Talk:Toxic masculinity/Archive 2

"Criticism" in lead

 * I've reverted your addition of "criticism" as unduly weighted in the lead section. The Atlantic piece by Michael Salter is a primary source for any criticism he makes in it. Ditto for the Diane Barth op-ed. We certainly don't say in Wikipedia's voice that an opinion has been "refuted" based on such an opinion piece. I could find you an equal number of thinkpieces that "refute" the refutation, or that support the concept in general. But that wouldn't make a very good encyclopeedia article, which is why we predominantly cite reliable, secondary sources. Especially for scholarly topics, we prefer academically vetted sources over op-eds and other popular-press articles. Why should we care what "Michael Salter, a professor of criminology at the University of New South Wales" and "psychotherapist F. Diane Barth" think about the topic at all? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with you that the relevance of the NBC story is debatable, however to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight it is important to include views from both sides of the argument. As stated in the article, much of the information comes from feminist writers, such as Michael Kimmel, John Stollenberg. Feminism is a political movement by definition, so to maintain neutrality it is important to have information presented by those who oppose this particular part of the movement being discussed here (i.e. oppose the use of the term "toxic masculinity"). University professors are often seen as reliable sources, and are more reliable than some of the others used (i.e. the "feminist writers"). I do not see how "feminist writers" (in the words of the article) should be seen as more reliable sources than this professor. I am not saying that they are necessarily less reliable, and I have kept the sources, but they do not have any more reliability either. I have chosen to include the controversy surrounding the term in the heading as the heading itself lacks neutrality, so including the opposition in the header alongside the support better adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality (see link above). I agree to remove the NBC article, but I think that keeping the article from The Atlantic is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view does not say we include "both sides of the argument". On the contrary, that's simply a false balance. "Feminist writers" is a red herring, nor is feminism solely a "political movement"; see . The article cites reliable, scholarly sources where available, and otherwise cites mainstream news organizations or experts such as Michael Flood for simple factual statements. The Atlantic piece, by contrast, is a primary source for Salter's opinion. Nor does being a professor of criminology make one an expert in toxic masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're misinterpreting what I said. Wikipedia's guidelines say to include differing views when there is significant disagreement by writers / publishers. This is not a false balance because the majority of the article still is in favor of the term, so it still falls under the correct balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "Significant viewpoints" does not mean "significant disagreement" between viewpoints. It means views that are themselves significant because they come from reputable sources.[T]he majority of the article still is in favor of the term is a mischaracterization; Wikipedia articles do not take a stand "for" or "against" anything. If the majority of sources use the term uncritically, then we reflect that usage per WP:NPOV. Please point to the policy or guideline that says it is important to include views from both sides of the argument, as you wrote above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summery of the article, thus it should only be there if there is a significant material (in OUR article) about this criticism. If there is we do not need quotes or extensive commentary in the lead, that should go in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please join the ongoing discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (link below). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard
A dispute has been filed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding this topic. Further discussion should take place there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The "primary/secondary" distinction being drawn here is only selectively applied. The article includes a number of attributed statements and views from other commentators and non-academics--and even op-eds from Washington Post reporters. You can't argue that op-eds and columns are off limits -- which they are not--and simultaneously including op-eds and columns. Salter's piece in the Atlantic deserves as much weight as the opinion pieces in Vice or WaPo cited and attributed already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no op-eds from Washington Post reporters cited anywhere in the article; please learn the difference between reporters and commentators. Nor are the Vice or Washington Post articles used as sources for the authors' opinions. The statements attributed to others are all cited to independent, reliable sources or else scholarly, peer-reviewed literature. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The page makes use of news sources for information in the article. Wikipedia policy does not require  "peer-reviewed" sources, it requires reliable sources. Case in point for reliability, Salter (a published academic)'s piece is already used as a citation for factual claims about the history of the term. The article can also appropriately incorporate opinionated aspects of his commentary. The standard you are enforcing to remove this content is nowhere included in policy, which only encourages academic sources and not to the exclusion of all other forms of perfectly reliable sources. The only question is weight. An academic piece might be worth more elaboration than Salter, and this was fully accounted for in reducing the mention of Salter's views to a single, attributed sentence. This does not warrant complete removal of informed and valuable perspectives from an article that is supposed to incorporate a broad range of views. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, in terms of the obvious neutrality issues with this article - as you can see from this Talk page, the numerous attempts by a number of different editors (14 at least) to add criticisms of the term TM to the article (inc. a lengthy arb discussion in which the opposing party clearly just gave up caring in the end), you are probably wasting your time here. Sangdeboeuf owns this page. Sangdeboeuf bats down any attempt to add anything critical of TM to the article. Sangdeboeuf reverts edits repeatedly until the other party just gives up and goes away. All whilst appearing to be constructive, helpful and 'just following Wikipedia's stated policies'. I've noticed similar things happening to other 'controversial' articles in recent years, so I'm now very careful when reading anything vaguely 'culture war-y' on Wikipedia as I can't be sure I'm reading an accurate summary of the issue taking account of all viewpoints, whereas previously Wiki was almost the only source I did trust when it came to this stuff. So a victory to Sangdeboeuf, but a pyrrhic one.WisDom-UK (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:NHC and WP:NPA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Details in lead
, discuss your edit here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the changes were to the section, not the lead, they misrepresent the source. According to Wong et al., risk-taking was associated with both positive and negative mental health. The authors conclude that "Overall, conformity to masculine norms was significantly and unfavorably associated with mental health and psychological help seeking", full stop. Picking apart the specific dimensions of masculine behavior in relation to their individual effects serves to imply the opposite. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake! Thank you for pointing that out.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nevertheless the substantial degree of heterogeneity in the ESs for these relationships highlights the need to disaggregate the generic construct of masculine norms and focus instead on specific dimensions of conformity to masculine norms and their differential associations with other outcomes." FULL STOP. Alvalade XXI (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, individual masculine behaviors had different effect sizes, and more focused research is needed. Doesn't change their main point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others. Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
So far I've seen plenty of legitimate and rational arguments for legitimate additional points of views, questions of validity of the term ( or since we want to play semantic "CONCEPT " ) met with barely veiled personal view bias refusals. That doesn't meet the standard of neutrality. Te purpose of protecting is to secure against vandals and those who would taint a legitimate article with lies, unsubstantiated falsehoods, etc...not to abuse it to silence voices that oppose your own. Its a simple as a Google search to find thousands of articles, papers, etc that not only refute statements made as fact here, but refute the use of the term and the concepts validity itself. You quote third wave feminist like because they coin the term they have validity as medical, psychological,  or sociological experts where in point of fact they have no more claim to that then their counterparts like Ben Shapiro, so why do you not also reference arguments no more or less reputable? For example these feminist claim its masculinity that causes "toxic" unhealthy consequences to society from males, but Shapiro makes a very valid argument that the community with the LEAST masculine influence, African Americans ( where its predominantly female driven and paternal figures are fairly non existent) has created one of the most toxic, violent, crime prone cultures. Rather than masculinity being toxic it very much seems that emasculating is what is toxic..a view that is well argued, has a much more substantiated foundation..and is completely unacknowledged in the discussion of this mythological term and concept of masculinity being "toxic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:7E0C:1300:4C6D:6F42:4E5B:4B66 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ben Shapiro is a political commentator, not a social scientist. Please provide a reliable, academically vetted source that gives his views on toxic masculinity any weight whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, anyone can edit this page once they achieve extended confirmed status, with at least 500 edits and 30 days of being a registered user. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the concerns over the exclusion of alternative points of view from this article, but the idea that we should refer to toxic masculinity merely as a term is not coherent with WP:REFERS. This article is not about the term "toxic masculinity"; it is about cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Directly stating what the concept is instead of stating it as a definition does not imply that there are any real instances of the concept in reality, nor does it imply support for any value judgment relating to the concept. For example, on ghost, we say In folklore, a ghost is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living instead of In folklore, "ghost" is a term referring to the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living, even though the consensus is that ghosts aren't real. Jancarcu (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section
Is there any reason why the criticism section treats the opinions of "conservative political commentators" are treated as legitimate criticism of the concept of "toxic masculinity"? The opinions of the likes of David French do not improve this article. Neither does the mention that conservatives and the alt-right don't like the term (true though that may be). 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. 1) We should be focusing on the work of social scientists, 2) we should be looking to secondary sources wherever possible, 3) criticism sections are discouraged per WP:CRITICISM. Generalrelative (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021
Shazad Qureshi (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Where would you like this document added?  TG HL ↗  🍁 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Lead could use some work. The first sentence currently says something like toxic masculinity = cultural norms that harm society and men. Seems a bit vague. What does that mean? Rest of lead has some flow and clarity issues too. I got reverted, so I would encourage someone else to take a stab at trying to fix some of these problems. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this discussion. I'll say that I don't really understand the issue, so perhaps you can expand. In particular, you summarize the initial sentence (toxic masculinity [equals] cultural norms that harm society and men) and ask What does that mean? But the rest of the lead answers that question in a rather straightforward way, especially the three sentences that immediately follow. Perhaps there are clarity and flow issues that could be improved, as you suggest, but I don't see any clear issue with the opening sentence. It seems to me to be appropriately general to capture the themes of the entire article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect we could come up with a more pithy definition than "toxic masculinity [equals] cultural norms that harm society and men". I just find that a bit vague. There's a lot of cultural norms, and I have no idea which ones harm society and harm men, would be good to be more specific. The harm men part seems a bit unclear too... isn't that kind of the opposite of this idea? Isn't the essence of it more about harming everyone (through violence) or harming women (through misogyny), rather than harming men? Now that I am talking this out, "harm society and men" seems like it's incorrect, the essence of this trait involves harming other groups more than those two groups. "Used in academic and media discussions of X" seems like a bit of filler that could be added or removed to any definition of any word, therefore I think it would be a good candidate for removal. And may not even be true, I think this word is used outside of academic and media environments. "Self-reliance and emotional repression" are suddenly mentioned without explaining how they are related to toxic masculinity (are these traits of toxic masculinity? what is "emotional repression" anyway?), so that's a possible flow problem. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing "used in academic...", which turns the whole lead sentence into WP:ISATERMFOR. I am less sure about toxic masculinity's harm to men being incorrect, or non-essential. I thought Novem Linguae's rewrite was an improvement, and a better starting point for future improvement than the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't stand in the way then. Generalrelative (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your reply. I'll wait another day or two for more comments, then reinstate the edit. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead section needs more citations to support the claims, such as -- a few examples -- "The socialization of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes violence" and/or "Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance use disorders." I assume there some studies should exist where those claims were taken from, right? Kolma8 (talk)

Section "Academic"
I would recommend adding more academic sources to support claims made in this section entitled "academic usage." For example, citation number 11 refers to an article in Time magazine. However, several academic articles support the sentence's claim. I recommend the following: Griffin, R. A. (2019). Black women’s intellectualism and deconstructing Donald Trump’s toxic white masculinity. In D. M. D. Macintosh, D. G. Moon, & T. K. Nakayama (Eds.), Interrogating the communicative power of whiteness (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Routledge. Harsin, Jayson (2021) Aggro-truth: (Dis-)trust, toxic masculinity, and the cultural logic of post-truth politics, The Communication Review, 24:2, 133-166, DOI: 10.1080/10714421.2021.1947740 Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. London, UK: Polity.

In addition, the section on "academic usage" ends with "Feminist author John Stoltenberg has argued that all traditional notions of masculinity are toxic and reinforce the oppression of women." Most recently, toxic masculinity has been examined as driving force behind what is described as "post-truth politics," and around disinformation associated with covid-19. I would recommend adding this previous sentence ("Most recently..."). See Harsin, Jayson (2021) Aggro-truth: (Dis-)trust, toxic masculinity, and the cultural logic of post-truth politics, The Communication Review, 24:2, 133-166, DOI: 10.1080/10714421.2021.1947740 and Theidon, Kimberly. “A Forecasted Failure: Intersectionality, COVID-19, and the Perfect Storm.” Journal of Human Rights 19, no. 5 (October 19, 2020): 528–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2020.1822156. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.159.51 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead again
I got reverted for trying to fix WP:ISAWORDFOR problems in the first sentence. Can we get a discussion going on how to fix this in a way that won't get reverted? cc @Sangdeboeuf. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"related traits such as misogyny and homophobia"
"Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia..." --Londondare (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who says men are traditionally stereotyped as socially dominant? Source?
 * Who says traits such as misogyny and homophobia are related to the traditional stereotype of men? Is this WP:NOR? Is this WP:NPOV?

Claims and evidence
Article is currently filled with claims not found in evidence.

Stoicism is continually represent as a negative quality without evidence.

Do we know for a fact that repressing feelings causes suicide rate? Do we know that sharing feelings is productive in the world for men?

This is a contentious topic and claims need to be evidenced.

TMB86 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Some research supports that link, yes. For example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656612000530 and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12788  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

22 July 2022
Criticism of the concept of 'toxic masculinity' is not limited to feminist and conservative outlooks. Criticism exists across the political and ideological gamut on this issue. 2A03:C5C0:107C:1266:0:0:57A2:7F8F (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Got a published source for this analysis, or is it yet more original research? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The socialization of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" about bullying and aggression.
I would like to see a reference, since it is stated as fact. 2A02:A465:880F:1:D025:B037:E860:E502 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See . All citations are in the body of the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Feminist criticism
The section is essentially dedicated to exploring the views of two individuals. I'm not sure that their criticisms are at all common enough to be worthy of that kind of coverage. Reflecktor (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Are these views described in any independent, secondary sources? Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2022
From:

Some conservatives, as well as many in the alt-right, see toxic masculinity as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity. In January 2019, conservative political commentators criticized the new American Psychological Association guidelines for warning about harms associated with "traditional masculinity ideology", arguing that it constitutes an attack on masculinity. APA chief of professional practice Jared Skillings responded to conservative criticism, stating that the report's discussion of traditional masculinity is about "negative traits such as violence or over-competitiveness or being unwilling to admit weakness" and noting that the report also discusses positive traits traditionally associated with masculinity such as "courage, leadership, protectiveness".

to:

Toxic masculinity has received criticism as a concept. Some conservatives, as well as many in the alt-right, see toxic masculinity as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity. In January 2019, conservative political commentators criticized the new American Psychological Association guidelines for warning about harms associated with "traditional masculinity ideology", arguing that it constitutes an attack on masculinity. APA chief of professional practice Jared Skillings responded to conservative criticism, stating that the report's discussion of traditional masculinity is about "negative traits such as violence or over-competitiveness or being unwilling to admit weakness" and noting that the report also discusses positive traits traditionally associated with masculinity such as "courage, leadership, protectiveness". 62.28.146.237 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I applied boldface to the added text above to make the requested changes easier to see. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: David French's opinion is WP:UNDUE without an independent, reliable source that specifically mentions it. WP:NATIONALREVIEW opinion pieces are primary sources for their authors' statements only. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2022
Criticism: Toxic masculinity is deemed by many to be a hypothesis that generalizes about males and male traits. The theory lacks hard empirical data and uses outdated stereotypes to label modern men 2607:FEA8:69A6:E00:D5D5:4612:CBDF:3D67 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add to criticism.
Criticism: Toxic masculinity is deemed by many to be a hypothesis that generalizes about males and male traits. The theory lacks hard empirical data and uses outdated stereotypes to label modern men 2607:FEA8:69A6:E00:D5D5:4612:CBDF:3D67 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

British psychological association and WP:DUE
Do we think it is WP:DUE that the British Psychological Society actively discourage the use of the term toxic masculinity?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talpedia (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that this reference is DUE and am happy with the way the sentence currently reads –– that is, after my copy edit: The previous version had various issues, most notably introducing concepts that were not clearly necessary:
 * Generalrelative (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Your changes are mostly constitute a good copy edit - which I'm happy with
 * The term ideological comes from the source:
 * As to whether its necessary... It's one professional body obliquely calling another professional body ideological rather than evidence-based in its recommedations. Though the term "ideology" can be more or less perjorative.
 * Do we want to include the fact that the term is discouraged? (albeit more because they suspect clients will resent the term)? Talpedia (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, this is where it comes down to a bit of subjective judgement about what's DUE. I don't, for instance, think that the BPS obliquely throwing shade on the APA by calling their clinical judgement "ideological" is especially notable. And I don't think it's necessary to explicitly state that the BPS "discouraged" use of the term. It comes across when we say they argued that the concept of toxic masculinity may damage the therapeutic alliance, discourage men seeking therapy, and contribute to the misdiagnosis of trauma. But of course reasonable minds may differ on this. Generalrelative (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, this is where it comes down to a bit of subjective judgement about what's DUE. I don't, for instance, think that the BPS obliquely throwing shade on the APA by calling their clinical judgement "ideological" is especially notable. And I don't think it's necessary to explicitly state that the BPS "discouraged" use of the term. It comes across when we say they argued that the concept of toxic masculinity may damage the therapeutic alliance, discourage men seeking therapy, and contribute to the misdiagnosis of trauma. But of course reasonable minds may differ on this. Generalrelative (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-16
— Assignment last updated by Jackchen314 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove "related traits" for WP:NPOV
My question about "related traits" being WP:NPOV was not addressed in almost a year, I am requesting this part be removed as WP:NPOV

"Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia,"

The sentence is a total mess. It mingles three different claims:
 * 1) That there are there are stereotypes of men being socially dominant, and that these stereotypes are traditional. All this can be probably confirmed by other WP:RS.
 * 2) That misogyny and homophobia are traits, which is a strong claim on its own and directly contradicts how misogyny and homophobia are defined in their respective articles. Such strong claim requires a proper WP:RS.
 * 3) That these traits and stereotypes are related, which is a strong claim on its own, that requires a proper WP:RS

- Londondare (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've re-worded this as Stereotypical aspects of traditional hegemonic masculinity, such as social dominance, misogyny, and homophobia to remove any confusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your source for claiming misogyny and homophobia are stereotypical aspects of traditional hegemonic masculinity? Hegemonic masculinity mentions them only as part of toxic masculinity. Did you just create WP:CIRCULAR?, Londondare (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Kupers (2005) is cited directly in the text. Per the source: (p. 716). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * By combining those two separate quotes you are committing WP:OR.
 * The first quote talks about stereotypical notion: Hegemonic masculinity is the stereotypic notion of masculinity
 * The second quote talks about outlines: toxic masculinity serves to outline aspects of hegemonic masculinity
 * Kupers (2005) never said that misogyny and homophobia are stereotypical or traditional aspects of hegemonic masculinity, you made that up. Londondare (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The two quotes are both part of Kupers's explanation of toxic masculinity and both appear under the heading "Toxic Masculinity as Treatment Resistance". IMO it's not a stretch to summarize Toxic masculinity is constructed of ... aspects of hegemonic masculinity + hegemonic masculinity is the stereotypic notion of masculinity as Stereotypical aspects of traditional hegemonic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is also defined by Flood (n.d.) as . The lead section is meant to summarize the article as a whole. What other more WP:NPOV summary would you use? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are summarising, you are combining different texts and come with your own conclusion. That is WP:OR. Why don't you use Kupers' actual quote?
 * The term toxic masculinity is useful in discussions about gender and forms of masculinity because it delineates those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination; and those that are culturally accepted and valued.
 * Which could be summarise as Toxic masculinity applies to those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination.. Londondare (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: note that Kupers never says that misogyny and homophobia are stereotypical aspects of hegemonic masculinity, to the contrary, he says that these aspects are only one subset, while there are other, culturally accepted and valued aspects.

Conservatives and the alt-right
Does anyone else see this as a way to silence any criticism pertaining to the concept of toxic masculinity by implying that the opposition are only conservatives or alt-right? The first source for this is an opinion piece talking about how the Right fears toxic masculinity because it is a "threat to their identities and broader ideological acceptance of capitalism," so I don't see the relevance.

I propose to reword the first sentence of the "Criticism" section to this: "Some, most notably conservatives and members of the alt-right, see toxic masculinity as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity."

This acknowledges the existence of those who reject the idea of toxic masculinity while not being conservative or alt-right.

Wowisaac (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is it WP:UNDUE to include that statement? It seems accurate and DUE to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing "some conservatives" to "some" would be weasel wording. Who is saying the alt-right are the most notable ones here? That's original research. There's also no need for a separate criticism section; any such debates should be handled in the appropriate subtopic sections. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not focus on the actual criticism instead of arbitrarily assuming who disagrees with the concept? The fact is, Some people see toxic masculinity as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity. This is not restricted to conservatives in any capacity whatsoever. Wowisaac (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, what sources of criticism can you point to? Londondare (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to the discussion. Wowisaac (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly is relevant; the burden of proof is on the person who wants to add material to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, so I did some searching, would these sources be appropriate ?
 * https://bigthink.com/the-present/toxic-masculinity-myth/
 * https://iai.tv/articles/toxic-masculinity-is-not-a-useful-description-michael-kimmel-auid-2466
 * This is the first article that appears when searching toxic masculinity in google scholar : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184x20943254
 * Seeing this, I'd feel the following would be more fair :
 * Some, most notably conservatives and members of the alt-right but also academics and members of the mens liberation movement, see toxic masculinity as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity.
 * That said, I feel that my suggestion is too long. I'll let others reword it. Sambiakz (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add that the term has been criticized by feminists too : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08164649.2019.1679021 Sambiakz (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do any of these sources actually say that toxic masculinity is an incoherent concept or that there is no such thing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some people see heliocentrism as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as evolution. But we don't pander to fringe beliefs such as those. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally RS are required to label something as fringe. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Many commentators describe the alt-right as being on the far-right fringe. I am not suggesting we label anything, only that we don't present these beliefs as being more mainstream than they are. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This argument relies on the assumption that the criticism of the concept is entirely limited to fringe venues like 4chan.
 * I’m a bit leery of any argument taking the form “criticisms of our concept are only made by extremists, therefore it is fringe” which seems to be what was said above.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about any and all criticism of the concept, but specifically the idea that it is an incoherent concept or that there is no such thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Current revision says also that some feminists have a different criticism of the concept, so maybe this could all get spun off into a new section. However, it still leaves the question of what to say in the lead… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Toxic male behaviour" vs. "Toxic masculinity"
Masculinity can not be toxic by itself. There are masculine behaviors that are not toxic. Men are not toxic, just because they are men. Nor can anyone claim that all men are toxic. They have a choice. Some of the listed toxic behaviors can be done by females or any other genders.

Toxic masculinty might by a term used by manhating feminists especially in the US. This term does not belong into a neutral dictionary like wikipedia. Or it has to be put in perspective. 2A02:1210:4403:F100:CD92:4B7A:33FA:98FE (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The article contents are based on published, reliable sources. Any changes need to be similarly supported by reliable sources. not WP users' personal opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is contentious at best and neither the wording nor the meaning around "male ..." can be sourced to the referenced paper by Kupers (On prison inmates). Also it is absolutely not "certain" what this set consists of. Lastly masculinity is not defined as "male behavior" in the masculinity article. I therefore suggest the following revision "Toxic masculinity are behaviors or ideas perceived to be associated with both masculinity and harm to men themselves, their families, communities or society at large."AndersThorseth (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first part of the sentence is a definite improvement, and it matches up better with the body of the article. Do you think we could stick with "harm to society and men themselves" at the end, for the sake of brevity? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and you are right, the last part is very long-winded. Its just that its a bit of a stretch from self to society at large. A shorter version could be something like : ... harm to the men themselves and their surroundings. or ... harm to the men themselves and people around them. depending if you are mainly focused on people or people, environment, animals etc. AndersThorseth (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, while Toxic Masculinty is a term hated by the hard-right, should this be a reason to keep it out of a media site that aims to present a wide range of ideas and attitudes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's purpose is to present a summary of accepted knowledge, not present a wide range of ideas and attitudes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Toxic masculinity and femininity
This wiki article describes toxic masculinity, but toxic behavior is not exclusive to masculinity. There should also be an article about toxic femininity since there are enough sources available. Such as some contestants of the TV show Love Island were described as behaving with toxic femininity (Wales Online, 26 February 2023). -Artanisen (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That article cites the deprecated WP:DAILYMAIL, listing precisely anonymous social media user who used the phrase "toxic femininity". Hardly the kind of in-depth coverage required for an encyclopedia article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a section found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_sexism#Toxic_femininity discussing the topic. It's a short section so it would need some elaboration to justify its own article. So be bold, gather the sources and write up a draft.--AndersThorseth (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Note
Can someone with permissions edit this page to include politically neutral language Editor384 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024
Please change the point in the fourth paragraph, before the reference #5, to a comma or a semicolon if more appropriate. Marcelo373 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You got it. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)