Blog 3: Black and White

Racism is something that many of us had the unfortunate luck of experiencing. Some ways to denounce racism came in the form of movies and books. Film director Jordan Peele and writer Desmond Cole demonstrated racism through their art, Peele with his movie Get Out and Cole with his book The Skin We’re in. They share with the world what it is to be a Black man living in society, particularly in Canada and the US. No matter how liberal people claim themselves to be, they still end up being racist, whether it is intentional or not because we live in a society that has been founded on racism. This is seen through the denial people have of racism, and white supremacy, the history of racism in society, and the stereotypes created on Black men.

Now that it is the 21^st century, people have begun to promote open-mindedness to everything and every one, however, despite the inclusivity, people are still closed-minded to others, even when they think they are not. Canada is known to be a multicultural country that accepts anyone from anywhere in the world and its people pride themselves on being equally accepting. However, this is not truly the case. In Cole’s book, he documented the Black Lives Matter Toronto’s Tent City Demonstration, where people were protesting public injustices against black people (Cole 2). He met Michelle Erin Hopkins who says that people refuse to accept the fact that Canada has a race problem like the US (Cole 3). People can’t accept the fact that Canada is indeed like the US because, to the general population, everything bad happens in the US. Even though Canada is a very open country, people, mostly white, are truly not as inclusive as they pretend to be. Black people do experience racism in Canada and others like to pretend that they don’t because they wouldn’t be able to handle the responsibility of their actions. As Hopkins said, black people are everywhere, even if you don’t want them there (Cole 3), racism is not exclusive to only the US. In the movie Get Out, we are introduced to a character called Jim Hudson, a blind white man, who viewers think might be a good person, however they soon learn that he’s just as bad as the rest of the people in the party, perhaps even worse. In one scene where Chris Washington is in the basement usually experiencing hypnosis to make him pliant, doesn’t get hypnosis but is instead met with Jim Hudson, who had purchased him (Peele 1:22:18). When Washington asks Hudson why they go for black people, Hudson replies “Who knows? People want change. Some want to be stronger, faster, cooler. But don’t… Please don’t lump me in with that. You know, I could give a shit what-what colour you are. No. What I want is deeper. I want your eye, man. I want those things you see through.” (Peele 1:24:42-1:25:22) Hudson acknowledges the fact of the racism in their cult when he asks not to be lumped in with the rest of the members of the Order of the Coagula because he truly believes that he is not like them. However, despite claiming not to be like them, he is doing exactly what they were doing. He participated in the bidding for Washington, he is putting part of himself in Chris because he has something he doesn’t, just like the other members of the Order. He views Washington as less than human, his only value is his eyes and refers to them as things as if they’re not part of Chris himself. Hudson doesn’t acknowledge Chris’ talent for art and truly thinks that if he gets to see through Chris’ eyes, he will have the same perspective as Chris even though Chris is capturing his experience through his lenses, something that Hudson will never experience. Just like Roman Armitage, the founder of the Order, who lost against Jesse Owens, who now runs in the body of a black man (Peele 1:35:14), Hudson, whose art didn’t get accepted, hopes to capitalize on the success Washington has. Despite people’s belief that they live in a society that does not participate in racism, people are still more likely to be racist, as it is ingrained in our world.

Today, white supremacy is seen as a good thing, white people revamped its definition to a more positive connotation. People say that they act to help, not to destroy, even if that’s what they end up doing anyway. Cole says that “whiteness pretends to forget its name when called and refuses to acknowledge its desire for dominance” (Cole 9) and “today’s white supremacist settler colonial context always comes in peace and goodwill. They always tell us they mean well, and thus they refuse to own their endless violence against Black people.” (Cole 9) White people may claim to mean well, but their insensitivity and lack of understanding towards marginalized groups end up making their actions destructive. When they commit unforgivable acts, they hide behind the belief that what they are doing is for the good of all people even when it’s not, they refuse to acknowledge their fault in something because they were raised to believe that what they are doing is right and live in a society that caters towards white people. When they get called out for their actions, they are quick to claim that it was an accident, that they didn’t mean it, ignoring the consequences of their actions. Throughout the whole movie, all the white people, particularly the Armitage family act as though they are doing a good thing when they kidnap Black people and turn them into almost mindless beings, devoid of any control, all for the benefit of white people. They refuse to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong, even until the very end of the movie with Rose Armitage, who tries to kill Chris. (Peele 1:35:10) When Washington is locked up in the basement, he sees a video from Roman where he explains the great things they could do together and be perfect and then explains the Coagula procedure. (Peele 1:13:32-1:15:01) Roman truly believes that what he is doing is for the good of people, especially for the members of his Order, when it is not. He wants dominance over people with abilities he does not possess himself, making them his just like he did with the black man who could run fast. He says that Washington has been chosen because of the physical advantage he has and that with his gift and Roman’s determination they could be part of something greater, something perfect (Peele 1:14:00-1:14:20). This belief goes hand in hand with how white supremacist see themselves in the world, how they dominate over people who are different from them, how they believe that what they are doing is for the greater good even though they are resorting to violence. With the Armitage, they perform surgeries to give Black people’s bodies to white people, who lack certain abilities. Even if white people believe that they do actions for the good people, they often have the opposite effect, leading to unnecessary cruelty towards Black people.

While countries like Canada and the US like to claim that they are inclusive and free of discrimination, their foundation has always involved racism. Desmond talks about the history of racism in America, where he says that after the American Revolution, Black people were promised freedom for their contribution but instead of gaining their freedom, they became slaves to white masters (Cole 7). Not only that, but he also mentions a bylaw that essentially banned Black people from doing anything of their own free will such as socializing and drinking (Cole 7). Canada also participated in racism with their century-long genocide against indigenous people, effectively stealing their land (Cole 8). While most people acknowledge the fact that the countries they currently live in have practised some sort of racism, there will always be people, mostly white, who will defend the racist foundations of countries like the US. While Canada may not have inherently been racist to Black people, they still practised racism that resulted in the deaths of many Indigenous people, simply because they were on territory that had been claimed by colonizers. While slavery may not be legal and present in current societies, we still see racism in other instances with people like John, who was simply hosting events to have fun, who had faced the same fear as did the Black people when the bylaw that banned Black people from enjoying themselves (Cole 7). In the movie, there was a certain scene where Chris was being auctioned off to one of the many white people that were present at the party (Peele 00:59:25-1:00:12). Not only that but the black people in the movie were also being held against their will by white people such as the Armitage with their black caretakers (Peele 1:34:25) and Logan King with Andrey Hayworth (Peele 1:04:05). As liberal as the white people presented themselves to be, they showed a lot of racism towards black people. They participated in an auction that quite literally was selling a real person, a parallel to slave auctions during the period of American slavery, which emphasizes the current practices of racism in modern society. The other three black people Chris encounters during his stay in the Armitage house could be seen as slaves. While they may not be during hard and exhaustive labour, they do not have any free will. They are controlled by their white owners who took over their bodies for their benefit, which sounds a lot like slavery. They cannot refuse any commands and if they go against orders, they are hypnotized once again to turn back to normal, or in a state where they hold no consciousness (Peele 00:55:53-00:56:41). While current society is more progressive than in the past, there are still subtle or even obvious practices of racism that are still happening. It is impossible to escape from a past that has been deeply rooted in racism.

Black people have always been stereotyped in one way or another. Most stereotypes are rather harmful which leads to certain prejudice against people. While in other cases some stereotypes may be done with good intentions, they ultimately still harm the people that are subjected to these stereotypes. In the story about John that Cole mentions, the person who gets harassed and arrested is a Black man (Cole 4). Cole himself says that has been stopped by cops multiple times because he is a Black man (Cole 16). The criminalization of Black men has been a serious issue for many years and still has not been close to being solved. It creates a certain perception of black masculinity as people associate violence with a quality of Black men. Not only that, but the multiple arrests that Black men face affect their own identity and often emasculate them. They fear that their actions will be villainized for no other reason than their being black so they often refrain from showing any type of emotion that could lead to them getting hurt. In the movie, Chris is faced with many seemingly harmless questions and remarks that are very stereotypical. Jeremy Armitage makes many comments on Chris’s physique, commenting on how big and strong his body is and even compares him to a beast (Peele 00:24:27-00:24:50), a stereotype often linked to black men. At a certain point, one of the guests asks a rather uncomfortable question about Chris’s sexual prowess (Peele 00:43:20-00:43:38). These comments that the white people make about Chris may be based on what they consider less harmful stereotypes of Black men, but at the end of the day they are still bad. Jeremy essentially dehumanizes Chris, comparing him to a beast, a mindless creature that functions on pure instinct, and sees him for his physical abilities and not as a person. The questions the lady makes further the dehumanization of Chris, asking about him as if he’s an object and not a person. These remarks usually create harmful characteristics for black masculinity, as Black men are expected to be strong, big, and violent. Stereotypes created by white people lead to negative characteristics being associated with Black men, which often villainizes them.

By creating stereotypes and denying the existence of racism in a society that has been promoting racism and white supremacy, liberal people end up being racist because we live in a society that has been founded on racism. This was shown through the works of Desmond Cole’s book and Jordan Peele’s movie. Despite there still being a lot of racism today, will society ever be able to reach a point where racism ceases to exist?

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.

The Incompetent Patrick Bateman

Released in 2000, American Psycho featured Christian Bale, who played Patrick Bateman, a young and wealthy NYC investment banker who lives a double life. He maintains appearances with his fiancée and circle of wealthy associates while harbouring intense hatred for them. Having a great obsession with materialism and status, Bateman spirals into a dark world of violence and psychosis. His murderous acts, disguised by his polished exterior, go against traditional notions of masculinity, exposing the emptiness and toxicity behind societal expectations. As his body count rises, Bateman’s grip on reality loosens, blurring the lines between fantasy and reality. Bateman is what people would call a yuppie, a derogatory term that refers to a young person who has a well-paying job and lives a fashionable life. He is intelligent, attractive, charismatic and isn’t afraid of flaunting his money.

There are many examples of toxicity in the movie however one of the more iconic scenes in is when Bateman and Paul Allen show their business cards to their colleagues. Not only does Bateman express insecurity and anger when he thinks that Allen’s card is better than his, their colleagues also displayed insecurity and blind conformity when they agreed that Allen’s card was better, even if all the cards were the exact same. After this moment, Bateman goes up to a homeless man and proceeds to kill him, venting his anger towards his colleagues into the homeless man. Another example is when Bateman gets confused as Allen, a satirical take on the stereotype that all yuppies look the same. While one would brush of the fact that they got confused for another, Bateman, who has fragile sense of self, took great offence. He invites Allen to his house and kills him in a fit of rage. He also uses women for his own personal benefit. He views women as objects and any of his relationships with them holds no emotional connection, they’re there solely to increase his social status and his self-confidence. Throughout the whole movie, when Bateman feels some sense of powerlessness, he automatically resorts to extreme violence to cope with his loss of control.

The movie itself uses traits of the Wall Street elite in the 1980s and satirizes it to make masculinity as fragile and artificial. In American Psycho, masculinity is seen through physical representations of power which Bateman shows through his violence towards women who are sexualized and other competitive men. Patrick feels immense insecurity in his own social circle, he does not seem to fit in. He has no real influence over others and is often confused for other bankers. He hires prostitutes to gain some sort of control and attention that he does not possess when he is with other people. Another thing he does is make his victims listen to music. He does this because no one cares about Bateman’s opinion or anything about him. He mimics the masculine traits his coworkers have to make up for his incompetence.

This movie also had a major impact in our generation. In 2022, the movie blew up on TikTok and created a new wave of toxic masculinity called “Sigma males” which are essentially the perfect men. They don’t boast their status like alpha males and they attract women unlike beta males. They accept themselves as different and they are respectful and successful men. Patrick Bateman became the ideal role model of the sigma male movement. Boys and men ignore his descent to madness and boil down his character as a guy who gets a lot of women and money. Ironically, Patrick Bateman could be anything but a sigma male. He chases after validation and flaunts his wealth in order to fit in his social circle. While he does have a lot of success and gets many women, they ultimately result into his madness. He is everything but a perfect man.

Blog 2: Supremacy and Inferiority

Today, masculinity has been defined in many ways, some in a toxic way while others in a positive light. Through two documentaries, people can discover two different extremes of masculinity. By using Micheal Kimmel’s article and Will James’ talk, we can analyze the two vastly different yet similar behaviours of the people in these documentaries. White supremacists and Incels exemplify toxic masculinity, marked by violence, dominance, and fear of losing power. With the two documentaries, we can witness and understand their behaviour.

What is considered a person practicing toxic masculinity? According to Will James, toxic masculinity is “an attitude or set of social guidelines stereotypically associated with manliness that often harm men, women, and society in general” that is characterized by violence, dominance, sexual aggression towards women, stoicism, hiding our feelings, and extreme independence. Michael Kimmel sees toxic masculinity as a restrictive definition of manhood enforced through societal norms, perpetuated by fear of appearing feminine or weak. This leads to the marginalization of those who do not conform, the glorification of violence, and the reinforcement of inequalities such as sexism and homophobia. He claims that the “great secret of American manhood” is that men fear other men. In the two videos presented in class, we can see behaviour that can be classified as toxic masculinity.

The first documentary, Charlottesville: Race and Terror uploaded by Vice News, was a documentary on the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, with one side being the white supremacists, the neo-Nazis, and the other side being multiple minorities. The right side was protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee and was trying to unify all the white nationalists. They were not afraid of using extreme measures to get their point across, going as far as killing people. This goes hand in hand with both Kimmel’s and James’ characterization of toxic masculinity, the usage of violence to assert their dominance over minorities. Not only that, in Kimmel’s analysis of toxic masculinity, he emphasizes the fear that men have of other men, particularly in situations where their perceived power or dominance is challenged. In the context of the Charlottesville rally, this fear is evident among the white nationalists who feel threatened by the presence and perceived influence of minorities. Their resort to violence, as documented in the Vice News documentary, reflects an attempt to assert their dominance and maintain their sense of superiority. This fear of losing control or being displaced by others, as exemplified by their response to the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue and the perceived threat of minority empowerment, aligns with Kimmel’s assertion that men often resort to extreme measures when confronted with challenges to their masculinity or status. These white nationalists felt threatened by other men who seemingly held more power over them, as can be seen when the men interviewed say that the non-white people were taking over “their” land. They were heard screaming homophobic, antisemitic, and racist comments as well. As the video continues, they truly believe that they are right and that anything else is wrong. These men aren’t afraid of showing violence, yet they are afraid of change. At one point we discover that someone from the alt-right killed a protester with their car. When Cristopher Cantwell, one of the leaders of the white nationalist side, was asked on this matter, he insisted on the fact that it was a good thing, that the protester deserved to die. He held no empathy towards the victim and felt no remorse, a behaviour that characterizes toxic masculinity according to Will James. The only clear emotion was extreme anger that caused equally extreme violence. The white supremacists cling to a narrow definition of masculinity, enforced by societal norms, which is understood as power and control being essential traits of manhood. When faced with challenges to this masculinity, such as the removal of symbols they associate with their identity, the statue of Robert, they react violently to assert their dominance and maintain their sense of power. Additionally, their hatred and aggression towards minorities are fueled by a sense of entitlement to privileges they believe are inherent to their racial identity.

Similarly, the second documentary, Inside Incel uploaded by CBC, The Fifth Estate, was an online phenomenon that extended to the outside world. This phenomenon was characterized by men practicing involuntary celibacy, also known as Incels. These Incels would go into an online forum and discuss their hatred towards the world, more specifically towards women as they are seen as the root of all evil. In a desperate attempt to justify their anger towards a world where that brutally rejected their existence, these Incels went as far as saying that they are entitled to having women and that they deserve what other men deserve, successfully objectifying women. Some even killed people in their anger, one case being Alex Minassian. He ran over multiple women, killing over a dozen of them. As he was hailed as a martyr for their cause, Incels took his case to heart and started killing people as well. In Michael Kimmel’s analysis of masculinity, particularly concerning feminist perspectives, he acknowledges the theory posed by feminist women that masculinity is often associated with a “drive for domination, the drive for power, for conquest.” This theory suggests that societal expectations of masculinity can lead men to seek dominance and control over others as a means of affirming their masculinity. In the case of Incels, who feel rejected and marginalized by society, particularly by women, their resort to violence can be seen as an attempt to assert power and control in a world where they feel powerless. Their sense of entitlement to women and the anger resulting from perceived rejection fuel their desire to restore their dominance through violent means. This aligns with Kimmel’s understanding of masculinity as intertwined with power dynamics and the pursuit of dominance, especially in response to perceived challenges to one’s masculinity. They use violence to restore their dominance over others, wanting to be accepted in a society that is supposed to cater to them. Another claim that Kimmel makes is that men’s feelings are feelings of “men who were raised to believe themselves entitled to feel that power, but do not feel it.” The Incels exhibit violent behaviours driven by feelings of rejection and powerlessness. As they are unable to fulfil societal expectations of masculinity, particularly concerning romantic and sexual success, they harbour resentment towards women and society. This sense of entitlement to owning women, coupled with a belief that they are unjustly denied what they perceive as what they deserve, fuels their anger and aggression. The online forums they frequent serve as echo chambers that reinforce their toxic beliefs and justify their violent actions as a means of reclaiming power and control.

In conclusion, while white supremacists and Incels may be very different groups of men, they share a lot in common, notably their violence towards others different from them. They use violence, fueled by pure anger to restore their power and dominance in a world that does not accept them as men. Many other types of extremist views of masculinity exist in the world, all of which cause harm to others and don’t solve the problem the extremists have. Will James offered a beautiful way of teaching the younger generation about positive masculinity by creating a book of activities centered around spreading healthier masculinity. In a world where toxic masculinity prevails, people must create a more inclusive definition of masculinity to quell this thirst for violence and power. We must ask ourselves what kind of society do we want to create.

Kimmel, Michael. Masculinity as Homophobia. 1994.
Charlottesville: Race and Terror. YouTube, Vice News, 14 Aug. 2017,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg&t=5s. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022.
Inside Incel, CBC, The Fifth Estate, 27 Jan. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqWjCHPg9gA.
Accessed 25 Sept. 2023.
James, Will, Online Influencers, Toxic Masculinity, and the Classroom, Vanier College, March 5, 2024

Blog 1: Beyond the Boundaries

As a girl today, I don’t really concern myself with issues of masculinity. My surroundings are mostly other girls so I don’t think about how men are in our current society. However, after reading Carlos Andrés Gómez’s memoir and watching the short film Invincible, I’ve come to realize how some of my views on masculinity are false, more precisely on the notion of homophobia, gender norms, and societal pressures, showcasing the complexity of masculinity and how differently society reacts to men going against and conforming to the concept of masculinity.

In Gómez’s memoir, Man Up: Cracking the Code of Modern Manhood, he starts his chapter off with an incident that occurred during his childhood. He writes about how he wore nail polish one day and got made fun of, and bullied even because it was gay to wear nail polish. When he later came back home crying, his aunt just told him that she tried to tell him and that he wouldn’t listen. I hadn’t realized how deeply homophobia and masculinity ran in kids. The confusion Gomez felt was heartbreaking, he was just a child who wanted to feel nice. Kids are taught that boys wearing makeup is harmful and feminine, which is what men should never be according to society. His aunt’s reaction to him getting picked on surprised me, I expected her to be more comforting than dismissive. It just shows how adults push the narrative of “masculinity” and how the concept of a “real man” really hasn’t changed since the past. Another moment that hit me was when he said, “When I am not the overbearing, all-powerful man, who am I?” It showed society’s expectations of men and if a man does not fulfill them, they are anything but men. Everything Carlos was taught led to this, his definition of masculinity is what his family, his friends, and his world told him was, he did not have his definition of what it is to be a man. His identity depended on what people wanted him to be and that made me realize how dependent men were on society even if they tell others they don’t care about other people’s opinions. It showed me the fear men had of deviating from outdated gender roles that are encouraged in Western society.

In the short film, Invincible, Marc shows traits of what people would call real masculinity. He acts up in the detention center a few times, for example when he turns on the fire alarm with a lighter that he sneaked in, with the way he dismisses figures of authority, and when he runs away. He also seemed to have anger issues, he was easily angered, something that is seen as masculine. I was curious to know how people would react to this behaviour because society usually dismisses this with a “boys will be boys”, however, the reaction was completely different, Marc was punished for his behaviour and was even told that he was better than this, that he could be better which brings me to my other point, his softness. Regardless of how masculine he was projecting himself, he was just a child. He liked to read, to write and knew how to take care of plants, which are seen as feminine. I was pleasantly surprised to see that he was encouraged to do his hobbies rather than criticized for his interests. This went completely against the contemporary Western narrative that usually excuses certain types of behaviour, such as violence, under the notion of masculinity and the discouragement of what is considered feminine. When he went on his last drive, he called his mother, and even if he didn’t say anything I could feel his emotions. As invincible as he projected himself to be, he was just a little boy who didn’t get enough time to grow up. As I saw the reaction to his rebellious behaviour and the encouragement to pursue his interests, I realized the potential for a more inclusive understanding of masculinity and even a change of the rigid expectations placed on men.

In both works, the two boys have their freedom taken away by the world around them, one more literally and the other figuratively. Carlos’ freedom of expression is taken away from him, he doesn’t feel safe enough to express himself freely because of what his family and society taught him. When he travelled around, he saw how other cultures worked and how intimate the people were. He expressed how much he loved it, and how open these men were, even if his body contradicted his mind, which surprised me because I thought he would have been more uncomfortable given how disgusted he was in the gay club and had even admitted to himself that he was homophobic. By the end of the chapter, Carlos gets an epiphany where he realizes how he was being narrow-minded because of how he was raised and gains his freedom. His journey showed me how societal expectations limited his freedom of expression, emphasizing the importance of conforming to predefined notions of masculinity that are already imposed by Western society. In the short film, Marc has his freedom taken away from him. The film is about his last 48 hours where he attempts to gain his freedom back from a society that had deemed him as a troubled boy. From what I know, men tend to hate when their freedom is taken away because it is seen as weak, and this film showed me two perspectives on this. Most of the boys in the center seem to like the place except for Marc who wants to run away. While he does successfully run away, he ends up killing himself which made me think of how society would see him because suicide is seen by many as a weak thing and unmanly so would they shame him or empathize with him.

While exploring both pieces, I learned a lot of new things and questioned my understanding of certain topics of masculinity. From Carlo’s experience with homophobia to Marc’s life in detention, I was able to see how differently people reacted to men doing things seen as unmanly and even things that were seen as masculine. While reflecting on the text and film, I recognized that my initial indifference toward issues of masculinity had given way to a nuanced understanding. The quest for self-expression, the conflicts with societal norms, and the delicate balance between toughness and vulnerability all contributed to a richer understanding of masculinity. As I continue to explore and understand these perspectives, I’m more motivated to engage in ongoing conversations that contribute to a more nuanced understanding of masculinity in our society.

Gómez, Carlos Andrés “Guys Club: No Faggots, Bitches, or Pussies Allowed.” Man up: Cracking the Code of
Modern Manhood, Gotham Books, 2012, pp. 65–83.
René-Lortie, Vincent, director. Invincible, TV5 Unis, 2022, https://www.tv5unis.ca/invincible.