Talk:Masculinity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Be bold

Although there was no consensus to merge, you should (as is always the case with articles you think should be merged) feel free to be bold and merge. Or not. This is a decision for editors to take. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge

I disagree that this should be merged. It's the equivalent of merging Aristocracy into Marxism because you think that class is an intellectual construct. To merge it would be to subscribe to the POV notion that gender is a learned attribute and is merely theoretical/intellectual definition. It also needs to link Femininity. MPS 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV warning and Request for Expert

This article is extremely one-sided as of January 13, 2006. It is missing, at the very least:

• a history of masculinity
• cultural differences
• depictions in fiction

75% of the current article is simply a list of bad side-effects of North American views of masculinity: drinking, greater risk taking, etc. --205.250.250.154 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Some of the more multi-cultural aspects of this are addressed in machismo but adding much on Asian or Muslim masculinity is difficult, because there is relatively little serious literature on the subject. For better or worse, NPOV academic analysis of gender seems to pretty much exist only in modern, European societies. If you're serious about contributing, I'd suggest registering so you can be an ongoing part of the discussion. Rorybowman 14:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the history of masculinity? Is it the history of the term? Is it the history of the current concept? How would cultural differences be discussed? Would one locate a term which approximates "masculinity" in another language and then compare the meanings of the terms? Or would one discuss the presence or absence of the components of the concept of masculinity in different cultures? How would one determine whether a fictional depiction is of masculinity or just a component which some might assert is not masculinity, such as risk taking? Hyacinth 10:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that flags such as "expert" and "NPOV" are frequently thrown up as semi-ignorant vandalism and will take these two down at the end of the calendar month unless one of these flaggers can come with some issues. - Rorybowman 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievably silly. I'm removing the NPOV thing. There is no rational reason for it and this person obviously has no intent to contribute further here.--Deglr6328 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The new Maddox book should be refered here at least at a humorous attempt at mocking the idea of masculinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.114.23 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Major problems

This article only considers the existence of one form of masculinity. However, within a single society various forms of masculinity exist. Gender scholars use the term "hegemonic masculinity" to represent the dominant form of masculinity in a society, but others exist. For instance, a geeky scientist would represent a form of masculinity, as would the stereotypical notion of a gay man, or the stereotypical notion of a Black man. Likewise what is considered hegemonic masculinity in a culture varies. In Japan, for instance, a strong aspect of masculinity is working "120%" of the time, where it's not about "bulking up" or other things associated with masculinity in the United States today. This article seems to largely define masculinity as the American conception of hegemonic masculinity. That makes the article hopelessly problematic and probably in need of a complete rewrite. Most of the content as it is would be better placed at hegemonic masculinity in the United States. Sarge Baldy 08:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been reading this article and it fails to address much outside of American culture in many circumstances. For example, look at the section of alcohol - it does absolutely nothing but address American culture. I think this should be rewritten by somebody with a more worldwide view. Burbster 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - even as a Westerner myself, the arrogance of assuming masculanity can be completely be defined in a western context is staggering. The fact that it's all negatively influenced (a product of modern education, sadly) is also distressing. Daz902 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Others' health risks

Despite #Masculinity Presented Undebatedly as Negative Social Construct and related complaints above my problem with the presentation in this article is that masculinity is only depicted as negative when it adversley affects masculine men. The huge section Men's health risks covers these drawbacks sympathetically, yet there is no mention of the risks to women and men who aren't masculine, such as the encouragement of rape and gay bashing. Hyacinth 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Or how about the positive aspects of masculanity such as individual pride, self-confidence, competition, positive cultural influence (sport, Olympics etc.) All of these are arguably socially rooted in masculanity. Daz902 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with health risks? Hyacinth 09:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed much of it. Daz902 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy

Brokeback Mountain did not radically and instantly change the image of cowboys in the mind of every person on the globe or in North America. That image is notable because it goes against the dominant image, not because it irreversibly changed that image. Hyacinth 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it may not be 'irreversibly' changed (certainly it can just as easily be reinforced), it's undeniable that the release of Brokeback Mountain had an impact in those countries in which it was widely distributed (especially when it hit video). More importantly, that it significantly modified the image of the Cowboy as a symbol of masculinity. Daz902 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split

I propose that the disambiguation page masculine be re-established after the same mold as feminine. This used to be the case but was abolished in June 2005. The reason being that masculine has much more deeper meanings, both denotations and connotations, than masculinity (the latter compromised by cultural connotations). In the current scheme masculine unnecessarily gets caught up in the masculinity bias controveries. __meco 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

material from "effeminacy" regarding masculinity

This might be more useful in this article. It was originally cited in effeminacy but does not particularly pertain to that topic. --Marysunshine 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity:

1. Physical--virile, athletic, strong, brave. Sloppy, worry less about appearance and aging;
2. Functional--breadwinner, provider;
3. Sexual--sexually aggressive, experienced. Single status acceptable; male "caught" by spouse;
4. Emotional--unemotional, stoic, don't cry;
5. Intellectual--logical, intellectual, rational, objective, scientific, practical, mechanical, public awareness, activity, contributes to society; dogmatic;
6. Interpersonal--leader, dominating; disciplinarian; independent, free, individualistic; demanding; and
7. Other Personal Characteristics--aggressive, success-orientated, ambitious; proud, egotistical, ambitious; moral, trustworthy; decisive, competitive, uninhibited, adventurous.

(Levine, 1998, p.13)

Social scientists Deborah David and Robert Brannon (1976) give the following four rules for establishing masculinity:

1. No Sissy Stuff: anything that even remotely hints of femininity is prohibited. A real man must avoid any behavior or characteristic associated with women;
2. Be a Big Wheel: masculinity is measured by success, power, and the admiration of others. One must possess wealth, fame, and status to be considered manly;
3. Be a Sturdy Oak: manliness requires rationality, toughness, and self-reliance. A man must remain calm in any situation, show no emotion, and admit no weakness;
4. Give 'em Hell: men must exude an aura of daring and aggression, and must be willing to take risks, to "go for it" even when reason and fear suggest otherwise.

(Levine, 1998, p.145)

• Levine, Martin P. (1998). Gay Macho. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 0814746942.

Both lists above are now in the this article. Hyacinth 02:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, this was copied into the article twice. I removed the copy that had been entered into the "references" section. Mbakaitis 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

5 mechanisms of stress

Article currently contains the following:

In 1987, Eisler and Skidmore did studies on masculinity and created the idea of 'masculine stress'. They found five mechanisms of masculinity that accompany masculine gender role often result in emotional stress. They include:

a) the emphasis on prevailing in situations requiring fitness and strength

b) being perceived as emotional and thereby feminine

c) the need to feel conquering in regard to sexual matters and work

d) the need to repress tender emotions such as showing emotions restricted according to traditional masculine customs

That's four. Where's the fifth? --Black Butterfly 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why mention Durkheim?

The following text appears at the start of the Sociology section:

"Since Emile Durkheim, masculinity has been an interest of sociologists. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1974, 35-36) describes seven areas of traditional masculinity in Western Culture..."

These sentences might be confusing to those who are unfamiliar either with Durkheim or with masculinities studies. When read together, they suggest Durkheim was still alive & publishing circa 1974. More importantly, referring to him here implies that Durkheim had something groundbreaking to say in this area. To my knowledge, none of his frequently cited works (Division of Labor, Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide, and Elementary Forms of Religious Life) deal exclusively with gender, much less with the specific issue of masculinity. I put a citation request inviting those who see Durkheim as a seminal thinker in the sociological study of masculinities to make their case. M. Frederick 09:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Suicide (book) posited a strong correlation between male social roles and suicide. Rorybowman 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Stoicism and emotional repression

I heard something about a statistic stating that while usually women speak 7000 words a day, males speak 2000. I also heard women get a fix, so to speak, by talking, similar to that of taking opium. Perhaps just because a male may not express emotion when a woman does doesn't signify emotional repression? lol; I just relized the irony of the male-female ratio of singers. Faustus Tacitus 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read about these findings as well , they are out there go fetch them

Propose to remove Stoicism and Emotional Repression section

The article begins to sound redundant here. Prior to this section, stoicism and emotional repression have been alluded to in three different citations (Chafetz, 1974; David & Brannon, 1976; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987).

Also, I found the last sentence problematic:

"Women and other men do not give men an option to express feeling sad, tired, weak, depressed, inadequate, needy, or lonely without sacrificing their masculinity."

It almost sounds like we're blaming women (i.e., that as men, we beg & plead for the option to express our vulnerability, but that the women in our lives insist we remain emotionless). Most of the sociological studies I'm aware of suggest that an overall social climate--rather than individuals--compels men to withhold our emotions. M. Frederick 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with removing this paragraph. I believe it was added when the other sections were not as developed, and is largely redundant now. Rorybowman 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I removed it as no one seems to be particularly against my doing so. M. Frederick 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

am i the only one who finds the picture out of place?

it strikes me as a very effeminate picture, almost as if these two were lovers. to be honest, it really does not bring to mind masculinity, and the caption does not help. a replacement would be appreciated. Joeyramoney 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Joey, you call yourself "liberal" on your own page, but the views you have expressed here sound rather reactionary. Fulcher 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely the point. Your projection of effeminacy is not inherent to the picture, the men in the photograph were simply following the mores of the times, in which physical affection between friends was an integral part of masculine behavior. It throws and interesting light on our times, does it not? Haiduc 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm not being homophobic or anything, but the picture does not seem to represent the common conception of masculinity. (edit- nevermind, it's gone anyway)Joeyramoney 19:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia has nothing with it (I hope). But masculinity has been different things for different people at different times. If this article was titled "Masculinity in the US in 2006" I would agree with you. As for personal point of view, you think this picture represents un-masculine behavior with an air of homosexuality to it. I see nothing sexual in it at all, and it strikes me as far more masculine than the fearful alienation that passes for comradery these days. At any rate, both our opinions are irrelevant, the picture depicts masculine behavior as it was construed in the 1800s in North America, and it would be good to have a greater variety of pictures rfrom other cultures too. Haiduc 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

perhaps i should clarify- the image seems representative of a certain culture of a certain time, while something else (the ideals of strength, bravery, etc) would be representative of masculinity in almost all cultures. Joeyramoney 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one - it appears to be deliberately contradictory to the ideas of masculanity as outlined. While the subtext is actually true, the photo is misleading and unnecessary to use two males behaving in what would generally and modernly (if you're honest) be considered an effeminate photo in such a 'representative' location within the article. Daz902 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, let's not get too US-centric here. If you go to the Middle East today, you will commonly see men walking hand-in-hand, with their arms round each other's shoulders or waists. They consider themselves masculine - and other aspects of their behaviour (groping Western women tourists) are excessively so. So, as the photo caption now states, 'masculinity' means different things in different times, but also in different places around the world. 86.133.245.23 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing 'Health Risk' Section

The idea that 'masculanity is unhealthy' is biased and as ridiculous as saying there are 'health risks' to 'eating' or 'driving a car'. You could draw statistical information to show that that absolutely any cultural meme was in some way linked to a health risk. The section is very obviously silly and smells of agenda and should be removed as it detracts from the otherwise increasingly credible definition of masculanity. Much of the 'negativity' people are complaining about within this article also stems from that section. More importantly that entire section was so incredibly biased you could tell the character of the woman who last edited it (and she was clearly a woman). There were a lot of unusual and unecessary comparisons such as 'men don't do this as well as women do'. Daz902 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop talking about the editor and start talking about their edits. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on the content, not the contributor." Hyacinth 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to comment on the subjectivity and how clear the bias was, not to attack the contributor. But your point is taken. Daz902 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the risk section contains too much back and forth about what is biological and what isn't without any citations. I can see different editors trying to undermine each other. Instead of trying to say what causes the increased death rate in males--which is very real--I think the article should just report the facts (ma'am). Males are born in disproportionate numbers compared to females, although the sex ration varies by country. I THINK it's about 105 boy babies to 100 girl babies in this country. The death rate in males is higher from birth onward, so that the sex ratio is about 100 to 100 by the early 20s. Men continue to die disproportionately in every age category. Anyway, there is a huge literature on this sort of 05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~thing and a lot at the department of transportation website on accident rates as a function of sex. But explaining why it happens isn't that easy because it's most likely a combination of biology and socializing and nobody is going to be able to put a number on how much of each it is. I'm sorry I can't contribute to this article. But I'm hoping my comments will be of some help. It's obviously experienced a lot of love and care. (Much more than its companion article, on femininity.) Eperotao 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I came back this morning and added references from the Dept of Transportation's website. I also deleted a sentence and reference about men drivers driving more miles than women drivers. The cited reference poorly supported the editor's implication that miles driven explains the differential fatal accident rate in men and women, and the DOT data show that even when miles driven are taken into account, men drivers are substantially more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than women. Eperotao 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This section, actually titled 'Risk Taking' and not 'Health Risks,' seems to be more directed toward men in general, and not masculinity. This may be a cause for some of the negative responses to the article because a sentences like "Men are twice as likely to die from cancer than women are." and "Men are in fact three times more likely to die in all kinds of accidents than women. Men make up 93% of workplace deaths." are not directed toward masculinity, but are directed towards men. The first sentence does not appear related to taking risks, and is simply a fact about a male's likelihood of developing cancer, which appears to simply show a fault that men have without providing an explanation as to why men are more likely to develop cancer. The second sentences also make men, not masculinity the subject and do not have any citation or explanation. They almost invite a challenge because they seemingly lack substance and may cause the reader to contemplate a counterpoint, such as, "men make up a greater percentage of the work-force." By directing these sentences at men in general, these seem especially bellicose to those men who do not exhibit these characteristics and go to the doctor, wear sunscreen, eat healthily, or exercise. The paragraph about causes for why men exhibit risky behavior also seemingly degrades men with phrases like "loss of a young man is much less risky in terms of evolution," when, in fact, the loss of anyone in evolution simply removes that person's less adaptive genes from the gene pool to make the species more competitive, regardless of gender. This phrase makes it seem like the genes of a woman are better than those of a man. This entire section needs some serious rewording and verifiability.--71.103.207.67 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, risk-taking itself is portrayed here as purely negative, but higher risk can also be associated with higher reward. To use a simplistic example, men make up 93% of workplace deaths, indicating that men take more dangerous jobs...but there is no mention of the fact that those jobs usually pay better than similar but safer jobs. Coal mining is a great example of this. Rasi2290 05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So now I have an account and I have decided to adopt this article and start to remove unnecessary bits and reword it. I left a note on section 2 of the talk (By the way, I'm User:71.103.207.67).Dragonsscout 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

picture

Someone explain to me how this "bodybuilder" picture displays anything having to do with masculinity? I am sick and tired of this picture popping up all over Wikipedia because of the agendas of users Wikidudeman and WLU. I am deleting it. 24.98.18.94 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, The image embodies "masculinity" due to it being a male primilarly and a muscular male secondlarly. The person is very masculine by definition and it's a good encyclopedic image and thus I think it should be used. What DOESN'T it have to do with masculinity? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain what you mean by the statement "he is very masculine by definition". Do you know this individual? Just by looking at him, I wouldn't consider him a masculine person. He seems small, with rather girlish features. Re-read the entire article and explain to me why he should be allowed on this wikipedia page after you've already spammed this pic on 10 other pages. Get a life. 170.140.6.250 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How is the individual "Small"? Small compared to WHAT? How is he "Girlish"? P.S., Please refrain from personal insults. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm wonder why you took that one so personally wikidudeman... I didn't make any personal attacks. Describing someone's physical features is not an attack on them. You still didn't answer my question. What makes this individual masculine, and why have you felt the need to add it to almost a dozen wikipedia pages? Maybe you can join your buddy WLU in a 24h ban. 170.140.6.250 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Telling me to "Get a life" is a personal attack. The person in the picture is masculine due to distinctly male features, I.E. a muscular physique. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, lets try and be WP:CIVIL here; while discussion is good, try and make it useful discussion that doesn't disparage your fellow editors. It's not helpful in any way.

Second, in my opinion at least, this image doesn't really add much value to this particular article, especially in the section it is being linked. It just seems unnecessary and redundant in this context.--Isotope23 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe a picture of a (by definition) masculine individual would add something to the article? Perhaps saying that muscular hypertrophy is considered a masculine attribute? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that is the thing, There is no supporting text that muscular hypertrophy is a masculine attribute in the section this was added to (or anywhere else in the article for that matter; unless you infer it from the Chafetz text)... it appears random to place that image there. Besides, there is already a high quality image of a "chiseled physique" in the Carlson Twins photo and a good photography illustrating athletic competition. To me the bodybuilding photo doesn't add anything beyond the illustration provided by those two photographs.--Isotope23 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There is absolutely no reason for that picture to be in this article. Wikidudeman has tried to place this picture on over a dozen wikipedia entries. There are millions of men who have "distinctly male features", but you think this particular one is necessary even after the Carlson Twins picture. Let me guess, you are going to tell me to "find one that is free license" right? The picture is pointless spam. 170.140.6.250 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not pointless spam, but as I said above it is redundant. Both the image being discussed and the Carlson Twins image are free license, so that isn't even an issue here.--Isotope23 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Isotope, Wikidudeman has made the free license argument repeatedly on discussion sections of other entries such as bodybuilding, claiming that this is the "only" picture he has available which is blatantly false. Look at where the bodybuilder picture links to, and you will see why I've taken issue with Wikidudeman. He has also threatened me via private messaging.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.6.250 (talk • contribs).

I'm aware of the "identity of the subject" claims that have been brought up here (and elsewhere on the internet) and it's not a discussion that I'm particularly interested in getting involved in, and it really is ancillary to the discussion of whether or not the images belong in the articles anyway.--Isotope23 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Private messages? What private messages? Wikipedia doesn't have "private messages". Anything I send you is public and anyone can view it. If you're referring to the automated "Warnings" I sent you then those aren't threats, they're simply warnings that are notifying you of specific policies you have been violating. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Carlson twins, anyway? Seems to me that the emergence of the half-naked male model is an erosion of traditional masculinity -- that is, masculinity has traditionally been something active, primarily a code of behavior, where as the muscle-boys (like traditionally feminine women) exist just to be looked at -- their muscles do not necessarily do anything.

Past icons of masculinity -- John Wayne, for example -- did not have cut bodies or pose in their undies. In making the male ideal of manhood about the display of physical features, we have made masculinity more like femininity.

So, I think that photo is misplaced. DanB†DanD 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Someone added it just because it's a free image. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm right that masculinity has traditionally been a code of behavior rather than a set of physical features? That makes it sound like the realm of the cultural critic, not the biologist. DanB†DanD 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that simply showing two muscular men doesn't have as much to do with masculinity. Yes, Larger muscles are a masculine feature however they are just a single aspect of masculinity while someone like John Wayne would embody more of what "masculinity" is defined as even if he didn't have bulging muscles. An image of Superman, now that would be better than both. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is awfully subjective language. DanB†DanD 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing semantics. Define "Masculinity" and then we can have a discussion on what it is and where it comes from. Webster defines masculinity as "having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man". This would support the idea that biology plays a large role in masculinity since it is due to biology that males are males and males have male features including larger muscles, facial hair, deeper voices, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The current picture of hercules doesn't have a penis. Given that a penis is one of the most defining body parts of being male, and males are as a group the sex which masculinity is most associated, I'd like the picture of the dude to have a penis.

NPOV tag

Many authorities see ideas of masculinity and femininity as being culturally constructed. I'm not interested in starting up a debate on this - but Wikipedia cannot pretend that there is no debate and simply "pick a side" to go with as the article does now. The "Culture" section needs to be rewritten so that all notable academic perspectives are neutrally presented according to their prominence in the literature, and none given editorial endorsement as "true."

DanB†DanD 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you disputing? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Masculinity has its roots in genetics (see Biology of gender). Therefore while masculinity looks different in different cultures, there are common aspects to its definition across cultures."

Let me emphasize, I have no interest in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the above text. But it doesn't represent academic consensus - there are many prominent academics, whole schools of thought, that take the opposite position. A wikipedia article can't pretend that academic consensus exists where it doesn't. DanB†DanD 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone, a primary male hormone produces numerous androgenic effects which by definition are "masculine" I.E. male sex characteristics including facial hair, deeper voice, muscles, etc. This is the biological aspect of masculinity. Anyone academics who doubt this know nothing about biology. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am, personally speaking, totally uninterested in the truth or falsehood of what you say. The point is not to convince me that the article is correct, but to make the article reflect the current state of academic judgment, which is divided. DanB†DanD 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No credible biologist would doubt what I previously said about androgens and testosterone and male sexual characteristics. Per WP:Weight it would not make sense to add in a few people who doubt modern biology or physiology. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And no credible cultural critic would take your statement at face value! So you see, we, like the academic community, are at am impasse. DanB†DanD 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that a "cultural critic" dismisses a purely biological matter just as it's irrelevant that a linguist dismisses biological evolution. Please see WP:NPOVFAQ. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the judgment that this is a purely biological matter that is NPOV. DanB†DanD 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said masculinity is "Purely a biological matter", I said that androgenic hormones acting on male features is a purely biological matter. However biology does play a large role in masculinity, as I said earlier. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, it's not possible to have a completely neutral point of view on something like this. But for what it is worth, I think that there is evidence for both. The characteristics of masculinity, which this article mentions, can be divided into a group that is probably not related to genetics and another which may be related to genetics. An abundance of testosterone will most likely make someone virile, athletic, aggressive, independent, demanding, ambitious, competitive, adventurous, etc. While social constructs most likely form the rest of the characteristics (unconcerned about appearance, experienced, stoic, logical, rational, moral, etc.). Each viewpoint deserves some credence within the article. The article, as DanB DanD pointed out affirms the genetics side of the debate while generally ignoring the social side. Please correct me if I am wrong. --Dragonsscout 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to determine what is nature and what is 'nurture', meaning what is due to genetic vs what is due to upbringing and society. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very true, but I would think that most people believe that pretty much everything is somewhere in between. To say that masculinity is completely rooted in genetics or that masculinity is completely based on human constructions wouldn't make much sense. I think what DanB DanD is saying is that there is a debate as to where masculinity lies within this spectrum. The culture section in general gives the impression that the point is very far to the genetics side when it might be somewhere else. (On a side note the citation for the first sentence does not state anywhere that masculinity has its roots in genetics.) --Dragonsscout 06:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Priest Masculine?

Is a Catholic priest really that much of a masculine role? I don't think that it is thought of as being so in today's culture. Furthermore, if one reads the article above, the lifestyle of a Catholic priest is in complete contradiction to a number of the points outlined which characterise masculinity! It is not a 'physical' role; it cannot be thought of as being 'functional' - in that they are supported by the people they serve; 'sexual' is definitely out; stoic is debatable; and interpersonal along with 'other characteristics' could also be reconsidered. In fact only the intelligence element seems to fit in my opinion. (AJMW 08:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

The article no longer acknowledges problems with traditional masculinity

The article is no longer neutral. From reading discussions, it was originally heavily anti-masculine, however, now it ignores the problems traditional masculinity can cause. Neither side should be ignored. Traditional western masculinity is both a good thing and a bad thing and NEITHER SIDE SHOULD BE IGNORED. There needs to be a section 3.4.2.2 Negative Aspects of the Traditional American Masculine Gender Role.

67.185.17.120 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Braden, August 30, 2007

Deleted Section

I deleted the section on risk taking in this article because it makes a series a specific generalities about male behavior, alledged stats, but does not include any sources. If somebody wants to go back and source that section then it can be put back in again, but as it stands a section that gives stat's (that are not common public knowledge) and no sources is somewhat questionable. 216.201.33.27 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask the wikipedia contributers that are harassing me, and threating to have me banned, for removing a section of this article that makes sweeping generalities, and is completely un-sourced, to back off.

If you want to talk about this section, then I am more then willing to communicate, but you continued inclusion of a section that violates wiki standards of being sourced, as well as harassment will not be tolerated.216.201.33.27 03:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Risk-taking Men are significantly more likely than women to drink and drive, not to wear seatbelts, and to drive fast.[citation needed] Men are also more likely to be involved in a homicide.[citation needed] The driver fatality rate for young males (24 and under) per vehicle miles driven is approximately three times the driver fatality rate for young women of the same age per vehicle miles driven.[citation needed] In every age category after that, from age 25 to age 65, the driver fatality rate per vehicle miles driven is higher for men than for women.[5] Men are more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident and other accidents generally. And even in the narrow category of young (16-20) driver fatalities with a high blood alcohol content (BAC), a male's risk of dying is higher than a female's risk at the same BAC level.[6] That is, young women drivers need to be drunker to have the same risk of dying in a fatal accident as young men drivers. Men are in fact three times more likely to die in all kinds of accidents than women. Men make up 93% of workplace deaths[citation needed], indicating a greater willingness to perform dangerous work.

Men generally take more risks with their health than women. Men are twice as likely to die from cancer than women are.[citation needed] Men are more likely to not wear sunscreen, to eat unhealthily, and to forgo cardiovascular exercise.[citation needed] Men are historically also more likely to smoke (although now more women start smoking than men.[citation needed])

The reasons for this willingness to take risks are widely debated. There is evidence to show that this is largely due to genetic predispositions of the male sex,[citation needed] though perhaps greatly exaggerated and supported by social constructs and related pressure. Some cite how widespread and culture-independent certain aspects of masculine identity are, implying that if masculinity was purely learned, different societies in different times would have completely different ideas about the masculine gender role, which has historically remained relatively consistent.

In addition to taking more risks, men appear to be more capable of managing risk and performing under stress than women.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.33.27 (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Requesting comment on weather Risk Taking section should be removed or not for violating wiki standards of verifiability. 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the course of major work on this article, I expect I shall expand the risk taking section. Risk taking is considered by many modern researchers to be very typical of masculine psychology. Obviously it has multiple forms in any particular society and across all of them. It is so typical of men, and is such a useful thing for the species, offsetting risk to children and child-bearers, that it is hypothesized that it is an evolved reflex. Part of nature's "child protection" if you will, meant that genes that prompt hormone based pride in providing for a family led to families with more survivors and replication of those genes. It's a theory, we don't know yet.

If you actually had a reliable source for your opinion that men don't take more risks than women, you wouldn't need to ask for permission, you could simply quote your reliable source.

As several people have noted above, there is an overwhelming amount of rather dated 80s speculation about gender in the article. That has its place. But I think it time that 5,000 years of human writing about masculinity be allowed to speak.

So, gentlemen and ladies who love them, please come forward. Especially if you have African or Asian or Native American background so we get cultural spread. A good thing about encyclopedia writing is it doesn't require expressing emotions. It's just a job. Let's read how our ancestors viewed male character and write it up here so readers can assess the views for themselves. Alastair Haines 22:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Independence, Invincibility, and Alcohol

The title "Independence and Invincibility" seems out of place considering the content of the section. Even if it is renamed,why can't the majority of the section be merged with the "Health Risks" section, since that's what it is about. The alcohol subsection is too large as well. The majority of it is about beer commercials not "alcohol consumption behavior." If there is no debate on this I will start merging the sections and deleting or moving the extraneous bits about beer commercials. --Dragonsscout 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It also says "Men should go to annual heart checkups with physicians but many do not..." Really, Wikipedia? What else 'should' men do? Also, the "Alcohol Consumption Behavior" could be merged with "Media encouragement" since beer commercials are a form of media. 64.148.8.56 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies dear reader,

in one way, Wiki reflects life, there are many people with opinions about what men should do.

Also, like life, they will have their way unless someone works at publicizing other options.

Watch this space. I think life and Wiki both are changing related to this topic, it's just a matter of time.

Thanks for your feedback, imo, it's a fair and constructive comment. Alastair Haines 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Risk Taking Deletion

I deleted the section on risk-taking. There was no citation, and no sources and this type of text violates Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.161.95 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Connell link

The page which this link takes you to, is not the Robert Connell, who wrote of masculinities. The Robert Connell, is to be found under Raewyn Connell, [[1]]. 172.202.49.15 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Maggie (22/01/08)

Iraq?

How does more male casualties in Iraq demonstrate risk-taking? There's more male soldiers in Iraq... 130.88.53.3 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Someone should put up some statistics concerning voluntary enlistment of males versus females in various militaries. If someone's trying to prove risk-taking behavior by military service, they should look at enlistment, not deployment, since the latter is beyond an individual's control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExarPalantas (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed "muliebrity."

I removed the inclusion of "muliebrity" since describing it as a rare compliment seemed to mean that the description of womanliness was a rare compliment. I was about to change it to "rarely used," but this term seems so obscure that its inclusion seemed oddly redundant. A check of the dictionary simply cross-referenced "femininity," which made it seem like the right choice. In any case, I believe it's original research to claim it as being more accurate.

I'm similarly dismayed with In Western culture masculinity has traditionally included features such as decisiveness, competitiveness, strength and rationality. This is unsourced and seems to be glowing toward masculinity -- rationality especially seems out of place. I realize that discussing gender roles is touchy, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's feet. Blackworm (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy -- "Be bold!" If people don't like what you do they can change it. If I don't like what you do, rest assured, I'll change it! ;) But we're all equal here. If you don't like my stuff ... terminate it with extreme prejudice on the spot.

I didn't like the lead. It was all unsourced POV so I deleted it. All of it. And one reason I didn't feel guilty is because I wrote a carefully sourced and neutral lead six months ago and precisely none of it was left. That's against the rules. If something is sourced, you can't remove it without consensus, and if you're polite you'll drop a note on someone's page to say you want to change a sourced statement he made.

So be bold if there's no footnote, be polite if there is.

I've been around Wiki long enough to know something about pages like the one we are at. They are very volatile. Someone's girlfriend dumps him, he goes and messes up a Wiki article. The only protection against this is to have enough people caring to stick around long term to build a consensus regarding the article. The text becomes so good that silly edits are obvious and get changed back instantly. And someone knows which source says the edit was wrong!

In my opinion, this consensus builds fastest if a solid bibliography is worked out and the books are mixed and matched into the text. The [Edit] button at Wiki is not for us to show off how much we know or how well we can write, it's for us to make a contribution of what we know published writers have said on the topic. And this is open book! I've always got someone else's ideas on the desk (or in a computer window) next to the Wiki edit box.

When I start articles from scratch, the first section I write is the External links section (I get good locations from Google), I also get books, books and more books, especially academic journals if I can. Usually the Google stuff tells me which books to find. Then I try to work out how many points of view there are, whether this is split 20-30-50 or 10-90 or 45-55 etc. I leave out the fringe loonies, work out what people agree about and what they disagree about, say the agreements first, then run things in parallel from then on.

Anyway, I'm thinking what this article needs is a Bibliography and a team working away with it over a month or so. Everyone could read 1 or 2 books, and bits and pieces of all of them. I don't have time to work out a Biblio atm. Someone could read Britannica, see which books they quote, look at those books and the Bibliographies in those books. In a couple of hours you'd have a hundred titles. Select some from different time periods, different parts of the world and from different ideologies. Voila! Reading list for the team and Biblio for this article.

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is game to volunteer. I'm too busy, but I promise I'll come back and try to tear your work to pieces! ;) Partly because I'm just nasty, and partly because if I don't someone else will, and why should they have all the fun.

Cheers all! <muahaha>

Masculinity's genetic roots

The author of this wiki states that "Masculinity has its roots in genetics. Therefore while masculinity looks different in different cultures, there are common aspects to its definition across cultures." This seems like highly speculative reasoning for a social science. Where is the evidence that either the premise or conclusion are true? I am willing to accept that the premise is true, but I have a hard time beliving that one can reason the existance of a social phenomena. Eeven if this type of reasoning is valid, the premise is too vague to be helpful. Does masculinity having it's roots in genetics imply that biology is the framework for masculinity, or is it just an aspect of masculinity. Couldn't the biological aspect of masculinity be obfuscated by a social process? Vigual

Let me have a go at answering you, because I've been reading a lot in this area recently.

Premise: masculinity has its roots in genetics.

There is so much evidence for this, and so much written about it that it's hard to know where to start. Traditional arguments used to claim men had a polygamous tendency arising from evolutionary selective advantage. This was generally accepted but is certainly speculative. Modern arguments are far less speculative. Anthropology notes that all known societies, including modern western culture are male dominated. (This is a point that feminists are still working to help us realize.) Late 20th century studies of hormonal influence on brain development and behaviour showed many mammals, Homo sapiens included, have more aggressive males. Early 21st century studies utilizing the mapping of the human genome show gene expression in neurons account for significant sexually dimorphic patterns of illness and abilities in human brains. One interesting theory with considerable academic support is that degrees of autism appear to correlate to extremes of masculinization of the brain.

I want to mention that socialization alters our brain chemistry, hormonal activity, and neuronal development. For instance, early infant studies (see levant and pollack 1992, Good and Brooks 2005) have shown that males are more emotional than females biologically, but that this natural trait is socialized out of (some) men starting from birth (parents are rarely aware of how subtly they can socialize their children (not to mention how other institutions socialize the child besides the parent)). Also, I agree that we have not identified societies that have been female-dominated, though there are documented cases of matrifocal societies (see wikipedia article). As far as masculinity having a root in genetics, men have documented differences in certain abilities/traits where the bell curves are slightly different than those of females. Men can have predispositions that make one behavior or another easier to achieve, but socialization can suppress or enable these tendencies to an incredible degree (like in the men as more emotional example mentioned above). I'm just worried that saying masculinity has it's roots in genetics (sex) might not be the best way to put it. Perhaps something like, "Masculinity is a set of social norms ascribed to the male sex in a society, which are popularly thought to reflect biological realities between the sexes." -hoejamma

Sorry for a late reply. The sentence should stand because it is extremely simple, claims very little and has thousands of journal articles to back it. Your alternative, "social norms" is putting the cart before the horse and has no backing save speculative treatments in the literature. I cannot imagine the Gaku Gama people thinking, "I wonder what our biology is, maybe it's like this, so lets set up a system to do it that way." The earliest writing we have about gender attributes the way people choose to do things as having been fore-ordained by the gods. They couldn't understand why they did what they did, so gods-of-the-gaps was their answer.

The culture-determines-role thingy doesn't answer the question or deal with basic objections. It doesn't answer the question because I do it because I'm copying dad is all very well so far as it goes, but why does dad do it? Because his dad did it? If there's an unbroken chain, where did that start? Biology? Or the gods? It doesn't deal with basic objections because sons do not copy dad. Do you? Does your brother? What about rebels and criminals, homosexuals in many traditional societies? Is that genetic, because they're certainly not toing the society line are they?

I'm sorry friend, but you are right that the academic literature includes thousands of studies suggesting strongly that socialisation is a massive part of what makes us who we are, including the way we express our masculinity. However these are completely compatible with the thousands of studies that suggest that we are strongly influenced by genetic and hormonal factors. Do men have a "biological clock" to worry about? Is this an issue of absolute triviality to women generally? Do women menstruate because they are socialised to do it? Or fall preganant because the elders decide it's their time?

Sorry friend, in my reading of the science journals they are unanimous, both nurture and nature have major influences on the way we feel, think and choose to act.

It is true that religious views can supply answers to questions that science cannot, so some people believe in cultural forces and other metaphysical entities that shape our destiny. Maybe they are right, POVs like that are published regularly and must be documented here at Wiki too.

But I'm afraid your very clever theory (I've not heard it before) seems to me to be unlikely as well as OR. Mind you, it beats the pants off some of the books I've read. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In brief, genes and hormones are proven contributors to sexually dimorphic preferences and behaviour in humans.

Conclusion, two propositions:

• there are both similarities and differences between masculinity across cultures
• the similarities are due to genetics (and co-incidence); the differences are due to cultural phenomena.

The while clause (first proposition above) is actually an additional premise. This proposition is well-established also. Marriage, family and incest taboo are the three longest accepted universals of human culture, but there are now hundreds of such universals -- use of tools, fire etc.; various forms of colour distinction; forms of poetry with 5 second lines; romantic love; conventions of property ownership; rituals associated with death. Such universals stand out against the obvious differences between cultures. Marriage, family and incest taboo all involve cultural perceptions of male roles, viz. masculinity. Several human universals like male domination (yes, it is an acknowledge human universal), are specifically related to masculinity. Cultures do vary in degrees of male domination however. Modern western society has, arguably, one of the lowest levels of male domination. This was achieved through cultural means and would not have had so much success had people believed there was no male domination to work at changing. Hormonal intervention could probably reduce male dominance behaviour in society, but genetic intervention would probably also be required. Whether these things are viable or desirable are interesting questions, but the point is, whether or not male dominance behaviour is inevitable or reversable is not addressed in the sentences you are scrutinizing. They merely describe the situation of history up to this point as documented in a huge literature.

The second implied proposition in the conclusion is a measured one, stating no more than the current state of knowledge. It doesn't state that masculinity is understood the same way in every society. Nor does it suggest that all similarities are due to biology. It simply acknowledges that the anthropological consensus is that universals exist, which is unsurprising given that humans share the same biology. It also implies the stronger claim, also a consensus, that differences are cultural.

There are extreme views that claim masculinity is purely biological or that it is purely cultural, however, neither of these extremes is common in literature from the last couple of decades.

I appreciate your challenge. Many readers would share your questions, but not be able to articulate them as well as you. You are right, the sentences need to be sourced. The only difficulty with doing it is that there are so many sources that can be provided. I'll select some of the best, including some that are online. Cheers. Alastair Haines 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the citation needed tag because the current reference weakly supports that masculinity's roots are in genetics. A different citation or more citations are needed. --Dragonsscout 07:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Masculine Physical Attributes needs some attention

I don't have a moment to really look into it right now, but this section only mentions health concerns associated with maintaining a masculine body, and doesn't really describe in any detail what archetypal masculine physical attributes are. I would venture height, big muscles, good posture, body hair, and maybe the different hairstyles in different cultures associated with masculinity (short hair in some, long hair in others, baldness as a hypermasculine trait). I really have no sources on it though and I don't want to poison this fairly well-sourced article with my own original research. Just wanted to point it out. Thanks! Thee darcy (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I checked the sources cited and felt the text misrepresented them somewhat. They are specific that it is about a few men and only recently. Yes, I agree, if physicality is to be addressed, there are endless sources for that throughout history and archetypal masculinity needs clear expression before a narrow focus on modern US UK etc.

We need more workers at this article, though—I have no more time than you do Thee darcy. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If some men achieve the media's body image, then how exactly can it be claimed to be "unrealistic"?

Does anyone else find illogical the argument that the media's body image is "unrealistic"? Obviously some men do achieve this image. How can something that is soemtimes achieved be "unrealistic?" I am compiling references for the opposing view and will place them in the article if no one objects.Peter1c (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. The argument is made by analogy with media representations of women, which some perceive as suggesting physical ideals. The physcial characteristics of the typically young women most commonly featured are probably accurately described as unrealistic for most mature women.

I'm 42 and I can no longer present myself as the 21 year old soldier I used to be. I am less than ideal physically, but I'm content that my old fitness levels are unrealistic. It doesn't bother me.

While I'd personally side with those who argue there are gender differences on this subject, I'd also agree that there are similarities as well. There are many views, this article needs to present all of them. Thanks for taking the trouble to base your input on sources. That is the Wiki way. Be bold! (and be sourced!) :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Past Issues with Article:

• NPOV: 11dec2005-06jan2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I actually agree with the tag, but I'm removing it, because the specific issues are not listed here at talk. It would be very helpful if someone could list a range of POV issues, so these could become the basis of discussion and improvement of the article.

Tagging is a last resort when consensus cannot be reached among existing editors. Undoubtedly there are others, like me, who have this page on their watchlists, a few proposals in talk here could get a conversation going, resulting in improvements. If it stalls, the tag can be returned. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

"Masculinity has its roots in genetics (see gender).[6][7]" While someone has taken the time to cite this claim, presenting it as FACT wihtout mentioning the controversy between scientific determinism and social constuctionism, symbolic interactionism, performativity, or a myriad of other discourses and knowledge systems that attempt to account for gender is POV! 69.181.0.23 (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, there are many published speculations about epiphenominal aspects of masculinity, however these do not change the basic fact stated. It cannot be any simpler or less controversial. Neither the fact that there are genetic influences, nor the fact that these precede other influences is in any doubt, nor has it been since we had the tools to study it.

It is also quite true that there are genuine epiphenominal aspects to masculinity that are fascinating and worth studying. However, due to the lack of consensus on what they are or how to measure them they introduce a very involved discussion. After covering uncontroversial basics, this article would be enhanced by some treatment of the interesting thoughts people have floated on the subject. But, first things first.

Finally, I have found one or two books that could possibly be advocating biological determinism, but I have found many more that claim such views exist in droves. On the other hand, I have found many books that advocate social determinism, but few that can be bothered debunking such a curious idea. We simply know that both nature and nurture are extreme and false regarding the topic of gender in general.

Specific languages people speak are determined 100% by nurture. Falling pregnant is 100% nature. If society determines all forms of behaviour, how come gay men existed when this was illegal? Are you saying that those who argue (and may be right) that there are genetic or hormonal factors involved in homosexuality are looking in the wrong place? Isn't it possible both biology and sociology contribute to what we choose to do? Does sociology affect us first, or does biology?

In the last couple of decades in particular we have been learning lots and lots about how biological processes work, and they confirm the intuitions people have had since the beginning of history. Those intuitions have involved documented beliefs regarding both nature and nurture in gender issues. Ancient Greek and Roman discussions incorporated homosexuality into their perceptions. Gender, sexuality and theories about it are very old indeed and despite many differences there are also many similarities over time and over culture. This article did and should start with the uncontroversial and build up from there. It gets very messy and full of POV otherwise.

Sorry if I'm jumping up and down to much, thanks for saying something, it starts a conversation. I'm sorry I'm a bit busy atm, so it'll need others to keep this one going. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps acknowlegement of Fausto Sterlings work "The Five Sexes" would at least open up a debate regarding clear reliance on biology in the creation of a male/female genetic binary. Intersex individuals have traditionally (though the practice is fading and now advocated against by the American Psychological Association) been physically altered through surgeries to appear genetically male and female. This highlights contradictions in biological essentialism. We choose to recognize two biological sexes when there are more. One might argue this is then used to uphold a masculine/feminine divide. However, there are also cultures that acknowlege more than two genders (see Serena Nanda's 2000 book Gender Diversity, Crosscultural Variations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.237.227 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Here are some of mine. Anne Fausto Sterling knows a lot more than me about everything, but is, nonetheless, a biologist representing a minority and arguably WP:UNDUE POV. Gender issues incorporate a spectrum of research results extending from biology to sociology. The male-female binary biological distinction is common across 1.5 million species. It is not "created", unless you mean by God perhaps. It is described. Physical surgical alteration of appearance hardly counts as a biological category. I am unaware of any published sources that argue for biological determinism, but I am aware of some 1970s, many 1980s and some 1990s works that argue for social determinism. Few modern writers continue to insist that biology could not possibly have any influence on sexual psychology.

Finally, I'm confused about what you personally believe. Are there no gender distinctions? (Since you seem to argue that distinctions between masculinity and femininity are constructed not real.) Or are there a multiplicity of gender distinctions? (Since you argue for there being cultures that recognize such distinctions.)

Unless I read the literature incorrectly, it appears there are two human sexes, rare biological atypicalities that slightly obscure the distinctions in the cases of some people (psuedo hermaphroditism), and many cultures that have recognized such atypicalities, treating in some cases these people with special respect (or even awe) and in others treating them as outcasts (or outcastes).

Surely you are not saying the number of biological mating types (sexes) in the species Homo sapiens can be determined by finding out how many genders culture says there are? Which culture knows? How does it know? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)