Talk:Gender role

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Gender role is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result July 19, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted May 18, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Gender role, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives Debates pre-2003 have already been moved to an archive: /Archive 2003_1 The debates from October to December 2003 now also have been removed to a second archive which can be found under /Archive_2003. The main subject of these debates was: Can/should Gender Identity, Gender Role, and Sex be Segregated? -- AlexR 00:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Moved debates from 2004 to /Archive_2004. -- AlexR 19:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) Moved some inactive issues to /Archive_2005. 金 (Kim) 18:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Archiving the rest of the 2005 stuff (all inactive) to /Archive 2005 2 --lquilter 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 great page, but one big gaping problem 2 Notice of intention to nominate for FARC 3 Scottish Kilt 4 discrimination against women who remain in traditional roles 5 ridiculously lacking in science

[edit] great page, but one big gaping problem

I think its a bit unfair to have a section called Criticism of Biologism, when theres no section called Biologoism. I suggest you rename this section to Biologism and include research and criticisms.--Urthogie 12:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone planning on addressing this?--Urthogie 11:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of intention to nominate for FARC

The article fails to satisfy Criterion 2a ("compelling, even brilliant" prose). Take, for example, the lead.

In the social sciences and humanities, aA gender role is a set of behavioral norms associated with males and with females, respectively, in a given social group or system. Gender is one component of the gender/sex system, which refers to "The the "set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed needs are satisfied" (Reiter 1975: 159.). Every known society has a gender/sex system, although the components and workings of this system vary widely from society to society.

Most researchers recognize that the concrete behavior of individuals is a consequence of both socially enforced rules and values, and individual disposition, whether genetic, unconscious, or conscious. Some researchers emphasize the objective social system and others emphasize subjective orientations and dispositions.

Moreover, such creativity may, over time, cause the rules and values to change. Although all social scientists recognize that cultures and societies are dynamic and change, there have been extensive debates as to how, and how fast, they may change. Such debates are especially intense when they involve the gender/sex system, as people have widely differing views about how much gender depends on biological sex.

• There is much redundancy (see strike throughs).
• What is "concrete"? If a specific term in the context, it requires immediate glossing.
• I can't quite see the difference between "socially enforced rules and values"; use one or the other, or explain on the spot; and why mark the distinction with "both"?
• "genetic, unconscious, or conscious"—Are the second and third items mutually exclusive in relation to the first?
• "objective" vs. "subjective"—This is wobbly; isn't the distinction between social and psychological? Whatever it is, "objective" and "subjecctive" are unclear.
• Stubby second paragraph.
• "Such creativity"—What creativity? In any case, prefer "this/these" to "such" nowadays.
• "the gender/sex system"—Pluralise for consistency? The same throughout the article (avoids the s/he problem, too).
• "how much"—"the extent to which" would be nicer.

In terms of macro-structure, I'm unsure why Talcott Parson's theory is given top billing, before the treatment of more overriding features of gender role. It's rather Western-centric, too. When you think about it, the pic of the bagpiper is pretty Western-centric in its assumptions.

Fix upper-case initial in a subheading.

It could do with a few more inline references; there's a lot of "Some have argued", etc.

Stubby paragraphs.

"However" stuck in the middle of sentences (hard work for the readers).

Plus much more. Needs a thorough revision.

I think concrete wanted to mean the opposite of general. Is maybe the author a native Hungarian speaker? --Zslevi 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I intend to nominate this as a FARC in a week's day's time. (Later modified—the FARC rules do not define what is 'enough time'. Tony 03:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Tony 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be a featured article, as it is biased against biologism. In fact, it doesn't even have a biologism section-- it goes right to criticism.--Urthogie 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of most ethnocentric, least universal, most culture-bound articles in the encyclopedia. A reader could not even guess from this article that 99% of known human cultures thoughout time and space have had strongly marked gender roles and thought they were a good thing. The reduction of differences in the upper levels of educated western society in the last 3 decades is a fairly new social phenomenon and we are way too close to it, and too much part of it to even recognize how aberrant and new it is. While it may turn out to be the most wonderful and revolutionary change in human social organization since food storage or cell phones, a century from now it might also be seen as a small, peculiar, transient upper class social phenomenon in a self-destroying culture. At least the understanding and practice of gender role of most human societies should be made clearer to the reader before we begin to pretend this article is anywhere near ready to brag about. alteripse 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Good observation. I think the reason this article is so biased is because its mainly white, western feminists who write the most about gender roles.--Urthogie 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this article make ANY sense? It is written in gobbledygook. Also, gender roles are a positive thing. No mean sexist, I actively dislike the old fogies who say, 'a woman's place is in the home'. It is if you want it to be. It does not make you inferior, it simply changes your job. This is why, in my opinion, stay- at- home parents should be subsidised, regardless of gender. It's not fair that others get paid to sit at office desks all the time. This is probably much harder work. This article is nattering on in such insane, incomprehensible language that it does not talk about this- singularly the most important equality issue in the whole world.

I agree. --Zslevi 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Kilt

I have a problem with a scottish kilt being used as an example (First Paragraph). The kilt is a cultural uniform, not a symbol of feminine nature. While during a parade you would not be at all surprised to see a kilt bearing man, in the same situation, seeing a man wearing an actual skirt, you would be taken aback. If possible, could anyone find a better photograph?

I think that's the point-- it illustrates the subjectivity of gender roles. Kilts can be masculine while skirts, which are very similar, are not. Maybe that needs clarification? IMFromKathlene 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Semantics. Dress a woman with a kilt, and no one will notice. So what, exactly, makes the kilt "masculine"? This is the point, as I see it: not that the kilt "should" be feminine, but that there's no objective reason to regard it as intrinsically masculine, or skirts as intrinsically feminine. Other than social reasons, of course. FilipeS 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the more pertinent point in this case is that it's used so high up in the article, and that the kilt isn't referred to in the actual article text. Yes, a kilt may be similar to a skirt in its actual construction, but the caption of the picture implies that in Scotland wearing a skirt in a male gender role *would* be acceptable, whereas it isn't.

In other words, I think that it should be covered, but not in such a prominent position as it's not a good example of gender role. Also, there should probably be text in the actual article discussing this. --70.85.16.87 10:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, this comment was me not logged in. Sorry. --Ciaran H 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discrimination against women who remain in traditional roles

The sections of this article which currently read, "there is little or no discrimination against women who remain in traditional roles" and "women who choose to live in the classical role of the "stay at home-mother" are acceptable to Western society" seem to express a particular point of view. Some women of my acquaintance who have chosen the traditional, stay-at-home path, express the feeling that their choice is simultaneously reviled by many feminists and belittled by many chauvinists. So whether the discrimination exists or not, it is certainly felt, and the article as it currently stands does not take into account that point of view. Do other Wikipedians finds these passages as egregious as I do? Sdsds 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Zslevi 11:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ridiculously lacking in science

I'm currently reading The Blank Slate, and I'll add stuff from there as I read along. THe article currently gives only a small voice to genetics, only to criticize it vaguely using weasel words, rarely mentioning all the research in this area. Evidence of this article's bias is also shown by the fact that it is more concerned with feminism than science.--Urthogie 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)