Validating Bachelorhood
Proposal review
dc.contributor.author | Slawinski, Scott | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-11-21 16:21:44 | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-04-01T09:37:49Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-04-01T09:37:49Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | |
dc.identifier | 1006075 | |
dc.identifier | OCN: 1135855672 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/24057 | |
dc.description.abstract | This book explores images of single and married men in C.B. Brown's Monthly Magazine and concludes that Brown used his periodical as a vehicle for validating bachelorhood as a viable alternative form of masculinity. | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Studies in American Popular History and Culture | |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::N History and Archaeology::NH History | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::N History and Archaeology::NH History::NHK History of the Americas | en_US |
dc.subject.other | edgar | |
dc.subject.other | huntly | |
dc.subject.other | monthly | |
dc.subject.other | magazine | |
dc.subject.other | charles | |
dc.subject.other | brockden | |
dc.subject.other | brown | |
dc.subject.other | brown's | |
dc.subject.other | periodical | |
dc.subject.other | early | |
dc.title | Validating Bachelorhood | |
dc.type | book | |
oapen.identifier.doi | 10.4324/9780203958360 | |
oapen.relation.isPublishedBy | 7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bb | |
oapen.relation.isbn | 9780415971782;9780415654746;9781135467449;9781135467517;9781135467586 | |
oapen.identifier.ocn | 1135855672 | |
peerreview.anonymity | Single-anonymised | |
peerreview.id | bc80075c-96cc-4740-a9f3-a234bc2598f1 | |
peerreview.open.review | No | |
peerreview.publish.responsibility | Publisher | |
peerreview.review.stage | Pre-publication | |
peerreview.review.type | Proposal | |
peerreview.reviewer.type | Internal editor | |
peerreview.reviewer.type | External peer reviewer | |
peerreview.title | Proposal review | |
oapen.review.comments | Taylor & Francis open access titles are reviewed as a minimum at proposal stage by at least two external peer reviewers and an internal editor (additional reviews may be sought and additional content reviewed as required). |