![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Although there was no consensus to merge, you should (as is always the case with articles you think should be merged) feel free to be bold and merge. Or not. This is a decision for editors to take. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be merged. It's the equivalent of merging Aristocracy into Marxism because you think that class is an intellectual construct. To merge it would be to subscribe to the POV notion that gender is a learned attribute and is merely theoretical/intellectual definition. It also needs to link Femininity. MPS 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is extremely one-sided as of January 13, 2006. It is missing, at the very least:
75% of the current article is simply a list of bad side-effects of North American views of masculinity: drinking, greater risk taking, etc. -- 205.250.250.154 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the history of masculinity? Is it the history of the term? Is it the history of the current concept? How would cultural differences be discussed? Would one locate a term which approximates "masculinity" in another language and then compare the meanings of the terms? Or would one discuss the presence or absence of the components of the concept of masculinity in different cultures? How would one determine whether a fictional depiction is of masculinity or just a component which some might assert is not masculinity, such as risk taking? Hyacinth 10:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The new Maddox book should be refered here at least at a humorous attempt at mocking the idea of masculinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.114.23 ( talk • contribs) 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This article only considers the existence of one form of masculinity. However, within a single society various forms of masculinity exist. Gender scholars use the term "hegemonic masculinity" to represent the dominant form of masculinity in a society, but others exist. For instance, a geeky scientist would represent a form of masculinity, as would the stereotypical notion of a gay man, or the stereotypical notion of a Black man. Likewise what is considered hegemonic masculinity in a culture varies. In Japan, for instance, a strong aspect of masculinity is working "120%" of the time, where it's not about "bulking up" or other things associated with masculinity in the United States today. This article seems to largely define masculinity as the American conception of hegemonic masculinity. That makes the article hopelessly problematic and probably in need of a complete rewrite. Most of the content as it is would be better placed at hegemonic masculinity in the United States. Sarge Baldy 08:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Despite #Masculinity Presented Undebatedly as Negative Social Construct and related complaints above my problem with the presentation in this article is that masculinity is only depicted as negative when it adversley affects masculine men. The huge section Men's health risks covers these drawbacks sympathetically, yet there is no mention of the risks to women and men who aren't masculine, such as the encouragement of rape and gay bashing. Hyacinth 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Brokeback Mountain did not radically and instantly change the image of cowboys in the mind of every person on the globe or in North America. That image is notable because it goes against the dominant image, not because it irreversibly changed that image. Hyacinth 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the disambiguation page masculine be re-established after the same mold as feminine. This used to be the case but was abolished in June 2005. The reason being that masculine has much more deeper meanings, both denotations and connotations, than masculinity (the latter compromised by cultural connotations). In the current scheme masculine unnecessarily gets caught up in the masculinity bias controveries. __ meco 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This might be more useful in this article. It was originally cited in effeminacy but does not particularly pertain to that topic. -- Marysunshine 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity:
Social scientists Deborah David and Robert Brannon (1976) give the following four rules for establishing masculinity:
Article currently contains the following:
That's four. Where's the fifth? -- Black Butterfly 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following text appears at the start of the Sociology section:
"Since Emile Durkheim, masculinity has been an interest of sociologists. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity in Western Culture..."
These sentences might be confusing to those who are unfamiliar either with Durkheim or with masculinities studies. When read together, they suggest Durkheim was still alive & publishing circa 1974. More importantly, referring to him here implies that Durkheim had something groundbreaking to say in this area. To my knowledge, none of his frequently cited works (Division of Labor, Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide, and Elementary Forms of Religious Life) deal exclusively with gender, much less with the specific issue of masculinity. I put a citation request inviting those who see Durkheim as a seminal thinker in the sociological study of masculinities to make their case. M. Frederick 09:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I heard something about a statistic stating that while usually women speak 7000 words a day, males speak 2000. I also heard women get a fix, so to speak, by talking, similar to that of taking opium. Perhaps just because a male may not express emotion when a woman does doesn't signify emotional repression? lol; I just relized the irony of the male-female ratio of singers. Faustus Tacitus 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read about these findings as well , they are out there go fetch them
The article begins to sound redundant here. Prior to this section, stoicism and emotional repression have been alluded to in three different citations (Chafetz, 1974; David & Brannon, 1976; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987).
Also, I found the last sentence problematic:
"Women and other men do not give men an option to express feeling sad, tired, weak, depressed, inadequate, needy, or lonely without sacrificing their masculinity."
It almost sounds like we're blaming women (i.e., that as men, we beg & plead for the option to express our vulnerability, but that the women in our lives insist we remain emotionless). Most of the sociological studies I'm aware of suggest that an overall social climate--rather than individuals--compels men to withhold our emotions. M. Frederick 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
it strikes me as a very effeminate picture, almost as if these two were lovers. to be honest, it really does not bring to mind masculinity, and the caption does not help. a replacement would be appreciated. Joeyramoney 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Homophobia has nothing with it (I hope). But masculinity has been different things for different people at different times. If this article was titled "Masculinity in the US in 2006" I would agree with you. As for personal point of view, you think this picture represents un-masculine behavior with an air of homosexuality to it. I see nothing sexual in it at all, and it strikes me as far more masculine than the fearful alienation that passes for comradery these days. At any rate, both our opinions are irrelevant, the picture depicts masculine behavior as it was construed in the 1800s in North America, and it would be good to have a greater variety of pictures rfrom other cultures too. Haiduc 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, let's not get too US-centric here. If you go to the Middle East today, you will commonly see men walking hand-in-hand, with their arms round each other's shoulders or waists. They consider themselves masculine - and other aspects of their behaviour (groping Western women tourists) are excessively so. So, as the photo caption now states, 'masculinity' means different things in different times, but also in different places around the world. 86.133.245.23 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea that 'masculanity is unhealthy' is biased and as ridiculous as saying there are 'health risks' to 'eating' or 'driving a car'. You could draw statistical information to show that that absolutely any cultural meme was in some way linked to a health risk. The section is very obviously silly and smells of agenda and should be removed as it detracts from the otherwise increasingly credible definition of masculanity. Much of the 'negativity' people are complaining about within this article also stems from that section. More importantly that entire section was so incredibly biased you could tell the character of the woman who last edited it (and she was clearly a woman). There were a lot of unusual and unecessary comparisons such as 'men don't do this as well as women do'. Daz902 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This section, actually titled 'Risk Taking' and not 'Health Risks,' seems to be more directed toward men in general, and not masculinity. This may be a cause for some of the negative responses to the article because a sentences like "Men are twice as likely to die from cancer than women are." and "Men are in fact three times more likely to die in all kinds of accidents than women. Men make up 93% of workplace deaths." are not directed toward masculinity, but are directed towards men. The first sentence does not appear related to taking risks, and is simply a fact about a male's likelihood of developing cancer, which appears to simply show a fault that men have without providing an explanation as to why men are more likely to develop cancer. The second sentences also make men, not masculinity the subject and do not have any citation or explanation. They almost invite a challenge because they seemingly lack substance and may cause the reader to contemplate a counterpoint, such as, "men make up a greater percentage of the work-force." By directing these sentences at men in general, these seem especially bellicose to those men who do not exhibit these characteristics and go to the doctor, wear sunscreen, eat healthily, or exercise. The paragraph about causes for why men exhibit risky behavior also seemingly degrades men with phrases like "loss of a young man is much less risky in terms of evolution," when, in fact, the loss of anyone in evolution simply removes that person's less adaptive genes from the gene pool to make the species more competitive, regardless of gender. This phrase makes it seem like the genes of a woman are better than those of a man. This entire section needs some serious rewording and verifiability.-- 71.103.207.67 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone explain to me how this "bodybuilder" picture displays anything having to do with masculinity? I am sick and tired of this picture popping up all over Wikipedia because of the agendas of users Wikidudeman and WLU. I am deleting it. 24.98.18.94 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, The image embodies "masculinity" due to it being a male primilarly and a muscular male secondlarly. The person is very masculine by definition and it's a good encyclopedic image and thus I think it should be used. What DOESN'T it have to do with masculinity? Wikidudeman (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain what you mean by the statement "he is very masculine by definition". Do you know this individual? Just by looking at him, I wouldn't consider him a masculine person. He seems small, with rather girlish features. Re-read the entire article and explain to me why he should be allowed on this wikipedia page after you've already spammed this pic on 10 other pages. Get a life. 170.140.6.250 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm wonder why you took that one so personally wikidudeman... I didn't make any personal attacks. Describing someone's physical features is not an attack on them. You still didn't answer my question. What makes this individual masculine, and why have you felt the need to add it to almost a dozen wikipedia pages? Maybe you can join your buddy WLU in a 24h ban. 170.140.6.250 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. There is absolutely no reason for that picture to be in this article. Wikidudeman has tried to place this picture on over a dozen wikipedia entries. There are millions of men who have "distinctly male features", but you think this particular one is necessary even after the Carlson Twins picture. Let me guess, you are going to tell me to "find one that is free license" right? The picture is pointless spam. 170.140.6.250 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Isotope, Wikidudeman has made the free license argument repeatedly on discussion sections of other entries such as bodybuilding, claiming that this is the "only" picture he has available which is blatantly false. Look at where the bodybuilder picture links to, and you will see why I've taken issue with Wikidudeman. He has also threatened me via private messaging.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.6.250 ( talk • contribs).
What about the Carlson twins, anyway? Seems to me that the emergence of the half-naked male model is an erosion of traditional masculinity -- that is, masculinity has traditionally been something active, primarily a code of behavior, where as the muscle-boys (like traditionally feminine women) exist just to be looked at -- their muscles do not necessarily do anything.
Past icons of masculinity -- John Wayne, for example -- did not have cut bodies or pose in their undies. In making the male ideal of manhood about the display of physical features, we have made masculinity more like femininity.
So, I think that photo is misplaced. DanB†DanD 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The current picture of hercules doesn't have a penis. Given that a penis is one of the most defining body parts of being male, and males are as a group the sex which masculinity is most associated, I'd like the picture of the dude to have a penis.
Many authorities see ideas of masculinity and femininity as being culturally constructed. I'm not interested in starting up a debate on this - but Wikipedia cannot pretend that there is no debate and simply "pick a side" to go with as the article does now. The "Culture" section needs to be rewritten so that all notable academic perspectives are neutrally presented according to their prominence in the literature, and none given editorial endorsement as "true."
DanB†DanD 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is a Catholic priest really that much of a masculine role? I don't think that it is thought of as being so in today's culture. Furthermore, if one reads the article above, the lifestyle of a Catholic priest is in complete contradiction to a number of the points outlined which characterise masculinity! It is not a 'physical' role; it cannot be thought of as being 'functional' - in that they are supported by the people they serve; 'sexual' is definitely out; stoic is debatable; and interpersonal along with 'other characteristics' could also be reconsidered. In fact only the intelligence element seems to fit in my opinion. ( AJMW 08:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
The article is no longer neutral. From reading discussions, it was originally heavily anti-masculine, however, now it ignores the problems traditional masculinity can cause. Neither side should be ignored. Traditional western masculinity is both a good thing and a bad thing and NEITHER SIDE SHOULD BE IGNORED. There needs to be a section 3.4.2.2 Negative Aspects of the Traditional American Masculine Gender Role.
67.185.17.120 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Braden, August 30, 2007
I deleted the section on risk taking in this article because it makes a series a specific generalities about male behavior, alledged stats, but does not include any sources. If somebody wants to go back and source that section then it can be put back in again, but as it stands a section that gives stat's (that are not common public knowledge) and no sources is somewhat questionable. 216.201.33.27 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask the wikipedia contributers that are harassing me, and threating to have me banned, for removing a section of this article that makes sweeping generalities, and is completely un-sourced, to back off.
If you want to talk about this section, then I am more then willing to communicate, but you continued inclusion of a section that violates wiki standards of being sourced, as well as harassment will not be tolerated. 216.201.33.27 03:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Risk-taking Men are significantly more likely than women to drink and drive, not to wear seatbelts, and to drive fast.[citation needed] Men are also more likely to be involved in a homicide.[citation needed] The driver fatality rate for young males (24 and under) per vehicle miles driven is approximately three times the driver fatality rate for young women of the same age per vehicle miles driven.[citation needed] In every age category after that, from age 25 to age 65, the driver fatality rate per vehicle miles driven is higher for men than for women.[5] Men are more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident and other accidents generally. And even in the narrow category of young (16-20) driver fatalities with a high blood alcohol content (BAC), a male's risk of dying is higher than a female's risk at the same BAC level.[6] That is, young women drivers need to be drunker to have the same risk of dying in a fatal accident as young men drivers. Men are in fact three times more likely to die in all kinds of accidents than women. Men make up 93% of workplace deaths[citation needed], indicating a greater willingness to perform dangerous work.
Men generally take more risks with their health than women. Men are twice as likely to die from cancer than women are.[citation needed] Men are more likely to not wear sunscreen, to eat unhealthily, and to forgo cardiovascular exercise.[citation needed] Men are historically also more likely to smoke (although now more women start smoking than men.[citation needed])
The reasons for this willingness to take risks are widely debated. There is evidence to show that this is largely due to genetic predispositions of the male sex,[citation needed] though perhaps greatly exaggerated and supported by social constructs and related pressure. Some cite how widespread and culture-independent certain aspects of masculine identity are, implying that if masculinity was purely learned, different societies in different times would have completely different ideas about the masculine gender role, which has historically remained relatively consistent.
In addition to taking more risks, men appear to be more capable of managing risk and performing under stress than women.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.33.27 ( talk) 07:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Requesting comment on weather Risk Taking section should be removed or not for violating wiki standards of verifiability. 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The title "Independence and Invincibility" seems out of place considering the content of the section. Even if it is renamed,why can't the majority of the section be merged with the "Health Risks" section, since that's what it is about. The alcohol subsection is too large as well. The majority of it is about beer commercials not "alcohol consumption behavior." If there is no debate on this I will start merging the sections and deleting or moving the extraneous bits about beer commercials. -- Dragonsscout 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It also says "Men should go to annual heart checkups with physicians but many do not..." Really, Wikipedia? What else 'should' men do? Also, the "Alcohol Consumption Behavior" could be merged with "Media encouragement" since beer commercials are a form of media. 64.148.8.56 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
in one way, Wiki reflects life, there are many people with opinions about what men should do.
Also, like life, they will have their way unless someone works at publicizing other options.
Watch this space. I think life and Wiki both are changing related to this topic, it's just a matter of time.
Thanks for your feedback, imo, it's a fair and constructive comment. Alastair Haines 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the section on risk-taking. There was no citation, and no sources and this type of text violates Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.161.95 ( talk) 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The page which this link takes you to, is not the Robert Connell, who wrote of masculinities. The Robert Connell, is to be found under Raewyn Connell, [ [1]]. 172.202.49.15 ( talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Maggie (22/01/08)
How does more male casualties in Iraq demonstrate risk-taking? There's more male soldiers in Iraq... 130.88.53.3 ( talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the inclusion of "muliebrity" since describing it as a rare compliment seemed to mean that the description of womanliness was a rare compliment. I was about to change it to "rarely used," but this term seems so obscure that its inclusion seemed oddly redundant. A check of the dictionary simply cross-referenced "femininity," which made it seem like the right choice. In any case, I believe it's original research to claim it as being more accurate.
I'm similarly dismayed with In Western culture masculinity has traditionally included features such as decisiveness, competitiveness, strength and rationality. This is unsourced and seems to be glowing toward masculinity -- rationality especially seems out of place. I realize that discussing gender roles is touchy, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's feet. Blackworm ( talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The author of this wiki states that "Masculinity has its roots in genetics. Therefore while masculinity looks different in different cultures, there are common aspects to its definition across cultures." This seems like highly speculative reasoning for a social science. Where is the evidence that either the premise or conclusion are true? I am willing to accept that the premise is true, but I have a hard time beliving that one can reason the existance of a social phenomena. Eeven if this type of reasoning is valid, the premise is too vague to be helpful. Does masculinity having it's roots in genetics imply that biology is the framework for masculinity, or is it just an aspect of masculinity. Couldn't the biological aspect of masculinity be obfuscated by a social process? Vigual
I don't have a moment to really look into it right now, but this section only mentions health concerns associated with maintaining a masculine body, and doesn't really describe in any detail what archetypal masculine physical attributes are. I would venture height, big muscles, good posture, body hair, and maybe the different hairstyles in different cultures associated with masculinity (short hair in some, long hair in others, baldness as a hypermasculine trait). I really have no sources on it though and I don't want to poison this fairly well-sourced article with my own original research. Just wanted to point it out. Thanks! Thee darcy ( talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else find illogical the argument that the media's body image is "unrealistic"? Obviously some men do achieve this image. How can something that is soemtimes achieved be "unrealistic?" I am compiling references for the opposing view and will place them in the article if no one objects. Peter1c ( talk) 22:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
"Masculinity has its roots in genetics (see gender).[6][7]" While someone has taken the time to cite this claim, presenting it as FACT wihtout mentioning the controversy between scientific determinism and social constuctionism, symbolic interactionism, performativity, or a myriad of other discourses and knowledge systems that attempt to account for gender is POV! 69.181.0.23 ( talk) 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps acknowlegement of Fausto Sterlings work "The Five Sexes" would at least open up a debate regarding clear reliance on biology in the creation of a male/female genetic binary. Intersex individuals have traditionally (though the practice is fading and now advocated against by the American Psychological Association) been physically altered through surgeries to appear genetically male and female. This highlights contradictions in biological essentialism. We choose to recognize two biological sexes when there are more. One might argue this is then used to uphold a masculine/feminine divide. However, there are also cultures that acknowlege more than two genders (see Serena Nanda's 2000 book Gender Diversity, Crosscultural Variations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.237.227 ( talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Although there was no consensus to merge, you should (as is always the case with articles you think should be merged) feel free to be bold and merge. Or not. This is a decision for editors to take. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be merged. It's the equivalent of merging Aristocracy into Marxism because you think that class is an intellectual construct. To merge it would be to subscribe to the POV notion that gender is a learned attribute and is merely theoretical/intellectual definition. It also needs to link Femininity. MPS 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is extremely one-sided as of January 13, 2006. It is missing, at the very least:
75% of the current article is simply a list of bad side-effects of North American views of masculinity: drinking, greater risk taking, etc. -- 205.250.250.154 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the history of masculinity? Is it the history of the term? Is it the history of the current concept? How would cultural differences be discussed? Would one locate a term which approximates "masculinity" in another language and then compare the meanings of the terms? Or would one discuss the presence or absence of the components of the concept of masculinity in different cultures? How would one determine whether a fictional depiction is of masculinity or just a component which some might assert is not masculinity, such as risk taking? Hyacinth 10:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The new Maddox book should be refered here at least at a humorous attempt at mocking the idea of masculinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.114.23 ( talk • contribs) 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This article only considers the existence of one form of masculinity. However, within a single society various forms of masculinity exist. Gender scholars use the term "hegemonic masculinity" to represent the dominant form of masculinity in a society, but others exist. For instance, a geeky scientist would represent a form of masculinity, as would the stereotypical notion of a gay man, or the stereotypical notion of a Black man. Likewise what is considered hegemonic masculinity in a culture varies. In Japan, for instance, a strong aspect of masculinity is working "120%" of the time, where it's not about "bulking up" or other things associated with masculinity in the United States today. This article seems to largely define masculinity as the American conception of hegemonic masculinity. That makes the article hopelessly problematic and probably in need of a complete rewrite. Most of the content as it is would be better placed at hegemonic masculinity in the United States. Sarge Baldy 08:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Despite #Masculinity Presented Undebatedly as Negative Social Construct and related complaints above my problem with the presentation in this article is that masculinity is only depicted as negative when it adversley affects masculine men. The huge section Men's health risks covers these drawbacks sympathetically, yet there is no mention of the risks to women and men who aren't masculine, such as the encouragement of rape and gay bashing. Hyacinth 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Brokeback Mountain did not radically and instantly change the image of cowboys in the mind of every person on the globe or in North America. That image is notable because it goes against the dominant image, not because it irreversibly changed that image. Hyacinth 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the disambiguation page masculine be re-established after the same mold as feminine. This used to be the case but was abolished in June 2005. The reason being that masculine has much more deeper meanings, both denotations and connotations, than masculinity (the latter compromised by cultural connotations). In the current scheme masculine unnecessarily gets caught up in the masculinity bias controveries. __ meco 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This might be more useful in this article. It was originally cited in effeminacy but does not particularly pertain to that topic. -- Marysunshine 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity:
Social scientists Deborah David and Robert Brannon (1976) give the following four rules for establishing masculinity:
Article currently contains the following:
That's four. Where's the fifth? -- Black Butterfly 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following text appears at the start of the Sociology section:
"Since Emile Durkheim, masculinity has been an interest of sociologists. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity in Western Culture..."
These sentences might be confusing to those who are unfamiliar either with Durkheim or with masculinities studies. When read together, they suggest Durkheim was still alive & publishing circa 1974. More importantly, referring to him here implies that Durkheim had something groundbreaking to say in this area. To my knowledge, none of his frequently cited works (Division of Labor, Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide, and Elementary Forms of Religious Life) deal exclusively with gender, much less with the specific issue of masculinity. I put a citation request inviting those who see Durkheim as a seminal thinker in the sociological study of masculinities to make their case. M. Frederick 09:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I heard something about a statistic stating that while usually women speak 7000 words a day, males speak 2000. I also heard women get a fix, so to speak, by talking, similar to that of taking opium. Perhaps just because a male may not express emotion when a woman does doesn't signify emotional repression? lol; I just relized the irony of the male-female ratio of singers. Faustus Tacitus 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read about these findings as well , they are out there go fetch them
The article begins to sound redundant here. Prior to this section, stoicism and emotional repression have been alluded to in three different citations (Chafetz, 1974; David & Brannon, 1976; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987).
Also, I found the last sentence problematic:
"Women and other men do not give men an option to express feeling sad, tired, weak, depressed, inadequate, needy, or lonely without sacrificing their masculinity."
It almost sounds like we're blaming women (i.e., that as men, we beg & plead for the option to express our vulnerability, but that the women in our lives insist we remain emotionless). Most of the sociological studies I'm aware of suggest that an overall social climate--rather than individuals--compels men to withhold our emotions. M. Frederick 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
it strikes me as a very effeminate picture, almost as if these two were lovers. to be honest, it really does not bring to mind masculinity, and the caption does not help. a replacement would be appreciated. Joeyramoney 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Homophobia has nothing with it (I hope). But masculinity has been different things for different people at different times. If this article was titled "Masculinity in the US in 2006" I would agree with you. As for personal point of view, you think this picture represents un-masculine behavior with an air of homosexuality to it. I see nothing sexual in it at all, and it strikes me as far more masculine than the fearful alienation that passes for comradery these days. At any rate, both our opinions are irrelevant, the picture depicts masculine behavior as it was construed in the 1800s in North America, and it would be good to have a greater variety of pictures rfrom other cultures too. Haiduc 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, let's not get too US-centric here. If you go to the Middle East today, you will commonly see men walking hand-in-hand, with their arms round each other's shoulders or waists. They consider themselves masculine - and other aspects of their behaviour (groping Western women tourists) are excessively so. So, as the photo caption now states, 'masculinity' means different things in different times, but also in different places around the world. 86.133.245.23 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea that 'masculanity is unhealthy' is biased and as ridiculous as saying there are 'health risks' to 'eating' or 'driving a car'. You could draw statistical information to show that that absolutely any cultural meme was in some way linked to a health risk. The section is very obviously silly and smells of agenda and should be removed as it detracts from the otherwise increasingly credible definition of masculanity. Much of the 'negativity' people are complaining about within this article also stems from that section. More importantly that entire section was so incredibly biased you could tell the character of the woman who last edited it (and she was clearly a woman). There were a lot of unusual and unecessary comparisons such as 'men don't do this as well as women do'. Daz902 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This section, actually titled 'Risk Taking' and not 'Health Risks,' seems to be more directed toward men in general, and not masculinity. This may be a cause for some of the negative responses to the article because a sentences like "Men are twice as likely to die from cancer than women are." and "Men are in fact three times more likely to die in all kinds of accidents than women. Men make up 93% of workplace deaths." are not directed toward masculinity, but are directed towards men. The first sentence does not appear related to taking risks, and is simply a fact about a male's likelihood of developing cancer, which appears to simply show a fault that men have without providing an explanation as to why men are more likely to develop cancer. The second sentences also make men, not masculinity the subject and do not have any citation or explanation. They almost invite a challenge because they seemingly lack substance and may cause the reader to contemplate a counterpoint, such as, "men make up a greater percentage of the work-force." By directing these sentences at men in general, these seem especially bellicose to those men who do not exhibit these characteristics and go to the doctor, wear sunscreen, eat healthily, or exercise. The paragraph about causes for why men exhibit risky behavior also seemingly degrades men with phrases like "loss of a young man is much less risky in terms of evolution," when, in fact, the loss of anyone in evolution simply removes that person's less adaptive genes from the gene pool to make the species more competitive, regardless of gender. This phrase makes it seem like the genes of a woman are better than those of a man. This entire section needs some serious rewording and verifiability.-- 71.103.207.67 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone explain to me how this "bodybuilder" picture displays anything having to do with masculinity? I am sick and tired of this picture popping up all over Wikipedia because of the agendas of users Wikidudeman and WLU. I am deleting it. 24.98.18.94 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, The image embodies "masculinity" due to it being a male primilarly and a muscular male secondlarly. The person is very masculine by definition and it's a good encyclopedic image and thus I think it should be used. What DOESN'T it have to do with masculinity? Wikidudeman (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain what you mean by the statement "he is very masculine by definition". Do you know this individual? Just by looking at him, I wouldn't consider him a masculine person. He seems small, with rather girlish features. Re-read the entire article and explain to me why he should be allowed on this wikipedia page after you've already spammed this pic on 10 other pages. Get a life. 170.140.6.250 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm wonder why you took that one so personally wikidudeman... I didn't make any personal attacks. Describing someone's physical features is not an attack on them. You still didn't answer my question. What makes this individual masculine, and why have you felt the need to add it to almost a dozen wikipedia pages? Maybe you can join your buddy WLU in a 24h ban. 170.140.6.250 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. There is absolutely no reason for that picture to be in this article. Wikidudeman has tried to place this picture on over a dozen wikipedia entries. There are millions of men who have "distinctly male features", but you think this particular one is necessary even after the Carlson Twins picture. Let me guess, you are going to tell me to "find one that is free license" right? The picture is pointless spam. 170.140.6.250 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Isotope, Wikidudeman has made the free license argument repeatedly on discussion sections of other entries such as bodybuilding, claiming that this is the "only" picture he has available which is blatantly false. Look at where the bodybuilder picture links to, and you will see why I've taken issue with Wikidudeman. He has also threatened me via private messaging.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.6.250 ( talk • contribs).
What about the Carlson twins, anyway? Seems to me that the emergence of the half-naked male model is an erosion of traditional masculinity -- that is, masculinity has traditionally been something active, primarily a code of behavior, where as the muscle-boys (like traditionally feminine women) exist just to be looked at -- their muscles do not necessarily do anything.
Past icons of masculinity -- John Wayne, for example -- did not have cut bodies or pose in their undies. In making the male ideal of manhood about the display of physical features, we have made masculinity more like femininity.
So, I think that photo is misplaced. DanB†DanD 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The current picture of hercules doesn't have a penis. Given that a penis is one of the most defining body parts of being male, and males are as a group the sex which masculinity is most associated, I'd like the picture of the dude to have a penis.
Many authorities see ideas of masculinity and femininity as being culturally constructed. I'm not interested in starting up a debate on this - but Wikipedia cannot pretend that there is no debate and simply "pick a side" to go with as the article does now. The "Culture" section needs to be rewritten so that all notable academic perspectives are neutrally presented according to their prominence in the literature, and none given editorial endorsement as "true."
DanB†DanD 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is a Catholic priest really that much of a masculine role? I don't think that it is thought of as being so in today's culture. Furthermore, if one reads the article above, the lifestyle of a Catholic priest is in complete contradiction to a number of the points outlined which characterise masculinity! It is not a 'physical' role; it cannot be thought of as being 'functional' - in that they are supported by the people they serve; 'sexual' is definitely out; stoic is debatable; and interpersonal along with 'other characteristics' could also be reconsidered. In fact only the intelligence element seems to fit in my opinion. ( AJMW 08:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
The article is no longer neutral. From reading discussions, it was originally heavily anti-masculine, however, now it ignores the problems traditional masculinity can cause. Neither side should be ignored. Traditional western masculinity is both a good thing and a bad thing and NEITHER SIDE SHOULD BE IGNORED. There needs to be a section 3.4.2.2 Negative Aspects of the Traditional American Masculine Gender Role.
67.185.17.120 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Braden, August 30, 2007
I deleted the section on risk taking in this article because it makes a series a specific generalities about male behavior, alledged stats, but does not include any sources. If somebody wants to go back and source that section then it can be put back in again, but as it stands a section that gives stat's (that are not common public knowledge) and no sources is somewhat questionable. 216.201.33.27 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask the wikipedia contributers that are harassing me, and threating to have me banned, for removing a section of this article that makes sweeping generalities, and is completely un-sourced, to back off.
If you want to talk about this section, then I am more then willing to communicate, but you continued inclusion of a section that violates wiki standards of being sourced, as well as harassment will not be tolerated. 216.201.33.27 03:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Risk-taking Men are significantly more likely than women to drink and drive, not to wear seatbelts, and to drive fast.[citation needed] Men are also more likely to be involved in a homicide.[citation needed] The driver fatality rate for young males (24 and under) per vehicle miles driven is approximately three times the driver fatality rate for young women of the same age per vehicle miles driven.[citation needed] In every age category after that, from age 25 to age 65, the driver fatality rate per vehicle miles driven is higher for men than for women.[5] Men are more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident and other accidents generally. And even in the narrow category of young (16-20) driver fatalities with a high blood alcohol content (BAC), a male's risk of dying is higher than a female's risk at the same BAC level.[6] That is, young women drivers need to be drunker to have the same risk of dying in a fatal accident as young men drivers. Men are in fact three times more likely to die in all kinds of accidents than women. Men make up 93% of workplace deaths[citation needed], indicating a greater willingness to perform dangerous work.
Men generally take more risks with their health than women. Men are twice as likely to die from cancer than women are.[citation needed] Men are more likely to not wear sunscreen, to eat unhealthily, and to forgo cardiovascular exercise.[citation needed] Men are historically also more likely to smoke (although now more women start smoking than men.[citation needed])
The reasons for this willingness to take risks are widely debated. There is evidence to show that this is largely due to genetic predispositions of the male sex,[citation needed] though perhaps greatly exaggerated and supported by social constructs and related pressure. Some cite how widespread and culture-independent certain aspects of masculine identity are, implying that if masculinity was purely learned, different societies in different times would have completely different ideas about the masculine gender role, which has historically remained relatively consistent.
In addition to taking more risks, men appear to be more capable of managing risk and performing under stress than women.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.33.27 ( talk) 07:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Requesting comment on weather Risk Taking section should be removed or not for violating wiki standards of verifiability. 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The title "Independence and Invincibility" seems out of place considering the content of the section. Even if it is renamed,why can't the majority of the section be merged with the "Health Risks" section, since that's what it is about. The alcohol subsection is too large as well. The majority of it is about beer commercials not "alcohol consumption behavior." If there is no debate on this I will start merging the sections and deleting or moving the extraneous bits about beer commercials. -- Dragonsscout 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It also says "Men should go to annual heart checkups with physicians but many do not..." Really, Wikipedia? What else 'should' men do? Also, the "Alcohol Consumption Behavior" could be merged with "Media encouragement" since beer commercials are a form of media. 64.148.8.56 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
in one way, Wiki reflects life, there are many people with opinions about what men should do.
Also, like life, they will have their way unless someone works at publicizing other options.
Watch this space. I think life and Wiki both are changing related to this topic, it's just a matter of time.
Thanks for your feedback, imo, it's a fair and constructive comment. Alastair Haines 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the section on risk-taking. There was no citation, and no sources and this type of text violates Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.161.95 ( talk) 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The page which this link takes you to, is not the Robert Connell, who wrote of masculinities. The Robert Connell, is to be found under Raewyn Connell, [ [1]]. 172.202.49.15 ( talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Maggie (22/01/08)
How does more male casualties in Iraq demonstrate risk-taking? There's more male soldiers in Iraq... 130.88.53.3 ( talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the inclusion of "muliebrity" since describing it as a rare compliment seemed to mean that the description of womanliness was a rare compliment. I was about to change it to "rarely used," but this term seems so obscure that its inclusion seemed oddly redundant. A check of the dictionary simply cross-referenced "femininity," which made it seem like the right choice. In any case, I believe it's original research to claim it as being more accurate.
I'm similarly dismayed with In Western culture masculinity has traditionally included features such as decisiveness, competitiveness, strength and rationality. This is unsourced and seems to be glowing toward masculinity -- rationality especially seems out of place. I realize that discussing gender roles is touchy, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's feet. Blackworm ( talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The author of this wiki states that "Masculinity has its roots in genetics. Therefore while masculinity looks different in different cultures, there are common aspects to its definition across cultures." This seems like highly speculative reasoning for a social science. Where is the evidence that either the premise or conclusion are true? I am willing to accept that the premise is true, but I have a hard time beliving that one can reason the existance of a social phenomena. Eeven if this type of reasoning is valid, the premise is too vague to be helpful. Does masculinity having it's roots in genetics imply that biology is the framework for masculinity, or is it just an aspect of masculinity. Couldn't the biological aspect of masculinity be obfuscated by a social process? Vigual
I don't have a moment to really look into it right now, but this section only mentions health concerns associated with maintaining a masculine body, and doesn't really describe in any detail what archetypal masculine physical attributes are. I would venture height, big muscles, good posture, body hair, and maybe the different hairstyles in different cultures associated with masculinity (short hair in some, long hair in others, baldness as a hypermasculine trait). I really have no sources on it though and I don't want to poison this fairly well-sourced article with my own original research. Just wanted to point it out. Thanks! Thee darcy ( talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else find illogical the argument that the media's body image is "unrealistic"? Obviously some men do achieve this image. How can something that is soemtimes achieved be "unrealistic?" I am compiling references for the opposing view and will place them in the article if no one objects. Peter1c ( talk) 22:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
"Masculinity has its roots in genetics (see gender).[6][7]" While someone has taken the time to cite this claim, presenting it as FACT wihtout mentioning the controversy between scientific determinism and social constuctionism, symbolic interactionism, performativity, or a myriad of other discourses and knowledge systems that attempt to account for gender is POV! 69.181.0.23 ( talk) 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps acknowlegement of Fausto Sterlings work "The Five Sexes" would at least open up a debate regarding clear reliance on biology in the creation of a male/female genetic binary. Intersex individuals have traditionally (though the practice is fading and now advocated against by the American Psychological Association) been physically altered through surgeries to appear genetically male and female. This highlights contradictions in biological essentialism. We choose to recognize two biological sexes when there are more. One might argue this is then used to uphold a masculine/feminine divide. However, there are also cultures that acknowlege more than two genders (see Serena Nanda's 2000 book Gender Diversity, Crosscultural Variations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.237.227 ( talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)