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 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)

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)

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

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)