1 Fenwick

Jenna Fenwick
Chad Reece
English 101
September 12,2016
Bros Before Hos
This is a rhetorical analysis on Michael Kimmels Bros before Hos. Kimmel argues
that young men believe they must follow a unrealistic Guy Code based on the ideas of other
men in their lives. Overall, Kimmels article is persuasive based on his claims, situation, purpose,
and audience.
What are Kimmels claims? Kimmel has one major claim with two minor claims. In
paragraph 6 Kimmel makes his major claim that the Guy Code is the collection of attitudes,
values, and traits that all together form what it means to be called a man (478). While using the
fact that men want to be considered a man among other men in paragraph 13-14, because they
have listened to the men in there lives to understand the ideas of masculinity (479). If men are
crossing the line of masculinity they are considered gay due to the gender police watching
guys every move (480). So Kimmel is making the main claim of men have to conform to the
Guy Code in order to be considered a man. The minor claims Kimmel makes supports his major
claim in which the ideas of masculinity that men learn from men in there lives develops a guy
code and men are watched by other men to make sure they walk, talk, eat and wear clothes like a

2 Fenwick

man should, which is saying men must not wear anything that tests their masculinity or they will
be out of Guy Code.
What evidence is used to support his claims? Lets look at the evidence. In paragraph 7
Kimmel listed Robert Brannons four basic rules of masculinity which supports Kimmels claim
of the Guy Code because Brannon calls his list the boy code that men where supposed to
learn as a boy (478). In paragraph 14 Kimmel quotes Arnold Schwarzenegger who has said be
like a mans man not a Fabio-like ladies man which supports Kimmels minor claim that men
are taught to be men among men based on the ideas they are taught (480). In paragraph 20
Kimmel uses the example that Eminem said Faggot to me just means taking away your
manhood which supports the minor claim of men arent supposed to cross that gender boundary
line (481). So Kimmel does support his claims with evidence.
What appeals does Kimmel use? Kimmel backs up his claims with ethical and emotional
appeals. Ethical appeal is built up by Kimmel being a professor and interviewing men college
students in paragraphs 9-12 and paragraph 17 (480). This builds up Kimmels evidence showing
what he is saying is accurate because that is what college students are saying. Emotional appeal
is built up through the article by Kimmel presenting the meaning of being a man is important in
paragraph 1 but then Kimmel builds up the emotion behind interviews from what other men have
said to men in paragraphs 9-12 (479). So Kimmel uses ethos and pathos to build up his evidence
and support his claims.
Kimmels claims are true for some men but he has narrow evidence in which he only
includes evidence that supports his claims. While also only including one womens opinion in
paragraph 1 about what it means to be a women and he used that as evidence due to it being the

3 Fenwick

opposite of what he believes men to be like (477). Comparing Kimmels claims to Kilbournes
The dangerous ways ads see women, Kilbourne believes the image of women in advertising is
worse than ever and that mens ads arent stereotyped like women and they arent consequences
involved after. While Kimmel believes if men try to even step away from the kind of man they
are the risk being ostracized or even lose all there friends like it says in paragraph 28 (482).
Kilbourne believes there are stereotypes associated with men but they arent as severe as
womens but Kimmel believes that women like the one in paragraph 1 dont care about what it
means to be a women. So Kimmel and Kilbourne could argue feminism and masculinity back
and forth.
What is Kimmels situation for writing this article? Kimmel clearly sees the ideas of
masculinity as a problem. Kimmel shows in paragraph 6 that men are supposed to start following
the boy code before they even hit adult hood, boys are supposed to understand the Guy Code
before even finishing adolescence (478). In paragraph 19 Kimmel reveals that in middle school
or high school the biggest insult against any man is thats so gay (480). Kimmel showed the
situation in paragraph 28 with different quotes that college students have said that they would get
beat up, they would lose their friends, kill them or themselves, and one even said he would pull a
Columbine, all because other students would call them gay (482). Kimmel reveals this as the
situation because if you are seen as not masculine as a guy it has bad consequences.
Does Kimmel make his situation clear? Kimmel uses poignancy appeals to show his
negative connotations toward the ideas stressed on masculinity. In paragraph 29 Kimmel
expresses that men will risk their friendships, their sense of self, and maybe their lives if they
dont fit into the form of masculinity. While the situation is made clear in paragraph 30 by

4 Fenwick

Kimmel making the analogy of the Guy Code fits as well as a straightjacket (483). So I
believe, Kimmel clearly states his situation to the reader.
Is Kimmels response appropriate and persuasive to the situation? Kimmel has a strong
ethical appeal as a professor but since he is using quotes and experiences of his college students
he builds a poignancy appeal. The college students experiences he uses in paragraph 27 shows
that even if a man was to stop out of his box he would called out by all the other men as a fag
and because of that he believes he would lose everything (482). Kimmel responds to this by
stating in paragraph 29 that men take huge chances to prove their manhood (482). So I believe,
Kimmel expresses how extreme men will go just so they can be called a man by other men which
makes his response appropriate. Kimmel uses his knowledge of college students to get interviews
he needs to prove his situation. By using the groups of interviews in paragraphs 9-12 creates an
idea of how college students are thinking (479). Kimmel then expresses more sad stories of a
college student in paragraph 27 that showed Kimmels main situation he is trying to express
(482). So I believe, Kimmel building up the depth of his interviews is persuasive.
What is Kimmels purpose? Kimmel is trying to persuade to society that guys are held to
certain standards in order to be called a man. Kimmel summarized in paragraph 4 the Real
Guys Top Ten List which includes; Boys Dont Cry, Its Better to be Mad than Sad, Dont
get mad- Get Even, etc. (478). The list shows men cant show emotion and they have to be
tough no matter what the situation. Kimmel uses Robert Brannons four basic rules of
masculinity in paragraph 7 that says there is No Sissy Stuff, Be a Big Wheel, Be a Sturdy
Oak, and Giveem Hell (478-479). Kimmel uses multiple epigrams to show that men are
supposed to follow these as a way to fit in and to be considered a man.

5 Fenwick

Does Kimmel make his purpose clear? Kimmel mentions many times that men are taught
ideas of masculinity. For example in paragraph 9 Kimmel asked his students where they got there
ideas, the students told him his dad was always telling him in order to make it in the world you
have to be tough (479). Kimmel makes his purpose clear in paragraph 13 when he states that men
hear voices of the men in their lives in order to inform themselves of their masculinity (479). In
paragraph 5 Kimmel mentions that there are rules that guys must follow in guyland in order to
see if they measure up to be a man (478).So yes, all together Kimmel makes his purpose clear
that all men have to follow certain ideas in order to be considered a man.
Does Kimmel purpose clearly follow the claims made? Kimmel makes connections
between Guy Code, Man among Men, and the gender police. In paragraph 6 Kimmel
explains that The Guy Code is the collection of attitudes, values, and traits are form a man
(478). While in paragraph 14 Kimmel points out that men dont just follow these ideal for
women, they do it so they can be considered a man among the other men (479). In paragraph 16
Kimmel elaborates on the fact that men watch other men so they can call them out for crossing
over that line of masculinity (480). Kimmel is clearly following his three claims by making his
purpose that men have to follow these ideas in society or they will lose there man card. Kimmel
wants everyone to believe that men have to follow certain rules of society to be a man but
women have to do the same in order to be considered a women. Therefore Kimmels evidence is
very one sided and doesnt show all sides of his purpose.
Who is Kimmels audience? Kimmel immediately points out in paragraph 1 that his
audience is not women because when asking young women what it means to be a women they
said it doesnt mean anything (477). While in paragraph 2 he points out it means a lot to man

6 Fenwick

when asked what it means to be a man (477). In paragraphs 10-12 Kimmel tells where young
men get there ideas of masculinity from and men ages 20,21,24, and 26 years old say there dad,
teachers, brothers, and coaches influenced the way they thought of themselves as a man (479).
Kimmel uses those 4 examples of men to narrow down his audience but starts to explain
paragraphs 27-29 that men ages 19-29 are the ones who are more likely to follow the rules of
masculinity to show they are one of the guys.
Does Kimmel properly reveal his audience? Kimmel himself has been a professor at
multiple universities in which he taught sociology. Since he was surrounded by college students
he used multiple examples in this article. For example in paragraph 2 he says he asked college
students at workshops what it means to be a man (477). He also mentioned in paragraph 17 the
students in his Sociology of Masculinity class that were discussing how clothes can be
classified as homo or gay just by the color of mens shorts (480). Therefore all together Kimmel
is hinting towards a certain age group, which is stated in paragraphs 27-29 as 19-29 years old
(482). Based on this, Kimmel properly reveals his audience to the reader.
Is the audience portion of Kimmels article persuasive? Kimmel is a professor and has
built a strong background for himself by getting his PhD at Berkeley and having many published
works (477). Therefore Kimmel builds a strong ethical appeal for himself in which he has gained
experience to make him a form of an expert on college students. Kimmel interviews college kids
in paragraphs 9-12 he cites interviews with college kids who are 21-26 years old, who he worked
with in his own workshops (479). Kimmel also speaks a language that is easy for college
students to understand, he could use large words considering he has a doctorate, but he doesnt

7 Fenwick

use any big words except ostracized (482). Therefore I believe Kimmels article is persuasive due
to how he appropriately addresses his audience.
All together Kimmel creates a very persuasive argument based on his claims, situation,
purpose, and audience. Kimmel expresses that men have to try very hard to follow a Guy Code
in order to be considered a man among men. While also not crossing the boundary line of
masculinity in which the gender police would out guys in check. Kimmel creates a good
argument although the argument is very one sided in which Kimmel only uses evidence that
supports his claims. Although Kimmels Bros before Hos is a persuasive article.