Canadian Professor’s Bizarre Take on Wolverine & Masculinity

by

As a devoted cinephile, I’ve just come across an intriguing piece in Bay Today. It seems there’s a Canadian professor hailing from Sudbury who once immersed himself in the world of comics during his youth. However, this scholar now appears to view characters like Wolverine as mere carriers of “toxic masculinity.

As a youngster, Neil Shyminsky, a professor at Cambrian College and self-proclaimed smallest student in class, developed an intense fascination with Wolverine – the reluctant superhero from the X-Men comic book franchise.

However, it wasn’t until he attended university that he began to question whether the X-man he admired so much was truly the ideal role model he had believed.

Shyminsky chuckled as he expressed, ‘There’s nothing more enticing than the idea of the small, invincible creature with claws.’ However, it wasn’t until my college years and my courses on feminism and gender studies that I came to understand this might have been unknowingly exposing me to something rather harmful.

To clarify, Wolverine wasn’t prone to violence against vulnerable women. Instead, he took on mentoring roles for ladies such as Storm and Shadowcat. Moreover, he had a deep affection for a woman named Mariko Yashida, who was trapped in an abusive marriage in Japan due to her yakuza father’s influence. This narrative unfolded in the 1982 Wolverine miniseries, one of Marvel’s early publications, penned by Chris Claremont and illustrated by Frank Miller. It is unclear what the author, Mr. Shyminsky, intends to suggest when discussing Logan, the character known as Wolverine. The article proceeds without any subjective opinions or questions.

As a cinema enthusiast immersed in understanding the complexities of masculinity, I’ve found myself drawn to the concept that fueled Shyminsky’s scholarly journey – toxic masculinity. This exploration has been particularly intriguing when viewed through the unique lens of comic books and graphic novels. Now, my musings on this topic have resonated strongly with audiences across various social media platforms, amassing nearly a million followers in total, with an impressive 400,000 engaged fans on TikTok alone.

As a professor at the School of Justice, Community Services, and General Studies within Cambrian University, you can explore some of his scholarly works, which cover subjects like “Mutation, Racialization, Depletion: The X-Men as Stand-ins for White Men,” and “Exposing ‘Gay’ Assistants: Queer Apprehension and the Alteration of Superheroes’ Narratives.

However, the concept of toxic masculinity is what has earned Shyminsky the greatest support from his audience.

The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is quite modern and has stirred up debate, with some people interpreting it as implying an overall rejection of masculinity. However, in essence, it refers to a type of masculinity that causes harm, not only to others but also to the man himself.

The term emphasizes a particular type of male identity and a particular group of societal norms that may appear harmful or risky. For instance, the notion of being expected to “act like a man” instead of displaying vulnerability.

What exactly does this imply? Is it suggesting that in the presence of violent crime, you should act timid and fearful instead of standing strong? It seems quite concerning so far, especially given his use of a social media platform that may be facing a shutdown in the U.S. due to its links with Chinese communists, which raises serious questions.

Based on a report in The Conversation, a professor at Queensland University named Michael Flood explains that harmful masculinity can be characterized by traits like aggression, power-seeking, lack of emotional understanding, feelings of sexual superiority, and hostility towards anything associated with femininity.

Based on the research that’s currently available, it appears that traditional masculine expectations can be detrimental, not just to women, but particularly harmful to men and boys as well.

It appears you’re discussing an article that seems vague on certain points. Specifically, it’s unclear whether the article condemns all forms of violence or only certain types, such as those rooted in barbarism, racism, misogyny, and savagery. The question arises: is it wrong to defend oneself or others against such violence? Clearly not.

The article also criticizes dominance and sexual entitlement, as exemplified by Neil Gaiman’s past behavior. However, the idea that heterosexual men would be hostile to femininity seems illogical. A significant issue here is that Shyminsky may overlook the problematic trend of transsexual ideology that has emerged in recent years, which can be antifeminine. It’s also possible that he doesn’t acknowledge the hostility towards femininity within certain Islamic religions, unless referring to specific examples mentioned later in the text. However, the article seems to only flag allegedly right-wing figures as problematic in this regard.

Instead of delving into a comprehensive examination of masculinity, encompassing both its positive and negative aspects, some individuals have chosen to adhere more strictly to what they perceive as traditional male roles. This shift has given rise to the term “The Manosphere,” as discussed by Flood in another piece for The Conversation. Key figures within this movement include Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and primarily Joe Rogan. According to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the “manosphere” encompasses a multitude of men’s groups, both online and offline. These groups often claim to be countering progressive (or “woke”) notions about gender equality. Influencers within the Manosphere frequently propose unsubstantiated views that males are inherently dominant, sometimes even twisting biological and evolutionary facts to justify restrictive gender norms as natural.

The phrase “your body, my choice,” which gained traction (particularly by podcaster Nick Fuentes) as a counterpoint to the pro-choice slogan “my body, my choice,” saw an enormous surge in usage, increasing over 4,600% within 24 hours after the November 5, 2024, U.S. presidential election. However, some of this increase can be attributed to people expressing their opposition to it.

One of those was Neil Shyminsky.

[…] Initially, the opportunity was for exploring graphic novels and comics within an educational context. However, it has since evolved from education into advocacy, as he shared with Sudbury.com.

It seems that the individuals mentioned above are often labeled as “right-wing,” but in reality, some of them, such as Tate, are not truly right-wing by conventional standards. Shockingly, it appears that Shyminsky may be unaware that Tate is an Islamic convert and has made offensive comments in support of Hamas. Even Ben Shapiro advises staying away from Tate. Rogan, unfortunately, has been lenient on antisemitism, which weakens any criticisms he might have about the left. Fuentes is not a figure to admire, but rather one to be ashamed of. Peterson, while certainly having flaws, hasn’t shown himself to be as poor an example as the others, and has spoken out in defense of Israel. It appears that Shyminsky may have personal issues with Peterson, who is a Canadian citizen himself. Gaiman would make a better example for discussing toxic masculinity, but he was not mentioned by Shyminsky or the newspaper.

It’s unfortunate that Professor Shyminsky seems to favor modern, controversial interpretations of comic book characters over classic ones. His views on characters such as Wolverine disregard his support for females like Mariko and various X-Women, which is not acknowledged in this piece. It wouldn’t be surprising if he also dismisses iconic figures like Superman and Lois Lane, implying that the efforts of creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were insignificant from the start.

This article overlooks significant historical instances, such as an early Golden Age story where Superman saved a woman from domestic abuse by her husband. Such examples are surprisingly absent in this discussion, which seems more like a biased critique of “toxic masculinity.” The article’s perspective distorts the essence of masculinity to fit a progressive agenda, ignoring how traits such as selflessness and protection of the innocent are values shared by both genders. Unfortunately, this piece fails to present a convincing argument for these universal ideals.

As a film enthusiast, I must say that what irks me most about this over-praised article could be its author’s propensity to criticize hyperbolically the concept of masculinity. This leaves me wondering if they hold women and femininity in equal regard.

Read More

2025-01-22 18:01