Differences

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

--- marsh_suburban_men_and_masculine_domesticity [2026/03/12 20:43] – [Progressive Elements?] 76.78.172.128
+++ marsh_suburban_men_and_masculine_domesticity [2026/03/13 17:41] (current) – [Changes in Masculinity] nrutkows
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 This reading delves into the shift of masculinity between 1870 and 1915. The model of early masculinity frames men as a detached patriarchal breadwinner, and shifts to identifying manhood through emotional engagement as well as nurturing domestic participation. This shift is solidified through the ideas of figures like Beveridge and Macfadden who believed that the home and family should be a centralized figure in regards to practicing manhood. They also explained how nurture and love should be expressed towards children in these families by fathers. The new model of manhood views men as someone who fosters emotional bonds through active involvement, trips, and activities. Marsh explains how masculinity becoming more domestic doesn't diminish what it means to be a man, nor does it make a father any less masculine than a single, childless man. Marsh conveys that domestic involvement works to redefine masculinity and backs this statement up by explaining how family men still have aggressive outlets like sports to preserve their negative ideals of domestic masculinity. (Reiley Gibson)
+With the change in masculinity, it can be seen through the domesticity of the middle-class men going from artisans to factory workers or managerial positions. The more adventurous or physical the man was the more masculine he presented. The reading discusses how the increase of managerial work or corporate work had created a new anxiety for the middle-class men. (Sage Milton)
+The 20th century saw in increase in masculine domesticity, especially among middle class men who found themselves with more time to spend with their families as they had in previous eras. The idea of masculine domesticity began to be directly linked to manliness, allowing men to see involvement in their children’s lives as an expression of such manhood as well as a method to ensure that their sons would learn to be masculine. In particular, the newfound closeness between fathers and sons was seen as a way to safeguard young boys against “evil ways,” providing them instead with a healthy masculine role model and proper outlets to express things like aggressiveness. (Noah Rutkowski)
 ===== Suburban Middle Class Masculinity =====
@@ Line 18: / Line 22: @@
 Many of the ideals of masculine domesticity were framed specifically within the suburban context. Cities were seen as a possibly corrupting influence, encouraging men to go out with their male friends instead of spending time in the home. The suburbs, on the other hand, isolated the family from others to their own shared space. The single family home created a refuge for the family where inter-gender and inter-generational activities could be conducted. Marsh points out that architecture itself even changed during these temporal and geographic shifts. Rather than previous gendered  places in the home, such as separate parlors and sitting rooms, common spaces were now intended for use by men and women, promoting family togetherness. Visual decorations often served to distinguish children's spaces, but even this was an indication that women's and children's spaces were no longer considered the same. (Cameron Spivy)
+In the writings surrounding the masculine domesticity, Marsh highlighted that the writings were not about childcare or how to be a husband, instead it was concerned about the social mobility and economic mobility of the middle class in suburban areas. Focusing on how to be this ideal masculine man in the middle class with self control for alcohol, gambling, sexual interactions, and economic decisions. These were used to show how the suburban middle class was more masculine than the urban middle class who had a more city version of masculinity. (sage milton)
 ===== Progressive Elements? =====
@@ Line 31: / Line 37: @@
 Hegemonic masculinity in this time period shifted from being solely a bread winner who focused on work and economic success and was a stoic, distant figure who didn't get involved in the domestic world of his family, to being a man who had both a successful career and fulfilling family life. Men were no longer fearful of being ridiculed for being feminine if they were involved with their family's domestic happenings. In fact, if a man remained distant from his family, then he would be ridiculed and considered less than a man who was involved. Interestingly, a one of the main reasons men were urged to have a bigger role as parents was due to the fear of their sons not having a masculine influence in their lives. (Katherine Hamilton)
+Men thought of a version of masculinity as escaping their monotonous work and the city through adventure in the West with influences from people like Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century. But as the 20th century progressed men with influences from books and manuals began to think of masculinity and escaping the city as investing time into a fulfilling family life in the suburbs. This marks the shift from the distant, intimidating patriarch to a softer version of fatherhood in which men acted more as guides and nurturers to their children. This style of fatherhood would only continue to develop. (Katherine Hamilton)
+While men's increased involvement in the home developed from women spending more time outside of the home, men were still the sole breadwinners. The separate spheres of men and women in this time were beginning to become less separate as men became more involved in the traditionally female sphere of domesticity. The new increase in participation in domestic affairs by men was seen as a positive change as now they could enjoy the positives of the female sphere as well. However, and while some women did significantly support their families, men retained their role as the sole breadwinner and control over their sphere. In a way, while indeed women were gaining experiences outside of the house and with other people, they lost control over their social roles and men added to the areas under their control while retaining independence of their own sphere, for the most part. (Katherine Hamilton)