Talk:Hegemonic masculinity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shawn B.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikegriff93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilxsa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vin0beats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TaReeve.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cats&Books.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shawn B.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Class Project

For a project in my religion class, we must try to contribute to articles on Wikipedia and improve them. I am in the beginning stages of this project, but I hope to focus on this article. I am studying sociology and I hope that will help me in my contributions to this article. Bgrampp8 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC) I'm back to working on this project, and here I will propose my edits to the page:

I will try to cut and paste the paragraph about football from 'Early Childhood' to right after the first paragraph in 'Middle Childhood'. It will fit perfectly there because the last sentence references athletic ability. I think the paragraph about reading in 'Early Childhood' will stay where it is. I will also add citations for the two movies mentioned in this subheading; Celluloid Closet and Tough Guise. The quote used for 'Tough Guise' needs quotation marks and a citation, so it would look a little something like this: In Jackson Katz’ film Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity, he explains: "We can’t show any emotion except anger. We can’t think too much or seem too intelligent. We can’t back down when someone disrespects us. We have to show we’re tough enough to inflict physical pain and take it in turn. We’re supposed to be sexually aggressive with women. And then we’re taught that if we step out of this box, we risk being seen as soft, weak, feminine, or gay". [1]

The paragraph that begins talking about Celluloid Closet is confusing because it references the movie once and then goes on to talk about an uncited and unspecific article. That part of the paragraph should be deleted, as I think it will be impossible to track down what the person who wrote that sentence is trying to reference. Also the title of the movie should be linked to it's corresponding Wikipedia article, in case readers want to know more. With that paragraph being reduced to one sentence, the information from Tough Guise could be combined there to make one paragraph about media representation. While this will all be interesting, I am not sure if it really fits under 'Adolescence' and 'Lifespan Development'. Maybe I can add a new subheading for media representation of men and give it a kick start with the info I'd take from 'adolescence' and then leave it for more Wikipedia Users to edit. So that could look something like this:

Media Representation The 1995 documentary The Celluloid Closet discusses the depictions of homosexuals throughout film history. This film explores gay representation in the media, pointing out that a male perceived as ‘un-masculine’ was therefore a ‘sissy,’ or not a true man. In Jackson Katz’s film Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity, he explains: "We can’t show any emotion except anger. We can’t think too much or seem too intelligent. We can’t back down when someone disrespects us. We have to show we’re tough enough to inflict physical pain and take it in turn. We’re supposed to be sexually aggressive with women. And then we’re taught that if we step out of this box, we risk being seen as soft, weak, feminine, or gay". [1] Bgrampp8 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed split "Toxic masculinity"

This article currently uses the use of the adjective toxic by the canonical author on hegemonic masculinity (Connell) to establish validity, but then rather than covering toxic through the the context of hegemonic masculinity established in the article it goes on an only tangentially related diatribe.Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The basic definition of toxic masculinity here comes not from Connell, but from Terry Kupers, who explicitly frames it in terms of hegemonic masculinity. When this was a separate article, it tended to attract a great deal of POV-pushing from antifeminist-leaning users who wanted to cite their favorite political commentators to cast doubt on the academically-oriented concept of toxic masculinity. It was to minimize such "diatribes" that I merged the content into this article. I suggest keeping it here to avoid another WP:POVFORK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Additionally, Wikipedia doesn't take a stand on which authors are "canonical" in a given topic area. We give weight to the views of published, reliable sources, whatever their stance may be. The implication that the "validity" of Connell's description is only used here to give cover to an unrelated "diatribe" is unjustified. There are no diatribes in the section on § Toxic masculinity, just a summary of the views of published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Here is an academic article which treats them as related but distinct entities: :https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20105

Some of the stresses and complexities of life in men's prisons are explored. The relation between hegemonic masculinity and toxic masculinity is examined.

And a academic manuscript for a work which treats toxicity as distinct but related to hegemony[1] which treats them as distinct.. Hegemony after all is just leadership which while possible to abuse is not a necessary condition for abuse.Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines hegemony as "(1) preponderant influence or authority over others : domination (2) the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group". That's not the same as leadership, but that debate is original research anyway. The manuscript you provided is an undergraduate thesis. Far better sources are available, but I don't see where it says toxic masculinity is distinct from hegemonic masculinity. Reading beyond the abstract of the first source you provided, it says, "The term toxic masculinity ... delineates those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive." [2] This is also the source I cited above; it establishes toxic masculinity as a subtopic of hegemonic masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The term / concept should have its own article in my view. If there are differing definitions then they can be mentioned in the article, along with critiques of them. Yahboo (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I believe that their is enough information and relevancy for their to be a whole page dedicated to "Toxic" Masculinity. Like Yahboo said, the term has had enough discussion that a handful of different definitions have came up that could be put in the article

  If vandalism should be a problem on the page we should ask to be put in place an extended edit or semi-protected lock.BMO4744 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The problem as I see it is that such "discussion" has come mostly from pundits, not academics. It would be inappropriate to add commentary about toxic masculinity as a political buzzword to an article primarily about a concept in academic psychology or sociology, because such commentary lacks the weight of academic sources. Likewise, it doesn't matter how many definitions of the term are out there; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We rely on sources that give significant, in-depth coverage to a topic; in this case, the few such sources that exist tend to focus on the academic concept. What high-quality sources describe the topic differently than the current article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Note: I've posted links to this discussion at the talk pages of several related WikiProjects: Men's Issues, Sociology, Feminism, and Gender Studies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - As shown by this pageviews graph, 4 times more people are looking for information about "toxic masculinity" than "hegemonic masculnity" (the flips shows when the redirect was put in place), which isn't surprising since "hegemonic masculnity" is strictly an academic term. Kaldari (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Kaldari's reason, plus an addition that it would reduce the perceived bloat of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasDuane (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support because I agree that It would be inappropriate to add commentary about toxic masculinity as a political buzzword to an article primarily about a concept in academic psychology or sociology... and therefore it should be in a separate article. It seemed in decent shape before. Leviv ich 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: where is there any political commentary or buzzwords currently in this article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "Toxic masculinity" is a separate subject from "hegemonic masculinity". Any "political commentary or buzzwords" about "toxic masculinity" belongs in Toxic masculinity, not Hegemonic masculinity. Leviv ich 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I see that I wasn't clear. When I said we shouldn't have political commentary or popular buzzwords in an article on an academic subject, I was saying that Toxic masculinity is primarily such a subject, going by the most reliable sources. My point is that non-academic content is inappropriate for either topic. And TM is described as a subtopic of HM, so they're not entirely separate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You were clear; I just disagree. Just because it's non-academic doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. Per other editors' comments above, there's enough for a stand-alone on toxic masculinity, and because it's non-academic, it shouldn't be mixed into the same article as hegemonic masculinity (though hegemonic masculinity might have a section talking about toxic masculinity and distinguishing between science and buzzword as appropriate). Similar to Astrology and Astronomy. Leviv ich 07:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Toxic masculinity is an academic topic, according to the sources. What makes you say otherwise? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Google search results, basically. Google Scholar search for "hegemonic masculinity": 44,800 results; "hegemonic masculinity" -"toxic masculinity": 44,600; "toxic masculinity": 2,550; "toxic masculinity" -"hegemonic masculinity": 2,050; "toxic masculinity" and "hegemonic masculinity": 488. Among Google web results:

• New York Times: "Now we have 'toxic masculinity' — an expression once relegated to women’s studies classrooms that suddenly seems to be everywhere."
• NBC News: "There is a popular (and controversial name) for the concept ... The idea, which has taken root in popular culture ... But outside of academic circles, it's seemingly taken on a meaning ..."
• Advocate: "The etymology of the term [toxic masculinity] can be traced not to academia, but to the rise of the Mythopoetic men’s movement of the ’80s and ’90s — a response to the cultural shift second-wave feminism brought about — where men bonded often in the wilderness and in sweat lodges to attempt to rediscover their 'deep masculinity.'"
• The Atlantic: "This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, 'a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.'"
• Vice has an entire section on "toxic masculinity", including "All Masculinity Is Toxic", an interview with John Stoltenberg ("These days, the phrase has been embraced by fourth wave feminists and allies like The Good Men Project, who define it as a, 'narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status, and aggression.'") and "Why It Might Be Time to Retire the Buzzword 'Toxic Masculinity'", an interview with Vivek Shraya.
• USA Today: "It's a power play — an example of what many call 'toxic masculinity.'"

I think "toxic masculinity" should be a separate article from "hegemonic masculinity". If you were to Venn diagram the sources, there would be some overlap, but the majority would not overlap. Leviv ich 17:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support for reasons above. Bkdb44 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support They are related yet different subjects. Owen4402 5:08, 1 April 2019 (CDT)

As the debate seems to have died out and there is a clear consensus to restore the toxic masculinity article, I've gone ahead and done that and shortened the "toxic masculinity" section here. Feel free to tweak further. Kaldari (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hegemonic Masculinity

So I noticed that there is a page for toxic masculinity, and I am wondering if it would be beneficial to make a page for "hybrid masculinities." This only exists currently as a subsection on the Hegemonic Masculinity page and I believe I have some sources that could help me turn it into its own page:

1. Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology of Men and Masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246-258.

2.Ging, D. (2017). Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638-657.

3. Massanari, A. (2016). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329-346.

4. Moloney, M. E., & Love, T. P. (2017). #TheFappening. Men and Masculinities, 21(5), 603-623.

5. Rafail, P., & Freitas, I. (2019, April). Grievance Articulation and Community Reactions in the Men’s Rights Movement Online.

Let me know any thoughts about this addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaReeve (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Critiques of "toxic masculinity"

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek writes that the concept of toxic masculinity is an ideological category that has been turned into a clinical category, which means that there is a whole industry of pharmaceuticals and medical procedures that have arisen to deal with the now "medical" problem. In addition, others have argued that this process has ultimately worked to increase incarceration rates under the guise of intersectionality.

I've removed this paragraph, which had no citations to reliable sources. For the first sentence the only relevant citation I could find was an op-ed from around the time of the Gillette The Best Men Can Be ad controversy. I couldn't find any relevant citations for the second sentence. Overall the material seems unduly weighted for an article on a scholarly topic like this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fruitninjalover (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ebrianna11!.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bbalicia (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aceja00.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Essay-like

Apologies to butt in, but I feel like this entire page is written like an essay. It feels much, MUCH less like a real dissection of the topic and more like an op ed or an undergrad essay (not said disparagingly), even down to things like the bolded-and-underlined section. I think this page needs a good rework at some point soon to really make sure that the point is getting across. 2601:CA:8280:880:6503:62D7:BC74:4D24 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)