Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917

Of course Bederman is "biased," she is a human being trying to understand something with the mental tools she has available to her. So is everyone else. Bederman is called biased because the tools that she chooses to apply are different from those some readers are used to or like. Bederman very is very clear that her book is about applying particular theories and examining particular threads in history in order to make certain aspects of that history visible which are not visible under other frameworks. Bederman's history will not explain everything that happened between 1880 and 1917, even everything that happened to or was done by the figures she chooses to highlight. It would be a mistake to wander around for all of one's life trying to make everything one encounters fit within Bederman's historically specific argument, but by carefully examining the evidence available to her she does succeed in making what was merely assumed or unseen visible to modern readers. The figures she presents seem to doing something very similar to Bederman herself: using the ideas and ways of thinking available to them for their own ends and changing them in response to what they saw in their environment. In reading the introduction and the early parts of each chapter I expected to be frustrated, even angry with many of the characters for their racism, sexism, arrogance, etc. But I wasn't. As Bederman explained the mental tools they were using their actions and writings made sense to me and I could see the ways in which they improved upon those tools, even if the results still seem unacceptable to me. Of course I am still aware that some of them caused harm and that, given the chance, I would have a lot to argue with them about and try to convince them of, but they made human sense and I would have a much better idea how to do that arguing. It is not a flawless work by any means. Sometimes Bederman may, for the sake of argument, treat some of her figures as if they were thinking about the discourses they were drawing on a little more consciously and explicitly than is necessary or provable. While she chooses wonderful quotes to illustrate her arguments she is too inclined to "analyze" quotes by repeating what they said in slightly different words. This, among other things, gives the book a very repetitive feel and one has the sense that, if she were a little more confident in her reader's ability and willingness to understand her points the first time round, the book might be considerably shortened. That would be a welcome change for although reading a chapter or two of the book is enjoyable as well as interesting it soon becomes frustrating. Perhaps it would be best to put the book aside for awhile between chapters so as not to let the frustration build up.

This book is a shining example of how to apply literary theory (ideas such as "discourse") to historical study. Even those who might disagree with Professor Bederman's methodology will benefit from her lucid theoretical explanation in the introduction. In short, the book makes a strong, convincing historical case for the importance of gender in understanding how the concept of civilization was used during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. As one who has had some interaction with the author and knowing many others who have worked with her, I cannot resist adding that Professor Bederman has garnered immense respect from those who know her best (including many conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants who may vehemently disagree with her on certain points). That her work comes from a specific point of view is undeniable, but to equate it with bias is both unfair and over-simplistic. But don't take my word for it...read this book for yourself and decide.

After reading the reviews of this book I feel obligated to issue a contrasting view that many of the reviewers, oblivious to the gender system that invisibly yet inextricably contours their own behavior and sense of self, have missed; incidently, their reviews provide interesting insights not in any regards to the book as they utterly misinterpret the text, but rather themselves and the political texture of contemporary society. Bederman illustrates how fin de seicle white men marshalled tropes of masculinity - their conceptions of manhood - to question African-American manhood. The narration of Ida B. Wells simply illustrates how she and other reformers inverted the gender discourse against the predominant, middle-class Anglo conception of manhood to crystallize their hypocrisy. Moreover, in no way does her feminism subvert or in some other way negate the value of this book, as it was, and remains a most valuable contribution for gender studies simply because the book shows how gender, and yes, men are gendered, is socially constructed.

.... I am not a college student and really enjoyed this book. I initially picked it up because of the cover art . While some chapters were more intriguing than others (and the intro and conclusion are the most fun), overall it is a splendid book. Perhaps the book raised uncomfortable points about masculinity for the first, overly harsh reviewer. I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Gail Bederman writes a unique and impressive study regarding the changing views of American "manliness" during the decades spanning the turn of the century. In the Victorian years, "manliness" was seen as sexual and physical restraint and moderation in all things. As the 20th century drew near, however, changes in society--which included industrialization, economic instability, and rising immigration--called for a different view of "manliness." Was mankind becoming soft? Was this softness opening the door for the advancement of less "civilized" groups? It is important to note that by "manliness" and "civilization" the subjects of this book meant the "manliness" of whites and white "civilization." This attitude was the reason Jack Johnson's (black boxer) defeat of Jim Jeffries (white boxer) in 1910 was such a socially explosive event.Bederman offers chapters on several period thinkers on the subject including Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Theodore Roosevelt. Gilman saw women as the driving force of civilization. According to this early feminist, the gender-specific roles of Victorian America and women's economic dependence upon men doomed civilized advancement. Roosevelt, on the other hand, championed a return to the more "savage" behavior of the frontiersman in his "strenuous life" speeches and writings.Overall, Manliness and Civilization is an interesting, thought-provoking study. It has me wondering how Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis on the end of the American frontier and the Gold/Silver (was one considered more "manly"?) debates of the time ties into this topic