Tuesday, November 6, 2012

RA #3

Rhetorical Analysis

 

 

            Cultural and social demands lay a heavy burden on the youth in today’s society. Strict social behaviors define who and what a person is or is not. Deviations from these social norms are treated with harsh and unforgiving disapproval by the general population. In particular, males are taught from early childhood how they are supposed to act in order to “be a man.” Michael Kimmel explains this concept excellently in his article, “‘Bros Before Hos’: The Guy Code.” In the piece Mr. Kimmel states that the saying, “be a man,” brings to mind many masculine mottos such as “boys don’t cry,” “size matters” and “nice guys finish last.” Unfortunately these slogans have negative connotations. They typically emphasize that men are supposed to be unemotional, powerful and successful beings. Furthermore, these codes, or more accurately, “set of rules” allow other males to constantly scrutinize their peers, determining if they measure up to what is expected of them. This perpetual policing of actions and behaviors causes severe issues in various aspects of a male’s life, for example, risk-taking, anger management, depression, health risks,  and drug abuse to name a few. Evident in the style the article is written in, the audience this piece is aimed toward is the male sector. Moreover, the article is directed to those men that follow the “guy code” since they are the one who relate the most to the situations described. This is also confirmed by the fact that females are written off as insignificant and not plagued by any sort of similar issue. If it were noted that the female population has a similar difficulty with societal pressures to be hyper-feminine and perfect, then the author could have narrowed his scope from that point. However he chose to disregard the female spectrum, and I disagree with his decision. I took it with a grain of salt that perhaps Mr. Kimmel was just emulating one of his points: “masculinity is the relentless repudiation of the feminine” (Kimmel 609).  As a female I was also irate after reading “Women have, in men’s minds, such a low place on the social ladder of this country that it’s useless to define yourself in terms of a woman. What men need is men’s approval” (Kimmel 611). Nonetheless, Kimmel appeals to the emotions of the audience as well, recounting students’ responses to how they feel about stepping outside of the guy code. One student admits, “It’s not very safe out there on your own. I suppose as I get older, I’ll get more secure, and feel like I couldn’t care less what other guys say. But now, in my fraternity, on this campus, man, I’d lose everything” (Kimmel 614). Even after the comment on females in the beginning of the article, I began to feel sorry for the interviewee, as was intended by the author. Overall, I am of the opinion that I am not part of the target audience, thus producing the negative effect the article had upon my disposition. The style of writing was written for a “man’s man,” further strengthening the argument the article discussed.

 


 

Works Cited

 

Kimmel, Michael. "Bros Before Hos’: The Guy Code." Rereading America: Cultural Contexts      for Critical Thinking and Writing 8 (2010): 608-17. Print.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment