Jump to content

Talk:Toxic masculinity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Toxic feminism"

[edit]

Hello, just noticed there is no article to state the Toxic Feminism, I see. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phuderoso (talkcontribs) 11:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is that? I have never heard of it. Dimadick (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you mean "toxic femininity"? In any case, WP:FALSEBALANCE may be a useful read. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read this, both of you: https://thedailyguardian.com/what-is-toxic-feminism/
You two are living in a rock. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

[edit]

I want an image that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to be added to this page. Here is the image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MasterDeanKellyToxicMasculinity.jpg This image portrays a toxic masculine man that would be a good example and provide an idea of what one would look like to the read of this article. TopDigger (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Photo is likely a copyright violation, and we are unlikely to use a photo of a named living person to illustrate this phenomenon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Kupers

[edit]

Link to this page Terry Kupers? Joel S Bateman (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

[edit]
Criticism

Toxic masculinity has received criticism as a concept. Some conservatives, as well as many in the alt-right, see toxic masculinity as an incoherent concept or believe that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity.[1]: 2 [2] In January 2019, conservative political commentators criticized the new American Psychological Association guidelines for warning about harms associated with "traditional masculinity ideology", arguing that it constitutes an attack on masculinity.[3] David French of the National Review criticized the APA guidelines on "traditional masculinity ideology" for including "very common, inherent male characteristics" including "anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence." French argued that these traits are not "inherently wrong or harmful," and that a proper understanding of traditional masculinity "rejects harmful extremes."[4] APA chief of professional practice Jared Skillings responded to conservative criticism, stating that the report's discussion of traditional masculinity is about "negative traits such as violence or over-competitiveness or being unwilling to admit weakness" and noting that the report also discusses positive traits traditionally associated with masculinity such as "courage, leadership, protectiveness".[3] Masculine traits like strength, courage, independence, leadership, assertiveness; and applying masculinity positively, can also help men manage emotions, build relationships, better communicate problems, improve life balance, and alleviate mental health concerns.[5] Almadão (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Sculos, Bryant W. (2017). "Who's Afraid of 'Toxic Masculinity'?". Class, Race and Corporate Power. 5 (3). Retrieved 20 January 2021.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Salter2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Dastagir, Alia E. (10 January 2019). "Psychologists call 'traditional masculinity' harmful, face uproar from conservatives". USA Today. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
  4. ^ French, David (9 January 2019). "The APA Can't Spin Its Way Out of Its Attack on 'Traditional Masculinity'". National Review. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
  5. ^ https://dorsetmind.uk/mens-masculinity-could-be-an-advantage-in-managing-mental-health/
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.
David French's statements here are WP:UNDUE without more authoritative sourcing than the National Review, which is a primary source for French's opinion. We generally stick to peer-reviewed scholarship and mainstream news sources, not partisan outlets like NR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right criticism

[edit]

I feel there is a strategic and undue placement of the mention of "Alt-Right" criticism at the top of the criticism section to try and prevent questioning of the concept of Toxic Masculinity.

A layman reading the section would immediately think "Oh, the people who disagree with this are associated with, or actual Nazis, I better not question it also or I am aligned with them" 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:B963:B256:DDF1:42DF (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If published, reliable sources associate criticism of toxic masculinity with nazis and the alt-right, then so do we. That's what due weight entails on Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DUE WEIGHT specifically says that all significant viewpoints should be included "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Stonkaments (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, that is already the case here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published, reliable sources suggest Nazis don’t like democracy, does that mean it should be at the top of the criticism of democracy article?
I’m not complaining about the inclusion of Nazis criticising it, just about where it I see placed in the criticism section. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:3523:47E6:D034:5E35 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what sources say about criticism of democracy, then yes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are other well known examples of different objections frequently mentioned in sources?
Placing a mention of Nazis at the top in that instance would be the definition of undue weight. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:FD36:5C25:247B:3436 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This armchair philosophizing is fun, but ultimately pointless unless there are relevant sources that frame the issue differently. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is attempting to follow Wikipedia guidelines and attempting to make sure a page is formatted correctly "armchair philosophising"?
For disclosure, I am the previous IP and am NOT attempting to sockpuppet. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:42D:5B49:DEFF:E361 (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't followed Wikipedia guidelines. Either present your sources or this discussion is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]