Masculinity Homophobia Othering Analysis

“Humanizing the other” is a rhetorical strategy that acknowledges those who are different from us as complex individuals with emotions, histories, points of view and experiences that make them unique. It is a way to get past stereotypes and labels to see people who might otherwise be marginalized as fully human rather than as abstract threats or outcasts. It makes no assumptions (unlike the assumptions made about “homophobic” people in the beginning of Kimmel’s essay). In “Masculinity as Homophobia,” Kimmel (2013) uses “humanizing the other” to critique the standards of masculinity in American society and to marginalize men whose views and beliefs differ from his own. He argues that masculinity is constructed through a culture of fear—men fear being seen as weak, emotional, or insufficiently masculine, which leads to the rejection and dehumanization of those who do not conform to traditional male norms, including women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and even other men. To justify homosexuality, Kimmel must delegitimize the culture of heterosexuality. Kimmel uses personal narratives, historical context, and structural analysis to do so. Humanizing the other is a way for him to call for justice for “otherized” people by asking the reader to recognize their worth and validity at the expense of group whose views are deemed incorrect.

The central injustice Kimmel focuses on is the idea that traditional masculinity relies on exclusion, oppression, and fear to sustain itself. He argues that masculinity is a performance—one based on a rejection of femininity and homosexuality. Men have to “prove” their masculinity by rejecting any perceived weakness (being labeled a “faggot” signifies weakness), and ridiculing or attacking those who deviate from perceived gender norms. According to Kimmel, men live in a culture of fear of being exposed as insufficiently masculine, which contributes to a readiness to adopt aggressive behaviors, repress sensitive emotions, and oppress “others” whose behaviors might somehow invalidate their views.

This is the injustice Kimmel perceives, and he says the result is homophobia, misogyny, and an all-around devaluation of sensitivity and vulnerability. Men who do not conform are ridiculed or abused. Kimmel wants to expose what he sees as the fear that underpins masculinity, labeling it harmful and restrictive for everyone involved. His argument for justice, then, is to dismantle this rigid and oppressive definition of masculinity and allow men to express themselves fully without fear.

One of Kimmel’s (2013) most effective strategies is his effort to humanize men who do not fit the traditional masculine mold. Rather than portraying them as weak or abnormal—as mainstream society can do—he presents them as people who suffer from toxic masculinity. He tells stories about women who “know” men are “gay” if they share any sign of care or compassion for her (Kimmel, 2013, p. 148). This is his strength insofar as it helps him to make an argument about toxic masculinity. It is, however, also a weakness, for he in nowise offers an accurate sample of all women; that is to say, is one expected to believe that all women view caring men as gay? He uses personal anecdotes and stories like this to make his point about how toxic masculinity teaches “real” men to be hard, tough, and without compassion for others.

For example, he describes the experience of young boys who are taught from an early age that their worth depends on their ability to dominate others and hide their emotions. Boys who cry or express fear are ridiculed and called names. He frames these boys as victims of an oppressive system rather than as failures. His intention is to criticize the culture of masculinity. This is part of his attempt to use humanization to make his argument more effective because it compels the reader to empathize with these boys rather than dismiss them as weak.

Kimmel (2013) also humanizes women by exposing how masculinity is defined in opposition to femininity. He argues that men are taught to see women as the “other,” as figures who must be dominated in order to affirm their own strength. Women are seen as weak, emotional, and subordinate, and men are conditioned to avoid any traits that might associate them with femininity. Such rejection of the feminine would indeed be harmful if that were what is happening, but, again, the sample obtained is not scientific and it is unclear whether anything generalizeable can be drawn from it.

Kimmel ultimately wants readers to see women as people who suffer under the same culture of toxic masculinity that harms men. They take active part in the problem. They pass it along to others and accept as their own the prejudices inherent in the culture, as Kimmel presents it. Thus Kimmel shows that it is an entire culture to blame.

Another way Kimmel humanizes the other is through his discussion of homophobia. He argues that homophobia is a deep fear that straight men have of being seen as insufficiently masculine. He explains that many homophobic men do not actually hate gay people but rather fear being associated with them because masculinity is defined by the rejection of anything perceived as unmanly or weak.

By framing homophobia in this way, Kimmel welcomes the reader to view LGBTQ+ community as people who are unfairly targeted by a culture of toxic masculinity. This use of humanization moves the conversation away from abstract arguments about gender and sexuality and makes it personal. By making it personal, Kimmel makes it human.

Kimmel’s use of personal stories and real-life examples makes his argument powerful. He can eschew theories and instead paint pictures of real men and women who have suffered under the constraints of the kind of masculinity he wants to call into question. He does not have to use overly academic language; instead, the wording is accessible and engaging. The argument is discernible, understandable, immediate, and felt. The tone is welcoming even as it otherizes those who might at first identify with the group he is calling out.

Kimmel presents his argument in a way that looks to build empathy as it goes on. The point is for readers to first understand the pressure placed on men before they are asked to consider the effects on others. Overall, the design is supportive of the intention.