Talk:Man

Misc Conversation

"In modern western society, few wear clothing generally associated with female gender roles." I thought this was so in all societies, not just western. Are there modern societies where the men cross dress? Jay 15:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above quote should say "In modern western society, few men wear clothing generally associated with western female gender roles"

Why is does this page use the word "sex" not "gender"? --(talk to)BozMo 13:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary the word Gender means the grammatical classification of nouns into different sexes. Therefore Sex is the correct word to describe particular characteristics of men and women. Gender is often incorrectly used as a euphemism for the word sex. --Cap 18:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Errr... you might consider that use "incorrect", however it is definitely common, especially since a distinction between physical sex and gender (identity, role, presentation etc) is definitely needed. The fact that a dictionary (even an Oxford one) does not list a meaning does not mean that meaning of a word does not exist. This is particularly true if it is a "concise" dictionary. Even the OED, not particular up-to-date with words in that field (transgender does not exist there), lists that use, even if it labeles it as "modern" and "especially feminist". Oh well, nothing is perfect. Not even Oxford Dictionaries. -- AlexR 20:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV: "it is estimated that one in 100,000 people are men who have been born without a typical male physiology (that is, they are transgendered or transsexual men)," This is deceptive and misleading, non-intersex ftm transexuals are not born with any sort of male anatomy, typical or otherwise. It should be enough to say that some females consider themselves men and let the reader decide if they consider that to be valid, not preach transgender identity politics at them in what is supposed to be a neutral article. I'm re-reverting. [68.117.211.92]

Are you quite sure you do not write from a POV yourself? First, the article does not state that transmen are born with any distinctive male anatomy. Second, to claim that transmen are "females" is not exactly NPOV, either. So try for neutrality yourself, sign your comments, and don't insert some funny "mouseover" bits into other peoples edits here. Revert. -- AlexR 05:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

saying that non-intersex transmen are female is not POV it is biological reality, they (at birth) have ovaries and a vagina, (whether or not a transman who has chosen to have bottom surgery is female is open to interpretation, which is why I said "born with standard female anatomies" in the article) They may not be feminine or self-identify as women but they are female, thats why they are transgendered not cisgendered. The article says they are not born with typical male anatomy, but neglects to mention that they are born with typical female anatomy, thats not giving the reader the whole story. What's a "mouseover"? [68.117.211.92]

Nope, sorry, but female includes not just a female body, but also a female gender identity. Claiming that transmen are "female" therefore denies their gender identity and turns them into some sort of freaks or sickos. What you want to express is "female bodied persons" not "females". Also, if you feel that there is information lacking, insert it, but don't insert heteronormative prejudices and then whine about POV.

As for constantling inserting mouse-overs: Check this [1]. You ought to notice what happens when you edit. Stop it. -- AlexR 17:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? If the word "female" is used, without any other modifier (like identity), doesn't it refer to physiology by default, just as with any animal species? In other words, biologists might say male/female refer to sex, and other social behaviors, identities, feelings, etc. involve gender or sexual identity (masculine/feminine behaviors, etc). Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I understand it. DanP 18:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plus, I specifically said "people born with standard female anatomy" in the article, (though female bodied is just as good I suppose) and YOU are the one saying that a female person who self identifies as a man is a sicko or freak, NOT me, so please stop whining about supposed heteronormative prejudice. Also, I have no idea what happened to that first paragraph but I think I've fixed it. [68.117.211.92]

68.117.211.92: You appear to be infected with some sort of spyware which automatically inserts URL <a href=>s around certain keywords; see [2] for an example. Please cease editing until you've cleaned your system; I suggest you try running Adaware (it's free). -- Hadal 19:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Female" can be rather often found refering to not just sex. From the OED:

• A. adj. I. Belonging to the sex which bears offspring.
• 1. a. of human beings. In Law: heir, line female. Also predicatively.
• II. Of or pertaining to those of this sex.
• 3. Composed or consisting of women, or of female animals or plants.
• 4. a. Of or pertaining to a woman or women.
• b. Engaged in or exercised by women.
• 5. Peculiar to or characteristic of womankind.

So obviously it does at least not unambigiously refer to physical characteristics only.

@68.x And kindly stop talking so much - sorry - bullshit. I never called transmen freaks or sickos, I was refering to the common prejudice that transmen are "really" females who are either crazy or sick, but in the end, definitely females, not males. A prejudice you tried to put into the article - whether consciously or by mistake - and which I tried to keep out of it -- after all, I happen to know what I am, and I am definitely not female, even if the physical attributes were. You might want to check my user page.

Having said that, the "without a typical male physiology" bit is indeed improvable. Your edis however did not just alter this sentence, you also simply deleted information and never gave any reason for that. Obviously, that merrited a revert. -- AlexR 20:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the conflict at hand, and don't mean to misunderstand either of you. But the majority of the time male/female seem to be sex. Yes, there are other contexts. If a guy said "I'm a man wearing women's underwear", that doesn't mean he changed identity or sex or anything. Maybe the guy is kinky or just involved in role-playing, and one can take words at face value. I don't know that man/woman or male/female can automatically be cast into "but what if it's a biological man, who wants to be a woman, but dresses like a whatever". That seems like extension by social construct to me, not biological fact which seems to be a slightly more common meaning with more adjectives tacked on to the words "male" and "female". But I guess I am flexible on exact meaning so long as the reader gets the picture accurately and nobody feels excluded somehow. DanP 23:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your example would be "a male bodied person with a female gender identity and a whatever gender presentation", and "want" has nothing to do with it -- most trans*-people would certainly not mind if they could somehow match their identity to their bodies. The problem here is that these "gender"-meanings are relatively new; some people still refuse to acknowledge that there is any difference between sex and gender at all. (Hence the "sickos and freaks".) However, if one wants to be precise, there is no way of avoiding many of these not so simple expressions. Also, you seem to imply that biology is an undeniable fact, while anything sociological is somehow less of a fact. Both is highly questionable. -- AlexR 00:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Are we going to have Man reflect Woman in the scope of illustrations? On Talk:Woman there's a lively discussion on how best to show a picture of a naked woman. (Many agree that there should be such a picture, but it's more a matter of which). Unfortunately, it may be a little difficult to get as good a picture for Man -- most nude photos and paintings are of women. I would also like to note that the taboos are a little different in Europe and the U.S.A. on nudity; in Europe it is more acceptable, and male nudity is not as taboo as in the U.S.A. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:10, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

There's a nice picture at de:Mann of a male model, not nude (he's in sort of a racing-style swimsuit), that I would like to move here, but I'm not sure how. It would be better than the picture we have with its sarcastic-sounding "Notice that men and women are different" in spite of the fact that the woman in the picture looks like a man with breasts glued on. --Angr 08:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the pictures on both the Man and Woman pages should be removed entirely(though I am not here to argue for the woman). I don't believe they are a bad idea, but in practice they add entirely unnecessary biases. You would be hard pressed to find a picture that can incorporate how a man looks without showing biases in how a man "is supposed to look". Thus, in the interest of remaining neutral and avoiding imposing beliefs on how a man is "supposed to look", I believe the picture should be removed entirely. A more appropriate solution, though still not ideal, is to put up a less "macho" picture instead, so as not to confuse machoism with being a man. Perhaps this doesn't bother you personally, but that doesn't mean it should be trivialized because of that, and something with this sort of implication does not belong in a neutral article. -sparkleiya

It's interesting you find the current picture "macho". I put it up here after a long debate at de:Mann about what image to have there, and at least a few people found this picture not "manly" enough, complaining the model was too young and "pretty-boyish". Angr (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot we have multiple images here. I was talking about , not , which might well be considered "macho". Angr (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a naked man displayed?

Yes, since the article is about men it's important to show what the male body looks like. The only disadvantage the photo is that his feet are cut off. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 'Man' may be a complex idea, but the definition is anatomical, and a picture of a naked man illustrates that. It would be best to have the full legnth, including feet though otherwise Gloeden1895 is good. Thehalfone 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I also conquer that it is necessary to have a naked man desplayed because you need to see what a male body actually looks like. Being offended by the anatomy that all male's have is just foolish. The only problem with the photo is that it isn't very clear and it's not in color. Also, the testicles are not clearly visible and the man is clearly circumsised - I think a picture of both a circumsised/uncircumsised male would be appropriate, as they are both different (Slightly). You don't have to do this, but I just wanted to say having just a circumsised man on display might cause some arguement. --Anonymous

Manu

The word man comes from the Sanskrit word manu which means thinker. The Sanskrit word manu descended to and was borrowed by Latin where it was used to mean the thinker that used hands. Hence, our word manual as to operate manually which means for a thinker to operate with his or her hands. (Source: http://www.som.org/2laws/Store/bookdetails/ulmchapter.htm)

Even if the above is inaccurate, is it notable enough for inclusion? I really like the concept of manu, so I'd like to have it if at all possible. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should include anything that's inaccurate. The Sanskrit word manu is from the Indo-European root men- meaning 'to think'; English cognates include mind, mental, reminiscent. The Latin word manus 'hand' is from IE mh₂r-/mh₂n- and is related to a Germanic word meaning protection (extinct in English, but cf. German Vormund) and a rare Greek word for 'hand'. Germanic mannaz is from a different IE root and is related to Russian муж 'man'. It's complete nonsense to claim that the English word is borrowed from the Latin word which is borrowed from the Sanskrit word. Each word developed independently from a different IE root. --Angr/_comhrá 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of articles address inaccurate or unlikely peices of info. if this one is common and notable it deserves inclusion in a balanced manner. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 19:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a Redirect of Boy?

This seems like a bad redirect for boy. It seems like boy, as a word and as the young form of men, should be better covered here if we keep this redirect. Anyone concur?

Clarification: Though boy redirects here, the content doesn't seem to cover that topic well. The article is admittedly about man, as a "male human adult." It doesn't cover topics unique to boyhood, really, though that might be covered appropriately in "child," but then that should at least be noted by the boy disambiguation. This doesn't seem like an article that covers "boy" so well that boy should redirect here. Notthe9 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 16:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have thought that both boy and girl might be stand alone articles at some point, assuming enough content is made available. Sam Spade 16:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, does anyone think there is enough info at this moment?? Georgia guy 16:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, I don't, but if someone wants to write it, Godspeed. Sam Spade 17:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, then what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 17:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, nobody additional has responded within an hour, and here is my answer:

• The article Child appears to cover the general subject of topics unique to children. Topics unique to boys as distinguished from girls don't appear to be anywhere else in Wikipedia. I say a re-direct to child should do. Any objections?? Please explain if you have any. Georgia guy 18:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is probably along the lines of what is appropriate. Man can cover things about many things about boys as opposed to girls, and child can cover the rest of that plus boys as opposed to men. Since both are valuable, I think maybe boy should go to the disambiguation. Notthe9 20:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Do you mean anything similar to Boy (disambiguation)?? Georgia guy 20:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Also, child covers info on boys as opposed to men in the "Physical Development Milestones". Georgia guy 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Now, I've removed the re-direct by reverting to an earlier version of the article before the re-direct and expanded slightly. Anyone feel free to add anything to the new article. Georgia guy 22:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Boy' should be it's own article. Technically, the term 'Boy' should refer to a male human before they enter puberty. Just a thought. --Anonymous

Boy is now a separate article. The above discussion is outdated. Angr (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

An estimated 1% to about 5-10% of all men are mostly or exclusively homosexual,

This statement doesn't really make too much sense to me... 1% to 5% to 10%? Also, where do these come from? I find it hard to believe that 10% of men "prefer sexual and/or romantic relationships with other men" in a detectable sense. Notthe9 19:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the 10% figure comes from the Kinsey report, but even then if I remember correctly it was 10% of all men have had at least one homosexual experience since turning 18. I imagine a lot of men have "fooled around" with other men on at least one occasion without considering themselves gay or even bi. --Angr/_comhrá 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If that is really what the figure meant to convey, then we should definately remove that figure. This does not measure whether someone is "mostly or exclusively homosexual." Also, whatever does end up there should not be a range given by three points, though multiple studies could be referenced (if they were actually referenced). Notthe9 03:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The study which generated the 10% figure was so amazingly suspect as to have be provided as an example of infamously unscientific research in a psychology class I was in. We learned how the survey was of a small number of men (100 or 1000, something like that) enlisted in the U.S. navy after WWII. It asked them if they had ever had a sexual or erotic experience in the company of other men, or had an erotic fantasy involving other males. 10% responded "yes", and these were all tallied as 'homosexual'. This survey has been misused thenceforth. Sam Spade 16:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you recomend some reliabe figures so we can fix the article? Notthe9 17:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A better question: Why are we discussing homosexuality at all on this article? The fact is, when you get down to it, there is no evidence that particular types of sexuality are anything other than cultural or circumstantial in nature. There is no particularly good evidence on the subject of "what % of people behave homosexualy". When you ask americans "are you gay?" about 1% say "yes, I'm gay". But what does that mean? Sam Spade 23:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gender roles

I think it should list in the section "gender roles" that the typical man is physically stronger than the typical woman. I know that there are women out there who are stronger than some men, but on average, man is usually stronger than woman. Scorpionman 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning somewhere, but it's more of a physical characteristic than a gender role, isn't it? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it has an affect on the man's gender role, such as, heavy physical work is usually carried out by men rather than women because of the average man's superior strength. Scorpionman 02:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that causal link could be proved. Thehalfone 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Defining man or woman in terms of biology and physiology is problematic anyway, in light of recent awareness of sex and gender. If a man and woman were both born female and raised as girls, what differences are there other than social and sexual? In fact, why isn't there any discussion in this article about transgender issues? If we understand the states of "man" and "woman" as gender, then it is completely relevant.--Pinko1977 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

npov

Sorry for not leaving a note. After re-reading the top of that section, it seems a little better than I originally thought. I still think it could use a bit of clarification, for someone (as I did) could simply stumble on those stereotypes and believe that they're stated as fact.

If nobody else has a problem with it, I stand overruled. appzter 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I think you're totally right. It's a bunch of B.S. and should be harshly edited if not removed alltogether. Why perpetuate falsehoods? If you can't cite some proof, it shouldn't be on there. --Mmarchin 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Gedger roles" section

I deleted the following piece, which is totally false in the way it is written:

Fashions change, however: whereas wearing jewelry was formerly associated with females, today in Western cultures it is common for men to wear earrings without being perceived as cross-dressing. The same has become true of the shaving off of unwanted body and facial hair, though removal of the latter has long been common among men in many cultures.

However there is a grain of truth there, so I am leaving its traces in the talk page, so that fashion history experts write something reasonable instead. mikka (t) 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is false about it as written? Angr (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You coulda just re-written it. I agree with the statments and anyway there is far worse grammer around here, Cilstr 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

liberal bias

Some of these differences have been supported by scientific research; others have not. All should be taken with a grain of salt, given the enormous variations among actual men and women. I find the fact that the author beleives that gender differences supported by scientific research should only be taken 'with a grain of salt' to be a clearcut example of an opinion. If their is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously. For example, if their is evidence that suggests women are generally tidier than men, then incorporating this fact into one's cognitive processes is an objective position to take. The fact that the author objects to this position suggests he/she is a relativist (relativism is a positon common amoungst the left and feminists in particular).

This is a wiki, which means there isn't one author. The passage was written by a number of authors with a number of different viewpoints. If it sounds relativized, it's merely to prevent creating the impression that all women are always tidier than all men without exception. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You really should check if you have paranoia if you see "liberal bias" in a suggestion to not to stereotype minor statistical differences. --Vuo 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

- There is a slant of relativist bias in this article, particularly gender roles. Perhaps some are confusing NPOV (offering a balance of available supported evidence) with relativism. The general slant that a man is undefinable and insdistinguishable needs to be balanced with more specific certainties.

I see that there has been discussion about the gender stereotypes section. I wanted to add that the notion that "If their [sic] is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously" - is ridiculous. Hypothetically, if there was a scientific study done that showed that men were meaner than women, it still would not be necessarily true. From the very day you are born, you are socialized, you are maybe dressed in blue if you are a boy - given a fire truck to play with, called a "big boy" told you are going to be strong. Girls are "dainty princesses" and "pretty in pink" and "delicate flowers." So, if a study was done, a scientific one, that proved that men were more aggressive then women, all it would mean was that due to socialization, gender roles, bias and stereotypes, men have emerged as more aggressive, although it is probably not innately so. So I think all scientific research on this topic should be taken with a grain of salt because nurture plays such a large role. There is no liberal bias, only people who seek to perpetuate truth. Nadsat 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No diversity in pictures

There are two pictures of a white and young man, and one picture of a statue depicting the same, all in very little dress. None of them have facial hair. So, here's something that's missing: white man, Asian man, black man, old man, man with beard, and man in clothing, like: Italian suit, military uniform, Dani ornamentation, etc. --Vuo 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe we can have a gallery of men at the bottom of the article. There are lots of images at Commons already. (And don't forget drag queens!) Angr (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a gallery (no drag queens yet). I couldn't find any photographs of Australian Aborigine men, and I'd like at least one more African man, preferably one where you can see his face. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic picture

Should this be on here? Skinnyweed 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Should what be on here? There is no pornographic picture in this article. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A pornographic picture would depict a sexual intercourse, I think. --Vuo 21:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gender role vs. Gender Stereotypes vs. REMOVE

The gender role section is really bizarre and should probably be reworked or removed. Its subjective and only a few of the bullet points have citations.

The following lack citations. If the section is to remain, at a minimum, it should be labeled "gender stereotypes" instead of "gender roles." I don't personally think most of these are even common stereotypes.

   * More aggressive than women. However, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home.
   * More courageous and adventuresome than women.
   * More competitive but also more stubborn than women.
   * More self-confident (even proud) and exhibit better leadership skills than women.
   * More self-controlled and less emotional.
   * More technically and organizationally skilled than women.
   * More prone to abstract thinking than women.
  

The following have citations, but I don't see how they are remotely relevant to describing "man." They also don't strike me as gender roles. Is it a "role" to be messy? Or sarcastic? Does the use of metaphors in conversation really tell us anything useful about men?

   * Less tidy than women.[2]
   * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3]
   * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4]
   * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]

--Kdalton 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

- The last part of the article (entire gender stereotypes) is offensive, incorrect and should be removed. /Anna

I think that the header should be rewritten as gender role, considering that the female article doesn't have 'Gender Stereotypes' and has a 'Gender Role' section instead, I think that this is neccesary to reword the header to remove the liberal slant and particularly the noticable attack on historical male gender roles in this section. It also seems to promote the idea that Western ideology of manhood is false. A lot of this violates the NPOV rule, I think, a rewording or rewrite is needed to have less of a slant towards feminism in this article considering that the issue itself is very sensitive, a rewrite that covers more of the highlights of Typical Male Roles and Attitudes in various cultures in societies would be nice. Something along the lines of covering occupation, expectation and male rituals. Also, even if it doesn't violate the NPOV rule, it's all original research, it needs some definite cleaning up as well. Rewrite is neccesary. --Mofomojo 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that this discussion is not totally current, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. I think that the section, as it is right now, is fairly unencyclopedia, and should not be included in this article. It may, in some context, be important to list gender stereotypes, but something about this just doesn't strike me as the right way to go about it. Besides, there isn't really an equivalent on the Woman article, and it seems to me that these articles should be somewhat parallel in form and type of information given.

To a certain extent, I agree with the removal of the traits listed above. However, the way this section reads now is that all stereotypes of men are positive in the sense of being more courageous, more self-confident, etc. Having taken out the negative stereotypes has really unbalanced it. Not to mention that these are fairly Western stereotypes, and are not universal.

So, I propose that this section be re-worked completely. Any thoughts? romarin [talk ] 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

so why are only the NEGATIVE traits undeleted? I will delete them.

 * Less tidy than women.[2]
  * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3]
  * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4]
  * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]

Why are the above deleted? arent't they gender stereotypes as well? and please tell me what sources inform you that men are more couragous than women?

I think this section really needs work. The first two senteces are very well worded. Firstly if there are to be any psyological entries in this list, they must have good scientific citations. There are no citations here at all. Secondly "claims sometimes made about men in relation to women" is really not good, I am sure we have all heard all sorts of such claims, many ridiculus. Thirldy if one is going to have scientifically proven differences here we must be carefull not to misinterpret them. For example, what sort of scientific study could prove that men have "less empathy .. than women"? One reads these things in newspapers, but they are not substantiated, or substansiable by the scientific studies that sparked them. Putting in the necessary details could make this unwieldy. Perhaps there is a respected review paper of the psycological research we could cite? Finally, if we need to make direct comparisons between "average men" and "average women" then the choice of data should start, "men are taller than women, with relatively broader shoulders and thinner hips". Thehalfone 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The gender stereotypes section still needs work and more citations, but I don't think it's out-of-place. Actually, I like having "stereotypes" in Man rather than Woman, as feminism has pointed out that man has often unjustifiably been posited as normal and woman as different. HOWEVER, we still need a "Gender Roles" section, parallel to the "Gender Roles" section in Woman. This would not focus on supposedly innate differences, but on differing cultural roles: for instance, less of a role in child raising, more of a role in breadwinning, "hunter" in hunter-gatherer societies, special roles in many religions, supposed to initiate romantic relationships, etc. Of course it would also need the obvious disclaimers of how all these are fundamentally culturally specific (unlike the stereotypes, which could at least theoretically be innate) and in fact deeply criticized within some subcultures. --201.151.76.224 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (ps. "technically" would go in gender roles as culture, perhaps leaving something about mathematics or abstraction in the stereotypes. Technology is social, not innate.)

Visual bias

Why does the top picture need to be nude? I think having a nude image is better, but I have a problem with the picture being of an Italian, when right below we have a nude sculpture from another Italian. It's a pretty clear Western/racial bias, and visually repetitive. And I wish you hadn't done a flat revert, when I also noted that the man in the wheelchair was from the United States. As it is this article far too strongly normalizes "white" people as the ideal conception of being a man. Sarge Baldy 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The top picture needs to be nude because this is first and foremost a biology article, and the entire male body needs to be shown. The biggest problem with the van Goeden photo is that the model's feet are cut off. If you can find another free image of a nude (including feet), you're welcome to use it instead. When I put together the gallery I worked very hard to find images of men from all over the world, exactly so that it doesn't normalize white people. If anything, the gallery has a strong Asian bias, as it includes two Arabians, an Indian, a Thai, and a Vietnamese Hmong. By contrast, there are only three photos of men of European origin (I exclude David as that's a statue, not a human being). Angr (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Asia is a massive continent and contains 60% of the world's population, so I don't think it's too heavily biased in that direction. I'm not sure I'd say it's underrepresented though, either. The actual gallery is a nice collection, I think. I think someone from Eastern Europe or Russia (or perhaps Scandinavia?) would complement the gallery nicely, perhaps in the place of one of the Americans. But overall it seems a good selection. It's just the two images nearer the top that irk me a little. I guess I would have a preference for an African in the top image simply because that's where the human race began. I'll see if I can dig up something. Sarge Baldy 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with Italians, specifically nude male Italians? If so, I'll do my best to keep my clothes on. :) -- Andrew Parodi 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the Da Vinci Man....racially inconspicuous....showing entire body....and tasteful. Tasteful pictures

Vitruvian Man is perfect

use of man gender-neutrally

I want to know if there is anything that can go in a Man (word) article talking about the usage of the word man as a gender-neutral vs. gender-specific term. Georgia guy 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Explicit mention of Srebrenica massacre

Disclamer: I'm not a Serb. As a matter of fact, I live in a city which was shelled by cluster bombs. By Serbs.

I think it is not appropriate to explicitly mention Srebrenica massacre in this article and blame it on Serbs. Yes, the Srebrenica massacre is a horrbile thing. Yes, the people who did it were Serbs. Those are plain facts. But, I don't think it is appropriate to single out this one nation and mention it in an article about man in a genocidal tone. I will now remove this example. If anybody wishes to return it, please do it in a way that is less humiliating for milions of Serbs who never did anything wrong to anybody. Thanks. --Dijxtra 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to please everyone, unfortunately. Explicit mention is necessary to confirm both of these: it is real, and it is done in the modern age that men are selectively targeted. --Vuo 13:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The top picture does NOT need to be nude

Add me to the list of people who thinks that the top photo does not need to be nude. The woman page doesn't show a nude woman until more than halfway down the page. Unless someone offers a good reason why nudity HAS to be up at the top, I am inclined to move it down. Let me explain: I am sitting in Starbucks just clicking through wikipedia, in a public place with little kids everywhere, and suddenly there's a picture of a naked man on my screen. I think this is inappropriate for three reasons:

1. I neither desired to see, nor expected to see, nudity on the first screen.
2. For people who would prefer that their little kids not see naked pictures, it's immature and disrespectful to force this on people. It jumps out and it doesn't need to.
3. Other people can see my screen and they will all wonder why I am looking at naked men. I do not want them speculating. Even the articles PENIS and VAGINA, for which one might obviously expect to see nudity on the first screen, pushes the naked genitalia pictures a few screens away.

I honestly did not expect to run into nudity when clicking on the word "man." The argument above that nudity is essential because this is a biology article is faulty for two reasons:

1. While THIS is a biology article, I don't think the word "man" should automatically link to the biology article. Why not link to the disambiguation page? "Man" means a lot more than just "adult male." So someone clicking on man doesn't necessarily expect to see nudity.
2. Assuming that nudity IS essential, because it is a biology article, no one has offered a good argument that nudity is essential on the first picture. Again, the woman page doesn't show a nude woman until more than halfway down the page.

Unless someone offers a good reason why nudity HAS to be up at the top, I am inclined to move it down. After extensive discussion of this issue on the woman:talk page, they have seemed to settle on having the nude image appear farther down the page. I think it's still up at the top here because a small but vocal minority insists on breaking down everyone's inhibitions; the silent majority probably agrees with me. Come on, let's self-regulate before Congress has another go at the Communications Decency Act. Ztrawhcs 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To respond to your points one by one: There is no requirement or expectation for this page to be parallel to Woman. It's a different article on a different subject. The nude photograph makes sense at the top because only a nude photograph shows a man's entire body in a neutral way, and it is generally expected of Wikipedia articles that images illustrating the general topic of an article appear at the top. (As I've stated before on this page, the biggest problem with the current picture is that it doesn't show his feet. Another problem with it is that the picture is not in color.) Any clothed picture would be inferior as the top picture because it wouldn't just show a man, it would show a man and his clothing, and also because it wouldn't show an entire man, but probably just his face and hands. Thus a clothed picture would show too much of an unrelated topic (Clothing) and not enough of the topic of this article (Man). I don't understand why you were surprised to see a photograph of a man at Man, nor do I understand why anyone would object to the possibility that children see a completely non-erotic, non-sexualized, and non-indecent photograph of a nude man. As someone wrote at Talk:Boy, "Children should be protected from prudes, not photography." Moving on to your next point, if Man were to become a disambig, what else should be on it besides the article about adult males? And it wouldn't change anything anyway, because it is discouraged to have links to disambig pages. If this article were renamed, say, Man (biology), then whatever page you found a link to Man on would soon be updated to link to Man (biology) instead, and we'd be right back where we started. User:Angr 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A clothed man is every bit as much a man as a nude one -- unless you are, indeed, of the opinion that clothes make the man.  ;-) It appears we had simultaneous talk-editing going on -- how do you respond to my argument that if neither penis nor vagina have nudity visible on the first screen, why should "man"? Surely we should aim for some sort of consistency, and I think the general consensus should be that we should strive to keep nudity off the first screen, so as to make Wikipedia a more acceptable resource in schools, libraries, etc. Don't you agree? Ztrawhcs 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A picture of a clothed man is predominantly a picture of clothing, with very little of the anatomy of the human male to be seen, and therefore not very useful in an article that's supposed to be about human males. If Penis and Vagina have their nude pictures further down the screen, I suppose that's because those articles are particularly prone to puerile vandalism on the one hand and prudish censorship on the other. I see no reason to emulate such behavior here. User:Angr 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's pretty specious reasoning. Show 100 people a picture of a man wearing pants and a shirt, ask them what the subject of the picture is, and they will respond with some variation of "It's a picture of a man." The same thing would happen if you showed them a picture of a man in a suit, a jacket, shorts and a t-shirt, an overcoat, or any other standard ensemble. As long as they are relatively plain and don't attract attention, the clothes are ignored. No one would look at a picture of a guy wearing clothes and say, "Oooh, look, it's a picture of clothing! And I guess there's a guy in there too. But look at that clothing!"

On the other hand, show 100 people a full frontal picture of a man without clothes, and they'll say, "Holy moly! It's a naked man!" and likely respond with some measure of amusement, aversion, befuddlement as to why you are showing them a picture of a naked man, or some other emotion. Do you see what I mean? A clothed picture evokes a neutral reaction; unexpected nudity tends to evoke an emotional reaction. And make no mistakes -- most people do not expect to see a naked man on the first screen of a Wikipedia entry. The very fact that you DO expect to see a "naked man" when typing in "man" puts you in the minority -- and, frankly, gives me pause.

Let's find a middle ground, shall we? Instead of a fully clothed man or a totally naked man, why can't the first picture be of a man wearing boxers or a speedo or something? Then, farther down, total nudity.

By the way, I disagree with your characterization of my desire to move nudity off the main screens as "prudish censorship." It's simply civility and protecting people from unexpected indecency. These things are not equivalent to prudishness OR censorship. If I were either of those, I would take issue with including nudity anywhere on the page. I simply want to put it a couple screens down. You haven't answered my question: Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be an acceptable resource in schools and libraries? Won't unexpected nudity undermine that goal? Ztrawhcs 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with your characterization of this picture as "indecent". It's perfectly decent. Your only arguments for moving it down the page are that other pages have done that too (which is both irrelevant and more a condemnation of other pages than of this one) and that the human body is something that should be hidden away for fear someone might actually see it, which is prudishness. And incidentally, moving the picture further down the page still wouldn't solve your Starbuck's problem: having opened the article on Man, you still could have scrolled down to read further, only to "expose" the image to other people in the cafe at that point rather than earlier. And to your question, this image is acceptable in schools and libraries, as it is not pornographic by any stretch of the imagination. I might be able to understand your position if it were a large picture, or if the genitals were prominent in the picture, or even if he had an erection, but as it is, it's just a small, decent, neutral picture of a nude man, suitable for viewing by all ages. User:Angr 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Angr. I don't see anything wrong with nudity in schools or libraries - pictures of naked people are found in both those places. This is an encyclopedia and I would expect simular treatment of the material from any reference book involving male biology. However, I don't think this is a very good picture for the reasons he/she mentioned (no color, not whole body) and I would personally rather have a color photo showing a man in underwear with his whole body visible than what we have right now. MarkBuckles (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking more and more about this the last few days. I think moving the nude picture down to the second screen would not deter from the content at all. Even though a nude man should not make anyone feel uncomfortable, it does, and perhaps we shouldn't throw it in readers' faces. I think the compromise of having a partially clothed man at the top and a nude man down the page would be reasonable. MarkBuckles (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to solve anything. The people who are unpleasantly surprised to see a nude man at the top of the screen will be just as unpleasantly surprised when they scroll down. User:Angr 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Angr, without a disclaimer or something, those people would be unpleasantly surprised when they scrolled down. Luckily, Wikipedia policies permit and even encourage disclaimers when content may make some people uncomfortable. Wikipedia guidelines (note the term of art) also state that images that might make people uncomfortable should be used "if and only if" they are necessary, and only when "no equally suitable alternatives are available." No one's arguing that it's unnecessary to include a naked picture -- I think it is -- but I think it wouldn't hurt anything to move it down.

Given the combined weight of the above policy and guideline, I think it would be a reasonable compromise to put a small disclaimer that there is full nudity on the page, and then include the full nudity lower down on the page. That would solve the problem about the unexpected content. Ztrawhcs 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is the disclaimer; nowhere does it permit or encourage separate disclaimers written into the body of an article. On the contrary, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates discourages the use of any disclaimers within articles except {{Spoiler}}; otherwise the general disclaimer linked to at the bottom of every page is sufficient. Notice that other articles with potentially offensive images, like Woman, Penis, and Vagina also have no disclaimers warning viewers about upcoming images. Per Wikipedia:Profanity, "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers [not "that might make people uncomfortable" as you wrote] should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate [not "only if they are necessary", as you wrote], and no equally suitable alternatives are available." First, I find it mind-boggling that any reasonable person would find the image at the top of this page "offensive, profane, or obscene" by any stretch of the imagination; but accepting for the moment that it is so, omitting it will absolutely cause the article to be less informative, relevant, and accurate. You're right; moving the picture down wouldn't hurt anything. But it wouldn't help anything, either. User:Angr 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, generally disclaimers are discouraged. But most of the reasons given don't apply:

• Redundant with the Disclaimer link at the end of every page.

But if the purpose of the disclaimer is to warn people about upcoming content, then a disclaimer link at the end of the page does no good.

• Hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer (how would you define an "adult article", for instance?).

It's not hard to define which articles might have a "Nudity" disclaimer. (Not that I'm proposing one for site-wide use, but just for this article right now.)

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.

Moving an image down one screen is not censorship.

• The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits.

Interesting, but not really applicable here. Also, § 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Wikipedia anyway.

• By the time you see them, it's too late — the article has already been loaded.

That's the whole point -- by putting it on the top, and then having the naked guy on the next screen, it's doing its job.

I really don't think moving the picture down will hurt the accuracy or informative nature of the article. If it ends up hurting it somehow, we can always move it back. Okay? Ztrawhcs 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I put in the Vitruvian Man but I couldn't for the life of me figure out a good disclaimer that didn't sound kind of weird. But I think a lot of the problem was the shock value at having the guy's penis right there up on the top. Let's try it like this for a while and see how it works out. Ztrawhcs 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole image selection looks much more natural now. Vetruvian Man seems a fitting lead picture, is nude, and includes the whole body. The progression to the nude photographic needs no disclaimer. It appears in the biology section - which seems most appropriate. I think this is a good solution. MarkBuckles (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man is perfect. I only wish there was a Vitruvian woMan Cilstr 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the top picture should be a nude, uncircumcised man with a beard, as this is man's natural state. The genitals are by far the distinguishing features when looking at a man as opposed to a woman, and if you are going to have articles on "man" and "woman," the pictures should clearly reflect the visible differences. Having the vitruvian man is nice, in that it depicts what some consider a platonic ideal of man, but I see no reason to have a diagram rather than a photograph as the first picture.Lamont A Cranston 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me just ask a simple question. Why are there two pictures of naked women at the woman page and no picture of a naked man at the man page? Shouldn't these pages be related and have the same structure? You are discussing a nude picture of a man, but I can't find it. The top picture on the woman page is a nude woman. The same standards should be applied here, or the nude woman should be removed. There is actually a poll on this matter on the woman discussion page. We could start one here too? Why not?

What´s the meaning?

Well, it seens like everybody in the rest of the world is ugly, but "we USA guys are just this..."!!!! User:Elviajeropaisa I prefer this one:

File:AmericanHorse.jpg