Hope for a Healthier Hockey Culture: How it is Changing & How We Can Help
Be ‘tough’. Do not stand out. Play through the pain. Leave your culture at home. Don’t be a p****.
Do not stand out.
Throughout this blog series, I have been deconstructing the ‘ideal’ hockey player to show how it is hurting players and the sport while enabling abuse.
This was partially inspired by a Next Gen Men event I attended years ago about unpacking masculinity. Here, I was first introduced to the term hegemonic masculinity.
Hegemony means “politically or socially dominant” — so hegemonic masculinity means that a given society, culture, or sub-culture upholds an ideal of what men should strive to be. Most commonly this involves physical strength, financial success, suppression of feelings, and a rejection of any qualities deemed ‘feminine’. In North America at least, this also involves glorifying traits like being tall, white, able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender, fitting the cultural standards of “handsome”, and so on — things that people do not have control over.
I was reminded once again how rigid and impossible these standards are when, at the most recent Next Gen Men Circle Talk, attendees answered the question “what does it mean to be a man?” as being in constant unwinnable competition.
As a theory, hegemonic masculinity has continued to evolve since first proposed by RW Connell in the 1980s, and is widely used and accepted to this day.
Taking the Hegemony Out of Hockey
Any changes to hockey culture need to understand the grip that hegemonic masculinity has on the sport.
Understanding this can help to ensure that our solutions are targeting the necessary components to enact real positive change.
This is why I am such a fan of the work Brock McGillis is doing.
McGillis retired from playing competitive hockey in 2016 and came out as gay making him one of the first ever openly queer current or former professional hockey players.
He has been extremely open about how the rampant casual homophobia in the game made him hate who he was.
In the time since McGillis has worked tirelessly to try and make the game more inclusive.
Some major junior teams have brought him in to run sessions aimed at reducing conformity in hockey culture. Saint John’s Sea Dogs players did not realize that a number of their teammates had musical talent or enjoyed things as mundane as history until they brought McGillis in: “I’m trying to show them, you can be a human being and enjoy other things and still be a great hockey player.”
In Canada hockey registration numbers have been declining since 2018. I’m someone who stopped playing because the culture was so toxic, and I’m not the only one.
Hockey is at a pivotal point: there’s an opportunity for big shifts. Letting people be themselves allows the sport to grow. Additionally, as I pointed out in part 1, conformity enables abusers by ensuring silence for fear of stepping out of line. Breaking this norm encourages players to speak out and step in when they hear of or witness harm happening.
Interested in access to free mental health support? Check out MEN& to access free counseling if you’re a man in Alberta.
Modern Day Gladiators
Another theory underpinning these articles is the ‘triad of violence’ which originates from political scientist and White Ribbon Campaign co-founder Michael Kaufman.
This theory builds on the idea of hegemonic masculinity by exploring how, in striving to meet the expectations of the “ideal” man, men are often encouraged to use, endorse, or excuse violence.
First is violence against themselves (by denying who they are and sometimes escalating to tangible forms of self-harm), then violence against other men (in the form of bullying, harassment, hazing, or other acts of aggression), and finally, violence against women and feminine people (everything from coercion to sexual assault, physical assault, stalking, and so on).
To simplify, violence serves as a way of elevating one's status amongst other men and of “simultaneously hiding and expressing [one’s] feelings.” Most crucially, the three corners of the triad are linked:it is not possible to effectively tackle one without approaching the others.
With that in mind, it’s time to be the bearer of bad news: fighting has got to go.
There’s a widely held idea in hockey that fighting makes the game safer by keeping players honest. I cannot find any evidence to support this.
As pointed out in part 3, fighting is happening less frequently, and the game is safer than twenty years ago when incidences of fighting peaked.
The dirtiest players of recent years are generally known for dodging out of fights and sending bigger teammates to ‘answer the bell’ on their behalf. So one player hurts someone and then two other players have to put themselves in harm's way… to keep the game safe?
Fighting results in further glorification of pain and violence as an answer to problems. While commentators like to use the word ‘warrior’ to describe players, I think ‘gladiator’ is more accurate.
Marveling over their pain and sacrifice becomes a source of entertainment in and of itself. When fighting happens we cheer the spectacle not so much the winner. We cheer for their pain: that is not a good thing.
Weaponizing Dreams
What does keep players honest is losing playing time and threats to future earnings. This is where coaches have immense power. These tools could be used to enable culture change but instead often uphold the status quo.
This is most clear with younger players who have long been held to a higher standard than their more established peers on the ice. The idea is this helps them improve, but it can quickly enter into the realm of twisted attempts at control.
For example, former Toronto Maple Leafs’ coach Mike Babcock asked then 19-year old star Mitch Marner to rank himself and his teammates by how hard they worked. Marner seemed to believe it was an exercise for him to reflect on his own effort and put himself last. Babcock then shared it with the whole team highlighting who the rookie thought needed to improve — bringing Marner to tears. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Marner is a player who exudes a lot of personality and enthusiasm on and off the ice, read: stands out.
When I was interviewed by the Globe & Mail they asked me about whether I thought bystander intervention training could be the solution to Hockey Canada’s woes.
I said I doubted it. The bystander intervention training can be excellent, but all it takes is one coach, or one season to undo all that work.
This is why the NHL cannot wipe its hands of scandals like those plaguing Hockey Canada. The regularity of these events are born of hockey’s culture. When the ultimate goal of most high level hockey players is to make ‘the show’ (the NHL) then the environment they create will trickle down.
Change has to be simultaneously top-down and bottom-up.
Moving Forward
I know those reading this will also be looking for things they can do to help. Here are some ideas:
Create Trust
For coaches, I would encourage you to trust your young players more and dispel attitudes that they have to learn the hard way. This is the sort of environment where hazing is encouraged, another problem we haven’t had the space to explore hereLead Culture Change
Next Gen Men also offers a fantastic course (I have done it myself!) called Raising Next Gen Men. It will help you reflect on the messages implicitly being sent to players and how to approach complex issues. It is certified on the Coaching Association of Canada’s platform and thus counts for coaching credits as well!Get Support
If you know anyone, or a part of, a major hockey team or association, Equity Leaders has proven programs on engaging men that have worked with sports teams before. You can request Brock McGillis on his website here. Additionally our friends at Pathways have compiled this list of organizations working to engage men and boys in gender justice in sports.“Call In” Others
Maybe most difficult but most important is an approach called “calling in.” The frustrating reality of hegemonic masculinity is that when men cause harm they often feel like the victim as they are acting out as a result of a current or past perceived challenge to their status. Shame only reinforces this, and in the internet age, pushes perpetrators to find other individuals who feel similarly aggrieved, dividing us further. Calling in brings those who have caused harm into “hopeful change directed conversation.” To be clear, this is not the victim’s responsibility though they may choose to be present if they feel comfortable and unpressured.Hold People & Organizations Accountable
This goes hand-in-hand with ‘calling in.’ This will look different for every situation. First off it must be proportional to the act of harm committed. This should be mutually agreed upon by all parties including the perpetrator when possible to minimize the spiraling risk of shame. For accountability to work, there must be a pathway for growth and learning mapped out alongside a mechanism for ensuring this has happened afterwards. Any agreed upon consequences must also be faced. This is something the Canadiens specifically failed at by drafting Mailloux when he asked not to be, as further detailed in part 2.
There is no panacea to fixing hockey culture. It will take a multi-pronged approach of various methods and programs at all levels. The good news is the work has already begun.
There is a future where instead of insular conformity, hockey culture is centered around a unified desire to make the game safe, exciting, and enjoyable for us all.
That’s the future I am hoping for.
Further Learning:
Blake Holtsbaum is a volunteer with Next Gen Men and a recent graduate of Mount Royal University with a degree in public policy. He has been all over the world, most recently living in South East Asia. He is passionate about maps and mountains and is an advocate for refugee rights.