Blog Post 4 – Gender Diversity

Miguel Gama

When Cultures Clash

Differences are what make up a diverse society. For a society to become diverse, it has to go through an intense period of cultural clashes and learn how to cohabit with people who hold different moral, religious, and social orders. To dive deeper into the topic of gender expression within European society as well as the First Nations approach, several aspects have to be touched upon as well as analyzing the situation through both lenses. This blog post will delve into the cultural differences between European and First Nations approaches to gender expression, highlighting historical and contemporary impacts. We’ll explore the culture shocks and major differences, the mutual perceptions between these societies, and how these perspectives manifest today. Finally, I’ll share my views on societal integration, underscoring the importance of embracing diverse worldviews for a more inclusive society.

Whenever two distinct societies come in contact with each other, a culture shock is inevitable. When reading Keough and Campbell’s excerpt on Gender and cultural diversity in the Early Contact Period, the reactions from both communities depict a clear difference in customs. This is seen when the authors reflect on the episode, “When Europeans “discovered” North America, they did not find a land devoid of human culture.” (Keough, Campbell, 16). They both held major differences as First Nations gender relations were more in touch with fluidity as well as acknowledging Two-Spirit identities as integral parts of the communities. On the other hand, European society’s format of gender expression was more of a rigid patriarchal structure, enforced by gender norms and roles. The previously mentioned term ‘Two-Spirit’ was explicitly analyzed in the documentary Trans in Trumpland: Idaho. For instance, the story of Shane Ortega, who identifies as two-spirit and is a retired army veteran (Zosherafatain, 3:10). Ortega is a great example of how many two-spirit people struggle with navigating societal acceptance while honouring their First Nations heritage. 

The culture shock between European and First Nations societies highlights their vastly different gender norms and concepts like property and individual wealth, revealing deep cultural divergences. These differences also apply to how each society handles gender norms, with First Nations communities emphasizing collective well-being and inclusivity, in stark contrast to Europe’s rigid patriarchal structures. The main thing that struck a chord with First Nations peoples was the concept of European liberty. Famous figures such as Kondiaronk (Kathwaroon, 6) were the main challengers of the concepts of wealth and power connected to gender in European societies. The native communities believed in a less rigid hierarchical structure, that was often matrilinear, meaning, that women had more relevance in society through lineage and participation in communal decisions.

While First Nations communities embraced a fluid and inclusive approach to gender, Europeans viewed Indigenous gender expressions through a lens of rigid, patriarchal norms that often caused an imbalance in power between genders. As read in Keough and Campbell’s text on gender and diversity in the early contact period, European society was built upon paternalism. It is clear when the authors expand on the dynamics of authority, “even women of elite rank were perceived as subordinate to men of the same rank.” (Keough, Campbell, 6). Authority and power distribution were not based on the sheer details of that power but on the gender of the powerful. 

⁤ Lastly, how European colonizers and First Nations communities interacted in the past has deeply influenced modern societal views on gender diversity. ⁤⁤European colonization imposed strict male-dominated structures on Indigenous societies that had previously accepted flexible and inclusive gender norms, including the acknowledgment of Two-Spirit identities. ⁤⁤This imposition marginalized individuals who did not adhere to European standards, a history that still impacts the current resistance to gender diversity. ⁤⁤Even though they faced opposition from individuals like Kondiaronk initially, European paternalism managed to prevail, frequently placing women and marginalized genders in subordinate positions. ⁤⁤In response to existing reluctance toward gender diversity, society can take lessons from Indigenous philosophies prioritizing flexibility and inclusiveness. ⁤⁤By accepting a variety of gender expressions, we can break through strict systems and encourage fairness and admiration for all identities. ⁤⁤Therefore, the conflict between European and Indigenous norms emphasizes the importance of embracing broader perspectives for a fairer future.

Blog Post 3: The Skin We’re In

This blog post analyses the complex relationships that exist between Black men and society as they are depicted in the memoir “The Skin We’re In” by Desmond Cole and the film “Get Out” by Jordan Peele. Both pieces illustrate a complicated web of struggle against racism and the imposition of White cultural norms, shedding light on the nuances of microaggressions and their cumulative effects on Black men. By contrasting these modern representations with the classic male identities shown in “Fight Club,” this analysis shows how Black masculinity is becoming more understood.

An everyday routine should usually contain basic things such as eating, showering, going to work, school, or other things that everyone does extremely frequently. Unfortunately, for some racialized minorities, microaggressions are a part of the list of things that happen extremely often to them. Microaggressions are actions that on the surface level, are seemingly minor. However, as they stack up, they become overwhelming and deeply frustrating. Microaggressions are so unfortunate because they are the gateway to macroaggressions, discrimination and the further racialization of minorities. They can sometimes serve as “little” reminders or backhanded compliments, regarding the person’s race.

Jordan Peele’s Get Out does an incredible job of depicting these actions and how they might be perceived or felt from the standpoint of a Black man. These are seen multiple times throughout the movie, like when Dean Armitage reminds Chris that he would vote for Obama for a third time if he could, as a means of dismissing the possibility of him being racist (Peele 18:57). Another instance is when Rose’s brother, Jeremy, goes out of his way to comment on Chris’s frame and genetic makeup, implying that Black men have superior physical capabilities (Peele 24:40). Another medium that is an excellent portrayal of microagressions is Desmond Cole’s The Skin We’re In. His memoir’s title is an allusion to the fact that a lot of Black people might feel that these stereotypes and microaggressions are just further enforcing the idea that the colour of their skin is relevant to how their character will be perceived.  It is another reflection of the experience that Black people go through when managing the ups and downs that come with the Skin they’re in. These two examples are just a few of the instances where Chris was reminded of his blackness and also as a means of reinforcing the fact that he is an outsider in their environment. 

While microaggressions are more frequently observed in society, you can’t turn a blind eye to how they evolve and become a bigger issue, than macroaggressions. Cole does an amazing job of describing the presence of racism and white supremacy in Canada. It is seen through the lenses of Black Canadians and the portrayal of the Indigenous experience in what Cole calls “Project Canada”. He explains how he came to accept the Skin he’s in, “I came to resent my blackness as a child because it made me feel powerless and scared. It has taken most of my adult years to embrace this skin, this ancestry, this struggle.” (Cole 16) He explains that white supremacy and the concept of racism are extreme forms of “Ad Hominem”, where you attack people for who they are, rather than their idea. In this case, who they are in the skin they are in, and they are made to feel powerless and ashamed because of an uncontrollable factor in their life. 

Power is a struggle, and when in the hands of evil, it can be devastating. Peele’s work depicts this power struggle, as the characters have their power struggles, be it Chris trying to regain power over his body and life, since he was under immense threat of death; on the other hand, the white family fighting to have power over Chris’ body to foster a racist fantasy of theirs. Throughout Peele’s movie and Cole’s memoir, the theme of getting out sticks like a sore thumb. Whether it be getting out of the box of stereotypes imposed on Black people, getting out of a system of oppression and white supremacy, or even the literal idea of getting out of the house that Chris went to in the movie “Get Out”. It becomes clear that one of the many evils that come from racism is the feeling of being stuck and powerless. That has to be made equitable and it involves a lot of work.

Liberation from societal constraints, such as racial stereotypes, systematic oppression, or cultural imperialism, is a recurring topic in both Peele’s and Cole’s stories. An important conversation about racism, power, and resistance in modern society is highlighted by the representation of Black males who are trying to take back control of their lives and identities. This approach deals with Black men’s active resistance in addition to responding to the regular microaggressions they experience, creating a narrative of empowerment and change that goes beyond conventional literary and cinematic norms.

Works Cited: 

1. Cole, Desmond. “‘negro frolicks (January).’” The Skin We’re In, Doubleday Canada, 2020, pp. 1–17 
2. Peele, Jordan, et al. Get Out. Universal Pictures, 2017. 

Blog 3: Oral Presentation – Tony Stark

In the superhero world, Tony Stark (Iron Man) stands out, not just for his brilliance or heroic actions but for his role in reshaping perceptions of masculinity. Stark, a billionaire and technological innovator, initially personifies the archetype of the untouchable, flashy male. However, as the story goes on, we witness a profound exploration of vulnerability, growth, and the true essence of strength.

Tony Stark’s story challenges the traditional pillars of masculinity. Physical dominance, emotional suppression, and lone resilience. His struggle with PTSD following the battle in New York brings a crucial aspect of his character to light: his vulnerability. Stark’s openness about his mental health struggles breaks from the stoic male prototype, fostering a broader, more inclusive conversation around masculinity.

This portrayal is key for several reasons. It shows a change from portraying male characters as impenetrable and detached, paving the way for a narrative that embraces emotional depth and the reality of personal battles. Stark’s journey from a self-absorbed businessman to a hero who prioritizes the greater good over personal gain redefines responsibility within the context of modern masculinity. It underscores the importance of leveraging one’s abilities and influence for collective benefit, rather than individual honour. Analyzing Stark, we find a relatable figure whose complexity adds a new layer to the understanding of manhood. His evolution illustrates the shifting dynamics of masculinity, shining light on the significance of adaptability, empathy, and collective well-being.

Robert Downey Jr’s character’s impact extends beyond the cinematic universe, offering insights into the contradictions and challenges of traditional manhood. His story is a compelling narrative of transformation that advocates for a renewed vision of strength, one that values emotional openness and accountability.

In conclusion, Tony Stark’s legacy transcends his superhero persona, offering a blueprint for a more nuanced and empathetic masculinity. His journey is a testament to the power of change and the importance of confronting vulnerabilities, inviting us to reimagine the true meaning of strength and heroism nowadays. Through him, we see the potential for a masculinity that prioritizes the physical, the courage to be vulnerable, and the will to grow.

Blog 2: Rethinking Masculinity

When discussing redefining masculinity, we can’t ignore the positives and the negatives. One is the damaging idea that being a man means being tough or violent. The other is the paradoxical situation where men, seemingly in control of society, often feel powerless. In this post, I’m going to challenge the myth that masculinity and violence should co-exist and explore the reasons for this sense of helplessness among men. Drawing upon Michael Kimmel’s insights, reflections from the documentary in Charlottesville, and insights from the eye-opening documentary Inside Incel, I’ll argue for a shift in our understanding of manhood. Let’s talk about a more welcoming version of masculinity that makes room for everyone and promotes a more equitable society. Separating from old stereotypes and embracing a new vision of masculinity that is about connection, not violence.

It is common knowledge that violence is the main breeder of violence itself. Throughout history, violence, even done in the name of justice, is only a justifier of more violence. Therefore, if you combine this with Kimmel’s idea that violence is the single most evident marker of manhood, that becomes the perfect chemistry for chaos. As seen through Vice News’ small documentary on Charlottesville and the Neo-Nazi movement in the United States, lack of tolerance is still very present in society, especially in places where men feel powerless. One of the leaders of this intolerant movement, Christopher Cantwell, is one of the prime examples of someone who has a very toxic approach to his masculinity as well as humanity. Kimmel’s analysis of the disconnect between the social and the psychological explains how men are in power as a group but do not feel powerful themselves. Cantwell is one of the leaders of the white nationalist movement in the U.S. He can be classified as a Neo-Nazi who shows an extreme lack of tolerance through his violent demonstrations and even the justification of violence toward counter-protesters. His ideologies are extremely dangerous to the development of society since only a politics of inclusion and promotion of equality can bring positive news for all.

Since men are usually the ones in power, how come the average man feels powerless? According to Kimmel, that is because of how society has defined manhood, “we’ve constructed the rules of manhood so that only the tiniest fraction of men come to believe that they are the biggest of wheels, the sturdiest of oaks, the most virulent repudiators of femininity, the most daring and aggressive. We’ve managed to disempower most American men” (Kimmel, p.4). Through this excerpt, the sociologist talks about how the system enforces rules on all men, but the majority cannot fulfill these rules since they are built for the exceptions. Through this analysis, we can understand the real effects of this mindset when you see the small CBC documentary, Inside Incel. This documentary talks about the Incel community, who are seen as “Involuntary Celibates”. These types of people demonstrate how feeling powerless, in extreme cases, can lead to extreme demonstrations of power and violence. In this case, especially over women, Incels are men who have a deep hate or frustration for women and other people who end up reinforcing some of the toxic rules of manhood. A great example is when Alek Minassian, a known Incel, plowed his van into a group of people, of which 8 out of the 10 fatal victims were women. Once again, this is how violence is seen to breed violence and some men who feel powerless end up feeling the need to demonstrate their power, often resulting in unwanted incidents.

Finally, the negative outward expression of toxic masculinity can lead to extreme acts of violence, demonstrations of power, and harm caused towards others who also reinforce the unachievable laws of manhood. Because of that, it is vital that society as a whole, works hard to include not only the groups affected negatively by toxic masculinity but also the toxic men who cause this harm as well. A concept that should be the one to replace the unachievable concepts of masculinity is that the politics of inclusion and tolerance are more important than the politics of violence and exclusion.

Blog 1: What it is to be A Man

Miguel Gama

Ever since societies have existed, there have been gender expectations or roles. Whether it is a matriarchal or patriarchal society, there usually is a framework that you should follow based on your gender. These roles are starting to get challenged more frequently in recent times. Nowadays, most men grow up in a society that conforms to a traditional view of masculinity. This point of view consists of many ideologies that past generations, religions, companies, and popular culture have influenced. Two great examples of culture that tackle many aspects of this topic are the following: “Guys Club” by Carlos Andres Gomez, and the short film “Invincible” by Vincent René-Lortie. The book as well as the short film describe common ‘must-dos’ for men, which usually are that we are expected to provide, protect and prepare. They also mention other taboos such as boys crying, or homosexuality. 

The compliance to traditional views of masculinity, influenced by past generations, religions, companies, and popular culture, persists in modern society, imposing expectations such as providing, protecting, and preparing for men. The concept of traditional masculinity can be seen several times throughout the excerpt of the text by Carlos Andres Gomez. A section that exceptionally describes the idea of not being sensitive and being man enough is when Carlos mentions how he would be treated if he showed vulnerability or sensitivity, “Growing up, my friends and I would always tell each other to stop being a bitch or a pussy anytime someone showed weakness or vulnerability. — “being “man enough”) was a huge issue for me as a kid, especially because I’ve always been very sensitive.” (p.66-67). This excerpt depicts the societal taboo around treating men’s mental health. Traditionally, men aren’t expected to talk about their feelings or put themselves in vulnerable positions when talking about their mental health. Carlos would partake in the act of repressing boys who were viewed as sensitive even though he saw himself as one as well. That just shows how societal norms do indeed, shape how we see the world as men and treat other men. At the same time, the short film “Invincible” shows in more detail how “keeping your feelings in” or “thugging it out” can take a toll on your psychological state and, sometimes, even be fatal. Marc, being in a youth reformation centre, is already in a not-very-positive environment concerning the other male influences in his life. Being very rebellious and troubled since a kid, Marc always had issues opening up and expressing his doubts as a teenager. If you combine the huge amounts of hormones and feelings during teenage years with the expectations and “rules” that a man in society should follow, many people will not be able to “thug it out” or simply live through it without external help or mental support.

The repressive side of traditional masculinity impacts many aspects of men’s lives and how we develop. One of the most tragic impacts that it can have is the disproportion of suicide rates. Watching Lortier’s short film, reminded me of how men commit suicide three times more than our female counterparts. This is affected by many aspects, but one of the most crucial areas is the societal expectations and repression of mental health talk. Men aren’t usually encouraged to share their emotions, seek therapists, or even be vulnerable with close ones. This is because it is viewed as weak or “not manly” by society. I believe that the protagonist of the short film may have committed suicide partly due to being a troubled young man who wasn’t supported enough so that he could talk about what he was going through. He didn’t have a prominent male or female figure who had constant conversations about how he was feeling. Therefore, it is clear that the world men inhabit has a huge effect on how we are shaped and how we act as men.

Finally, while traditional masculinity has positive aspects, its repressive side needs a reconsideration of societal norms and the promotion of freedom of thought and expression. It is clear that while the concept of traditional masculinity has plenty of positives, it also has a repressive side that can have negative impacts on men growing up. Throughout this blog post, I have explained that I believe in how the repressive side of traditional masculinity can affect men’s mental health and well-being. All that to say, I believe that freedom of thought and expression does have a significant impact on raising kids and teenagers. I think that people have the right to their beliefs and ideologies, and they can raise their kids how they would like. On the other hand, the challenge with this line of thought is that there will be many different ideologies and ways of raising kids, especially men. Therefore, it is extremely important to respect other people’s beliefs and ideas, and healthy debates and discussions should also be encouraged so that people can respectfully learn from one another. Besides, community-based initiatives and support networks should be appointed to provide safe spaces for men to express their feelings and share their experiences without fear of judgment and with people in similar situations. While some people may not agree with traditional views of masculinity, some may agree, and that is not a bad thing. Some people are religious, some aren’t, some are old-fashioned, and some are more modern. It is important to respect all forms of self-expression and at the same time be able to express yourself the way you believe is morally sound.