The most insightful part of the introduction is the sociological implications of homosociality, including elements of homophobia. Kimmel primarily argued that American manhood is defined by fellowship and acceptance from other males, such as peers and fathers, combined with fulfilling the presumed expectations of women. Unsurprisingly, most Western social expectations indicate that masculinity and manhood are defined by bravery, selflessness, and strength, while rejecting notions of femininity and emotionality. It appears Kimmel supports the notiont hat masculine ideals, and even toxic masculinity, live for both the male and female gaze. Furthermore, extreme ideas of manhood and excessive male approval often contribute to homophobic ideas, in which men constantly fear being perceived as feminine or weak. Unfortunately, stereotypes and misconceptions about sexuality contribute to the homophobic undertones when society reinforces ideas about what it means to be manly in male-dominated spaces. (Allisya Smith)

Kimmel also asserted that gender is a socially outward performance, socially constructed, and that men have to outwardly demonstrate their masculinity in order to affirm their own notions (and everyone else's) that they have a sense of manhood wether toxic, and subconscious or not.“Either we think of manhood as innate, residing in the particular anatomical organization of the human male, or we think of manhood as a transcendent tangible property that each man manifests in the world, the reward presented with great ceremony to a young novice by his elders for having successfully completed an arduous initiation ritual.”¹⁾. (Tea Aliu)

Kimmel expresses how masculinity is something that is constantly being reshaped by society and changes in the economy. He conveys how this shift contributed to the disruption of traditional male roles which were established within modes of independence. Within this shift, men experienced a loss of authority in regards to their labor. In addition, masculinity became more connected to a man’s identity, expressed through what they can produce, instead of autonomy or expertise. Overall, this transition and how it affects the “doing” of masculinity fostered an unstable environment for expressing manhood where these men struggled to identify a sense of who they are within a system that is now diminishing their traditional power. Because of this shift, it became apparent that masculinity should be defined as a constantly reconstructed, reactive identity that changes due to social conditions. (Reiley Gibson)

Here, Kimmel expresses how masculinity is something that must be performed consistently. This performance is accompanied by societal validation, especially from other men and proves to be a form of conscious action instead of an innate human trait. This fact enhances the idea that masculinity during this point in time was something that should be proven through means of domination, behaviors, and even modes of competition. These men’s urge for validation cultivated societal pressures that could paint them as weak or feminine which fostered behaviors of aggression and emotional suppression. This is because these men were fearful of being seen as anything less than a “real man” which pushed them to adopt hyper masculine traits. Overall, masculinity is a performance based action that constantly changes due to societal pressures, expectations, and norms. (Reiley Gibson)

Kimmel believes definitions of masculinity from the nineteenth century until now have largely been created by homosocial relations. At the center of men’s desire and ability to prove their manhood is the view others hold of them. This aspect of needing to prove oneself is embedded in many of the relationships men have, such as paternal, educational, occupational, and fraternal. A man in this view cares more about his perception and reputation than his overall actual ability to live up to traditional masculine qualities. This culture is then responsible for deep feelings of homophobia in men. The fear in homophobic men is not that of queer men themselves, but of being seen as queer. LGBT+ identity poses the threat of not being able to live up to traditional masculinity like other men. (Tanner Gillikin)

Michael Kimmel's analysis of the antebellum forms of masculinity indicated three potential variants: Genteel Patriarch, Heroic Artisan, and Self-Made Man. The author argues that the American Revolution, alongside with market capitalism, eventually led to the dominance of self-made masculinity, which was characterized by continued mobility, association with wealth and status, insecurity, and an urgent need for performance through homosociality. At the same time, these masculinities did not replace each other in alternation, but rather co-existed in various regional and socio-economic contexts. For example, white southern manhood was located in several gendered discourses simultaneously: the image of the Genteel Patriarch, the rhetoric of racial subordination, and Northern critique of the southern man as too effeminate, anti-republican, excessively decadent, and morally corrupt. All of these features indicate that American notions of masculinity were not static, but were constantly modified, discussed, and replaced. - Nikolai Kotkov

The birth of the self made man, capitalism, hyper-independence, and republicanism all worked together to create America and the unique culture of what it meant to be American. The constant need to gain wealth and work your way up the social ladder led to American capitalism. The need for autonomy and to not feel emasculated by anyone led to hyper-independence, which then led to the revolt against Britain and republicanism. And the fear of being seen as effeminate, emasculated, and dependent fueled the new definition of manhood in America. Kimmel makes it easy to see how these things are all related and build off of each other and argues that through the lense of the history of manhood, the fear of being controlled led to evolving definitions of manhood which resulted in the birth of America which only furthered evolving definitions of manhood unique from Europe. (Katherine Hamilton)

Kimmel discusses the discourse around a culture shift in the U.S. and what sort of men will define it. He explains how manhood is a problem situated in culture and politics, instead of just personal identity. Kimmel introduces three male archetypes that portray powerful masculine ideals that marked the shift of the 19th century. One archetype is known as the Genteel Patriarch. These men are defined by their ownership of property and their authority over other men. In addition, they are categorized by their value based leadership of family and their refined manners. Most of these men are Christian and engage in Philosophy. The Genteel Patriarch holds value in manhood fixed inheritance and status like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. The second archetype is the Heroic Artisan who is usually a farmer or craftsman. These men are hardworking, resourceful, and loyal to their male peers; who also tend to be community members with a democratic view on politics. These men hold value in labor and integrity, much like Paul Revere. The last archetype is the Self-Made Man who holds a large amount of power in the U.S. These men are defined by their success in the market, their accumulation of wealth, and their social mobility. These men have unstable identities that are dependent on their success with their manhood valued based on their economic achievements. (Reiley)

One of the aspects that Kimmel discusses in relation to the archetype of manhood is the way in which they were phased out. Specifically the Genteel Patriarch, it is interesting how the qualities of manhood that the Genteel patriarch displayed were feminized. Kimmel mentions quite often that it is not enough to simply say that something is not manly, instead it needs to be womanly. (Hannah Covin)

Kimmel also discusses in length the general fear by men that other men will deem their “performance” unsatisfactory, and therefore dominate them. Men fear being judged, humiliated or belittled by other people as well. Masculinity is then understood to be a homosocial interaction where they seek validation from other men, and not just women. (Tea Aliu)

In this section, Kimmel also makes the instability of the Male Archetypes specifically with how the self-made man can be revoked due to a lack of self-control or a severe mistake. Showing that the stability in the archetypes can be seen through the support behind the men; the guild for artisan heroes, the wealth and pre-established status for the genteel patriarch, and the connections from the self-made man. -(sage milton)

In this chapter, Kimmel argues how the transformation of masculinity is due to both urbanization and industrialization. He argues that men during this period experienced a shift from being self-made producers to laborers, dependent on their boss, uppers, and wages. This shift caused a manhood crisis that festered through the sudden loss of autonomy, authority, and identity. Work became a way to convey success and dominance, instead of means for self-mobility. This shift was heavily influenced by immigration, where black men and women entered the workforce and increased the stress of competition, which threatened the authority of white individuals during this time. Because of this, men cultivated hierarchies which promoted exclusion though characteristics of sexism and racism. This behavior was justified though Dawinistic ideology and aided in the shift of masculinity being less defined by who men were, but what they could prove. (Reiley Gibson)

In this chapter, Kimmel conveys how “work” as a role of masculine identity has been lost or shifted, which prompts new constructions of manhood. This new construction of manhood involves behaviors and fears of a feminized identity. This fear of feminization and homosexuality highlights how manhood, now, must be constantly performed and reinforced. This prompted men to showcase their masculinity through outlets like sports and drinking (depending on class and societal perception). While these new endeavors seem “manly” men in this shift also valued sexual discipline and the restraint of emotions. This shift really highlights how masculinity became both means of expressing manhood through both an internal and societal lens. (Reiley Gibson)

As industrialization and the market economy changed the reality of what it meant to be self-sufficient, manhood was increasingly made dependent on economic success. However, the lack of economic stability associated with the market economy meant that the only way to achieve this “success” was to continuously push for greater wealth and renown. Since supporting one's family and achieving independence was crucial to demonstrating manhood, this relentless pursuit became both an ideal and a perceived necessity. Those who didn't thrive in the market economy were then seen as a failure economically but also a failure in cultivating masculinity. (Cameron Spivy)

Kimmel's analysis of the tie between economic success and manhood makes clear how the attitudes of the time saw economic self-dependence as a pillar of masculinity. In the burgeoning era of industrialization kicked off, success came to be associated with not just profit but also ones ability to navigate this new changing sea of business, thus those who were able to do so came to be seen as titans with great financial and social power both in part due to their monetary wealth but also their perceived masculinity. ( J.D.J)

Besides different varieties of masculinity, Michael Kimmel's study demonstrates the creation and the use of racially and ethnically “Others” as one of the crucial mechanisms of masculinity construction. In particular, M. Kimmel indicated the paradoxical nature of the white perspective on African American masculinity. On the one hand, they were viewed to be “hypermasculine” because of association with violence and disobedience. On the other hand, they were thought to be “hypomasculine,” with dependence and helplessness as the key features. A similar process of racial and gendered “Othering” occurred with Native Americans, especially during Andrew Jackson's presidency. Overall, M. Kimmel's work illustrates that the varieties of hegemonic white masculinity did not develop in isolation, but they were often constructed in interaction with the masculinities of racially and genderly “Others.” - Nikolai Kotkov

Constructions of manhood were deeply linked to America's political identity as formed through the American Revolution. Britain was cast as the tyrant father or the effeminized aristocrat that America overthrew in order to establish both a better political system and a better type of man. Republicanism and individualism became linked to manhood, while aristocracy and wealth were linked to femininity. Cultivating American manhood was then not only a social imperative, but was necessary for the political success of the United States. Leaders invoked ideas about the fall of Athenian democracy, caused by the supposed degradation of Athenian men into those characterized by laziness and greed who failed to abide by democratic ideals. Their masculinity was firmly tied not only to their political character, but to the health of their democracy. The 'American Experiment' could then only succeed if the nation was composed of hardworking and enterprising men that would safeguard democracy and protect against the temptations of luxury. (Cameron Spivy)

Andrew Jackson acts as one of the best embodiments of the “Artisan Hero,” with a potent, vengeful form of masculinity. Kimmel proposes that one does a more Freudian analysis of Jackson’s character to get a background on why he had this vindictive nature. Growing up without a father figure left Jackson with only a mother and no solid masculine figure for him to model as he grew up. This lack of paternal guidance gave Jackson a constant fear of infantilization and a hatred towards those with infantile positions. This is why, during his campaign and his time in the presidency, he put in a lot of effort to rid the nation of what he perceived as overbearing “maternal” institutions that benefited men who did not need to work. Attacks on the National Bank notably characterize it as “Mother Bank.” The digs at the gold standard similarly harm the traditional gentry, a group of men who did not need to work for their wealth, all the while helping the poor men, those who had to use their labor or skill to gain anything. (Tanner Gillikin)

This chapter increasingly contrasts white masculinity with white femininity and black masculinity. A quote on page 67 suggests that white masculinity, itself defined by independence, was threatened by the increasing independence of women and people of color in society. Men loved their wife in the same way they loved their children - as extensions of himself. If the wife ceased to be just that, and asserted her independence, she was no longer worthy of that love, and on a deeper level, inspired anxieties in masculine society - if manhood was defined by independence, and women were increasingly independent themselves, where did that leave men? The newly gained freedom of Black Americans also threatened this idea of masculinity as independence. Black Americans had been emasculated for so long that their freedom seemed an existential threat to white men's sense of self, prompting the publication of apocalyptic literature that suggested the eventual end of the white race. It is telling that Social Darwinist texts of the day often conflated the intellectual capabilities of black men and white women - both were inferior to white men, but both were increasingly threats to white patriarchy. (Nick Thodal)

In what many men perceived as the chaos of industrialization and the marketplace, the doctrine of self-control became a way to demonstrate manhood. This manifested in the self denial of vices such as sex, masturbation, and alcohol, which were perceived as degrading men both spiritually and physically. Sermons and self-help books warned young men against the dangers of masturbation, claiming that it expended too much of a man's finite energy. This would leave men without the energy to succeed economically and therefore prove their manhood. Other sources urged husbands to lessen the frequency with which they had sex with their wives, framing desire itself as destructive. Sexual activity, by oneself or with another, was framed as degrading one not only spiritually, but as even causing physical degradation, with supposed effects ranging from epilepsy to premature baldness. Self-control was then a way to achieve manhood even as it also challenged men's relationship with sex, which was also an aspect of their manhood. (Cameron Spivy)

One of the foundational pieces for the “self-made man” archetype is self-control. The rapid industrialization of the early nineteenth century was causing a massive crisis in masculine culture. The emerging market culture gave young men new avenues to accrue wealth and upward mobility without following the footsteps of their fathers. This model promoted aggression and competition between men while disincentivizing taking after more stable masculine models. To help keep these men from spiraling downward, the doctrine of self-control was invented. Men were motivated to act with sensibility and avoid indulging in temptation. Actions such as masturbation and drinking still carried with them a negative masculine connotation, but one that was holistically negative. (Tanner Gillikin)

Self-control in the context of alcohol was another outcome of changing religious and social values. The consumption of alcohol was thoroughly integrated into men's lives both socially and economically. Kimmel describes how the consumption of alcohol in America between 1790 and 1830 was greater than any point before or after in history. Drinking was not only integrated into men's lives, but was potentially a way to cope with the economic uncertainty of the time as industrialization threatened more stable ideas of manhood. Efforts to curb drinking were therefore not well received. Many perceived this imposition as an example of women holding too much power, and resistance in the form of continued drinking “became an expression of masculine protest against feminization”²⁾. (Cameron Spivy)

The emergence of popular ideals about the distinct spheres of men and women placed men firmly in the public sphere of the workplace, somewhere that they could prove their manhood, yet also the origin of their manhood's insecurity. The workplace was defined as an arena to prove one's manhood to others, the home a refuge maintained by wives where moral behavior was cultivated. However, as home became increasingly defined as a woman's area of control, men limited their time there. The 'refuge' now became oppressive, and it was common for men to spend long hours at work, where there manhood could be proved, instead of returning to the 'feminized' home. Spending too much time at work was draining, chaotic, or even challenged moral ideals, but returning home was framed as submitting to the moral authority of women. Masculinity never felt secure in either realm, boosting the popularity of escape fantasies where one could leave behind wife, family, and career to adventure west and cultivate homosocial relationships and independent communities. (Cameron Spivy)

M. Kimmel's second chapter is dedicated to the genealogy of the self-made man version of masculinity. In particular, M. Kimmel examines the gendered origins of the construction of the American West as a place of escape from civilization and effeminate middle-class domestic life. Using a wide range of sources, he argues that the West became associated with crudeness, physical labor, freedom, and ultimately a space for performing masculinity alongside other males. At the same time, this myth of the West led to the popularity of narrative discourses about the lives of famous pioneers, offering a glimpse of “moral sublimity” to men who were unable to go to the West. These arguments indicate a significant role of discursive masculinities and gender relations in the cultural imagination of the American West. - Nikolai Kotkov

Kimmel details how, as the home became an increasingly feminized place, countless men were experiencing the “identity crisis” of the unstable manhood of the Self-Made Man for the first time and found the home to be a place of unease rather than a safe haven from the competition of the working world. In 1849, the California Gold Rush served as a highly desired outlet of freedom for many of these men seeking to escape both the constant questioning of their manhood and the restrictive influence of their wives. Even though these men didn't often “strike gold,” so to say, they still found what Kimmel describes as “pure” manhood that was detached from the constant test of being self-made men. (Noah Rutkowski)

By the turn of the century, men who formerly would have been more independent as “heroic artisans” shrank at a dramatic scale with more and more men working in factories. Before the civil war the largest companies had several hundred workers at the most, however, nearing the end of the century the number of workers grew to the tens of thousands working in factories. This change caused a perception of emasculation in non-skilled factory workers who instead of being “heroic artisans” who would prove their masculinity by being financially independent from larger powers were dependent on their employers for their income, therefore, being beholden to a larger power. (Henry Prior)

A man who is a perfect example of the title of this section “The Unmaking of the Self-Made Man” is Rev. Russell Conwell. In the face of challenges to the tradition of the “heroic artisan” idea of masculinity posed by increasing financial dependence of men in factories, Conwell still claimed that every man's worth is up to him and a man's origins did not determine his future financial status. These claims made in his “Acres of Diamonds” sermon are significant because it demonstrates the persistence of the ideal “heroic artisan” who could make their own path despite challenges at a time where this idea becoming less and less realistic. (Henry Prior)

The reading claims that thinkers of the time considered the economic system of the later 19th century to be degrading men due to their desire to obtain more wealth and being “parasitic” on society. They further claimed that this was creating a less strong, effeminate society and this rhetoric was used by men who had the feeling they were losing their manhood due to being dependent on their employers to kind of have a way insulting those who were getting praised as real men to their ownership mass wealth. This was especially used by men labor unions to insult those they were fighting against. (Henry Prior)

The reading claims the Knights of Labor, a labor organization, used Yeoman, Jeffersonian language like “producers” when referring to wage earners. They also claimed to want to uphold “the dignity of labor” and to abolish wage slavery in the “industrial age.” This use of this language kind of harkened back to an era where labor was dignified, chivalric, and heroic and seemed like a way to give dignity to a group of wage earners who were “losing” their manhood by being dependent on others for their income. (Henry Prior).

M. Kimmel situates the masculine imagination of the American West within the context of the Progressive Era. According to him, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were characterized by the phenomenon of “crowdedness,” which included industrialization and factory labor, the rise of urban spaces, anxieties over immigration, and changing ideas about masculinity and manhood. This atmosphere of profound cultural and economic change prompted a search for new sources of masculine renewal. In particular, the American West became an idealized space in which a Heroic Artisan form of masculinity could be performed through life in primitive conditions, encounters with wild animals, and constant with Native Americans. However, the actual frontier gradually lost its regenerative capacity due to intensive settlement, the creation of reservations, the disappearance of the buffalo, and the invention of barbed wire. In the absence of a real frontier, many men turned to dime novels and adventure literature, while also extending frontier practices to other regions, including the Philippines and Cuba. - Nikolai Kotkov

Discussing the transformation of the self-made man as a form of masculinity, M. Kimmel analyzes the shift from the clerk of the first half of the nineteenth century to the salesman of the early twentieth century as a key occupational model for this ideal. From the perspective of gender history, this change was driven by altering perceptions regarding the office work, which came to be associated with feminine qualities due to its subordination and dependence on employers. The figure of the self-made man has also been conceptualized in the works of Max Weber and Thorstein Veblen. Weber argued that the capitalist work ethic trapped men in an “iron cage,” as the process of money-making lost any metaphysical value, while Veblen described a shift from production to consumption, criticizing the disappearance of classical republican virtues and values. - Nikolai Kotkov

After the Civil War ended, the United States saw an era of unprecedented economic growth that was greatly aided by rapidly increasing industrial output. New practices like Frederick Winslow Taylor's “scientific management” of factory workers to maximize efficiency were incredibly effective at stimulating this economic growth. However, these new industrial codes led workers to increasingly lose more and more control of their labor, marking a distinct departure from the era of the Heroic Artisan who worked independently. Control instead transferred to a new class of factory supervisors. The previously accepted definitions of manhood as including autonomy and self control in labor was challenged as more and more men lost control of their labor and workplaces. (Noah Rutkowski)

The end of the Civil War ushered in the first wave of the women's movement. Institutions such as women's colleges were established in several areas, opening up access to education to a far wider range of women than previously available. Women also began entering the workforce in larger numbers along with newly freed black men and immigrants. Some nativist, racist white men saw these newly emerging groups in the public sphere as a direct contest to their manhood, so many sought exclusionary policies and beliefs to protect themselves against this supposed threat. (Noah Rutkowski)

After the Civil War, technological industries boomed bringing the United States into a heavily urban society. The emergence of women into the workforce led to a depersonalized and emasculated life for the working class men. With the destruction of the heroic artisan archetype, men were made into dependents, giving them no more autonomy and self control when it came to how they made their money. Production was no longer about putting passion and love into what they are skilled at, it was about doing the same monotonous task in order to make enough money to support a family. With the emergence of an urban culture, immigrants, African Americans, and women were brought more into the public sphere. This led men to, once again, fell as though their masculinity was being threatened. The working class men struggled to find a way to define themselves both in buisness, and in masculinity. -Caroline Cochran

In this chapter Kimmel discusses the different ways that a man can feel anxiety around their masculinity, one specific area was the homosexual men in the cities. This was through how gay men would not act in the masculine ideal of the early 20th century, and would partake in creating more 'effeminate' traits to be used as a whole in their budding society to signal to other homosexual men. (Sage Milton)

According to M. Kimmel, the disappearance of a readily available frontier territory after 1890, combined with the growing cultural demand to perform frontier-like masculinity, led to the emergence of outdoor activities as an effective and popular alternative. These activities assumed a wide range of forms, beginning with organized sports and ending with hiking tourism. Moreover, the medical discourse of the late nineteenth century considered hiking and trips to mountain areas as particularly beneficial for health, as regular exercise and fresh air were believed to help defeat major illnesses. Aside from medical purposes, these outdoor activities were also considered ways to perform masculinity in primitive conditions. M. Kimmel does not discuss the creation of national parks in substantial detail in this chapter, but their emergence at the end of the nineteenth century could also be viewed as an attempt to preserve wilderness associated with frontier conditions for both aesthetic purposes and as a stable source of masculine renewal for American men.- Nikolai Kotkov

At the turn of the century, the term “manhood,” which was previously accepted as a man's inner capacity for autonomy and responsibility, was gradually replaced with “masculinity.” Rather than being an internal quality, masculinity denoted something that men must constantly prove to both themselves and the people surrounding them. (Noah Rutkowski)

At the beginning of the 20th century, men took part in recreational activities, not only for leisure and fun, but also to remind themselves of their secure past before the masculine identity crisis that occured after the Civil War. Manhood turned into something that had to be proved, usually by outward appearence. One way this was achieved was by working on the body in order to gice the appearence that the person posessed manly virtues. One way this was done was through the emergence of the gym. this was a place for men to be without the presence of women to work on their masculine physiques. It also offered an environment for men to get out their energy while also promoting sexual deprvity. Because of Freud's views becoming more widespread, the fear of losing masculinity by losing control was even more prominent than before. Though this emphasis on the gym and physical activity for men came an bigger push fro sports. Football and other sports started becomming prominent in colleges. This idea of building the body into the perfect and ideal man comes from men trying to win back the idea of being the self made man that they had been befroe urbanization after the Civil War. -Caroline Cochran

One of the main themes of this chapter was how masculinity required proof, and to get that proof you had to expend a lot of effort. For example, you could prove your masculinity by having physical characteristics, such as firm muscles, obtained by physical effort in the gym. (Ezra Carper)

Sports became a big way to prove your masculinity as well, such as boxing. Boxing celebrated the traditional virtues of manhood– “toughness, prowess, ferocity”– and made up for the inability of contemporary men to have control over their labor and make things with their hands– if they couldn’t produce things with their hands, they could at least destroy things with them. (Ezra Carper)

An example of the masculine way men were meant to be was exemplified by Tarzan. He was by birth an English nobleman, but due to the circumstances of his rearing was wild and strong. He has the strength and ferocity looked for as a pinnacle of manliness, but was ultimately civilized by a woman. (Ezra Carper)

In the 1850, there was a notable rise in visible homosexuality in men in American cities, and which steadily grew coming into the early 20th century. This rise in displays of homosexuality helped in creating both a subculture that queer men lived in, and a rise in homophobia in straight men. Kimmel draws on descriptions of queer men of the time to conversely illustrate homophobic attitudes, and supposes that straight men described gay men in a more exaggerated manner to conserve their own masculinity. Gay men were defined by their supposed lack of masculinity: wearing make up, and acting effeminately . By inflating the personalities of gay men, straight men distinguished themselves further from gay men, and retained the homosocial sense of masculinity. (Tanner Gillikin)

The Industrial Revolution led to a rise in factory style work, which consequently changed the crisis of masculinity. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, men were more connected with their work, and could feel the results of their labor. A man used to labor over making a product, and by the end of that labor he could put his hands on a finished product (and if he desired sell it). This changed with factory work, as a man no longer spent the time to build a product but spent hours of his day doing a smaller, more repetitive, part of the process. This alienation from labor disrupted the security of masculinity that one, like the heroic artisan, might have. The arts and crafts movement then spawned in the wake of this, in which men were creating products which then they could keep in their own home. (Tanner Gillikin)

The populist movement of the early twentieth century was an ideologically disparate movement growing in popularity as a result of industrial capitalism. Populism appealed to an older style of masculinity, the “yeomen farmer,” and called back to the Jeffersonian era of politics, agrarianism, and stable self-employment. This appeal was founded in opposition to the growing industrial capitalism, and creates a masculine proto socialism. The main enemy of populist was the capitalist banker and factory owner, and political strategies were rooted in their opposition. The dismantling of the gold standard in favor of bimetalism (using both gold and silver to uphold the value of currency), which would cause a small amount of inflation that helped farmers while hurting the bankers. (Tanner Gillikin)

At the start of the 20th century, men were worried that social settings for young boys were run by women, leading to the femenization of young boys. These social settings mainly include family, religion, and education. Because of this fear, husbands were encouraged to be more present in their children's, specifically their son's, lives. Fathers and sons created connections with seperate recreational spheres, devoid of women. This mindset led to getting rid of coeducation, instead schooling girls and boys seperately. This has a big influence of play for men and boys. Men's groups such as the YMCA and and Boy Scouts of America were created to give men and boys a space where they could be masculine without being influenced by women. Football teams and fraternaties also gained attraction with young men in college settings, though those organizations were often deeply rooted in white supremacy as well. -Caroline Cochran

Married men an women are being encouraged to engage in companionate marriages where they are more friendly towards one another, at a time where they are spending more and more time away from one another because of the demands of industrializing American society. In turn, they start having less children by the 20th century (Tea Aliu)

the involvement of fathers in their sons lives viewed as the reverse of feminism in feminists eyes. Men are then seen as taking something else away from women in the domestic sphere while they are also being socially pressured to heed these changing ideas of how present a man should be in their kids lives. (Tea Aliu)

Methods of schooling children change and boys and girls attending school together is frowned upon because they will assimilate. Boys will become effeminate and girls will become more masculine. Boys needed to be able to fight an engage in more masculine activities without distraction or further teachings by their mothers at home. (Tea Aliu)

It is interesting that with this new ability for men to have a separation of their work and home, with the domesticity of these men that some women were hoping for the men to become more sensitive men from the domestication. This can be seen with the companionate marriage viewing the husband and wife to become more emotionally connected in their marriage. (Sage Milton)

There was also a separation for children during this period, with education and play. It was seen through the separation of the ways fathers would interact with their sons more in hopes to create a more masculine son instead of letting them play with his sisters. Clothing was also changed in this manner too, the traditional baby clothes which were white and more gown shaped, made the little boys look like little girls, which lead to boys clothes having more pants and shirts, while the girls stayed with dresses, gowns, and skirts. (Sage Milton)

While men found a straightforward way of proving their masculinity during WWII through being a soldier who was a protector and provider, the transition back to civilian life could be difficult. They had to find a new way to demonstrate their masculinity which was not as easy in the home and workplace. But, there was increasing concern over adolescent boys succumbing to delinquency without a male role model. So, by being involved fathers, men not only expressed their masculinity in general, they also provided a healthy ideal of masculinity for their sons. Problem solved. (Katherine Hamilton)

The post WWII era saw a new crisis in the masculine identities of American fathers. Following the Second World War, the US experienced greater economic stability and growth, leading to the Baby Boom. The combination of economic stability and child-rearing led to a rise in domestic suburban life. As a result of this, fathers were put into a new conflict with their masculinity: not being so domestic as to lose touch with the soldier they once were, and not so far removed from their families as to become an absent father. (Tanner Gillikin)

The soldiers who were coming home from WWII were struggling with reintegration to civilian life, due to the stress and trauma from their experiences in war. While their wives were trying to get their domestic life back to the pre-war version where their husbands were the main provider for the family. (Sage Milton)

The idea of the breadwinner had changed from a sense of pride and manhood to a sense of strain nit tempered by getting manhood points. The lack of personalization in men's work led to them feeling disillusioned with the market as they worked meaningless(relatively) jobs.This section talks about the idea of the self-man becoming the problem not the solution to crisis of manhood. With this is also the idea of corporate aggressiveness being seen as less masculine than it had before (Hannah Covin)

In following the traditional path to manhood of protector and provider through the military/the new frontier, men in the 1970s found backlash instead. The “new frontier” of Vietnam was fighting back but many politicians feared in giving up on Vietnam they would be seen as a failure and effeminized. On the other hand in the anti-war movement men saw standing up for what they thought was right instead of going along with the government as a manly thing to do. (Katherine Hamilton)

While John F. Kennedy—who Kimmel describes as “perhaps the last president cast in [the] heroic mold”—was able to successfully pair his more aggressive masculine side with charisma, both of the presidents who came after him struggled greatly to achieve this same balance, thus exacerbating the Vietnam War. Lyndon B. Johnson appeared as incredibly insecure, pushing heavily for an aggressive masculinity in his politics that prevented him from being able to admit that the war in Vietnam had been an error. Nixon, too, did not want to seem “soft” or unmanly in his actions, therefore continuing to escalate the war in order to prove himself as a masculine authority. (Noah Rutkowski)

The term “wimp” came about after the hope that in the 1970s the “new man” would become the dominant model of manhood. This idea of the “new man” was a empathetic, sensitive, and caring version of manhood, however, many criticized this model of manhood, seeing it as not filling the void left by the machismo type of man. Additionally, when this discourse started the term “wimp” started getting thrown around and was used to refer to this “new man” ideal which many considered effeminizing. (Henry Prior)

There was also some push back about the idea of the “wimp” from women who saw it as a way for men to avoid responsibility. Kimmel describes it as “equality, whether sexual or political, did not mean male passivity.” Kimmel talks about this in relation to responsibility as a breadwinner and men having a sense of purpose. (Hannah Covin)

Like in the 1896 election where William McKinley was pressured to portray himself as a manly solider type where he leaned heavily on his service in the Civil War, George H.W. Bush had to push back against claims of lacking the proper masculinity to be vice president. He did so by using specific vocabulary like how after a televised debated he stated that he “kicked a little ass tonight,” trying to appeal to the masculine good ol' boy architype. Additionally, the Regan and Bush campaign claimed that the Democratic candidate, Walter Mondale, was effeminate and fit the wimp archetype by producing bumper stickers stating that “Mondale eats quiche.” (Henry Prior)

Kimmel describes the ways that, over time, the very core of what historically gave men “manhood” in America has crumbled, making way for the countless conflicting ideas of manhood (such as the wimp) that we see in the 1980s and 90s. Everything from the vast decline of skilled workers to the dramatic increase of women in the workplace has tested the “foundations of traditional manhood,” leaving men feeling frustrated as it gets increasingly more difficult to achieve the same economic independence that was once possible. According to Kimmel, the generation born in the 50s and 60s may be the very first in the US that will not be able to lead their children to be more economically successful than themselves. (Noah Rutkowski)

In the context of the late twentieth century, Michael Kimmel argues that traditional forms of hegemonic masculinity lost their relevance as a result of various socio-economic and cultural changes. Among these were the struggles for discursive and material equality by previously excluded groups such as women, queer people, and people of color. In response to the successes of these movements, many men formed men’s liberation movements to advocate for men’s rights. Within this cultural context, movements such as Muscular Christianity gained a certain degree of popularity and social impact. Members of this movement often portrayed Christian life through the lens of martial virtues, suggesting that Jesus could be compared to figures like Rambo and that heroic, manly struggle represents the ultimate path to spiritual development. From this perspective, the establishment of a Christian patriarchy, with its emphasis on both physical and spiritual prowess, functioned as a strategy by members of this movement to respond to growing cultural anxiety and uncertainty surrounding masculine ideals. - Nikolai Kotkov

Similar to the end of the nineteenth century, men in the 21st century are anxious about proving their manhood. However, Kimmel claims, that these concerns about manhood are being expressed more aggressively and their is more anger about manhood coming mainly from the middle to lower-middle class. This anger is expressed thorough rhetoric like the problems with political correctness, femininazis, and reverse discrimination while some of the lonelier of these men take their anger out by shooting their classmates or cutting people off in traffic. (Henry Prior)

Kimmel states, similar to the nineteenth century, middle class men have been facing economic trouble which their fathers before them who were able to be the breadwinners of the house did not. This change in circumstances has led to men feeling as if their grasp on their manhood has been slipping due their inability to execute their “manly” duties. Social mobility through the form of the self-made man has also been harder as the wealth gap has grown.

Kimmel uses music as a way to look at masculine archetypes based on the genre. It was also a way for the masculine ideals surrounding the specific genre being spread to other communities that originally did not have that exact type of masculinity. With music it can show how sectional masculinity had become with the different groups, focused on race, class status, or personal ideals. (Sage Milton)