Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 2

Current meaning

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)

Merged bits

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)

Dear Hyacinth

Dear Hyacinth, I did original research of classical and biblical texts as far as possible. I have not read the books you have put up. Please explain WHAT CLASSICAL AND BIBLICAL texts did they use to support their theory of what Malakos means. I have put up all the quotes from Classical documents that I could find. Please do so. Right now, YOU Have not put any classical or biblical reference to what your meaning is??? Please do so or else I might think that this is all homosexual propaganda and are any of these authors, classical experts?WHEELER 14:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed why classical and biblical sources mattered. Was it the OED definition that didn't mention "classical" or "biblical" once, or was it something else? Snowspinner 16:48, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Again, please see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, therefore your content from your original research is not superior to my content, it is inappropriate and belongs elsewhere (for instance a peer reviewed journal, which would be much more rewarding).

Secondly, "homosexual propaganda" (a POV) is fine (in the correct NPOV context), you have more than indicated that your contributions are "Classical" and Christian propoganda (another POV, also fine in the correct NPOV context). However, you may find this of interest: User:Hyacinth/Full disclosure.

Thirdly, you can not simply dismiss my evidence because you do not believe in it, you failed to add the origin of "malakos", so I am unsure why you feel you need complain that I have. I'm am simply helping to improve a good article that you created.

Lastly, I would appreciate if you quite insulting "moderns" and, by implication, myself, Korpios, Snowspinner, Exploding Boy, and Sam Spade. There is no need to discuss us or "moderns" as that has little to do with wikipedia. With that warning, I will interpret continued comments regarding moderns or myself as a slight personal attack.

Hyacinth 20:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Look Malakos is a Classical Greek Term defined by the Greeks and has no sexual connotations whatsoever.

I have placed many references from the bible and from classical texts that clearly show the meaning of the word. I am asking you to bring up where Malakos has any sexual connotations in classical texts. You have not done so. I have. What you have put in here has no bearing on the meaning of effeminacy nor to the word Malakos. Your references I think are SPURIOUS. You have not put in one reference from a classical source to prove anything you have purported to say. Please do so or I will revert all. Malakos does not refer to anything about gender roles at all. NOTHING.WHEELER 13:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What on earth does Malakos have to do with effeminacy? Or, more accurately, why should an article on effeminacy focus on Malakos? Snowspinner 14:09, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

This is my point exactly. Where do you thing the concept and word entered into Western vocabulary and culture? From the word Malakos and nothing else. Malakos is in the bible and the Bible carried this meaning of the greeks to all parts of Western culture. Latins also have a name for it called mollites. This meaning has been the same for 2500 years. St. Thomas explains the meaning of this term. Malakos/Mollites is where the word effeminacy comes from. So I don't know why or how you dismiss this word malakos.WHEELER 15:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because this page isn't Malakos. Snowspinner 15:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aristotle's opinion is a quite clear example of a point-of-view (POV). Wikipedia, however is not by Aristotle. Once again, please see: NPOV.

As you have once again seen it necessary to question other users, personally, rather than article content, I now feel it necesary to submit a request for comment on the article content, before we forget about it entirely. This means that I am asking other Wikipedia users to review the content of the article and assist with consensus.

Please refrain from personally attacking users again, see: Wikipedia:Policy, specifically, "Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia," and, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party," and, "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is," and, "Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view, not to exclude unconventional views. We are not trying to write a "single correct version of the truth." [emphasis mine] Hyacinth 19:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page was created for classical and biblical scholarship. This page is about malakos because Paul Shorey who translated Plato's Republic for Loeb and H. Rackman who translated the nicomachean ethics and Politics for Loeb translates the word MALAKOS as Effeminacy. Both different people at different times translates the word the same. See, before you were born, there was no contention over the word effeminate. Everybody understood what it meant. Why don't you pick up An English-Greek Lexicon by C. D. Yonge, edited by Henry Drisler and every other translator of the Greek classics translate Malakos as effeminate. Why did they do that???? Because maybe these Classical translators know what the hell they are talking about.WHEELER 18:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is some more Malakos in context; the way the damn Greeks used the term and understood it.

• "Of the dispositions described above, the deliberate avoidance of pain is rather a kind of SOFTNESS (MALAKOS); the deliberate pursuit of pleasure is profligacy in the strict sense." Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 415.

• "One who is deficient in resistance to pains that most men withstand with success, is soft (MALAKOS) or luxurious (for Luxury is a kind of Softness (MALAKIA); such a man lets his cloak trail on the ground to escape the fatigue and trouble of lifting it, or feigns sickness, not seeing that to counterfeit misery is to be miserable." Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 415

• "People too fond of amusement are thought to be profligate, but realy they are SOFT (MALAKOS); for amusement is rest, and therefore a slackening of effort, and addiction to amusement is a form of excessive slackness" Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 417.

Yes, Korpios, Snowspinner, et. al, Malakos is a Greek term and ARISTOTLE IS QUITE CAPABLE OF TELLING US THE MEANING of it. You are greater than him???

Socrates and Plato trans by Paul Shorey

• "And they may be excellent for other purposes, but we are in fear for our guardians lest the habit for such thrills make them more sensitive and SOFT (MALAKOTEROI) than we would have them." The Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 207.
  • This is the note Mr. Paul Shorey attaches to this: "With malakoteroi the image passes into that of softened metal; cv. 411 B, Laws 666 B-C, 671 B.

• "In respect of savagery and hardness or, on the other hand, of softness (MALAKIAS) and gentleness". Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 289

• "This if relaxed too far would be softer (malakoteron) than is desirable...". Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 289

• "Now when a man abandons himself to music to play upon him and pour into his soul as it were through the funnel of his ears those sweet, soft (MALAKAS), and dirge-like airs of which we were just now speaking..." Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 291.

• • The Great Classicist M. A. JOWETT translates this word malakos EFFEMINATE.

• • • None of you are greater than JOWETT, RACKMAN, YOUNGE, SHOREY et al. THESE PEOPLE ARE AUTHORITIES AND THE DAMN GREEKS THEMSELVES ON WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD. SO ARE THE EDITORS OF THE KING JAMES VERSION WHICH STILL TRANSLATES THE WORD CORRECTLY AS EFFEMINATE. YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN THEY ARE.WHEELER 18:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • • • Does tooooo much music cause penetration? or not enough penetration?????? Does toooo much music make a man start wearing women's clothing, and do the laudry????? That must be the meaning of this word. Socrates said, Too much music makes a man penetrate his fellow man. We need more penetration here fellas. 18:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)~

I don't care what the page was created for. I care what's appropriate for it. War doesn't particularly focus on classical warfare. Drama doesn't limit itself to Aristotlean terms. Nor should this page. If you really want to have a whole page about the classical concept of effeminacy, Malakos is perfect for that. But it's not appropriate for this page. The term has more meanings than just the Biblical and classical ones, and the Biblical and classical ones are not the most important meanings to the current usage of the word. Snowspinner 18:51, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

An English-Greek Lexicon for those who don't bother to do REAL research and don't give a damn about truth and consistency

CATAMITE a, paiderastis Plato; to be a catamite, paiderasteo, Plato

• NOWHERE DOES THE WORD MALAKOS APPEAR. Pg 87 if you dare to look

Effeminacy, anandria; anandrea; MALAKIA; MALTHAKIA;

• PG 188

Effete is a totally differenct Greek Word, arimenos

• pg 188.WHEELER 18:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The latin is effetus, from ex- + fetus (fruitful). [1] Thanks. Hyacinth 04:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the last 2500 years Effeminacy has always meant what Aristotle St Thomas has meant it to be. You just march right on in and change the meaning of the word. You throw out 2500 years of meaning. NoOOOO. You want to describe favourable traits for the homosexual world then YOU create Effeminacy (modern) or Effeminacy (homosexual culture). But don't go re-writing history.WHEELER 19:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is appropriate is the damn truth! What is appropriate is what the Greeks meant by it. What is appropriate is what the Christian church has always meant it to be. What is not appropriate is propaganda and bowlderization of the word that you want to attempt to do. That is evil. You want to rewrite 2500 years that is not right, that is not the truth either. WHEELER 19:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WHEELER2. Hyacinth 04:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler, how can you say that when the Roman Christians, and earlier the OT authors, plagiarised and rewrote superior Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Sumerian, Abyssinian (and who knows whom else) pagan traditions, history, and characters to make their poorly-written, inconsistent, plot-holed and -devised, predatory sham that you now follow? lysdexia 07:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

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)

We have just been able to add etymology and I have been working on making the connection, but at this point WHEELER will not allow it, writing, "Effeminacy is unmanly weakness, softness or delicacy. OED It has nothing to do with gender roles and it does not have any sexual connotations," as the introduction [2]. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WHEELER2. Hyacinth 04:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aristotle thought of language as changable

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)

boy, Hyacinth, references to Socrates, and the Septuagint, and An English-Greek Lexicon make no difference for you. How come Plato has the same meaning as Aristotle. How does the Gospel use of the word matches Aristotle's meaning?

You have yet to place one word of Malakos from a Greek Classical text that has your meaning. Oh, and by the way, "On Virtues and Vices" is attributed by Aristotle, but he did not write it. But Aristotle did write Nicomachean Ethics and the Constitution of Athens Amazingly all the four book by Plato, Aristotle, and the anonymous writer of "On Virtues and Vices" agree....but as of yet, you have failed to prove that malakos has a different meaning than what they had.WHEELER 16:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER

I am concerned about some statements on this page, and would ask that wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette be observed. Sam [Spade] 06:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, I see you are concerned over my lack of self control. I am sorry but please note, that I asked several times for **references** of the term malakos in classical texts that has the meaning they they want it to have. They have yet to give any response. Yet they continue to edit the article. They refuse authority. They refuse the meaning given by Aristotle to it. None of what they have written conforms to the word malakos and all the references I have given. I am very tired of fighting people who want to give new meaning to old words and destroy and obscure the real old meaning of words. That is the question here. No one is concerned over the *deconstruction* of this word. As far as I can tell none of their content, absolutely none, matches anything in the OED, Aristotle, Plato, Greek-English Lexicon, or anything else. I am sorry. Read St. Thoman Aquinas. None of their content matches anything. It has no content at all.

Where is Wikipedia and peer review????? Do you seriously think that this article and their content would be accepted at the Classical Department of Oxford England???? Where is the Classical reveiw of this???

If you are not mad at the way these people want to rewrite and deconstruct classical and Christian culture with their viewpoints, and obviously, I can't find any basis for it, nor have they provided ONE word in classical texts to prove their points. If you want to accept their deonstructionism, be my guest. What they have put in here, has no bearing on the occurences of the word effeminate of Classical Greece, The Bible, or Victorian England.WHEELER 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, no one has claimed that the article here has bearing on Greece, Victorian England, or the Bible. I think the question we've largely been asking is why on earth the article would have that as its primary focus. Snowspinner 17:04, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I started this article to do precisely this. Because there is such a thing as Classical Studies and anyone interested in Classical Greece and Rome need to know that particular information. This has nothing to do with what is going on the Modern world. It is for students of arcane knowledge that is lost for today. This article was a resurrection of lost material and lost concepts that modern academia would very much like to disappear and go away. That is why the translations of modern Bibles are different from the older ones. Korpios did not start the article. I did. He moved it to a new name without transferring the old history. Your content matched nothing in any of the occurences of the word.WHEELER 17:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, I ask you present references of the word malakos that corresponds to your meaning. If someone is studying victorian england and classical greece, they want the classical and victorian meaning of the word. Deconstructionism is rampant on American college campuses where they seek to rewrite history and words and make everything politicaly correct. Sorry that is not academic professionalism--that is propaganda.WHEELER 17:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand your concerns WHEELER, and sympathize. See my comments here. Basically I think better evidence should be provided for a link between homosexuality and Effeminacy. Clearly there is a cultural/societal tendancy to find a link, but is there any scientific basis whatsoever? Sam [Spade] 17:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article could discuss both modern meanings and associations of the word and earlier uses and senses. It would be in accordance with Wikipedia policy and practice, I think, to begin with its modern sense (for clarity) and then have sections on the idea's uses in Greece and Victorian England, etc. And WHEELER, the reason no one is presenting "present references of the word malakos", I believe, is because effeminacy's modern uses are not strictly tied to that Greek term -- a discussion of the word is appropriate in a section on Greek effeminacy, but not necessarily in one on modern senses of the word. While I agree it is important to cover the word's history for classical students, we cannot overwhelm or ignore modern uses of the word while doing so. Even though it is your personal perspective that the ancient definition is always superior and most important, many others believe the modern definition is of the most use to a modern audience. A compromise is clearly necessary. Are you willing to reach one? Jwrosenzweig 18:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would also point out that IMO the modern definition is essentially the same as the clasical greek definition. The main differences seem to have existed both then and now, being the homosexual/non-homosexual, and value judgement/no value judgement. Sam [Spade] 18:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not having evidence to the contrary, I certainly won't dispute that, Sam. :-) All I'm saying is, if there is a difference, we need to cover both. Jwrosenzweig 19:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the problem here is mixture of "page ownership" feelings from WHEELER (he fairly recently created the page) and lack of evidence for some of the stuff he's objecting to. IMO a few good references / verification regarding the correlation between "gayness" and "effeminancy" is just what is needed (along an awareness and observance of sundry Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Word *effeminate* in Western Culture comes from the Greeks and the Bible which use the word Malakos and Mollites. These people nowhere have yet, to bring a reference from a greek classical text to prove their conatations of the word. I see they have printed an extensive bibliography. I am asking those who have put up that bibliography to go to those books and find for me their contention of what "Malakos" means Because I sure can't.

Right now, the moderns are *deconstructing* and *revisionism/revising* Greek/Hellenic/Christian terms. You can't put a meaning to a word that completely abrogates its first sense. It is as if you took the word dog and applied to the term of a hammer.

B. Jowett translates Socrates in Plato's Republic such: "The one producing a temper of hardness and ferocity, the other of softness and effeminacy." The word effeminacy is highlighted with [[]]. Now, if someone clicks on the word and they come to this article. It is the wrong sense. It has *nothing* to do with any of the content in this article. NONE whatsoever. This would be delibrate misleading.WHEELER 13:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to think you knew what you were talking about if you A) recognized that deconstruction was a product of postmodernism, not of modernism, and B) Were aware that it hasn't been fashionable in acedemia for well over a decade now. Unless, with your classical bent, you were arguing for a Platonic language in which words are in some way connected to a transcendental ideal - i.e. where a word has an innate and essential meaning, as opposed to a meaning derived from social circumstances. In which case you're right to rail against modernists (Though one calls them modernists, not "moderns"), but not at all deconstruction (Which is also sometimes called post-structuralism) but at structuralism. The guy you're mad at is Ferdinand de Saussure, who was the first one to argue that the meanings of words are arbitrary and determined by social consensus. (Note that he did not argue that words don't have meaning - just that the meaning they have comes from social consesnsus and use of the word). All of which is by way of saying that, while your knowledge of classical texts appears thorough, you have been, on this talk page, demonstrating a less than clear understanding of contemporary academia, and that this seems to be leading you to make objections that are not wholly answerable, due to them being not wholly sensible. Snowspinner 13:56, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, how convenient. Words mean nothing and they mean everything. I understand only too well the Kulturkampf going on. It is important that words change meaning like a leopard changes its spots.

I am a classist and I am a reactionary. So I will defend Classic culture and my Greek culture from being rewritten and redefined by people who hate Christianity and Hellenism.

The Rule of the classical world and of Christian culture and society was Philo's rule:

"Philo's rule dominated Greek culture, from Homer to Neo-Platonism and the Christian Fathers of late antiquity. The rule is: "metaxarratte to theion nomisma". It is the law of strict continuity. We preserve and do not throw away words or ideas. Words and ideas may grow in meaning but must stay within the limits of the original meaning and concept the word has."

I subscribe to the Classist and Christian methodoloy—the standard of Western Culture for 2500 years that is written here: User Talk:WHEELER/Principles of Definition.

Consistency is the criterion of truth. The content of this article has nothing to do with the *original* meaning of the word nor is it consistent at all. What you have done is upsurped its meaning and taken it over and redefined. It seems that you don't care for rules, authority. It is totally nihilistic.WHEELER 14:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not continue to edit Wikipedia with the intention of imposing a Classical/Biblical POV onto articles. Snowspinner 14:30, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Pick up the book by Gene Veith, Modern Fascism, Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. He has a subchapter on *Deconstruction* It is preceeded by a chapter on *Relativism*. "...deconstruction begins with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is through language. Who is the originator of this. Paul de Man. Henri De Man was is uncle. "Henri was mentioned in the same breath as Heidegger as major thinkers for the new fascist order"

"The act of writing, the simple assertion of meaning, becomes not only a "power play", but an act of "arbitrary power". pp 135-139

"Deconstruction encourages this kind of moral detachment. It also tends to minimize the past. In a discussion of Nietzsche, De Man wrote that "the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or revolutions." Just as literary texts have no determinate meaining in themselves and are ultimately unknowable., the same must be true of texts such as wars and revolutions." pg 140.

Veith continues:"...the major theorist of deconstruction is not De Man but Jacques Derrida, a Jew.

"This Jewish approach is far different from Hellenic thought, which has dominated Western philosophy with its attempt to go beyond language to posit rational systems and idealized truths. Herbert Schneidau relates Derrida's deconstruction to the radical iconoclasm of the Biblical tradition. G. Douglas Atkins, supporting both Handleman and Schneidau, employs Thorleif Boman's Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek to place Derrida in the Hebraic traditon."pg 141. WHEELER 14:38, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not continue to edit Wikipedia with the intention of imposing a liberal/socialist/communist POV onto articles. WHEELER 14:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One may call Homosexuals effeminate but not all Homosexuals are effeminate. The band of three hundred Thebans was an elite corps of warriors banded together by their pairing in couples. One may say the same things about the Spartans. They were definately not effeminate but they may have been homosexual, (the thesis of Prof Karl Otfried Müller disputes the charge of pederasty to the Spartans).

I think that we may get along allright I think this article and its information is better under *effete* than it is effeminacy. Effeminacy means one thing. There are many boys and men, all heterosexual today, who are effeminate. I really think this info is better suited in *effete* than with effeminacy.WHEELER 16:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that the OED citation I provided several days ago that you ignored continues to show that effeminacy is not exclusively or even primarily a classical vice, but rather a description of feminine characteristics in a male, and furthermore that the perception that homosexuals are effeminate is easy enough to document, if not an actual correspondance between the two. Snowspinner 16:49, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

effeminacy as a vice / effeminacy as a "gender role"

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)

Sam where in the classical texts is your disposition proved. Where in the Classical Greek World did they thing that a "Man's semen" gave a boy wisdom? It may be true of the Pacific Islands but that is not true of the Classical world. You are still missing the point. It is failing in duty and in work that makes a man effeminate. Not just acting like a Woman. Sam Please read where I put St. Thomas's view which is the view of the Catholic Church for 2000 years. These people are attempting to rewrite a Christian and classical meaning. They think that that they know better than the Greeks themselves and will extropolate backwards meanings and connotations that the Greeks themselves never had.WHEELER 14:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

See Pederasty and History_of_homosexuality#Ancient_Greece. Sam [Spade] 17:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER created a new article(!)

It appears that WHEELER went ahead and created a new article on 11:22, 30 Jul 2004 called Classical definition of effeminacy. Is it just me, or does that defeat the entire purpose of the integration effort? He's even gone ahead and started to change links to point to the new one (e.g., Vice). - Korpios 05:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, as you may have noticed, considers that the only thing worth discussing is the definition of concepts as in ancient Greek authors, and perhaps 19th century conservative thinkers. Often, the concept, as explained from that point of view, is fairly different from the contemporary notion, or at least the point of view is different. He also does not tolerate any attempt to edit his stuff.

So I'd say: good riddance. David.Monniaux 06:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Boy the arogance here is just unbelievable. David, David David, That is why I put Occurences of the word in the article. The meanings of what you want the word to say, has no connection whatsoever to the context of the occurences given in Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas nor the 500 years of recorded Victorian/English usage. I like how you want to add meaning that is contradictory to its meaning. To all these minds, Effeminacy was a vice. Others come in and argue it out. You have yet to bring any classical reference from a Greek classical text that shows "malakos" as being anything you want it to say. Where is your proof?? Where are your references? I have not read those modern books, I take it some of you have. So, I ask, where did those writers reference where the word malakos means anything that You want it to mean? Show me the proof? I am waiting??????!!!!!WHEELER 14:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Korpios, Malakos does not mean gender role, or a favorable trait. I refer you to User talk:WHEELER/Principles of Definition. What you want to do is abrogate the original meaning of the word and its connotations and its meaning of over 2500 years and replace it with your meaning. Who are you to redefine the Scriptural text of the Christian Church and tell the 2000 year old church that you have changed its meaning. I know you don't agree with it. But there are Christians and Classical Scholars who want to know the meaning of the word for their mileau. Your meaning has no connection to the classical or Christian meaning of the term.WHEELER 14:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I want to do is write encyclopedia articles, not religious tracts. All information on the term has a place in the article; you have no place in deciding that information that contradicts your POV (or meta-POV) should not be included in a NPOV fashion. If you're unwilling to engage in the same goal of building a general-use encyclopedia as the rest of us, I suggest you start your own wiki/website where you can do as you please. Is this going to take moderation to settle things? As it stands, IMHO, Classical definition of effeminacy should be listed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Thoughts from others? - Korpios 19:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is a Classical definition of republic. There can be a Classical definition of effeminacy.

This is from this article: "which contradicts traditional male gender roles. 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. It generally applied to men individually, but is sometimes used to describe entire societies, in a deliberately inflammatory general allegation. Further, some individuals may call something (even an object) "gay" to indicate that it is seen to be effeminate."

The classical definition has none of this meaning. The Greeks never had this meaning to their word. Neither does the Catholic or Orthodox Church. The verse in the Bible does not refer at all to what you Korpios want it to say. If Christians want to come on the encyclopedia and understand what the word "effeminate" means in I Corinthians they should go to Classical definition of effeminacy and not to effeminacy. Your definition does not make any sense of I Cor 6.9. The classical definition does.WHEELER 22:05, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm so relieved to find out that the Greeks, the Romans, Jews, Catholics, and other Christians weren't anti-gay. I wonder where all that bigotry came from, since I know for a fact Korpios, Snowspinner, and I didn't create, invent, or promote it. Any ideas WHEELER? Hyacinth 22:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Korpios, I still ask for a reference from a Greek classical text that shows Malakos having your meaning. You have failed to give one meaning. All my references and quotes contradict your meaning. Where in the Greek texts is your meaning?WHEELER 22:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From the OED, Effete means weak, ineffectual degenerate. (It says) More recently; effeminate. So there is a big discrepancy out there for you guys. It has been a recent innovation.WHEELER 22:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the only reason we have an article called Classical definition of republic is because WHEELER's determination to radically alter republic could not be swayed -- eventually he was asked to write a separate article so that republic could retain the information pertinent to modern republics. I don't think it should be used (as WHEELER seems to be doing here) as a precedent to justify other articles. Otherwise WHEELER will create an entire subgenre here of articles that exclude all modern commentary (other than a few select authors WHEELER likes) and focus entirely on his interpretations of Greek texts. Incidentally, I'm getting more worried about WHEELER's accuracy -- he has referred on several occasions to "M. A. Jowett" as a notable Greek translator. I believe he refers to the noted scholar Benjamin Jowett, who had a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree, as I recall -- still, this inattention to the correct name of perhaps the greatest Greek translator of the 19th Century isn't exactly encouraging. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lets not become overly sharp in our criticisms, the attribution mistake you (Jwrosenzweig) are suggesting WHEELER has made is far from an egregious one. However... (rest of comment below due to edit conflict Sam [Spade] 22:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC))

You're right, Sam. I'm just getting tired of these discussions because WHEELER does not respond to commentary and questions. In my experience, he replies with either a red herring or with a demand for a refutation, as long as that refuation is based on "classical Greek texts" which have been translated by a translator he finds acceptable. This is not the Wiki way. And it's not productive. Jwrosenzweig 16:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, your statement, "So there is a big discrepancy out there for you guys," is untrue, it is a discrepancy for you, the only user who has been arguing that the meaning of words do not and should not change. Since we all have realized/granted that meanings may change, it is easily explainable that, as what is considered effeminate changed, different characteristics became considered effeminate, such as intellectualism, and thus effete began to mean effeminate more and more as effeminate more often indicated intellectualism. These changes over time are called history, and in addition to being interesting, are a perfectly valid pursuit for an encylopedia. Hyacinth 22:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

as far as these spin off articles as a soloution to user conflict, I strongly oppose such a mentality. I had kept silent on this until now (my first instinct being to immediately re-merge the content and redirect the page, much as my instinct now is to merge and redirect "Classical definition of republic"...) because I thought this would all blow over, and sailing upon calmer waters I could quickly and conveniently merge/redirect the content w fewer feelings hurt. Now that is looking like less of an option.

Let me be very clear: The primary purpose of the Wikipedia is in the creating of an encyclopedia. These spin off pages may be good for the "community" but they are in no way good for the readers. My thought is to involve a mediator in this process, perhaps list the pages in question on RfC, Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Village pump, create a Wikipedia:Poll, perhaps even list extra pages on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if necessary.

WHEELER, IMO is not really the problem. The problem as I see it is a meta-issue, that of integrating new users into the wiki-community. WHEELER is a symptom, not a disease. He's actually quite an excellent editor, with a love for cites and verifiability. That said, he seems to have some difficulties integrating with the group editing process, and perhaps even some fundamental differences with the M:Foundation issues of the project.

In conclusion, we need to be respectful of the work WHEELER is doing here (as a volunteer mind you) and be aware of some of the shortcomings of the project in integrating and acclimatizing new members. Sam [Spade] 22:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Granted, WHEELER cites verifiable information. You fail to note on all occasions, however, that he ignores anyone elses citations and verifiable information. He personally attacks users, and, most importantly, WHEELER is aware of and disagrees with the basic premises of Wikipedia, including the basic premise, NPOV. In my mind there is no need to accomidate WHEELER, but simply let these users figure out they would better enjoy other activites which do not require consensus, a neutral viewpoint, or contemporary information. Hyacinth 22:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Sam, that we need to stop splitting articles. But for that to happen, WHEELER has to agree to actually discuss points and compromise. He appears to take as articles of faith the idea that classical Greek (and to some extent medieval Christian) texts are the one source of true knowledge, and the idea that any compromise which allows the explanation of modern ideas (unless those ideas are instantly and publically refuted) is absolutely unacceptable. I have yet to see him respond openly to any criticism -- he simply builds more walls. See our current "discussion" at Talk:Classical definition of effeminacy -- I make a note about gender roles, and he responds with paragraphs and paragraphs about deconstruction. I don't know how to be any more direct and simple in my interactions with him, yet he always acts as though I've either not spoken, or said something so completely different from what has actually been written that the two bear no resemblance. What can we do to promote more dialogue with an editor who does not engage in it? I am glad he has volunteered, of course. But so have the rest of us. And trying to work with an editor who doesn't want to be worked with, and who only accepts classical Greek texts as authoritative, is not pleasant, no matter how much work WHEELER has gone to in research. I have asked him on 4 occasions to accept that all our work here is to be NPOV. He has never yet agreed that he accepts this policy. From what I can see here, there is a reason he hasn't -- it's because he doesn't. And that makes progress almost impossible. What do you suggest? Jwrosenzweig 16:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out Paramenides principle of non contradiction. I have pulled up classical and Christian texts that say that effeminacy is a vice. Korpios and Hyacinth come in and say no it isn't. The word can not mean two seperate things. It is either a vice or it isn't. The Christian and Classical texts clearly label it a vice and has nothing to do with homosexuality. From your information Hyacinth, I am asking you to bring up where malakos in Greek classical texts have the meaning that you want it to have.WHEELER 23:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jrowsenwig and Sam Spade, I ask you to have Hyacinth and Korpios to point out where malakos has the meaning they want to attach to it. They quoted alot of books but don't their books quote their Greek classical texts. Please. Where is their proof in the Greek classical literature??? You harp on me but I don't see you harping on Korpios or Hyacinth. They quote books that apparantly have made it all up.WHEELER 23:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Village pump#Cite sources. Hyacinth 23:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question by producing the Greek classical texts.WHEELER 23:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could ask the same of you, I'm still waiting for an answer to the twice posed: "If effeminacy applies only to one gender or sex, doesn't it inherently has something to with gender or sex?" (from User_talk:WHEELER) Just be patient. Hyacinth 00:53, 3 Aug 2004 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

This statement seems very unlikely.

"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)

Language/literature not effeminate?

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)

If a man who acts like a big girls blouse is effiminate, what is the equivalent term for a woman that acts like one of the guys? Christopedia (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Japan.

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)

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)

What is the source of these quotes? Any particular website or book? Just out of curiousity, 86.40.127.98 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (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)

Spiritual

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)

Word change in the first sentence

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)

Eyesore

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)

The article picture is actually of a woman

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)

Implicit and explicit effeminacy

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there some way to work together to improve this entry?

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)

Proposed merge with Malakia

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)

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)

Closed, given the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

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)

It would seem like much of this section has been copied directly from the article Gender_roles_in_non-heterosexual_communities. Perhaps the section should be rewritten or deleted in its entirety. Manes (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Umbrellas

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)

Effeminacy = Drag Queens (photo)?? We Can Do Better!

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)

You are entitled to what you think. But you can do better. 86.187.164.94 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The study linked in "The effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals" has the opposite conclusion that stated in the text

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)

I also have serious concerns with the section. I have removed it from the article. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Uhh what

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)

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)

Critique of the conception

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)

Reductio

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)