Wikipedia talk:Don't be a wuss/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The name of this proposed policy may refer to common usage and not intended as sexist, but it IS sexist. A lot. This name is irresponsible, and a new one should be used.

What a load of hogwash. The name is not sexist, it is a commonly excepted phrase, and if people can't except that then they should "be a man". I think the policy proposal is a very good one, and a lot of poeple on Wikipedia would do well to follow it. --Wisden17 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Commonly accepted does not mean not-sexist. Saying that standing everything in that proposal is "being a man" is totally sexist. Please remove your patriarchal blinders.

These are all things which fall under the accepted definition for the phrase 'be a man'. Variants include 'Man up, Nancy' which you may be familiar with, but that was unused in this case. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. We have things such as List of ethnic slurs and other much more offensive entries. -M^ask 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between adressing ethnic slurs from an encyclopedic POV and suggesting policy with a sexist name.

I agree that the term "Be a man" is inherently sexist. While I have heard the phrase used aimed at women, the effect is different than when directed at a male. When directed at a male, it implies that the target, although male, is less than ideal in his man-ness. When directed at a female, it implies that the target should aspire to have man-like virtues, an stereotyping implication that is sexist and dubious at best. If you're interested in using a lighthearted idiom as the title of this policy, perhaps "Get over it" or "Suck it up" would be more appropriate. Applejuicefool 15:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I oppose this title not because it might be offensive to women, but because the phrase applies differently (means different things when applied) to men and women. Thus by extension, the policy would imply different meanings to men and women, which is not a good thing. Applejuicefool 15:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Question for you then, to help me make it clearer. When the policy is clearly enumerated on the page (what it means and all that) how can it mean different things to different people? -M^ask 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the title is not just a signifier for the policy, it has a meaning of its own signified by the words or phrase that makes it up. For example, if I suggested a policy entitled "M^ask is a Dork" and clearly outlined a valid policy under that title, the policy might have a different meaning to you (i.e. you might be offended) than it does for other users (i.e. we might find it funny). You might infer that the policy is inherently offensive, while others might infer that the policy is simply funny. The policy would have a different meaning for you. In a similar way, men and women will approach a policy entitled "Be a Man" differently ("I am one" vs. "Why should I want to be a man?") Applejuicefool 20:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess what the originator intended was a succinct variant of "Don't be a wuss"--Hooperbloob 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's gonna fly with this name. How about changing it to Wikipedia:Chill. You could basically use the same text. Herostratus 03:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good policy. The name is a little sexist though. Other than that, I like it. The Republican 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "Cool as a cucumber" cover this? Scienceman123 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the thought that the policy name requires some tweaking. Regardless of whether or not sexism or offense was meant, it should be very clear that it could cause those reactions. While wiki isn't censored, if something can be changed to avoid offending people without losing anything then it should be changed. Nothing is lost so what is the difference right? That being said, the policy itself is a sound one, and personally it gets my vote! Warhorus 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the phrase "be a man" is commonly used without any implication of sexism. Prasi90 06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Be a man is sexist. Even if it is commonly used. Even if it isn't meant to be. Not only that, the points enumerated don't actually fit with the common usage of the term. I like the points, though. Perhaps WP:Be a Good Sport would cover it?Juneappal 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would "Be a Good Sport" cover it? Not really, women aren't very good at sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.229.130 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What if you intend for "Be a Man" to imply "instead of a boy"?

Great idea, but as an essay. As stated above, "Be a good sport" would be a better title.00:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)(I want to remain anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.224.120 (talk)

Archive 1

Archive 2