Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- marsh_suburban_men_and_masculine_domesticity [2026/03/09 22:16] – nthodal
+++ marsh_suburban_men_and_masculine_domesticity [2026/03/09 22:40] (current) – nkotkov
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 The rise of a suburban middle class was associated with greater inter-gender socialization in leisure. For most of American history, women were confined to the home and to sewing circles, while men were out with gangs of friends or with more organized social clubs. However, as the middle class became more isolated from city centers into suburbs and as the middle class began to embrace more intimate forms of male domesticity, this began to change. By 1903, at least in Philadelphia, mono-gendered, middle-class social clubs began to decline as social clubs that allowed both male and female members (often married) increased in numbers. (Nick Thodal)
+In this chapter, Margaret Marsh argues that the image of middle-class urban men in the Progressive Era should not be understood solely as that of a detached corporate professional distant from his family. On the contrary, many middle-class men belonged to a different category, united by the ideology of masculine domesticity. According to Marsh, masculine domesticity was a particular model of behavior that prioritized egalitarian marriages, leisure with family, and active participation in the lives of children. In particular, this form of domesticity led to the transformation of the father figure. In the context of mid-nineteenth-century America, fathers maintained a patriarchal status with a strong emphasis on discipline and obedience from their children. However, the culture of masculine domesticity allowed for new approaches to the father–child dynamic, focusing on friendship, elements of play, and independence. - Nikolai Kotkov