Talk:Toxic masculinity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Overview

I have recently edited the caption for the "I won't cry" file because it made a hard claim in support of an idea not discussed outside of people involved with gender studies, and disputed by many different groups of people worldwide. This is in contrast to a topic like evolution which is accepted by everyone except for religious fundamentalists. I find it necessary to attribute this idea to the school of thought responsible for creating it, also because it makes a blanket generalization about the upbringing of boys in the world and makes no attempt in identifying a group responsible for "toxic masculinity" whatsoever. PurpleDiana (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead and overview sections already specify that the topic deals with a concept within psychology relating to "traditional male norms of behavior in the United States and Europe". We don't need to repeat this with every statement in the article. Disputed by many different groups of people worldwide is irrelevant in terms of due weight. What matters for this article is support from reliable, scholarly sources. Absent such scholarly sources (preferably textbooks or review articles) offering any kind of contrary viewpoint, this complaint resembles a mere personal dislike of the article contents. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

The idea of toxic masculinity, as opposed to just and healthy masculinity, is one with a history, but aside from a few quotations and the citations at the bottom of the entry, there is no indication of that history here. Also, a new-comer to the term, the most likely reader of this article, would likely be perplexed to find independence and competitiveness listed as toxic traits. If such is really the opinion of some psychologists, that needs to be addressed as well. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitruviuspolio (talk • contribs) 01:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. My (certainly novice) understanding is that this is a somewhat complex and controversial topic, but a reader would not know that reading the article as it currently is. I get the sense it has been "polished" to appear more certain than maybe it is. StoneProphet11 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are concrete suggestions for improving the article, then the place to post them is here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

@Sangdeboeuf: how Jordan Peterson's opinion, who's a psychologist and wrote over hundred academic papers with notable h-index, can't be included i.e. quoted in the article according to UNDUE criteria, while Frank Pittman and John Stoltenberg can?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Pittman and Stoltenberg are referenced in a high-quality secondary source by a reliable academic publisher (NYU Press). The sources recently added are political commentary by professional pundits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we rely on scholarly material as much as possible. It's not part of our mission to "balance" such sources by citing every contrary opinion that's out there. I put the Independent Women's Forum source under "Further reading". Others, such as The Daily Wire, are mere clickbait/fringe/propaganda that don't belong on this or any article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It is still mentioned by only one source which should not nullify UNDUE. Where on Wikipedia is considered that TDW is an unreliable source, including for referencing attributed opinion?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It would never be given the same weight as peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academic book publishers, I can guarantee. Not every contrary opinion is noteworthy. This article doesn't cite Salon and other liberal sources for a reason. Ditto with conservative blogs. Also, If Peterson's views are an essential part of the debate on School shootings, then they more properly belong at that article. This article deals with toxic masculinity as a concept in general among scholars, not with every use of the term in popular media to explain current events. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:COATRACK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That's too rigid criteria with which I became not familiar with while reading Wikipedian principles of editing. The two mentioned personalities are far less noteworthy in academic circles compared to Peterson, and their opinion is still cited from a single source. Peterson's view i.e. answer was a direct reply to Carlson's question about the meaning of "toxic masculinity", which is especially related to this article because it mentions violence, rather the other article. However, it could be too recent and if some other reliable sources report on it could be added, but sorry, the article deals including with the public media reporting about it, we as editors can't censor specific aspects because some editor had a specific idea about the article. That's WP:OWN. Am I wrong?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The two mentioned personalities are far less noteworthy in academic circles compared to Peterson – then it should be easy to find an academic source that cites his opinion. Their opinion is still cited from a single source – quality of sources is more important than quantity, especially regarding saturated media coverage of current events. The article deals [with] the public media reporting about it – true, by publications like The Washington Post, Time, and Smithsonian. These are mainstream, general-interest publications, and so are given more weight than partisan sites that exist to promote a specific political ideology, such as The Daily Wire. We as editors can't censor specific aspects – that's called editing. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

How quality overweight quantity? That's not basic principles of UNDUE, and doubt they represent "prominent" adherents either. As for "partisan sites", sorry, that's just "bias in sources" (WP:BIASED). However, we are going away from the article's content, still pleased to hear your opinion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RS: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources [...] Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications (emphasis on quality). For every Daily Wire piece on toxic masculinity, I can find you one from AlterNet or Salon. That kind of back-and-forth dialogue doesn't communicate anything about the relative weight of the given opinions. For that we rely on the aforementioned mainstream publications and evaluation and analysis by reliable, secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, and I'll say I am by no means an expert on this particular topic, but this reads as an example of one of Wikipedia's main problems...highly invested editors who rigidly scrub sources that are unfriendly to their personal views by citing a variety of difficult to understand (for novice users) rules. That's not a shot at any particular editor here, just saying I've seen this elsewhere, and it's one issue that really damages a lot of faith in wikipedia's coverage of social/political topics. StoneProphet11 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for vague criticisms of the article or its subject. If you have a concrete suggestion for improving the article, I'm sure it would be welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict with CLC Student

I think my changes better reflect a more objective approach to the topic. Truth is a moving target and the goal of Wikipedia is not to take sides in a culture war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GROOT (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@GROOT: You're absolutely right of course that WP does not take sides in culture wars or any other kind of public dispute; it merely reports them in proportion to the weight that reliable sources about the topic give them, instead we talk it out here on the Talk page and try to reach consensus on how best to improve the article. Those discussions should be based on what reliable, secondary sources say, and your opinion that your changes are more objective than someone else's, or their opinion that they are more objective than you counts for exactly nothing at all. Please see WP:DR. (adding @CLCStudent:) Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

One more thing: your changes were to the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the body of the article, not to introduce new information. If you wish to reintroduce the material you added or changed in the lead, please first make detailed changes to that effect in the appropriate section of the body of the article, supported by reliable sources, and add footnotes in support of each assertion. Once that is saved and achieves consensus (you can interpret a lack of any objection after a decent interval as probable consensus), then you can make a second edit to the lead, summarizing the detailed material you added to the body earlier. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Applicable fields

I've added gender studies to the lead for the use of the term along side of psychology since both of them can be well established. I'd advocate for caution when broadly saying sociology since it is really broad, and depending upon your scholarly background within it, the use of "judgemental" language may be discouraged in peer review. My understanding is that the term evolved more out of critical theory and was adopted in some some disciplines which has influenced how it is used as well. -Darkstar949 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkstar949: I reverted your edit. The LEAD summarizes the body of the article it does not introduce new information. Especially not new, unsourced information. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Fair enough, but then sociology is not appropriate in the lead either. However, the article does in directly lean on gender studies via the discussion of gender roles and hegemonic masculinity so we really should look at expanding the article to include an explicit section to break the gender studies information out from the psychology side of things. It strikes me as a critical weakness of the article since the "Further Reading" section actually links to material associated with the relevant epistemologies. -Darkstar949 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Minor update per the revisions today by @Sangdeboeuf:, but the article only explicitly discusses how the term is used in the context of gender studies and psychology. While both of those both of those are sub-fields of social science, the term is not broadly accepted by all social scientists (see for Quora for a non-authoritarian discussion) and in some disciplines (ex. ethnography) the use of "judgemental" language is largely avoided in peer reviewed literature. As such, it is best to avoid implying the term is widely used or accepted by social scientists in the lead. Darkstar949 (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Darkstar949: Based on 800+ citations in google scholar, what makes you say the term is not widely used? And whether or not it is used or accepted by all social scientists is not relevant; it need not be universally used to be both notable and verifiable. Although if the term is controversial and generates significant opposition in a way that can be reliably sourced, then that certainly would deserve airing in the article.

We should be using this talk page to discuss ways to improve the article, and I'm not sure if there's a concrete suggestion in your comment above about how to do that. What change are you proposing? Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I agree that the term is widely used in some disciplines; however, the term is not wildly used (or even accepted) by all social scientists. Per WP:SYNTH we should avoid the use of language that implies that is the case. In short, we have WP:RS indicating that the term is used in gender studies and psychology and the lead should be limited to those fields for the time being. Darkstar949 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Violence, Dominance and Stereotypes in Masculinity

Violence, dominance and stereotypes in masculinity is an essay written as an educational project, with what appears to be the aim of persuading the reader toward a point of view, rather than as an encyclopedia article. There is a great deal of overlap with toxic masculinity, and it was proposed for deletion on these grounds yesterday. The article creator has responded by adding a lot more information, supported by WP: Reliable sources, but also straying into WP:Synthesis in places. I propose that rather than delete, the useful sources be merged to toxic masculinity, without the essay content and WP:OR. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That article should be deleted on the grounds that it presents a highly-biased viewpoint which should be obvious to anyone who isn't a political activist in support of the idea that gender is a social construct created for the purpose of oppressing women. These ideas are already covered and referenced in numerous Wikipedia articles. Some of the more useful content from that article can be salvaged as proposed above, so long as readers are aware that these ideas are based in theories that are questioned and outright rejected by most people. PurpleDiana (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support limited merge- per nomination and why I PRODed the article. I wouldn't oppose deletion either. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Reject - There are a lot of issues with the other article that need to be addressed and some of the sources might be useful as factual information though. Darkstar949 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Darkstar949:, by "reject" do you mean this article should go to AFD, or should be kept as it is? The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: Violence, Dominance and Stereotypes in Masculinity should go to AFD. Darkstar949 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm closing this merge discussion, since there seems to be a clear consensus for deletion of the new article, rather than merge. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism heading

Does anyone have problems with the way this is currently worded? I'm not open to just deleting it since it's easily sourceable and there's a lot of room for expansion on it as a controversial topic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The only potentially reliable source I see here is the Wall Street Journal interview of Camille Paglia, but the full text is not available without payment. Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos are WP:FRINGE figures – their ideas should not be presented alongside those of mainstream scholars and authors. The stuff about male college students being "forced" to take classes on masculinity is definitely WP:FRINGE – the sources are tabloid journalism, self-published blogs, and right-wing propaganda sites like The Federalist. The whole section presents problems of WP:STRUCTURE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Whatever criticism can be cited to reliable, secondary sources should be worked into the main sections where appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (updated 14:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Does this include Frank Pittman? Better sources would be a better argument than just deleting the entire section. Had I done that with large parts of the article instead of tagging it would you have taken issue? The section should be reworked and improved. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The part about Frank Pittman already cites a secondary source by Nancy Dowd, published by a reputable academic publisher. Reliable, secondary sources such as these are needed to keep the article from becoming an indiscriminate collection of opinions by every person who's spoken or written about the subject. Frankly, I'm skeptical that mainstream sources on the subject can be found that give much space to the views of Yiannopoulos et al. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I bring up Frank is because he was included in the sources of the section you removed as an example. Take a look at the sources, they are (for the most part) collections of other sources and papers, studies, etc on this. I even got prominent feminists that disagree with this and could expand this. It comes down to whether you will compromise for different/better sources or just fight this every step of the way. If you were to dispute the relevence of this though then i suggest you research the topic a little more as the amount of dispute on this topic matter is enormous and wikipedia now mentions just Frank. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how these sources are appropriate in this context, as I explained above. The main issue is one of WP:WEIGHT. Polemical blogs, think-tank pieces, and other WP:QUESTIONABLE sources should not be given the same weight as mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP and major magazines and news organizations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm alcost certain that I didn't provide any blogs as sources, and again the recommended course of action would be to tag or attempt to source the material better if that's an issue, not just delete it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

PJ Media is a blog. But by "blogs" I generally meant websites publishing opinion pieces by people who aren't professional journalists. The error is mine – I should have been more exact. However, neither I nor anyone else is responsible for finding better sources for the information in this section – the burden to achieve consensus is on the person seeking to include the disputed material. In my opinion, that has not been done so far. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Then would you have a problem with me restoring the section, tagging it for better sources and rewording and resourcing? You could even chip in if you like. As i've said before I value your opinion on this matter and you've done some great work here. This gives me something to do when I hae the time and it's there for others to look through and work on in the meantime. I disagree strongly with deleting by default on Wikipedia if the content can be made better and improved. Deleting should be a last resort. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether deleting text is generally appropriate or not is outside the scope of this discussion – see Wikipedia:Editing policy. My comments above are where I explain my rationale for removing the text in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the topic is evidently so controversial and misunderstood, when describing cultural responses to it I would strongly suggest using only secondary and tertiary sources with strong reputations for accuracy and scholarship. Opinion pieces should be confined exclusively to the "Further reading" and "External links" sections. Otherwise the article could easily become a morass of conflicting opinions where the most vocal and strident ones inevitably take up the most space. That doesn't serve the interests of an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note to editors wandering into the conversation: the section in question was deleted by Sangdeboeuf in at 08:41, 20 June 2017.

• I agree with Sangdeboeuf that the deleted opinions are WP:FRINGE and don't belong in the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• I disagree. A criticism section is important for evaluating a political theory. It is only natural that it includes minority views. It is not fair to silence your opponents just by labeling them fringe.2.110.93.203 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Extensive reworking

This article had numerous, severe errors.

• The article lead claims that a study states "elevated skin cancer rates among men" as a result of toxic masculinity. The citation makes no measurement of skin cancer incidence or of toxic masculinity.
• The masculinity section has a massive quotation with unclear attribution, citing two sources.
• Second paragraph of masculinity section doesn't appear relevant to the subject.
• Last paragraph of sports section looks like it might be a quote from a paper. If so it is too lengthy.
• First paragraph of violence is unencyclopedic.
• Do not use "recent" to refer to a recent event. It won't be recent if someone reads this article 10 years from now.
• There isn't speculation about whether the the Orlando shooting was a terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack. Link added.
• First citation under Sexuality is inaccessible, and impossible to verify.
• "heterosex" isn't a word
• Miller 2016 doesn't back up what the article claims. It makes reference to studies on gay male substance abuse, disordered eating and steroid abuse, but doesn't causally link this to use of dating apps.
• A bunch of other inline cleanup tags Tophattingson (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's toxic feminism shite (pardon the language). Everything bad against women or men is the fault of toxic masculinity and the magical patriarchy, whether it can be proven or not. This is barely encyclopaedic as anything other than a feminist rant, more deserving of Buzzfeed than Wikipedia. Since most of the article is speculation and heavy POV I can't see personally how it could be improved without sanitising the lot and starting again with reliable sourcing. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's toxic feminism shite (pardon the language). Everything bad against women or men is the fault of toxic masculinity and the magical patriarchy, whether it can be proven or not.

And where might one find a reliable source to back up this POV? Please remember that this page is not a forum for general discussion of the article topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's a valid criticism of the state of this Original Research/article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That may be so (or it may not), but per WP:TALK, "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject". That's all I'll say about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (updated17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC))

Fair point, and I welcome your attempts to improve the article into something better. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Masculinity

I removed a chunk of text (beginning with "Masculinity is linked with the positive attributes of power and virility...") which was evidently plaigarized from the entry "Consumption, Masculinities and" from Blackwell Reference Online. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised at the removal but it does appear you're researching this well and thoroughly. Congratulations and best of luck in that respect ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I removed the {{POV}} tag from the article since there hasn't been adequate explanation of the neutrality dispute, and most of the important statements in the article are now fairly well sourced. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bravo. I was sceptical this article could be improved to this point, but you're really putting in the effort here. Go ahead, do what you think is best. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf and Jenova20: I think we should deal with the other maintenance tags as well. Does everyone agree that the section Sexuality strays from the topic? It should be either removed or rewritten. Right now it doesn't even mention toxic masculinity and keeps the reader guessing as to what is hinted at with regards to the nature vs. nurture debate and toxic masculinity. Sure, these can be applied to toxic masculinity but do sources do that? If they do, the section should be written from that perspective. If they don't, it should be removed.

Whoever has introduced the "not in citation given" and "verification needed" tags, or the sources they pertain to, they could be gone through one by one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the progress being made and while I agree with you, i'd actually go further and say the Health Risks section as is is entirely WP:OR to me: List a bunch of issues men have to their health for various reasons (societal pressures and expectations included), link to masculinity because it's men, call it toxic. While I haven't got the time to run through all the sources and pick away are we dealing with sources mainly talking about the behaviour of men and masculinity, or the topic at hand, which is "toxic" masculinity. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Agreed. I've moved the stuff under "Sexuality" that could be reliably sourced to the relevant pages,[1][2] and removed the rest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

self-reliance?

Since when is self-reliance to be considered a "toxic," trait? Isn't that something feminists have been trying to engender in women for decades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.189 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the article. --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid use

I've removed the reference to anabolic steroid use as an expression of toxic masculinity based on a paper from the journal Health. The paper, which does not use the phrase toxic masculinity, analyzes discourses on steroid use, including arguments that steroid users embody "a destructive, out-of-control and unsocialized masculinity". However, this is mainly attributed either to the drugs themselves or to "the familiar spectre of teenage hooliganism". This is not quite the conventional understanding of "toxic masculinity", which is believed to come from mainstream culture rather than a teenage or drug-user subculture. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

U.S. focus

I believe that we should mention that the concept of toxic masculinity is used primarily in the United States, even without a direct citation. Academic research on masculinity in general is focused on the U.S., and this topic seems to be a subset of that. Virtually all the reliable sources I have seen or used in the article are focused on the U.S. Since these sources are written for a U.S. audience, I guess they don't mention the geographic usage of the term since it is assumed that most of their readership is in the U.S. and will understand the topic in that context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't be out of place to add {{globalize/us}} to the article. Or, if the topic inherently applies chiefly to the U.S., there should be some sources supporting that, although these searches (uk, ie, au, nz, za) would seem to belie that claim. Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, a simple .com search for the term returns about 17,000 results in news – far more than the country-specific domains put together. So the usage still seems to be primarily a United States phenomenon. Of course it would be ideal to have a source clearly explaining the usage, but I believe that in this instance, the need for clarity may outweigh the rule of verifiability. The content itself seems non-controversial. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparing hit counts is notoriously difficult. Unfortunately, .com is used by every country (Irish Times is result #3 in your news search), whereas .uk (and the other ccTLDs) are used only by the respective countries, so a comparison of dot-com to dot-everything-else usually isn't a valid one. Sometimes you can offset that by comparing it with a dot-us search, but since most U.S. sites would use dot-com, that usually doesn't work well, either. (For some searches, you can finesse that with non-.com TLDs used only by the U.S.; e.g., this vs that, but that technique doesn't work well with this particular search.) It looks like you might be right on the U.S. bias of the term, but we should keep our eyes, and options, open. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

GenderPOV template?

@223.223.174.140: What's non-neutral about this article? --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

While the concept of toxic masculinity is what it is, this article fails to adequately represent it. It also fails to include nuanced research from other disciplines and continents, and fails to account for competing perspectives.

The article cites very selective articles from a limited number of authors, published in mediums that appear ideologically biased (including a book called "Feminism and Masculinities", the UCLA Women's Law Journal, and an Encyclopedia of Women and Gender). The article also cites news media (The Washington Post, Popular Science, Medical News Today, Smithsonian.com, and Mental Floss) to back up sweeping generalizations about men and masculinity.

I've therefore added the neutrality warning. 223.223.174.140 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)OE

And I've removed it. Cleanup tags are not meant to be a "badge of shame" or to signal a contributor's disagreement with the contents of an article. Feel free to suggest reliable, published sources that provide a balanced overview. Until then, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC) (edited 06:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC))

It's not a badge of shame. It's a warning that the information presented is poorly researched and one-sided. Not alerting the reader to treat the information with caution is dishonest, as you are treating the information as established fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.223.174.140 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CLEANUPTAG: the purpose of a tag is "to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made", not "a method of warning the readers against the article". Talk pages are likewise not for venting or criticism about the state of an article. If you have specific improvements to suggest, by all means do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness, I can see where the OP is coming from since the literature that the article draws on is pretty limited. The introduction can use some clarification (ex., Which social sciences? It seems like the article only discusses psychology and not the broader social science literature) and some of the examples need to be backed up better. As a whole, it's also not really appropriate to cite narrow literature (i.e., mental health in prisons) when discussing broad social phenomenon. The academic literature on this topic can get really deep so there is plenty of material out there to work with. Darkstar949 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lead section to address this. As for academic literature, feel free to suggest additional sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks much better now! If I come across some articles that discuss toxic masculinity in the literature I'll add them to this page. Darkstar949 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on my reading, the concept of toxic masculinity seems to be an informal way of describing what scholars call dysfunction strain within gender role strain and gender role stress theories (which also seem to overlap). See § Gender role strain paradigm, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but you should run it past a psychologist to see if they agree. Darkstar949 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Gender role strain paradigm

Formal, academic descriptions of what popular media sources call toxic masculinity seem to be related to gender role stress and gender role strain theories (specifically, dysfunction strain). To wit:

Dysfunction strain describes someone who fulfills the expectations of contemporary masculinity, but experiences negative effects because the expectations for men are often psychologically toxic (Levant, 1996).

— William Ming Liu and Samuel J. Shepard in An International Psychology of Men, 2011, p. 8.

With regard to dysfunction-strain, it has been found that some aspects of traditionally prescribed male role behavior may have negative consequences that can be categorized under the headings of violence, sexual excess, socially irresponsible behaviors, and relationship dysfunctions.

— Ronald F. Levant, The New Psychology of Men, 1996, p. 263.

Subsequent research has indicated that higher levels of masculine gender role stress have been associated with mental and physical health problems, as well as men's violence toward women and gay men.

— R.C. McDermott et al. in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender, 2017, p. 720.

Any suggestions on integrating such material would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

See also gender role conflict, as in:

In its extreme, masculine gender role conflict has been labeled a 'toxic masculinity,' (Kupers, 2005) and research has demonstrated the detrimental effects of rigid gender role adherence.

— Schaub, Michael; Williams, Christine (2007). "Examining the relations between masculine gender role conflict and men's expectations about counseling". Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 8 (1): 40–52. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.1.40.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Toxic femininity

Need an article on that, otherwise this whole article is obvious sexist BS filled with confirmation bias links. Gendalv (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Also WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

for example The Princess at the Window: A dissident feminist view of men, women and sexual politics Gendalv (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this related to improving the article? You don't need anybody's permission to buy it and read it and cite it in the article. Although if you're planning an article on "toxic femininity" you ought to have more than one source. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that this article is part of the pseudo science based on a common feminist bias of looking at the top percentile of males as if all males are in possession and position of power, wealth and privilege, while promoting the 'victim by being a female' mentality. So we could've just applied the same logic and the way of egocentric thinking to women hence the link above. Reality shows otherwise: The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex, Male expendability Gendalv (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Warren Farrell is hardly an authoritative source, but in any case combining separate sources to reach a novel conclusion is original research and is prohibited. Appeals to "reality" do not satisfy Wikipedia's core content policies. See also Proof by assertion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

When was this term coined and by whom and for what original purpose? Seems like a basic encyclopedic type fact that would be included in such an article. Certainly a more encyclopedic avenue of inquiry than the current litany of opinions from various random academics. The article in its current state fails to convince me personally that there is any widespread academic acceptance of "toxic masculinity" as a concept with any specific and consistent meaning. If there's not, then this should probably be AfD because WP:ADVOCACY (quoting verbatim: "Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint.").

But I know very little about this topic, so I'm unsure if my impression is down to my own ignorance or because the article simply needs more work. Starting at the beginning might be useful for readers who are looking for a more factual understanding. 148.87.23.14 (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

While I do not think this is the origin of the term, I did find a reference in a reputable work, "Man Enough: Fathers, Sons, and the Search for Masculinity" by Frank Pittman from 1994. In terms of popular usage, Google trends indicates a HUGE spike since 2014 FWIW - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22Toxic%20masculinity%22 Nessman (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment

(refactored from User talk:RichardWeiss)

Greetings. What did you mean by "breaking a good link" in this edit? The link men points to Man. It's accepted practice to use such redirects; see WP:NOTBROKEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would you point the link to the redirect when it pointed to the article? And why do you think this is standard practice? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The redirect was used because the word men was already in the text. See the editing guideline I linked to above, WP:NOTBROKEN – "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]" – as well as MOS:NOPIPE – "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The link wasn't broken when you "fixed" it, that guideline does not support your edit but refers to cases where a redirect is already in place. The guidelines do not recommend turning a direct link into a redirect. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the redirect is not "broken" either. Please refer again to MOS:NOPIPE – "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". [[men]] is clearly preferable to [[Man|men]] in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you were clearly at fault and now you are trying to quote policy to justify your bad, you had no cause to turn the link into a redirect. I reverted you within minutes not months as you had no reason to break the dab. And this seems part of a pattern. Don't send me links to off-topic arb decisions if you want to collaborate with me, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The link points to male now as masculinity includes boys ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychology against gender studies

I don't see much supporting evidence here for the term toxic masculinity being used in psychology. Prove me wrong, but I think it's mostly a term used within gender studies and the overarching feministic endeavor. As such, I believe the article ought to be reworked to reflect that fact. Decoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to the editors of this page to prove that the term has support. The citations to sources are in the article. Which if any do you believe insufficiently support the text? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

I inserted several "citation needed" tags but apparently, they were all removed. Is that OK and, if so, why? For example, the very first sentence claims that his so-called toxic masculinity is present only in men from North America and Europe. I'm sure that this is all good and well from the ideological viewpoint but hardly from an objective one. (Or never mind, I won't start arguing with people who don't see any problems with these kinds of crazy generalizations. Done that too many times and found it useless.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.130.172 (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body of the article therefore it doesn't need citations. The article only talks about North America and Europe because we only have sources talking about toxic masculinity in those contexts. If you have sources talking about toxic masculinity globally, feel free to add them and improve the article. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional source

• Ging, Debbie (20 May 2017). "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere" (PDF). Men and Masculinities. doi:10.1177/1097184X17706401. Although the term 'toxic masculinity' has become widely used in both academic and popular discourses, its origins are somewhat unclear.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Popular psychology?

@Mrspaceowl: where do the sources say that the term is used in "popular psychology"? I'm not seeing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section?

I'm no expert on this topic, so I can't actually write it, but shouldn't there be a criticism section considering this is quite a politically charged especially, especially in the context of current social and political debates surrounding gender? PeelitePowellite (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally deprecated and tend to produce a poorly structured article. I've seen the concept mentioned in some mainstream news outlets recently, but the article as currently written focuses on the topic within academia. What are the reliable, secondary sources discussing criticism of the concept? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you're quite right, as I said I'm not well versed on this topic, I was really just wondering, but since this is in an academic context I understand. I'll keep an eye out in the meantime for criticism in general and in academia and return if there seems to be a sizeable debate on such a topic. PeelitePowellite (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Time to break out the Jordan Peterson citations boys. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:5495:2632:485:7F2D (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since few academics take Jordan Peterson seriously on gender-related issues, that would be giving his views undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Where's your source for few academics taking Peterson seriously? 162.238.116.106 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please name a single peer-reviewed journal article by Peterson that focuses on gender and that has been well-received by other scholars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, you made the claim that Peterson is not taken seriously in the academia. The burden of proof is yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.40.179 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. If you think he is taken seriously in academia, cite it. Don't want to get all sealion-y here, but that burden is yours. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

References

"Psychology and gender roles" section

It currently reads as the following:

In psychology, toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural masculine norms that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall; this concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance, self-reliance, and competition.

This is contentious. Many would argue that the term is in fact intended to demonize men and male attributes . This entire paragraph should be removed and replaced with something more neutral.

2600:1702:1D00:CFF0:5D91:82BE:9373:6E04 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

"Many would argue" all kinds of things in the popular media sphere. There is such a thing as due weight in article contents, and we generally go by reliable, secondary sources, not opinion pieces. Besides, these sources don't even mention psychology or psychologists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Being the victim of domestic violence is an expression of toxic masculinity?

"Bullying of boys by their peers and domestic violence experienced by boys at home can also be expressions of toxic masculinity." As a kid I was frequently beaten by my mother. My father would never touch us. This line is obviously not worded in the way it was meant, because it makes no sense (it reverses victim and perpetrator). The way it stands here it says, no matter which gender bullies and beats male children, it is an expression of toxic masculinity. Is this implying that the toxic male boy asked for that? This definitely needs some clarification. 185.69.244.22 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The above seems to mistake the agent of the subordinate clause experienced by boys at home for the subject of the sentence as a whole, which is bullying and/or violence. The phrase can also be is crucial, because it implies that while some violence is related to masculinity, there may be other kinds as well. If there are ideas on how to make the wording clearer, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

APA guidelines

Regarding this series of edits, "traditional masculinity ideology" and "toxic masculinity" are directly equated in the first of the two sources cited. "Toxic masculinity" is directly connected to "traditional" masculinity in several other sources as well, e.g. "Toxic masculinity: A primer and commentary" by Michael Flood. So I think the APA's comments on "traditional masculinity ideology" are worth a mention. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite new to this, so bear with me. After looking through the citations I notice that the connection being made between "traditional masculinity" and "toxic masculinity" are being made by the journalists, not in the psychology journal articles. In fact none of the original psychology articles cited in the New York Times or Washing Post pieces ever use the term "toxic masculinity", they only use "traditional masculinity". The term "toxic masculinity" is never supported as a psychology term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.128.194.1 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Several of the journal articles refer to "toxic" masculinity: Ging, 2017; Kupers, 2005; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005. (See also Karner, 1996.) The WaPo article attributes the word "toxic" to psychologist Michael Addis. And we don't say that the APA ever uses the term "toxic masculinity". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The only psychology article that uses the term is Kupers,2017. The others sourced either never use it, or are from social sciences other than psychology. I see the page is edited so it's referred to as a social science term, rather than a psychology term, which is supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.128.194.1 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's actually a good explanation for why it's described as a social science term. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2020

For the source by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) cited in the article, please replace the address after the |url= parameter with the following: link. The existing link goes to a 404 error page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Best practice is not to duplicate one of the identifiers. I've removed the URL as the link is dead and no archive.org URL is available. Izno (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't see that the DOI also includes a link to the full text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2020

For the source by Liu (2016), please change |url-status=live to |url-status=dead. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I swapped the dead link for a still-live copy. Izno (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Under §Academic usage, please change the word "statusing" to "elevating". Status is not a transitive verb. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested Edit 5/11/2020

Please add a a banner to the top of the article to inform readers that the neutrality of the article is being disputed. EditSafe (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: While perhaps true, that doesn't seem necessary in the general case. Izno (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but the entire reason the page is protected right now is because the neutrality is being disputed. So why doesn't it make sense to inform readers of this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Toxic_masculinity_Neutrality_Dispute EditSafe (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The article was not protected because of a neutrality dispute, but to stop edit-warring. The reference to a "content dispute" added by Swarm is simply part of a standard response template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The appropriateness of tag itself was part of the dispute, so in restoring the stable version the tag was reverted without prejudice. That's not a judgment call, simply a procedural aspect of fully protecting the article. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Please revert the changes to the lead section made in a series of edits on 8 February 2020, which added unverified material. The source cited, besides being an opinion essay, does not use the phrase toxic masculinity. The additional text "in patriarchal societies ... with regard to ... harassment" is not supported in the body of the article. The edits to the body of the article are mostly fine. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this content relate to the recent edit war on this article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that dispute was about "criticism" of the term being added to the lead section. Nothing about the military, patriarchy, or harassment. Pinging EditSafe, who can confirm that this is an unrelated issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I have implemented the request as there has been no opposition expressed in more than a week — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Citation #12 misrepresents the original source. It says: "Terry Kupers describes toxic masculinity as 'the need to aggressively compete and dominate others';" however, the original source says thus: "[t]oxic masculinity *involves* the need to aggressively compete and dominate others" ("Toxic Masculinity as a Barrier to Mental Health Treatment in Prison," Terry A. Kupers, The Wright Institute, https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/written-kupers.pdf).

This is misquoted on the wiki page from an earlier source, #2 Ging, Debbie, which did not appropriately convey the original sources information, especially when it comes to the context of the original report inappropriately referenced as source #12 (merely a reference from source #2).

The original source, and its relevant facts, should be included, not a misleading description from a 3rd party.

https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/written-kupers.pdf Chriscloud9 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Added "involving" per source provided. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Read it and weep...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It really does make me fear for the the future of Wikipedia when yet another article on a semi-contentious/disputed topic contains no criticism section, even despite what appears to have been a lengthy discussion attempting to correct this. Even a cursory search on Google for 'criticism of toxic masculinity' throws up thousands of results, many from reputable, mainstream psychology websites, yet the concept is presented here as if it's an undisputed fact accepted by all. We can all agree that many stereotypically male behaviour patterns have negative outcomes, both for men and wider society, yet so do may stereotypically feminine ones, and the fact that there is no corresponding 'toxic femininity' article speaks volumes. The way see I mainly see the term 'toxic masculinity' being used in mainstream discourse is as a stick to beat men with for a wide range of behaviours, many of which are neutral or even healthy (in moderation).

Wikipedia has thus far largely managed to stay above the increasingly vicious (primarily US) culture war by maintaining a rigorous and strict neutrality, yet several of these hot-topic issue articles I've come across on here I see seem to be unfairly slanted towards one viewpoint (typically the leftist view; the dog-whistling article is another example). It's sad to see. Maybe I'll get round to adding something to this, though getting bogged down in an editing war is not something I particularity relish...

ps. and before you assume, no I'm not some crazed right-wing MGTOW-type, I'm actually politically centrist, which is why seeing the gradual erosion of neutrality on political/social topics on Wiki worries me so greatly. WisDom-UK (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally deprecated. If there is some content to be added based on reliable, mainstream sources, feel free to present it here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe one day I will. Though as it seems that every last attempt to do so has been rebuffed and reverted with an ultra-literal reading of wiki-policies and sealioning I’m not sure it would be worth the hassle.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

An ultra-literal reading of wiki-policies... Would a metaphorical reading would be closer to the intent of wiki-policies somehow? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Emphasis on the ultra. Thanks for proving my point. Carry on being self-appointed policeman/woman for this page as I’m off to spend my time on more fruitful endeavours. Bye. WisDom-UK (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2020

I propose adding in the lead that "toxic masculinity" is a contested term. Solid sources were already provided here on talkpage. Unfortunately, Sangdeboeuf now not only controls the whole article but even its talk page as he's already deleted my previous post because it was critical towards their behaviour here. 89.103.134.138 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't about the term, it's about a concept. This was already discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Unless you have new arguments to make that were not already considered, there's no reason to change anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)