Hegemony, per se, relates to the assumption of masculinity through the distinction of command. Most likely, this stature of men being able to control themselves and the society around them has been coined in relation to the culture of imperialism that England has introduced to the world. Relatively, this has created a direct implication of what manhood is all about and how masculinity is recognized in areas that England has greatly affected during the years of imperialism.
However, as Robidoux implies in his writing, this was not the condition in relation to how the Canadian society recognizes manhood from then up to these days. Using hockey as a mere example of the brawn quality of males, Robidoux argues that it is not only the condition of the physical attributes of men that makes them manly. Because of the effect of the western belief and culture into that of the Canadian history and lifestyle, it was easier to impose that men in this particular region are most often than not noted for their achievements [most likely related to commercial success]. This is likely the reason why hockey teams in Canada are not only noted for their strength but also for their marketability, their looks, their personality and their background as separate individuals away from what they do during their games.
Hegemony, although considered as the basis of the recognition of one being basically manly, does not necessarily need to be assumed as the only source of distinction of whether or not a male should be considered a man. As humans, each individual should be recognized for the worth of what he does and what that particular assumption of the role that he takes specifically mean for others he lives alongside with. It should not be the physical attributes nor that of the strength of a person only that should define him nor make him deserving of others’ respect. Instead, it should be his whole personality, his being and his capability to extend himself to others that makes an individual relatively deserving of recognition.