Middle class manhood constructed their definition of manhood through a civilized lens. Middle class white men viewed manhood as a combination of civilized and primitive masculinity. This is interesting because civilization takes ideas of race, gender, and evolution into account when creating the definition and demographic of a civilized individual. Civilized individuals are seen as only white, protectors, and domestic providers. On the contrary, uncivilized individuals are all nonwhite and seen as aggressive, emotional, and encumbered by labor. These definitions are important to understand when identifying the middle class white man’s definition of manhood, because contradictions arise when these men fail to hold “primitive” behaviors to different standards depending on the race it is practiced by. It is contradictory to see middle class manhood as a balance between being civilized and primitive, when primitive behaviors are distasteful to the demographic of middle class white men. This behavior works to reinforce racial prejudices discrediting the representation and works of prominent African American figures like Frederick Douglas. Overall, this construction of manhood and the discourse around civilization was not innate and heavily influenced by race, class, and gender. (Reiley Gibson)

The construction of middle class manhood through race, class, and gender identity was challenged by shifts in economics at the hands of demographics deemed inferior to white men. Middle class white men faced declines in self employment and leadership opportunities due to threats of the immigrants and the working class, who challenged the authority of the middle class. In addition, women have evolved to pursue education and careers which threaten male roles. To mitigate this reality, middle class white men turned to reclaiming masculine roles through physical means like boxing, as well as manly occupations like fatherhood. This transition birthed the usage of new languages referring to men in less masculine roles. (Reiley Gibson)

Bederman frames critical conversations about masculinity through Foucaltian discourse - in other words, the theory that the hegemonic assumptions of what is true inform every conversation about “truth”, even those critical of that truth. It is in this way that feminist and African-American critiques of white masculinity in the Progressive Era never made the argument that the hegemonic masculinity was something to be dismantled. Instead, white feminist critics argued that ideas of “white civilization” should be expanded to encompass white women and their achievements. Similarly, African-American critics argued that African-American men fit the mold of contemporary ideas of masculinity just as well, if not better than, white men. In both cases, critics of the hegemonic masculinity engaged with it on its own terms. (Nick Thodal)

This chapter displays that the public discourse around the match between Jack Johnson, a black man, and Jim Jeffries, a white man, highlighted racial attitudes surrounding gender at the time. For example, white men were outraged at Johnson's victory and felt it showed that he was a better man than the white Jeffries which led to race riots to erupt across cities in America. Additional salt on the wounds of these angered white men was found in how Johnson had a white ex-wife and a white lover at the time of the match making these men fell like their manhood was being undermined by him taking “their women”. (Henry Prior)

This chapter claims that due to changes to traditional ideals of manhood, men started to create a new version where it would fit with their position as middle-class men. They emphasized participation in organizations like the free masons and the odd fellows. Additionally, these men sought to turn their young boys into men by making engage with organizations like the boy scouts and the YMCA. (Henry Prior)