What do you think?
Rate this book
Manhood in America: A Cultural History
For more than three decades, the women's movement and its scholars have exhaustively studied women's complex history, roles, and struggles. In Manhood in America , Third Edition, author Michael Kimmel argues that it is time for men to rediscover their own evolution. Drawing on a myriad of
sources,he demonstrates that American men have been eternally frustrated by their efforts to keep up with constantly changing standards. Kimmel contends that men must follow the lead of the women's movement; it is only by mining their past for its best qualities and worst excesses that men will free
themselves from the constraints of the masculine ideal.
The third edition discusses such timely topics as post-9/11 politics, "self-made" masculinities (including those of Internet entrepreneurs), presidential campaigns, and gender politics. It also covers contemporary debates about fatherlessness, the biology of male aggression, and pop psychologists
like John Gray and Dr. Laura. Outlining the various ways in which manhood has been constructed and portrayed in America, this engaging history is ideal as a main text for courses on masculinity or as a supplementary text for courses in gender studies and cultural history.
sources,he demonstrates that American men have been eternally frustrated by their efforts to keep up with constantly changing standards. Kimmel contends that men must follow the lead of the women's movement; it is only by mining their past for its best qualities and worst excesses that men will free
themselves from the constraints of the masculine ideal.
The third edition discusses such timely topics as post-9/11 politics, "self-made" masculinities (including those of Internet entrepreneurs), presidential campaigns, and gender politics. It also covers contemporary debates about fatherlessness, the biology of male aggression, and pop psychologists
like John Gray and Dr. Laura. Outlining the various ways in which manhood has been constructed and portrayed in America, this engaging history is ideal as a main text for courses on masculinity or as a supplementary text for courses in gender studies and cultural history.
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
23 people are currently reading
1306 people want to read
About the author
Michael S. Kimmel
63 books195 followersMichael Scott Kimmel is an American sociologist, specializing in gender studies. He is among the leading researchers and writers on men and masculinity in the world today. The author or editor of more than twenty volumes, his books include The Politics of Manhood, and The History of Men (2005).
His documentary history, "Against the Tide: Pro-Feminist Men in the United States, 1776-1990" (Beacon, 1992), chronicled men who supported women’s equality since the founding of the country. His book, Manhood in America: A Cultural History (1996) was hailed as the definitive work on the subject. Reviewers called the book "wide-ranging, level headed, human and deeply interesting," "superb...thorough, impressive and fascinating."
His most recent book, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (2008) is a best-selling investigation of young people’s lives today, based on interviews with more than 400 young men, ages 16-26. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem said that "Michael Kimmel's Guyland could save the humanity of many young men – and the sanity of their friends and parents."
Kimmel holds the position of Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in New York, and is a spokesperson of NOMAS (The National Organization For Men Against Sexism).
He lives in Brooklyn, New York with his family.
His documentary history, "Against the Tide: Pro-Feminist Men in the United States, 1776-1990" (Beacon, 1992), chronicled men who supported women’s equality since the founding of the country. His book, Manhood in America: A Cultural History (1996) was hailed as the definitive work on the subject. Reviewers called the book "wide-ranging, level headed, human and deeply interesting," "superb...thorough, impressive and fascinating."
His most recent book, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (2008) is a best-selling investigation of young people’s lives today, based on interviews with more than 400 young men, ages 16-26. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem said that "Michael Kimmel's Guyland could save the humanity of many young men – and the sanity of their friends and parents."
Kimmel holds the position of Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in New York, and is a spokesperson of NOMAS (The National Organization For Men Against Sexism).
He lives in Brooklyn, New York with his family.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
June 22, 2020
The first chapter included a Freudian analysis of Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign, which set the tone of the book pretty effectively... There’s lots of good historical information but the author’s analysis and tone are a bit odd and inconsistent. It was an ok read but not a book I’ll be recommending to anyone.
January 31, 2016
This is a pretty good introductory text to masculinities studies for lay people or undergraduates who aren’t ready to explore a lot of heavy theory and historiography. It covers the basics in relatively simple language, and talks about the United States, where a lot of the better-known names focus on Great Britain or Australia. Kimmel works chronologically, beginning with the “self-made” man of the frontier, through Nineteenth Century models like the working man or captain of industry, to the changes the twentieth century wrought up to the “crisis in masculinity” of more recent years. Much of his work aligns well with more theoretical or sociological approaches, but without getting into complex jargon or abstractions. His coverage of the transition from “self made man” to the variety of newer models that arose afterwards is especially interesting, and goes back to earlier discussions of “manhood” to integrate them with later masculinities work and finds common threads. Readers not familiar with the American history of “muscular Christianity” will find this section amusing and informative.
Still, there’s something about Kimmel that just doesn’t work that well for me. Maybe it’s because I’ve read Connell, Tosh, and the others that he’s drawing on, and I’m missing those complexities. Kimmel is open about using feminist theory, yet I often find myself remembering the guys in college who called themselves feminists in hopes of getting laid. He isn’t quite that, though. It’s more like he’s figured out how to use being the male feminist in order to become the “safe” feminist for the media and the public, taking the shortcut to becoming a “public intellectual” by using the work of others. Michael Kimmel is the David Brooks of feminism, or the Paul Krugman of feminism. In fairness to him, if you read his footnotes, you’ll find that he does acknowledge Connell, Natalie Zemon Davis, George Chauncey, and other feminist scholars whose work he has built upon. He does play by the rules of scholarship, and it may be pure coincidence that he happens to be more well-known publicly than those names.
The other problem with (this edition of) this book is the tiny typeface. This was probably chosen to reduce the number of pages, and thus the cost, but it’s going to reach the point fairly soon where I need a magnifying glass to read it. This, I suppose, is another reason to recommend its use primarily with undergrads whose eyesight is still strong.
Still, there’s something about Kimmel that just doesn’t work that well for me. Maybe it’s because I’ve read Connell, Tosh, and the others that he’s drawing on, and I’m missing those complexities. Kimmel is open about using feminist theory, yet I often find myself remembering the guys in college who called themselves feminists in hopes of getting laid. He isn’t quite that, though. It’s more like he’s figured out how to use being the male feminist in order to become the “safe” feminist for the media and the public, taking the shortcut to becoming a “public intellectual” by using the work of others. Michael Kimmel is the David Brooks of feminism, or the Paul Krugman of feminism. In fairness to him, if you read his footnotes, you’ll find that he does acknowledge Connell, Natalie Zemon Davis, George Chauncey, and other feminist scholars whose work he has built upon. He does play by the rules of scholarship, and it may be pure coincidence that he happens to be more well-known publicly than those names.
The other problem with (this edition of) this book is the tiny typeface. This was probably chosen to reduce the number of pages, and thus the cost, but it’s going to reach the point fairly soon where I need a magnifying glass to read it. This, I suppose, is another reason to recommend its use primarily with undergrads whose eyesight is still strong.
August 16, 2008
Pour me a glass of haterade. I mean, it's interesting, and MK does a decent job, but it's frustrating. I feel like all of it I just want to be like, you know what? Boo-effing-hoo! Men in America (particularly UMC white men) don't have it that bad! They don't have it bad at all! Cry me an effing river. If I have to hear one more time how like, standards of beauty are so hard for men to live up to, I'm going to crucify myself on a Bowflex. Then why is like every sitcom ever premised on some fat-ass lout comedian who has a fit-n-trim wife? It's like, fine, I'm sure some things are "tough" or whatever, but it's really hard to be sympathetic when it's 2007 and statistically I'm only earning 76 cents to your dollar.
February 3, 2012
I really enjoyed the book and it provided a good amount of insight into men and the changing definition of Manhood and Masculinity over time in America. I was not fond of the women bashing and blaming for all mens woes but it was still a good read. His dates for films and books were off frequently throughout the book and needs to be changed with future editions but other than that I would recommend to people interested in Manhood and Masculinity historically in America.
March 12, 2018
This is an important enterprise in the field of gender studies and a foundational study in the history of masculinity, but it is also marked with numerous flaws.
The strength of this work rests in Kimmel's bibliographic material and the impressively broad amount of primary material and content he can draw on from across American history (novels, advertisements, self-help books, reform and political literature, film, popular tunes, etc.) to construct his portrait of how American manhood has evolved into the fragmented kinds of masculinity we have today.
Kimmel begins on the cusp of the American Revolution with three archetypal masculinities in contention at the time: the Genteel Patriarch, the Heroic Artisan, and the Self-Made Man. However, he argues that American history has been indomitably saturated by the victorious Self-Made Man narrative, and that this monolithic masculinity has remained largely the same (though somewhat changed) since the beginning of the nation. Because of this, Kimmel's narrative turns out to be repetitive, stale, and somewhat one-dimensional.
The formula of every chapter can be hashed out like this:
(1) Masculine identity constantly tends toward anxiety and insecurity (like entropy), there is always a perception that the current generation has decayed or diminished from the last
(2) Writers, politicians, etc. develop rhetoric of blame to explain why men have declined, pointing fingers at the feminizing influence of pious mothers or nagging wives, or shifting the blame on immigrants or gay men.
(3)Writers, politicians, etc. create new romantic myths of what qualifies as masculine activity (outdoors adventures, exercise and fixation on physique, or Playboy consumerism).
(4) These new practices catch popularity and temporarily satisfy the craving of the public male imagination for validation.
Repeat (1)-(4).
While there is a great deal of truth in this to how a natural human instinct for nostalgia leads toward the invention of new myths, Kimmel's framing and sometimes less-than-subtle condescension toward those who earnestly attempted to understand what it was to be a man. To be fair, some of these constructions of masculinity are amusing or cringey in retrospect, but Kimmel
frequently ridicules these "angry white men" in that tone of grating disdain so common for New York elites like Kimmel (and honestly is a kind of arrogance that has grown extremely tired in the 2010s).
This shows the two starkest shortcomings of the book:
(1) Kimmel is committed a priori to a unitary "Self-Made Man" masculinity as the almost exclusively sole masculinity of American history. This consequently ignores or overlooks any other forms masculinity may take. His first chapter was spot on to look at three archetypes of masculinity in tension with each other, so I was greatly surprised that he didn't develop other classificatory types to examine as American history unfolded. Gender history is never composed of masculinity or femininity but masculinities and femininities that are always in tension or negotiation. This is the nature of history and identity, and Kimmel's philosophical implications on this are far from nuanced.
(2) Kimmel is thoroughly committed to demystifying the charade of masculinity as it has evolved in American discourse that he feels it necessary to frame masculine rhetoric in a wholly negative backdrop, and his authorial voice often emerges to make an acerbic comment on some quote from past generations. I fully understand the weaknesses of masculine identities and the horrific damages they have wreaked upon Western society (many of these negative effects Kimmel chooses not to mention), but I find it hard to believe that absolutely no good came from these attempts to strive to reinvent masculinity. Kimmel could at least have briefly acknowledged the positive impacts of a fitness craze for national health or the Boy Scouts in allowing male-male bonding, but he only employs his authorial reflection for the sake of scathing criticism or critique of systems.
Some other points the book leaves unaddressed:
(3) How did the masculinity evolve in dialectical tension with femininity? Kimmel always explains masculine anxiety by way of fear that men were becoming women, but he never discusses how men's self-identity also shaped their prescriptive shaping of women's roles? An important part of understanding masculinity is how men disciplined and regulated women through structures and discursive practices.
(4) What is the role of theology and faith in shaping gender identity? The only role that religion plays in Kimmel's account is a perceived domain of women that either needs to be escaped or retrieved (Muscular Christianity). In this light, Christianity only comes into focus as a battleground for gender identity. I find it absurd to suggest that Christian theology (perhaps the most indomitable force in American history) had absolutely no bearing on men's self-perception. We see plenty of historical examples of how manhood and Christianity are often tied together in describing soldiers or citizens. Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham are not mentioned a single time, and their impact on American social history is undeniable. (He does give some space to Billy Sunday, but he is subsumed within the Muscular Christianity movement, and this is just symptomatic of Kimmel's theologically-void history.)
(5) What about colonial America? Kimmel's history begins in 1776, and he only offers a few brief glances at the century and a half of foundational nation-building which root much of American identity today. The Puritans, the economic opportunists, and many other key agents in America's founding supposedly have no effect on the formation of American masculinity which Kimmel argues only became distinct once America revolted from Britain. Colonial literature speaks very deeply to the roots of our identity, and this is an unfortunate absence in this volume.
(6) What are the roots of the Self-Made Man? In his first chapter Kimmel provides a paragraph or two explaining what he means the Self-Made Man as part of his list of the three types of masculinity. This would be fine if the archetype disappeared in the next few chapters, but it becomes the definitive marker of American masculinity up through the present day. One easy solution to this would be to give expanded focus to Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. Weber has written an extremely insightful analysis of the Autobiography to unpack the spirit of capitalism, and there are so many elements of American identity in it that Kimmel could draw upon. Instead, he gives it a few sentences of space and pulls out a short quote, but this hardly seems satisfactory.
(7) Kimmel's history dabbles too much in contemporary analysis. After poking some fun at H.W. Bush's hunting/fishing campaign (which doesn't really seem all that deserved considering Bush is a politician with a particular constituency), Kimmel points to Bill Clinton as the first president who can embody a new, robust masculinity in the presidency but has been undermined by a Republican media's attacks on his character and the fabrication of his extramarital affairs. While I do not know at what point in the Clinton presidency Kimmel wrote this, I find it extremely self-discrediting to frame Bill Clinton as a model for men, especially when his repeated sexual harassment of women should (though it is often intentionally overlooked) incriminate his legacy. Jimmy Carter would make a far superior presidential model of masculinity, but Kimmel would prefer to politicize his narrative by offering Clinton as a potential solution to crises of masculinity. He makes this suggestion only briefly, but it is offered in poor academic taste.
I could go on, but that should be enough in terms of the major issues in the book. Despite this, I respect the thoroughness of Kimmel's research. Like Christopher Hill, Kimmel is encyclopedic and exhaustive but his interpretation is rather inadequate (but he's also a sociologist so maybe I should give him more credit).
What I did appreciate about Kimmel's reflections are in his epilogue, an excerpt I will provide in closing:
"This is not a call for androgyny, for a blurring of masculinity and feminity into a melange of some vaguely defined 'human' qualities. [...] I question the facile equations--equality means sameness, difference means inequality--that frighten us away from attempting such a cultural redefinition."
"This will not be a noisy or violent revolutionary transformation but the result of countless quiet daily struggles by American men to free themselves from the burdens of proof. [...] Along the way, we will find that much of what it has historically meant to be a man--strength, a sense of purpose, a commitment to act ethically, controlled aggressiveness, self-reliance, dependability--can be coupled with such newer masculine virtues as compassion, nurturing, and a fierce egalitarianism, which together may form a stronger and more resilient template for manhood in America."
I strongly agree with such sentiments in my hopes for the regendering of masculinity for this generation and the next.
The strength of this work rests in Kimmel's bibliographic material and the impressively broad amount of primary material and content he can draw on from across American history (novels, advertisements, self-help books, reform and political literature, film, popular tunes, etc.) to construct his portrait of how American manhood has evolved into the fragmented kinds of masculinity we have today.
Kimmel begins on the cusp of the American Revolution with three archetypal masculinities in contention at the time: the Genteel Patriarch, the Heroic Artisan, and the Self-Made Man. However, he argues that American history has been indomitably saturated by the victorious Self-Made Man narrative, and that this monolithic masculinity has remained largely the same (though somewhat changed) since the beginning of the nation. Because of this, Kimmel's narrative turns out to be repetitive, stale, and somewhat one-dimensional.
The formula of every chapter can be hashed out like this:
(1) Masculine identity constantly tends toward anxiety and insecurity (like entropy), there is always a perception that the current generation has decayed or diminished from the last
(2) Writers, politicians, etc. develop rhetoric of blame to explain why men have declined, pointing fingers at the feminizing influence of pious mothers or nagging wives, or shifting the blame on immigrants or gay men.
(3)Writers, politicians, etc. create new romantic myths of what qualifies as masculine activity (outdoors adventures, exercise and fixation on physique, or Playboy consumerism).
(4) These new practices catch popularity and temporarily satisfy the craving of the public male imagination for validation.
Repeat (1)-(4).
While there is a great deal of truth in this to how a natural human instinct for nostalgia leads toward the invention of new myths, Kimmel's framing and sometimes less-than-subtle condescension toward those who earnestly attempted to understand what it was to be a man. To be fair, some of these constructions of masculinity are amusing or cringey in retrospect, but Kimmel
frequently ridicules these "angry white men" in that tone of grating disdain so common for New York elites like Kimmel (and honestly is a kind of arrogance that has grown extremely tired in the 2010s).
This shows the two starkest shortcomings of the book:
(1) Kimmel is committed a priori to a unitary "Self-Made Man" masculinity as the almost exclusively sole masculinity of American history. This consequently ignores or overlooks any other forms masculinity may take. His first chapter was spot on to look at three archetypes of masculinity in tension with each other, so I was greatly surprised that he didn't develop other classificatory types to examine as American history unfolded. Gender history is never composed of masculinity or femininity but masculinities and femininities that are always in tension or negotiation. This is the nature of history and identity, and Kimmel's philosophical implications on this are far from nuanced.
(2) Kimmel is thoroughly committed to demystifying the charade of masculinity as it has evolved in American discourse that he feels it necessary to frame masculine rhetoric in a wholly negative backdrop, and his authorial voice often emerges to make an acerbic comment on some quote from past generations. I fully understand the weaknesses of masculine identities and the horrific damages they have wreaked upon Western society (many of these negative effects Kimmel chooses not to mention), but I find it hard to believe that absolutely no good came from these attempts to strive to reinvent masculinity. Kimmel could at least have briefly acknowledged the positive impacts of a fitness craze for national health or the Boy Scouts in allowing male-male bonding, but he only employs his authorial reflection for the sake of scathing criticism or critique of systems.
Some other points the book leaves unaddressed:
(3) How did the masculinity evolve in dialectical tension with femininity? Kimmel always explains masculine anxiety by way of fear that men were becoming women, but he never discusses how men's self-identity also shaped their prescriptive shaping of women's roles? An important part of understanding masculinity is how men disciplined and regulated women through structures and discursive practices.
(4) What is the role of theology and faith in shaping gender identity? The only role that religion plays in Kimmel's account is a perceived domain of women that either needs to be escaped or retrieved (Muscular Christianity). In this light, Christianity only comes into focus as a battleground for gender identity. I find it absurd to suggest that Christian theology (perhaps the most indomitable force in American history) had absolutely no bearing on men's self-perception. We see plenty of historical examples of how manhood and Christianity are often tied together in describing soldiers or citizens. Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham are not mentioned a single time, and their impact on American social history is undeniable. (He does give some space to Billy Sunday, but he is subsumed within the Muscular Christianity movement, and this is just symptomatic of Kimmel's theologically-void history.)
(5) What about colonial America? Kimmel's history begins in 1776, and he only offers a few brief glances at the century and a half of foundational nation-building which root much of American identity today. The Puritans, the economic opportunists, and many other key agents in America's founding supposedly have no effect on the formation of American masculinity which Kimmel argues only became distinct once America revolted from Britain. Colonial literature speaks very deeply to the roots of our identity, and this is an unfortunate absence in this volume.
(6) What are the roots of the Self-Made Man? In his first chapter Kimmel provides a paragraph or two explaining what he means the Self-Made Man as part of his list of the three types of masculinity. This would be fine if the archetype disappeared in the next few chapters, but it becomes the definitive marker of American masculinity up through the present day. One easy solution to this would be to give expanded focus to Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. Weber has written an extremely insightful analysis of the Autobiography to unpack the spirit of capitalism, and there are so many elements of American identity in it that Kimmel could draw upon. Instead, he gives it a few sentences of space and pulls out a short quote, but this hardly seems satisfactory.
(7) Kimmel's history dabbles too much in contemporary analysis. After poking some fun at H.W. Bush's hunting/fishing campaign (which doesn't really seem all that deserved considering Bush is a politician with a particular constituency), Kimmel points to Bill Clinton as the first president who can embody a new, robust masculinity in the presidency but has been undermined by a Republican media's attacks on his character and the fabrication of his extramarital affairs. While I do not know at what point in the Clinton presidency Kimmel wrote this, I find it extremely self-discrediting to frame Bill Clinton as a model for men, especially when his repeated sexual harassment of women should (though it is often intentionally overlooked) incriminate his legacy. Jimmy Carter would make a far superior presidential model of masculinity, but Kimmel would prefer to politicize his narrative by offering Clinton as a potential solution to crises of masculinity. He makes this suggestion only briefly, but it is offered in poor academic taste.
I could go on, but that should be enough in terms of the major issues in the book. Despite this, I respect the thoroughness of Kimmel's research. Like Christopher Hill, Kimmel is encyclopedic and exhaustive but his interpretation is rather inadequate (but he's also a sociologist so maybe I should give him more credit).
What I did appreciate about Kimmel's reflections are in his epilogue, an excerpt I will provide in closing:
"This is not a call for androgyny, for a blurring of masculinity and feminity into a melange of some vaguely defined 'human' qualities. [...] I question the facile equations--equality means sameness, difference means inequality--that frighten us away from attempting such a cultural redefinition."
"This will not be a noisy or violent revolutionary transformation but the result of countless quiet daily struggles by American men to free themselves from the burdens of proof. [...] Along the way, we will find that much of what it has historically meant to be a man--strength, a sense of purpose, a commitment to act ethically, controlled aggressiveness, self-reliance, dependability--can be coupled with such newer masculine virtues as compassion, nurturing, and a fierce egalitarianism, which together may form a stronger and more resilient template for manhood in America."
I strongly agree with such sentiments in my hopes for the regendering of masculinity for this generation and the next.
Read
March 6, 2025insightful. ill have to come back to it after the thesis is done yada yada
October 16, 2012
ok im going to concentrate in gender studies now
September 14, 2020
I know that this was groundbreaking at the time of its release, but the fact that he refuses to rework his ideas in light of new scholarship drives me nuts. I cannot stand this book.
November 17, 2014
Seriously, make up your mind please! While the book offered some interesting points on how masculinity was shaped through our the two centuries in America, the analysis was very biased (not surprising for a sociologist). The idea of what constitute as a manhood has been changed drastically over the decades from the self-made cowboy masculine homosocial (I really like his word now) to the emasculation of the urbanisation to the rising prominence of scouting and sports to the challenges faced in second wave feminism. However, the author could not seem to make up his mind on his view of the "self made manhood". One minute he's all over the traditional idea of manhood, then the next he's critical of the negative consequences of the same manhood. His wish washy style did not appeal to me. Then he started to psychoanalyse fictional works such as The Wizard of Oz being about a protofeminist reassuring men for their masculinity through different means or that Ayn Rand was a "idealiser of manhood" because Howard Roark was tough. His critique on how capitalism "forced" men to be masculine was ridiculous when masculinity has been in almost every culture. If a civilised man means losing masculinity then why shouldn't all men be barbarians?
February 1, 2015
I'm only about half way through the text and decided to read it before considering having my American history students read it in conjunction with some women's history. So far I find it fascinating, not because any of it is new to me, but because it paints a nice picture of what men have had to go through in order to be perceived as men (straight or gay, for that matter) by other men. After all, I kind of agree that what women think of us doesn't really matter to us. But, what other men - other guys - ah, that's a different story. Looking forward to finishing it and am enjoying other readers' comments.
December 14, 2008
I only read a few sections of this, the modern sections that are relevant to my students, but I thought that MK wrote in a very clear and compelling fashion. He's very objective in his analysis of men and how they have been impacted by the feminist movement. He makes some really good points about how George Bush (or George I) was perceived to be not manly enough: he went to Yale, was clean-cut in look, etc..., so he made a concerted effort to be more masculine. Willy Loman and Hamlet are analyzed as well. The insights aren't particularly profound, but the fit nicely into the argument.
September 5, 2020
This book starts an important conversation, but it should not be the only source you read about manhood in America. Kimmel is quite wedded to his archetypes, unwilling to depart from them, even when they no longer seem to fit the situation. This book is about one specific type of white, cisgender, straight masculinity, mentioning women, people of color, and gay men only as groups that the hegemonic masculine men react to.
Worth a read, but remain critical of Kimmel’s language.
Worth a read, but remain critical of Kimmel’s language.
June 7, 2013
A cunningly written dissection of the history of men's search for safety and a self-definition which is achievable and sustaining. Kimmel writes from such a widely and deeply read experience that he is able to slit open the substantial soft underbelly of American manhood as deftly as a surgeon and possesses the wit to read the auguries in the entrails. Higly recommended.
October 2, 2021
This is a decent book. He notes that the rise of feminism and gender studies has led to a look at the history of womanhood, there hasn't been as much attention to manhood. Comments feminists have made on manhood tend to assume the central point is domination over women. Kimmel disagrees. He argues that the central relationship of manhood is with other men -- typically, a relationship based on conflict where the men typically view each other as threats and rivals.
One theme of this book is that manhood is always in crisis. Defending of traditional masculine values always see manhood as under assault - by the rise of the market economy, by the end of the frontier, by the rise of salaried wages, by the prominence of women, by mothers, by feminism, by city life, by softness - and harken back to the Good Old Days when Men Were Men - even though the Gold Old Days had the same problems then.
Early America had its notion of manhood center on the patriarch who owned the land and farmed the fields. Then came the market economy, and led to a new styleof man: the self-made man who proved himself in competition in the outside world. Away went the powdered whigs and knee-pants and three-cornered hats. A self-made man must practice self-control and have a wife who embodied the Cult of True Womanhood. The rise of wages made men dependent, though, and that struck at the independence of manhood.
My favorite part was around the turn of the century. The frontier was gone and people freaked out over what that meant for manhood. TR provided one example, as a man who remade his body and went to North Dakota. The Boy Scouts were began so boys could learn to be men (not sissies) out in nature. The outdoors were the new, reinveinted frontier. People exhaulted the strenuous life. There were calls for boys to take up sports to teach them morals, physical strength. Baseball was popular, tennis and basketball began, and John L. Sullivan was celebrated as the champion of the manly art of boxing. Popular literature included stories of Paul Bunyon. Even religion got into muscular Christianity (which has always ebbed and flowed). The was the rise of gymnasiums and a health craze. There were fears over masterbation vs. self-control and corn flakes were first marketed as a way to stop boys from self-abuse. It was the golden age of fraternal orders, with all ritualistic male bonding.
In the 20th century, the Great Depression was emasculating for many. Dale Carneige helped promote a new type of manliness: agreeableness. Shape your personality if you can do nothing else. Charles Atlas harkened back to a physcial sense of manliness. In the 1960s, JFK was his generation's TR, but old versions of manhood were chipped away at as previously marginalized groups came o the fore. There was still a constant striving, and the attendant tension and lonlineness that came with it. Men's liberation included a critique of traditional manliness (it led to anxiety et al for men) but also didn't care much for women's lib. A new breed of manhood emerged - think Alan Alda. but buddy films of the late 1960s/early 1970s ended pessimisticallly and by the end of th 1970s, positive role models were hard to find (but there was Kramer Vs. Kramer).
The manhood of the 1980s was in many ways a reaction to the sensitivies of 1970s manliness. Kimmel really doesn't think much of this, seeing it entirely as a retrograde movement with bumper stickers like "Mondale East Quiche." Traditionalists and men's rights people were both part of the backlash. You saw muscle-bound stars in action movies, and Kimmel's notes the Michael Douglass collection as well.
Kimmel ends by noting that efforst to restore manhood always fail and calls for what he terms democratic manhood. Problem: if that's his version of manhood, he needs to spend more time on it, not just in the few pages of the epilogue, but providing examples of it throughout. Otherwise, his note that attempts to restore traditional manhood always fail itself misses a big point: the constant effort to restore/create this idealized version of manhood is probably the single most enduring aspect of manhood in American history. Lord knows we aren't see it go away here now 20-plus years later.
One theme of this book is that manhood is always in crisis. Defending of traditional masculine values always see manhood as under assault - by the rise of the market economy, by the end of the frontier, by the rise of salaried wages, by the prominence of women, by mothers, by feminism, by city life, by softness - and harken back to the Good Old Days when Men Were Men - even though the Gold Old Days had the same problems then.
Early America had its notion of manhood center on the patriarch who owned the land and farmed the fields. Then came the market economy, and led to a new styleof man: the self-made man who proved himself in competition in the outside world. Away went the powdered whigs and knee-pants and three-cornered hats. A self-made man must practice self-control and have a wife who embodied the Cult of True Womanhood. The rise of wages made men dependent, though, and that struck at the independence of manhood.
My favorite part was around the turn of the century. The frontier was gone and people freaked out over what that meant for manhood. TR provided one example, as a man who remade his body and went to North Dakota. The Boy Scouts were began so boys could learn to be men (not sissies) out in nature. The outdoors were the new, reinveinted frontier. People exhaulted the strenuous life. There were calls for boys to take up sports to teach them morals, physical strength. Baseball was popular, tennis and basketball began, and John L. Sullivan was celebrated as the champion of the manly art of boxing. Popular literature included stories of Paul Bunyon. Even religion got into muscular Christianity (which has always ebbed and flowed). The was the rise of gymnasiums and a health craze. There were fears over masterbation vs. self-control and corn flakes were first marketed as a way to stop boys from self-abuse. It was the golden age of fraternal orders, with all ritualistic male bonding.
In the 20th century, the Great Depression was emasculating for many. Dale Carneige helped promote a new type of manliness: agreeableness. Shape your personality if you can do nothing else. Charles Atlas harkened back to a physcial sense of manliness. In the 1960s, JFK was his generation's TR, but old versions of manhood were chipped away at as previously marginalized groups came o the fore. There was still a constant striving, and the attendant tension and lonlineness that came with it. Men's liberation included a critique of traditional manliness (it led to anxiety et al for men) but also didn't care much for women's lib. A new breed of manhood emerged - think Alan Alda. but buddy films of the late 1960s/early 1970s ended pessimisticallly and by the end of th 1970s, positive role models were hard to find (but there was Kramer Vs. Kramer).
The manhood of the 1980s was in many ways a reaction to the sensitivies of 1970s manliness. Kimmel really doesn't think much of this, seeing it entirely as a retrograde movement with bumper stickers like "Mondale East Quiche." Traditionalists and men's rights people were both part of the backlash. You saw muscle-bound stars in action movies, and Kimmel's notes the Michael Douglass collection as well.
Kimmel ends by noting that efforst to restore manhood always fail and calls for what he terms democratic manhood. Problem: if that's his version of manhood, he needs to spend more time on it, not just in the few pages of the epilogue, but providing examples of it throughout. Otherwise, his note that attempts to restore traditional manhood always fail itself misses a big point: the constant effort to restore/create this idealized version of manhood is probably the single most enduring aspect of manhood in American history. Lord knows we aren't see it go away here now 20-plus years later.
Read
November 14, 2022"And what is our Ideal Man? On what grand and luminous mythological figure does contemporary humanity attempt to model itself? The question is embarrassing. Nobody knows." ~ Aldous Huxley, Texts and Pretexts
Michael Kimmel maps out the cultural history of masculinity and how it has transformed itself in relation to the economic tides of the market. A consistent goal of masculinity is its wild attempts to distinguish itself from any sort of appearance of femininity. From the Genteel Patriarch, to the Heroic Artisan, to the Self-Made Man, there have been different conceptions of masculinity that have rotated places throughout American history, but these structures have really begun to erode as more marginalized groups have fought for inclusion and the internal contradictions of masculinity have begun to tumble apart.
My notes: https://uofutah-my.sharepoint.com/:w:...
Michael Kimmel maps out the cultural history of masculinity and how it has transformed itself in relation to the economic tides of the market. A consistent goal of masculinity is its wild attempts to distinguish itself from any sort of appearance of femininity. From the Genteel Patriarch, to the Heroic Artisan, to the Self-Made Man, there have been different conceptions of masculinity that have rotated places throughout American history, but these structures have really begun to erode as more marginalized groups have fought for inclusion and the internal contradictions of masculinity have begun to tumble apart.
My notes: https://uofutah-my.sharepoint.com/:w:...
February 1, 2020
Hardly the last word in studies of masculinity, it's significant as a clear, accessible, and illustrative early word in the field. I'd heard plenty about the book, in citations and summaries, before I picked it up, and with a long history of reading in the field, I didn't learn much new by reading it. But: it teaches like a *dream* and is an outstanding way to open up lines of conversations with undergrads some of whom are just beginning to think critically about gender while others could teach the lesson. In this way, I appreciate the writing on its own: careful with its reader, concerned with ways in. Is it the sharpest critique or the most nuanced analysis? hardly. Is it a really excellent way to bring people into a conversation? yes, indeed.
January 17, 2022
The need for the American male to constantly prove himself has been the source of endless conflict, strife and friction. A very stimulating read about how male self-worth evolved with and reacted to changes in the US economy and society. Kimmel's main focus is the white male, though he does talk to a lesser extent about black men and men who immigrated during the 1776-1990s period. Nevertheless, there is clearly a lot more that could have been said about African American masculinities, Asian masculinities, Indigenous masculinities. Perhaps those subjects are best left to other authors, however.
My reading focused on the 19th and early 20th century. Kimmel goes much further. I didn't read those parts, so I can't comment on their content or merits.
My reading focused on the 19th and early 20th century. Kimmel goes much further. I didn't read those parts, so I can't comment on their content or merits.
February 22, 2023
The first half is an interesting and mostly fair history of what manhood has meant throughout American history. By the time he approaches the 20th century, though, it's all negative and it becomes a repetitive slog. Interesting reference and I did get quite a bit about it.
The epilogue was very redemptive in my mind. It provided a vision that I agree with, masculinity based on inner strength and standing up for justice, not on exclusion.
The epilogue was very redemptive in my mind. It provided a vision that I agree with, masculinity based on inner strength and standing up for justice, not on exclusion.
March 8, 2025
This was a strange book. Kimmel has done a truly impressive amount of research on the rhetoric about masculinity throughout American history. Yet it often focused on what men said about manhood without revealing much about the lives and beliefs of ordinary men. It was hard to know how much the controversies he discussed affected many people's lives. It's easy for a reader to say this about a writer's book, but I wish that there had been more grounding of his argument in social statistics.
March 15, 2017
A pioneering work properly understood as a literature review and an effort to establish a foundation for the emerging field of "masculinity studies." In that objective it is an unqualified success.
I confess I skipped around to the sections relevant for my specific area of interest: the challenges facing modern men and the prescriptions of where we go from here. A little disappointing. Most of the discussion turns to pop culture for reference - fair enough, but the discussion could be enriched through a more sociological or anthropological approach dealing with the lives of real people. He's at his best in discussing - almost obliquely - the ravages that the ethos of the market society has had on working class men in particular... but doesn't follow it up.
And he devotes only a couple pages to the "where do we go from here", talking about the emergence of a "democratic manhood." OK... but what does that mean? He also says he's rejecting an androgynous appeal to "common humanity", but then seems to do exactly that. I confess I have a hard time as a modern pro-feminist man differentiating those qualities that make a man, despite the obvious physical differences. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but I would welcome a richer discussion on it.
I've read much of his recent essay work, and it's on point - still the pre-eminent thinker on masculinity today. This is a good starting piont.
I confess I skipped around to the sections relevant for my specific area of interest: the challenges facing modern men and the prescriptions of where we go from here. A little disappointing. Most of the discussion turns to pop culture for reference - fair enough, but the discussion could be enriched through a more sociological or anthropological approach dealing with the lives of real people. He's at his best in discussing - almost obliquely - the ravages that the ethos of the market society has had on working class men in particular... but doesn't follow it up.
And he devotes only a couple pages to the "where do we go from here", talking about the emergence of a "democratic manhood." OK... but what does that mean? He also says he's rejecting an androgynous appeal to "common humanity", but then seems to do exactly that. I confess I have a hard time as a modern pro-feminist man differentiating those qualities that make a man, despite the obvious physical differences. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but I would welcome a richer discussion on it.
I've read much of his recent essay work, and it's on point - still the pre-eminent thinker on masculinity today. This is a good starting piont.
October 31, 2020
Excelente libro para comprender la socialización masculina.
February 14, 2017
Comprehensive. The literary version of Tough Guise, expanded. Recommend for anyone interested in masculinity theory.
June 23, 2015
This came close to what I wanted it to be. Kimmel, a professor of masculinity and gender at Stony Brook, gave me more a jumping off point than he did something to assign to my students, which is what I thought it was going to be when I started reading it. By the end, I found its imperfections too glaring and the writing too meandering, but overall it’s more straightforward, more level-headed, and its thesis more valiant than other men’s studies writing. I’m disappointed that I can’t assign the full book - especially for the men (in the end I decided to assign sections of it as "optional," which means most won't read it but that's my reason for writing the review - it isn't a book I rejected, but one I didn't wholly embrace). Since Kimmel’s goal is superior to his result, I’m interested to read more—and more recent material—by him. I like what I’ve read of him online.
October 25, 2014
An excellent and insightful history of white, cisgender, heterosexual, mostly middle- and upper-class masculinity in the US from the 1700s to the early 1990s. There is much to learn in this book, both for those beginning in women's/gender studies and for those who have been "in the field" for years. Highly recommended.
Would love to see Kimmel publish an updated volume with analysis of the last 15-20 years!
Would love to see Kimmel publish an updated volume with analysis of the last 15-20 years!
July 30, 2007
Verrry interesting. He starts with the Revolutionary era and ends with Promise Keepers. Along the way he talks about the hyper-masculinization of politics (Van Buren was derided for using nice silverware and wearing a girdle), the rise of physical fitness and sports, the vicissitudes of the wage market, the role of the father, and many other male self-image issues.
March 23, 2013
This is the most interesting book I have ever read about masculinity. It explains in detail the history of manhood (as the title offers) in a very easy way to read, amusing, and with the most amazing details, statistics and anecdotes about famous people, philosophers, writers, sociologists, and just normal men. It is a must if you are interested in gender studies.
December 27, 2014
I like his explanation on manhood from early times up to 1990's, he explains how much masculinity has been going through changes. I specifically liked that he put in the inequality that men face when it comes to certain things when compared to women, such as, child custody. Men get a very short end of the stick on that deal. All in all a very interesting book and a great read.
November 27, 2010
A scholarly and comprehensive look at masculinity in America, reminding us how deeply socially constructed it is. Plenty of "I never knew that before" moments. This book is everything I wanted Guyland to be that it wasn't.
May 2, 2011
I enjoyed this book; it is very interesting. Kimmel does a good job bringing forward American history and discussing it relates to notions of gender. Of course, as it goes with these sorts of cultural studies, there is leeway, interpretation, and conjecture. But still good.
June 13, 2016
It's all true and documented. And, yeah, it's important. But I keep wanting to leave these rooms and do something else. So, because I have the luxury of autonomy (which might have been otherwise), I will explore "other" frontiers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews