Blog 3: The Black Face of the American Dream

In the year of 1619, the largest oppressive legal structure in American History came about, the institution of slavery. Although slavery was abolished in the year of 1865, African Americans are still enslaved by institutional racism. There are systems in place to keep minorities at a disadvantage. This system of oppression is carried by a number of factors such as discriminatory policing practices, biased educational systems, unequal access to healthcare, racially skewed employment opportunities, and prejudiced legal systems that disproportionately target and incarcerate people of color as highlighted by the Canadian journalist and author Desmond Cole in his book ‘The Skin We’re In’ (Cole 8). This system of oppression continues the frustrating living conditions for black people, and continues to make being black in America a constant struggle. Desmond Cole’s memoir “The Skin We’re In” and Jordan Peele’s film “Get Out” provide audiences with a deep understanding of the experiences of Black men within societies that remain influenced by white dominance. This essay aims to explore how both works reflect the influence of racism and the stereotypes and cultural narratives associated with Black masculinity in North America. 

Racism always finds a place in North American society regardless of the era, the people, and events. The testimony of people and the (artistic) representation in Desmond Cole’s book “The Skin We’re In” and Jordan Peele’s movie “Get Out” feature the author and the artist’s perceptions of this problematic issue. What sets “The Skin We’re In” mostly apart from other accounts is the fact that Cole, openly and directly, gives us a rare and uncompromised look at what is the day-to-day reality of the Black Canadian experience through the retelling of various intimate stories with racial profiling. While Peele is a New York-born actor and filmmaker, his film illustrates perfectly how the racism Cole describes in Canada is ignored or dismissed because of the progressive assurances that tackling anti-black prejudice is a top priority. We can draw a parallel with the character Chris’ realization in Get Out that Black workers are trapped in a state of mental servitude. The pointed colorblindness in both Canada and the US, both in institutions and society, shows a deep-seated desire to dominate and control Black bodies through indirect means, represented by brain transplants in Peele’s movie Get Out (Peele, 01:25). This is a chilling metaphor for modern-day slavery The memoir by Cole and the film by Peele are about these two Black individuals and their clashes with white people in society. Cole describes many instances where he has been targeted by the police and is made uncomfortable when the police stop him often and watch him closely, while Chris tries to fit in but is a victim of the white family’s maliciousness. Such stories show how the racism and white supremacy are still the main existing orientations of society.

“The Skin We’re In” by Desmond Cole and Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” through their narratives show how historical contexts of racism recognize how historical injustices still affect the present day. Cole goes into Canada’s colonial past, its discriminatory practices towards Indigenous people and Black immigrants, and reveals that there was a direct connection between them and contemporary issues such as police brutality and systemic biases which is why it diagnosed the cases as evolution, rather than the elimination of these injustices (Cole 7). Likewise, “Get Out” utilizes historical analogies, particularly through the metaphor of “the sunken place,” where Chris is rendered inactive and impaired, which signifies the historical repression of the African American voice in America (Peele). This visualizes how widespread the suppression of the Black man in American history. Cole writes about the pervasive supremacy in all aspects of life, including the institutional: “Institutions in today’s white supremacist settler colonial context always come 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). While both stories weave in historical observations, which emphasize the critical point of confronting and addressing these problems, they challenge and offer better solutions in tackling modern manifestations of racism. As well as showing historical truths, their works challenge the mainstream social fabric of race in North America, they ask us for a deep reflection on this racist legacy and for active participation in dismantling white supremacy. In Cole’s inspiring words, “although Black people deserve far more than survival, survival alone is worth celebrating” (Cole 3). 

Cole’s “The Skin We’re In” and Peele’s “Get Out” are the works that deal with the stereotypes against Black men and try to build a more comprehensive concept of Black masculinity against stereotypes held by society. Take for instance, Cole had portrayed a situation where the media and public opinion was quick to brand black activists as troublemakers or criminals, specifically during the protests against systemic oppression. Not only it sticks to public misconceptions but also it reduces just prosecution of racial equality (Cole 2020). On the other hand, in Jordan Peele movie, “Get Out” warps stereotypes through the main character Chris, who in place of the usual physical revenge when threatened, outsmarts his opponent with his quick thinking. In an important scene towards the end of the film, Chris confronts his girlfriend Rose after discovering her progressive liberal white family’s sinister cult plan to take over his body. As Chris holds Rose to the ground choking her, Rose smiles, reflecting her dehumanizing belief that black males are savage, violent, and animalistic, confirming her family’s racist ideology. Eventually, Chris escapes without confirming that bias, a symbolic victory (Peele 01:38). Through these lived examples from Cole and Peele’s fantastical narrative, a different vision of black men is constructed: competent and versatile individuals capable of intellectual depth that clashes with many stereotypes commonly used as black men.

In “The Skin We’re In” by Desmond Cole as well as Jordan Peele’s “Get Out,” the concept of masculinity is displayed differently than it was in the 1999 film “Fight Club”. While in the latter it was typified by physical aggression and emotional detachment as ultimate expression of masculinity, Cole’s memoir and Peele’s film show something entirely different. To exemplify this, in “The Skin We’re In,” he talked about how Black men have to lean on intellectual and community strength to overcome systemic racism, which may involve organizing community forums and advocacy programs. Cole writes: “I started to understand my personal struggle with anti-Black racism as more of a family and collective experience” (Cole 15). It is this resilience and the sense of community that works with the old form of masculinity, based on physical superiority. Analogously, in the movie “Get Out,” the hero Chris represents a particular type of masculinity. This protagonist will be reasoning and brainy, not just muscular. For example, Chris shows up the hypnosis efforts with cotton he wears which shows how talented and bright he is. In contrast to the characters in “Fight Club” who look for validation through assault and physical violence, Chris embodies the qualities of resiliency and emotional depth presenting a different view on film about heroism in general. These pieces give people an opportunity to watch men stand with each other and prioritize mental toughness and solidarity over brute force.

Finally, Cole’s book “The Skin We’re In” and Peele’s movie “Get Out” enforce powerful lessons about the continuous struggles of black men in the world, the one that is often ruled by the white. From historical reflections on slavery to modern examples of racism, these books help to reveal the systemic oppression that African Americans endure in North America. These two films demonstrate the issues of racial profiling, historical background, and the effect that stereotypes have on views of Black masculinity. Through their narratives, they manifest the flourishing and critical thinking of Black men which substitutes dominant stereotypes focused on physical actions and aggressive natures. “The Skin We’re In” and “Get Out” do more than make the audience confront racism. They also ask audiences to envision a future where we, as human beings, achieve equity, solidarity, and understanding.

Works Cited: 

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

Cole, Desmond. The Skin We’re In: A Year of Black Resistance and Power. Doubleday Canada, 2020.

Oral Blog: The Masculine Archetype in “Coach Carter”

I came to teach boys, and you became men. “Coach Carter”

Coach Carter” explores various facets of masculinity through the transformative journey of a high school basketball team under the strict guidance of Coach Ken Carter. The film delves into the societal pressures and personal challenges faced by young men, portraying how Carter’s disciplined approach not only aims to make them better athletes but also more responsible and mature individuals. It confronts traditional notions of masculinity, emphasizing the importance of accountability, education, and emotional growth alongside physical prowess. Through the conflicts and resolutions experienced by the team, “Coach Carter” presents a nuanced view of masculinity, advocating for a balanced development that includes self-discipline, respect for others, and the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of life.

“Coach Carter” is a movie that dives deep into the essence of growing up and the journey of becoming a man. It follows the story of Coach Ken Carter, who steps in to coach a high school basketball team, aiming not just to win games, but to teach life lessons. His mantra, “I came to teach boys, and you became men,” encapsulates the transformation that occurs under his guidance. He’s strict, demanding not only success on the court but excellence in academics, emphasizing the importance of being responsible and preparing for the future—key aspects of manhood.

https://youtube.com/shorts/aGDedhWIJ3g?si=wY3DjjZSKLUBQT5y

Additionally, the movie showed the viewer that in the overcoming of the difficulties team cooperation was also crucial. Spirit coach Carter’s team gets lots of problems, but they learn by sticking together and never quitting that real power is when collective effort is being utilized and in struggling through difficulties, and the lesson they understand is mature masculinity.

However, “Coach Carter” would not have gotten stuck with this male traditional notion of hiding feelings. This speech dismantles the boundaries that makes one hide their personal issues. The fact that these characters allow themselves to display their emotions suggests that gradually, a more modern angle on what being a man and strong is creeping in.

The transition of a boy to manhood is not just about personal growth but more too, about schoolwork and sports immersion. As they improve in both arenas, they embody Coach Carter’s belief: “Here to teach boys, and today you stand as men”. It involves accepting consequences and planning for life’s journey as a man is the most important stage of the process of maturity.

Moreover, the movie portrays the influence of outstanding male personalities beyond the team level, evoking similar positive changes in the community in general. This clearly expresses how masculinity (if it is guided towards good), can do more than just make a team of young players good, but also turn the fate of the entire community, by changing the society’s concept towards manhood and creating a nurturing environment.

Blog 2: Understanding Extremism and Violence in White America

In North American society, the involvement of men in violent extremism is a complex phenomenon. While only a small percentage of men actively participate in extremist activities, the majority of violent extremists are men, as highlighted by Aleksandra Dier and Gretchen Baldwin, human rights advisors and researchers affiliated with the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED). Dier and Baldwin’s research suggests that extremist groups often exploit feelings of emasculation and a perceived loss of power among men, capitalizing on misogynistic ideas of manhood to recruit followers. However, it’s crucial to understand that this sense of emasculation is often a reaction to various psychological, socioeconomic, and political factors, particularly in the context of right-wing extremism. Communities of emasculated men can often exploit feelings of emasculation and perceived powerlessness to maintain a toxic understanding of masculinity and misogyny against women. This essay aims to explore these themes by analyzing the documentaries Charlottesville: Race and Terror and Inside Incels (CBC), along with the article Masculinity as Homophobia by Michael Kimmel, to examine how emasculation is developed and propagated through online and offline spaces. This analysis will help us have a better understanding of the mechanisms driving white young males towards violence and extremism as a social issue. 

The CBC documentary ‘Inside Incels’ describes the depression, anxieties, and isolation of Incel members. Incels, otherwise known as ‘involuntary celibates’ usually have undergone a lot of bullying, harassment, and discrimination, and express how they have very negative experiences in approaching women. In the documentary, Dr. Ross Handler, a specialist in deviance and youth sub-culture, describes incels as yet another group of men engaged in a backlash against women, with their ‘mooring unglued’. This indicates they have failed to meet societal expectations of masculinity and success. Incels who feel they fall short of these expectations may withdraw from societal interactions, especially with women, and instead resort to connecting with like-minded peers who share similar negative experiences of rejection. These individuals try to create value in the solidarity of their negative experiences and try to create community within this environment, which usually takes place on online forums. For example, in ‘Inside Incels,’ men find solidarity online in their shared feelings of injustice and unfairness in their sexual treatment and reduced social status. The extreme psychological stress of this isolation and poor well-being would typically result in incidents of suicide or self-harm. However, in this situation, that same vulnerability is channelled into a defensiveness which employs violence and violent fantasies as a way to empower the masculine figure again. 

In online forums, disenfranchised white men reinforce and fuel toxic ideas of masculinity that are imbued with violence and misogyny because the space itself is closed and like an echo chamber, where like-minded individuals in the same online spaces keep confirming their biases on their mental state, their masculinity, and hostility towards other genders. In the ‘Charlottesville: Race and Terror’ (HBO) documentary, white supremacists join forces online to organize a massive protest in Charlottesville, USA. These supremacists emphasize how they are ‘organized’ and how they have the license to protest legally and express their political views and identities like everyone else. The affirmation and emphasis on their good organization and social structure offline runs counter to popular discourses that emasculate groups of socially scorned men by considering them unorganized and incoherent. When they’re shut down, this confirms their own biases about people of colour and entrenches them in one homogeneously thinking camp. This is representative of the extreme polarization of online and offline space occupied by emasculated white men. Popular political and media discourse encourages and proliferates this situation, and it is further affirmed by authority figures who use the same language. For example, following the Charlottesville protest and the violent killing of one protester by a supremacist, Donald Trump said: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” The language used both online and offline in describing and categorizing men trying to empower themselves is usually very one-sided and does not encourage conversation. The violence in the incel and supremacist community are very similar here. Violence is mythologized and justified through action because wherever it is expressed, it is done in perceived self-defence within a very biased space. 

The disproportionate impact of violent extremism misusing male identity on young white men can be attributed to several factors, which include reactions against left-wing politics and ideologies that are perceived as female-affirming or inclusive of marginalized groups such as feminism, LGBT rights, and racial equality movements like Black Lives Matter. In these instances, individuals who feel threatened by the progress of these movements may interpret them as challenges to their own status and identity. Michael Kimmel describes this emotional reaction as “aggrieved entitlement,” where those with power and privilege perceive advancements in equality and inclusiveness as a personal attack on their status. As a result, young white men may feel a sense of loss or threat to their traditional dominance in society, which leads to a reactionary embrace of ideologies that reinforce a narrow and often misogynistic understanding of male identity. In ‘Masculinity as Homophobia,’ Kimmel describes how “men’s lives are structured around relationships of power and men’s differential access to power, as well as the differential access to that power of men as a group.” (Kimmel 1994, 150). Within such a power framework that is present and affirmed within the political structures and daily lives of men, the constant need to exaggerate “all the traditional rules of masculinity” (Kimmel 1994, 148) is a vicious cycle where men’s disenfranchisement pushes men to disempower others as a way of regaining their own power. As Kimmel puts it: “Exclusion and escape have been the dominant methods American men have used to keep their fears of humiliation at bay.” This reactionary response, is rather a rejection of ideologies that do not affirm their perceived entitlement to power and privilege as white males.

In conclusion, analyzing the various documentaries and Michael Kimmel’s insights reveals a complex interaction of societal, psychological, and ideological factors contributing to the appeal of extremist ideologies among young white men in Western culture. The documentaries illustrate how feelings of emasculation and social isolation drive individuals towards extremist communities where toxic ideas of masculinity are reinforced and validated. Michael Kimmel’s concept of “aggrieved entitlement” further elucidates the emotional reactions of individuals who perceive advancements in equality as threats to their status and identity, which leads to a reactionary embrace of misogynistic and violent ideologies. More importantly, any secure gender identity in this situation is seen as ‘unmanly’ or threatening to masculinity. This understanding of emasculation as a consequence of uneven power structures is crucial for addressing the root causes of violent extremism and promoting empathy, dialogue, and social change. It highlights the need to challenge toxic notions of masculinity and privilege, as well as to create inclusive spaces where individuals feel empowered without resorting to violence or hatred. This is relevant because it sheds light on the mechanisms driving young white men towards extremism and offers insights into how to combat this pressing social issue, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and compassionate society for all.

Blog 1: Masculinity Under Pressure (Guys Club vs Invincible)

In both “Guys Club: No Faggots, Bitches, or Pussies Allowed” and “Invincible,” we’re drawn into the internal battles of young men wrestling with the weight of societal expectations. They deal with the pressure to conform to a hyper-masculine ideal, where showing vulnerability is equated with weakness. This struggle is clearly portrayed as they navigate their own emotions and vulnerabilities while trying to fit into the classic society has cast for them. From suppressing emotions to avoiding anything perceived as weakness, the characters face an uphill battle against the relentless pressure to adhere to traditional notions of masculinity. In “Invincible,” this struggle is compounded by feelings of inadequacy and vulnerability, highlighting the toll that conforming to societal norms can take on one’s mental and emotional well-being. Through their experiences, both works offer a poignant reminder of the internal turmoil faced by young men as they strive to navigate the complex world of masculinity.

In both stories, we see how the characters’ expressions of masculinity are closely in link with the responses of the people and institutions surrounding them. In Gomez’s text, he illustrates how masculinity is expressed externally when he faces peer groups and societal norms that determine what forms of masculine behavior are deemed acceptable. For example, Gomez recounts how his aunt refused to paint his nails; initially, she explained calmly that painted nails is something reserved for girls only, and when he insisted, she scolded him for it. As such, the text immediately begins with Gomez recounting his early memories of gendered socialization and indoctrination of social norms relating to his gender. Similarly, in Invincible, the main character Mark’s interactions with his father, coach, and peers highlight the influence of traditional notions of masculinity. These interactions result in the characters’ suppression of emotions and how they prioritize physical strength over emotional well-being which shows the impact of external pressures on shaping individual expressions of masculinity. For example, during one scene, Mark, unable to cope with his feelings, turns to rebellion to express his growing frustrations as he decides to set off the fire alarm and enable the sprinklers. 

In both Guys Club: No Faggots, Bitches, or Pussies Allowed and Invincible, the characters’ interactions with people and institutions are playing a significant role in underlining their perceptions of masculinity and influencing their reactions and responses to events they face. In Guys Club, the main character is exploring and learning about the definition of man. He faces toxic stereotypes from his colleagues and gets called names that he does not yet understand because he displayed behavior and traits that are associated with femininity. He is in an environment where vulnerability is seen as weakness. Similarly in Invincible, Mark’s interaction with his family, friends in centre de jeunesse, and authority figures influence him a lot. While he displays empathy and compassion for those experiencing difficulties such as the child in the Centre that was struggling with planting a tree, he also displays a lot of aggression and rebellion towards authority. He is very hot-headed and strong-willed which leads to those in authority such as the coach to respond to him in a harsh way such as canceling all his privileges. Nevertheless, Mark still rebels and causes chaos in the Centre. He behaves in a way that rejects social norms imposed on him. In this way, both texts present different ways that men respond to social pressure; in Boys Club, Gomez struggles with feelings of inferiority and weakness associated with a lack of masculinity while Mark struggles with the desire for freedom that manifests in potentially harmful and dangerous displays of strength.

I was honestly captivated by both pieces as they both bring up issues that young men face on a daily basis; difficulties with self-discovery in a society that imposes norms and restricts one’s freedom to express themselves authentically and the difficulties with expressing one’s emotions when it comes to these issues. Reading the story and watching the film forced me to confront my own understanding of masculinity and the ways in which societal norms have dictated it. It made me evaluate how I can relate to the characters, particularly as I am a 17 year old post-adult who also happens to be the eldest amongst my siblings. Social norms are imposed on everyone everywhere, however, I noticed that unlike the two characters, I do not question these norms often. In other words, I feel that I often follow these social rules; I do what they expect me to do, I follow what they expect me to follow and I work they way they expect me to. Because of this, both Gomez’s text and the movie Invincible offer a hopeful message of resilience, freedom, and self-discovery. These stories have pushed me to think further and encouraged me to challenge my preconceived notions about masculinity and what it means to be a man. Specifically, it encouraged me to be a moderate person, to follow certain norms whilst still following my own personal ambitions and embracing freedom. The most important thing I learned from both of these works is that following our desires and ambitions is right as long as we are not harming individuals around us. I also realized that friends, family, and society all play a major role in how we shape our identities and make it difficult for one to think or behave out of the box. However, both works also showed the importance of doing that because they showed how social norms are not fixed; they are constantly changing and evolving and it is up to us to reject social norms that are harmful. For example, society often punishes and ridicules men for displaying emotions, however, men are human like everyone and deserve to express themselves in order to grow and evolve in a healthy way. Because of this, it is important to reject the idea that showing emotions is a sign of weakness as it is up to us as a society to help shape the social norms for the future generations.

Yamen El-Sbayti