Talk:Masculinity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reevaluating the "Overview" section

Hi there! There seem to be a lot of subsections in this article, particularly in the overview, that are incredibly short and could be combined into a larger subsection of sociological and psychological debates of how masculinity is developed and encouraged. Particularly because it is not a "given" or particularly simply answered question of origin, I think that it is misleading to try and put all of these different and contrasting ideas into the "Overview" section. Similarly, trying to integrate these ideas could give the reader a better idea of the sides of the debate, rather than having them scattered throughout the article. Ballinm (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the overview section seems to be attempting to cover too much ground and ends up not having much fluidity. I do think the nature vs/and nurture discussion may be necessary in that section. What thoughts or suggestions did you have in mind? Michaelramirez (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Types of Masculinities

Hi, all! Just like a few of the editors above, I am also doing a few evaluations for a class. I noticed that Connell's Masculinities is referenced in the article, but the only masculinity discussed is hegemonic masculinity. This leaves out subordinate, marginalized, and complicit masculinity from the discussion on Connell. I also noticed that there was a distinct lack of discussion on how masculinity varies between races, as race also informs masculine performance, as well as female masculinities. Would anyone be opposed to adding these topics to the discussion, and if not, what sources might we begin to consider bringing in? Nicrlove (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this over the weekend as well and think this section should be expanded with the elements you suggested. I plan to read through some lit to find additional sources beyond Connell to use to expand this section. I will return later this week with some possible items that may be useful. Did you have any in mind? Michaelramirez (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe ethnicity and nationality instead of race, as social scientists generally are moving away from the idea of biological race. But I think that would be a good addition to this article. AnaSoc (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Machismo

The machismo page notes that there are both positive and negative aspects to the concept. In the intro to Maasculinity, we should either note that fact, add it as a subsection below, or delete it altogether. Looking for neutrality here. Your ideas?AnaSoc (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please move forward with this! The short mention of machismo in the intro section struck me as something that needed to be expanded upon later in the page. There's an entire racial component to the term that I think should be added. If you create a new section or expand the machismo discussion in any way, I will certainly chime in with more additions as well. Michaelramirez (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

New section: Social Construction of Masculinities

Fellow masculinity editors. I am in the process of drafting edits to the masculinity entry. One important, yet missing, line of inquiry in the existing entry concerns the "social construction of masculinity." The entry does have some material that suggests some of this theoretical idea, however, I believe the entry could be more streamlined with the addition of a new subsection with this header. I am inclined to insert this section in the Overview section, immediately after the Nurture versus Nature subsection. It makes theoretical and readability sense to include it here. Any thoughts on the addition of this section? I will include some key ideas in this section, but would of course love additional material to expand it. Michaelramirez (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a social construction section, and I also like the idea of putting it after the nurture v. nature subsection. AnaSoc (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will move forward with this in the coming days. Please add what ever other ideas you see as appropriate. :) Michaelramirez (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Potentially New Section

Hi everyone, I see we talked about a psychological view of masculinity as were as its roots. But, why not add a section on the sociological part of masculinity and why the behavior is portray and taken in , in such way. Emphasizing on the theoretical functions which includes but is not limited to - functionalist perspective, social perspective, economical perspective, and symbolic interactionist perspective. RealWorldddddTalk (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This would be a welcomed addition, in my opinion. If you look a few posts above yours, you'll see a discussion I started about adding a new section on the Social Construction of Masculinities. I plan to move forward with this new section in the coming days. Adding some of the perspectives you suggested would fit well here. Michaelramirez (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Health and dubious claims

The text attributed to "Psychological Androgyny: Theories, Methods, and Conclusions." by Taylor and Hall is tagged as dubious. What is dubious about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs) 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Sewblon 01:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The text in question is both unduly vague and contradicted by more recent scholarly sources, such as Levant (1996), Real (2004), and Mankowski and Smith (2016), each of whom indicates that traditional masculinity ideology is associated with both physical and mental health problems in men, which are often under-diagnosed. The source added appears to be concerned specifically with androgynous individuals, so its use here goes beyond the authors' intended meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The text isn't associated specifically with androgynous individuals. It is associated with the hypothesis that androgyny is associated with positive mental health in both men and women, and explaining why that hypothesis is not true. Sewblon 01:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

In that case it's certainly off-topic for this article, which is specifically about masculinity rather than androgyny. However, the research on sex roles, psychological androgyny, and mental health appears to be less than clear cut. See for instance Bassoff & Glass (1982) and Bolton-Holder (2004). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Distinct from biological

The statement in the introduction:

"As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex."

Has the problem of featuring an idea from gender sociology and politics too highly, wherein masculinity and femininity are just "social constructs" that have nothing to do with 'male biology.' This is inserting gender politics, particularly of the kind which denies that male and female qualities have any relation to physiological and psychological reality. With physiology comes psychology, male or female. And the offered similar terms are in detail different. "Masculinity" is an innate quality, whereas "manliness" is an observed quality that is of wide variance in its meaning, and "manhood" is a social status and rank. So masculinity is first a natural property of males, and later its a sociological property and a component in various political theories. The sources need improvement, with the two references being from an very short outline on women' health on the WHO website, and the other from a sociologist dealing with a very wide overview of sociology. The article continues:

"Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods. Both males and females can exhibit masculine traits and behavior."

This is vague and goes on to further promote this idea that masculinity and male body and mind have nothing to do with each other. -Inowen (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If that's what reliable, scholarly sources say, then that's what we say too (although distinct from is not the same as nothing to do with – that's a false equivalence). The World Health Organization is one of the most reliable sources around. See also the sources quoted under § Biological or social construct?, above. If you want the article to present a different summary, then it's up to you to find sources of equal weight and reliability to these that present an alternative view, or ideally an overview of the relevant scholarly consensus. —14:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Inowen. The article at present only presents a sociological view of masculinity, and leaves out the considerable body of biological work on this topic. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You are both arguing a false dichotomy. Just because masculinity is a social construct doesn't mean it has nothing to do with male biology. Obviously it is very related to male biology. This article, however, is about the social construct, whereas the article man is about male biology. Just because they are related doesn't mean they are the same thing though. I'm also afraid that Inowen's definition of "masculinity" does not match any definition that I've seen. If masculinity were just an "innate quality" of men, there wouldn't be a 300-page book called Female Masculinity and we wouldn't consider blue masculine and pink feminine. Clearly there's something to masculinity other than a set of innate physical properties. If you have sources that state otherwise, I would be interested in reading them. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The statement that "masculinity is a social construct" is itself a political position, and highly debatable. This statement is a politicized redefinition of an existing dictionary word. Political positions such as this belong in separate articles linked to from the main article. The political position does not belong in the lead paragraph to this article. Retaining the sentence in that place contravenes Wikipedia's dedication to unbiased fact. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.230.37 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at some dictionary definitions:

• Merriam-Webster: "qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man".
• Dictionary.com: "having qualities traditionally ascribed to men".
• Oxford: "qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men."

Associating, ascribing, and regarding are all functions of people, not nature. If masculinity wasn't a social construct, those definitions would simply say "qualities typical of men" or "qualities of the male sex". I think there are people that use the word "masculinity" as a pure synonym for "maleness", but the social construct definition is probably more common. For example, if you think steel-toed boots are masculine and high-heeled shoes are feminine, you ascribe to the social construct definition. I don't think either definition is a "political position", it's just the reality of how people use the word. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to rain on your parade ladies'n'gentleman or other. But unless you all want me to politely slap a NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tag on this controversial addition, I would recommend staying at least neutral with the equal and yet opposite section of femininity. Where the best they were willing to edit this was "Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" without invariably causing any debate. For the worthy sake of neutrality. I ardently recommend an equivalent and final edit of this intention until a less controversial, better credited and a more neutral point of view can be added without pushing a political POV on a sociobiology based topic. They have sources and citations that are more relevant and specific to the topic. eg. NZ4Life (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Kindly indicate how you would like these sources represented in the article. Simply linking refs does not demonstrate that masculinity and femininity are "equal and yet opposite", nor that the article is "pushing a political POV". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, until March of this year, the femininity article said "Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." which seems a better description IMO. I agree with NZ4Life that the two articles are roughly equivalent, but I think the other one should be changed, not this one. Kaldari (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Ty Cobb and baseball

The material about Ty Cobb the baseball player is not based on sources about the "role of masculinity in sports". According to Hunter Hampton's review, the book is a biography that "gives primacy to questions of causation, contexts, and consequences" in terms of Cobb's own career as a player. That doesn't make it about sports and masculinity writ large.

The material already exists at Ty Cobb#Legacy. Duplicating it here would be a content fork: "the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided" (emphasis added).

Wikipedia articles are not places to promote one's favorite characters from history or sports, nor are they an indiscriminate collection of times an author uses a concept as a framing device. Sources should focus on the topic of the article at hand. Therefore, I've removed the material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: if either Tripp or Hampton elaborate on how sports and masculinity themselves are related, then such information may be pertinent to the article. But if we want to give the impression that Cobb himself is seen as a canonical example of a certain type of masculinity, then I think we would need higher-level (e.g. tertiary) sourcing from authors that focus on masculinity in general. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

I proposed a change yesterday that I think improved the lead of the article, it was blocked by Nblund. At the time of propsal the lead of Femininity read the exact same way (as my edit), and I stated as such. After blocking my edit, Nblund never having contributed to Femininity before, changed the lead of the Femininity to match the previous version of Masculinity I thought to change. Nblund clearly sought to check and fix it after I pointed out that it contradicted their beliefs. User Crossroads attempted to write in a compromise on this language for both articles and Sangdebeouf reverted the edit on both articles (also having never contributed to femininity before). It's obvious that Nblund and Sangdebeouf are of the same opinion and dare I say abusing their station on this site. I have a legitimate concern about the content of these articles and took it to "talk" as they both are seem to reference on their reverts, which I'm finding is just an excuse to maintain their preferred wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaester (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want your changes accepted, it's very simple: provide published, reliable sources to back up your changes. This has already been pointed out to you. Ignoring core content policies in favor of complaints about editors "blocking" you is unlikely to work very much in your favor, I'm afraid. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I provided a source. Besides that one just needs common sense and a dictionary. The concepts themselves were based on observed differences(obviously biological or physical, as well as behavioral) between of the sexes. Femininity- the quality or nature of the female sex - the quality, state, or degree of being feminine or womanly. Masculinity: the quality or nature of the male sex - the quality, state, or degree of being masculine or manly. Women: an adult human female. Man- an adult male human. Female- of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs. Male- an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female. Besides this I need to find a source that links biology with the terms? Webmaester (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You need sources that explicitly support your claims. I have no idea where you're getting your dictionary definition of masculinity, but it is not consistent with the OED definition. Nblund ^talk 18:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinity .. Regardless the definition you linked supports my claim as well. To anyone else following this, and in the above section, I will be surprised if even with proof they will allow a change to go through. Webmaester (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC) .

"attributes regarded as characteristic of men" - would imply that these are perceptions. WP:SYNTH you need to find sources that explicitly support your claim. And neither of these fulfill that requirement. Nblund ^talk 18:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gee, with that dictionary definition, why bother citing more in-depth scholarship at all? The source provided here doesn't actually seem to support the changes. What it does say is that because of their vagueness and varying interpretations, "the concepts of masculinity and femininity have serious defects". It's also discussing these topics in the context of responses to a particular personality test, not in a broader social or biological context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Commented in the "Social construction and biology" section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC) ____

References

Discussion of the lead

Information on masculinity as a social construction should be confined to the section Social Construction of Masculinities, not in the lead of the article. Webmaester (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a section on the Social Construction of Masculinity. It isn't about gender politics so much as it is the lead of an article should contain only universally accepted facts on the subject as an introduction. Additonally,

Really the sentences regarding Virility, Machismo, and the sentence, "Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods." Do not belong in the lead of an article as the former are plugs for seperate, yet related topics, with the latter being an obvious statement about differences across cultures and historical periods.

Suggestions: 1) Scrap "Standards" it has it's own section under History. 2) Create a new section for related aspects of or principles associated with masculinity. Webmaester (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources cited indicate that masculinity is a social construct. The source you added in your edit doesn't appear to dispute that characterization. Discussing variations across different cultures seems warranted for the lead, because we discuss those variations throughout the article. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough on history and variations, is why I left them in my edit. However, "As a social construction, <text>" is boilerplate. The case for masculinity as a social construction needs to be proved in the following text as it is not universally accepted. The only other changes are just in sequence and improves the flow of the article. Webmaester (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations aren't always necessary for the lead, but I the source appears to support the statement that masculinity is socially constructed. This appears consistent with the academic consensus: Per the APA: Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms. Nblund ^talk 18:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That wording was left out of the lead on Femininity for the same reason myself and other users would like it left out. That source only assumes it is true, it does not prove it, using it is simply an appeal to authority. Masculinity as a social construct is a theory, not a fact or objective reality. There is no reason to include the prefix "As a social construct", other than to predefine the subsequent discourse. Whereas there are in fact socially-defined and biologically-created factors, and stating as such, leads to the generally agreed upon conclusion that masculinity is distinct from biological sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaester (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is an appeal to authority. That's what WP:RS requires. WP:VERIFIABILITY means that we need to be able to point to reliable sources, it does not say that those sources need to "prove" it to our personal satisfaction. If you can point to other sources that contest this claim, then it might be WP:DUE to include those dissenting voices, but we're not going to leave it out just because you're not convinced. Nblund ^talk 18:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If I were to find a reliable source disputing masculinity as a purely social construct it would be inapropriate to state in the lead. Just as stating it in the first place out of the context of a debate or theory is inappropriate. It is left out of the article in femininity and it should be left out in this one as well. The wording I put fourth in my original edit is by and large an improvement, it is not vandalism, nor does it change the integrity of the page.Webmaester (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, there is merit to the view it is a social construct, particularly where it ties into gender roles, it just doesn't belong as an assumption in the lead. I don't know what else to say. Webmaester (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE: you need to provide high-quality reliable sources that support the view that masculinity is not socially constructed. Nblund ^talk 19:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

→== Social construction and biology ==

The statement "Masculinity is socially constructed, and is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" is self-contradictory; "socially constructed" in the first part rules out "biologically-created" in the second part. The second part also seems unduly weighted in the lead section; it rephrases part of § Nature versus nurture containing some weaselish wording (and omits the part about "exaggeration" of biological differences). Can anyone show which parts of the sources verify a consensus of "scholars"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I'll have to come back to this later, and I don't necessarily feel strongly about my changes yet, but I'd like to point out that your wording now has the lead contradicting the article, which is no less a problem. At least, if we accept as you apparently do that "social construct" and "biology" are mutually exclusive. This need not be the case however.

Regarding the above, and the consensus of scholars, note what the Fausto-Sterling source states (I haven't examined the others yet): Preferences for certain colors, toys (trucks or dolls), or types of play (physically active versus social) are sometimes assumed to be inherent because they typically appear when a child is as young as three or four years of age. Psychologists and biologists often point to hormones, genes, and other biological factors as the underlying causes....My research shows that, even at a young age, “nature” and “nurture” already interact....If biological development is influenced by a child’s environment in this way, “nature” and “nurture” are no longer distinct. They are a developmental unit, two sides of the same coin. Rather than talking about nature versus nurture, we should ask: How is nature being affected by certain kinds of nurturing events? And instead of viewing gender as something inherent and fixed, we should understand it as a developmental process involving the ongoing interaction of genes, hormones, social cues, cultural norms, and other factors. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are the views of one scholar based on their own research in a single area of masculine socialization. Before including this in the lead, we would need to know how this perspective fits into scholarship about masculinity in general, citing independent, reliable sources. I'm not sure how footnote.co stacks up when it comes to reliability either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Some aspects of masculinity are socially constructed, on account of certain average differences between males and females. It’s pragmatism and common sense. To say it is completely a social construct is willful ignorance. Biological differences in the sexes exist on a distribution and typically differentiate around puberty. Society and culture are human constructs, they are merely a byproduct of our intelligence and how we organize ourselves in groups. Fretting over language and paying more attention to statistical outliers than the general pattern is a disservice to explaining the topic. They should absolutely be mentioned in as much detail as people are willing to dig up, the same can be said for every conceivable aspect of masculinity. The purpose of this article, in my opinion, is to provide information about masculinity to people who wish to learn about it. It makes sense to begin with the basics and expand. Aiming to define the exact essence, technically, or politically correct view is treacherous because there is no way to not leave anything out. Start with the general cursory overview of the topic, and expand. Leave political views out of he introduction and allow readers to investigate the topic with an open mind. Webmaester (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The above is a non sequitur. The lead section should summarize the main points of the article. In doing so, we summarize views according to their prominence in published, reliable sources. Being "politically correct" has nothing to do with it. If there are objections to the way any of the sources are specifically being used, feel free to present them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I clarified that it is in my opinion. I suggested a general overview in the place of technical, or politically correct and you mentioned "politically correct". I don't belive that it isn't to be "politically correct", I don't think you do either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaester (talk • contribs)

There's really nothing to discuss here in the absence of published sources to support a given change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

well besides the dictionary and common sense as posted below. Here: https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064 , https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1944.11022510 "Udry, J. Richard. “Biological Limits of Gender Construction.” American Sociological Review, vol. 65, no. 3, 2000, pp. 443–457. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2657466." Webmaester (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the first source is from 1944, so I'd say that's probably not going to fly. I don't see any part of the second source that explicitly says that masculinity refers to biological characteristics. Biology might influence gender role expectations, but that's different from saying that masculinity is biological: the ability to grow facial hair is partly a product of male hormones, but social expectations of men's facial hair are still socially constructed. Some societies consider beards masculine, other societies consider male facial hair to be a sign of poor grooming. Nblund ^talk 18:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated here, this "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?" source from the World Health Organization (WHO) is simplistic. The issue I see with stating "Femininity is socially constructed" or "As a social construct" and leaving it at that is that although social science is still its own thing, researchers today rarely look at behavior as socially constructed only. Masculinity and femininity make up what people and sources think of with regard to gender, if not defining gender based on sex. Stating "As a social construct" or "Femininity is socially constructed" does imply that there is no biological basis.

To drive home my point on "it's not only social," I cite this 2018 "Scientific research shows gender is not just a social construct" Quartz source. It points to this 2017 "Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis" source.

Quoted text from Quartz, based on a systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis source.

It states, in part, "A study published (paywall) in November 2017 suggests that these sorts of girly toy preferences aren't simply a reflection of gendered social pressures. A meta-analysis of research, reviewing 16 studies on the subject that collectively included some 1,600 children, found that both biology and society affect boys' and girls' toy choices. The researchers found a huge effect size (1.03 for boys playing with boys’ toys more than girls, and 0.9 for girls playing with girls toys more than boys; anything above 0.8 is considered 'large') across geographical regions. 'The size of sex differences in children’s preferences for male-typed and female-typed toys did not appear to be smaller in studies conducted in more egalitarian countries,' says Brenda Todd, a study co-author and senior lecturer in psychology at City University London. Countries rating extremely low on the Gender Inequality Index, such as Sweden, showed similar differences in toy preferences to countries with far greater gender inequality, such as Hungary and the United States. This runs counter to the popular narrative that gender differences expressed in childhood play are determined entirely by social expectations. Social factors certainly do have influence, and the paper found evidence of this: For example, as boys got older they were increasingly likely to play with conventionally male toys, reflecting the impact of environmental rather than biological causes. But overall, the data reflect broader findings in psychology, which show that biology and society interact to cause gendered behavior. In other words, contrary to the popular progressive belief, gender is partly socially constructed—but it's not just a social construct. 'The 'nature versus nurture' idea is a false dichotomy,' says Sean Stevens, social psychologist and research director at Heterodox Academy, an organization of professors focused on promoting political diversity in academia. 'I don't know any real researcher of human behavior who would say it's all nature or all nurture,' he adds. Despite this empirical truth, researchers who study the biological basis of gender often face political pushback. 'Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that gender is not purely a social construct,' says Todd, who notes that her work has faced 'very critical attention.' There's a political preference—especially on the left—Todd believes, for gender to be only a reflection of social factors and so entirely malleable. Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities. Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls. But there's a huge variation in these environments, says Alice Eagly, psychology professor at Northwestern University. 'Within boys there will be a range and within girls there will be a range. To say it's biological doesn’t mean it’s perfectly binary,' she says."

What I see with the aforementioned 2010 "Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A" source, from University of Minnesota Press, pages 14 to 18, is it discussing biological influence and possible biological influence on gender, including masculinity and femininity. For example, on page 16, in its "A Complexity of Influences" section, it states, "Social and cognitive factors represent mechanisms beyond biology through which gender identity or masculinity-femininity is potentially shaped. In conjuction with biological influences, these forces create a pervasive context for development of one's sense of self and of the world." On page 17, it then goes on to mention that gender identity research indicates that biological factors are involved and that a complex interplay of factors lead boys and girls to identify as and behave the way they do. The source also speaks of transgender people and how most experts believe that biological factors are at play with regard to their gender identity, and that transgender people give some insight into gender identity and masculine and feminine behavior.

I think that if we are to add that masculinity is socially constructed to the lead, which I agree that we should, we should also add that what society considers masculinity may be biologically influenced. The lower part of the article should expand on this. Of course, "may be biologically influenced" is vague, just as it's vague when speaking of gender identity, unless we go into aspects like how a fetus may be affected in the womb. But the lead is simply meant to summarize, not go into all of that. If we can't agree on this approach, then an RfC is in order. And that RfC should probably be centralized per WP:TALKCENT to address both the Femininity and Masculinity articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your direction and want to offer a comment about logic. Aspects of this debate fail in part to acknowledge that there are biological and social factors that influence our perceptions, expressions, and definitions of masculinity. To argue that one is more important than the other is a political rather than an encyclopedic discussion. Gender theorists will say that it's all or primarily social. Evolutionary biologists will say that that it starts with biology and is shaped by societies. Just because there's been a recent fashion to focus nearly exclusively societal influences doesn't negate the biology. We don't say that it's masculine to get pregnant and bear children for good reason, no matter what a social constructionists might argue we could do in theory. Here's a scholarly article that discusses the influence of facial hair on perceptions of masculinity and sexual attractiveness with plenty of links to other articles on masculinity that indicate a biological foundation [1]. Clearly there are some physical traits that a more masculine than feminine. There are also some behavioral traits (like aggression) that are more male typical than female that influence "masculinity". We could turn this into a undergrad gender studies paper that negates or minimizes biology, or perhaps we can try to help the reader understand that it's complex, interrelated and provide an explanation.Mattnad (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, here's a fascinating and entertaining episode from a Norwegian documentary that expands on this topic and debate. It includes subtitles for those who don't speak Norwegian. It covers the items including the impact of prenatal testosterone levels on babies with commentary from both notable scientist who say nature is a factor, and gender theorists who say it's all society. [2]Mattnad (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the discussion. The question is about the definition of a word. Masculinity refers to things that are "typically associated with men" in a given society. We say they are "socially constructed" because societies are responsible for "viewing things as typical or valuable", regardless of whether those things are influenced by biology. We also say that race is socially constructed, even if some characteristics commonly associated with racial groups (like skin color) are actually rooted in biology. If you want to have an encyclopedic discussion, maybe you could find some additional reliably sourced definitions of masculinity.Nblund ^talk 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem with "social construction" is that it is not only a vague term, but it tends to get used as a motte and bailey. Sometimes it is used in the more reasonable sense you are doing (just to refer to how society classifies things, the boundaries of which vary), but in other cases it is used to mean something is totally socially learned, or that a given idea is "just a social construct" and hence completely arbitrary. We shouldn't use this term without explanation, because it is unclear in this way, and frankly kind of jargony. Reliable sources across academic fields are clear that gendered traits are not only socially learned. Nature and nurture play roles. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Then it might make sense to elaborate on what is meant by "social construct" - but that ambiguity cuts both ways. The sociological definition of masculinity/femininity says it is partly a normative construct that tells men how men should behave. By saying it is "based on biology" we're giving the wrong impression that biology somehow creates a value system that tells men they shouldn't cry or be homosexual. I don't think anyone believes that to be the case. Biology may play a role in shaping behavior, but imputing value on those characteristics is 100% social. Nblund ^talk 02:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of this may be moot depending on what wording we go with, which we are discussing at Talk:Femininity#Text removed. I think the goal is to convey not that any value system is biologically determined, but that "attributes, behaviors,...associated with boys and men" (as the article states) are influenced by society and biology, and not social learning or "construction" only. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, Michael Kimmel's definition of masculinity you offered is one way to look at it, but its not the only way. Kimmel is a gender studies professor and that school of thought typically takes the position that gender differences has nothing to do with sexual biology. Society doesn't fully define how men behave. You have it exactly backwards - we start out as biological organisms and then we layer on society. If you think its the opposite, then you haven't taken many biology courses. At any rate, to focus only, or mostly on one approach as THE approach violates NPOV. It also leads to once again a pedantic, boring, and limited article.Mattnad (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Further to my point, here's an article from Psychology Today that makes the case that biology is a major factor. I'm not saying it's the last word on the subject, but it makes a relatively modest proposal that masculine and feminine traits have significant biological underpinnings.Mattnad (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I think we agree on the goal, but my point is that saying it is "based on biology" doesn't communicate that distinction.

@Mattnad: You're straying from the topic. If you want to provide an alternative definition for masculinity, then provide a comparable source that offers an alternative definition of masculinity. Nblund ^talk 14:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't bother reading the source I already provided so here it is again. It takes a strong position that male and female sex differences influence psychology, behavior and expressions of masculinity and femininity. It's written by a scholar in the space and published by a major publication dedicated to understanding human behavior. If you're looking to gender theorists for a definition that includes biology, you won't find it because they don't consider biology.Mattnad (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there something you would like to change about the current lead? Nblund ^talk 16:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Concerns

I am tagging the article as unbalanced. It focuses quite heavily on scholarly critiques of the perceived ills of masculinity. I am also tagging the history section, which is so random and incomplete in its current form that the article would be better off without it. I have tagged the section on hegemonic masculinity as confusing, although a tag that said "This section consists of meaningless nonsense" would be more appropriate. SunCrow (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What other sources would you use to balance those scholarly critiques? If the best sources focus on problems in traditional western notions of masculinity, then the article should probably reflect that - it might make sense to add counter-arguments, but just drive-by tagging isn't helpful. Nblund ^talk 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, WP:DRIVEBY states, "Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as 'drive-by tagging,' particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags...it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary". I have identified the problem quite clearly, so this is not an instance of drive-by tagging.

As to sources, I would not assume that "the best sources focus on problems in traditional western notions of masculinity". SunCrow (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Then provide other high quality sources that contest the ones currently being offered. We can't just insert your personal views in to the article. Nblund ^talk 19:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No one said anything about inserting anyone's personal views into the article. SunCrow (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

But so far that's all you've provided, so we don't have anything that could be added to the entry. Nblund ^talk 02:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Rather than quarreling with me, why not try to improve the article? SunCrow (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to quarrel with you. You tagged the article as unbalanced, I'm asking you to show sources that would support the claim that we have failed to represent some significant viewpoint - if you can't point to anything, then there's nothing to "balance" the article against. Nblund ^talk 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Just look at the texts under 'Development'. Nature vs Nuture has a couple of sentences. Social construction of masculinity, isn't much more than simply critical of masculinity with comentary on sexual orientation. Effeminacy has the most text, although it is mostly a continuation of the previous with heavy emphasis on exceptions and the negativity of labels associated with masculinity. Hegemonic Masculinity is basically whining about the patriarchy (my intent is not to be facetious). Precarious manhood, has decent content but would be better off expanded. The rest of the article is broadly negative of masculinity. Even the "in women" is focused on negative associations. Health.. Criticism makes up almost half of the entire articles content. Webmaester (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This article needs some content on Traditional Masculinty, Rites of Passage - recent and historical in western society, as well as in other cultures, stoicism and resilience, disposition towards responsibility ect.. ect.. Masculinity can be a virtue, if I was an alien and I read this article I would assume it is nothing more than a character defect. When I have time I will do some writing and research.. Webmaester (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It needs to represent the views that appear in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. Research on masculinity is often critical of traditional western notions of masculinity, so it wouldn't be surprising to find that close to 50% of the article offered something similar. Someone needs to offer some sourcing and some specific suggestions for how why there is an NPOV problem here. Nblund ^talk 01:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To all, regarding topics covered by gender theorists, you're going to see only one view, more or less. They don't consider biology as a factor and it's basically a monoculture. So Nblund will point to "scholarship" and say it's the gold standard. Notwithstanding there are other views that include biology and are not as critical of men and masculinity. But since there's no one source that covers both views, Nblund will say they're not the norm and fringe. It's his/her tactic when these debates come up. I think it's fine to include those gender theorists, but we should not be held to only those views. This is where editors come in. This article is biased and violates NPOV as far as I can see.Mattnad (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, academic publications are the gold standard. That's not my policy, it's Wikipedia's. No one is stopping you from proposing or even making changes to the article, but if your idea of "neutrality" is placing low-quality sources in equal prominence to high-quality ones, that's not going to work. Nblund ^talk 16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion as civil as possible. I agree with Mattnad that when it comes to work that is done by gender theorists (or people who are of that ilk) it tends to not consider biology to be a determining factor in masculinity or femininity at all, and just assumes that most (if not all) of the differences between men and women are due to social constructs. On the other hand, I haven't had the time to go through and add sources and content that would balance this article out. I want to get to it as soon as possible. But as it stands currently, I agree that this article is biased and the tag at the top of it should remain. Nblund is obviously correct about academic publications being "the gold standard". TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WHAT?!?

" that women can become men hormonally and physically"

er... NO. Physically? "Female to Male" is biologically impossible (as is "Male to Female"). Mentally, you can be anything you want but you cannot magically transform into a male (or female) just because you think you are. You CANNOT make testes (and its plumbing), a prostate (or a uterus, fallopian tuber et al. ) and certainly not change your chromosomes for XX to XY (or from XY to XX for that matter). To even have that quote in wikipedia... utterly shameful (don't not surprising). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.217.25 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Much of the content of this article is questionable and in dispute, especially (imo) the Social Construction section. That's why the tag at the top of the page was added by a user. I have not been paying much attention to this article at all lately. If you have a change that you would like to make then be bold and make that change. However don't be surprised if it is reverted and leads to a very long discussion that ends up going nowhere and accomplishes nothing. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

194.193.217.25, you are correct. I have removed that language. This will likely result in an absurd debate on this talk page where I will be accused of various offenses because I dared to remove an obvious falsehood. Welcome to Wikipedia! SunCrow (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Image

I replaced the image of Heracles with an image of Mars, the Roman god of war and masculinity. The male-female gender symbol is based on Mars and Venus. Mars represents masculinity and the male symbol, while Venus represents femininity and the female symbol. Also, the Femininity WP article already has an image of Venus on it. It only makes sense for the Masculinity article to have an image of Mars. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks good Webmaester (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest that Mars was a "god of masculinity", for the Romans or otherwise. The use of the symbol ♂ for 'male' (not 'masculine') evidently began with Carl Linnaeus in the 1700s. Is there a source connecting the ancient myhological figure with masculinity? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias and contradiction in lead section

The last couple of days, I've tried to correct for political bias in the lead section by adding some nuance to the following statement:

Although masculinity is socially constructed, some research indicates that some behaviors considered masculine are biologically influenced. To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate.

This statement is contradicting itself, as the first sentence established the 'fact' that masculinity is socially constructed (not an ounce of nuance in it), while the next sentence debunks this by saying that some research does not agree. I do not want to discuss the politics of this statement, but only want to see a less biased page, in such a way that both ways of seeing gender/sex are emphasized in the lead section.

Unfortunately, user Mathglot has reverted my changes with the reasons 'lacking verifiability' or 'forcing opinions', while the statement is contradicting itself and no opinion is forced upon wikipedia readers by adding nuance to a very strong statement.

I want to emphasize that all sources are present, and the sources themselves also have contradicting conclusions about the nature of masculinity. Therefore, it simply cannot be stated as a fact that masculinity is completely a social construct. Likewise it cannot be stated as a fact that masculinity is completely not a social construct.

Again, to remove bias, I would suggest to make a linguistical change to this sentence, such that it emphasizes that no consensus has been reached in the scientific or political fields and no contradiction is present:

Although some research indicates that masculinity is socially constructed, other research indicates that some behaviors considered masculine are biologically influenced. To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate.

I see that some other users added comments and changes to this article as well about a bias towards gender-neutrality. Please take these users seriously, as it makes or breaks the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information. Seeing the talk and change log on this page raises some serious doubts about that. 217.105.45.100 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The current wording is indeed problematic. It presents social factors and biological factors as somehow competing forces rather than complimentary forces driving the same cycle. Social factors drive behavior which drives biology (via selection) which reinforces traits deemed desirable by society. Masculinity is a social construction of biological traits. It's not a matter of differing research, it's a matter of differing definitions. Sociology (at least) defines masculinity and femininity as social constructs. Regardless of whether biological males are more apt to exhibit a certain trait, it is society which decides whether or not men should exhibit a certain trait, and masculinity (according to sociology) consists of all the traits and behaviors that society has decided men should exhibit. The problem is that the lay person's definition of "masculinity" is usually just maleness, i.e. which traits and behaviors are most common in men (or perceived to be most common in men). Since we have an entire article (or actually set of articles) specifically devoted to sex differences in humans, we should limit the scope of this article to the sociological definition of masculinity and we should be clear about that. Otherwise we will just be confusing people and repeating information from sex differences in humans. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• The IP above also added a unbalanced template to the article which I reverted/denied (via pending changes) on the basis that updates can be made there, If anyone does want the template added back they can revert or I can readd it,

I just didn't want there to be a huge edit war and then me dragged at ANI for accepting the change yada yada yada, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@IP 217, I reverted for editing policy reasons, not due to content disagreement. You are new here, and this edit at Masculinity was your first ever edit at Wikipedia. Beyond that, the change was to the WP:LEAD of the article, which has certain special requirements, plus the article itself is in a topic area that is considered controversial, and has an even stricter set of rules behind it. It's not surprising that you might run into problems trying to tackle this. The proper place to explain editing policy and behavioral issues, is at a User talk page, not here at the article, so I've left you a message there which I hope explains the editing policy aspects of this. (I had earlier left you a "Welcome" message, but I see that you have removed it.) With respect to your comments about what the article should or shouldn't say, I don't have anything to say right now, but I'll watch the discussion play out. Just keep all the policies and guidelines in mind, including WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and continue to seek consensus here, as you are now doing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The present wording is fine as it is and has been hammered out over extensive discussions in the past. We do need to mention here that biology plays a role in traits that society considers masculine. If we act like it's all sociological, that will only lead to more complaints, and goes against the WP:Due weight of the sources. We have excellent sources already here about masculinity that explain that biology does play a role in those traits. Society's definitions aren't developed in a vacuum completely disconnected from the physical world. Some overlap in articles is fine and very common. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So this is what I am seeing a lot on the talk pages of sex/gender-related controversial articles: a lot of talking about previous discussions and certain wiki policies, but almost no substantive arguments. Indeed, Mathglot, I've ran into a lot of red tape trying to fix this small issue, and I am quite discouraged in being a contributor to wiki if this is the way things are going. About the content: the point I try to make is that this specific sentence ("Although masculinity is socially constructed, some research indicates that some behaviors considered masculine are biologically influenced.") has an apparent contradictio in terminis (CIT), which cannot be understood without reading the whole article or being familiar with sociological concepts of gender studies. This CIT is not only logically incorrect, but introduces bias by stating something for a fact while it is rebuked in the same sentence. Up until this point, nobody brought up substantive arguments why this might not be a CIT, while several users expressed their concerns about the biased nature of this article. So if anyone wants to continue this discussion, please do not use arguments like "wiki policy this, wiki policy that" or "this might have been discussed in the past". Both are not substantive arguments, and are certainly not honoring to the people expressing concerns regarding NPOV. 217.105.45.100 (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Read what this source, which is cited for both parts of the sentence, says under the subheading "Sex and Gender: Biology and Culture" (scroll down just a few pages): [3] Something being a social construct need not contradict that biology influences the behaviors that a given society constructs as 'masculine'. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: this particular sentence from the lead section of this article is depending on further reading to correct for itself. As the sociological point of view of this article is not made clear in the lead section and this particular sentence, a wiki reader has to put in a lot of effort before coming to your conclusion. And that's only if you assume that every wiki reader is able to interpret apparent CIT's. Maybe this small contradiction indeed lights up a bigger-picture question about how this whole article is set up, because it is written from sociological standpoint, while that is not really mentioned anywhere. But for now: this particular sentence still has an apparent contradiction and requires too much effort from wiki readers to solve themselves. 217.105.45.100 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"considered by society as masculine"

I added the words "considered by society" in the sentence in the lead "Although masculinity is socially constructed, research indicates that some behaviors considered by society as masculine, are biologically influenced" but it was quickly reverted. Can I ask why it was reverted. Leaving these words out of the sentence does not make sense. Who if not society at large created the concept of masculine traits? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, you're referring to this revert I made. Like you stated, masculinity is socially constructed by society. That is clear by even the words "socially constructed". So why be redundant by adding "by society"? It's not needed. And your addition of "some" in front of "debate" is not needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

___

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)