Talk:Masculinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Masculinity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 24, 2004. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Past Issues with Article:

  • NPOV: 11dec2005-06jan2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Masculinity Presented Undebatedly as Negative Social Construct

This article has developed a serious pov problem. Masculinity and masculine behaviors are presented as completely learned and unrelated to biology or genetics as through this is a consensus. I found no mention of the idea that male agression or risk-taking behavior has any basis in biological factors. This needs to be corrected.

Additionally, masculine behaviors are presented in an excessively negative light. I think the person who wrote these parts obviously felt that masculine behaviors are a negative social construct that should be abolished, which is one viewpoint worth discussion, but not without mentioning the many others. See the link to On Aggression at the end of this article, which contains a reference to a book which directly contradicts the statement "Men are prone to non-pathological violence. There is no good evidence proving that this violence comes from biological factors".

Fix this article. Please. It should not be 95% authored by a self-described tomboy who's idea of masculinity is based on observations of Greek traditionalists. (not that there is anything wrong with such a demographic, but you can see that this is a very incomplete and one-sided body of experience from which to draw information about the nature of masculinity.) Bagel 10:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I do agree with you that some of the biological reasoning should be inserted to make the argument more balanced, I don’t think that you have an overly strong point; Masculinity is in itself a social construction. Arguing that males are aggressive because nature dictates it is extremely old. It’s moving right into the weaknesses of evolutional biology/psychology. I’ve also to come across an informative piece of pear reviewed research that doesn’t have red warning lights flashing all over the researcher’s personal bias. By all means present both sides. (I won’t be because naturally I have an interest in one side more than another)
The article doesn’t have to be a set size, So I’m requesting a merge to bring back over 90% of information that was removed due to; “Presenting masculinity as something negative”
80.42.92.122 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Masculinity as such IS a social role and learned behaviour. Little children don't differentiate in early childhood what are girl things and boy things. It all comes down to the upbringing. Compare USA with Europe for instance. In Europe is far higher percentage of men doing feminine things such as working in childcare or in personal care (hairdressers, beauty parlors, etc).
Forced masculinity often limits person's personal development just because he is unable to follow the calling of his heart and is forced to follow the social role he's playing.
That's why i agree that emphasized masculinity as such is a negative aspect of society.
Robert 23:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, ancient biology and medicine generally used a "one-sex model", believing males and females were essentially the same, and was the consensus until the early 17th century. My personal belief is that nothing is purely biological or learned, i.e. that the genders are different biologically, but that difference is greatly exaggerated by social input. I do think the article is non-neutral, because it doesn't acknowledge any biological source of masculinity whatsoever.
Metostopholes 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look over this and assert that the NPOV concerns are over-rated. If someone else cares to renew the NPOV tag and have a discussion, that would be great, but please plan to stick around to resolve things if you do. Thanks! - Rorybowman 02:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the criticism that this article echoes uncritically the point of view that masculinity is a negative trait. I came to his article looking for starting points for research into critical thought on this topic from all angles, and was sorely disappointed. Clearly though I'm not sufficiently informed to whack an NPOV tag and defend that action adequately ... My own POV, yet to be shaped by the kind of notable critical thought that ought to be the foundation of this article, but isn't, is that some aspects of gender, and hence of masculinity, are instinctual. Anecdotal accounts abound of little boys and girls engaging in stereotypical male or female activities, despite the parents making an effort not to push any such stereotypes upon the children, and this at an age before they are socialised or even able to comprehent their own gender identity (2 or younger). I'm sure I recall this kind of anecdotal folk wisdom being backed up in recent years by psychological experiment and/or "feminist" theory but as I said I'm at the very beginning of a literature search.... ---Russell E 12:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"Masculinity as such IS a social role and learned behavior. Little children don't differentiate in early childhood what are girl things and boy things." --- Little boys and little girls haven’t gone through puberty. physical differences will lend themselves to the creation of social constructs. true, this lending can be augmented or sublimated but generally they are there. Mentioning Europe as having a far higher percentage of men doing feminine things such as working in childcare or in personal care (hairdressers, beauty parlors, etc), doesn't mean that these men are no longer asked to do masculine things due to physical difference. Just as women perform feminine tasks (like oh I don’t know giving birth, breast feeding) due to physical difference the men you mention are still asked to do masculine things based on physical difference. Social constructs are based on physical difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.188.180 (talk • contribs) 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to On Aggression. While an interesting read, this book has been discredited as a work of science. In other words, Lorenz may have been great with mentoring geese, but what he had to say about men and aggression was basically wrong. It is reflection of his own personal views and unsupported by science. Eperotao 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be bold

Although there was no consensus to merge, you should (as is always the case with articles you think should be merged) feel free to be bold and merge. Or not. This is a decision for editors to take. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge

I disagree that this should be merged. It's the equivalent of merging Aristocracy into Marxism because you think that class is an intellectual construct. To merge it would be to subscribe to the POV notion that gender is a learned attribute and is merely theoretical/intellectual definition. It also needs to link Femininity. MPS 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added NPOV warning and Request for Expert

This article is extremely one-sided as of January 13, 2006. It is missing, at the very least:

  • a history of masculinity
  • cultural differences
  • depictions in fiction

75% of the current article is simply a list of bad side-effects of North American views of masculinity: drinking, greater risk taking, etc. --205.250.250.154 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Some of the more multi-cultural aspects of this are addressed in machismo but adding much on Asian or Muslim masculinity is difficult, because there is relatively little serious literature on the subject. For better or worse, NPOV academic analysis of gender seems to pretty much exist only in modern, European societies. If you're serious about contributing, I'd suggest registering so you can be an ongoing part of the discussion. Rorybowman 14:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the history of masculinity? Is it the history of the term? Is it the history of the current concept? How would cultural differences be discussed? Would one locate a term which approximates "masculinity" in another language and then compare the meanings of the terms? Or would one discuss the presence or absence of the components of the concept of masculinity in different cultures? How would one determine whether a fictional depiction is of masculinity or just a component which some might assert is not masculinity, such as risk taking? Hyacinth 10:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that flags such as "expert" and "NPOV" are frequently thrown up as semi-ignorant vandalism and will take these two down at the end of the calendar month unless one of these flaggers can come with some issues. - Rorybowman 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is unbelievably silly. I'm removing the NPOV thing. There is no rational reason for it and this person obviously has no intent to contribute further here.--Deglr6328 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The new Maddox book should be refered here at least at a humorous attempt at mocking the idea of masculinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.114.23 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] am i the only one who finds the picture out of place?

it strikes me as a very effeminate picture, almost as if these two were lovers. to be honest, it really does not bring to mind masculinity, and the caption does not help. a replacement would be appreciated. Joeyramoney 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Joey, you call yourself "liberal" on your own page, but the views you have expressed here sound rather reactionary. Fulcher 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely the point. Your projection of effeminacy is not inherent to the picture, the men in the photograph were simply following the mores of the times, in which physical affection between friends was an integral part of masculine behavior. It throws and interesting light on our times, does it not? Haiduc 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
i'm not being homophobic or anything, but the picture does not seem to represent the common conception of masculinity. (edit- nevermind, it's gone anyway)Joeyramoney 19:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia has nothing with it (I hope). But masculinity has been different things for different people at different times. If this article was titled "Masculinity in the US in 2006" I would agree with you. As for personal point of view, you think this picture represents un-masculine behavior with an air of homosexuality to it. I see nothing sexual in it at all, and it strikes me as far more masculine than the fearful alienation that passes for comradery these days. At any rate, both our opinions are irrelevant, the picture depicts masculine behavior as it was construed in the 1800s in North America, and it would be good to have a greater variety of pictures rfrom other cultures too. Haiduc 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

perhaps i should clarify- the image seems representative of a certain culture of a certain time, while something else (the ideals of strength, bravery, etc) would be representative of masculinity in almost all cultures. Joeyramoney 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You're not the only one - it appears to be deliberately contradictory to the ideas of masculanity as outlined. While the subtext is actually true, the photo is misleading and unnecessary to use two males behaving in what would generally and modernly (if you're honest) be considered an effeminate photo in such a 'representative' location within the article. Daz902 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major problems

This article only considers the existence of one form of masculinity. However, within a single society various forms of masculinity exist. Gender scholars use the term "hegemonic masculinity" to represent the dominant form of masculinity in a society, but others exist. For instance, a geeky scientist would represent a form of masculinity, as would the stereotypical notion of a gay man, or the stereotypical notion of a Black man. Likewise what is considered hegemonic masculinity in a culture varies. In Japan, for instance, a strong aspect of masculinity is working "120%" of the time, where it's not about "bulking up" or other things associated with masculinity in the United States today. This article seems to largely define masculinity as the American conception of hegemonic masculinity. That makes the article hopelessly problematic and probably in need of a complete rewrite. Most of the content as it is would be better placed at hegemonic masculinity in the United States. Sarge Baldy 08:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been reading this article and it fails to address much outside of American culture in many circumstances. For example, look at the section of alcohol - it does absolutely nothing but address American culture. I think this should be rewritten by somebody with a more worldwide view. Burbster 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - even as a Westerner myself, the arrogance of assuming masculanity can be completely be defined in a western context is staggering. The fact that it's all negatively influenced (a product of modern education, sadly) is also distressing. Daz902 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] material from "effeminacy" regarding masculinity

This might be more useful in this article. It was originally cited in effeminacy but does not particularly pertain to that topic. --Marysunshine 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity:

  1. Physical--virile, athletic, strong, brave. Sloppy, worry less about appearance and aging;
  2. Functional--breadwinner, provider;
  3. Sexual--sexually aggressive, experienced. Single status acceptable; male "caught" by spouse;
  4. Emotional--unemotional, stoic, don't cry;
  5. Intellectual--logical, intellectual, rational, objective, scientific, practical, mechanical, public awareness, activity, contributes to society; dogmatic;
  6. Interpersonal--leader, dominating; disciplinarian; independent, free, individualistic; demanding; and
  7. Other Personal Characteristics--aggressive, success-orientated, ambitious; proud, egotistical, ambitious; moral, trustworthy; decisive, competitive, uninhibited, adventurous.
(Levine, 1998, p.13)

Social scientists Deborah David and Robert Brannon (1976) give the following four rules for establishing masculinity:

  1. No Sissy Stuff: anything that even remotely hints of femininity is prohibited. A real man must avoid any behavior or characteristic associated with women;
  2. Be a Big Wheel: masculinity is measured by success, power, and the admiration of others. One must possess wealth, fame, and status to be considered manly;
  3. Be a Sturdy Oak: manliness requires rationality, toughness, and self-reliance. A man must remain calm in any situation, show no emotion, and admit no weakness;
  4. Give 'em Hell: men must exude an aura of daring and aggression, and must be willing to take risks, to "go for it" even when reason and fear suggest otherwise.
(Levine, 1998, p.145)
  • Levine, Martin P. (1998). Gay Macho. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 0814746942.
Both lists above are now in the this article. Hyacinth 02:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, this was copied into the article twice. I removed the copy that had been entered into the "references" section. Mbakaitis 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Others' health risks

Despite #Masculinity Presented Undebatedly as Negative Social Construct and related complaints above my problem with the presentation in this article is that masculinity is only depicted as negative when it adversley affects masculine men. The huge section Men's health risks covers these drawbacks sympathetically, yet there is no mention of the risks to women and men who aren't masculine, such as the encouragement of rape and gay bashing. Hyacinth 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Or how about the positive aspects of masculanity such as individual pride, self-confidence, competition, positive cultural influence (sport, Olympics etc.) All of these are arguably socially rooted in masculanity. Daz902 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What does that have to do with health risks? Hyacinth 09:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I've removed much of it. Daz902 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing 'Health Risk' Section

The idea that 'masculanity is unhealthy' is biased and as ridiculous as saying there are 'health risks' to 'eating' or 'driving a car'. You could draw statistical information to show that that absolutely any cultural meme was in some way linked to a health risk. The section is very obviously silly and smells of agenda and should be removed as it detracts from the otherwise increasingly credible definition of masculanity. Much of the 'negativity' people are complaining about within this article also stems from that section. More importantly that entire section was so incredibly biased you could tell the character of the woman who last edited it (and she was clearly a woman). There were a lot of unusual and unecessary comparisons such as 'men don't do this as well as women do'. Daz902 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop talking about the editor and start talking about their edits. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on the content, not the contributor." Hyacinth 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
My intent was to comment on the subjectivity and how clear the bias was, not to attack the contributor. But your point is taken. Daz902 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the risk section contains too much back and forth about what is biological and what isn't without any citations. I can see different editors trying to undermine each other. Instead of trying to say what causes the increased death rate in males--which is very real--I think the article should just report the facts (ma'am). Males are born in disproportionate numbers compared to females, although the sex ration varies by country. I THINK it's about 105 boy babies to 100 girl babies in this country. The death rate in males is higher from birth onward, so that the sex ratio is about 100 to 100 by the early 20s. Men continue to die disproportionately in every age category. Anyway, there is a huge literature on this sort of thing and a lot at the department of transportation website on accident rates as a function of sex. But explaining why it happens isn't that easy because it's most likely a combination of biology and socializing and nobody is going to be able to put a number on how much of each it is. I'm sorry I can't contribute to this article. But I'm hoping my comments will be of some help. It's obviously experienced a lot of love and care. (Much more than its companion article, on femininity.) Eperotao 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I came back this morning and added references from the Dept of Transportation's website. I also deleted a sentence and reference about men drivers driving more miles than women drivers. The cited reference poorly supported the editor's implication that miles driven explains the differential fatal accident rate in men and women, and the DOT data show that even when miles driven are taken into account, men drivers are substantially more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than women. Eperotao 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cowboy

Brokeback Mountain did not radically and instantly change the image of cowboys in the mind of every person on the globe or in North America. That image is notable because it goes against the dominant image, not because it irreversibly changed that image. Hyacinth 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it may not be 'irreversibly' changed (certainly it can just as easily be reinforced), it's undeniable that the release of Brokeback Mountain had an impact in those countries in which it was widely distributed (especially when it hit video). More importantly, that it significantly modified the image of the Cowboy as a symbol of masculinity. Daz902 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this article is as anti-male as it gets

having a penis is not a crime... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Across other cultures...

For one thing I'm aware that masculinity has a lot of different standards and pressures across racial and cultural lines. I think a vast amount of the information here on masculinity applies mainly to Western white male culture and people who have taken that culture up. Many other cultures do not (or historically did not) have strong pressures to remain in a masculine role, and many of the roles are completely different. This whole thing really needs to be more broad-based. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queerwiki (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC) Whoopsie, indeed forgot to sign. Sorry! Queerwiki 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

I propose that the disambiguation page masculine be re-established after the same mold as feminine. This used to be the case but was abolished in June 2005. The reason being that masculine has much more deeper meanings, both denotations and connotations, than masculinity (the latter compromised by cultural connotations). In the current scheme masculine unnecessarily gets caught up in the masculinity bias controveries. __meco 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 mechanisms of stress

Article currently contains the following:

In 1987, Eisler and Skidmore did studies on masculinity and created the idea of 'masculine stress'. They found five mechanisms of masculinity that accompany masculine gender role often result in emotional stress. They include:
a) the emphasis on prevailing in situations requiring fitness and strength
b) being perceived as emotional and thereby feminine
c) the need to feel conquering in regard to sexual matters and work
d) the need to repress tender emotions such as showing emotions restricted according to traditional masculine customs

That's four. Where's the fifth? --Black Butterfly 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why mention Durkheim?

The following text appears at the start of the Sociology section:

"Since Emile Durkheim, masculinity has been an interest of sociologists. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity in Western Culture..."

These sentences might be confusing to those who are unfamiliar either with Durkheim or with masculinities studies. When read together, they suggest Durkheim was still alive & publishing circa 1974. More importantly, referring to him here implies that Durkheim had something groundbreaking to say in this area. To my knowledge, none of his frequently cited works (Division of Labor, Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide, and Elementary Forms of Religious Life) deal exclusively with gender, much less with the specific issue of masculinity. I put a citation request inviting those who see Durkheim as a seminal thinker in the sociological study of masculinities to make their case. M. Frederick 09:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Suicide (book) posited a strong correlation between male social roles and suicide. Rorybowman 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; your edit makes a big difference. So is it your position that Suicide spurred sociological interest in masculinities? M. Frederick 05:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose to remove Stoicism and Emotional Repression section

The article begins to sound redundant here. Prior to this section, stoicism and emotional repression have been alluded to in three different citations (Chafetz, 1974; David & Brannon, 1976; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987).

Also, I found the last sentence problematic:

"Women and other men do not give men an option to express feeling sad, tired, weak, depressed, inadequate, needy, or lonely without sacrificing their masculinity."

It almost sounds like we're blaming women (i.e., that as men, we beg & plead for the option to express our vulnerability, but that the women in our lives insist we remain emotionless). Most of the sociological studies I'm aware of suggest that an overall social climate--rather than individuals--compels men to withhold our emotions. M. Frederick 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with removing this paragraph. I believe it was added when the other sections were not as developed, and is largely redundant now. Rorybowman 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I removed it as no one seems to be particularly against my doing so. M. Frederick 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoicism and emotional repression

I heard something about a statistic stating that while usually women speak 7000 words a day, males speak 2000. I also heard women get a fix, so to speak, by talking, similar to that of taking opium. Perhaps just because a male may not express emotion when a woman does doesn't signify emotional repression? lol; I just relized the irony of the male-female ratio of singers. Faustus Tacitus 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMasculinity_8e72.html"