Undercurrent-Issue-Fall-Winter-2014-3

Kimmel discuss how men who are “othered”, be they gay, working class, or disabled, have learned tocope with their oppression through over-conforming to the dominant view of masculinity by beinghypermasculine (2012).Men with physical disabilities have to find ways to express themselves within the role of“disabled.” Emotional expression is not compatible with the aforementioned traits [brave,dependable, strong, emotionally stable, critical, logical, and rational] because it signifiesvulnerability; in this way, men, especially disabled men, must avoid emotional expression. If theyfail in stoicism, discrimination in the form of pejorative words (“cripple”, “wimp”, “retard”) aresometimes used to suppress or condemn the outward expressions vulnerability (p. 4).This internalization of valuing masculinity is not only present within othered men, but is a reality withinour entire society. It is not the masculinity in and of itself, but the power that comes along with it, thatmakes it desirable. This internalization is even present within females; they learn to internalize their ownoppression. Pease (2010) describes internalized oppression as “the incorporation and acceptance byindividuals within an oppressed group of the prejudices against them within the dominant society” (p. 5).Subordinate groups then perpetuate their own oppression and marginalization by internalizing this beliefset. This creates what Antonio Gramsci deems ‘ideological hegemony’: the maintenance of the dominantgroup’s position by charming the hearts and minds of those who are exploited (Pease 2010). Thesubordinate group believes that those who have worth are those who belong to the ideals; therebyreducing their own worth (Pratto and Stewart 2012, p. 31). Their desire to belong becomes the desire tobe a part of the norm, and to despise the part of themselves that is not (Pratto and Stewart 2012, p. 32).I, unfortunately, have learned to internalize my own oppression. As othered men have learned todo, I too partook in this internalization of hypermasculinities in order to gain power and legitimacy in this“man’s world”. Before Intercordia, I simply wanted to be considered an equal within this world. I wantedto achieve, within myself and within others’ perceptions of me, the status of a man. I was constantlybeing delegitimized solely because of my gender; I wanted respect for my ability, strength, intelligence,and power. It is evident within the ways I live and act today: priding myself on my strength, myintelligence, and my independence. I learned to stop crying. I learned to speak before I listened. Ilearned to sympathize but forgot to empathize. I lost the ability to receive. My experience in Intercordiahelped me realize this because it pushed me up against a system of patriarchy which was much moreobvious than that of my own. Perhaps it was more obvious because I was in a new environment, thusmore aware. Perhaps it was more obvious because it expressed itself in a way that was less covert thanthe patriarchy that exists in Euroamerican societies. Comparing the disparity between men and womyn’swages in North America, for example, is a little more complex and concealed than an adage in theDominican which says, “She can cook, she’s ready to be wed.” The expression is light, but almostprideful in a way: it essentially tells me that the worth of a womyn is to cook and to be a good wife.Though North America has its fair share of “kitchen jokes”, I reacted more strongly to the constant catcalls and my host mother telling me I could not climb a tree because I am not a man. This difference inmy reaction was likely a result of my being directly confronted with the more obviously expressed genderroles of the Dominican society.As a response to this more obvious patriarchy, I found an immense desire to fight theexpectations of my gender and be seen as an equal to a man in order to gain credibility in my newenvironment. This desire actualized itself quite robustly in the machismo culture of the DominicanRepublic. It dominated my thoughts and actions; I found that everything I did was an act to prove that Iwas worthy. I refused to take people’s hands of help when walking up mountains and literally played tugof-warwith people when they tried to carry my bags for me. I was attempting to reassert my powerwithin a relationship in which I was forced to be weak. I can now see, as Vanier discusses, that thisexpression of strength and power worked to separate me from people (Locklin 2010), but at the time, Isaw myself in the right. I became a self-proclaimed “femimonster”.67