Lovers and Fighters | Section 22

I interviewed one of my close friends, Katigi. He is seventeen years old, black, straight, and not ashamed to care about his friends.

Q: Why are you close to your friend? Be specific.

A: “We share the same outlooks on and goals in life and we just vibe (are at peace) together.”

It is clear why Katigi considers whoever he was thinking about as his best friend(s). They share emotional support and emotional intimacy, which are important aspects of relationships and friendships.

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

A: “We play basketball, eat together, go out (driving, etc), talk about what we need to talk about, and play pool.”

His answers were refreshing because these activities step outside of the stereotype box. “(…) activities such as watching or talking about sports, playing video games and “bar” games (e.g., billiards, darts), and joking around, but not having intimate conversations.” (Kilmartin & Smiler, 161). While Katigi and his best friend(s) do play sports and billiards, they also incorporate sharing their emotions into these activities. They are not ashamed to express themselves, all while participating in the occupations they enjoy.

Q: 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?

A: “Yes. I’ll say, “Je t’aime,” (‘I love you’ in french) to them and they will say the same thing to me.” 

“I’ve asked men to describe their relationships with their best male friends. (…). The social stigma of homosexual love denies these close relationships the validity of love in our society. This potential loss of love is a pain of homophobia that many men suffer because it delimits their relationship with other men.” (Lehne, 246). While many young boys and men fear expressing their emotions to avoid being labelled as homosexual, Katigi does not have that problem. He even said, “Everyone has emotions and people who disagree are immature.” While some members of society believe that men cannot be straight and still discuss their feelings among their friends, people like Katigi disagree.

I interviewed my uncle about his relationship with his best friend. These were his answers as well as references to Chapter Eight, No Man is an Island: Men in Relationships (in italic):

• Why are you close to your friend?

I’m close to my friend because of all the years that we’ve been together in our relationship. We shared a lot of good and bad moments during that long period, from going to school with him at an earlier age to being close to his family as an adult. Through time, we shared similar experiences and activities together. Although we have several differences, we still have similar values that bond us together. We also know that we can always count on one another and trust each other.

-As per Garfield and Way’s studies, trustworthiness in a relationship between male friends is an essential quality. It’s determined by the ability to keep secrets and to respect your friend. Niobe Way confirms in her research (2011), that the most important attributes of a male friend are: to be there and to stand up for you and to be able to be trusted with your deepest secrets.

• What kinds of things do you like to do together?

We practice several sports together, but mainly tennis and golf. We go to movies and restaurants on a regular basis. Our monthly breakfast, is the most regular and important event, shared with another close friend, to catch-up on numerous subjects (family, sports, politics, etc.). In a quieter atmosphere, early in the morning, it’s easier to talk freely.

-As mentioned, immediately at the beginning of chapter eight, men (in the US) focus more on doing things together and tend to be emotionally shallow. Further in the text, it’s mentioned that male groups will more likely exchange turn-taking monologues and be telling stories than sharing emotional discussions. It’s therefore representative of the information obtained in my interview.

• 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 never really told my friend precisely how much he means to me because he’s more of a closed person, he doesn’t really want to talk about his emotions. We’re happy to spend time together so it’s more of a non-verbal appreciation of each other. I believe that you can exchange differently with various friends, meaning that some subjects can be addressed with one person and other topics with another friend.

-As explained in ‘’Men in Relationships’’, men aren’t likely to express emotions with their male friends. It’s understood at a young age that boys that behave in an inconsistent gender way are most likely to be rejected by their friends (Carver, Egan & Perry, 2004). As far as more intimate and emotional discussions, Diekman and Steinberg studies (2016) conclude that both men and women tend to trust women more than men. So, as boys become men, they will open up later on in life with their women friends (in an intimate relationship).

For this blog post I interviewed my neighbor Nick. The following paragraphs will show his responses to the three questions regarding the blog post and explain how they relate to Kilmartin’s “No Man Is an Island: Men in Relationships.”

Nick struggled to find a direct answer when first being asked why him and his best friend, Ryan, are so close. After hearing his response, it was obvious that their friendship meets a lot of the qualities in Kilmartin’s Relationship Basics, primarily: “[p]ractical support[… ,] [e]motional or social support[… and] [e]motional intimacy[.]” (162) Nick explained that Ryan provides him with the support and motivation he feels he needs when things are not going well. Whenever there is a conflict, Ryan is always there for him. Nick also stated that him and Ryan are able have deep conversations about most things without either of them being reluctant to participate.

They spent their entire childhood together- going to the same elementary school, high school and CEGEP. When I asked Nick what activities they enjoyed doing together, he explained that whenever there is the opportunity for them do something as a group, they call each other right away. As mentioned in Kilmartin’s article, this bond allows for their relationship to solidify and be more open to one another.

The last question I asked Nick was if he had ever expressed his appreciation towards Ryan. He answered with “even though I never verbally told him how much he means to me, our day-to-day says it all.” He shies away from telling Ryan because he does not want anything to be taken the wrong way and risk breaking that trust and honesty they have between one another. He finished with “Ryan is my best friend and I do not need to tell him how much he means to me for him to know that I appreciate everything he does for me.”

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.

For this blog post I decided to interview one of my good friends Seb. I’ve known Seb for a number of years. And he is such a sweet and open person. I asked him the questions from the instructions along with a couple of other questions.

I first asked him who his best friend is, his best friend is Nate. Him and Nate have known each other for a very long time now. He mentioned that he is so close to his best friend because they can talk about anything without judging each other. They are on the same page when it comes to almost everything. They are able to talk about their emotions and what they feel when they feel it, not after they feel it like other men I know. Nate can tell when Seb is feeling down and vise versa. This is why they are so close.

I then asked Seb what they do when they spend time with each other. He told me that they like to watch TV or play video games but sometimes they like to just sit together and talk. Or sometimes they like to smoke weed and just chill out together. When they do do this they like to sit on the couch and just talk about whatever their minds come to. Seb also told me that they will sometimes just sit in silence and just be in each other’s company. Kind of like what an old married couple would do, or so from what I’ve heard. My grandparents aren’t the best example of an old married couple.

The next question I asked Seb was if he ever told his best friend how much he means to him. Seb’s immediate answer was a simple “yes”. Without skipping a heartbeat he answered this question with ease. I believe that sometimes a bond between two friends can be so strong that you do not even need to tell them that you love them. And I think that Seb and Nate’s bond is so strong that all they need to do to show their appreciation is a simple smile or hug. After this question I asked Seb what Nate’s answer to this statement was. Seb told me that Nate just gave him a genuine smile, got up from his seated position and gave Seb a big bear hug and reciprocated his affection to his best friend.

The last and final question I asked Seb was if he ever had a really good friend that he never had the chance to tell how much he meant to him. Seb was quiet for a moment and then responded with a yes. I asked him why he never told him how much this friend meant to him and he said that he was not the person who he is today. And he told me that he has matured and is comfortable in his own skin to proudly say how much his friends mean to him.

The people who I chose to interview are none other than both of my coworkers. The reason why I chose to interview not one but two of them, is to get two different perspectives since both my coworkers are very different but somehow manage to perfectly fit society’s definition of perfect men.

The first man I interviewed goes by the name Eduardo. Eduardo as a person is caring and affectionate. He plays more of a “protector” role with everybody. His best friend happens to be his girlfriend of two years. He considers them to be very close because she’s the only person who never fails to make him smile. In addition to this, they have the capacity to communicate through the good and the bad. He even admitted that his girlfriend brings out the best version of him, even in times of sorrow. Together, they love to go on adventures around Montreal: whether it be discovering new places to eat or watching the latest movie with his lover. From what I hear, they tell each other that they love one another every single day and every single time after hearing those three words, his girl shows off that huge smile of hers. Eduardo relationship correlates with the strong bonds in “Man Enough”.

Arnold is the name of my other coworker. Describing him is the exact midpoint of both a pesky child and a wise Elder. One characteristic that both Eduardo and Arnold share in common is: they are both soft at heart but prefer to show their aggressive side, just like how any man is expected to behave. Arnold’s best friend is a man he met in daycare. They remained close for years because he is able to talk to him in a free manner. In his words, “he has the least amount of filters with this friend in particular”. Together, they like to call themselves the kings of ridiculing people for no reasons to be specific. However, even if their friendship has been strong for 12 years, he never once told him how much his best friend meant to him because it never crossed his mind. He correlates with the phrase from the reading “taking risks and getting in trouble” (p 161)

To briefly conclude the topic of friendships for both my coworkers, the thing that I observed is the admiration given to another half is different compared to one of a male best friend. The reasoning may be due to media portrayal and how society works in general. In books, movies, and even music videos, the relationship between a male and female generally happens to be shown filled with hugs and kisses. Whereas, two male friends tend to be depicted more verbally than physically.

On page 3 of “Masculinity” by Michael Kimmel, it is mentioned that “Institutions accomplish the creation of gender difference and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes”. Basically, he’s just saying that the institutions in our communities try to create a gender neutral environment but they end up creating traces of gender difference and it becomes a breeding ground for gender inequality: asking a boy over a girl to pick up something heavy, teachers are usually female and directors male, girl lines and boy lines, etc. I can relate this quote to the episode of “Man Enough” because there was a part where Justin Baldoni was talking about taking his cool guy friend’s side over the girl because of the “bro code” (learned in school) and that he was scared that they would single him out and he would lose his reputation.

On page 4 of “Masculinity” by Michael Kimmel, he writes that “Understanding how we do masculinities[…]opens up the unimaginable possibilities of social change”. The word masculinities simply means the different ways that different groups around the World define masculinity:”The use of the plural—masculinities—recognizes the dramatic variation in how different groups define masculinity, even in the same society at the same time, as well as individual differences” (Kimmel, 1). He prefers the use of this word because he understands that the singular version of the word means something different to groups and cultures all around the World and he is talking to all of them. I can relate this quote to the episode of “Man Enough” because of the discussion they had in the last 10 minutes where they said that if they all treat women better and teach others to do so than we can see more positive change in society.

On page 3 of “Masculinity” Kimmel states that “Institutions accomplish the creation of gender difference and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes.” In simpler terms the message he is trying to relay is that our environment breeds the inequalities in gender that we see around us today. To get a better understanding of this, we must first understand what a gendered process is. A process that is gendered is one in which the prerequisites of whatever it is you are trying to do, encourages one to adopt traits or characteristics that are normally used to describe either a man or a woman. An example of this is applying for a secretarial position in an office. When we think about a secretary we tend to think of a woman, and the fact that we make that connection without even thinking just goes to show how we have become blinded to the gendered processes that directly enforce gender norms and sexist ideas. An “ideal” secretary is one that is caring and easy to talk to, because part of the job is getting to know whoever it is you are a secretary for. These characteristics tend to describe the socially constructed ideal of a mother (and therefore woman). This seems to be a reoccurring theme, as seen in the fourth episode of “Man Enough”. In which, they push the message that the way everyone lives their day to day life makes a cycle of the behaviour that encourages the objectification of people (mainly women) as sexual beings and nothing more.

In the same text, Kimmel delves into the idea of plural masculinities rather than an ideal singular masculinity. What he means by this is that there are too many different kinds of men to fit into one box. By using plural masculinities to describe how every man is a man in his own sense, we can begin to understand the ” (…) unimaginable possibilities of social change.” that Kimmel speaks about in “Masculinity”. Once again, we see reoccurring themes in the fourth episode of ” Man Enough”, in which they speak about how every man is a man in their own way and all they need to do is take control. This very forward and freeing outlook on the situation at hand reinforces the idea that the possibilities of social change start with individuals (individual masculinities, if you will) and that we are only limited by the barriers that we set ourselves.

It is mentioned on the third page of “Masculinity” by Michael Kimmel that “institutions accomplish the creation of gender difference and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes.” By stating this he is explaining that the various institutions in our society have expectations based on a persons gender. These differences vary from having boys and girls stand in different lines in elementary school to separating men and women in prisons and treating them differently. This statement relates to the fourth episode of “Man Enough” when they were discussing how boys are expected to enjoy and be good at sports which puts extra pressure on them should they not fit into that box.

On the fourth page of Kimmel’s article, he states that “understanding how we do masculinities…opens up the unimaginable possibilities of social change.” The use of the word “masculinities” in this quote describes the immeasurable multitude of possible definitions for male gender norms, per culture, and social standing within ones culture, etc. The use of this term is preferable as it encompasses all definitions of masculinity rather than just one. And, reminds the fact that masculinity is an arbitrary adjective withheld only by a culture’s respective construction of reality. In “Man Enough” they discuss how important it is for North American society to stop imposing limiting social norms ruled by gender. These limiting expectations cause many issues for all members of society as they enforce things such as rape culture, toxic masculinity and reinforce bad mental health practices amongst men and boys.

Institutions gender.

Michael Kimmel wrote  “Institutions accomplish the creation of gender difference and the reproduction of gender order through several gendered processes.”

This refers to the fact that we generaly give gender to jobs. For example elementary teacher is for woman and director is for man.

There will always be a visible minority that is dedicates by the view of society.

Masculinities

Kimmel prefer the use of “masculinities” over the use of “masculinity”,

It is do to the fact that there are many ways of showing masculinity. Which is why we use it at plurals.

In the discussion, every man had a different view on how a man should act and behavior.

With 7 billions humans on earth. There are 7 billions ways on being a man.