In the culture of the NHL fighting is part of the game, the physicality, non-stop action, the nature of it is just expected from the game as per the NHL commissioner, Gary Bettman. For the players who were chosen to be the instigator they were chosen not for their great hockey skills but rather for their tough masculinity, their sheer physical strength and that ruthless male attitude which would make any other player shiver next to them. It was expected that they would put on that rough physique to good use on the ice and perform to the league’s expectations. The dangers and consequences were second though, at that time. They were expected to take care of the star player on the ice putting their physical force in front of the opponent’s teams other enforcer.

The effects of the concussions on the payers were numerous; sleeplessness, agitation and confusion. These players were referred to as, goons, policemen, enforcers. There were defined by their protective capabilities towards their teammates on the ice which was to keep them safe and to make sure nothing happens to them. Much as society has defined men’s roles as the provider, the fighter and the protector of the family, so were these pro hockey players to their teammates. The inner battle felt by these players to fight during the game as was expected of them took a toll on their lives.

These athletes love for hockey was plagued with the instilled culture of violence and fighting that was expected of them because they were the ones who were rounded up to be the enforcers, and had to follow the “code” of the NHL culture. Players felt that they have no choice but to fight. Although they did not want to, it was an unspoken understanding that to remain in the league they had to. They were expected to follow the “code” as it is commonly known in the organization, an unwritten law of hockey whereby the tough man on the team gets to protect their teammates and some of them have paid for it with their lives. These enforcers would like to be able to just play the sport with their skills and tactical talents, they do not want to fight they do not like to fight they do not appreciate being targeted at the goon of the team.

This shows how society chooses to designate some players physically strong, to act out a masculine tough tenacious role. If we think about how social scientist, Robert Brannon explained the four themes of masculinity onthe Brannon’s Masculinity Scale, we can relate them to the “code”. In the Fifth Estate docudrama “The Code”, staying true to the “code” forced many players to fight, because if you weren’t willing to combat you were seen as a sissy, the shame and dishonor you would bring to your teammates was unthinkable and therefore you could be typecast as having feminine tra its and qualities if you showed any sign of weakness which was unacceptable. What was accepted in the “code” as per Brannon’s definitions of masculinity, was having a manly, firm, courageous, tough, self-determined demeanor.

Players would follow the “code” religiously and because of it gained success and stardom on their team in the eyes of the fans. This inevitably fed into their ego and they continued to live by the rules of the “code” since it allowed them to gain recognition and success status even if they didn’t like the altercations, which is another way that Brannon explained the masculinity theme through his eyes. Another one of his views, can be illustrated by how he saw masculinity and how we can relate it to the “code” which is simply by the sheer violent, aggressive, bold attitude and presence that was expected from the athletes who needed to abide by the unwritten rules of the game in order to maintain their position as enforcers on their team.

Masculinity refers to the social roles, behaviors, and meanings prescribed for men in any given society at any one time (Kimmel). The role society plays and has always played in defining a man and his masculinity carry over into the philosophy of this sport whereby the toughness and roughness of the players forms an integral and expected part of the game. Even if the players do not agree with or do not want to fight it is expected of them in this sport, much like when in society the powerful and culturally expected connotations of being a real man come into play (Kilmartin).The fighting was shown to be an integral part of hockey it was not only about your physical and strategic strength that mattered here but rather that forceful tough guy manhood that had become established on the ice. Enforcers, as they were commonly called, had to put up with the brawl in order to maintain their career, anything less than that aggressive masculinity would have them thrown out of the hockey league.

They knew that they had to fight to maintain their position. Even as the NHL was being plagued with sudden deaths of its players, known as the enforcers, the league did nothing about it preferring instead to maintain this culture within the ir teams. The enforcer’s tasks on the ice were quite clear, fight on the ice. It is no doubt that this led these players to have multiple concussions. In the Fifth Estate documentary, “Hockey Fight: Wives reveal the cost of concussions”, some of the wives of these pro athletes are pushing for more support for the after hockey life for former athletes especially since their husbands committed suicide due to their sustained head injuries which were proven to cause debilitation brain effects, known as CTE, Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is a neurodegenerative disease caused by recurrent head injuries.  The symptoms generally appear many years after the injuries have already taken place and cause issues with thinking, mood changes and attitude problems, no doubt due to the fighting on ice fuelled by the rough, macho masculine culture established within this sport.

We expect men to be tough and this is seen clearly in this sport, not fighting is unacceptable as shows weakness and men are not meant to be seen as weak. This type of behavior is expected it is part of this game and mind culture as spectators roar at the sight and sounds of the battle being played out between two tough guys on the ice. For a moment we forget we are actually watching a sport as it feels much more like watching sheer violence unfolding in an arena pa cked with thousands of people. One of the ways masculinity is seen is when a man is willing to become tough, violent and be willing to engage in physical force (Kilmartin). Showing emotions or vulnerability in a vigorous man sport like hockey could get you thrown off the team. This attitude is enforced and awarded when the chosen players are labeled as enforcers bringing with it fame and success. In the documentary, “Pain, agony and ‘years of duress’: How hockey wives are fighting back over players’ chronic brain injuries” it is mentioned that it’s the 3rd suicide of enforcer designated players, leading loved ones to believe a link between the sustained head injuries and their suicides. The wives of hockey players are going up against the NHL to enforce them that there is indeed a connection between their husbands head traumas, the effects of those on their health and families, as well as debilitating behaviors that have developed following these traumas.  

They feel very much left on their own to protect their husbands, former tough guy hockey pro players who followed the unwritten rules of the “code” and fed into the hooligan thug like masculine presence that was expected of them on the ice. Some of these players have since committed suicide unable to cope with the aftermath health affects their brains and bodies endured during their time on the ice. The organizers of the sport and even well-known hockey commentators, such as Don Cherry, as seen in the Fifth Estate documentary “The Code”, explain that fighting is good for the sport and for tough guys, and enforcing the dominance of violence in this sport is acceptable and just part of the game as it has always been thus feeding into the dominance meaning of masculinity as seen within the hockey culture. Masculinity as explained by Kilmartin, and as shown in this documentary explain how men are constantly fed and encouraged to behave and engage in violent battles  as it is portrayed as manly and masculine.

As the documentary explains, the role of the enforcer is being phased out, which no doubt will relieve the players that were designated to play those roles. It is essential that this sport acknowledge the damage it has and still in ways instills upon its players, because the approach of the game using their players as bullies, and goons for so many years has fed their fans in delight glorifying violent masculine behavior. Young children watching the sport could be influenced seeing this as normal accepted behavior for men, carrying it forward with them into adulthood. It is unfortunate thought that the league goes into a defensive mode anytime the subject of this enforced fighting is brought up and in consequence not recognizing the brain injuries, such as substance abuse, depression, memory loss and suicide that many of the players have had to deal with.

                                                              Works Cited

Brannon, Robert, and Samuel, Juni. “A scale for measuring attitudes about masculinity”

https://nyuscholars.nys.edu/en/publications/a-scale-for-measuring-attitudes-about-masculinity

Kilmartin, Christopher, and Andrew P. Smiler. “Defining Men’s Studies.” The Masculine Self,

Sloan Publishing, 2019, pp. 1–7.

McKeown, Bob.  “Hockey Fight: Wives reveal the cost of concussions”      

https://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episode/2019-2020/hockey-fight-wives-reveal-the-cost-of-          concussions

McKeown, Bob. “The Code”, www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2009-2010/the-code

Smart,Virginia, and Ellenwood, Lisa.  “Pain, agony and ‘years of duress’: How hockey wives are

fighting back over players’ chronic brain injuries” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hockey-players-enforcers-brain-injuries-1.5370444

Jay Marquis-Manicom’s “From the Red Pill to ‘White Genocide’: An Ethnography of the Alt-Right in Montreal.” had a couple of interesting points that captured my attention regarding how alt-right men behave and think. The’re were some observations that he made that I wouldn’t think would be familiar within this specific social group. Jay also mentioned a few ideologies that these men share between them which were quite uncommon to our current way of life and go against general social beliefs.

One thing about Jay’s experience reminded me of one of the studies explained in “No Man is an Island: Men in Relationships” conducted by Eleanor Maccoby where it is seen how men tend to spend more time within men at an early age: “By the age of six and a half, children choose to spend the majority of their time with same-sex peers.” (Kilmartin 163). Also another study in the same text by Tannen explains how men continue to spend more time with men rather than women. The fact that the alt-right was only composed of males and no females demonstrates how the observations of these studies have impacted these men. The males within the group are used to spending the majority, if not all of their time with other men, hence one of the possible reasons that they find themselves contributing to this political group. Although it is not common to see that a women takes part in an a organization where they talk about abolishing the right for women to vote, it is the upbringing of these men that encouraged them to join a similar group where they are surrounded by people of the same gender and for that reason it is solely populated by them.

Another highlight about Jay’s study that he pointed out was that these men were educated people who have graduated in respectable programs and have respectable job titles. I feel that this may surprise to a lot of people but not for me because I do not see any direct correlation between someone’s educational background and their political views. A doctor, for example, can have an evil mindset at heart and the want to hurt people so he gives them wrong medication on purpose. This is the way I think about this fact that Jay pointed out. However, I could somewhat understand why people would be surprised about it because one would think that men who believe women shouldn’t be able to vote wouldn’t have high demanding jobs that take up their time.

Lastly, an observation that was pointed out by Jay which was very much discussed in class and in the texts was the social hierarchy that existed within the group. Social hierarchy is something that is commonly found in male-male relationships. Kilmartin explains how both parties try to ridicule one another in order that one of them is seen as more “dominant” to the other and any other person that is in the presence of that first male. The relationship between men is more revolved around competitiveness and dominance. For that reason, men have the desire to acquire the “top” status on the others , hence why they form and create a hierarchy.

• Why are you so close?
• “Iv’e been friends with him it’s been 11 years. He’s probably the only person that I can genuinely trust because he feels that way too. We think alike, we both are motivated and driven. We both have huge ambitions in life and constantly motivate each other. We both have almost the same mentality and vision on life and everything really, which makes us pretty identical but at the same time we are very different which makes our friendship so diverse. We both want the success of one another. We value each-other so much and treat each other like brothers. Every time I go to his house I feel like home. He is the only person that I can turn my back on and not worry what’s going on behind me. He is a very unique person, if you talk with him you’ll realize that he is not like anybody else, he doesn’t think the same way as general people would, in a good way. He’s a life friend, I’d even certainly consider him as a real brother. I want to see him shine in life.”

• What kinds of things do you like to do together?
• “Anything. There isn’t a specific thing or event that we get together to do. We do anything that we feel like doing honestly. We mostly hang out with other friends too, we both are crazy about cars and have a couple of friends that have cars so we meet up together then go out to eat and drive around the city. We also go the gym together after school. Besides that he casually comes to my house and we go out someplace with other friends.”

• Have you ever told your friend how much he means to you? If so, what did you say and how did he react? If you have never told him how much he means to you, why not?
• “Yes I have told him. At this point, we’ve known each other for a decade and I feel comfortable expressing myself in front of him. It doesn’t even feel like something hard to express it just comes natural to me. When I told him that, he wasn’t surprised at all nor shocked because the feeling is mutual and we both know it, to the point where if he were to answer these questions, I know that they would be somewhat identical.”

Analysis

When I interviewed this person about his friend, I could sense that he was somewhat excited to talk about his friend which was a clear sign to me that he genuinely liked and appreciated his friend and looked at him as a brother, as he stated in the interview. Kilmartin points out that men get uncomfortable when the discussion is about emotion, but this male had no problem whatsoever expressing his honest feeling about his friend because he regarded him as a loyal brother instead of a guy that he plays video game with on the weekends. They actually spend time together living their lives and motivate each other, they wish to see the growth of one another and that for me is a real friendship. The interviewee showed so much strong emotions in his answers that completely go against the traditional idea of how a man to man relationship is.

With this phrase, Kimmel is explaining how different scenarios and specific places in our society form differences between both genders and how these differences shape our perspective of what a man really is. For example, in a team project or a social event, usually people in the group will turn towards the male to direct the group and divide the tasks needed to be done. This gives an image and sense of power to the male which in turn creates a division and ultimately a hierarchy. This is in fact what divides our society and creates stereotypes on men which could pressure some to fit in this particular image created by these stereotypes. In the fourth episode, the pressure of the stereotypes can be understood when the males discuss how they too have been victim of the pressure by adopting this mentality. Subconsciously, they participate in the division of our society because it’s the only thing that they have learned, they don’t know any better.

I think that Kimmel used the term “masculinities” to describe how there are many things that could define a male and that it’s not solely one or a few characteristic that decide what a man is. Also, that these things do not have to be common to each person, that every male can have different characteristics. In “Man Enough”, it can be clearly understood what “masculinity” is. The men explain how there’s this way of life that men are “supposed” to be like, to act in a certain way, to talk a certain way, to do specific things that maybe they don’t necessarily want to do, but they know that if they don’t, they won’t be considered “Man Enough”.

Most of the things that we saw during the documentary were not very surprising to me as I too am a male, and although I have not lived or felt every single thing that the boys in the documentary described, I live in a circle of friends that do actually go through these exact struggles and feel the emotions described in this documentary. Saying this, the statistics were not very shocking for me, which is very much unfortunate. If I had to point out a few of them however, these would be it. First of all, the fact that 1 in 4 boys are bullied is shocking. The worst part is that only 30% of those kids that get bullied notify an adult. This is a horrible thing for young men and could be one of the many reasons why so many of us grow up to be introverted, filled with anger, and all the other bad things that come along that road. Second, is that every single day 3 boys commit suicide. That’s 1095 boys, not men, but young males that lose their lives to their own hands. This is the result of accumulation of so many negative aspects in a man’s life whether it’s the stereotypes that some try to live up to or even constant stress & pressure without having the opportunity to talk it out with somebody but instead keeping it all in and dealing it on our own.

The part in Gomez’s book where he explain’s how holding hands in a foreign country was something normal but back home, that’s something that can’t be imagined is easily understood after viewing the documentary. In the recording, it is explained how men avoid showing emotion, let alone showing emotion to one another. Gomez realizes how this mentality affects his hometown where men “aren’t allowed” to show their emotions especially holding another man’s hands.

Robert Apachian was a young Armenian boy born in 1996 in Yerevan, Capital of Armenia. In 2016, Azerbaijan, neighbours of Armenia breached the cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Artsakh (Armenian province). With the province under attack and its people at risk for their lives, all male citizens between the age of 18-27 were required to take part in the military to protect our lands from Azerbaijan. Robert was in that age group and so went on to serve his country. In 2016, at only 21 years old, Robert Apachian gave his life to the country. He fought bravely and without hesitation, he was ready to put his life on the line knowing that he will be leaving his parents, little brother and classmates behind, and so he did just that.

Although this is a terrible and unmatchable loss for our country and for his family, there is a sign of hope & inspiration that can be seen when digging through the grievance. Robert was ready for the worse and that did not disturb him. He wanted to put everything on the line for his country, for his purpose, to reach his goal of protecting it, and he did just that. And this doesn’t only go for Robert, it goes for all of our soldiers, young or old, that are endlessly fighting to this day as you are reading this text. Armenia is not at all a rich country nor does it have any political power because of the limited resources it has to offer. It does not rely on another country to supply military equipment, rather it relies on itself and its people’s unmatchable love for the country to do anything to protect.

And that is exactly what inspires me. The ability to have a deep and very strong motivation towards a goal even if the obstacle in front of you is 10x bigger and more powerful than you are. The ability to persist even when you know that your military budget is 3x lower than your enemy and you still manage to keep your ground and protect your country. That is the mentality that Robert had and every single person in Armenia (man & woman) have. That is what inspires me, the ability to persist through an unthinkable obstacle, the same mentality that Robert Apachian had.