Misplaced Pages

Talk:Toxic masculinity

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Generalrelative (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 29 March 2021 (→Criticism section: Agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:07, 29 March 2021 by Generalrelative (talk | contribs) (→Criticism section: Agree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toxic masculinity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toxic masculinity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

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 (article contribs).

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSociology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnthropology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

"Criticism" in lead

EditSafe: 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages'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)
Misplaced Pages: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 Feminism § Theory. 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. Misplaced Pages'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.he majority of the article still is in favor of the term is a mischaracterization; Misplaced Pages 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)
@Slatersteven: please join the ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (link below). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

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

Nota bene* 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Jones et al., 2019

This source has a brief overview of the history of the term toxic masculinity (full text available via Google Scholar). Parking it here until I have time to go through it properly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Details in lead

Alvalade XXI, discuss your edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Although the changes were to the § Health effects 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. EvergreenFir (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)

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)
Categories: