Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Men Interminably in Crisis? Historians on Masculinity, Sexual Boundaries, and Manhood

Men Interminably in Crisis? Historians on Masculinity, Sexual Boundaries, and Manhood istorians scrutinize femininities in various ways. In the past thirty years, feminism has explicitly inspired or framed much of that scrutiny. Feminist appropriations of the term gender became increasingly ubiquitous by the late 1970s and early 1980s. For a while, many associated gender only with women — as a shorthand — though such use troublingly recalled the nineteenth-century reference to women as “the sex.” With recent studies like Gail Bederman’s Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917 (1995) and three Issue 82 (winter 2002): 191–207 Copyright 2002 by MARHO: The Radical Historians’ Organization, Inc. texts of the latter 1990s discussed in this essay, however, gender also now connotes “men” and “masculinity.”1 If historical explorations of men and masculinities are increasing, establishing the central intellectual and theoretical frameworks, pressing questions, best methodologies, and canon of concerns for this work has not proved straightforward. First, there are few ready models or templates to hand. As the dominant sex in patriarchal culture, and historically the dominant practitioners of history, men as a group have not proved especially curious about men as a sex. In relations of dominance and subordination, as the truism goes, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Radical History Review Duke University Press

Men Interminably in Crisis? Historians on Masculinity, Sexual Boundaries, and Manhood

Radical History Review , Volume 2002 (82) – Jan 1, 2002

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/men-interminably-in-crisis-historians-on-masculinity-sexual-boundaries-JtWQaRZ2s0
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2002 by MARHO: The Radical Historians' Organization, Inc.
ISSN
0163-6545
eISSN
1534-1453
DOI
10.1215/01636545-2002-82-191
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

istorians scrutinize femininities in various ways. In the past thirty years, feminism has explicitly inspired or framed much of that scrutiny. Feminist appropriations of the term gender became increasingly ubiquitous by the late 1970s and early 1980s. For a while, many associated gender only with women — as a shorthand — though such use troublingly recalled the nineteenth-century reference to women as “the sex.” With recent studies like Gail Bederman’s Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917 (1995) and three Issue 82 (winter 2002): 191–207 Copyright 2002 by MARHO: The Radical Historians’ Organization, Inc. texts of the latter 1990s discussed in this essay, however, gender also now connotes “men” and “masculinity.”1 If historical explorations of men and masculinities are increasing, establishing the central intellectual and theoretical frameworks, pressing questions, best methodologies, and canon of concerns for this work has not proved straightforward. First, there are few ready models or templates to hand. As the dominant sex in patriarchal culture, and historically the dominant practitioners of history, men as a group have not proved especially curious about men as a sex. In relations of dominance and subordination, as the truism goes,

Journal

Radical History ReviewDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.