This article overall made me consider the nature of manhood and gender in general, when related to using it to determine power, relies on clear exclusion. It is not enough to simply determine what it is to be a man, but the opposite must be clearly seen as well. This could be seen as simply being a matter of if there is no-one to exert power over, do you actually have any? (Hannah Covin)

The descriptions of military life, and the changes that took place in relation to manhood stood out as a clear example of the way that manhood is ever changing and also related to various other factors. Factors such as social status. The article describes well to do men using the military as a way of maintaining manhood, whereas for lower class men the military was a way of obtaining manhood. This shows not only that there is a class related idea of manhood where your class decides where you start on the manhood scale, but also how ideas of what made a man a man changed between those classes. (Hannah Covin)

In Jamestown, more men ultimately chose to follow John Rolfe's way of planting tobacco and gaining profit in order to gain manhood. However, Gates and Dale's idea of obedience making a masculine solider shows remarkable similarities to modern military code which similarly emphasizes obedience to superiors. Additionally, this way of gaining masculinity in a martial setting contrasts earlier settlers' views of strength and ability to munity as true examples of masculinity. (Henry Prior)

In comparison to the puritans' ideas of masculinity the ideas of masculinity that the James Town settlers possessed was more based in the masculine ideals of the English military. Men were expected to be strong and not express emotion. Unlike the puritans, military men often found masculinity based in agriculture and domesticity as boring compared to the pillaging and conquest which military men's masculinity was based in. (Henry Prior)