Discover

Manhood in America

Minsik readers
0.0
0 ratings
Other platforms
4.7
3 ratings
322
PAGES
~5h 22min
READING TIME
English
LANGUAGE
1
READERS
Published 1996 Oxford University Press 6 views
ISBN
002874067X
Editions
Paperback
6 views
Minsik want to read: 0
Minsik reading: 0
Minsik read: 0
Open Library want to read: 1
Open Library reading: 0
Open Library read: 0

About Author

Michael S. Kimmel

American sociologist

First sentence

On April 16, 1787, a few weeks before the opening of the Constitutional Convention, the first professionally produced play in American history opened in New York...

Description

In a time when psychologists are rediscovering Darwin, and much of our social behavioral is being reduced to ancient, hard-wired patterns, Michael Kimmel's history of manhood in America comes as a much needed reminder that our behavior as men and women is anything but stable and fixed. Kimmel's authoritative, entertaining, and wide-ranging history of men in America demonstrates that manhood has meant very different things in different eras. Drawing on advice books, magazines, political pamphlets, and popular novels and films, he makes two surprising claims: First, manhood is homosocial - that is, men need to prove themselves to each other, not to women. Second, definitions of manliness have evolved in response to women's movements. When women act, men react. Originally, manliness was an internal virtue and a democratic ideal - British men were viewed as fops, and American men had to be independent, honest, and responsible. By the 1890s, however, manhood changed to masculinity, something that had to be constantly proven through the new explosion of sports, fraternities, and fashion. Finally, in 1936, Lewis Terman, the creator of the IQ test, developed an "M-F" test to analyze adolescents' masculinity and femininity. Until well into the 1960s, the test penalized boys who preferred to draw flowers instead of forests, or who knew that a teacup was used for drinking tea. But just as Terman's categories and questions seem outdated to us, so will our own standards seem temporary to our successors.

Detailed Ratings

0.0Emotional Impact
No ratings yet
0.0Intellectual Depth
No ratings yet
0.0Writing Quality
No ratings yet
0.0Rereadability
No ratings yet
0.0Pacing
No ratings yet
0.0Readability
No ratings yet
0.0Plot Complexity
No ratings yet
0.0Humor
No ratings yet