That we remain unaware of the centrality of gender in our lives only helps to perpetuate the gender inequality. Instead, he gives it a few sentences of space and pulls out a short quote, but this hardly seems satisfactory.
Part 2 traces the experiences of the American man from the end of the Civil War to the first decades of the 20th century as he confronted new challenges in an increasingly industrialized, urban, and crowded society.
This would be fine if the archetype disappeared in the next few chapters, but it becomes the definitive marker of American masculinity up through the present day. He became a pristine balance between civilization and physical savageness.
Sports were also a way to resolve some class and racial tensions, offset others, and siphon off working-class discontent into other arenas. The other problem with this edition of this book is the tiny typeface. It covers the basics in relatively simple language, and talks about the United States, where a lot of the better-known names focus on Great Britain or Australia.
Gender history is never composed of masculinity or femininity but masculinities and femininities that are always in tension or negotiation. Kimmel is open about using feminist theory, yet I often find myself remembering the guys in college who called themselves feminists in hopes of getting laid.
At the beginning of the 19th century, manhood was understood as an arbitrary move from boyhood to adulthood, but as the century progressed the term manhood fell out of use in favor of the term masculinity. An important part of understanding masculinity is how men disciplined and regulated women through structures and discursive practices.
Men had a few ways to prove their masculinity in the first half of the 19th century, including moving West in order to live a more strenuous life away from the ease of the city, living a life of self-control—both personally and sexually, and keeping the public and private spheres separate—especially making sure that women stayed in the private sphere.
Repeat 1 - 4. He makes this suggestion only briefly, but it is offered in poor academic taste. While I do not know at what point in the Clinton presidency Kimmel wrote this, I find it extremely self-discrediting to frame Bill Clinton as a model for men, especially when his repeated sexual harassment of women should though it is often intentionally overlooked incriminate his legacy.
Masculinity is a constantly changing ideal throughout American history. He was understanding and tolerant, while also being virile and decisive. Suburban men tried to live vicariously through other virile, athletic, ideal American men.
Kimmel begins on the cusp of the American Revolution with three archetypal masculinities in contention Kimmel manhood in america the time: We see plenty of historical examples of how manhood and Christianity are often tied together in describing soldiers or citizens.
In his first chapter Kimmel provides a paragraph or two explaining what he means the Self-Made Man as part of his list of the three types of masculinity. Masculinity was understood to be a set of characteristics and actions that men had to constantly perform in order to be seen as a man among their peers.
Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham are not mentioned a single time, and their impact on American social history is undeniable.
To be fair, some of these constructions of masculinity are amusing or cringey in retrospect, but Kimmel frequently ridicules these "angry white men" in that tone of grating disdain so common for New York elites like Kimmel and honestly is a kind of arrogance that has grown extremely tired in the s.
Part 1 describes the fitful birth of the Self-Made Man and observes how he sought to secure his sense of himself in the years before the Civil War. They watched movies with actors like James Dean and John Wayne, attended athletic events and idolized athletes like Babe Ruth and Sammy Baugh, and hoped to one day have the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The formula of every chapter can be hashed out like this: This consequently ignores or overlooks any other forms masculinity may take. In the post-bellum era, families moved to urban areas in droves because of the economic opportunities there, but men thought that the ease of city life and working side-by-side with women and immigrants would effeminate the white men and their sons, so they sought out physical activities such as sports and gym workouts to offset the femininity and display their masculinity.
Some other points the book leaves unaddressed: Part 4 follows his move to postwar suburbia and brings his saga up to the present day.
In this light, Christianity only comes into focus as a battleground for gender identity.Kimmel (Sociology/SUNY, Stony Brook) applies the methodology of feminist history to the experience of being male in America. May 23, · Analysis: Manhood in America, Michael Kimmel Posted by rwnolan on May 23, in Analysis, Research Reports and Reviews I chose to read Michael Kimmel’s Manhood in America because it is more about American men in general, than about men and their relationship to sports, class, gender, or race.
Manhood in America is an excellent resource for students who need historical and social grounding in order to make sense of the idea that gender, along with other human attributes of identity, are dependent on contextual definitions.3/5(1).
In Manhood in America, Second Edition, author Michael S. Kimmel--a leading authority in gender studies--argues that it is time for men to rediscover their own evolution. In Manhood in America: A Cultural History, Fourth Edition, author Michael Kimmel argues that it is time for men to rediscover their own evolution.
Drawing on a myriad of sources, he demonstrates that American men have been eternally frustrated by their efforts to keep up with constantly changing standards.
Kimmel's authoritative, entertaining, and wide-ranging history of men in America demonstrates that manhood has meant very different things in different eras. Drawing on advice books, magazines, political pamphlets, and popular novels and films, he makes two surprising claims: First, manhood is homosocial - that is, men need to prove 5/5(1).Download