Blog 4: Defeating Colonialism Once and For All?

The intricacy of gender expression when viewed from an Indigenous point of view can prove to greatly differ from the traditional values imposed by European colonialism. This idea is exemplified by Keough and Campbell’s exploration of gender dynamics in the early contact period, the documentary “Trans in Trumpland: Idaho,” and Glenn Gear’s thoughtful presentation on his Indigenous art. In this blog post, I will demonstrate the resilience of the Indigenous communities despite colonialist impositions by exposing both past and present colonialist ideals, as well as showing how Indigenous cultures have regained their identity.

     Ripping the Indigenous communities of their identity and culture is an oppressive tactic used by colonialists for centuries. A horrific example is the residential schools, causing irreparable physical, emotional and psychological damage to young Indigenous boys and girls where their entire culture and identity was simply taken away from them by our “glorious”  country, Canada. Presenter Glenn Gear’s father was a victim of these residential schools, experiencing firsthand the devastating impacts of colonialism. Our government not only deprived Glenn’s father of his identity but also robbed Glenn of the opportunity to grow up knowing who he was and where he was from. Similarly, as Glenn wasn’t able to truly be who he was, Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military is based on the same colonial ideologies which prevents individuals like two-spirit Shane Ortega from expressing his true self. This historically stems from the early European settlers in which their mission was to, “replicate the social and cultural systems of their homelands.” (Keough,Campbell 5). From the get go, the colonialists’ project was to completely erase the already existing Indigenous society and create a new “civilized” one. Actually, something Keough and Campbell addressed was the fact that the colonizers hated that the Indigenous peoples had no hierarchies and that women were often consulted and made important tribe decisions. To the Europeans, this was unheard of and they did not want this to happen in their own society, as they liked their current hierarchy where it was rich white men at the top and everyone else at the bottom. However, by trying to install their own ideals, the colonials were devaluing the Indigenous way of life and preventing any Indigenous influence of their current society in order to maintain the power they held on anybody “inferior” to them. In order to keep their hold on society they robbed people like Glenn’s father of their identities by putting them in residential schools with the reasoning that, “Aboriginal people appeared as “noble savages” in need of christian salvation” (Keough, Campbell 9). Meaning it was their duty to “save” or “tame” these misguided animals, in the name of God, simply because their way of life is different from the Europeans’. This parallels Trump’s view on Trans people in the military in the sense that Trans people don’t fit the traditional gender values of America, blaming this rejection of basic human rights on the price of reconstructive surgery, when the U.S military spends 10 times that amount on Erectile Dysfunction pills. In reality, it’s because having Trans individuals in the military shows people that they are allowed to be different and embrace their identity, which completely goes against everything the white men in power want society to believe.

     Colonialism’s deep-rooted legacy still has a profound impact on the lives of many all around North America. America is all about power, and who holds it. They maintain their power by suppressing other non like minded individuals whether it is through unjust laws, systemic homophobia, or in the case of Glenn and his Indigenous culture, genocide. Even after the residential schools, Glenn’s account of the Inuit dog slaughter by RCMP officers further underscores the colonialist disregard for Indigenous lives and livelihoods, revealing the deep-seated exploitation and violence that our country has used against Indigenous communities. Glenn mentioned how these dogs aren’t pets, but individuals, so murdering them is as if they were killing human beings. Furthermore, by slaughtering Inuit sled dogs without consultation or consideration for Indigenous perspectives, Canadian officials just widened the divide between colonial authorities and Indigenous communities, creating a deeper conflict. And besides, who would want to murder harmless, hard working sled dogs without seeing anything wrong with it?  By committing crimes like these, not only do people in minority groups fear the government, but also fall more in line with the values they perpetuate to not become targets of their injustices. Especially since government officials often fail to address any social issues like homophobia, racism, sexism and transphobia, all rooting from the dawn of America’s colonial occupation. This failure to regulate any of these issues allows people to violate the rights of minority groups and any other people who don’t fit with “American values”. Shane had no support throughout his life, being subjected to all of the terrible treatment i have listed previously, being passed from relative to relative that physically abused him. And this treatment arriving in America, stems from the 1500’s, where,  “European observers referred to two-spirited individuals as berdaches, a derogatory term describing what they saw as unmanly softness and passive homosexuality among Aboriginal “pretty” men” (Keough,Campbell 4). The European view of two-spirit Indigenous people did not fit their values, so they shamed them and made society believe as if there was something wrong with them, reducing them to “unmanly, pretty men”. And society, afraid of receiving the same treatment as these brave Indigenous peoples, continues to spread the European view today, because as Aristotle once said, “if you can’t beat them, join them”. At the end of Tony’s documentary he mentioned how, at first, due to society’s scrutinized transphobic views, his mom rejected him because he no longer fit what she believed her son should be. But, after finally accepting him for who he was, something that society as a whole has failed to do for centuries, it begs the question: if Tony’s family could grow and accept him, why can’t others and the whole world do the same?

     Shane and Glenn advocate for the regaining and maintaining of Indigenous identity amongst all Indigenous communities through having the freedom to express themselves. The importance of freedom of expression, as brought up by Keough and Campbell when they claim, “Aboriginal communities in North America had more inclusive sex-gendered systems that also recognized […] two-spirited individuals” (Keough, Campbell 4) promotes a more inclusive approach which deeply contradicts traditional European and modern American gender norms. Shane’s art piece of a Sioux chief with his trans lover, a gift from his uncle, highlights the historical acceptance and encouragement of Two-Spirited individuals within his community. This contrasts contemporary society, which often seeks to change or “fix” these identities. Glenn’s journey back to his roots through his art has allowed him to feel more connected to his culture and family, reclaiming his true identity. Moreover, his art is also a way to express his identity and culture as an Indigequeer man and not only is it accepted by his community, but promoted! Both Shane and Glenn demonstrate the importance of standing up against their oppressors and advocating for the incorporation of their culture into white-dominated institutions like the military for Shane and the art industry for Glenn. They both actively share their love for their culture with the world, learning new techniques and immediately passing it onto other members of the community where, as Glenn repeatedly stated “there is no gatekeeping”. The community, rather than the individual, is paramount. For Glenn, nature, water, animals, and Indigenous traditions are deeply meaningful, representing his culture and providing a connection to his community, family, and heritage.  

    In conclusion, examining gender expression in both colonial and Indigenous viewpoints proved to depict polar opposites. Keough and Campbell’s exploration of early contact period gender dynamics, the documentary “Trans in Trumpland: Idaho,” and Glenn Gear’s presentation on his Indigenous art collectively illustrate the resilience of Indigenous communities in the face of colonialist impositions by reflecting on these historical and contemporary injustices as well as underscores the importance of learning from Indigenous perspectives on identity. Indigenous cultures are more inclusive and understanding of gender in the way that they honor Two-Spirited individuals, compared  with the exclusionary practices of colonial America that marginalize anybody who does not conform to their values.

     Appreciating the importance of various gender identities and expressions helps overthrow the systems of oppression that fuel the inequalities that many minority groups feel. Shane Ortega and Glenn Gear exemplify how important it is to restore and honor Indigenous identities after devastating colonial efforts made to silence them. As we continue growing and slowly begin to move away from the discriminatory colonialist values, we should think about how incorporating Indigenous views on gender can help create an even more inclusively fair society. How can we make sure that every person, no matter their gender identity or different views, feels valued and respected? By considering these wider impacts, we can strive for a society that genuinely respects and celebrates the variety of human experiences instead of devaluing them.

Works Cited:

Glenn Gear, presenter. 29 Apr. 2024, Montreal, Vanier College.
Keough, Willeen G. and Lara Campbell “Gender and Cultural Diversity in the Early Contact Period.” Gender

History: Canadian Perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 16–28

Zosherafatain, Tony. “Trans in Trumpland: Idaho.” Kanopy, The Film Sales Company, http://www.kanopy.com/en/vaniercollege/video/11561418. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Blog 3: Getting Out of the Skin They’re In

Desmond Cole’s “The Skin We’re In” and Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” offer profound insights into the experiences of Black men trying to navigate the world of predominantly White spaces in Canada and the United States. Through Cole’s documentation of living with racism in Canada’s society and institutions like the police, and Peele’s allegorical portrayal of slavery and Black experiences in the US, we see how Black men are subject to systemic oppression, stereotypes, and cultural appropriation, and how we, as a society, must work toward reversing these entrenched injustices within our society.

The choice of the title, “The Skin We’re In,” parallels the struggles faced by Black individuals, shown with the experiences depicted in Jordan Peele’s “Get Out.” In his book, Cole explains to readers about his awareness of the violence inflicted upon Black people in Toronto and throughout Canada. He says, “I kept track of the violence done to Black people in my city, Toronto, and my country, Canada, as if it was being done to me, because it was, because it is, because that’s what Black people are facing in Canada and around the world, and I’d never been more aware of it.” (Cole 2) His assertion that he kept track of this violence as if it were happening to him directly relates to the impact of systemic racism in our society. What’s even more worrying for Cole is the fact that this is happening in CANADA. Not in the United States which is known for its history of racism, but in our home where our people, the people in one of the most free countries in the world, are being treated in such a horrifying manner. This sentiment is similar to the journey of Chris Washington in Peele’s film, who confronts this racism ingrained in society. Both Cole and Chris move through a world where their identities are constantly devalued based on the color of their skin. Furthermore, the allegorical significance of skin color in “Get Out” serves to symbolize the commodification and objectification of Black bodies by White society. Cole’s own reflections in the memoir echo this when he remembers about his struggle to embrace his identity despite feeling powerless and scared as a child. He writes, “I came to resent my blackness as a child because it made me feel powerless and scared. It has taken me most of my adult years to embrace this skin, this ancestry, this struggle.” (Cole 16) This is his journey towards self-acceptance and empowerment  which is also depicted in “ Get Out” highlighting the resilience and strength of Black individuals subjected to systemic oppression. It is almost as if they are literally trying to get out the skin that they are in, to break free from the systemic barriers and constraints imposed by societal expectations and racial stereotypes and  be able to regain a sense of humanity— that any human, regardless of the color of their skin, deserves. 

YES, racism is a big problem in Canada. Desmond Cole’s documentation of racism in Canada, like unwarranted police scrutiny and racial profiling, parallels Chris’s encounter with law enforcement in suburban America in Jordan Peele’s “Get Out.” Cole’s quote, “In Canada, police are more likely to scrutinize Black people as they did John: to suspect us of selling drugs without presenting any evidence; to subject us to surveillance and physical searches without a warrant; to target our homes and businesses with multiple police units in response to non-criminal issues; to arrest us using overwhelming physical violence; to charge us with violence after using violence against us; to steal our personal property, particularly our money, as if we have no claim to it.” (Cole 6) vividly describes how Black individuals, like John, are unfairly targeted by law enforcement. Desmond Cole illustrates the systemic racism that is embedded within institutions in Canada, like the police. Cole’s description of Black people being prosecuted without evidence, subjected to unwarranted surveillance and searches, and even facing violence and theft by police highlights the widespread nature of racial profiling and discrimination. This not only undermines the trust between Black communities and law enforcement but also creates a cycle of injustice and marginalization. Cole wants us to be aware of the urgent need for accountability and reform within the criminal justice system and to address the systemic racism that  almost only impacts Black individuals. Both authors explain the desire of every individual, regardless of race, to move through the world freely and authentically— to be who they want to be without anything preventing this. However, systemic barriers, shown by John’s encounter with the police at his gallery and Chris’s unimaginable experience with Rose’s family, prevent this fundamental human aspiration.

There are many irrational stereotypes imposed on Black men by White society, a theme prominent in Cole’s memoir where he examines racial dynamics in Canada. Similar to Peele, where in his film, Chris is portrayed as a physically imposing figure desired solely for his athletic prowess like when Jeremy was almost salivating over Chris’ “superior” body and “potential”, even referring to him as a “beast” reducing him to a mere animal. This mirrors Cole’s observation that Black individuals are often fetishized and dehumanized when he says, “White supremacy designates Black people as less than full human beings, as disposable labor, as chattel placed on earth for the benefit of white people,” (Cole 8) This shows that power dynamics motivate White people to appropriate Black culture for White benefit. This sentiment is echoed throughout the entire film as Chris navigates a predominantly White world, where he is constantly subjected to being treated like an “other”. The scenes of Chris being stopped by the cops for no reason, the stares he receives when with the white people at Rose’s house, and the feeling of being an “exotic” in a foreign environment all serve to highlight the harrowing nature of racial discrimination. Peele further emphasizes this struggle through the character of Rose’s grandfather, whose consciousness is implanted into a Black body, symbolizing the attempt to appropriate and control Black identity. Both Cole and Peele  shed light on the experiences of Black men in a world where they are marginalized and dehumanized. The stereotypes of Black men as disruptive, loud, and solely defined by their physiques are deconstructed, with Peele particularly showing the sexualization of Chris and the objectification of his body by one of those women who wanted to replace her husband with him. The film exposes the fears of White men towards strong Black male athletes and the desire to control and manipulate Black bodies for their own benefit. By changing the brain of Black individuals, as depicted in the film, it’s as if White society seeks to have the best of both worlds by having the physical prowess of a Black man combined with the “civilized” mind of a White man. This speaks to the insidious nature of systemic racism and the ways in which White supremacy seeks to maintain power and control over Black bodies.

White people appropriating Black culture is central to both pieces of the exploration of systemic racism and exploitation. In Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” this theme is  linked to the issue of white washing and the reverting back to historical injustices, particularly from the slave trade. The act of picking cotton out of the chair to block his ears from the tea cup in “Get Out” is a powerful symbol that directly symbolizes the historical trauma and oppression experienced by Black individuals, as picking cotton was a task often associated with slavery and forced labor. By using cotton to block his ears, Chris is metaphorically shielding himself from the racist remarks being made by Rose’s family. What’s ironic is the fact that the cotton, once a symbol of Black oppression and exploitation, is being used to protect Chris from further harm. Peele also uses his movie as an allegory to depict how Black bodies have historically been used for profit, drawing parallels between the past and present forms of exploitation. Chris actually experiences this when he was being put up for auction using bingo cards, as if it were the 1800’s slavery was still legal, and white people wanted him for his body, reflecting the broader societal trend of reducing Black individuals to mere objects or commodities for the entertainment or benefit of others. It relates to the notion that although Black slaves had literal control of their body, they were trapped, as with the victims in Peele’s film where even with the physical control they had of their movement, they  were not free. Lastly, the quote from Cole, “You can’t ask people who have been oppressed their whole lives.. to forget that and to ignore the fact that it might be happening again,” (Cole 8) emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and confronting the ongoing oppression faced by Black individuals, and not just simply ignoring or forgetting past injustices. History is repeating itself, it is still prominent in today’s society and Peele is trying to warn us about it, to make us aware. To get us to act.

Cole’s exploration of Canada’s history of racism parallels Peele’s examination of racial dynamics in the US. Both works show the enduring legacy of systemic oppression, demonstrating how historical injustices continue to shape our society and attitudes. We as a society must acknowledge the pervasive nature of racism and its impact on marginalized communities. While there may not be a clear solution, raising awareness of this situation is a crucial first step towards understanding and initiating change. It is our duty and obligation to confront the uncomfortable truths of racism in Canada. Although history shows us eliminating oppression is a long and seemingly impossible journey, awareness serves as a great first step and action towards building a more equitable and just society for all.

Bibliography

Cole, Desmond. “‘Negro Frolicks (January).’” The Skin We’re In, Doubleday Canada, 2020, pp. 1–17

 Peele, Jordan, et al. Get Out. Universal Pictures, 2017

Say Hello To My Little Blog Post

Through the figure of Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant whose rise to notoriety in Miami’s drug trade exemplifies both the appeal and dangers of traditional masculine ideals, Brian De Palma’s renowned film “Scarface” conveys an engaging examination of masculinity. Tony Montana embodies the characteristics that are often associated with masculinity, such as ambition, dominance, and taking risks. However, beneath his charming exterior comes a darker side ruled by violence, dominance over women, and a never-ending pursuit for money. “Scarface” explores the complex relationship between traditional masculinity and its negative impacts on people and society through Tony’s multifaceted portrayal. This blog will evaluate how Tony Montana’s character serves as a lens for exploring the complexity of masculinity, examining the conflict between societal expectations and the damaging consequences of toxic masculinity portrayed in the film.

One of the central aspects of Tony’s character is his relentless ambition, a trait often associated with traditional masculinity. From the moment he sets foot in Miami, Tony is driven by a singular goal: to obtain power and wealth at any cost. His determination to rise to the top of the drug trade exemplifies the societal expectation for men to be ambitious and competitive in pursuit of success. Moreover, in order to reach his goal of ultimate wealth and power, Tony maintains a dominant approach toward others, highlighting his conformity to conventional gender stereotypes that associate power and strength with masculinity. 

Throughout the film, he asserts his dominance through acts of violence, intimidation, and manipulation, reinforcing the notion that men should exert control over their environment and those around them.

Furthermore, the way Tony treats women—in particular, his sister Gina—highlights the misogynistic traits that are deeply embedded in traditional masculinity. His possessiveness and behaviour toward Gina renders her as an object to be owned and controlled, which is in line with the social norm arguing that men should have authority over women.

In addition, Tony’s extravagant way of life—which includes expensive cars and fancy homes—is a prime example of the hypermasculine ideal, which values wealth and status. His continuous pursuit of wealth is a reflection of the social norm that expects males to support and care for their families, often at the expense of emotionally healthy relationships. Despite this, Tony overcomes stereotypes of masculinity by showing vulnerability in his relationships. His relationships with Elvira, his wife, and Manny, his best friend, demonstrate the complexities of masculinity and how they affect interpersonal relationships by revealing insecurities and emotionally dependent moments. 

In summary, “Scarface” explores masculinity by highlighting both its benefits and drawbacks. The movie explores the complex essence of masculinity through Tony Montana’s character, demonstrating how aggression, control, and emotional vulnerability can coexist with traditional ideas of ambition, domination, and materialism. Viewers are forced to consider the negative impacts of toxic masculinity on people and society by analyzing Tony’s portrayal, which makes them consider the need for more inclusive and diverse gender representations in popular culture.

Blog 2: Toxic Masculinity: Poisoning our Society

Various media depictions and research demonstrate how toxic masculinity, conventional ideas of manhood, and societal violence are interconnected problems that have gained popularity in public debate in recent years. By analyzing Michael Kimmel’s “Masculinity as Homophobia,” Will James’s toxic masculinity, the Vice News documentary “Charlottesville: Race and Terror,” and the insights from CBC’s “Inside Incel,” we can better understand the intricate relationship that exists between gender, power, and violence in our society. The objective of this blog is to combine these distinct points of view to provide an in-depth understanding of how toxic masculinity feeds systemic problems homophobia and violence, ultimately producing a society that is less inclusive and equitable. 

In his article “Masculinity as Homophobia,” Michael Kimmel delves into the intricate dynamics between traditional masculinity and cultural violence. One of the central ideas he explores is the association between manhood and power, with violence often serving as a symbolic marker of masculinity. Kimmel encapsulates this concept with the statement, “Manhood is equated with power.” (Kimmel 2), where power becomes synonymous with being a man. This association between masculinity and power creates a culture that values dominance and control, often at the expense of women and marginalized groups. By equating manhood with power, societal expectations place an immense amount of pressure on men to conform to aggressive and dominant behaviours to prove their masculinity. Kimmel’s claim is supported by the events seen in the Vice News video “Charlottesville: Race and Terror,” in which white nationalists defend their claimed rights and exert authority by justifying violence during demonstrations. Chris Cantwell’s demonstration of his many guns and explanation in response to the hit-and-run incident reinforces Kimmel’s notion about violence being used to feel powerful. He wants all the world to know that if you aren’t a straight, white, Christian, masculine man, you are as one of the followers put it “Vermin” and you will be hunted because you “don’t belong” in America. Cantwell does this to make his “enemies” afraid for their lives and feel as if they are inferior to the White Nationalists. This could be explained by Kimmel’s statement, “Men are in power as a group and the psychological fact that they do not feel powerful as individuals. They are the feelings of men who were raised to believe themselves entitled to feel that power, but do not feel it.” (Kimmel 2) In reality, Cantwell and his followers are the ones who feel powerless, so they justify the use of violence, as seen in the hit-and-run, to prove that they are the more dominant, masculine beings who deserve to be in total control. These men cannot take any responsibility for their own “shortcomings” and blame the people who finally regained their power after centuries of oppression. This overwhelming feeling of entitlement creates a toxic and divisive society that feeds off young, misguided men who feel entitled to power and lash out when they feel as if they don’t have the power, they feel they should have. 

As mentioned in Will James’ presentation, Andrew Tate’s embrace of the Manosphere, promotion of male supremacy and violence towards women can be connected to Michael Kimmel’s “Masculinity as Homophobia” through the lens of how traditional masculinity perpetuates harmful gender norms and behaviours. Kimmel argues that hyper-masculine qualities like violence, dominance, and a sense of entitlement are often adopted by men who embrace traditional masculinity because they fear being seen as feminine or homosexual. The fear of not living up to traditional gender norms may come out as actions that support toxic masculinity, such as violence against women. This way of thinking is supported by Andrew Tate’s definition of masculinity, which is limited and stubborn and places more value on dominance and power than on empathy and respect. Tate contributes to toxic masculinity by reinforcing negative gender role expectations and pushing men to use violence to establish their authority. Kimmel notes that all these variables are part of societal demands. Andrew Tate’s emphasis on the inferiority of women fuels the incel culture, with its focus on sexual shortcomings and hatred towards women. The ideas in “Inside Incel” directly relate to Michael Kimmel’s resonating statement: “Insecurity about masculinity breeds homophobia: the fear that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the world that we do not measure up, that we are not real men.” In the context of the incel community, who are influenced by individuals like Tate, fixate on perceived inadequacies in masculinity and direct their frustrations toward women, leading to a cycle of misogyny and violence.  Many incels harbour insecurities about their masculinity, often due to perceived inadequacies in areas such as physical appearance, social status, or sexual experience. This fear of not being seen as a “real man” by society or other men can manifest as hostility towards anything perceived as feminine or non-conforming. Individuals within the incel community become fixated on their perceived failures to meet societal expectations of masculinity like being sexually successful or dominant. This fuels feelings of inadequacy and resentment towards women, whom they see as the gatekeepers of male validation and acceptance. Because these young men are unable to achieve the idealized version of masculinity as promoted by the likes of Andrew Tate, incels redirect their frustrations and anger toward women, blaming them for rejecting them romantically or sexually. This can lead to the objectification of women, feelings of entitlement, and ultimately, a cycle of misogyny and violence as highlighted in the documentary through the likes of Rodger or Minassian.

Although toxic masculinity still has an overwhelming grasp, there are ways to confront and change toxic masculinity into positive forms. Kimmel provides a road map for tearing down harmful gender norms and behaviours with his focus on promoting empathy, respect, and inclusivity. One way people may contribute to the creation of a more welcoming and equitable society is by promoting open discussions about gender and masculinity. Efforts that fight toxic masculinity, like those featured in “Inside Incel,” also provide promise for resolving systemic problems like homophobia and misogyny where the perspective of a young man was completely transformed by just listening and being given the correct information. Education, the promotion of inclusiveness and the redefinition of masculinity as proposed by Kimmel is the key to creating a just and more positive society.

Blog 1: Breaking Free

From out of the womb, everything is chosen for us boys. Starting with our clothing which is all “masculine colours”, forget wearing pink because that would mean you were a girl and how awful would it be if you dressed your little boy like a GIRL? Even before birth everything from toys, cribs, strollers and even the colour of our rooms are specially curated to match what society associates with the male gender. This is just the beginning, the path we are expected to follow only gets increasingly narrow as we grow into adults. Do you ever want to forget what other people think? Deviate from society’s expectations of us? Don’t you want to be free? By fusing the ideas of masculinity and society’s expectations from Marc’s experience in Lortie’s “Invincible” and Carlos’ point of view in chapter 3 of his book “Man Up”, these two pieces demonstrate that there exists a yearning for liberation, a desire to break free from the confines of expectation and carve our own path.

The narratives of Marc and Carlos, depicted in their respective stories, serve as reflections of this struggle against society’s expectations of them. In the movie “Invincible,” Marc finds himself trapped within the suffocating walls of a juvenile detention center when all he wants to do is be with his family. He is forced to conform to the hardened exterior expected of him, he longs for the freedom to express his true emotions, an effort made when he tried to present the poem about his feelings, and nobody paid attention to it. The institution, with its rigid rules and cold demeanour, serves as a metaphorical representation of the societal constructs that seek to mould him into a certain mould of masculinity. He only feels like himself when he is with his sister, where judgment holds no value, and he can express himself.

Similarly, Carlos navigates the treacherous waters of societal expectations in his journey. From a young age, he learns that deviation from traditional gender norms invites scorn and retribution. Like when he painted his nails, was laughed at, and called horrible homophobic slurs. On top of that, when he goes home crying, his aunt just says, “I tried to tell you, Carlos Andres, but you wouldn’t listen”. Instead of encouraging him to be himself and not care about what the other little boys say, she just reinforces the fact that it isn’t “okay” to want to do “girly things”. This lack of consolation from an important figure is like Luc’s lack of empathy for Marc when instead of finding ways of encouraging him, he punishes him, representing the coldness of the institution he represents, but I will get more into this later.

Another theme in these two stories, but mostly Carlos’, is how women characteristics are always portrayed as “weak” or “emotional”. Men like to associate vulgar words associated with women as a way of shaming another man or calling them weak. But why is this? Why is being called a woman or being referred to as something a woman has or feels a bad thing? This is because being compared to a woman makes men feel less masculine. That’s why men who show too much emotion, like Carlos when he says, “I’ve always been very sensitive”, are scrutinized and called names like “pussy” and “bitch” to put them down and make them feel like they are less of a man. Which is really messed up. Not only are you putting down a man for expressing his emotions, but you are also saying that being a woman is a bad thing. We all have mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, friends, and neighbours who are women, and we love and care for them. So why do we put down all these strong and powerful women, by comparing NORMAL men who go through NORMAL HUMAN EMOTIONS to vulgar and misused words that are just pointless? An obvious answer would be the fact that society has set unreasonable standards for men. While we may not physically be forced to follow the path predetermined for us, it would be dangerous for our mental well-being to deviate from it. Like Carlos with the fear of not fitting in and being rejected by society and his father. And Marc, with the fear of expressing how he truly feels but can’t because the institution he resides in encourages him to stay silent, to be more of what they call “a man”.

 Carlos was forced to suppress his true self to appease his father’s vision of masculinity, he finds himself trapped in a cycle of conformity. Homophobia becomes almost a method of survival because being gay is not being masculine therefore he is not being the man society and his father want him to be. The gym becomes his sanctuary, not out of passion, but out of obligation to fulfill his father’s expectations. He always felt like he wasn’t good enough of a son for his father because he didn’t particularly like all the typical “masculine” things the other boys and his brother were doing to make their fathers proud, like playing sports. The fear of disappointing his father is a big fear of his, stifling any semblance of individuality or emotional expression. Like Carlos’ father, Luc served as an authority figure to Marc who enforced masculinity upon him by making sure he wouldn’t stray from the institution’s expectations of him and scolding him/ punishing him when he would. This is like Carlos’s father being disappointed in him which deters him from doing what he wants to do, which is to be himself, an individual.

Marc’s daring escape from the detention center symbolizes his refusal to be shackled by societal norms, his yearning for freedom echoing the sentiments of countless others trapped within the confines of expectation. Similarly, Carlos finds inspiration in Zambia when he sees that men can display emotion and affection without being judged. He longs for that and that’s his idea of freedom. Carlos loves the sense of individuality these Zambian men have. Not only can they show love without it being sexualized, but it is ENCOURAGED to be affectionate with other men. This is interesting because, in the West, you rarely see this sort of innocent intimacy between men without being shamed and called a “faggot”. Additionally, same-gender affection is usually only limited to women in the Western world. Seeing two women holding hands in public wouldn’t be a problem, but the second there are two men, westerners think “Those men have to be gay”, they are immediately judged, and seen as not masculine. This again shames men for being individuals while putting down women at the same time—two birds with one word. As men, we must be aware that we CAN be who we want to be without having to put down another person or gender. It is we who must reshape institutions into creating not masculine men, but individual men. Instead of forcing young “troubled” boys like Marc into silencing their voices, we should be able to encourage them to speak up and express their emotions and feelings instead of flushing them down a narrow, one-way path that disregards what it means to be a man. In the case of Marc, having a sympathetic authority figure, who tried to listen instead of enforcing the institution’s unrealistic expectations of masculinity, as Luc did, may have saved his life.

In conclusion, the tales of Marc and Carlos serve as powerful reminders of the inherent human desire for autonomy and self-expression. In a world dictated by rigid gender roles and societal expectations, the journey toward liberation is filled with obstacles. However, by daring to challenge the status quo and embrace their true selves, they illuminate a path toward freedom for all those who dare to follow. These two stories pave a new path where masculinity isn’t predetermined for them, where it isn’t forced upon them, where they don’t have to be masculine men— but individuals.