This article examines the variety of men's responses to feminism in late nineteenthand early twentieth-century United States through texts that addressed the claims raised by the turn-of-the-century women's movements. Antifeminist texts relied on traditional arguments, as well as Social Darwinist and natural law notions, to reassert the patriarchal family and to oppose women's suffrage and participation in the public sphere. Masculinist texts sought to combat the purported feminization of American manhood by proposing islands of masculinity, untainted by feminizing forces; proscribed (...) homosociality was also cast as an effective antidote to homosexuality. Profeminist texts openly embraced women's claims for changes in public participation and private and family life, both out of a sense of justice and the conviction that such changes would benefit men and challenge the emerging industrial capitalist order. Parallels to contemporary men's responses to the women's movement are suggested. (shrink)

Orthodox academic Marxism used to make revolutions sound something like boxing matches: two fully mobilized classes, locked in irreconcilable conflict, enter the ring and slug it out. To the winner went the crown (almost literally) — class control of the state. Happily, recent studies of revolution have exposed this tired formula as theoretically simplistic and historically inaccurate. The impressive theoretical model-building by some historical sociologists has made it impossible to focus only on class struggle when explaining revolutions. New elements — (...) the position of the state in an international arena of geopolitical competition, the mobilization of classes towards an international labor market, the complex relationships among classes and the state — have added to the structural equation. (shrink)