Talk:Masculine psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Masculine psychology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Page creation

Just to make sure other editors know lest this page be slated for copyright infringement: I have incorporated aspects of my reviews on Amazon.com into this page.

Hopefully, others will add to this page as I want to learn more about this topic. -- Andrew Parodi 18:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Males are not born of their own identity

Moved from article - this is not encyclopedic as it stands. Needs a fair bit of work. Paul foord 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Some psychologists and anthropologists argue that the masculine identity is more fragile than the feminine identity because males are not born of their own identity. Females are born from the female body. Thus females are born of their own identity. Males are born of the female body, and thus are born of an identity foreign to their own. Some argue that early on this establishes a struggle and challenge for the male identity.
Some scholars have noted that women are born, but men are "made." In other words, males often feel that their identity as males is not something that is guaranteed but is something that must be earned. Some argue that males feel that they run the risk of losing that status at any given moment. Thus, the male identity, according to some, is more fragile than the female identity.
Thanks for the various edits, you've improved the page.
However, I disagree with your removal of that section. Since you referred to this section as "BS" in your edit summary, I take it that you don't agree with it. Then on this talk page you say that it is "not encyclopedic." By what standard is it not encyclopedic? The standard being that you don't agree with it? Your agreement with a section does not qualify whether the section is encyclopedic or not.
If you think the section requires work, then please work on it. But removing the whole section simply because you find it to be "bs" is not really acceptable.
I have replaced this section and added some references to clarify who makes these statements. Both Corneau and Monick make these statements. Further, any doctor, heck, even any layman, would agree that women give birth to males, but men do not give birth to males. (I'm sure you're aware that men don't give birth, period.) What part of that statement don't you agree with? What part of that statement is not encyclopedic? Women do indeed give birth to males, and some psychologists and anthropologists have claimed that this results in a weaker sense of gender identity among males. Disagree with their perpsectives all you want, but science is science, and their opinions are their opinions. And since they write about masculine psychology, and incorporate scientific fact into their writings, their opinions belong on this page and are indeed "encyclopedic."
-- Andrew Parodi 04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please think about paraphrasing it. Paul foord 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Being that you are the one who believes it requires paraphrasing, perhaps you could be the one to paraphrase it. :) -- Andrew Parodi 08:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of new section

I just wanted to mention that I have created a new section called "Masculine psychology's influence on the Abrahamic religions". Obviously, this is not a fully developed section, and I anticipate that it will draw some objections because it is about a somewhat controversial topic. To anyone who plans on editing this section, please keep in mind that it is merely the beginning of a section and not yet fully developed. And anyone has issue with its current appearance, please edit it rather than deleting it completely.

Additionally, I have cleaned up the section referred to as "Men are not born of their own identity" and so I am removing that "clean-up" label. I am going to put up a different label, however; one that requests that someone else develop it if they have anything to add to it. Also, I won't have any objections if anyone changes the title of that section or if they integrate it into another section entirely. But please don't remove the topic from the page. I think this is a relatively important issue with regard to masculine psychology. -- Andrew Parodi 07:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for expansion

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since March 2006.

As I stated in my original message on this talk page, I began this article not because I have an agenda or point of view to impress upon others, but because I am interested in learning more about this relatively hard-to-find subject (that is, it seems relatively hard to find books or articles on this topic).

I have recently created a category that refers to the depiction of God as a father in the Abrahamic religions. I was hoping that someone could contribute more to that section, as the section is merely a stub at this point. Also, I'd like to see the section about men born of a different biological gender be expanded as well. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 13:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding new categories

Just a note to mention that I'm adding new categories. Last night, I added a section about homophobia among males. It is my observation, and the observation of many other people, that males are far more homophobic than females. I think this is worthy of discussion on this article.

I am also about to add a section called "Historical perspectives" and "Sports". In the historical perspectives section I plan to quote from what I was once told by a man who had a degree in art. He told me that the during the Renaissance, the prevailing belief was that the study of the male body was itself a study of God. He also told me that, odd as I know this sounds, at this same period the Romans were not sure if women had souls or not. I intend to include this in the section called "Historical perspectives." In the section about sports, I plan to include observations made by many people.

A request: I am aware that we are venturing into controversial and/or speculative territory here. If at all possible, please do not jump all over me. I am not saying I agree with what I am about to include. My goal here is to merely get the ball rolling on a topic that I think needs to be addressed, and I think that discussing it here will be beneficial. If you don't agree with what I mention on this page, please discuss it here, or edit it; please "assume good faith" and don't simply degrade what I include and then delete it wholesale. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warning?

I just viewed this page and had not seen Brokeback mountain, however the conclusion is referred to herein(in the homophobia segment), I would recommend editing of said section to save others experiencing spoilers.

Hmm. Interesting point. That hadn't occurred to me. Maybe I'll figure out how to word it differently. I suppose I had assumed that most people know how that movie ends. Andrew Parodi 02:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia section

A few days ago, I added a couple of "Citation needed" tags to the Homophobia in hopes of getting better sources, but some of the sources that have since been linked are not relevant. The issues are in these lines: "Issues of homophobia and gay bashing are of relevance to the study of masculine psychology. Every year, men, such as Matthew Shepard, die as a result of gay bashing [4]. The victims of gay bashing attacks are most often homosexual males [5], and heterosexual males are usually the perpetrators of gay bashing attacks [6]."

Note 4 merely links to the article on "Gay bashing" (which is already linked to in the phrase) which does not do anything to say that gay bashing is why he died. (Please note that I am not disputing why he died. I'm disputing the citation of sources.)

The other issue is that notes 5 and 6 both link to the same place, which does clearly support the statement that the victims are usually homosexual males. But the second clause, asserting that "heterosexual males are usually the perpetrators of gay bashing attacks," has no basis here, as this side of the issue isn't even mentioned in the cited source. I'm hoping that either better sources can be found, or that we can take out unverifiable statements. I don't personally know enough about this topic to fix it myself. Brbigam 06:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that Matthew Shepard died as a result of gay bashing. For citation, click on to the link to the article about Matthew Shepard. Citation 5 links to the article about gay bashing, which contains the statistic: ""61% of these attacks were against gay men, 14% against lesbians, 2% against heterosexuals and 1% against bisexuals, while attacks against GLB people at large made up 20%." So, the statement that gay males are usually the victims of gay bashing attacks is supported.
The assertion that heterosexual males are the perpetrators of gay bashing attacks is, well, fact and common knowledge. If you don't like the source I have provided, I can find you another.
The reason it is of relevance to juxtapose these two things -- that gay men are usually the victims of gay bashing attacks, that heterosexual males are usually the perpetrators of gay bashing attacks -- is because it underscores the whole point of that section: that issues of homosexuality are of a more controversial nature for men than they are for women.
Why? Why is it that males are usually far more preoccupied with homosexuality than women are? Why is it that men are usually more concerned with others percieving them as "gay" than women are? This is a question of great importance with regard to masculine psychology, which is why the section belongs on the page.
Take the two "famous" references made in this section:
Both consist of a gay man being killed by straight men. In books I've read about masculine psychology, various authors have said that it is ironic that though Freud suggested that everyone is bisexual, homophobia has remained in men. Another author said that it is surprising that though Kinsey has published works about around 30% of men having male-male sexual relations at some point, homophobia has not gone away. One author said that, in fact, homophobia increased as a result of Freud's work. The author suggested that this was because bringing these things to light scared a lot of people.
It's common knowledge that society is more afraid of and intolerant of gay men than of lesbians. Please don't ask me for a source on that statement, okay? Only people who have been living under a rock do not know this stuff. The only point I'm trying to make in that section is a correlation between the "inner" struggles of man being manifested in the "outer" form of gay bashing. Another thing that just about everyone knows: most men who are gay bashers are actually concerned that others may perceive them as gay. Why would a man be driven to violence solely because someone may think he is gay? That is an issue of great importance with regared to masculine psychology.
The section in question is but a stub at the moment. If we take our time with it and let it grow it will turn into something interesting. If we nip it in the bud right now, we are going to lose what will become an interesting and educational section. Andrew Parodi 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your clear response. I agree with the importance of this section. I also accept your argument for the cause of Shephard's death, although the exact citation was a little unclear to me. I agreed with citation 5 anyway. I think if you could find a clearer source for the assertion about heterosexuals being the perpetrators, that alone would strengthen this section considerably. I'm not trying to get this section removed, believe me. But anytime the topic of homosexuality comes up it tends to, for better or worse, be controversial to many people. Therefore the clearer the citation is, the more useful and defensible an article can be. Brbigam 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I understand. That section on homophobia is probably the most controversial aspect of this article, which, in itself, only demonstrates what I mention above.

I wish I could find a more succinct citation for that section. But the thing is, the word by definition establishes that it is perpetrated by heterosexuals. The very term "gay bashing" is contingent upon the understanding that it is a non-gay person who is doing the "bashing." When a gay person attacks another gay person, it is not considered "gay bashing". And all statistics show that males are the ones who most commonly commit violent crimes.

So, we have here a violent crime committed against a gay person based solely on the fact that the gay person is gay. Implicit in this is the understanding that the person committing the crime is not gay. Implicit in the fact that it is a violent crime is the fact that the one who commits it is most likely going to be a male. So, you have a non-gay male committing a hate crime against gay men. That's just another way of saying, "Straight men are the most common perpetrators of gay bashing." And for the statistic saying that gay men are the most common victims of gay bashing, we have that citation. -- Andrew Parodi 03:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your your clear explanation. It makes sense. Maybe you could at least link to one of the stats showing that violent crimes are usually by males, even if you can't find the "heterosexual" part. Of course, it's also the case that statistically, most men are heterosexual anyway... so citing it being mainly male perpetrators ought to be adequate.
I'll be honest, I was a little nervous posting here, as I'm relatively new at being an active Wikipedian, and wasn't sure what to expect from commenting on a "controversial" subject like this. But you've been more than cordial. Thanks. Brbigam 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm used to aspects of this article being contested. I'm the one who started this article, and shortly after I started it, an editor said it wasn't even a "encyclopedic" topic. But as it turned out, that particular editor ended up being very helpful and contributing good information. In fact, he wrote the entire opening paragraph, which is far better written than what I could've come up with.

I am looking for a link saying that most violent crime is committed by men. That in itself is an issue with important with regard to masculine psychology. At the moment, I'm not having much luck. I did, however, link to the article about violence, which describes one particular psychologist's view that violent behavior is often caused by repressed sexuality -- which dovetails perfectly with what I already mentioned above: that most straight men who attack gay men are afraid of their own homosexual potential (most likely the attack itself is a form of "repression").

The reason I think it is important to mention that it is self-identified straight men who do most of the gay bashing is because I think this illustrates an issue important to masculine psychology. I think this is all a very important issue, which may lead to other interesting developments on the page. -- Andrew Parodi 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! I'm happy now. Brbigam 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why not link this to feminism?

after all, "born of the female body" is the first thing I saw on the article. Why not just move everything male-related to the feminism article so it'll be politically correct to bash men there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) .

It's a feminist statement to say that men are born of the female body? I wasn't aware of that. Are there some men who give birth? Andrew Parodi 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the works of Eugene Monick featured on this page?

I honestly have no idea whether he's noteworthy or not, but as it stands, the article looks like a shill promoting his works. If his stuff is noteworthy, why not detail what he says, instead of writing something that is, in essence, a book review? If his stuff isn't noteworthy, I would be happy to delete the section myself. At the very least, it requires rephrasing... VorpalEdge 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I included references to his work because he works specifically with the topic of masculine psychology. Please feel free to rephrase the references if you like. Andrew Parodi 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have done so; it's commented in below this post. It could probably be improved - I have no idea where to move or how to reword the last sentence, or whether or not the image should be kept - but this ends most of the misgivings I had with previous versions of the article. As such, I figure I should post it here before splicing it into the article itself. VorpalEdge 08:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


If Eugene Monick is as notable as this article appears to indicate then there should be an article on him and his thought to allow this article to refer to it rather than give pre-eminence to it. Otherwise this article is over-reliant on him. Paul foord 08:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMasculine_psychology_f058.html"