay rights. He did so during the mid-1800s in Germany. Ulrichs was attracted to clothing and activities traditionally deemed feminine from a young age (Karl Heinrich Ulrichs- Making Queer History, https://www.makingqueerhistory.com/articles/2018/3/13/karl-hinreich-ulrichs). In “Intro to Men’s Studies”, Christopher Kilmartin defines anti-femininity as the direct refusal to associate with tangible and intangible aspects of femininity such as clothing, emotions. The film “The Mask You Live In” suggests the idea that when men discriminate against gay people , they are in fact truly attacking women. Therefore, it can be argued, in my opinion that being an advocate for gay rights, especially when one is gay themselves, they are subverting anti-femininity. We live in a heteronormative society, meaning everyone is assumed to be straight. Therefore, the “default man” or the “traditional man” would certainly be, a straight man. In this regard, being a gay man is a subversion once again.

According to a study done by the University of Geneva, there is a positive correlation between feminine qualities in men and homophobia (The Feminization of Men Leads to an Increase in Homophobia, https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/udg-tfo012219.php). It is argued in this study that masculine traits were traditionally formed from being the opposites of feminine traits. Certain traits that are listed in the study as being seen as masculine are: a lack of emotional display, aggression, and homophobia. Homophobia is directly listed as a masculine trait. Professor Falomir of the University of Geneva said, “Homophobia is the alternative way of asserting [heterosexual men’s] masculinity. Thus, if, as they say, masculinity is seen as the opposite of femininity, then homosexuality, some might say the opposite of homophobia, could well be a trait considered part of femininity.

Watching the film, I was surprised by the huge amount of misogyny that is used by many men which objectifies women and often uses violent wording, to represent sexual attraction. For instance “I would hit that” or “I would tear that up”. Furthermore, I was interested in the idea of the documentarians that merely suspending or expelling children for acting out worsens their issues. It leads to the children feeling as though they have no hope,, and thus continuing their negative streak. This is the same issue as is ongoing in US prisons: they operate from a punitive mindset which leads to a high recidivism rate among criminals as the criminals are only made to feel worse and their core issues are never resolved. Furthermore, with a felony, these people cannot get jobs so it is all the more likely that they will turn to crime for their livelihood. Norway has implemented a rehabilitative prison system, and as such, they have a much lower recidivism rate than that of the US, indicating that this method works (Norway’s recidivism rate is 20% whereas that of the US is 75%). Lastly, I was quite surprised by the statistic that 1 i 4 boys experience bullying but that only 30% tell people about it. 1 in 4 is 25%, this is a lot more than I assumed, and I am unpleasantly surprised that so few of these children had the courage or confidence to tell somebody.

Of Carlos Andres Gomez’s book, I found the aspects of him yearning physical contact with other men interesting, and it relates to the film in that the film documents how men are often discouraged from expressing emotion, and to be stoic. Therefore, showing physical affection would certainly be considered a faux-pas by this old-fashioned standard.

Kendrick Castillo is a man who inspires me. He was a student at STEM School Highlands Ranch in Colorado who was killed when he tackled a school shooter. He was a brave, and selfless man sacrificing his life for the lives of his fellow students , teachers, and school administrators. He is an inspiration to everyone to be selfless.

My favourite food is mango🥭