This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"In modern western society, few wear clothing generally associated with female gender roles." I thought this was so in all societies, not just western. Are there modern societies where the men cross dress? Jay 15:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The above quote should say "In modern western society, few men wear clothing generally associated with western female gender roles"
Why is does this page use the word "sex" not "gender"? -- (talk to) BozMo 13:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary the word Gender means the grammatical classification of nouns into different sexes. Therefore Sex is the correct word to describe particular characteristics of men and women. Gender is often incorrectly used as a euphemism for the word sex. -- Cap 18:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
POV: "it is estimated that one in 100,000 people are men who have been born without a typical male physiology (that is, they are transgendered or transsexual men)," This is deceptive and misleading, non-intersex ftm transexuals are not born with any sort of male anatomy, typical or otherwise. It should be enough to say that some females consider themselves men and let the reader decide if they consider that to be valid, not preach transgender identity politics at them in what is supposed to be a neutral article. I'm re-reverting. [68.117.211.92]
Are we going to have Man reflect Woman in the scope of illustrations? On Talk:Woman there's a lively discussion on how best to show a picture of a naked woman. (Many agree that there should be such a picture, but it's more a matter of which). Unfortunately, it may be a little difficult to get as good a picture for Man -- most nude photos and paintings are of women. I would also like to note that the taboos are a little different in Europe and the U.S.A. on nudity; in Europe it is more acceptable, and male nudity is not as taboo as in the U.S.A. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:10, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Perhaps the pictures on both the Man and Woman pages should be removed entirely(though I am not here to argue for the woman). I don't believe they are a bad idea, but in practice they add entirely unnecessary biases. You would be hard pressed to find a picture that can incorporate how a man looks without showing biases in how a man "is supposed to look". Thus, in the interest of remaining neutral and avoiding imposing beliefs on how a man is "supposed to look", I believe the picture should be removed entirely. A more appropriate solution, though still not ideal, is to put up a less "macho" picture instead, so as not to confuse machoism with being a man. Perhaps this doesn't bother you personally, but that doesn't mean it should be trivialized because of that, and something with this sort of implication does not belong in a neutral article. -sparkleiya
Is it necessary to have a naked man displayed?
I also conquer that it is necessary to have a naked man desplayed because you need to see what a male body actually looks like. Being offended by the anatomy that all male's have is just foolish. The only problem with the photo is that it isn't very clear and it's not in color. Also, the testicles are not clearly visible and the man is clearly circumsised - I think a picture of both a circumsised/uncircumsised male would be appropriate, as they are both different (Slightly). You don't have to do this, but I just wanted to say having just a circumsised man on display might cause some arguement. --Anonymous
As mentioned above, the debate in Talk:Woman over the main image is still very much contested. I suggested using these as the main images for the Woman and Man articles, for the following reasons:
What say the stewards of this article? -- popefauvexxiii 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I really thought the Vetruvian man was better. the "perfect" man.. you can easily tell people in the tital man does not really have 4 arms. Cilstr 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The word man comes from the Sanskrit word manu which means thinker. The Sanskrit word manu descended to and was borrowed by Latin where it was used to mean the thinker that used hands. Hence, our word manual as to operate manually which means for a thinker to operate with his or her hands. (Source: http://www.som.org/2laws/Store/bookdetails/ulmchapter.htm)
I don't think we should include anything that's inaccurate. The Sanskrit word manu is from the Indo-European root men- meaning 'to think'; English cognates include mind, mental, reminiscent. The Latin word manus 'hand' is from IE mh2r-/mh2n- and is related to a Germanic word meaning protection (extinct in English, but cf. German Vormund) and a rare Greek word for 'hand'. Germanic mannaz is from a different IE root and is related to Russian муж 'man'. It's complete nonsense to claim that the English word is borrowed from the Latin word which is borrowed from the Sanskrit word. Each word developed independently from a different IE root. -- Angr/ comhrá 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This seems like a bad redirect for boy. It seems like boy, as a word and as the young form of men, should be better covered here if we keep this redirect. Anyone concur?
Clarification: Though boy redirects here, the content doesn't seem to cover that topic well. The article is admittedly about man, as a "male human adult." It doesn't cover topics unique to boyhood, really, though that might be covered appropriately in "child," but then that should at least be noted by the boy disambiguation. This doesn't seem like an article that covers "boy" so well that boy should redirect here. Notthe9 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 16:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have thought that both boy and girl might be stand alone articles at some point, assuming enough content is made available. Sam Spade 16:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, does anyone think there is enough info at this moment?? Georgia guy 16:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, nobody additional has responded within an hour, and here is my answer:
'Boy' should be it's own article. Technically, the term 'Boy' should refer to a male human before they enter puberty. Just a thought. --Anonymous
This statement doesn't really make too much sense to me... 1% to 5% to 10%? Also, where do these come from? I find it hard to believe that 10% of men "prefer sexual and/or romantic relationships with other men" in a detectable sense. Notthe9 19:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The study which generated the 10% figure was so amazingly suspect as to have be provided as an example of infamously unscientific research in a psychology class I was in. We learned how the survey was of a small number of men (100 or 1000, something like that) enlisted in the U.S. navy after WWII. It asked them if they had ever had a sexual or erotic experience in the company of other men, or had an erotic fantasy involving other males. 10% responded "yes", and these were all tallied as 'homosexual'. This survey has been misused thenceforth. Sam Spade 16:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A better question: Why are we discussing homosexuality at all on this article? The fact is, when you get down to it, there is no evidence that particular types of sexuality are anything other than cultural or circumstantial in nature. There is no particularly good evidence on the subject of "what % of people behave homosexualy". When you ask americans "are you gay?" about 1% say "yes, I'm gay". But what does that mean? Sam Spade 23:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it should list in the section "gender roles" that the typical man is physically stronger than the typical woman. I know that there are women out there who are stronger than some men, but on average, man is usually stronger than woman. Scorpionman 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Defining man or woman in terms of biology and physiology is problematic anyway, in light of recent awareness of sex and gender. If a man and woman were both born female and raised as girls, what differences are there other than social and sexual? In fact, why isn't there any discussion in this article about transgender issues? If we understand the states of "man" and "woman" as gender, then it is completely relevant.-- Pinko1977 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not leaving a note. After re-reading the top of that section, it seems a little better than I originally thought. I still think it could use a bit of clarification, for someone (as I did) could simply stumble on those stereotypes and believe that they're stated as fact.
If nobody else has a problem with it, I stand overruled. appzter 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the following piece, which is totally false in the way it is written:
However there is a grain of truth there, so I am leaving its traces in the talk page, so that fashion history experts write something reasonable instead. mikka (t) 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You coulda just re-written it. I agree with the statments and anyway there is far worse grammer around here, Cilstr 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of these differences have been supported by scientific research; others have not. All should be taken with a grain of salt, given the enormous variations among actual men and women. I find the fact that the author beleives that gender differences supported by scientific research should only be taken 'with a grain of salt' to be a clearcut example of an opinion. If their is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously. For example, if their is evidence that suggests women are generally tidier than men, then incorporating this fact into one's cognitive processes is an objective position to take. The fact that the author objects to this position suggests he/she is a relativist (relativism is a positon common amoungst the left and feminists in particular).
- There is a slant of relativist bias in this article, particularly gender roles. Perhaps some are confusing NPOV (offering a balance of available supported evidence) with relativism. The general slant that a man is undefinable and insdistinguishable needs to be balanced with more specific certainties.
I see that there has been discussion about the gender stereotypes section. I wanted to add that the notion that "If their [sic] is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously" - is ridiculous. Hypothetically, if there was a scientific study done that showed that men were meaner than women, it still would not be necessarily true. From the very day you are born, you are socialized, you are maybe dressed in blue if you are a boy - given a fire truck to play with, called a "big boy" told you are going to be strong. Girls are "dainty princesses" and "pretty in pink" and "delicate flowers." So, if a study was done, a scientific one, that proved that men were more aggressive then women, all it would mean was that due to socialization, gender roles, bias and stereotypes, men have emerged as more aggressive, although it is probably not innately so. So I think all scientific research on this topic should be taken with a grain of salt because nurture plays such a large role. There is no liberal bias, only people who seek to perpetuate truth. Nadsat 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two pictures of a white and young man, and one picture of a statue depicting the same, all in very little dress. None of them have facial hair. So, here's something that's missing: white man, Asian man, black man, old man, man with beard, and man in clothing, like: Italian suit, military uniform, Dani ornamentation, etc. -- Vuo 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Should this be on here? Skinnyweed 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The gender role section is really bizarre and should probably be reworked or removed. Its subjective and only a few of the bullet points have citations.
The following lack citations. If the section is to remain, at a minimum, it should be labeled "gender stereotypes" instead of "gender roles." I don't personally think most of these are even common stereotypes.
* More aggressive than women. However, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home. * More courageous and adventuresome than women. * More competitive but also more stubborn than women. * More self-confident (even proud) and exhibit better leadership skills than women. * More self-controlled and less emotional. * More technically and organizationally skilled than women. * More prone to abstract thinking than women.
The following have citations, but I don't see how they are remotely relevant to describing "man." They also don't strike me as gender roles. Is it a "role" to be messy? Or sarcastic? Does the use of metaphors in conversation really tell us anything useful about men?
* Less tidy than women.[2] * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3] * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4] * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]
-- Kdalton 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The last part of the article (entire gender stereotypes) is offensive, incorrect and should be removed. /Anna
I think that the header should be rewritten as gender role, considering that the female article doesn't have 'Gender Stereotypes' and has a 'Gender Role' section instead, I think that this is neccesary to reword the header to remove the liberal slant and particularly the noticable attack on historical male gender roles in this section. It also seems to promote the idea that Western ideology of manhood is false. A lot of this violates the NPOV rule, I think, a rewording or rewrite is needed to have less of a slant towards feminism in this article considering that the issue itself is very sensitive, a rewrite that covers more of the highlights of Typical Male Roles and Attitudes in various cultures in societies would be nice. Something along the lines of covering occupation, expectation and male rituals. Also, even if it doesn't violate the NPOV rule, it's all original research, it needs some definite cleaning up as well. Rewrite is neccesary. -- Mofomojo 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I realize that this discussion is not totally current, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. I think that the section, as it is right now, is fairly unencyclopedia, and should not be included in this article. It may, in some context, be important to list gender stereotypes, but something about this just doesn't strike me as the right way to go about it. Besides, there isn't really an equivalent on the
Woman article, and it seems to me that these articles should be somewhat parallel in form and type of information given.
To a certain extent, I agree with the removal of the traits listed above. However, the way this section reads now is that all stereotypes of men are positive in the sense of being more courageous, more self-confident, etc. Having taken out the negative stereotypes has really unbalanced it. Not to mention that these are fairly Western stereotypes, and are not universal.
So, I propose that this section be re-worked completely. Any thoughts? rom a rin talk ] 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
so why are only the NEGATIVE traits undeleted? I will delete them.
* Less tidy than women.[2] * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3] * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4] * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]
Why are the above deleted? arent't they gender stereotypes as well? and please tell me what sources inform you that men are more couragous than women?
I think this section really needs work. The first two senteces are very well worded. Firstly if there are to be any psyological entries in this list, they must have good scientific citations. There are no citations here at all. Secondly "claims sometimes made about men in relation to women" is really not good, I am sure we have all heard all sorts of such claims, many ridiculus. Thirldy if one is going to have scientifically proven differences here we must be carefull not to misinterpret them. For example, what sort of scientific study could prove that men have "less empathy .. than women"? One reads these things in newspapers, but they are not substantiated, or substansiable by the scientific studies that sparked them. Putting in the necessary details could make this unwieldy. Perhaps there is a respected review paper of the psycological research we could cite? Finally, if we need to make direct comparisons between "average men" and "average women" then the choice of data should start, "men are taller than women, with relatively broader shoulders and thinner hips". Thehalfone 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The gender stereotypes section still needs work and more citations, but I don't think it's out-of-place. Actually, I like having "stereotypes" in Man rather than Woman, as feminism has pointed out that man has often unjustifiably been posited as normal and woman as different. HOWEVER, we still need a "Gender Roles" section, parallel to the "Gender Roles" section in Woman. This would not focus on supposedly innate differences, but on differing cultural roles: for instance, less of a role in child raising, more of a role in breadwinning, "hunter" in hunter-gatherer societies, special roles in many religions, supposed to initiate romantic relationships, etc. Of course it would also need the obvious disclaimers of how all these are fundamentally culturally specific (unlike the stereotypes, which could at least theoretically be innate) and in fact deeply criticized within some subcultures. -- 201.151.76.224 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (ps. "technically" would go in gender roles as culture, perhaps leaving something about mathematics or abstraction in the stereotypes. Technology is social, not innate.)
Why does the top picture need to be nude? I think having a nude image is better, but I have a problem with the picture being of an Italian, when right below we have a nude sculpture from another Italian. It's a pretty clear Western/racial bias, and visually repetitive. And I wish you hadn't done a flat revert, when I also noted that the man in the wheelchair was from the United States. As it is this article far too strongly normalizes "white" people as the ideal conception of being a man. Sarge Baldy 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with Italians, specifically nude male Italians? If so, I'll do my best to keep my clothes on. :) -- Andrew Parodi 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the Da Vinci Man....racially inconspicuous....showing entire body....and tasteful. Tasteful pictures
Vitruvian Man is perfect
I want to know if there is anything that can go in a Man (word) article talking about the usage of the word man as a gender-neutral vs. gender-specific term. Georgia guy 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Disclamer: I'm not a Serb. As a matter of fact, I live in a city which was shelled by cluster bombs. By Serbs.
I think it is not appropriate to explicitly mention Srebrenica massacre in this article and blame it on Serbs. Yes, the Srebrenica massacre is a horrbile thing. Yes, the people who did it were Serbs. Those are plain facts. But, I don't think it is appropriate to single out this one nation and mention it in an article about man in a genocidal tone. I will now remove this example. If anybody wishes to return it, please do it in a way that is less humiliating for milions of Serbs who never did anything wrong to anybody. Thanks. -- Dijxtra 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Add me to the list of people who thinks that the top photo does not need to be nude. The woman page doesn't show a nude woman until more than halfway down the page. Unless someone offers a good reason why nudity HAS to be up at the top, I am inclined to move it down. Let me explain: I am sitting in Starbucks just clicking through wikipedia, in a public place with little kids everywhere, and suddenly there's a picture of a naked man on my screen. I think this is inappropriate for three reasons:
I honestly did not expect to run into nudity when clicking on the word "man." The argument above that nudity is essential because this is a biology article is faulty for two reasons:
Unless someone offers a good reason why nudity HAS to be up at the top, I am inclined to move it down. After extensive discussion of this issue on the woman:talk page, they have seemed to settle on having the nude image appear farther down the page. I think it's still up at the top here because a small but vocal minority insists on breaking down everyone's inhibitions; the silent majority probably agrees with me. Come on, let's self-regulate before Congress has another go at the Communications Decency Act. Ztrawhcs 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's pretty specious reasoning. Show 100 people a picture of a man wearing pants and a shirt, ask them what the subject of the picture is, and they will respond with some variation of "It's a picture of a man." The same thing would happen if you showed them a picture of a man in a suit, a jacket, shorts and a t-shirt, an overcoat, or any other standard ensemble. As long as they are relatively plain and don't attract attention, the clothes are ignored. No one would look at a picture of a guy wearing clothes and say, "Oooh, look, it's a picture of clothing! And I guess there's a guy in there too. But look at that clothing!"
On the other hand, show 100 people a full frontal picture of a man without clothes, and they'll say, "Holy moly! It's a naked man!" and likely respond with some measure of amusement, aversion, befuddlement as to why you are showing them a picture of a naked man, or some other emotion. Do you see what I mean? A clothed picture evokes a neutral reaction; unexpected nudity tends to evoke an emotional reaction. And make no mistakes -- most people do not expect to see a naked man on the first screen of a Wikipedia entry. The very fact that you DO expect to see a "naked man" when typing in "man" puts you in the minority -- and, frankly, gives me pause.
Let's find a middle ground, shall we? Instead of a fully clothed man or a totally naked man, why can't the first picture be of a man wearing boxers or a speedo or something? Then, farther down, total nudity.
By the way, I disagree with your characterization of my desire to move nudity off the main screens as "prudish censorship." It's simply civility and protecting people from unexpected indecency. These things are not equivalent to prudishness OR censorship. If I were either of those, I would take issue with including nudity anywhere on the page. I simply want to put it a couple screens down. You haven't answered my question: Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be an acceptable resource in schools and libraries? Won't unexpected nudity undermine that goal? Ztrawhcs 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Angr. I don't see anything wrong with nudity in schools or libraries - pictures of naked people are found in both those places. This is an encyclopedia and I would expect simular treatment of the material from any reference book involving male biology. However, I don't think this is a very good picture for the reasons he/she mentioned (no color, not whole body) and I would personally rather have a color photo showing a man in underwear with his whole body visible than what we have right now. MarkBuckles (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, generally disclaimers are discouraged. But most of the reasons given don't apply:
I really don't think moving the picture down will hurt the accuracy or informative nature of the article. If it ends up hurting it somehow, we can always move it back. Okay? Ztrawhcs 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the top picture should be a nude, uncircumcised man with a beard, as this is man's natural state. The genitals are by far the distinguishing features when looking at a man as opposed to a woman, and if you are going to have articles on "man" and "woman," the pictures should clearly reflect the visible differences. Having the vitruvian man is nice, in that it depicts what some consider a platonic ideal of man, but I see no reason to have a diagram rather than a photograph as the first picture. Lamont A Cranston 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me just ask a simple question. Why are there two pictures of naked women at the woman page and no picture of a naked man at the man page? Shouldn't these pages be related and have the same structure? You are discussing a nude picture of a man, but I can't find it. The top picture on the woman page is a nude woman. The same standards should be applied here, or the nude woman should be removed. There is actually a poll on this matter on the woman discussion page. We could start one here too? Why not?
Well, it seens like everybody in the rest of the world is ugly, but "we USA guys are just this..."!!!! User:Elviajeropaisa I prefer this one:
I thought this version was rather good. Why was the David statue, and the nude photograph removed? Leonardo's drawing is okay, but if someone who has never seen a man saw it, they would think that man has 4 legs, 4 arms, and a really strange sexual organ. Dionyseus 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The page says Women r ugly at the top. I dont know how to fix it maybe someone can?
I edited this to say that 'man' can include the female. Indeed the first definition of 'man' in my dictionary is neutral with respect to sex. My edit was quite quickly reverted by someone who claimed that this article is about the male human and not about etymology and meaning. If that is the case, much of the rest of the first paragraph, concerning the use of 'man' to refer to non-human hominids or to boys should also go.
The opening paragraph should:
Perhaps we should consider having man (disambig), man (word), and man (adult male), with man (disambig) as the default?
-- Publunch 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Meaning and etymology has thus been almost completely stripped from the main article. I say 'almost' because what was left was very misleading before I rewrote it. If it is to mention apemen, which I've never heard talked of as 'men' (without prefix) before today, then it should also mention women and boys.
The opening statement: 'Man is a male human' is far too simple. That is a valid definition, but it is not the only possible definition. Leaving it just as it is without qualification is very confusing. A German speaker, for example, would be misled into thinking that 'man' can only be translated as 'Mann' and never as 'Mensch'. At a bare minimum, it is necessary to make the reader aware that there is an ambiguity in the use of 'man', and point to where a detailed treatment can be found.
When I first came to the article, I barely noticed the disambiguation statement, which was in a light italic type. Even when I did read it, it did not say *why* I should read it. It is quite likely, therefore, that our German reader would miss the nuances.
I have tried suggesting various rewrites of the opening paragraph, but it keeps getting reverted to something I find confused and confusing.
I am willing to continue making suggestions, but have come to think that whatever I put up will be quickly reverted. I therefore think that mediation is appropriate.
-- Publunch 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. An ambiguity similar to the one under discussion is America. This is dealt with using a disambiguation page, which is better than suddenly reading: 'America is a country between Canada and Mexico'.
I think being trans inclusive is great and all but its not culturally respectful or NPOV to treat western progressive views on gender as absolute. In some cultures there is a modern western medical concept of transgender, in other cultures gender is a biologically based bianary or there are multiple genders. I don't think the article should take sides on this by reffering to FtMs as men or women.
I reworded (but not reverted) in an attempt to balance the two. As is FtMs aren't reffered to as men or women in any absolutist sense and I've used what appears to be the most widely accepted terminology in english at the moment ([ [3]]).
Velps 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is getting tired of all the vandalism that keeps happening here, but it's chewing up the history of this article, and makes it difficult to review any good changes that come in. As there is no significant edit war going on, I don't think we need a full protect, we just need to keep the high traffic anonymous editors from replacing the page or images with nonsense.
Personally, I would also consider changing the image of George Bush to something less recent, but still highly notable, say George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or John F Kennedy. This would likely reduce the amount of vandalism coming from people who are unhappy with his administration. -- Puellanivis 04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The thumbnail about President Bush doesn't make very much sense. It sounds like it is subtly calling him a woman: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States, a position that up to now has been held only by men." Up to now? TheGamerDude 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"In modern western society, few wear clothing generally associated with female gender roles." I thought this was so in all societies, not just western. Are there modern societies where the men cross dress? Jay 15:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The above quote should say "In modern western society, few men wear clothing generally associated with western female gender roles"
Why is does this page use the word "sex" not "gender"? -- (talk to) BozMo 13:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary the word Gender means the grammatical classification of nouns into different sexes. Therefore Sex is the correct word to describe particular characteristics of men and women. Gender is often incorrectly used as a euphemism for the word sex. -- Cap 18:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
POV: "it is estimated that one in 100,000 people are men who have been born without a typical male physiology (that is, they are transgendered or transsexual men)," This is deceptive and misleading, non-intersex ftm transexuals are not born with any sort of male anatomy, typical or otherwise. It should be enough to say that some females consider themselves men and let the reader decide if they consider that to be valid, not preach transgender identity politics at them in what is supposed to be a neutral article. I'm re-reverting. [68.117.211.92]
Are we going to have Man reflect Woman in the scope of illustrations? On Talk:Woman there's a lively discussion on how best to show a picture of a naked woman. (Many agree that there should be such a picture, but it's more a matter of which). Unfortunately, it may be a little difficult to get as good a picture for Man -- most nude photos and paintings are of women. I would also like to note that the taboos are a little different in Europe and the U.S.A. on nudity; in Europe it is more acceptable, and male nudity is not as taboo as in the U.S.A. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:10, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Perhaps the pictures on both the Man and Woman pages should be removed entirely(though I am not here to argue for the woman). I don't believe they are a bad idea, but in practice they add entirely unnecessary biases. You would be hard pressed to find a picture that can incorporate how a man looks without showing biases in how a man "is supposed to look". Thus, in the interest of remaining neutral and avoiding imposing beliefs on how a man is "supposed to look", I believe the picture should be removed entirely. A more appropriate solution, though still not ideal, is to put up a less "macho" picture instead, so as not to confuse machoism with being a man. Perhaps this doesn't bother you personally, but that doesn't mean it should be trivialized because of that, and something with this sort of implication does not belong in a neutral article. -sparkleiya
Is it necessary to have a naked man displayed?
I also conquer that it is necessary to have a naked man desplayed because you need to see what a male body actually looks like. Being offended by the anatomy that all male's have is just foolish. The only problem with the photo is that it isn't very clear and it's not in color. Also, the testicles are not clearly visible and the man is clearly circumsised - I think a picture of both a circumsised/uncircumsised male would be appropriate, as they are both different (Slightly). You don't have to do this, but I just wanted to say having just a circumsised man on display might cause some arguement. --Anonymous
As mentioned above, the debate in Talk:Woman over the main image is still very much contested. I suggested using these as the main images for the Woman and Man articles, for the following reasons:
What say the stewards of this article? -- popefauvexxiii 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I really thought the Vetruvian man was better. the "perfect" man.. you can easily tell people in the tital man does not really have 4 arms. Cilstr 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The word man comes from the Sanskrit word manu which means thinker. The Sanskrit word manu descended to and was borrowed by Latin where it was used to mean the thinker that used hands. Hence, our word manual as to operate manually which means for a thinker to operate with his or her hands. (Source: http://www.som.org/2laws/Store/bookdetails/ulmchapter.htm)
I don't think we should include anything that's inaccurate. The Sanskrit word manu is from the Indo-European root men- meaning 'to think'; English cognates include mind, mental, reminiscent. The Latin word manus 'hand' is from IE mh2r-/mh2n- and is related to a Germanic word meaning protection (extinct in English, but cf. German Vormund) and a rare Greek word for 'hand'. Germanic mannaz is from a different IE root and is related to Russian муж 'man'. It's complete nonsense to claim that the English word is borrowed from the Latin word which is borrowed from the Sanskrit word. Each word developed independently from a different IE root. -- Angr/ comhrá 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This seems like a bad redirect for boy. It seems like boy, as a word and as the young form of men, should be better covered here if we keep this redirect. Anyone concur?
Clarification: Though boy redirects here, the content doesn't seem to cover that topic well. The article is admittedly about man, as a "male human adult." It doesn't cover topics unique to boyhood, really, though that might be covered appropriately in "child," but then that should at least be noted by the boy disambiguation. This doesn't seem like an article that covers "boy" so well that boy should redirect here. Notthe9 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 16:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have thought that both boy and girl might be stand alone articles at some point, assuming enough content is made available. Sam Spade 16:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, does anyone think there is enough info at this moment?? Georgia guy 16:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, nobody additional has responded within an hour, and here is my answer:
'Boy' should be it's own article. Technically, the term 'Boy' should refer to a male human before they enter puberty. Just a thought. --Anonymous
This statement doesn't really make too much sense to me... 1% to 5% to 10%? Also, where do these come from? I find it hard to believe that 10% of men "prefer sexual and/or romantic relationships with other men" in a detectable sense. Notthe9 19:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The study which generated the 10% figure was so amazingly suspect as to have be provided as an example of infamously unscientific research in a psychology class I was in. We learned how the survey was of a small number of men (100 or 1000, something like that) enlisted in the U.S. navy after WWII. It asked them if they had ever had a sexual or erotic experience in the company of other men, or had an erotic fantasy involving other males. 10% responded "yes", and these were all tallied as 'homosexual'. This survey has been misused thenceforth. Sam Spade 16:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A better question: Why are we discussing homosexuality at all on this article? The fact is, when you get down to it, there is no evidence that particular types of sexuality are anything other than cultural or circumstantial in nature. There is no particularly good evidence on the subject of "what % of people behave homosexualy". When you ask americans "are you gay?" about 1% say "yes, I'm gay". But what does that mean? Sam Spade 23:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it should list in the section "gender roles" that the typical man is physically stronger than the typical woman. I know that there are women out there who are stronger than some men, but on average, man is usually stronger than woman. Scorpionman 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Defining man or woman in terms of biology and physiology is problematic anyway, in light of recent awareness of sex and gender. If a man and woman were both born female and raised as girls, what differences are there other than social and sexual? In fact, why isn't there any discussion in this article about transgender issues? If we understand the states of "man" and "woman" as gender, then it is completely relevant.-- Pinko1977 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not leaving a note. After re-reading the top of that section, it seems a little better than I originally thought. I still think it could use a bit of clarification, for someone (as I did) could simply stumble on those stereotypes and believe that they're stated as fact.
If nobody else has a problem with it, I stand overruled. appzter 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the following piece, which is totally false in the way it is written:
However there is a grain of truth there, so I am leaving its traces in the talk page, so that fashion history experts write something reasonable instead. mikka (t) 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You coulda just re-written it. I agree with the statments and anyway there is far worse grammer around here, Cilstr 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of these differences have been supported by scientific research; others have not. All should be taken with a grain of salt, given the enormous variations among actual men and women. I find the fact that the author beleives that gender differences supported by scientific research should only be taken 'with a grain of salt' to be a clearcut example of an opinion. If their is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously. For example, if their is evidence that suggests women are generally tidier than men, then incorporating this fact into one's cognitive processes is an objective position to take. The fact that the author objects to this position suggests he/she is a relativist (relativism is a positon common amoungst the left and feminists in particular).
- There is a slant of relativist bias in this article, particularly gender roles. Perhaps some are confusing NPOV (offering a balance of available supported evidence) with relativism. The general slant that a man is undefinable and insdistinguishable needs to be balanced with more specific certainties.
I see that there has been discussion about the gender stereotypes section. I wanted to add that the notion that "If their [sic] is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously" - is ridiculous. Hypothetically, if there was a scientific study done that showed that men were meaner than women, it still would not be necessarily true. From the very day you are born, you are socialized, you are maybe dressed in blue if you are a boy - given a fire truck to play with, called a "big boy" told you are going to be strong. Girls are "dainty princesses" and "pretty in pink" and "delicate flowers." So, if a study was done, a scientific one, that proved that men were more aggressive then women, all it would mean was that due to socialization, gender roles, bias and stereotypes, men have emerged as more aggressive, although it is probably not innately so. So I think all scientific research on this topic should be taken with a grain of salt because nurture plays such a large role. There is no liberal bias, only people who seek to perpetuate truth. Nadsat 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two pictures of a white and young man, and one picture of a statue depicting the same, all in very little dress. None of them have facial hair. So, here's something that's missing: white man, Asian man, black man, old man, man with beard, and man in clothing, like: Italian suit, military uniform, Dani ornamentation, etc. -- Vuo 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Should this be on here? Skinnyweed 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The gender role section is really bizarre and should probably be reworked or removed. Its subjective and only a few of the bullet points have citations.
The following lack citations. If the section is to remain, at a minimum, it should be labeled "gender stereotypes" instead of "gender roles." I don't personally think most of these are even common stereotypes.
* More aggressive than women. However, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home. * More courageous and adventuresome than women. * More competitive but also more stubborn than women. * More self-confident (even proud) and exhibit better leadership skills than women. * More self-controlled and less emotional. * More technically and organizationally skilled than women. * More prone to abstract thinking than women.
The following have citations, but I don't see how they are remotely relevant to describing "man." They also don't strike me as gender roles. Is it a "role" to be messy? Or sarcastic? Does the use of metaphors in conversation really tell us anything useful about men?
* Less tidy than women.[2] * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3] * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4] * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]
-- Kdalton 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The last part of the article (entire gender stereotypes) is offensive, incorrect and should be removed. /Anna
I think that the header should be rewritten as gender role, considering that the female article doesn't have 'Gender Stereotypes' and has a 'Gender Role' section instead, I think that this is neccesary to reword the header to remove the liberal slant and particularly the noticable attack on historical male gender roles in this section. It also seems to promote the idea that Western ideology of manhood is false. A lot of this violates the NPOV rule, I think, a rewording or rewrite is needed to have less of a slant towards feminism in this article considering that the issue itself is very sensitive, a rewrite that covers more of the highlights of Typical Male Roles and Attitudes in various cultures in societies would be nice. Something along the lines of covering occupation, expectation and male rituals. Also, even if it doesn't violate the NPOV rule, it's all original research, it needs some definite cleaning up as well. Rewrite is neccesary. -- Mofomojo 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I realize that this discussion is not totally current, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. I think that the section, as it is right now, is fairly unencyclopedia, and should not be included in this article. It may, in some context, be important to list gender stereotypes, but something about this just doesn't strike me as the right way to go about it. Besides, there isn't really an equivalent on the
Woman article, and it seems to me that these articles should be somewhat parallel in form and type of information given.
To a certain extent, I agree with the removal of the traits listed above. However, the way this section reads now is that all stereotypes of men are positive in the sense of being more courageous, more self-confident, etc. Having taken out the negative stereotypes has really unbalanced it. Not to mention that these are fairly Western stereotypes, and are not universal.
So, I propose that this section be re-worked completely. Any thoughts? rom a rin talk ] 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
so why are only the NEGATIVE traits undeleted? I will delete them.
* Less tidy than women.[2] * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3] * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4] * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]
Why are the above deleted? arent't they gender stereotypes as well? and please tell me what sources inform you that men are more couragous than women?
I think this section really needs work. The first two senteces are very well worded. Firstly if there are to be any psyological entries in this list, they must have good scientific citations. There are no citations here at all. Secondly "claims sometimes made about men in relation to women" is really not good, I am sure we have all heard all sorts of such claims, many ridiculus. Thirldy if one is going to have scientifically proven differences here we must be carefull not to misinterpret them. For example, what sort of scientific study could prove that men have "less empathy .. than women"? One reads these things in newspapers, but they are not substantiated, or substansiable by the scientific studies that sparked them. Putting in the necessary details could make this unwieldy. Perhaps there is a respected review paper of the psycological research we could cite? Finally, if we need to make direct comparisons between "average men" and "average women" then the choice of data should start, "men are taller than women, with relatively broader shoulders and thinner hips". Thehalfone 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The gender stereotypes section still needs work and more citations, but I don't think it's out-of-place. Actually, I like having "stereotypes" in Man rather than Woman, as feminism has pointed out that man has often unjustifiably been posited as normal and woman as different. HOWEVER, we still need a "Gender Roles" section, parallel to the "Gender Roles" section in Woman. This would not focus on supposedly innate differences, but on differing cultural roles: for instance, less of a role in child raising, more of a role in breadwinning, "hunter" in hunter-gatherer societies, special roles in many religions, supposed to initiate romantic relationships, etc. Of course it would also need the obvious disclaimers of how all these are fundamentally culturally specific (unlike the stereotypes, which could at least theoretically be innate) and in fact deeply criticized within some subcultures. -- 201.151.76.224 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (ps. "technically" would go in gender roles as culture, perhaps leaving something about mathematics or abstraction in the stereotypes. Technology is social, not innate.)
Why does the top picture need to be nude? I think having a nude image is better, but I have a problem with the picture being of an Italian, when right below we have a nude sculpture from another Italian. It's a pretty clear Western/racial bias, and visually repetitive. And I wish you hadn't done a flat revert, when I also noted that the man in the wheelchair was from the United States. As it is this article far too strongly normalizes "white" people as the ideal conception of being a man. Sarge Baldy 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with Italians, specifically nude male Italians? If so, I'll do my best to keep my clothes on. :) -- Andrew Parodi 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the Da Vinci Man....racially inconspicuous....showing entire body....and tasteful. Tasteful pictures
Vitruvian Man is perfect
I want to know if there is anything that can go in a Man (word) article talking about the usage of the word man as a gender-neutral vs. gender-specific term. Georgia guy 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Disclamer: I'm not a Serb. As a matter of fact, I live in a city which was shelled by cluster bombs. By Serbs.
I think it is not appropriate to explicitly mention Srebrenica massacre in this article and blame it on Serbs. Yes, the Srebrenica massacre is a horrbile thing. Yes, the people who did it were Serbs. Those are plain facts. But, I don't think it is appropriate to single out this one nation and mention it in an article about man in a genocidal tone. I will now remove this example. If anybody wishes to return it, please do it in a way that is less humiliating for milions of Serbs who never did anything wrong to anybody. Thanks. -- Dijxtra 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Add me to the list of people who thinks that the top photo does not need to be nude. The woman page doesn't show a nude woman until more than halfway down the page. Unless someone offers a good reason why nudity HAS to be up at the top, I am inclined to move it down. Let me explain: I am sitting in Starbucks just clicking through wikipedia, in a public place with little kids everywhere, and suddenly there's a picture of a naked man on my screen. I think this is inappropriate for three reasons:
I honestly did not expect to run into nudity when clicking on the word "man." The argument above that nudity is essential because this is a biology article is faulty for two reasons:
Unless someone offers a good reason why nudity HAS to be up at the top, I am inclined to move it down. After extensive discussion of this issue on the woman:talk page, they have seemed to settle on having the nude image appear farther down the page. I think it's still up at the top here because a small but vocal minority insists on breaking down everyone's inhibitions; the silent majority probably agrees with me. Come on, let's self-regulate before Congress has another go at the Communications Decency Act. Ztrawhcs 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's pretty specious reasoning. Show 100 people a picture of a man wearing pants and a shirt, ask them what the subject of the picture is, and they will respond with some variation of "It's a picture of a man." The same thing would happen if you showed them a picture of a man in a suit, a jacket, shorts and a t-shirt, an overcoat, or any other standard ensemble. As long as they are relatively plain and don't attract attention, the clothes are ignored. No one would look at a picture of a guy wearing clothes and say, "Oooh, look, it's a picture of clothing! And I guess there's a guy in there too. But look at that clothing!"
On the other hand, show 100 people a full frontal picture of a man without clothes, and they'll say, "Holy moly! It's a naked man!" and likely respond with some measure of amusement, aversion, befuddlement as to why you are showing them a picture of a naked man, or some other emotion. Do you see what I mean? A clothed picture evokes a neutral reaction; unexpected nudity tends to evoke an emotional reaction. And make no mistakes -- most people do not expect to see a naked man on the first screen of a Wikipedia entry. The very fact that you DO expect to see a "naked man" when typing in "man" puts you in the minority -- and, frankly, gives me pause.
Let's find a middle ground, shall we? Instead of a fully clothed man or a totally naked man, why can't the first picture be of a man wearing boxers or a speedo or something? Then, farther down, total nudity.
By the way, I disagree with your characterization of my desire to move nudity off the main screens as "prudish censorship." It's simply civility and protecting people from unexpected indecency. These things are not equivalent to prudishness OR censorship. If I were either of those, I would take issue with including nudity anywhere on the page. I simply want to put it a couple screens down. You haven't answered my question: Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be an acceptable resource in schools and libraries? Won't unexpected nudity undermine that goal? Ztrawhcs 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Angr. I don't see anything wrong with nudity in schools or libraries - pictures of naked people are found in both those places. This is an encyclopedia and I would expect simular treatment of the material from any reference book involving male biology. However, I don't think this is a very good picture for the reasons he/she mentioned (no color, not whole body) and I would personally rather have a color photo showing a man in underwear with his whole body visible than what we have right now. MarkBuckles (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, generally disclaimers are discouraged. But most of the reasons given don't apply:
I really don't think moving the picture down will hurt the accuracy or informative nature of the article. If it ends up hurting it somehow, we can always move it back. Okay? Ztrawhcs 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the top picture should be a nude, uncircumcised man with a beard, as this is man's natural state. The genitals are by far the distinguishing features when looking at a man as opposed to a woman, and if you are going to have articles on "man" and "woman," the pictures should clearly reflect the visible differences. Having the vitruvian man is nice, in that it depicts what some consider a platonic ideal of man, but I see no reason to have a diagram rather than a photograph as the first picture. Lamont A Cranston 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me just ask a simple question. Why are there two pictures of naked women at the woman page and no picture of a naked man at the man page? Shouldn't these pages be related and have the same structure? You are discussing a nude picture of a man, but I can't find it. The top picture on the woman page is a nude woman. The same standards should be applied here, or the nude woman should be removed. There is actually a poll on this matter on the woman discussion page. We could start one here too? Why not?
Well, it seens like everybody in the rest of the world is ugly, but "we USA guys are just this..."!!!! User:Elviajeropaisa I prefer this one:
I thought this version was rather good. Why was the David statue, and the nude photograph removed? Leonardo's drawing is okay, but if someone who has never seen a man saw it, they would think that man has 4 legs, 4 arms, and a really strange sexual organ. Dionyseus 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The page says Women r ugly at the top. I dont know how to fix it maybe someone can?
I edited this to say that 'man' can include the female. Indeed the first definition of 'man' in my dictionary is neutral with respect to sex. My edit was quite quickly reverted by someone who claimed that this article is about the male human and not about etymology and meaning. If that is the case, much of the rest of the first paragraph, concerning the use of 'man' to refer to non-human hominids or to boys should also go.
The opening paragraph should:
Perhaps we should consider having man (disambig), man (word), and man (adult male), with man (disambig) as the default?
-- Publunch 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Meaning and etymology has thus been almost completely stripped from the main article. I say 'almost' because what was left was very misleading before I rewrote it. If it is to mention apemen, which I've never heard talked of as 'men' (without prefix) before today, then it should also mention women and boys.
The opening statement: 'Man is a male human' is far too simple. That is a valid definition, but it is not the only possible definition. Leaving it just as it is without qualification is very confusing. A German speaker, for example, would be misled into thinking that 'man' can only be translated as 'Mann' and never as 'Mensch'. At a bare minimum, it is necessary to make the reader aware that there is an ambiguity in the use of 'man', and point to where a detailed treatment can be found.
When I first came to the article, I barely noticed the disambiguation statement, which was in a light italic type. Even when I did read it, it did not say *why* I should read it. It is quite likely, therefore, that our German reader would miss the nuances.
I have tried suggesting various rewrites of the opening paragraph, but it keeps getting reverted to something I find confused and confusing.
I am willing to continue making suggestions, but have come to think that whatever I put up will be quickly reverted. I therefore think that mediation is appropriate.
-- Publunch 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. An ambiguity similar to the one under discussion is America. This is dealt with using a disambiguation page, which is better than suddenly reading: 'America is a country between Canada and Mexico'.
I think being trans inclusive is great and all but its not culturally respectful or NPOV to treat western progressive views on gender as absolute. In some cultures there is a modern western medical concept of transgender, in other cultures gender is a biologically based bianary or there are multiple genders. I don't think the article should take sides on this by reffering to FtMs as men or women.
I reworded (but not reverted) in an attempt to balance the two. As is FtMs aren't reffered to as men or women in any absolutist sense and I've used what appears to be the most widely accepted terminology in english at the moment ([ [3]]).
Velps 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is getting tired of all the vandalism that keeps happening here, but it's chewing up the history of this article, and makes it difficult to review any good changes that come in. As there is no significant edit war going on, I don't think we need a full protect, we just need to keep the high traffic anonymous editors from replacing the page or images with nonsense.
Personally, I would also consider changing the image of George Bush to something less recent, but still highly notable, say George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or John F Kennedy. This would likely reduce the amount of vandalism coming from people who are unhappy with his administration. -- Puellanivis 04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The thumbnail about President Bush doesn't make very much sense. It sounds like it is subtly calling him a woman: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States, a position that up to now has been held only by men." Up to now? TheGamerDude 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)