RR #2

In his piece “‘Bro’s before Hos’: The Guy Code,” Michael Kimmel focuses on the origins, meanings, and definition of being a man. To get a widely accepted analysis of manhood, Kimmel asked young men from across the United States and several other countries about being a man. From his observations, Kimmel concluded that the primary rule of manhood is to never submit to neither emotions nor weakness. Kimmel stressed that to overcome weakness and emotion, a male should show no fear, thrive powerfully and successfully, and win in any competition. The author then claimed that young men aim for their masculine identity from their fellow male community, including fathers, elder brothers, and coaches. Kimmel also stated that men apply great effort to their manhood not to impress woman but rather to be “man among men,” which may allow them to be well-regarded in society. After explaining the characteristics of manhood, Kimmel listed many consequences of opposing the rules of manhood. Kimmel suggested that if a male rejects the ways of being a man, he will be failure.

From his insights of men all across the world, Kimmel listed some values of being a man: “…never show your feelings, never ask for directions, never give up, never give in, be strong, be aggressive, show no fear, show no mercy, get rich, get even, get laid, win—follow easily after that” (609). He also used knowledge from psychologist Robert Brannon to express the common foundation for masculinity: never be a sissy, thrive with power, be strong, and live life on the edge (610). Kimmel then traces the origins of manhood, and he explains that efforts to succeed in being a man arise from other male influence. After interviewing several men about their influences on being a man, Kimmel concluded that the male community, such as coaches, fathers, brothers, uncles, and even priests, urge males to reach for their place in manhood. Kimmel clarified the reasons underlying rules of manhood: “They do it because they want to be positively evaluated by other men. American men want to be a ‘man among men,’ an Arnold Schwarzenegger-like ‘man’s man,’ not a Fabio-like ‘ladies’ man.’ Masculinity is largely a ‘homosocial’ experience: performed for, and judged by, other men” (611). The intentions of manhood provide readers with a greater understanding of men. After describing matters that involve living up to man rules, Kimmel discussed the possible effects of contradicting society’s rules of being a man. He expressed that the failure to abide by the man rules results into the demotion of a man to a “faggot” or gay person. Kimmel showed a quote from a male who has properly represented manhood. Eminem, a widely known celebrity, artist, and proper representation of manhood, elaborated on how the term “faggot” is used to scorn a male’s position on manhood: “The lowest degrading thing you can say to a man when you’re battling him is to call him a faggot and try to take away his manhood. Call him a sissy, call him a punk. ‘Faggot’ to me just means taking away your manhood” (612). Being called a faggot is a way in which Kimmel describes how a man has failed in society; Kimmel also expresses that attachment to mothers impairs a man’s manly value. Kimmel claimed that boys, before reaching the successful status as a man, must push away from their mothers: “Along the way they suppress all the feelings they associate with the maternal—compassion, nurturance, vulnerability, dependency. This suppression and repudiation is the origin of the Boy Code” (615).

I agree with most of Kimmel’s claims on manhood. From my personal experience of being a man, I can agree to the basic man rules: never be a sissy, thrive with power, be strong, and live life on the edge. After reading the article ‘Bros Before Hos’: the Guy Code,” I realized that other male influences have shaped me into the man that I am today. Most of Kimmel’s views on manhood apply to my life, but I disagree with his claim that boys must push away from their mothers to attain manhood: “Boys learn that their connection to mother will emasculate them, turn them into Mama’s Boys. And so they learn to act as if they have made that leap by pushing away from their mothers” (615). I believe that boys who push away from the hard work and care of their mothers label themselves as rather sissies than young men. If boys push away from their mothers due to a fear of being a Mama’ Boy, then their fear is the principle cause of their actions. Thus, by allowing such a fear to take control, boys who push away from their mothers are truly sissies, not men. A boy who resembles the true characteristics of manhood will acknowledge the compassionate care from their mothers, and give the mother respect. However, this acknowledgement of mothers should not overplay into the actions of an over dependent, needy Mama’s Boy, but it should serve to lead the young boy to be more of a man than a brat.