Synthesis Essay: Provide Deeper Insights Into The Two Works

Synthesis Essay
Name
Institution
Date
Synthesis Essay
Summary
Most people have a common definition of who a man is, or should be. Most of us are likely to use words such as “confident, sturdy, showing no emotions” or other words along the line. Such trends are expected instead of being challenged in the mainstream society because such standards for males have slightly changed since the concept of being a man existed, or at least it seems so. Two authors have different opinions on this very topic with their arguments: Michael Flocker, author of The Metrosexual, and Michael Kimmel, Guyland. In their publications, Kimmel and Flocker focus on the issue of masculinity forming arguments based on different perspectives on the topic. Kimmel focuses more on the underlying codes and rules for masculinities, while Flocker points out the changing of such rules and existing counter-examples. The aim of this paper is to provide deeper insights into the two works, using personal opinion while comparing the issues raised by the two authors.
Discussion
While comparing and contrasting between the two authors, I seem to agree with Kimmel that the guy code does exist in our society, but I do not agree with him that the guy codes have not changed and that they strictly apply to all males. Contrary to what Kimmel states that the rules restrict men, I strongly believe that men should rise above the rules and do as they please, as long as they are not infringing on anyone’s rights, or breaching the law. Flocker appears to take on a similar standpoint when he argues that men in the contemporary society should rise above the rules, the guy code, and express themselves. The guy code is quite limiting, notes Kimmel, and Flocker appears to be providing a solution to that problem by encouraging the metrosexual man to rise above the shackles of the guy code and live their lives to the fullest without fear of ostracization.
Kimmel repetitively states the existence and the importance of the concept of "guy codes" throughout the passage and I agree with him that guy codes certainly do exist in our society, but such codes have been changed and refined throughout the years because people nowadays in society are more open-minded when it comes to defining who is a man and who fails to meet the description and expectation of a man. Kimmel states in the passage that the traits of being a man are very similar and unifying in that, “all of these aphorisms involves never showing emotions or admitting to weakness” (Kimmel, 2008, 45). He also summarizes the “Real Guy’s Top Ten List” into two essential phrases: never show emotion and never admit to weakness. The author develops the argument that one of the most important, if not the only, characteristic feature of being a male is to be strong.
After providing the reader with the four rules of the underlying codes of being a man, being “no sissy stuff, be a big wheel, be a sturdy oak, and give’em hell”, Kimmel then furthers his argument by claiming that these “four rules have changed very little among successive generations” (Kimmel, 2008, 45-46). The essence of these four rules is similar to that of the "Real Guy's Top Ten Li...