Zachary Hansen
Professor Mike Kimball
English 1010
9 October 2012
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
The piece of rhetoric I will be analyzing is “Guys vs. Men” by Dave Barry. It is the
introduction to his book Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys. Barry is a humor columnist for the
Miami Herald. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1988 and has written 23 humor books.
Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys was published in the United States by Ballantine Books, an
imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, in 1995. In “Guys vs. Men”, Dave Barry
humorously engages his audience to view males as he views them.
In this piece, Dave Barry humorously proposes his characteristics of 'guys'. He does not give an
in-depth comparison of guys and men; rather he briefly describes men and then goes into his view on
guys. The opening segment describes men as often being serious. Barry states that Men who try to be
manly, or to exhibit Manhood, develop stupid behavioral patterns that can lead to things like violent
crime, war, spitting, and ice hockey. He then presents his overall thesis, that there is another way to
look at males: not as aggressive macho dominators; not as sensitive, liberated, hugging drummers; but
as guys. After this initial introduction, Barry goes into detail on three main points he makes about the
characteristics of guys. The three points he elaborates on are: Guys like neat stuff, guys like a really
pointless challenge and guys do not have a rigid and well-defined moral code.
Barry's intended audiences are probably men and women who stereotype all males as being the
same. Males who believe all men are, or should be, exactly the same are desirous to be part of that
sameness. Women with this stereotype expect all males to act similarly. Barry's approach strives to
address the definition of guys as opposed to men, especially in the behaviors they exhibit.
The first reason to support Barry's claim is 'guys like neat stuff'. He defines neat stuff as
anything complex and mechanical that guys can tinker with. The very computer he uses to write with
is much more powerful than for what he requires. Another example is the Space Shuttle; a humongous,
gizmo-intensive item of hardware. Barry argues that it exists primarily because guys can tinker with it
forever. Due to the humorous vocabulary employed, Guys who enjoy these things will connect easily
with this reason.
Barry's second reason is 'guys like a really pointless challenge'. He describes an incident where
a group of his coworkers went out to see who could run the forty-yard dash the fastest. This started
because Mike Wilson, a journalist, had written an article about a high-school football player who could
run it in 4.38 seconds.
The final reason in this piece that supports the main claim is 'guys do not have a rigid and welldefined moral code'. Barry states that guys can't internalize Basic Human Moral Code, which was
likely invented by women millions of years ago. He compares guys to his dog, Zippy, who has never
understood why it's bad to get into the garbage and excrete on the floor. Barry also mentions that most
guys have difficulty in being faithful to their mates, especially when faced with tempation.
The appeal to logos in this piece comes across in the statements Barry makes to back up each of
his main points. When he mentions that guys like neat stuff, he talks about things that guys have
invented and created such as: the computer, the space shuttle and the nuclear bomb. He says it's
because of guys that these things even exist. Another good logical appeal is found where Barry
explains that guys like a really pointless challenge. The journalist coworkers had no need to compete
in the forty-yard dash. The only reason they took up this challenge was to prove who was the fastest.
Barry himself knew this was pointless, yet he also participated.
Barry appeals to pathos through the experiences he shares. Many in the target audience surely
have similar experiences. Anyone who has witnessed a group of guys engage in a seemingly pointless
activity can relate to Barry's forty-yard dash. Women who have witnessed faithfulness to spouse in
some men and unfaithfulness in others can also relate. They will see that not all males act the same.
This also ties in with Barry's appeal to ethos. His credibility is apparent because of his knowledge and
experiences. As a guy, he knows about this subject and could be considered an expert on guys in
general.
I think Barry reaches his audience effectively in this piece. Most people that have read this are
likely familiar with his writing in general. He uses humor while talking about the subject. His
personality rings out clearly in everything he writes and 'Guys vs. Men' is no different. The vocabulary
Barry uses is not overly intelligent or educated by any means. He uses common language that anyone
who speaks English can understand clearly. These elements work to bring Barry's message home to the
readers. His argument is more believable because of how it is written.
“Guys vs. Men” is not much of an academic argument, and would fail under critical scrutiny.
However, it was not written to be academic. Barry's language and form of writing reach the intended
viewers effectively. His reasons and opinions engage the reader and convey his own view of guys. I
believe Barry intends for his audience to laugh when he talks about women who rearrange the furniture
at 2 A.M. or the only guys faithful to their mates are part of the spider community. In my opinion
“Guys vs. Men” is very effective at what Dave Barry intended it to be.