12
Spread
Winter
The Bear Facts
Courtesy of Sarah Hui ‘20
‘War on Boys’: Implications of Language By JACKIE THOMAS ‘20
As many Ursuline juniors learn each year in AP Language and Composition, style can make or break a writer’s point, convey their attitude and express their argument more clearly to the audience. This rings true whether in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle or the ReMarker’s recently controversial “Kavanaugh and the War on Boys”— devices reveal tone, tone reveals the author’s attitude, and attitude reveals the piece’s underlying message. And what is this not-so-hidden meaning within “War on Boys?” Let’s take a closer look at Wallace White’s argument through his rhetorical and linguistic choices used throughout his article to find out. Of course, the most logical place to begin is with White’s word choices. Diction throughout the entire piece forms a decidedly dramatic, agitated tone, and there are too many examples to fully examine here, but some specific terms warrant discussion. Some of White’s most notable diction concerns boys’ apparently inevitable natural transgressions. Take, for example, “tomfoolery.” The connotation of the term brings to mind a 5-year-old playfully feeding his asparagus to his dog under the kitchen table to avoid vegetables, not the complicated issues of relationships or sexual assault. In this way, White constructs a lighthearted tone surrounding boys’ supposed innate propensity toward mistakes, conveying an ultimate message that the “stupid things” boys do are harmless and even beneficial. Later, White also calls the consequences of manly romantic conquest sometimes “self-destructive.” This term reinforces his earlier carefree, even playful, tone by emphasizing boys’ only victims as themselves in their “drive to pursue love.” While not referring to rape, White’s diction implies
boys’ previously described transgressions have no real negative impact on others, making an enormous generalization over all male mistakes to support his message. In the area of boys’ utter lack of control over their minds, bodies, wills and actions, White uses words like “unbridled,” “untamable,” and “indominable” [sic]. These terms, all meaning impossible to control, subdue, or constrain, convey an impassioned and outraged tone and White’s resulting point that males are simply unable to function independently from a set list of aggressive, “masculine” traits. Next, White uses a pattern of language to refute the idea of boys’ actions being criticized or limited, accusing his opposers of “curtail[ing]” or “inhibit[ing]” American masculinity. Meaning “depriving” and “impeding and hindering natural behavior” respectively, these word choices add to White’s accusatory tone and begin his rhetoric of men as victims of both their nature and women’s insistence to restrain them. Beyond diction and language, White’s devices and structures expand his argument and reveal his message in deeper detail. One such structure is passive voice, which enables White to paint boys and men as victims without mentioning who carries out the supposed victimizing. As a result of passive voice, he avoids naming who “calls [men] a myriad of names,” “call[s] [Kavanaugh] a rapist,” or teaches boys “that their masculinity needs to be curtailed.” This purposeful shift of focus strengthens White’s consistent narrative of boys as victims of faceless aggressors like their apparent innate character.
White also uses implied procatalepsis, or acknowledgement of and rebuttal to objection, to convey his point, saying, “…boys will do stupid things sometimes. And that’s ok. Yes, let boys make stupid mistakes.” Here, White implies the objection that boys should control themselves and use foresight and morals to consider consequences before their actions, and, while he offers no specific reasoning for his rebuttal, his slightly patronizing tone formed by straightforward language characterizes this hypothetical objector as ridiculous and unfounded. To build his emotional, angry voice of victimization throughout his piece, White uses parallelism and anaphora, where he repeats words and phrases or mirrors structures between statements to give these areas emphasis and emotional crescendo. For example, White pointedly introduces a paragraph, “Boys can’t experience essential parts of their lives. They can’t be themselves.” Parallelism in this phrase, in the repetition of “can’t,” highlights White’s perceived unfair restriction of male rights and identities. Similarly, in a concluding statement, White stresses, “The drive, the impulsiveness, the aggression.” This structure once again serves to build the passionate, angry tone, emphasizing supposed inherent male qualities being
threatened. “Kavanaugh and the War on Boys” delivers a treasure trove of rhetorical and stylistic devices that we as readers can use to decipher White’s point behind the bluster. Putting together his diction, structure and rhetoric, White’s overall tone is offended and resentful. However, the effect of this tone, though obvious with analysis, is surprising considering his opening sentence: “Boys will be boys.” White’s overall message, perceived through language, is not that boys will be boys; rather, his insistence on boys’ utter submission to a list of antiquated “masculine” traits reinforced by his devices provides a far different takeaway: boys will be no one. Chock-full of bravado and self-defined masculine aggression, White’s op-ed strips away all individuality, identity and uniqueness from boys and men, reducing them to objects at the mercy of their biological “unbridled” need to express “tomfoolery” in a blind “drive to pursue love.” The aforementioned not-so-hidden meaning? Boys are supposedly incapable of acting as intelligent, decisive humans. According to White and his language, boys will not be boys. Apparently, boys will be no one, no identity at all.