Talk:Masculine psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Masculine psychology article.
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

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)

[edit] Edit war re: Freud and Kinsey

User:Sijo Ripa and User:Andrew Parodi, please stop your edit wars. It's not what Wikipedia is all about. Removing text just because you don't think it is appropriate is incorrect. Therefore, I have reverted the text, and added a request for a citation. If a valid citation can be shown to support the claim, then the text should remain. If not, after a reasonable period of time (days, maybe weeks), then it can be reviewed, discussed if needed with the Wikipedia community, and then (and only then) removed if there is a consensus to remove it. Also, please note that removing text is not a minor edit, see Wikipedia: Manual of style, so please correctly tag your edits as major when they are major. Truthanado 08:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I apogolize and I'm willing to wait some weeks. In general I think the sentence adds little and raises a lot of eyebrows. Note however that I tried to edit the disputed part of the text in order to address some concerns. This edit however was reverted. I emphasize this because it's for me not abouting removing, but about improving. The current sentence can be adjusted in such a way that all concerns are addressed. If the following issues are then addressed (by providing credible references or reformulating the text), I'm satisfied. I dispute that
  • their work is scientific rigid or is currently anything more than a minority view. It would be in my opinion a better idea to cite more thoroughly conducted research, which claim for instance that about 1% of females and about 2% of males is homosexual. If research is mentioned, this should at least be added as well, as this currently distorts the current academic consensus.
  • their work is, or should be (i.e. the use of "despite" in the text) related in any way to an increase or decrease in homophobia in Western societies.
  • the "heterosexual community" is homophobic. "Some heterosexuals" or "a part of the heterosexual community" is homophobic, not the heterosexual community in general. Also, it is quite possible and perhaps even frequent that latent homosexuals are openly homophobic because they want to hide or repress their homosexuality. In that case, it wouldn't be wise to speak of "heterosexual community", but merely of homophobia in general.
  • However, I don't dispute the fact that these authors were important founders of new disciplines or have had considerable influence.

My suggestion if a rewrite is considered: "While some notable academics in the past have proposed that homosexuality is more frequent than previously thought (see for instance Freud and McKinsey), homophobia still exists." What do you think? Sijo Ripa 11:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remain neutral in this. I really have no strong opinion, one way or the other. Currently, all we have is two opposite opinions. Let's give the Wikipedia community the opportunity to comment and see if a consensus forms. Truthanado 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether popular or not, these are the views of two of the most important men in the history of psychology and study of sexuality. While some may dispute the accuracy of what Freud and Kinsey have said, most agree that this is indeed what they said. In an attempt to avoid being accused of using "weasil words" (e.g., "some psychologists...."), I aimed to be as specific as possible in that sentence and say, "This is what Freud said...." and "This is what Kinsey said...." Just because some don't agree with what they said doesn't mean we shouldn't mention what they said. Maybe, rather than deleting what they have said or rewriting the section completely, we could add a comment about their views being constested, and then mention which notable people contested their views. Andrew Parodi 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's quite unnecessary, because Freud and Kinsey are mentioned in the article because a causal relation between their research and the level of homophobia is claimed (or that such relation should exist). If you add other views, this concern will not be addressed and an addition - which already doesn't add little or nothing to the article of masculine psychology - will just become bigger and bigger. The problem is that an argumentum ad populum is used: people are or should be less homophobic, because they "know" now that most or at least many people are homosexual or bisexual. (1) I doubt that any research has ever shown a causation or correlation between these two. While I hope that research could lower the levels of any hate, I don't think they have much influence. If such a causation is suspected, it should be referenced. (2) The starting point (most/many people are homo/bisexual is inaccurate as most modern surveys show only 1-4% are; this in other words more than just a difference in "accuracy", see: Demographics of sexual orientation).
  • What do you think of this sentence: "While academics, such as Freud and Kinsey, have in the past suggested that homosexuality is more frequent than previously thought (this view is not supported by modern research: see Demographics of sexual orientation), homophobia still exists."
  • This sentence doesn't claim a causation or correlation, or at least not as strongly as the current sentence, mentions a difference in opinions in the academic community and doesn't say that the heterosexual community is in general homophobic. Sijo Ripa 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As a passer by I'm not entirely sure which line is in question. If it is: "Despite the works of Alfred Kinsey, which revealed that as many as 37% of the male population have engaged in homosexual sexual activity [9], and despite the published theories of Sigmund Freud, presenting his thesis that everyone is at some level bisexual [10], homophobia among the heterosexual male community has remained" then it needs to be reworded. Currently that line violates WP:SYNT - two facts are being joined-up to make a point and this act is a type of original research. There are other ways of adding this information - the problem is the editorializing of it with the clause "homophobia among the heterosexual male community has remained" and the use of the word "despite"--Cailil 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for an excellent point. I have noticed that several citations have been added to document the statements of Kinsey and Freud, which is a good addition to the article. However there is still no citation that supports the stated conclusion that homophobia among the heterosexual male community has remained. For that reason, I have restored the citation requested tag. I suspect that such a citation would end this complete discussion and welcome anyone to provide it. Truthanado 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(April 22 addition) Is it really necessary that a citation be made for the existence of homophobia? Doesn't everyone know that it exists? And the word "homophobia" by default indicates that it is heterosexuals who experience it. Therefore, the statement that homophobia continues within the straight male community is correct. If you would like a citation on that, I think it would be pretty easy to find. I didn't provide a citation because I thought it sort of went without saying. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I never disputed the research, so the references to the research do not solve my concerns. I still don't see why my proposed sentence, isn't accepted. I think it is a neutral and balanced sentence: "While academics, such as Freud[1] and Kinsey[2], have in the past suggested that homosexuality is much more frequent than previously thought (this view is not supported by modern research: see the demographics of sexual orientation), homophobia still exists." If you agree, I'll replace the current sentence by this one. Sijo Ripa 10:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify the problem is the link being made between the research into homosexuality and the statement about homophbia being prevalent. The information about Freud and Kinsey is fine. Its the essay style that's the problem. I would advise the sentence be rewitten as 2 sentences. BTW is there a source on the prevalence of homophobia today? I found a site that references reliable sources (I know the site is unrealiable but its refs are good)[1]. I hope this is of some help--Cailil 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The authors are also problematic, if they are not put into context. Their research results are highly contested and do not reflect modern research... And even if they weren't contested, Wikipedia is not the place to emphasize some research above others. Just referencing them isn't enough. I really don't see what the problem with my proposed sentence is. Please explain. if not, I will put the sentence in the text. Sijo Ripa 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not addressing this directly earlier Sijo Ripa, the problems I see in your suggestion are the same problems in the current sentence. Unless there is a source for the link between Freud & Kinsey's research and the continued existence of homophobia, its still original research and WP:SYNT. I do understand the point your making - but the problem is that it's not attributed. If I'm being unclear have a look at policies I'm referring to. Just looking over the secton again I'm not sure this sentence adds anything to this section. Perhaps you should ask "what does this info add to this section?" "Could it be put to better use in another one?".--Cailil talk 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Cailil. When I removed the sentence, an edit war started. I removed it because I didn't think it added anything but unattributed claims and POV. I ended up here, addressing my concerns with thus section: your concern is one of my three concerns (see above). The whole sentence is a mess, and I would like to remove it again, but I can't as long as a consensus isn't found. Sijo Ripa 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand Sijo Ripa - I've been in similar situations. As an outsider I would say the whole Homophobia section needs rewritting, although it is truthful it needs to be properly sourced. However, as far as I can see the sentence linking levels of homophobia to homosexuality research violates nearly all of WP:ATT. I would support its removal. But I would advise you to wait for a few days (weeks might be too long - see Jimbo's advice on unsourced statements) for further comments, before deleting it again.--Cailil talk 00:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I hope it is noted by others that the "edit war" began with regard to Sijo Ripa removing the reference to Freud and Kinsey based on his belief that Freud and Kinsey are controversial. That in itself violates ATT. If all these other arguments had been brought forward in the original deletion I would not have reverted so readily. Andrew Parodi 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I've misunderstood you Andrew Parodi but Sijo Ripa did not remove "the reference to Freud and Kinsey" they deleted the whole sentence.[2] This is not a violation of WP:ATT (if someone just removes refs its just vandalism) - I think the edit summary Sijo Ripa wrote could have been worded a better. The summaries do claim this "controversy". In your responses Andrew, you were correct to say that Kinsey's views "were not worded as fact." And I agree with you that Freud and Kinsey's views are notable and reliably sourced - if other sources disagree with them, those sources should be noted objectively. With due note to your concerns Andrew, I would still point out that this sentence is original research and does need to be removed.
All in all both Sijo Ripa & Andrew Parodi were acting in good faith, you both were trying to improve the article. Might I suggest making use of this talk page (as Truthanado did) to reach a consensus when an editor feels something is contravertial--Cailil talk 18:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I do think we were all working in good faith. And, for what it's worth, it's not been my intention to force any of my beliefs on anyone with regard to this topic. I simply think this is an important topic for an article, and so I started the article and did what is suggested: "be bold". I added what I knew.
The sentence is not original research. It is in fact a paraphrasing of a specific sentence in the book "Absent Fathers, Lost Sons: The Search for Masculine Identity" (ISBN 0-87773-603-0) by French-Canadian psychologist Guy Corneau. Here is the complete sentence:
"It is depressing to realize that more than forty years after the publication of the Kinsey Report, attitudes toward homosexuality have remained so hostile, despite the fact (or could it be because of the fact) that, as Kinsey's research showed, 37 percent of the American male population has engaged in homosexual behavior to ejaculation after the age of puberty?" (Page 65)
The original text was in French, so as is often the case something was lost in the translation. The wording is not as smooth as it could be. So I paraphrased the idea. I didn't think any specific citation was necessary for the paraphrasing. I was relatively new to Wikipedia at the point when I started this article.
Thanks. Andrew Parodi 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done on finding and referencing that source Andrew (accordingly I have striken by request for its removal). Might I just suggest a slight reword.

Sigmund Freud, presented the thesis that everyone is at some level bisexual(ref) and Alfred Kinsey conducted research revealing that as many as 37% of America's the male population had engaged in homosexual activity(ref). The French-Canadian psychologist Guy Corneau says that despite this attitudes toward homosexuality have remained hostile.(ref)

This is only a suggestion and far from perfect but it might help to prevent it from looking like a synthesis. Well done again--Cailil talk 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And so the edit war continues....

Sijo Ripa continues to insert the argument that Kinsey's findings are either (1) controversial or (2) do not match up to recent research. I have no problem with inserting this information given that it is cited. But I am concerned with the fact that it is redundant. It is already implied in this section that Kinsey's research was controversial; this section says Kinsey's work inadvertently contributed to homophobia. Also, if Sijo Ripa wants to insert that new research contradicts Kinsey's research, it is most likely best to have this comment in a paragrah of its own. One of the worst things that happen on Wikipedia is that someone will write something, and then a sentence later someone will write a statement contradicting the previous sentence. It's just bad stylistically speaking to have a sentence read, "Kinsey said 30% did such-n-such. But this is controversial and recent research says otherwise...." It is bad stylistically because the entire previous paragraph rests on the statement about Kinsey. Why even provide the statement about Kinsey if it is to be refuted in the very next sentence? In other words, it's bad copy editing. It's bad writing.

If Sijo Ripa wants this to be inserted into the article, could he put it in its own paragraph? Maybe a subsection called "Criticism of Kinsey" or something? I think that this statement (that recent research contradicts Kinsey) is important enough to warrant more than just one small sentence that basically does nothing but up-end the whole point of the entire paragraph.

Thanks,

Andrew Parodi 07:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stating that a sentence lacks refs is not a reason to remove it. It is a reason to add a fact-sign, to ask contributors to find a source or to search one yourself. I gave reliable refs and I can give more. Just stating that the writing is bad in your opinion, should be a reason to improve the sentence not to completely remove it. I don't really understand the need for a radical move, such as a complete reversal. I don't think that the section needs to become bigger with a subsection about criticism on Kinsey. This is not an article about Kinsey (or Freud for that matter). One or two sentences of criticism will do. I will revert your reversal, as I was satisfied with the edits, but please feel free to rewrite the paragraph without altering the content or the references. Sijo Ripa 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, then maybe you could use your own observation and insert this reference that Kinsey's claims are controversial and contradicted by modern research into the Kinsey article.
The problem with your sentence is that it provides nothing to the article section. The section of the article is titled "Homophobia."
The reference to Kinsey is inserted as a means of extrapolating a discussion about the causes of homophobia.
A direct reference to a psychologist is made wherein the psychologists contrasts Kinsey's findings with the fact that homophobia remains in society.
The sentence you've added contributes absolutely nothing to any of these points. Your sentence is simply a sidetack from the main point and makes the whole section seem meaningless.
I have removed it yet again because it just serves no purpose. You have said that it is better to build upon a point than to remove it outright; well, then could you please build upon the point already made in this section? Your sentence actually removes meaning from the entire section.
Thanks. Andrew Parodi 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It bothers me that you give each time different reason to remove the sentence. Removing is seldom the best solution and should be done with utmost care. I gave you all the references for the sentence (I can give you many more on request). I didn't and don't oppose a rewrite of the sentence or the paragraph, and I thus have already addressed the question in your last paragraph (if you're not satisfied with the structure of the paragraph, just rewrite it, of course without losing any content). Then you proposed to have a whole subsection about criticism on Kinsey, and now you want to remove all criticism? Please do not use different arguments every time, it is extremely confusing for me to address your complaints - without doing the one thing I won't do: remove the content of the sentence. The sentence provides context so that the reader knows that the research of Kinsey is not supported by recent research. In other words, Kinsey's research is no longer presented as an irrefutable truth, just like it should in an encyclopedic article. In other words it adheres to the WP:NPOV policy. I don't really know why you are so opposed to the adding of one well-referenced sentence, a sentence which gives the reader a more complete view on the frequence of homosexuality (which in itself is relevant in an article about masculine psychology) and on Kinsey's research, research which is also used to support a claim. Providing some context for this research and the claim won't hurt anyone and will surely not remove any meaning. This gives me the impression that you want to push a certain POV. I hope that this is not the case and I hope that we can settle this in a different way than an edit war. Sijo Ripa 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I give a different reason each time because each time you insert that sentence another reason for it being inappropriate occurs to me.
The most recent, and most obvious, reason for its removal is that this sentence is rather off-topic and unrelated to the section.
I think you have misunderstood the very thesis of this section. This section is not an attempt to persuade others that what Kinsey says is true. This section's only aim is to discuss homophobia and its possible causes.
The reference to Kinsey is made only in an attempt to explain possible causes of homophobia. Corneau says that perhaps Kinsey's research ironically caused more homophobia. Corneau says that Kinsey's research may've caused more homophobia because Kinsey says that many more men than one would expect have engaged in homosexual behavior.
The point here is not to convince others that what Kinsey said is true, but merely to inform that that he said it.
The proper counter argument here would be something like, "Some psychologists, however, say that Kinsey did not actually say these things and therefore Kinsey cannot be held as a possible cause of modern day homophobia."
This section is not the proper place to discuss whether current research agrees with what Kinsey says. This section is a place to discuss the impact of what Kinsey said.
Imagine that we were discussing the controversy of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Imagine that I came to a sentence that said, "Some claim astronauts never landed on the moon," and then I inserted the sentence, "Modern research reveals that moon exploration is not that important." Imagine that this claim was well cited. Okay. Fair enough. But it's still in the wrong article and the wrong section.
Thanks. Andrew Parodi 04:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinsey and "recent research"

Okay, so we seem to have worked it down to a small phrase held within parenthesis. That's an improvement. But I see no need to say something like "more recent research suggests otherwise." There seems to be little reason to note WHEN this research was taken, particularly when it is taken into account that Kinsey's work has ALWAYS been controversial and contested. Again, this is THE VERY POINT of that section!

If we are going to say that "more recent" research contests Kinsey's claims, then why not also mention that it was contested when it was published? Why not then just subsume it all under a phrase like, "Kinsey's research has always been controversial"? Oh. Again. That seems redundant because, again, that is the VERY POINT of the section we're talking about.

The underlying suggestion seems to be that research done in the 1950s is by default inferior to any research done today. If research done today differs from research done back then, then the very fact that the research is done NOW is, apparently, supposed to make it more valid. At least it seems to me that this is the underlying suggestion, hence the term "modern research" or "more recent" research. In other words, it seems there is perhaps a temporaral chauvinism in this phrasing. (I wonder, has anyone done recent research that backs up what Kinsey said? If so, is that research more valid than Kinsey's research simply because it is done today and not in the 1950s?)

So, why not just mention that it has always been controversial? Again, that seems unnecessary to me because that's already implied, as it is the very point of the section. But then there we go round and round and round.... Andrew Parodi 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the paragraph deals with the "current" situation of homophobia, so research from the 1950s (and Freud) is dated. Secondly, current academic survey requirements did indeed increase tremendously in the last few decades. One of the many problems with Kinsey's research is that his survey population was far from representative. Not-representative research would currently not survive a peer-review (except when it would explicitly state that it is e.g. an explorative survey not intended to be representative). The controversy in Kinsey's years was mostly from a different kind (e.g., the claim that he promoted "decadent" sexual mores). I doubt that any reliable 21st century research would ever find a number of 37%. Most current studies - spread over different countries and cultures - find 0.5-4%, and a small minority of recent research finds 4-10%. Put differently, modern research never comes close to Kinsey's 37%. Sijo Ripa 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The date of the criticism doesn't matter much because this section is not -- for the umpteenth time -- about criticism of Kinsey. Thank you for finally putting the criticism in parenthesis. But you suggest a bias in your statement that Freud's and Kinsey's research is dated. Right there in that statement you've made you have revealed your own personal bias -- that research done in the past is not as valid as "recent research" or, to use your other term, "modern research."
I can counter your approach by noting that Kinsey and Freud were both contested in their own day. Therefore, I could arguably say that criticism of Kinsey and Freud is dated and therefore, if I am to use a temporaral chauvinism, invalid. In other words, I could use the same approach you are using and thereby suggest that any criticism of Freud and Kinsey is indicative of a backward and outdated perspective.
For these reasons, I suggest that we leave the date of the research out of it. This is such a minor point (in my opinion rather unremoved from the entire section into which it was inserted) that it is placed within parenthesis. Now could we just note that not all research agrees with him? Or, if you are going to note that some recent research doesn't agree with Kinsey, we should note that many people back in Kinsey's day didn't agree with his research; it was controversial even then. (And yet, there again, it is redundant. As I've mentioned many times, the this whole paragraph rests on the knowledge that Kinsey's work is controversial.)
Thanks. Andrew Parodi 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will just use the word "representative" research instead of modern or recent. Thank you for reaching a final solution. :) Sijo Ripa 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello again Sijo and Andrew - I hope you've reached a point of agreement. I just wanted to flag something. The last line of this heavily discussed section reads

Corneau suggests that Kinsey's research may have even exacerbated homophobia in our society

- that isn't right. If you take another look at the quote from Corneau he suggests that it maybe the high percentage of homosexual activity that "may have exacerbated" homophobia, not Kinsey's research. I'm going to remove that line as it is factually inaccurate--Cailil talk 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But Corneau uses Kinsey's exact number to make his point. Corneau's point is tied to Kinsey's research. Again, a difficult thing about the Corneau book is that it was originally written in French because he is a French Canadian analyst. Frankly, the sentence itself isn't very well written. It ends in a question mark that really doesn't seem that necessary. I think something was lost in the translation. Andrew Parodi 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
yes I think there is something is lost in translation. "...attitudes toward homosexuality have remained so hostile, despite the fact (or could it be because of the fact) that, as Kinsey's research showed, 37 percent of the American male population has engaged in homosexual behavior to ejaculation after the age of puberty?". When Corneau mentions Kinsey he is in fact citing the 37% figure. What Corneau is saying, in a nutshell, is: despite, or maybe because of, the fact that 37% of the American male population has engaged in homosexual behavior homophic attitudes are still prevalent. He is not claiming that Kinsey's research has exacerbated homophobia at all--Cailil talk 12:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is getting to be such a head ache. Now we're arguing this section on two levels.
To go back to the point that Sijo Ripa has made several times, not all agree with the 37% statistic. That statistic is specifically tied to Kinsey.
It just seems to me that Corneau, a psychologist, is referring to the state of homophobia during the age of Freud and Kinsey, that is, the 20th century, and because he uses Kinsey's statistic and mentions Kinsey, he is making a direct comment on Kinsey's possible influence.
This isn't the first place I've heard this, by the way. I've heard in other places that a great irony of the gay liberation movement is that in some ways making gays more visible has made (some) straight men more homophobic. Andrew Parodi 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, I'm sorry but no. The assertion that Corneau attributes homophobia to Kinsey's research, is wrong becuase it is not in the reference. Corneau is using Kinsey's findings to say that despite, or becuase of, these levels of homosexual activity homophobia is still prevalent. I am sorry that there is such a long discussion here, it looks like it has become circular and/or tendentious. I recommend you re-read the reference Andrew - it may help you see may point--Cailil talk 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If I misunderstood Corneau's statement, it was simply that: a misunderstanding. It was not "tendentious" on my part. The only agenda I have in this article is that it should be a well written article. This section on Homophobia has been the most controversial all along, which seems only to point to the fact that it is an important issue. If I have seemed defensive about it, it's because I think that we should not remove a section from this article just because it is controversial. I don't think it's a Wikipedia policy to not allow discussion of controversial topics. That particular sentence by Corneau is admittedly badly written. It even contains improper punctuation. (It ends with a question mark when there is no question being asked.) I attribute this to the fact that it was originally written in French and then translated into English, as Corneau is a French Canadian analyst.
The misperception that I have a "tendentious" agenda here is perhaps derived from the fact that I am the one who started this article. What do you do when you start an article? Well, you add what you know about, what you've read about, studied, etc. I have no agenda other than to add what I know. If others want to add to the article or section, fine. But deleting it altogether for no reason other than personal dislike is not really acceptable. This is what Sijo Ripa has done over and over. Please intervene and do something! Andrew Parodi 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, or at least I see how you can see it that way. But in my opinion it's too filled with references to Kinsey to not have it be tied directly to Kinsey.

Truth of the matter is that the section probably needs a rewrite anyway. Do what you think is best. Andrew Parodi 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith about Andrew Parodi's reverting behaviour. He has ignored all efforts I made to change and balance the part in question, and declines to propose consensus wordings or reformulations that remove the POV. He just reverts and reverts and reverts. The proposed rewrite is still not done... As the part adds very little, does not directly concern masculine psychology and as it seems that the part has additional problems (as explained above by other contributors) this could very well be the best solution. Sijo Ripa 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you forgetting the part about how you added about four citations to the paragraph that you are now deleting? It's been extremely confusing working with you. Why, after inserting citations, have you deleted the entire paragraph? The paragraph cannot be seen as "POV" when it is sourced to the work of people other than myself. I just don't have any energ for this non-issue anymore. Andrew Parodi 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] male fear of the feminine

I was just wondering, since this article is really short-yet male psychology is such a vast topic, if anyone ever considered including a section, or an expansion of an existing section, on the influence of the male fear of the feminine. By this I mean a man's internal feminine aspects and external aspects expressed through the devouring mother and castrating women. There has been quite a bit of research going on about it. And the topic as such has been under discussion since the early 1930. O'Neil, Blazina and Kierski are currently the most important people working on this. This is my first wikipedia posting, so I hope I get it right.Werner 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)--Werner 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent initial post.
I don't have good sense of what this article should look like (covering such a broad topic), but the addition you're suggesting seems very appropriate. Be sure to cite sources for what you add, and contextualize it historically — in this case I guess I mean mention what psychologist(s) first proposed this, and also what the current thinking on the topic is. / edg ☺ ★ 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further to male fear of the feminine

It has taken me a while to compose a posting about male fear of the feminine. Have been very busy. I now hear that Wikipedia is changing the system and new additions may not be visible to the public. If this is so does it make sense to write something if it is not included in the main page on male psychology?Werner 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea to what you are referring. As far as I know, changes to articles are visible once saved, perhaps with a delay of less than a minute when servers are busy. / edg ☺ ★ 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous chapter deletion

Hi All, An anonymous person as today deleted the chapter on the male fear of the feminine. This person has violated Wikipedia's code of ethics by not participating in discussions or offering any other form of mutual engagement. I have reverted the whole chapter to the previous version and have posted a message on the anonymous user's talk page. Has anyone got an suggestions about how to continue with this problem? Thanks. --Werner 13:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous chapter deletion

Hi All, {{helpme}} An anonymous person as today deleted the chapter on the male fear of the feminine. This person has violated Wikipedia's code of ethics by not participating in discussions or offering any other form of mutual engagement. I have reverted the whole chapter to the previous version and have posted a message on the anonymous user's talk page. Has anyone got any suggestions about how to continue with this problem? Thanks. --Werner 13:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm replying on your user talk page, where you posted this same question. Please only post questions in one place to save time and confusion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section needed? "Role of mother"?

I was wondering if others thought it might be important to include a section about a man's relationship with his mother. This is hinted at in the section on the relationship with the father. But it could be elaborated better. -- Andrew Parodi 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A section about it would be good. I think the role of the mother plays a huge role in the psychology of a man. Both have potentially a tendency of require the other's exclusive love, a dynamic in which the father has to break in and cut through so that the boy can become his own person. This is the principle of Freud's Oedipus story. Howver, there are others who talked about the possesive qualities of the mother, such as Arno Gruen or Wilfried Wieck and others. It is a complex area, and any chapter on this topic should accomodate the complexity of the relationship. And many others have talked about this since Freud. --Werner 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Phallos.jpg

Image:Phallos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Phallos.jpg

Image:Phallos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)