Masculinity is one of the main issues that men have and also one the main issues that is taboo for men to speak about. It is the double standard for men; how women have them. It’s acceptable for woman to cry but men cannot or else they are considered weak. It’s acceptable for woman to speak about their feeling but men aren’t encouraged to do so because it would make them look sensitive. The stigma around men and their masculinity has risen a fear within men; the fear of humiliation or the fear of failing to meet expectations, for example.

According to Michael S. Kimmel’s article “Masculinity as Homophobia”, manhood is equated with power over women or power over other men. Men are taught to thrive over this feeling of “power” or “dominance” from a young age. They are taught to prove themselves when someone challenges them. The majority conclude that violence is the way to go, as they use their peers as gender role models. It is said, in the article, that violence is a marker of manhood which is supported by the willingness and desire to fight. The need to express violence can be linked to men’s drive for domination or power, sort of in a way of conquering. An interesting conclusion was brought up in Kimmel’s article:

Men’s feelings are not the feelings of the powerful, but of those who see themselves as powerless. These are the feelings that come inevitably from the discontinuity between the social and psychological, between aggregate analysis that reveals how 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. No wonder many men are frustrated and angry…

Masculinity as Homophobia by Michael S.Kimmel

I do find many factual points within this conclusion. First of all, I do believe that the root of men’s frustration comes from their upbringing and has been etched in their psyche. The pressure of always being the strongest emotionally and the physically, the breadwinner, the most responsible, the leader, can take its toll on any individual – men or women. Second of all, men are promised a feeling of power ever since they can remember. Also, it is all they’ve seen; within their own households, in movies, in books and it’s even what’s taught to them at school through history. In light of all of these points, the feelings of frustration and anger can now be justified in some ways. In addition, many exclude themselves or find an escape to keep the feelings of frustration, anger and fear at bay.

bell hooks links patriarchy with male dominance in her article “Understanding Patriarchy”. hooks believes in the dismantling of the patriarchal system and she believes its a job for both men and women. She defines patriarchy in her article as:

Patriarchy a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence

Understanding Patriarchy by bell hooks

hooks’ article does not attack men for this system and way of thinking. She simply lays all the problems that both genders need to solve in order to find equality and equity.She shares her own stories on how patriarchy has presented itself in her personal life, among her family. She talks about various childhood memories and includes religion. bell hooks described patriarchy as to be a system that was leaving her out of things she wanted to be part of. She makes the link that her brothers wouldn’t be bothered by the patriarchal system because it privileged them. It privileges men and penalizes women. However, it is as much the women’s fault as it is men’s fault. In many parts of the article the author gives examples of how it is both genders responsibility to break the social norm; i.e. marriage and culture. In addition, she breaks down the system itself. She explains that the system needs male dominance in order for it to function. As a result, it leads and supports sexist violence. Which leads to the last point, the feminist view on patriarchy. Many feminist have been hurt and oppressed for many years by male domination encouraged by patriarchy. A resulting factor of that pain would be the misinterpretation of men by feminist work. Being fed up by the treatment they have received, they painted men to be the bad guy and that was the end of the story. Nonetheless, hooks did not stand for it. She highlighted a chapter named “” in her book “‘ by describing it as such:

I stressed that feminist advocates collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from their blind obedience to patriarchy. I emphasized that patriarchal ideology brainwashes men to believe that their domination of women is beneficial when it is not…

Understanding Patriarchy by bell hooks

bell hooks’ covers many diverse sub-subjects regarding patriarchy as well as calling out both genders.

How could men redefining the meaning of masculinity in their own lives have an impact on larger social issues such as sexism, racism and homophobia? After reading both articles, I believe if we take down the social norms that men must be the dominating gender or the most powerful gender; we leave room for emotional and psychological growth. If men were able to talk openly about their feelings in a safe environment – just like women can – we would not be in the same place. Men should not grow up with the pressure of having to be the absolute strongest and toughest nor should they grow up with a sense of entitlement that they’re are owed power and respect. It should be something earned for both men and women.

Dolores Chew, one of the speaker of this conference, is a founding member of Montreal’s South Asian Women’s Community Centre (SAWCC). She is also a history and humanities instructor at Marianopolis College and Research Associate at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University. She spoke about her life living in India as a mixed Christian middle-class woman. She developed on the fact that she has had to struggle with discrimination as well as intersectionality. She also touched on her participation in political activism events in Ottawa and Montreal.

May Chiu, the second speaker at the conference, is a racialized feminist activist who has been in the anti-racism struggle for decades and is currently engaged in the fight for climate justice with Extinction Rebellion. She spoke about racism, how women are racialized and the anti-apartheid movement. She also spoke about the inequality , intersectionality and women’s socioeconomic rights violation. It did related to the concepts of feminism inequality and intersectionality. Dolores Chew and May Chiu shared their knowledge on historical information and personal experiences on these concepts.

I really enjoyed that Mrs.Chew talked about her upbringing and linked it to her activism and accomplishments. It was very inspiring to learn about where she came from and how she believes that “staying silent is complicit“. This conference was relevant to our class because it addressed to social issues that women have to face on a daily basis. The conference sheds light on the struggles that women from racial minorities face everyday on a daily basis externally as much as internally. I went to the talk with a friend and, as we both come from ethnically diverse backgrounds, we could really relate on the same key aspects that both women talked about. I would recommend this event to all women who go to Vanier, and to also bring a friend, because there really is something for every women to relate to and find a piece of herself in. Every conference talks about a different subject and I really do feel like a lot of subjects are covered to keep all women informed and heard.

What came before western culture gender norms? Were women always inferior to men? Did men always have total control over the household? It was always believed by the colonizers that Indigenous people were inferior to them because of their culture, traditions and beliefs. Many centuries later, we came to realize that what made the Indigenous people inferior actually makes them superior to the newcomers. Surprising? Not so much.

To start, women were not inferior to men! It is stated that Indigenous tribes were egalitarian and their governmental arrangement were focused on the group and not sole individual speaking for the rest of the population. Women are given responsibilities and authority. They take their place in their society and flourish. It’s the teamwork ,of both man and woman, that has gotten the Indigenous people this far. Their egalitarian mentality made both sexes important. It valued each of their strengths and, with that, used it to their advantage. Another aspect of their lifestyle, matrilineal and matrilocal, empowers women’s place in society by prioritizing their side of the family and their role in the family. Making the newly wed man move in to the women’s house and help her side of the family is something completely different from western culture, where women must take their husband’s name and move in with them. Now, it has changed where newly-weds just move out into a completely separate house. What western society can learn from their lifestyle is true equity and equality. If men and women truly worked together as equals, and were also viewed as complete equals, they could find their rightful place in society and then could our world move forward at a life-changing rate.

A fact that really struck me, while reading the text on Indigenous people’s gender relations, was that female homosexual relationships were very respected. They were seen as healers, seers and bearers of oral tradition. They had in inclusive sex-gender systems which was an experience called “two-spirit”. It basically means a female and male persona were accommodated in one body. Gender identity was expressed in various ways throughout Indigenous tribes. Natives that identified as “two-spirit” took on both female and male roles in society as well as female and male dressing habits. This identification resulted in many homosexual relationship and even female homosexual marriages. At that point of history, female homosexual relations, without the term “two-spirit”, was not included in their worldview. In addition, it was the European observers that rendered this way of life and self-identification a “sin”, of some sorts. Even though there were female and male homosexual relations, the Europeans really bashed the male homosexual relations in their transcripts.

Every human, who possesses critical thinking, has their own definition of feminism. Jessica Valenti and Bell Hooks had a definition of their own as well. However, the common misconception about feminism is that it’s an anti-men ideology-mostly misconceived by men. Both Valenti and Hooks targeted to demystify this misunderstanding. On one hand, Valenti used a much more modern approach to it. She used 21st century struggles to further explain her opinion. While reading the text, you feel light hearted because it’s relatable and, quite frankly, comedic. On the other hand, Hooks had a more old-school approach to it. She explores various aspects such as politics and religion. She also explains the struggles she faced in the 20th century. As you finish her text, you feel cultured. The subjects of racism, politics, sexism and oppression as well as the explanation of a “Christian” mindset sparks links readers for readers from Western culture,in some ways, educate you. It’s what differentiates the two authors approaches on the subject. The strongest link I could find between these two authors is that the ideology of feminism set them free. It opened their minds to the endless possibilities that the world could offer them. I strongly believe their new found mental freedom is what fuels their want to explain and teach people the idea of feminism in all its different shapes and sizes.

After a quick look at their Wikipedia pages, they come from different states and times, making Hooks 20 years older than Valenti. It explains the difference between the two essays. Hooks grew up in a segregated town in Kentucky when racial segregation was still in play and sexism was still highly popular. Being a African-American woman in America in the 60s, Hooks was shaped at an early age to fight for her rights as a woman and an African-American. Valenti faced struggles of her own. As she was received online abuse and threat, she still pushed through and published her work. Her work resulted in inspiring many young activist. Both of these woman went through many struggles, they both came through stronger and it is reflected in their work.

Now for my definition of feminism. As a child, boys and girls were at the same level. As a teenager, I was challenged everyday of my life by men and women who wouldn’t let me see both genders as equals. Through the years, I have seen a lot of inequality between genders. Living in a muslim conservative country, travelling to my country every two or three months, coming back to western society, I have seen inequality everywhere. Therefore, my definition of feminism has never changed from when I was a child, it’s as stated in the dictionary. Feminism (noun) : the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. The ideology that women and men are equal, are seen and approached as the same, are treated the same, are seen the same, along with all the aspects. In Bell Hooks’ essay, she says “Feminist politics are losing momentum because the feminist movement has lost clear definitions. We have those definitions.” It made me stop and think after reading her essay and she’s completely right! Women with privilege went into the work field and were just content. As a result, advocated less. This made the unprivileged women having to speak up twice as loud to make up for the loss. Some became radicals- as with every ideology- thus, creating the anti-men stereotypes.