Talk:Man

Gender identity distinction

Many people use the word "man" not to refer to an adult human male, but to refer to a person whose gender identity is that of a man. Therefore, I propose we update the first paragraph to the following:

_______________________________

A man is an adult male human. Prior to adulthood, a male human is referred to as a boy (a male child or adolescent). A man can also refer to any person whose gender identity is that of a man.

_______________________________

The current version mentions trans men in the bottom of the overview section, but many use the definition of "man" to encapsulate male men as well as trans men, which is why I think we should add the gender identity sentence to the first paragraph.

Definitely open to revision suggestions for this change so long as the spirit of the change remains intact. Also open to any debate. Just wanted to post on the talk page before making such a significant change since such a high-profile article probably needs to come to unity before doing so.

Gabetucker2 (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Gabetucker2 (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't personally like including two different senses of the word, as it reaffirms the idea that although a trans-inclusive definition of this term exists, the first sentence (and thus the primary topic of this Wikipedia article) isn't using it, and is instead explicitly trans-exclusionary.

We currently solve this by pushing the complexity down the line to male, with a footnote explaining that it can refer to sex or gender, and then explicitly mentioning trans and intersex men as part of this topic.

I consider this the most preferable way of handling the fact that most common dictionaries definitions of these terms can be taken as accidentally transphobic, and have been co-opted as an anti-trans dogwhistle. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not so much that "man" ever normally refers to being AMAB instead of male gender identity, but that in various contexts the distinction between the two is lost, as a matter of ignorance or convenience. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We need a photo of bald man

Hi, millions of men are bald why is there no a photo of bald man? POTDL (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There are pics of bald men at Hair loss. Masterhatch (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There's an image featuring at least one bald man in the Man#Relationships section. Some1 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

IMHO we don't need a photo of every male phenotype to refer to a man*. This also applies to the overweight/plus-sized men (as well as anorexic men, athletic men, men with scars, men with burns, hairy and not-so-hairy men, disabled man, male amputees, etc-etc), which you talk about in a separate question. It would probably be more inclusive to add a photo of each phenotype, but that would make the article excessively long. If you think this fact is important to mention, please bravely tell your arguments; i think, if needed it's be possible to write in text that men can be bald or overweight.

*Probably the only exception is trans men, since being transgender (male) is directly related to (male) gender, and it's also a widely debated issue (may transgender people be defined by their gender choice or somehow else). This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 12:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We need a photo of an overweight man

Millions of men are overweight and there is even subculture of men and they are called bears POTDL (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We could end up with a lot of photos if we try and encompass every way a man can possibly look. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the "Bear (gay culture)" article. As said above, perhaps it's the best to mention male phenotypes on the pages, dedicated to the phenotypes themself. This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 12:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not overweight but in Polynesian islands it is common for men to be overweight and also overweight men are important part of gay culture --POTDL (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits by AlmostDeveloper

User:AlmostDeveloper has made some serious efforts at addressing the criticisms of User:RoxySaunders and while there may be a temptation to revert these edits again I would ask that we discuss here first.

True, it might have been better the other way round but being bold in contributing shouldn't be discouraged.

We say "Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor, and all others' after the edit in question. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, regarding your comment: "the rights statement is (AFAIK) not seriously contested, and the predominance of misogyny is sufficiently supported by the vast majority of scholarship that a plain statement is better in a section so short; the sub articles do more to explain the minority view, as is appropriate".

I have cited four reviews of studies (i.e. they contain even more articles in them) that seriously contest the rights statement. If you believe that most scientists hold a different view, you can add with sources how scientists dispute that data. Although this is a small article, it is about men, and men's rights relate directly to it (unlike, for example, misogyny and anti-feminism, which I would personaly prefer to move into articles dedicated to them, for it is not clear how they relate to male gender). Please defend your edit, or I shall retract it. Also, please kindly start a dialog in talk before canceling edits.

@Reprarina, regarding your comment: "I do not see a staitment that masculism is fully pro-feminist in the sources. Only Men's Liberation Movement is fully pro-feminist"

While this is a healthy criticism, if you can't find where sources defend the thesis, please kindly ask a question in talk, or on my page, or add a “citation needed” bar instead of canceling the edit. You can find data about the cooperation between feminism and masculism, for example, in Pasi's "Discrimination Against Men" in chapter 5.5.1 (5.5 is overall recommended). This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 18:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You cited four sources for the statement "others dispute this, arguing that men likewise experience at least as much discrimination". Are you saying those four sources also support that the authors, or some people named by authors, dispute that men have more rights than women in most societies? Part of the problem is that you've cited lengthy sources and not specific pages, and two of your sources are low-quality dissertations. The Stoet article is a relatively brief study, so I can tell that it does not support any statement about rights. Do the others? Are the better sources that do so? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on particular characteristic (e.g. gender), all four articles addressing the issue of discrimination against men point to the issue of men's rights. For example, mentioned Stoet's article talks about “disadvantages for boys and men” in the abstract. The other three studies discuss the lack of men's rights in more detail, calling it also in these terms, so you can find quotes using the keywords “rights”, “discrimination”, “abuse”, “prejustice”. I can also provide citations at your request. This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a source saying "men are discriminated against at least as much as women" is necessarily making any comment on discrepancy in rights. Disadvantages are different from inequitable rights. The expectation here is that sources explicitly support the material. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh, that sounds right. Thank you for patiently correcting me. How do you feel about me returning these studies reformulated, not as a counterargument to the “men have more rights than women”, but to the “misogyny is far more prevalent than misandry”, because they directly address the subject (Clinical Guide to Discussing Prejudice Against Men talks about misandry on the page 184, eg: "Misandristic ideas have become pervasive throughout Western society. The normalization of misandry makes examples hidden and unrecognized, contributing to male gender blindness."; Pasi talks about misandry in chapter 7.7 and 2.1.6, eg: "the SBAM memeplex contains the following memes which are all biased against men: 1) The advancement of women’s status is by far the most important goal of equality policy, 2) the solving of men’s equality problems should be given a low priority in the equality policy (...)"; Stoet and Benatar don't mention misandry-term, but mention "discrimination" & "disadvantages against men and boys", which in my opinion is the definition of misandry. Still, if you disagree, I shall accept it without further discussion)? This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't focus on what is or isn't a "counterargument". If you come across quality source, try your best to summarize them neutrally. Avoid using WP:DISSERTATIONs, unless they really are the best sources available and are widely cited. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

True, pardon my poor wording. Thanks for the answers! This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 14:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As found out on my talk page, we didn't reach consensus, so pardon me for editing the page. I find the sources mentioned being quality & fresh peer reviews. Could you clarify, why do you see dissertations as poor sources? Benatar's book, as far as I understand, is not a disertation. I see disadvantages for boys and men as misandry, but if you don't, I am ready to drop the Stoet & Geary study out, it's not worth debating about. How do you feel about "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men", "Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture" and this APA analysis, books as sources? Thanks for your patience in this discussion! :) This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I read Pasi Malmi. He does not write that masculism is a pro-feminist movement. Actually, he writes that... sexist branch of masculism gains support from the general ideas and traditions of best seller sexism, which presents men and women as essentially different from each other (e.g. Pease & Pease 1999)., that masculists may, for example, prioritize men’s interests above women’s interests in the creation of public policy. Through this mechanism, masculists may contribute to the existence of direct and indirect discrimination against women. Malmi is clearly not a source to support the claim that masculinism is a pro-feminist ideology. Reprarina (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Pasi divides masculism into different branches: "Masculism and feminism, as all theoretical paradigms, are likely to contain a theoretical core, theoretical branches, selfish core; cooperative periphery and an aggressive periphery". Thus, at this point I shall apologize & thank you for pointing my mistake: Pasi indeed does not say, that masculism is fully pro-feminist ideology, but says that it may be pro-feminist (eg. "the cooperative periphery of the paradigm consists of beliefs and interpretations, which are not fully coherent with the theoretical core and branches, but which offer the paradigms a chance to cooperate with rivaling paradigms and interest groups"). Still, Pasi also says that "in recent decades, the relationship of masculism and feminism seems to have changed in such a fashion that the coalition discourses of antisexist masculists and equality feminists have weakened, or disappeared altogether", so I shall agree with you, that Pasi does not prove modern masculism is not necessarily pro-feminist. I will research the theme more carefully and come back with better checked statements! (P.S. note also, that Pasi uses term masculism and never masculinism - the second one is indeed strongly connected to antifeminism) This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 19:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I made a typo in the last sentence. Reprarina (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources have improved, but otherwise I still feel the same as I did in my original rationale. Quoting from the lede at misandry:

Many scholars criticize MRAs for promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny, arguing that modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men. The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts.

Softening the very mainstream belief that women historically and presently face substantial legal/social/economic discrimination compared to men into a "some say ... others say" is WP:FALSEBALANCE and POV-pushing. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would confidently agree with you if my links were single articles-opinions, but they all represent systematic reviews, broadly analyzing studies, experts' statements, and the opinions of other scholars, giving strong evidence that at least today's men face at least as much legal/social/economic discrimination in at least majority of countries. Still, I fully agree, that women facing more (substantial) discrimination compaired to men is much more mainstream belief (which is directly mentioned in sources discussed as well). Do you want that to be mentioned on the page? This message was written with sincerely good intentions. AlmostDeveloper 19:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Diversity in preferred gender expressions

I think the article would benefit from some information about how men vary in their preferred gender expressions, i.e. they can be hegemonically masculine, simply masculine, androgynous, feminine. Sources that can be used for the statement include Connell's Masculinities, the article Gender expression in The SAGE Encyclopedia in Trans Studies, the book Male femininities, and Luke Andrew Boso's article Real Men. This is important not only because it is directly related to the topic of the article, but also because it serves as a preventative measure against the popularization of the fringe theory of gender essentialism, according to which men are supposedly naturally masculine.--Reprarina (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Why doesn't English version of the article man have images of influential men?

Why do non English versions of the article man have images of influential men grouped as one and the lead page?

Is it sexist to put the combined images of influential men as the lead image representative of men? since there are influential women but not as much as influential men? Beneutral100 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's this article you mean, see the 'Important note' at the top of this page. It says truthfully that the lead image here (and on many other articles) is highly controversial, so it's not a good place to edit.

If it's a general question, it's not relevant here (this is not a forum), but two things can be said: Wikipedia is not censored, and can show any image that is necesssary, copyright permitting; and people differ widely on what 'influential' might mean, and whether it's a good idea to use images of people in the public eye, not least because (as already mentioned) that's bound to be controversial. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY (which may not exist on other Wikipedias) shows that here, the consensus is not to illustrate large groups of people with collages. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If I can elaborate: an ideal lead image would be particularly illustrative of what the article (and ideally, the sum of our reliable sources) has to say about the topic. There is no real justification in my mind that particular "influential" men—either one example image, or a gallery—could adequately serve as this illustration. This is because I don't think one can justify that famous people, or whatever comparable metric we could use, are the most ideal examples for people with any given trait. Given how this topic likely harbors so many intuitions for readers, specific examples, especially expressed visually, are among the most liable to create unjustified assumptions in readers we didn't intend. So, it is less possible than in most cases to provide illustrative examples for this topic that illuminate more than they conceal. Remsense ‥ 论 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on behalf of all mobile users; squashing tiny thumbnails of Einstein and Ghandi into a 4x4 matrix is worthless from both an aesthetic, informational, and usability perspective. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 08:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)