Talk:Effeminacy

Archive

Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 1, Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 2, Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 3, Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 4

Kinados / Malakos

This article is based on Kinados. The classical article is based on Malakos. Two different words that mean two different things.WHEELER 00:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "Rome was humbled beneath the effeminate luxury of Oriental despotism." Gibbon Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776. I. 148.
• "In a slothfull peace both courages will effeminate, and manners corrupt." Bacon Greatness Kingd., Ess., 1612. 239. (12)

Malakos refers to being soft like metal is softened. It doesn't deal with gender roles or sex. Being soft is what a woman is but men being soft is that they are wishy-washy. I have met many men in the construction industry but they were too effeminate to get the job done right. They did it speedily just to get the job done and over with. This is what effeminate means. Your meaning doesn't portray this. Aristotle compares it to luxury and entertainment. Women are soft but they are not effeminate. Because they are soft already. Effeminate only applies to men who are too lazy or so interested in luxury, fine foods, and seek too much in entertainment. That is being effeminate. It is not a gender role. It is the deficiency of the soul.WHEELER 15:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is what I have been able to find so far (from article)::"Greek historian Plutarch recounts that Periander, the tyrant of Ambracia, asked his "boy" (beloved), "Aren't you pregnant yet?" in the presence of other people, causing the boy to kill him in revenge for being treated as if a woman (Amatorius 768F)."

"Greek politician Aiskhines attributed Demosthenes nickname Batalos (arse) to his "unmanliness and kinaidiā and frequently commented on his "unmanly and womanish temper", even criticising his soft clothing. (Dover, 1989)"

"Roman Scipio Aemilianus questioned one of his opponents: "For the kind of man who adorns himself daily in front of a mirror wearing perfume; whose eyebrows are shaved off; who walks around with plucked beard and thighs; who when he was a young man reclined at banquets next to his lover, wearing a long-sleeved tunic; who is fond of men as he is of wine: can anyone doubt that he has done what cinaedi are in the habit of doing?" (Aulus Gellius, 6.12.5, cited/translated by Williams, 1999)"

"Roman orator Quintilian described, "the plucked body, the broken walk, the female attire," as "signs of one who is soft [mollis] and not a real man." (Institutes 5.9.14, cited/translated by Richlin, 1993)"

Hyacinth 19:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I notice that none are actually Greek texts. Some are second hand quotes but most are Latin. The way Socrates and Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas are using their terms is that effeminacy affects a man's duty. Effeminacy here in the Latin texts is real feminine character of fine clothes. In Socratic and Aristotleian sense is what prevents a man from doing his duty. Malakos is one who is a coward. Not that he is dressed as a woman. We have here two completely different modes of thought. And from the sense of the Latins, I don't see gender roles in the modern sense but them condemning a man who is not being a man.WHEELER 14:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I will reiterate a point I have made several times (without any reply from you). You cannot insist that malakos has nothing to do with "gender roles" -- it has everything to do with what it meant in ancient Greek society to "be a man". The fact that you believe that role is very different from a modern role does not mean that the term has "nothing to do with gender roles". Are we agreed on that point? Please respond, rather than continuing to ignore my contention. Jwrosenzweig 16:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, he says above: "Women are soft but they are not effeminate. Because they are soft already. Effeminate only applies to men who are too lazy or so interested in luxury, fine foods, and seek too much in entertainment." Hyacinth 20:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Hyacinth, I am sorry about my reactions. I do not read texts with the word "penetration" in it much less classical journals or books. It unnerved me greatly, because I am aware of what is going on.

To Jwrosenweig, I figured it out last night. What has happened is that these authors re-invented the wheel. The proper term for your gender roles is *"Virtue"*. Virtue means "to be a man". Virtue is those qualities that the aristocratic Greeks sought to imbue their boys with. These ideas passed into the general population hence into Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy and into the Bible. The old and classical term has been the word VIRTUE. Your term "gender roles" is a new term coined (I don't know why) but I suppose that they were (A) ignorant of the term Virtue and its meaning or (B) wanted to create a new language that divorced itself from the Classical/Christian tradition. These people have reinvented the wheel. The proper and academic and professional term is the word VIRTUE. It is the excellence of the characteristics of a man. It comes from the Greek Arete (paideia) and in technical Greek it is ithica arete. Malakos is in Greek "kakia" a vice.WHEELER 16:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See: sexism and misogyny. Hyacinth 23:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From a member on the Catholic Message Board I don't know whether the articles should be separate, but the most common academic opinion is that associating personality-characteristics with sexual identity is a modern idea, meaning its origins are in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Of course, we live today with highly defined personality-codes that supposedly indicate sexual orientation. So you're correct that the ancients wouldn't necessarily have understood 'effeminate' to indicate homosexuality.

The prevailing idea is that the Greeks and other pre-modern cultures saw homosexuality as an act, totally disassociated from the identity of a person. From that perspective, it'd be a mistake to say that 'effeminate' traits indicated homosexual identity to a Greek. They had no notion of a 'homosexual' as a particular type of person, as we have today. One of the reasons for this is that since the Christian era and esp. since the reformation, Western culture has shifted its focus from the external acts of people to the internal life of conscience and identity. Some people disagree with this and point to Achilles's sulking in his tent as an example of conscience taking precedence over actions in the evaluation of a person.

My hunch is that the 'academics' you're coresponding with know these issues very well.

One problem with malakos is that the word means 'soft' in a lot of contexts, including as an insult. This is true even in modern Greek, I think. In the new, classical Greek edition of Harry Potter, Malfoi is going to be renamed Μάλακος, which is evidence that the translator has no intetion of using malakos to show homosexuality. I don't know whether this is also true in the modern Greek edition. End of other's commentaryWHEELER 16:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Hyacinth 21:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

English is a terrible language. It is not comparable to Greek. Greek is a very scientific language. It has deeper varied meanings to their words. English is a late language and not a pure one. Just because the English strove coined the term effeminacy for several things does not make it a technical language nor an exact translation of the word malakos. Virtue is not a gender role.

Werner Jaeger writes, "The qualities which usually came under the name aretai, "excellences" or "virtues", in the Greek polis—courage, prudence, justice, piety—are excellences of the soul just as health, strength, and beauty are excellences of the body. That is, they are the appropriate powers of particular parts of the soul or their co-operation cultivated to the highest pitch of which man's nature is capable." Paideia, Vol II, pg 44.

The origin of the word is the Greek word malakos. Their usage comes from the Bible and then the Latin Bible and Plato's writings. The Victorian English concept is the Greek classical concept.WHEELER 15:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, this is the English Wikipedia. Like the language or not, its definition, not the Greek definition, is the most important here. Therefore, while it is certainly permissible and even wise to discuss the word's classical origins, it is not acceptable to ignore the word's meanings here today. Furthermore, you write that "the English...coined the term effeminacy for several things" -- then let us describe all of those things in this article. Hyacinth made an important point that your definition of virtue is sexist in discriminating against women -- are you going to react to that? And where is the evidence that virtue has this meaning? It certainly isn't part of the word's etymology! You seem to believe that, because the Greeks wanted their boys to grow up virtuous means that virtue is defined as "to be a man". But this is no more convincing than my claiming that, because I want my tea to be strong, my definition of strong is "to be like good tea". And whether or not you think "gender role" is a worse term than virtue, it seems to me that you're admitting that effeminacy does have something to do with the roles defined for men and women by their culture. Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I must correct myself -- the English word "virtue" is descended from the Latin vir which means "man". Virtue, however, has not been associated with one specific gender for centuries in the English language, and I see no reason to use it here when the phrase "gender role" is obviously more descriptive. I apologize, however, for my mistake about the word's etymology. Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

English is not a terrible language; if ye forgo the smirching (pollution in Latish) from other tonguedoms (languages), then it's also a very knowensome (scientific) tonguedom. First of all, maker (refabricate) English sheer (pure), and find fitting (suitable) words for "effeminate", such as womanish, girlish, womanly, girly, wifish, soft, softy, softish, soppy, soppish, weak, weakish, weakly, ... I call you down (challenge) to show how Greek is better than English for this onset (purpose). lysdexia 06:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "I might think that this is all homosexual propaganda and are any of these authors, classical experts?WHEELER 14:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Please note that my latest source, K.J. Dover, professor at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in addition to having written the book on Greek homosexuality, Greek Homosexuality (1989), he also states in the preface, "If I followed my inclination I would replace 'heterosexual' by 'sexual' and treat what is called 'homosexuality' as a subdivision of the 'quasi-sexual' (or 'pseudo-sexual'; not 'parasexual')." Hyacinth 22:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Mr. Jwrosezweig, Orthodox Christianity along with Orthodox Roman Catholicism along with Orthodox Fundamentalist Protestantism has always been sexist and "discriminating against women". We are not liberals. Orthodox/Fundamentalist/Traditionalist Christianity do not operate on your thought patterns. We follow Scripture. You seek to destroy us and change our language to suit you. Why don't you change your language to suit us. See, you have a double standard. You want me to conform to you yet you do not want to conform to us. My position is 2500 years old. All of sudden you want 20 years of homosexual research to do away with 2500 years of meaning. The Catholic and Orthodox and Fundamentalist Protestants are not going to see it your way. Never in a million years. NPOV can't not answer this conundrum. It does not take into account the Cultural War that is going on. What possible connection does St Thomas definition of I Cor 6.9 do with gender roles. NOTHING.WHEELER 14:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks were sexist and discriminating against women. So you want to transport American liberal ideals back onto the Classical Greeks and their meaning of the terms? NO. You are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. You are trying to make a cat into a dog. Can't happen. Korpios made a disambiguation page. All I am doing is perserving the classical meaning of Malakos which is not the meaning that Hyacinth wants to make it into. How about Effeminacy (malakos) or Effeminacy (Aristotelian). Because the Aristotelian meaning is very different from this article. Please see below on all the differeing Greek words.

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 01:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lets focus

WHEELER is at least partially right, that the article should not overfocus on homosexuality and alternative sexuality, quasi/pseudo/para/whatever... but it doesn't. It actually focuses too much on the classical definition, which while insightful and interesting, simply does not deserve this over-riding level of focus. Does the "Classical Western definition of Malakos" deserve an article? Maybe (Wiki is not paper, and I support vanity articles as well) but this isn't (and/or shouldnt be) it. Lets stop wasting all this time and energy and make this article a good one on what the word "effeminacy" means today, and how it is used. Sam [Spade] 23:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No Sam. What a modern definition is about rewriting the definition of two thousand years. I Cor 6.9 is still in use for the Christian Churches. In this "*modern*" definition will it include the meaning that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have ALWAYS applied to I Cor 6.9. NO it will not. If you want to make a modern definition of the term be my guest. I have no complaints. Do what ever you want. But that modern definition will have nothing to do with the classical sense of the word. Hyacinth and Jwrosenzweig want to redefine the classical term to their modern proclivities. I tell you Sam the Catholic Church will not accept that. These people hate Christianity and so these people are going to rewrite the term according to themselves?????? What about the Christians that use this website?? Screw them. uh?

Do you want me to move the classical definition into the body of this article? Do you want all the meanings combined in one article? What is wrong with an Effeminacy disambiguation page? One for the classical Christian sense and one for you liberals? You can't take Black and white and mix them together. I agree with Korpios whose original thing was to make an disambiguation page.WHEELER 14:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For all the Greek words that mean effeminacy and it is not all that simple. I am trying to get "Greek" language experts to help here. Please see: Image:Effeminacy.jpg. WHEELER 15:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When one types in the word "*Activism*" One gets all the following: Animal rights activism
Anticonsumerist activism
Anti-corporate activism
Anti-racist activism
Civil and social disobedience
Civil disobedience
Culture jamming
Demonstrations
Economic activism
Environmental activism
Fair trade
Guerrilla communication
Hacktivism
Libertarian socialism
Nationalist activism
Nonviolence
Sniggling
Student activism
Tactical Frivolity
Voluntary simplicity
Youth activism

Look at all these articles on Activism. Let's follow the same rules here. Make all these into one article and I will agree to make every defintion of effeminacy into one article. We are being a little hypocritical in trying to make effeminacy into one article.WHEELER 15:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The word "Malakos" is still used in Modern Greek to mean "soft". It has no sexual conotations. Now if the there is a vowel changed like to "Malakia" which is also used in modern Greek, it means masturbator. It is akin to onanism.WHEELER 14:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The flip side of the effeminite = gay idea

"The term is used to describe feminine behaviour, demeanor, and appearance. These judgements largely involve anti-gay stereotypes, and a positive correlation presumed between effeminacy and gay men."

While it carries on to talk about the school of thought that this correlation doesn't really exist, there's also the school of thought that, moreover, such correlation is absurd. While effeminacy may seem an attempt to attract men, to me it would seem an attempt to attract straight men, which I'd doubt was what they intend. -- Smjg 16:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What? Who thinks that effeminacy is "an attempt to attract men"? Why would effeminacy attract straight men? What does this have to do with the above quote? Hyacinth 10:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased?

While I acknowledge that it is just a citation, the lists of "traditional masculine traits" in the introduction paints a very negative picture of masculinity, in the sense of it being portrayed as not having any positive traits at all. Mostly, I consider "to "go for it" even when reason and fear suggest otherwise", "no sissy stuff", "be a big wheel" and similar expressions from the second list to be arbitrary and purposefully demeaning.

The rest of the article is informative, but I believe the author of the introduction had some rather obvious POV against the concept of masculinity in general. I argument that a POV citation just as much compromises the neutrality of an article as does original research. No one would conceivably add citations from "Mein Kampf" to an article on racism, so the question is what to do about them. Simply delete both, only the second list, or add another list with less sexist undertones?

What do you think? --Stephan, 4th February 2006

First, a citation to "Mein Kampf" would seem appropriate in the article about racism, as an example of racism, at least. Or as a balancing POV to anti-racist POVs.

Secondly, stop questioning my intentions and the intentions of other Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Lastly, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have a problem with the sources cited, please find a source which lists more positive traits for masculinity. Hyacinth 10:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, someone is feeling stepped on his toes here... I take it was you who added the lists? I'm sorry then, I did not mean to attack you at all. After reading the article on personal attacks, though, I think I certainly have the right to question whether or not you are trying to promote a point here, which would be against the NPOV policy also.

I think the first list is ok, it's neutral and gives both traditional virtues and flaws associated with masculinity, but the second gives a distinct appearance of sexism, and has an insulting tone to it. I agree, the comment about "Mein Kampf" was wrong. What I meant to say was that citations with propagandist undertones should not be presented as facts. Maybe a simple restructuring and some personal information on the authors would help?

I don't have the latter, but I'm doing a modification to the article, creating a subpoint named "Opinions on maculinity" (maybe there's a better term), and highlighting the authors names. That should be acceptable, but I'm still kind of concerned about the propaganda part. This should not become too one-sided, after all. I'll look into some alternative sources, maybe something more recent. --TheOtherStephan 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some quotes:

• "The 'problem' with masculinity is not masculinity itself, but how it is focused." Whitehead, Stephen (2002). The Masculinities Reader. ISBN 0745626890.
• "Abolishing hegemonic masculinity risks abolishing, along with the violence and hatred, the positive culture produced around hegemonic masculinity. This includes hero stories from the Ramayana and the Iliad to the Twilight of the Gods; participatory pleasures such as neighbourhood baseball; abstract beauty in fields such as pure mathematics; ethics of sacrifice on behalf of others. That is a heritage worth having, for girls and women as well as boys and men. (As the rich heritage of feminine culture is worth having, for boys and men as well as girls and women.)" Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities, p.233. ISBN 0520246985.

Hyacinth 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Positive traits associated with machismo include assertiveness or standing up for rights, responsibility/selflessness, general code of ethics, and sincerity and/or respect. Source: Mirande, Alfredo (1997). Hombres y Machos: Masculinity and Latino Culture, p.72-74. ISBN 0813331978. Hyacinth 12:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To put it shortly: Very useful quotes, but why did you revert the changes without giving at least a reason for doing so? I still say nonrepresentative personal opinions on masculinity (and those lists are really nothing other than that) should not be presented as facts, so WHY do you disagree with creating a new subpoint? I try to do this politely, so maybe you could too. --TheOtherStephan 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your changes did not follow Wikipedia format. Why bold the author's names? Why add a redundant section heading which says that the lists attributed to the authors are those authors' opinions?

The lists are not one persons opinion, but three people's, all sociologists (or social scientists).

You assert that they are not representative, but you have yet to find counterexamples.

You also assert that both lists are "very negative" and "not having any positive traits at all". Have you actually read the lists? Do you consider "brave", "contributes to society", and "moral, trustworthy" as very negative traits? Hyacinth 10:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Masculinity

This article currently contains a large section of information about masculinity, which is off-topic here and perhaps better suited to that article. I've removed it. --Marysunshine 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Waylon Smithers?

He just caught my eye in the list of fictional characters and I frankly don't think he's exactly effeminate. Gay maybe, but if it weren't for the obvious references to his attraction to Mr. Burns, I'd have figured he was just another guy.--Foot Dragoon 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"That's so gay"

some individuals may refer to a non-living object as "gay," to indicate that it is seen to be effeminate.

When someone says that something is "gay" in this way, in my experiance at least, they don't mean that it's effeminate, but that it's bad or uncool. In fact, many times when children who use the word "gay" in this way don't even know that it means homosexual, and instead just think it means that something's bad. This shows how kids pick up the idea that something is bad without knowing what it actually is.

I believe the association has maybe one more step: That it is seen as effeminate, and effeminate is seen as "bad". Though originally, the 'effeminate = bad' association flipped so that anything bad could be pejoratively reduced to "effeminate" so then become a statement that because it is first disliked, it is labeled as effeminate which is presumed to bad. So in essence it is saying it is "bad = effeminate = bad" 67.5.156.26 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional effeminates

The section of this article titled "fictional effeminates" does not cite any sources and is a list of fictional characters whom someone considers to be effeminate. The list seems problematic to me and I suspect that many of the characters on the list were identified as "effeminate" by no one other than a Wikipedia editor, which violates Wikipedia's No original research policy. I have tagged the section with an Original Research tag and it is my opinion that the entire section should be removed, or citations provided to defend each entry on the list. Andrea Parton 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Maxisdetermined 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Affected"

I take issue with the word "affected" in the list of "behavior noncompliant with conventional masculinity": it indicates that men speaking at a higher pitch and/or with a certain diction have artificially rendered their voices. I'm not sure it's our place to say that, and I've changed this entry in the list to something at least slightly more neutral, which still links to the "Gay lisp" article. To be honest, this list as a whole is problematic. Where's a single source? Have we compiled here anything other than the impressions of one or more editors? Maxisdetermined 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Effeminacy and Gay Men

This article needs a lot of work, and this section is particularly troubling. On a technical note, the non-Wiki-standard method of citation is difficult to read, and hyperlinking of sources, where available, would help. I'm also wary of the current validity of these sources, considering that all except for Levine's 1998 Gay Macho and the ones concerning an apparently recent term, effeminaphobia, are rather old, a few predating APA policy change/beginnings of acceptance of homosexuality by the body of social science. I think the use of lengthy, over-40-year-old quotes -- quotes that contain language such as "an effeminate caricature of himself" and use an all-inclusive "[t]hey" to speak of homosexuals in general, nor just those ... er ... studied in Stearn's pulp commentary The Sixth Man -- to support an argument should set off red flags for readers and editors alike. And in the first paragraph, what's the use of saying that "[x] percent of homosexual/heterosexual men deviated from the norm" if we haven't established just what "norm" these studies considered? After all, some of these studies may have been outdated by the social change of 30 years, and the only working criteria we have for effeminacy have, for all practical purposes, been determined by a Wikipedia editor. Maxisdetermined 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Harvard citation is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia, as per WP:CITE. Do you know of any more recent scolarship relating to effeminacy?-Malkinann 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Effeminacy and sexual orientation do not really have anything to do with each other so this article should be deleted. --198.51.130.254 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Affinity

"Affinity" links to a disambiguation page, but I'm not sure where it's supposed to link to. My best guess is Affinity (canon law) Can anyone clarify?

The word malakos, #3120 in the Greek Dictionary of The New Testament of James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to The Bible translates: "of uncertain affinity". Ziiv 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's statement not about effeminacy.

The original Roman sentiments, being that they mentioned manhood with the ability to bare pain, specifically related to the concept of the opposite relating to effeminacy, but Jefferson's statements make no such correlation. At least, in the quotation given. The mention should be removed, as it doesn't relate to any view of whether bearing of pain relates to males or females whatsoever. Including it because of the Roman sentiments constitutes a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Nagelfar (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)