This reading refutes the argument that work caused men in a world that was increasingly industrializing caused men to choose to pick work over their role in domesticity. Instead, this reading claims that the domestic sphere did not shift completely over to women and instead men while having to be more separated because of work still put great effort into being present in their kids' lives. Additionally, another motivation for these fathers going to great lengths in order to interact with their children which the reading asserts is that these men did not want to give up the power they had in the household. (Henry Prior)

In the reading, it is claimed that men's relationship with work changed during the nineteenth century to being seen as something to do more of in order to fulfill their purpose and ennoble themselves. The reading demonstrates also that there was a religious aspect to this attitude as well due to its of reduction of idleness and dissipation. This increased emphasis on work and doing more of it demonstrates the origins of modern work culture which sees the person doing the most work as a honorable worker. (Henry Prior)

This reading discusses the examination of masculinity through fatherhood roles as means of shaping men’s identities. Men were expected to contribute finances and authority to the household to maintain a sole representative of the family. The family was a reflection of a man’s moral standing and competence. Because of this, contradictions arise when society expects men to be emotionally subdued yet heavily responsible for all family members. In addition, it highlights the instability and judgement in regards to manhood as something that must be maintained and earned. It proves that manhood is dependent on outside factors and judged by other men and society. (Reiley Gibson)

To be a father and husband was to be a man, to be a father and husband was to be a breadwinner, and to be a breadwinner was to be a man. All of these identities were intertwined and so if a man lost his job he was not only no longer a breadwinner, but also no longer a successful father, husband, or man, he lost everything. On the other hand, the importance placed on breadwinning contributed to consumerism as the better your house, furniture, and other possessions, the more successful you were as a man, husband, and father. But, in order to afford all of these material goods and property, you had to be a successful breadwinner. Thus, consumerism and men's success fed into each other, especially with the rise of industrialization. (Katherine Hamilton)

Due to increasing industrialization, most men now had jobs in which they worked for other people/businesses and did not own their own business. Therefore, they did not have a family business to pass down to their children nor did they have the skills of a trade to teach their sons so that they could go out and make their own business. Therefore, men were not spending their working hours at home teaching their sons technical skills but rather commuted to a secondary location to work away from their family. This resulted in children having distant relationships with their fathers as compared to pre industrialization. The father's role now was to be a provider, help with domestic chores if necessary, and offer advice, not teach tangible skills. (Katherine Hamilton)

The reading discusses the way in which the expectation of the family man is intertwined with that of the independent working man. One of the most interesting aspects of this article challenges the preconception that the more industrialized working man had less time and inclination towards rearing children than their farming predecessors. It is also interesting to think about what the preconception of a 'family man' means in terms of performing masculinity. It seems that it is not enough to be independent, you must also be family oriented in terms of your success going towards your family unit's benefit. (Hannah Covin)

Johansen directly challenges these assumptions about the time working men spent with their families by examining the reality of time spent with family in the period as well as determining if there's a factual basis for the idea that men spent significantly more time with their families pre-industrialization. Johansen points out, using multiple examples, that the long work hours of the second half of the 19th century were not yet ubiquitous. He describes one father spending an evening at home with his daughter, first winding yarn for her while she knit and then recruiting her to help him pickle cabbage. Another father brought his daughter with him on work errands to entertain and spend time with her, bridging the seeming gap between domestic and economic duties. (Cameron Spivy)

Johansen also points out that men had not insignificant domestic chores and duties. Rather than completely absent, they had both material and economic responsibilities related to their domestic life that kept them firmly attached to it. (Cameron Spivy)

Johansen argues that middle class fatherhood expanded beyond breadwinning to include moral guidance and active concerns for household order. Fathers were seen as responsible for shaping their children’s character and reinforcing values like self control, diligence, and respectability. This shift reflects how domestic responsibility became central to middle class identity during early industrialisation. (Caitlyn Edwards.)

Johansen argues that fatherly love and obligation manifested itself in different ways in the 19th century than it does today. For example, instead of assuming that men's abition for economic success pulled them away from the family, it is argued that men actually saw earning money and supporting ther family as the obligation of the head of the house. Johansen also notes how it was important for fathers to be a good guide and example to their children, especially their sons, showing that they did, in fact, care for their children, it just showed itself differently than a mother's love at this time, or a father's love in modern times. -Caroline Cochran

Despite common misconceptions, while men were deemed the head of the household and their main purpose was to be a provider, they did often help out with duties that were deemed that of a woman. Similarly, while housekeeping and child rearing was deemed a woman's main purpose she would sometimes help her husband with his business work. The chores that were considered for men or women differed over time sometimes with a once male dominated chore, for example shopping, becoming a female dominated chore. This suggests that although the separate spheres ideology was still a major determinant of people's lives, it was not as strict as we may have once thought and especially in times of necessity, men would help their wives in their duties and vice versa. (Katherine Hamilton)

Johansen also highlights the tension created by fathers whose work required travel or long absences from home. Even when physically absent, these men were expected to remain emotionally and morally present through letters, instructions, and financial support. Their absence reveals the limits of idealised fatherhood and the challenges of balancing economic demands with evolving expectations of parental involvement. (Caitlyn Edwards)

Johansen points out that, contrary to what many historians claim about the supposed rise of absentee fathers during this time, the only truly absent fathers tended to be sea and riverboat captains, traveling businessmen, military officers, and the men who left their homes seeking gold in the West. However, physical distance did not completely erase their authority in their families, since these absent fathers still tried to teach and provide for their children through writing. In fact, many of these “absent” fathers' love and care for their children was still incredibly strong despite the distance. Unfortunately, these letters do reveal that their absence put a strain on the household economy, and many of these families were struggling. (Noah Rutkowski)