Rhetorical Analysis and Critique of “Bros Before Hoes” - 825 Words

Rhetorical Analysis and Critique of â€Å"Bros Before Hoes† (Essay Sample) Content: Student Professor Course Date Rhetorical Analysis and Critique of â€Å"Bros Before Hoes† Language plays an important role in articulation of thoughts as well as how the audience and reader perceive and interpret texts. Rhetorical devices and techniques for instance can facilitate or impede delivery of the intended message. Nowhere is this statement truer than in Kimmel’s â€Å"Bros Before Hoes†, a book that explores the enforcement of masculinity on men by fellow men. Through narratives, process code, vivid descriptions, and ethos, the author explores the pressure and forces that coalesce around men to shape how they speak, behave, and relate with others. This paper will explore Kimmel’s use of rhetorical techniques and compare it to Kleinman, Ezzell, and Frost use of the same in The Social Harms of Bitch and demonstrate that used effectively, the devices make texts compelling and persuasive. The first rhetorical technique that Kimmel has used to great effect is the narrative style of relating information. He begins by making the claim that men have allowed other men to shape their lives than women have. To support the claim, he narrates the stories of male and female interviewees he encountered in the course of his research. For women, being female meant that nobody could tell them what to be a woman meant (608). Conversely, men responded that to be a man meant that one was not to show emotions, give in, or accept domination. By juxtaposing men and women perception of masculinity and its opposite respectively, Kimmel allows the reader to hold both genders side by side and see the similarities and differences. The technique is simple yet effective in supporting the claim that men are under greater pressure to show certain levels of aggression that women are. Additionally, Kimmel uses contrast technique in combination with ethos to reinforce the claim that guy code is real and has been in existence for a long time. In page 608, he classifies attributes deemed appropriate for men in contrast to those viewed otherwise. To support this assertion further, the author cites Robert Brannon’s rules of masculinity. Brannon, a social psychologist of high reputation, wrote about the topic in the 1970s and the fact that little has changed since then helps to build Kimmel’s case and convince the reader that guy code is not a creation of the author’s imagination. Similarly, Kimmel has used description technique so subtly but effectively to explicate the implementation of guy code as well as the nuanced methods through which men force masculinity on other men. The passage in page 611 is classic process mode in action as the author gets into the minds of boys to hear them listen to male voices telling them how to behave. The same use of vivid description is evident when Kimmel describes the masculine basis of homophobia. Right from an early age, boys learn that showing signs such as crying , giving up, or backing off from a fight is a sign that even when being male one is not man enough. Alternatively, one may be construed as being homosexual, which is equally a step down from manhood. However, a critical and objective analysis of homophobia shows Kimmel’s view to be true but simplistic. For instance, the argument does not explain why females may be homophobic even without the guy code. Close to Kimmel’s argument is Kleinman, Ezzell, and Frost’s article The Social Harms of Bitch that blames the society for normalizing sexism. In the article, the authors bemoan the use of the word ‘bitch† as inherently oppressive and patriarchal. The fact that even women use it on each other shows the extent to which women have internalized and accepted their domination and abuse. The gist of the article is clear as early as the first paragraph but the author hold it back until page 466 where they lambast the society ...