I observed an interesting detail when reading the first few pages of this chapter which was that men in 1830s New York felt that female prostitutes were fair game to be harassed. This entitlement to harass these people reflects how female prostitution was seen as a lower social status, therefore, making these people worthy of being used to release their frustration. This attitude towards prostitutes is reflected in a larger scope by the higher frequency of assaults on brothels during this time as well. (Henry Prior)

This article describes how female prostitutes used the law to its fullest extent when prosecuting these men. I think this also highlights Gilfoyle's claims about the widening gap between these women who made a lot of money and where in a lot of instances public figures, vs the men who in most cases were working class men who had been excludes from these businesses on that basis. (Hannah Covin)

Prostitutes in New York at this time also lived in brothers that were not invisible to the public eye. They brought in a certain type of clientele that were of higher statuses and the women were able to amass large amounts of wealth within their work. Even though prostitution was technically not illegal, prostitutes were not prosecuted for selling sex. Sex work was integrated into every day life and masculinity in the context of this reading turns to almost “buying” power and dominance over the sex workers, in compliance with the prostitutes earning larger amounts of money and also not being prosecuted. (Tea Aliu)

Attacks against brothels in the early nineteenth century had an undeniable class aspect. The brothels were places where prostitutes plied their trade to an upper-class and exclusive clientele of merchants and clerks, and therefore were unattainable spaces for working-class New Yorkers. These New Yorkers vented their rage at the changing economics of the city, that increasingly privileged the mercantile class over the artisanal and laboring classes, by attacking brothels and the “loose” women within them, who they thought should be “available” to the entire community, not just the upper classes. Many men who engaged in these “sprees” would later engage in Nativist violence against immigrants, who were also seen as threatening the economic security of working-class, White Protestants. (Nick Thodal)

T. Gilfoyle's account analyzed the socio-economic and gendered origins of the violence against sex workers and, as an extension, brothels in New York in the 1830s. He argued that a particular form of violence called a “spree” (the destruction of several brothels in a row under the influence of alcohol) was an expression of misogynist, masculine recreation. This act was used to reestablish a sense of authority by attempting to exercise otherwise lacking power over female sex workers and simultaneously to demonstrate belonging to a certain homosocial group. However, T. Gilfoyle suggests that sex workers were not defenseless victims, because they appealed to the law to punish the criminals. In this sense, their attempts were often successful, as the judicial system had to support them based on the doctrine of property rights. Thus, these cases can be interpreted as a complex interconnection between crime, masculinity, sex workers, and law. - Nikolai Kotkov

Violence against women at the hands of men has deep historical roots, however brothel riots between 1820 and 1860 show changes in control regarding gender dynamics, as well as how the relationship between prostitutes and men guide how males foster relationships with each other. Before 1820, brothel riots were sporadic and mainly caused harm to property instead of women. These instances were generally sparked by event specific, isolated incidents outside of the brothel’s domain, and included crimes like murder, scandals, and racial conflicts. This form of violence worked as illegal forms of justice and group retaliation. A shift occurs and remains till around 1860 where violence against prostitutes were deliberate and included crimes like attempted rape, stabbings, assults, and beatings. Brothel violence occurred in two ways, one being carried out by organized vigilantes who were mostly “respectable” men with repeated offenses who planned attacks on property which forced the brothels they targeted too close. The other way violence occurred was through random acts fueled by sexual frustration and alcohol. These attacks were brought on through the denial of entry and/or desires. These attacks resulted in sexual assault, harassment, and property damage, creating a dangerous environment for women in public spaces. I want to highlight this specific form of violence because it shows how men hold value in the power they hold and how it contributes to the definition of manhood. The denial of power through denying entry or service is a great example of how rejection fosters violence because it diminishes the ability for men to prove their manhood, especially when women are present. (Reiley Gibson)

Spree violence seems to be another form of homosical communication between these men. They are public spectacles and all the men involved wanted to get in on some of the violence, fueled by alcohol, and gain approval from their peers by committing these acts of violence. Men are also just ruminating on these thoughts since the violence against person or property are pre-planned. The violence may have stemmed from disproval of prostitution as Gilfoyle suggests, but it was also a way for men to assert their virility over their counterparts. (Tea Aliu)

“The gangs led by Hyer, Chichester, and others played critical roles in the distribution of power and the early formation of the antebellum political machine.”(page 87) Men are able to gain mobility by committing acts of violence or oppression between certain brothels, so this aggression can then be understood to be an organization of male power over sex workers since sex work becomes culturally embedded into society during this time. As prostitution became more and more popular and earning more money, they're paying men to give them protection. And taking them to court after the destruction of their property while a prostitutes “impropriety” gets the blind eye in the court setting. (Tea Aliu)

The spree violence that the men are committing in this era are sadistic in nature and spurred into fervor of aggression towards these women through the alcohol consumption and fanatic rantings of other men in their social groups. The obsession these men had to gain respect, power, or a raise in class status, created this illusion of taking power and imposing their higher status over women was to use violence and try to secure their role in the masculinity of the era. (Sage Milton)

Based on Gilfoyle's discussion, the commercialization of sex in during the late 1700s to early 1900s implicated manhood and shifted social expectations of masculinity. For instance, Gilfoyle described the prevalence of public, destructive attacks on women and brothels. Due to the rise in prostitution and sex work, women were further marginalized and reduced to sexual objects, while also being seen as potential economic opportunities for exploitation. I appreciate how the author incorporated information about alcohol and how being intoxicated can give people a false sense of pride and embolden them to act out. Because alcohol was inexpensive and easy to access during the antebellum period, many men drank, and drinking alcohol eventually became associated with masculinity. Ultimately, Gilfoyle made a compelling argument about how interconnected the party scene was with prostitution, sex work, and how these areas challenged traditional ideas of masculinity. While Gilfoyle acknowledged traditional states of drunkenness, he also highlighted how consuming alcohol and false senses of autonomy and independence push back on traditional ideas of manhood. Gilfoyle described the paradox of “crowd behavior” and Western masculinity as “a collective attempt to achieve unfettered social equality and political fairness” (p. 77). [Allisya Smith]