Talk:Masculinity/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

References for word usage

At some point we can integrate something from the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Having the appropriate excellences of the male sex; manly, virile; vigorous, powerful. Rarely of persons; usually of attributes, actions, or productions."

  • 1629: In answer to ... two masculine Champions for the Synagogue of Rome. — Henry Burton, Bable no Bethel
  • 1639: Masculine spirits very easily resist this tyrannic. — Jacques du Bosque, The Compleat VVoman (trans. N.N.)
  • 1647: The argumentation of Manoah's wife ... might very well have become the more masculine understanding. — Edward Hyde, Contemplations on the Psalms
  • 1678: He proved a stout and masculine Prince. — Nathaniel Wanley, The Wonders of the Little World, or A General History of Man
  • c. 1704: His heat was masculine and always pointed against vice. — Tom Brown, English Satirical Works
  • 1712: Adam's Speech abounds with Thoughts ... of a more masculine and elevated Turn. — Joseph Addison, The Spectator 363 (1712): 10.
  • 1756–81: The forcible and masculine images with which the ancients strengthened their compositions. — Joseph Warton, Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope
  • 1829: I grew more gentle, and he more masculine. — Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Devereux 1:4
  • 1850: Aeschylus ... was famous ... for the fearless, masculine licence with which he handled the most flexible of all languages. — John Stuart Blackie, Æschylus
  • 1856: I find ... the whole writing of the time charged with a masculine force and freedom. — Ralph Waldo Emerson, English Traits

Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edition (1908): p. 198. (Entry still current in 2008 online edition.)

Cited in:

  • Robert Clark and Piero Boitani, "English Studies in Transition", Papers from the ESSE Inaugural Conference, (Routledge, 1991), p. 218. ISBN 9780415098335;
  • Jeffrey Masten and Wendy Wall, "Performing Affect", Renaissance Drama 31 [New Series], (Northwestern University Press, 2002), p. 112. ISBN 9780810119628;
  • Leighton C. Whitaker and Richard E. Slimak, College Student Suicide, (Haworth Press, 1990), p. 84. ISBN 9781560240174;
  • Andrew P. Williams, The Image of Manhood in Early Modern Literature: Viewing the Male, (Greenwood Press, 1999). ISBN 9780313307669

and others.

The secondary literature establishes that this is the normal English sense of masculine and that it is viewed positively. Some argue the POV that because this usage is both positive and normal, it thus uncritically reinforces unhelpful traditional stereotypes of masculinity in English speaking cultures. There are contrary PsOV in the secondary literature also, though they all agree it is the "default" sense, and that it is positive; where they disagree is about whether this positive perception is helpful or unhelpful.

Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this for what masculinity means today, or what it meant to the literature of the 19th century? The 2008 Oxford (at least the Concise Online Oxford) for "masculine" doesn't talk about "excellence," it says 1 relating to men; male. 2 having the qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men. 3 Grammar referring to a gender of nouns and adjectives conventionally regarded as male.[1] Assigning positive or negative characteristics to masculinity seems to fluctuate with the time, but is the current, predominant view that something "masculine" is positive (or indeed, negative)? Is that the kind of treatment you believe appropriate, or am I missing something? I agree that perhaps these points should be integrated, if the views properly attributed to their sources and contextualized as the literature of the time. Do you have a suggested edit you'd want to discuss before making? I also invite you to be bold. Blackworm (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this Blackworm (I seem to recall seeing good work from you elsewhere as well). The link you provide is to the Concise Oxford not to the full dictionary. The full dictionary includes many extra definitions, some of which are obsolete (and explicitly marked as such), but others of which are subtle refinements of meanings not required in the more condensed Concise Oxford.
The tertiary sources above (for the Oxford itself is secondary, due to quoting usage to establish its definitions) are provided to establish that masculinity is a term of positive reference. Modern authors who consider masculinity (or some expressions of it) to be a negative thing often use neutral terms like maleness, male gender role (or sex role), stereotypical male, traditional male, etc.
One of the reasons for that choice of terminology is precisely to avoid the implicit positive connotations of qualities of men, invoked by the words masculine and masculinity. Indeed, it is not simply critics of men and masculinity that use English in this way, the Oxford and other sources document that we all do, and there has been no change in recent usage (except perhaps that people use positive references to men less often, but I've seen no stats).
To call a man masculine is not a tautology. It is to call him a man, exemplary of his sex. Hence the following kinds of things "sound right":
  • His decisive yet considerate management of the conflict was particularly masculine. (not "particularly male")
  • She worried she'd spoiled her elder son, who seemed somehow less masculine than his younger brother. (not "less male")
  • Where have all the gentlemen gone? Men these days have the same old male pride, but just live in denial. (not "masculine pride")
  • No community has ever championed the cause of rapists, and their brutish maleness. (not "brutish masculinity")
In conclusion, it is certainly true that a great deal of literature has been produced that thinks most characteristics distinctive of men are largely negative and some that think distinctiveness itself is negative. But these groups, perfectly understandably, don't make heavy use of positive terms of reference to men like virility and masculinity. Those words are still used very widely in the way they always have been: most people think men have some typical vices (anger, pride, lust) and some typical virtues (self-control, strength, endurance, loyalty). Masculinity refers to the latter, not the former.
The sources above say similar things but in very many more words.
Thanks for your invitation, I do intend to be bold here at some point (if needed) in the pretty far future.
I'm not a timid kind of man. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Masculinity in women.

Since the Femeninity page has Femeninity in Men, it's only fair that Masculinity has a Masculinity in Women paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Be bold. Don't forget the universally admired Margaret Thatcher. There are lots of reliable sources making reference to this. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert all edits by Noraalicia

I don't have the Wiki skills necessary to revert these changes. This editor actually went through and removed a lot of good content, particularly the seven aspects of Masculinity. They even opted to change quotations to better suit their opinions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculinity&diff=270182992&oldid=269151264 JoelMichael (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. Someone may get around to this. If they don't, I shall. Best Alastair Haines (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlson Twins image

I can't figure out what this image purports to illustrate, and the caption makes absolutely no sense. I recommend deletion of the entire thing, but fixing the caption so that it relates to the text of the article would be acceptable.Jarhed (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Across other cultures...

For one thing I'm aware that masculinity has a lot of different standards and pressures across racial and cultural lines. I think a vast amount of the information here on masculinity applies mainly to Western white male culture and people who have taken that culture up. Many other cultures do not (or historically did not) have strong pressures to remain in a masculine role, and many of the roles are completely different. This whole thing really needs to be more broad-based. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queerwiki (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC) Whoopsie, indeed forgot to sign. Sorry! Queerwiki 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I agree. I visited the page to understand Masculinity across the world, and felt like I was just reading about the history of north American beer commercials. There are interesting Masculine phenomenons all over the world that I feel are unique and worth mentioning. One, for example, is that in India men frequently hold hands and cuddle - as friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.6.204 (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Male vs Females fatality statistics while DUI

Reference [21] does not give any support to the claim that men are more likely than women to cause accidents at a given blood alcohol level. So the statement and the reference is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.99.83 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Replaced "Masculinity in decline" section

The "Masculinity in decline section" had only one source which discussed masculinity, a Salon interview with Peter McAllister. I kept that source. The other two sources were fine journal articles about testosterone and sperm count but not in the context of masculinity or a decline of masculinity. The other three sources were amazon links to books about "why boys fail". They were not used as sources for any specific claims about "masculinity in decline".

I replaced the deleted section with a new one, Notion of "masculinity in crisis". Unlike "masculinity in decline", "masculinity in crisis" is indeed something that is the subject of extensive discussion. Compare the google books results for "masculinity in crisis" and "masculinity in decline". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on here, and so I have protected the article so that the editors concerned can discuss the problems, and involved others if necessary, using methods such as WP:30 or WP:RFC if it seems necessary. Sonicyouth86 opened the discussion above several days ago, but there has been no response from the IP from Missouri, just reverts. Int the above and in edit summaries, SY86 seems to be saying that the disputed section cannot be included because it fails one of wikipedia's core policies: No original research. According to SY86, only one of the sources actually mentions "masculinity". IP from Missouri, do you have any comments about this? What is your response to SY86's concern that this is original research (particularly synthesis)? --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The section "Masculinity in decline" had six references:
  1. [http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-urology/volume-2-number-1/the-sperm-count-has-been-decreasing-steadily-for-many-years-in-western-industrialised-countries-is-there-an-endocrine-basis-for-this-decrease.html "The sperm count has been decreasing steadily for many years in Western industrialised countries: Is there an endocrine basis for this decrease?"]
  2. "A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men"
  3. Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity
  4. Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men
  5. Why Boys Fail: Saving Our Sons from an Educational System That's Leaving Them Behind
  6. "The dramatic decline of the modern man"
Sources 1 and 2 do not discuss masculinity, they examine the biological male sex (male/female, never feminine/masculine) and sperm count or testosterone levels. They say nothing about masculinity or a "decline in masculinity".
Source 3-5 were used as sources for the first part of the sentence "There has been a recent uptick of books, articles and research studies documenting an endocrinological (or hormone) decline in the general male population." What does this have to do with masculinity or a "decline in masculinity"? Looking at the sources, I found that Source 3 mentioned a "crisis of masculinity" on page 65 (third paragraph) and took a critical stance. Source 4 is about how "a boy needs role models of healthy masculinity" and Source 5 mentions masculinity only once, and not in the context of a crisis or a "decline".
Source 6 is an interview with archeologist Peter McAllister who argues that there is a "crisis of masculinity". I tried to incorporate this source when I wrote the new section Notion of "masculinity in crisis".
I do not understand why the new section Notion of "masculinity in crisis" was deleted and the old section "Masculinity in decline" restored given its WP:OR problems. I welcome comments from the IP and other editors. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Restore Decline In Masculinity Section

In this documentary An Emasculating Truth the decline of masculinity is discuss in the context of falling testosterone levels:

"According to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, testosterone is declining in American men at the alarming rate of one percent a year. But why? That’s what Casey Neistat and Oscar Boyson sought to uncover in their film An Emasculating Truth."

emasculate is defined as declining or feminization of men.

Here's another article source titled: Masculinity of men on the Decline

Article states: "Men are becoming increasingly less masculine as the years go by. Research is showing that testosterone levels in men have been plummeting for decades. This hormone responsible for masculine behavior is no longer being produced at the rate is used to be produced at. We all know that testosterone levels decrease with age, but the fact is that a 20 year old male today has less testosterone than a 20 year old male 30 years ago. In addition to that, the amount of sperm in semen may also be on the decline."


On the very first page of Peter Mcallister's book titled: "Manthropology: The Science of Why the Modern Male Is Not the Man He Used to Be the author talks how modern man has declined, and specifically mentions falling sperm count.

pg 1. ....paraphrased " You are the absolutely the worst man in history" "In these times of masculine crisis, of falling sperm counts, waning libidos, and fading masculine relevance" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.96.213 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline in Masculinity section is not original research, and should be restored.

(edit conflict)The "decline in masculinity" section as it was written at the time when I removed it, is original research as none of the six sources say anything about a decline in masculinity. The two journal article about sperm and testosterone don't even mention masculinity. On the other hand, plenty of reliable sources discuss the notion of "masculinity in crisis".
You bring up two new sources. Peter McAllister is already quoted in the new section Notion of masculinity in crisis. He talks about a "crisis of masculinity", not a "decline in masculinity". The "quote" from his book is your paraphrase. The other new source you bring up is an anonymous description of a documentary. No, the JCEM article "A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men" does not equate a decline in testosterone levels with a decline in masculinity. As I already pointed out at least twice before, the article does not even mention masculinity. It always uses terms to refer to the the biological male sex, not gender. Here please have a look yourself: the article.
To pretend that the two journal articles say something about masculinity although they don't, is original research. Please find sources that explicitly and unambiguously make the connection between declining testosterone levels and declining masculinity. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Mcallisters book mention declining sperm count in context of masculinity on pg. 1 of his book manthrology. See "page one" link. also added other source masculinity-of-men-on-the-decline

Please do not restore original research as you did when you restored journal articles that do not mention masculinity, let alone a "decline" in masculinity. Please bear in mind that you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
It is unclear if the "National Society" and Mike Barrett is a reliable source. For instance, please note that while Mr. Barrett claims that declining testosterone levels say something about masculinity, the sources he cites do not support his claims. Moreover, does the National Society have some form of editorial oversight and is Mr. Barrett someone who knows what he's talking about, i.e., does he have a relevant college degree? Googling "masculinity+testosterone+decline" and inserting any questionable source that comes up, is not in the interest of this article and Wikipedia in general.
When I click on the McAllister link, it says that the book has no google books preview. Please quote the relevant passage, but I really mean quote, not paraphrase as you did above. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for 1 week due to edit warring. This is the second protection this month. Discuss the issues on this talk page to reach consensus. Once the protection expires, changes should be based on the discussion here. If the warring continues after the protection expires, blocks will follow. Address each other, as I won't be participating in the content discussion. If you can't reach consensus, take it to WP:DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. I'm sorry to see this article protected again. Here we have two editors who are disagreeing- though only one who is actively discussing in any detail, it appears. Since it is only 2 editors complex dispute resolution is not really required; a WP:30 or a quick WP:RFC would probably do the trick. As a pointer in the dispute resolution direction, I note that SonicYouth86 has questioned the reliability of this source, I am going to ask the question at the WP:RSN.--Slp1 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I posted the question here. [2]. While gathering the information together for the question, I looked a bit further, and found that this sentence in the IPs edits "In addition, average sperm quality, quantity and even testicle size has seen a marked reduction" is not supported by either of the references cited. For example, neither of them mention testicle size in this context.--Slp1 (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Slp1

Just in the issue of full disclosure, I'm the "Missouri IP", just so one doesn't think I'm sock pupping.

For clarification purposes the [http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-urology/volume-2-number-1/the-sperm-count-has-been-decreasing-steadily-for-many-years-in-western-industrialised-countries-is-there-an-endocrine-basis-for-this-decrease.html Dindyal] article states this about testicle size:

"The average weight of the men's testes decreased over the decade, while the proportion of useless fibrous testicular tissue increased. Adamopoulos et al (12) in Athens examined 23,850 men between 1977 to 1993 (17 years) and found similar results to Farjarinen (11)."

I cited the Dindyal study, because of the premise supports the arguement that reduction in anatomy is a global phonomenon opposed to this below article which does state masculinity (or machismo--spanish for masculinity), but only acribes the decline to russian men:

The Decline of the Russian Male

"Both the quantity and quality of Russian men seem to be on a downward turn. Plummeting sperm counts and testosterone levels with falling levels of academic attainment are reducing the Soviet hero of old into an ever more effete and infertile figure, who now can’t even drink properly. "

".......And not just life expectancy is shrinking."

"Bisphenol A, found in children’s plastic bottles, toys and canned puree, and dioxins, the chemical and toxic bi-products of industry are cropping up with alarming regularity in Russian sperm. Bisphenol A is responsible for Japanese penises getting shorter by 3 centimeters on average over the last 30 years, causing alarm among scientists."

"And they (Russian Men) are in danger of losing even that bastion of Russian machismo"

While the Russian article just indicates it is a Russian or Japanese issue, the Dindyal article confims that it is in fact a global issue. Therefore to make the decline issue relevant to all, Dindyal has to be cited. In addition, Dindyal is a peer reviewed meta-study, and very credible.

Not to mention Peter Mcallisters book mention declining sperm count in context of masculinity on pg. 1 of his book manthrology.

Sonicyouth86 falsely claims that Manthrology is not available through google books, but this is the third time I'm providing the link to page 1 of Manthrology through google books.

If sonyicyouth86 can not view it for some reason, that's his problem, not mine. Tropic of Capricorn (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so it appears that User:Tropic of Capricorn and the IPs from the University of Missouri are sockpuppets of User:Sempre30, User:Vegan Witch and User:Witch Hazell who were all blocked by a checkuser in February. Tropic of Capricorn was blocked yesterday, and I have now blocked the University of Missouri IP that evaded that block to continue posting here.
To the person behind this account: being blocked means that you are not allowed to edit WP. At all. You are not permitted to edit logged out using IP addresses, or create new accounts to get around this prohibition. See WP:BLOCK. Appeal the block if you wish, see WP:GAB --Slp1 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink to Heavy Metal

some time back, I added a link to the page for Heavy Metal Music to the "see also" page, based on the fact that the musical style frequently employs male-centered and conventionally "masculine" themes and lyrics, and bands often try to project an image of masculinity. I refer to the outlaw-biker themed, umlaut-laden bands of the seventies and eighties, not neccesarily to some subgenres which do not keep this trait (no value judgement). One might observe Black Metal and Thrash for current examples.

Today, I looked at the article only to find that the link had been removed, with the explaination: 'deleted Wikilink to Heavy Metal Music - I rarely edit this article... but THIS is ludicrous! - "the metalhead bonze anne blayk"'

I'm not really sure how this is ludicrous, but I'd rather not start an edit war. If Ms. Blayk (or a sympathyzer) could please offer a more thorough explanation it would be great.

based on her user talk page, I have determined that Ms. Blayk is committed to gender equality, transander rights, and the like, causes which I happen to be supportive of and even occasionally active in. I in no way meant to imply that certain people could not participate in Metal music or culture or are "second-class metalheads"

perhaps a link in the opposite direction (from metal to masculinity) would be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.219.58 (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This metal/masculine connection appears to be your own conception, so linking to metal music pages from here is a form of original research. If you can find sources to support including metal music in the article then I suggest you do that and drop the see also link. Jojalozzo 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, a big part of my reaction to this is that it opens a can of worms: what about rap? How about country music - where men are MEN and the women are women! And so forth. Yet oddly… those articles do not reference "masculinity", which in some way or other most people would associate with those genres… maybe because it's too obvious?
Secondarily, although the article on Heavy metal music does refer to the "masculine" nature of the "Heavy Metal subculture" etc. using WP:RS sources (but mainly sociologist Deena Weinstein's work, which I view as kind of tendentious, but can't be bothered to read), I just don't see how this is especially relevant to this article… any more than whatever other peripheral phenomena one might include among the "See also" links? How about Militarism? Yet oddly… that article contains no reference to the qualities of the concept some hold of "masculinity" which (one might think) is associated with militarism.
But anyway, my motivation here has less to do with any "commitments" I might have than that music critics, and rock critics in particular, go off the deep end more often than not, and I am aggrieved much much more as a metalhead, "musician", and literary/culturally oriented person than as a trans woman, OK? Sorry, but (lol), I can't see how this issue is worthy of a whole lot of argument.
I'm sorry if my comment might have seemed kind of judgmental - but Wikipedia only allows so much content in edit comments.
thanks! - bonzie anne - bonze blayk (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
But since I only just noticed that this "See also" wikilink to Heavy metal music was already added back before my revert was brought up for discussion - I feel I must add that I really believe it is not appropriate, and should be deleted again?
I mean… if you could find a WP:RS source outside this community of metal-specialists that maintained that heavy metal was driving a resurgence of "masculine values in society at large", or "a revolution in our concepts of masculinity" or somesuch, it would make some sense. Instead, it's a sub-sub-cultural phenomenon that happens to invoke certain primal conceptions of "core masculinity" involving rebellion and whatnot that a couple of music critics and cultural observers have decided to hang a lot of critical emphasis on, when it really doesn't have much of anything to do with most of the music per se.  ?
Whatever; I have too large a span of articles where I'm trying primarily to prevent vandalism, and I don't really care to patrol this one, so I'm just going to take it off me watchlist and bow out of this.
thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Argument Respected, will delete content. - guy who put it up there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.219.58 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Major editing - don't panic!

Just wanted to give you all a heads up that although I've done some major editing on this article, I've done my best to retain all the material that was already here. The page looks very different since I've moved material around a lot, following WP:Be Bold in an attempt to make the article read more coherently. But if you look carefully, anything you contributed should still be here. But if somehow I've slipped up and lost something you know would make the article better, then please do me a favour and put it back in again.--Dakinijones (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"An incredibly mannish construction worker."

So is there some point to this picture and caption that I'm missing? Matt14916 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That was vandalism, now reverted. A question might remain whether the actual picture and caption are especially relevant, but that is a different discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Masculinity Presented Undebatedly as Negative Social Construct

This article has developed a serious pov problem. Masculinity and masculine behaviors are presented as completely learned and unrelated to biology or genetics as through this is a consensus. I found no mention of the idea that male agression or risk-taking behavior has any basis in biological factors. This needs to be corrected.

Additionally, masculine behaviors are presented in an excessively negative light. I think the person who wrote these parts obviously felt that masculine behaviors are a negative social construct that should be abolished, which is one viewpoint worth discussion, but not without mentioning the many others. See the link to On Aggression at the end of this article, which contains a reference to a book which directly contradicts the statement "Men are prone to non-pathological violence. There is no good evidence proving that this violence comes from biological factors".

Fix this article. Please. It should not be 95% authored by a self-described tomboy who's idea of masculinity is based on observations of Greek traditionalists. (not that there is anything wrong with such a demographic, but you can see that this is a very incomplete and one-sided body of experience from which to draw information about the nature of masculinity.) Bagel 10:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I do agree with you that some of the biological reasoning should be inserted to make the argument more balanced, I don’t think that you have an overly strong point; Masculinity is in itself a social construction. Arguing that males are aggressive because nature dictates it is extremely old. It’s moving right into the weaknesses of evolutional biology/psychology. I’ve also to come across an informative piece of pear reviewed research that doesn’t have red warning lights flashing all over the researcher’s personal bias. By all means present both sides. (I won’t be because naturally I have an interest in one side more than another)
The article doesn’t have to be a set size, So I’m requesting a merge to bring back over 90% of information that was removed due to; “Presenting masculinity as something negative”
80.42.92.122 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Masculinity as such IS a social role and learned behaviour. Little children don't differentiate in early childhood what are girl things and boy things. It all comes down to the upbringing. Compare USA with Europe for instance. In Europe is far higher percentage of men doing feminine things such as working in childcare or in personal care (hairdressers, beauty parlors, etc).
hello. Please take a look at the male and femlae hypothalamus. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.90.93 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Forced masculinity often limits person's personal development just because he is unable to follow the calling of his heart and is forced to follow the social role he's playing.
That's why i agree that emphasized masculinity as such is a negative aspect of society.
Robert 23:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, ancient biology and medicine generally used a "one-sex model", believing males and females were essentially the same, and was the consensus until the early 17th century. My personal belief is that nothing is purely biological or learned, i.e. that the genders are different biologically, but that difference is greatly exaggerated by social input. I do think the article is non-neutral, because it doesn't acknowledge any biological source of masculinity whatsoever.
Metostopholes 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


This is completely false. Many ancient cultures around the world, had very complicated notions of gender. The entire article is written from a POV and frankly a circular one. 98.190.40.25 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look over this and assert that the NPOV concerns are over-rated. If someone else cares to renew the NPOV tag and have a discussion, that would be great, but please plan to stick around to resolve things if you do. Thanks! - Rorybowman 02:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the criticism that this article echoes uncritically the point of view that masculinity is a negative trait. I came to his article looking for starting points for research into critical thought on this topic from all angles, and was sorely disappointed. Clearly though I'm not sufficiently informed to whack an NPOV tag and defend that action adequately ... My own POV, yet to be shaped by the kind of notable critical thought that ought to be the foundation of this article, but isn't, is that some aspects of gender, and hence of masculinity, are instinctual. Anecdotal accounts abound of little boys and girls engaging in stereotypical male or female activities, despite the parents making an effort not to push any such stereotypes upon the children, and this at an age before they are socialised or even able to comprehent their own gender identity (2 or younger). I'm sure I recall this kind of anecdotal folk wisdom being backed up in recent years by psychological experiment and/or "feminist" theory but as I said I'm at the very beginning of a literature search.... ---Russell E 12:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"Masculinity as such IS a social role and learned behavior. Little children don't differentiate in early childhood what are girl things and boy things." --- Little boys and little girls haven’t gone through puberty. physical differences will lend themselves to the creation of social constructs. true, this lending can be augmented or sublimated but generally they are there. Mentioning Europe as having a far higher percentage of men doing feminine things such as working in childcare or in personal care (hairdressers, beauty parlors, etc), doesn't mean that these men are no longer asked to do masculine things due to physical difference. Just as women perform feminine tasks (like oh I don’t know giving birth, breast feeding) due to physical difference the men you mention are still asked to do masculine things based on physical difference. Social constructs are based on physical difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.188.180 (talk • contribs) 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to On Aggression. While an interesting read, this book has been discredited as a work of science. In other words, Lorenz may have been great with mentoring geese, but what he had to say about men and aggression was basically wrong. It is reflection of his own personal views and unsupported by science. Eperotao 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that a main problem with the POV of the article is the vast amount of negative information that this article contains which is irrelevant to masculinity itself I wrote more about this in the "health risks" section of the talk and I will begin to start to chip away at the massive amount of negative extraneous material in a few weeks, if no one objects. Dragonsscout 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i dont think it is right to refer to masculinty only being a learned behaviour, this is contractdicted by the physical conditoning men fell about their bodies regardless of the influence of their peers.you can really ingnore the biologial (including chenmical) featues of the genders, it fairly obvious when explaining the differnces in genders. also you would think when talking about masculinity they would mention cultural stereotypes eg bloke for australia. inreally interested in the cultural differences for people about how they should be as a man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.127.141 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

This article has turned a total hackjob and seeks to explore masculinity through the gynocentric feminist worldview.It gives no mention of the societal pressure put on men to protect and provide and the concept of male disposability(Warren Farrell).As well as expectations women put on men to subordinate their own needs and desires which on a societal level is known as showing qualities of a "man" or "real man"(Esther Vilar).The virtues of masculinity(as opposed to only the flaws). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is ruled by feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.120.74 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

These are articles I thought would be relevant in continuing research on masculinity.

Amato, F. J. (2012). The relationship of violence to gender role conflict and conformity to masculine norms in a forensic sample. The Journal Of Men's Studies, 20(3), 187-208. doi:10.3149/jms.2003.187

1.This study’s purpose is to examine New England’s 258 prisoners on their violence and their conformity to masculine norms. Violence, gender role conflict, and conformity to masculine norms were conducted to examine violence as the principle variable. Race, age, religious affiliations, history of crime was statistically significant as predictors of violence. This journal is for anyone who is interested in reading about the relationship between race, age, religious affiliations, history of crime, and their conformity to masculine norms. I chose this journal because my topic is Constructions of Manhood and I want to understand why these men conform to masculine norms.

Arxer, S. L. (2011). HYBRID MASCULINE POWER: RECONCEPTUALIZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOMOSOCIALITY AND HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY. Humanity & Society, 35(4), 390-422. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/921994710?accountid=8023

2.This study examines hybrid hegemonic masculinity through participant observation at a college bar. The purpose of this study is to figure out if the hybrid hegemonic masculinity may make appropriate masculinities inferior. To understand hybrid hegemonic masculinity, the men who were in this study were observed and told to enact both emotional detachment and emotional expression in homosocial interactions. This study is for anyone who is interested in learning about hybrid hegemonic masculinities in a college bar setting. It is relevant to my topic because hegemonic masculinity is part of the construction of manhood. When there is an article on making hegemonic masculinity inferior, it has to be interesting! I thought that the conversations in the study helped me imagine how men would react to those types of situations.

Birbeck, D., & Drummond, M. (2006). Understanding boys' bodies and masculinity in early childhood. International Journal of Men's Health, 5(3), 238-250. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222800234?accountid=8023

3.The purpose of this research was to understand when and how the notion of body image in boys ages 5-6 are created and internalized. Children ages 5-6 know little about body image and this paper focuses on that. When children are developing, it is important that we understand their knowledge and perceptions about body image. The type of audience it is written is researchers who are interested in learning more about a child’s perception of body image. This research paper is relevant to my topic because it focuses on the development of young boys body image and their masculinities.

de Visser, Richard O and Smith , Jonathan A (2007) Alcohol consumption and masculine identity among young men. Psychology and Health, 22 (5). pp. 595-614. ISSN 0887-0446

4.The purpose of this study is to analyze the correlation between young men’s alcohol consumption, their beliefs about masculinity, and the important of drinking is to their masculine identities. Drinking behavior is influenced by many variables. This study is conducted in the United Kingdom (London) and it discusses how individual, peer, religious affiliations and cultural factors influence young men’s (ages 18-21) alcohol consumption. The audience that this is written for is probably researchers who want to understand alcohol consumption between the ages 18-21. This is relevant to my topic because I am looking for changes in masculinity in different age groups. I want to understand the different ways that men conform to masculinity.

Levant, R. F., Wimer, D. J., Williams, C. M., Smalley, K. B., & Noronha, D. (2009). The relationships between masculinity variables, health risk behaviors and attitudes toward seeking psychological help. International Journal of Men's Health, 8(1), 3-21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222797571?accountid=8023

5.The purpose of this study is to examine how traditional masculinity ideology, the conformity to masculine norms and gender role conflict are associated with risky health behaviors and negative attitudes toward seeking psychological help. The three masculine variables are related to more negative attitudes toward seeking psychological health than self-reported risky health behaviors. They found that higher gender role conflict is related to greater risk factors. This study is written for those who are affiliated with the psychology department who want to understand the correlation between traditional masculinity ideology, the conformity to masculine norms and gender role conflict and self-reported risky health behaviors and negative attitudes toward that are seeking psychological help.

Mankowski, E. S., & Maton, K. I. (2010). A community psychology of men and masculinity: Historical and conceptual review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1-2), 73-86. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9288-y

6.This paper discusses the power that men have because of their gender. Their individual characteristics such as social class, income, education, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or physical strength are all different. It examines men in group, organizational, and community settings to create positive individual and social change. It also examines how endorsing masculinity have many privileges, but can also damage men. Again, I think the type of audience it is written for is one that are researching material for a history of masculinity. It is relevant to my topic because it discusses the history of masculinity and the impact it has on men.

Schwalbe, M. (1997). The image of man: The creation of modern masculinity. Contemporary Sociology, 26(3), 319-321. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233609837?accountid=8023

7.The review by Michael Schwalbe discusses the history of masculinity. Schwalbe explaints that the stereotype of modern masculinity took shape in late eighteenth-century Europe. During this time, there was rapid industrial growth and challenges to old hierarchies. The idealized image of a beautiful male was sculpted to meet the need of power and restraint reconciled in one form. This idea came from the male athletes of Greece. The structure of those male athletes became a symbol of a healthy nation and society. The type of audience this work was written to is people who want to know the history of masculinity. This is relevant to my topic because I need to uncover the history of masculinity to figure out how it was constructed.

Santiago-Menendez, M., & Campbell, A. (2013). Sadness and anger: Boys, girls, and crying in adolescence. Psychology Of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 400-410. doi:10.1037/a0030661

8.The purpose of this study is to examine men’s resistance to crying due to their conformity to masculine role expectations. Crying is associated with a feminine characteristic and men seem to refrain from crying because they feel ashamed. Because crying is a feminine characteristic, when men cry, it seems to be more serious because apparently women cry all the time. The researchers examine two different variables that are gender-role related: empathy and depression. I believe the intended audiences for this study are psychologists and sociologists. I find it relevant to my topic because it discusses the differences in gender roles when it comes to crying.

Spade, Joan Z., and Catherine G. Valentine. The kaleidoscope of gender: prisms, patterns, and possibilities. 3. ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage / Pine Forge Press, 2011. Print.

9.The purpose of this book is to explore how gender studies are constructed interpersonally, institutionally, and culturally. This book has many readings by different scholars on both genders and gives readers an insight on how gender is developed throughout parts of the world. Every individual is different, but there are patterns to gendered experiences. The audience that this book is written for is intended to students who are taking sociology courses. The material in this book is relevant to my topic because it is a textbook all about gender.

Wong, Y., Horn, A. J., & Chen, S. (2013). Perceived masculinity: The potential influence of race, racial essentialist beliefs, and stereotypes. Psychology Of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 452-464. doi:10.1037/a0030100

10.The study is about examining racial differences on what other people (majority White American college students) believe the masculinity of Asian American men, Black American men, and White American men are. Stereotypes of each group are measured and 8 of 11 stereotypes were pointed towards the target’s race. Asian Americans are usually the “weak” and “small” whereas Black American men are viewed as being strong and tall. Stereotypes with White Americans varied because some studies say that they are smart and educated. The audience that this study is intended for is psychologists. This study if relevant to my topic because it explores stereotypes in different men that explain their masculinities.


Teek28 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added a section to this article on the Construction of Manhood. The content synthesized a number of research articles and current material on this topic. Please do let me know if you have suggestions or can point to additional material to support this contribution.

Teek28 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Clean up edits

Just made a series of clean up edits. Removed a lot of WP:OVERLINK and general formatting. I did make two edits to the lead which I hope are not controversial. Based one edit on MOS:LEADALT.

There are still too many quotes used in the article and possible some WP:UNDUE issues. Will try to address those later. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why masculinety exist

People have written here what masculinety is, but still not why it exist. Why there is a difference betwen male and female behavior. It is quite logical that it exist because some characteristics are beneficial for a male and makes his life better, or better for the society as a whole. Do anyone have a reference for this, because it is most probably the case. Olehal09 (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, but intially not in a friendly fashion, I reverted you because your addition is not only unsourced, but has grammar/language barrier issues. It is like someone inserted rambling thoughts about masculinity into the lead. There is clearly a language barrier regarding what you intend to get across in the lead, and I'm not entirely sure what you are proposing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR plain and simple. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If so, you need to write that after editing. Try to be decent. As I have written over, we need to write why masculinity exist, not just what some sociologists believe it to be. Why do men feel the need to behave a surtan way. Olehal09 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Winegard, Winegard, and Geary

  • "According to Winegard, Winegard, and Geary, this is functional; poetry and painting do not require traditionally-masculine traits, and attacks on those traits should not induce anxiety. Football and the military require traditionally-masculine traits, such as pain tolerance, endurance, muscularity and courage, and attacks on those traits induce anxiety and may trigger retaliatory impulses and behavior."


What kind of anxiety is produced at the physiognomic level in attacking these different (normatively-distinguishes!) categories of traits? How does attacking alleged "feminine traits" compare on a physiognomic level to arousal triggered by "pain tolerance, endurance, muscularity and courage"?

To say that attacking one's creativity or intelligence does not produce ANY anxiety, at the physiognomical level, sounds inaccurate. In the very least it seems obvious that such attacks undermine one's ego and can produce social anxiety. Need more elaboration on attacking "feminine traits"

Additionally, what is the underlying physical connection between "pain tolerance, endurance, muscularity" and "courage" -- the initial three traits can be grouped by physical exertion, while the fourth is a psychological phenomenon. Yes-- of course those are all normative masculine traits, but it is weak to argue that because there are common consequences (anxiety) there is a common cause (masculinity), as correlation does not imply causation. Winegard, Winegard, and Geary appear to believe that masculinity has a physical essence which underlies the exemplification of each trait. However, if they have such essentialist views, it needs to be better represented here. Ctlnrd (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Section on Liquor

I'm not certain the section on liquor is necessary. This article here indicates that young women take more risk drinking, and out drink men. The article does indicate that older men tend to be more reckless drinkers, but still, I just have a hard time believing that liquor consumption is unique to men. Not to mention, the Islamic world (1 Billion strong) doesn't even consume alcohol. RomanGrandpa (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

this article is as anti-male as it gets

having a penis is not a crime... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a good thing nowadays more people respond to biased information and can see the source , the context and find out who was the author. Instead of take it as fact from nowhere and follow it blindly.

Could you come up with any constructive ways in which to improve this article, or are you just going to complain about perceived bias and do nothing about it? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's quite sad. I came to confirm an idea I had about enlightenment era masculinity, but instead I come to read about how a subreddit is misogynist. It's insane to think that opinions expressed on a subreddit are to be considered historical (it is, after all, under the heading "history", subheading "modern history"!). However, I find no interest in getting involved attempting to change this article; I already know that it would stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.74.52 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The section on Reddit as it stands should stay IMO, as it references a report made by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organisation I've seen as described as reliable on Wikipedia. And I for one would appreciate any constructive editing to this article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I've read the source, and while the accusation against the sub-reddit moderator might stand, I find it overly simplistic. The views of a moderator do not reflect the views of its users, and furthermore, the report is hardly unbiased: "The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women". "Manosphere" in this context is equated right off the bat with men, regardless of the actual demographic makeup of the forum. - Saurian Savior (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If this discussion refers to the section Masculinity#Present_day, then I share concerns of other editors w.r.t inclusion of Technology such as television and the Internet offer men alternative ways to express masculinity, and websites like Reddit, Tumblr, and 4chan are platforms for men and women to discuss masculinity in current culture with others worldwide. Some sites (eg. subreddit /r/MensRights) foster misogyny and regressive ideas about masculinity, according to the civil rights organisation Southern Poverty Law Center., particularly the final sentence.
This article is on masculinity, not "the manosphere", and the inclusion appears to be an off-topic WP:COATRACK. I would note that the referenced source is entirely about "the manosphere", and mentions masculinity only in passing. I would also note that, regardless of the question of reliability, that the SPLC is clearly a biased source on this topic; their viewpoints on "the manosphere" may be noteworthy, but at an article on that topic, not here (per WP:NPOV@WP:UNDUE). Also note that verifiability does not imply inclusion (per WP:ONUS).
Unless there are solid, policy based, objections, directly addressing these concerns, I will be removing this content in the next day or so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Alcohol Consumption

Since the assertion on alcohol over-consumption is equated to masculinity is poorly sited and supported, and contradicted in articles like this, I deleted the section. Also, the one billion strong Islamic population abstains from alcohol consumption and Muslim men can often be very masculine. RomanGrandpa (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source – see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Nota bene* Please also note that "many men do not consume alcohol" is original research here unless a reliable source explicitly mentions it in relation to the topic of masculinity and health. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Female Masculinities

Hi everyone! I am new to Wikipedia but I would like to add a section titled, "Female Masculinities", into this page. I am doing this for a project for one of my classes. (Ilfinestrino (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC))

I will be deciphering the various analytical frameworks of female masculinities such as: penis envy, female masculinity as a “defense mechanism” and the correlation between homosexuality and female masculinity. I will be analyzing the works of Robert Stoller and Judith Butler.

I will be drawing information from Female Masculinity by Jack Halberstam, Female Masculinity and Phallic Women-Unruly Concepts by Judith Kegan Gardiner.

Please let me know if I am not writing something in the correct format. Also, please comment on my sources and let me know if they are adequate. (Ilfinestrino (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC))

@Ilfinestrino: That's a great idea. I've created a new section to get you started: Masculinity#Masculinity in women. I also left a few comments for you on your talk page. Your sources look excellent. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with! Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Ilfinestrino is no longer editing, but they left a draft for a new "Masculinity in women" section at User:Ilfinestrino/sandbox. Would anyone like to help integrate that material? Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Further reading section

This section seems indiscriminately stuffed with sources to the point of no longer being useful in pointing the way toward information that isn't already in the article. I'd like to trim this section to a reasonable number of the most valuable sources. Suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Potentially Biased

Hello everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia and working on a project for school so I hope I'm doing all of this right. Upon reading this article, I noticed, near the top, a link the Men's Rights Movement, which doesn't redirect to a page to educate people on it, but a page for the movement itself. Seeing the subject content, this comes across pretty biased. Would anyone be opposed to removing this or perhaps changing it to redirect to a page that is ONLY for educational purposes? Let me know. Thanks! MadelaineH123 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Organization of Topics

Hi everyone! I am new to editing Wikipedia as it is for a class. For an assignment we had a list of articles to read and evaluate. This article was one of them and we are suppose to write our evaluation on the Talk Page. This article seems to be coming along and everything seems to be relevant to Masculinity. However, I was slightly distracted by how quickly topics changed throughout the article. Under the Overview heading some of the subheadings seem short with little information under them. I think if there was more information or meat to each of the subheadings it would be less distracting. I was also slightly distracted because a couple of the subheadings don't link together very well. Maybe if the subheadings were in a different order or combined they would link together and flow a bit better. SWalton (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Masculinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Biological or social construct?

The statement in the lead paragraph "Masculinity is both socially-defined and biologically-created" is unfortunately overly simplistic, even misleading, so I've removed it for now. It's more accurate to say that various theories of masculinity emphasize either biological or social factors. As Jack S. Kahn states in An Introduction to Masculinities (p.3):

Masculinity is a hypothetical construct because, in and of itself, it cannot be directly observed or measured [...] Not only do people disagree about what it is we are supposed to be studying when we study masculinity, but whatever masculinity is seems to be different in different cultures.

One of the authors cited in the text I removed, Richard Dunphy, does not seem to state that masculinity itself is a creation of either society or biology; rather, in Sexual Politics: An Introduction (p. 6) he focuses on the theories themselves:

On the one hand are the schools of thought variously referred to as biological determinism, or biological theories about gender and sexuality or sociobiological theories of difference; on the other hand, various forms of what is usually known as social constructionism [...] Of course, many positions acknowledge both the biological and social aspects of gender and sexual differences.

Dunphy further states on page 84:

It is not surprising that social scientists have different opinions on defining and theorizing masculinity. Robert Connell (1995: 68–71) has distinguished four main strategies for approaching the study of masculinity according to their logic of explanation, although they are often combined in practice. They are respectively essentialist, positivist, normative and semiotic.

If anything, the social-constructionist view seems more prevalent, based on the much-cited A New Psychology of Men (1995). As one of the editors, Ronald F. Levant, states in a 1996 paper:

The new psychology of men views gender roles not as biological or even social givens, but rather as psychologically and socially constructed entities that bring certain advantages and disadvantages and, most importantly, can change. This perspective acknowledges the biological differences between men and women but argues that it is not the biological differences of sex that make for masculinity and femininity. These notions are socially constructed from bits and pieces of biological, psychological, and social experience to serve particular purposes.

Michael Kimmel makes a similar point in Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia (p. xxiii):

The meaning of masculinity is neither transhistorical nor culturally universal; it is not carried on the Y chromosome, nor is it somehow a function of testosterone. Rather, the meanings of manhood vary from culture to culture and within any one culture over time.

Dunphy himself seems to fall into the social-constructionist camp. On page 86 he states:

It is better [...] to view masculinity as a range of ways in which men respond to what they perceive as social expectations of masculinity, the practices through which their masculinity is established and the effects of these practices on those around them and on the men themselves. This approach undermines the illusion that masculinity is uniform, monolithic and innate. Instead, we are confronted with a variety of masculine forms.

So it seems clear that we need a more detailed explanation in the lead section that takes these various views into account. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masculinity/Archive_2&oldid=1038198755"