Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 2

message: The meaning that should be documented in priority is the current meaning of the word, as accepted by most people. You may then proceed with some discussion about the history of the concept, including in Ancient Greece. David.Monniaux 19:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Current meaning

message: Following a request by WHEELER on the Village pump, I have merged the histories of this article and its talk page that were lost in the copy/paste move back from Effeminacy (classical vice). What follows is the content of the talk page that was misplaced. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged bits

message: The words "fruitcake," "poof" and "fag" don't necessarily mean effeminate, except in the sense that some people consider all gay men effeminate.  And since when does "wanker" have anything to do with effeminacy?  Exploding Boy 01:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
:All things gay = effeminate in slang. Maybe things are different where you are, but I talk to people alot (I'm a very outgoing and social guy) and I would say most of the time these words are used, it is ment to focus on effeminate, rather than participation in acts of homosexuality. That is something that needs alot more focus within the article, the place where homosexuality/gay culture and Effeminacy are seen to be in union. Is there any factual basis for this societal view? Why is this so integral to the meaning of Effeminacy if not? How are we to explain any of this to WHEELER if its not explained well in the article? In that area I would say his complaints are legitimate. Sam [Spade] 04:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Aristotle coined the words "energeia" (energy), "ethike" (ethics), and "meteorologica" (meteorology). Also see http://ephilosopher.com/print.php?sid=372. Hyacinth 05:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Aristotle thought of language as changable

message: These are not different words, w different meanings. People have ment the same thing when they used these (and earlier) terms in many languages. There have always been effeminate males. Macho males have always disparaged them. When two men engaged in homosexual acts (then and now) they often acted out certain roles based on one of them being more "effiminant" than the other. As homosexuality became less popular, there came to be an assumption that effeminate males were homosexual, and macho males were not. This has yet to be proven by any evidence (that I am aware of) and yet it exists as a popular opinion, particularly among the macho jock clique. In ancient greek times they had an opposite view on this particular, feeling that men who had too much sex w women became effeminate, and that a mans semen gave a boy wisdom or "manliness". Clearly this is not a popular opinion today, but in reality it is one of the only distinctions between the classical view and the modern view of Effeminacy. Sam [Spade] 21:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: effeminacy as a gender role I believe that should fall under effete.  I think they are confusing the term effete with effeminacy.  Effeminacy is a vice, a character trait, a temperment but not a lisp, clothes, lipstick and wearing female underwear or transvestitism.  It may be used in a slang way but not in a technical way.  These people here want to take the slang meaning and turn it into the technical meaning.  Where the technical meaning should be the term effete for them.  Effeminacy in the Greek, Christian, or Victorian Usage nowhere means gender roles at all.  Does not at all. Read St. Thomas Carefully.WHEELER 15:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  effeminacy as a vice / effeminacy as a "gender role" 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The flip side of the effeminite = gay idea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Masculinity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Waylon Smithers]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Maxisdetermined 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional effeminates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Affected" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Affinity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thomas Jefferson's statement not about effeminacy. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "That's so gay" 

message: "Today, it is not considered very unusual for a man to be concerned with or interested in his physical appearance and attire, though this was not the case up until very recently."
I sincerely doubt this.  The nineteenth-century aphorism "the clothes make the man" alone seems to belie it.  Since that entire section's already marked for lack of citations, I'm taking that sentence out.  Twin Bird (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This statement seems very unlikely. 

message: The article says that "language and literature" are "academic disciplines generally more associated with women." I don't know where this idea comes from. I've never heard these things attributed to sex, except maybe by homophobes who also don't like books. I'm taking it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ten987 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language/literature not effeminate? 

message: Between history & current Japanese cultural ideals, there's tons to be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan. 

message: This only covers effeminacy from an aesthetic stand point, but doesn't really cover the spiritual or metaphysical. For instance the so called "Enlightenment" is essential from start to end an all out attack on spiritual masculinity and inequality. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiritual

message: The use of the word "traditional" implies that the word is used primarily to refer to historical models of feminity, which is not the case. Modern usage of the word effeminate connotes nontraditional stereotypes as well as traditional ones-- traditionally, in the United States, males were allowed to wear shorter-cut clothing than females, whereas now that is often labelled as an effeminate gesture. 98.255.1.188 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word change in the first sentence 

message: This whole article is an eyesore. I know the postmodern existentialists are the majority on this site but come on, the amount of quotation marks in the article is ridiculous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.91.6 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyesore 

message: Check the picture's file caption. Also note the developed areolae and surrounding breast tissue.
--94.8.51.85 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article picture is actually of a woman 

message: The article Sissy says:
:Sissy [...] is a pejorative term for a boy or man who violates or does not meet the standard male gender role. Generally, sissy implies a lack of courage, strength, coordination, testosterone, male libido, and stoic calm, which have traditionally been important to the male role. A man might also be considered a sissy for being interested in traditionally feminine hobbies or employment (e.g., being fond of fashion), displaying effeminate behavior (e.g. using hair products or displaying limp wrists), being unathletic, or being homosexual.
Note how the second sentence lists stereotypically masculine qualities, and characterises a "sissy" through the absence of these; thus, the concept is defined negatively here. On the other hand, the third sentence lists traits (apart from "unathletic", which seems redundant to "lack of strength and coordination") which are considered overtly feminine or female-coded in our culture and typifies a "sissy" through the presence of these traits; this is a positive definition.
I would term the first cluster of traits "implicit effeminacy", and the second cluster "explicit effeminacy". Note how implicit effeminacy is not even recognised in the definition used in this article. I feel that the distinction is important because it is possible to be (perceived as) the either but not the other. Children and teenagers who are (perceived as) male but implicitly effeminate are common and usually called "nerdy" or "geeky". Children and teenagers who are implicitly and explicitly effeminate seem to be much rarer and usually classified as "gender variant", while the first group is usually not perceived thus.
The third possibility, having "masculine" traits but also "feminine" characteristics or interests, would seem to be decidedly rare in children and teenagers, though I suspect it would be perceived as gender variance, but less stigmatised and more respected, and described as eccentric. In adults, this may be seen among artists and other creatives, and especially in aristocrats and subcultures who emulate them, such as (some) dandies, fops and goths. (In fact, aristocrats were probably the original embodiment of this combination, as they were so privileged and trained in "manly" behaviours that they could afford otherwise stigmatised "unmanly" traits, and they might be perceived as "well-rounded" and admired for "daring" to display overtly feminine traits, and even sensitivity.) Clearly these groups are all treated distinctly differently.
This is obviously my original research, but the observation that there are two decidedly different aspects of effeminacy – a negative and a positive sense – strikes me as utterly trivial, so trivial that I cannot fathom why it has seemingly not been made before. One should think it is mentioned in the literature after all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implicit and explicit effeminacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Effeminacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928131647/http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html to http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Oy, where to begin? I realize effeminacy is often conflated with homosexuality, but I would like to widen the scope of this article.
However, after reviewing several of the threads on this talk page, I realize this may be a Herculean task, e.g. how is it possible to admire Plato, Socrates and Spartans, yet bristle at homosexuality and this entry being "too gay" and possibly anti-Christian? Hello, cognitive dissonance. So given that many of us, myself included, have strong notions of masculinity and what constitutes masculine behavior, is it even possible to make this entry more neutral POV? I'm willing to try if other contributors will help--greatly. It may take awhile, but I would like to see this page approach the level of this excellent article on gender roles. Who's with me? Anyone? Kinkyturnip (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there some way to work together to improve this entry? 

message: This article is about effeminacy in Greece:  Malakos/malakia. We have a content fork it seems. Malakia was not deleted (no consensus) so it should be reviewed and possibly merged into Effeminacy — Iadmc♫talk   01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Both articles are long. There is already a mention of this on the page of "effeminacy". No to merger. An Article should have one purpose on its page. The purpose of "effeminacy" is about sex and the homosexual lifestyle, Malakos is a classical subject that deals with the subject as a character vice. Two different purposes. WHEELER (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed, given the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Malakia]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Effeminacy and Gay Men 

message: To this day in the United States Marine Corps only female Marines are allowed to carry an umbrella. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umbrellas 

message: I was shocked to find when I searched for "effeminacy" that the (only) picture on this page is of transvestite drag queens at a Gay Pride Parade!  Are you actually suggesting that drag queens are the best exemplars of effeminacy you can come up with?  Seems like an overly-extreme example (a man who publicly wears women's clothing) and doesn't at all allude to the many more subtle nuances associated with the word (speech patterns, hair styles, music, history of the derogation of the term, Stuart Smalley-androgynous type characters and hetero-metrosexuals, etc.)  Please think of updating the photo so that those outside of your community can also lay claim to and feel comfortable using this page?  Because to be honest, I don't think effeminacy equates to just being gay or wearing women's clothing.  Thanks123.225.176.110 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to what you think. But you can do better. 86.187.164.94 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effeminacy = Drag Queens (photo)??  We Can Do Better! 

message: Troisi et al (2020) explored the possibility of a link between EDC exposure and sexual orientation.[20] They compared the self-identified sexual orientation of almost 900 male and over 2000 female adults who were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) before birth with a control group of almost 900 males and over 1000 females (most of the subjects were white Americans in their early 60s). They found that, compared to the control group, males prenatally exposed to DES were about 40% more likely to identify as non-heterosexual (i.e., gay or bisexual). Conversely, females exposed to DES prenatally were about 40% less likely to identify as non-heterosexual. The sample was not large enough to determine whether prenatal DES exposure increased the likelihood of transgender identity.
From the paper:
In summary, the findings showed that women who were prenatally exposed to DES were significantly less likely to report being lesbian or bisexual. In contrast, while men who were prenatally exposed to DES were somewhat more likely to report being gay or bisexual, the estimate was very imprecise and compatible with chance. Finally, very few individuals reported currently thinking of themselves as a gender different from that assigned at birth in either the exposed or unexposed group.
The paper does not at all support the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.233.63 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have serious concerns with the section. I have removed it from the article. ––FormalDude  talk 04:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The study linked in "The effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals" has the opposite conclusion that stated in the text 

message: This article is really uncomfortably fetishistic to read as an effeminate. Why is so much of it dedicated to ancient Greek pederasty? Like how is that even relevant? 2601:243:700:BA00:D93A:9D4C:9109:777B (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the Talk archive now I can see that it was largely written by people with a biased, stigmatic view the subject matter. This article is a problem lol 2601:243:700:BA00:D93A:9D4C:9109:777B (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh what 

message: I advice you to add information from R. A. Hoskin works. Acc to her, effeminacy is a problematic femmephobic word. Reprarina (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of the conception 

message: Long ago, but not long after coming out, I arrived at "It's a contradiction to be a homosexual and adopt or ape the gender style of the opposite sex" as one of the apodictisms of that time of life. At that level effeminancy and its' lesbian butch counterpart have a commonality and implications but not here. Because reasons. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reductio