Wait, are you telling me that Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys addresses women's issues? If "women's issues" include understanding why guys spit, scratch themselves, and give each other noogies, well then this book certainly addresses them!
As for addressing the whole bit about a patriarchal world history, the subjugation of women, and accused responsibility for the Fall of Man, well, you might as well forget it.
Dave Barry might not make you feel better about the stature of women in today's world or the future of the human species, but hopefully you can say this: you're not a guy.
Dave Barry's book reminds me a lot of an episode of Seinfield: it's all about nothing. It tells the reader what guys are thinking(nothing) and what their "deal" is(nothing). While it does pretty much, well, nothing to help understand women or help women understand, the one thing it does do is hold true to the manufacturer's guarantee: you WILL laugh. You will not only laugh, but you will laugh hard. You will laugh hysterically, obnoxiously hard. You will want to share Dave Barry's insight on the male species with everyone you know and every stranger you meet, particularly so if they are women.
Barry's book speaks little about the real reasons as to why males do the things they do and more about the fact that they are just scumbags and idiots. According to Barry, people "make being male sound like a very important activity, as opposed to what it primarily consists of, namely, possessing a set of minor and frequently unreliable organs"(xi). You will become convinced that the title should not be "Complete Guide to Guys," but "More Reasons Why Women Are The Better Sex." In fact, Barry himself seems to support the latter idea through his discussion of "the Punch Reflex," "the Noogie Gene," scientific reasons as to why guys act like jerks, the hidden truth of the Space Shuttle program, and standards. Yes, guys are just mindless idiots who like things that go, "Brrrrrrmmmmmmmmm!" I suppose he would know, though: he is a guy.
It is a well-known fact that our world history is dominated by a tyrannical patriarchy in which the majority of women have been forgotten. Somehow, according to Barry, it is the men who have been forgotten. "Guys have played an important role in history, but this role has not been given the attention it deserves, because nobody wrote it down"(9).
The topics that Joe Ehrmann uses as framework for his Building Men for Others program are quite intriguing and make you really question masculinity. The first topic, rejecting false masculinity, can be interpreted a few different ways. In the book, it states: “As young boys, we’re told to be men, or to act like men” soon followed with “we’ve got all these parents say ‘be a man’ to boys that have no concept of what that means. I completely agree with the statement of Joe Ehrmann and often question the definition of ‘being a man’. Many boys and men will reject the idea of a man being anything other than being big and strong or having power. Overall instead of a true definition of a man, kids and even adults interpret it as athletic ability, sexual conquest, and economic success. The second topic Joe speaks about is the relationships that make a real man. In the book it states “the number one complaint I hear from most wives is ‘My husband has no relationships with other men.’ In other words, most
Steve Estes throughout the entire book showed his ideas, and presented different discussions of race and gender analysis. He ends the book with an outline of America’s gender and race politics from 1980 until present day. The way author Steve Estes explores different leaders and events and their movements is amazing. The book I Am a Man is a journey that not shows gender conflicts but also racial conflicts of the twentieth century, but also an awareness and welcome to civil rights.
This approach to the study and interpretation on the history of foreign policy looks deeper than the customary methodologies that historians typically use. McEnaney, the author of this article, describes gender analysis as an enabler for historians “to scrutinize the organization of power in any arena, from the most public to the most intimate.” This type of analysis digs deep into the skeletons of an historical individual’s writings and helps to reveal how ideologies of masculinity and femininity are rooted in the history of American foreign policy. The propositions of gender analysis have developed new implications on the history of foreign policy. This study focuses on stereotypical characteristics of men and women and how those stereotypes affected the decisions of the individuals who helped develop foreign policy. It is believed that the ideas of what defines masculinity and femininity have been an important part of the decision makers’ thoughts and ideas of what foreign policy should be.
Guys vs Men is an essay written by Dave Barry on the difference of guys and men. In paragraph six, Dave Barry lists three characteristic to help support his belief about guys. The first characteristic is “Guys Like Neat Stuff” which expresses the captivation he has with his brand new computer. The next portrayal is titled “Guys Like a Really Pointless Challenge.” In this section, he describes a circumstance in which his resolve to beat another man in a forty-yard sprint resulted in being mocked for losing the bet he had made. The final representative states that “Guys Do Not Have a Rigid and Well-Defined Moral Code.” Barry talks about guys as not being bound by a rule book. Many guys know of the unrecorded code but refuse to accept by it. The
Margaret Wente’s Globe and Mail article on what women could learn from men presents itself as dogmatic and controversial. Wente’s intent is to persuade their readers into believing that men have become a scapegoat for society yet women could learn lessons from men. Although Wente does have a clear purpose in explaining what women could learn from men, her argument is weakened by her lack of substantial evidence and her appeal to emotions being manipulative.
Barry covers a very touchy subject with a sort of humoristic animosity, that proves an argument in a very discreet manner. He does so by targeting sexism in a different way than what we are use to. As a male writing about “Guys vs. Men”, he must be very intricate in the way he expresses himself. Barry must make his views fast and clear and follow them up with examples that will bring Males and Females under the same belief. By men and society “attaching great significance to manhood”, they often fall victim to their own stereotypes; thus becoming the “loons and goobers” they set out to stray away from.
... E Glenn, and Nancy B Sherrod. The psychology of men and masculinity:Research status and future directions. New York: John Wiley and sons, 2001.
In Dave Barry’s “Clean-Up and Striking Out” The author talks about and compares the difference between men and women. Barry talks about how women can see dirt and other dirty objects that men can not see and the same place a man just cleaned could still be dirty to a women. On the other hand Barry brings up how men feel very sensitive about sports while women are not very sensitive in that area. Which brings up the point that men and women do have their differences and will not feel the same way towards some items and activities. Which is why some activities sports are directed towards males and more sensitive areas are directed towards women. Which shows even more the differences
and their daily lives. This presentation of masculinity can alter how men respect women in the
It would seem that the words “guys” and “men” would be defined in the same way, as they are thrown around in conversation in generally the same way. In fact, Google defines guy as “a man.” Writer, Dave Barry, puts a spin on these two words in his essay, Guys vs. Men. Guys vs. Men discusses the difference between a man--a masculine, aggressive male--versus a guy. Barry is essentially giving the term “men” all of the negative characteristics associated with males, while giving “guys” the cool and fun traits of males. Throughout his essay, Barry explains how a “guy” is different from a “man”. For example, for each subtitle he gives an anecdote about what guys like, do, or have, and how that is different from what men like, do, or have. Barry’s use of humor influences the tone of the piece by making it seem lighthearted and thus allows him to target women readers as his key audience while at the same time maintaining the interest of men readers.
In Kimmel’s essay “’Bros Before Hos’: The Guy Code” he argues that the influence of society on masculinity is equal to or greater than biological influences on masculinity. In the essay, Kimmel uses various surveys and interviews to validate his argument. He points to peers, coaches, and family members as the people most likely to influence the development of a man’s masculinity. When a man has his manliness questioned, he immediately makes the decision never to say or do whatever caused him to be called a wimp, or unmanly. Kimmel’s argument is somewhat effective because the readers get firsthand accounts from the interviewees but the author does not provide any statistics to support his argument.
The feminist perspective of looking at a work of literature includes examining how both sexes are portrayed
In her essay, entitled “Women’s History,” American historian Joan W. Scott wrote, “it need hardly be said that feminists’ attempts to expose ‘male biases’ or ‘masculine ideology’ embedded in historical writing have often met with ridicule or rebuttal of as expressions of ‘ideology.’” Scott’s essay discusses the efforts of female historians to both integrate themselves into the history disciples and their struggle to add and assimilate female perspectives, influences, and undertakings into the overall story of history. She also talks about the obstacles and potentially biased criticism that female historians have received and faced upon establishing themselves as accredited members of the historical academic community. One of these historians is Natalie
Beton discovers men’s anger toward women by glancing through an apparently well-known Professor von X’s book titled The Mental, Moral, and Physical Inferiority of the Female Sex. The mere title makes her angry—outraged that the words could even form the title of a book, which, to Beton, is the natural response to “be[ing] told that one is naturally the inferior of a little man” (32). She does not know at first why men are so critical of women, but she does know that their arguments say more about them than they do about the women they write about. The books “had been written in the red light of emotion,” she says, “and not in the white light of truth” (33), meaning that the men Beton speaks of are responding to something—some feeling or condition that they, as a sex identifying with one another, are sensing, rather than merely expressing a natural fact as their rhetoric seems to suggest.
Women have always been essential to society. Fifty to seventy years ago, a woman was no more than a house wife, caregiver, and at their husbands beck and call. Women had no personal opinion, no voice, and no freedom. They were suppressed by the sociable beliefs of man. A woman’s respectable place was always behind the masculine frame of a man. In the past a woman’s inferiority was not voluntary but instilled by elder women, and/or force. Many, would like to know why? Why was a woman such a threat to a man? Was it just about man’s ability to control, and overpower a woman, or was there a serious threat? Well, everyone has there own opinion about the cause of the past oppression of woman, it is currently still a popular argument today.