The Demise of Guys Non-Fiction Essay

THE DEMISE OF GUYS NON-FICTION ESSAY

The article “The Demise of Guys” is written by Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan and was published on the Psychology Today website on May 23, 2012. The article takes the TED talk with same name by Philip Zimbardo as its starting point. Zimbardo and Dunkin also wrote a book with the same title and subject. Philip Zimbardo is a psychologist and a professor at Stanford university. He became known for a social experiment in a prison, he did back in 1971.

The theme of the article is about gender roles and about young men getting emasculated by society.

In the article Zimbardo argues that young men are struggling and that they are getting emasculated by society, making them undermotivated in school and making them stay living home with their parents until they hit the 30s. He argues, today’s generation of men doesn’t live up to “male culture”. They’re dropping out educationally and wiping out emotionally and sexually with women. A fear of intimacy with the opposite sex is arising. Zimbardo argues, that young men are not living up to the requirements of being a real man.

There is no doubt that Zimbardo is discontented by young men. His opinion manifest itself through his choice of words. For example, in third paragraph right after accusing society of lacking support to young men, he uses the word “Consequently” (p. 1, l. 20), which is negatively loaded.

Also, already in the title, where he uses the word “Demise”, he uses a sneering tone.

It seems important to mention that the author, Philip Zimbardo is indeed a man. That should be adding credibility to the article as he’s talking about manhood, but he doesn’t pull any strings to his own life at any time.

The article is highly provocative. Not only is it stigmatizing and generalizing, it’s also speaking disparagingly of men. At one time, he uses the terms “man-child” and “moodle” (man-poodle) (p. 1, l. 24), which is dreadfully sarcastic. Another time he says that “grown men remain like little boys …” (p. 2, l. 8) also horribly sarcastic and sterile.

The intended receiver is society in general. It’s a telling-off to young men and an accusation of the rest of society including young women and adults. The language is formal, but not academic. He is using formal words, but none of them are hard to understand for a basically educated American, which makes it obtainable for anyone to read.
The anaphora in the first paragraph where he says “Maybe he’s undermotivated in school … Maybe he’s your son … Maybe he’s you” (p. 1, l. 8) is referring directly to the reader, to include the key figure: young men, even though the article seems to be talking about young men above their heads.

Zimbardo is not giving the solution on the problem, that he states. He said to TED that the article is exclusively written to alarm, not to solve. He wants to set off a debate.

Zimbardo argues weakly. For instance, when he claims “In record numbers, guys are falming out academically …” (p. 1, l. 11), he might be talking about statistics, but is not referring to any. Therefore, the reader has no chance of knowing whether he speaks the truth.

Another example is the claim “Over the past decade, this pattern has escalated into adulthood where grown men remain like little boys, having difficulty relating to women as equals, friends, partners, intimates, or even as cherished wives” (p. 2, l. 8) followed by the claim that this demise can be traced to the rise of technology enchantment which lead to guys burying themselves in videogames and online pornography. Zimbardo keeps claiming, but we miss out on the backing of the argument. There is no ground and therefore no warrant.