Talk:Gender role

Why is Bem Sex Role Inventory linked to this article?

The Bem Sex Role Inventory is related to Gender Roles, but they are not the same topic. I suggest deleting the link from BSRI to this article, and encourage someone to write a separate article on the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.190.18 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused why you would suggest that the BSRI is simply "related to gender roles". The BSRI is a measure of one's own gender role orientation--that is, an individuals attribution of traditionally masculine and feminine traits to the self. I would strongly suggest that it be kept in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.14.39 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the BSRI needs to be kept in. The BSRI is probably one of the best know socio-psychological measures, oft critiqed and with proven reliability, and measurement of one's own gender identity can't be separated from the wider societal view of gender role. One's own gender identity is formed of a complex mix of factors, and your gender role is central to your perception of your gender identity. It's only by measurement of individuals' gender roles that you can understand how the individual fits into the wider gender roles in society. Individual and society are inextricably linked, and you can't separate the two. BlissC (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

I agree that there probably does need to be some discussion of any biological basis of gender roles (though I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to start on that one - my background's more in psychology), but I'd suggest that a better title for such a section would be something like "biological basis of gender roles" or similar. Yes, biologism is in the dictionary, but I'd suspect anyone searching for information on the subject wouldn't necessarily think of searching for 'biologism' - I have to say it's not a term I've heard of before. BlissC (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Okay, new here. If the people who wrote the history books had bothered to ask any slaves, most slaves would not have agreed that slavery was a good thing, and if the people who wrote the history books had bothered to ask most women then women would certainly have not agreed gender roles were a good thing either, since it was precisely as a result of those gender roles that men denied women civil rights. Kolarhabib (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Although we could have a debate about whether gender roles are good or not, it certainly not equals with oppression.

“

Girls can wear jeans And cut their hair short Wear shirts and boots 'Cause it's okay to be a boy But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading 'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading

”

I think this quotation is very much biased. And although a quotation may be biased, this one is presented as a fact. --Zslevi 12:10, 9 May 2007 (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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.204.211 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

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

Urthogie, you need to calm down. Most of the "errors" you pointed out are trivial. Just fix them if you don't like them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.43.36.42 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Gender roles are good, depending on who you ask. Remember to ask EVERYBODY. Oh I added the word "controversial" because it is. Witness this very discussion. Kolarhabib (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope I'm doing this right. I changed the last sentence to read: "Gender roles are socially constructed which are often politicised and manipulated, which then result in the oppression of women." White men thought slavery was awesome and never bothered to ask the slaves; same thing here. Something like this might make a good sentence somewhere: "Gender roles are based upon perceived biological sex, with each sex believed to possess a limited range of qualities unavailable to the other (sexes) and females possessing inferior qualities." Or something, have to think about it more. Kolarhabib (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

I've removed this image. As mentioned above, kilts are not even mentioned in the article, and the text with the image was weaselly and made claims unsupported by any cite. It's not a good example. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

"Women of your acquaintance" are of no scientific importance. Anecdotal information is useless when discussing the facts. Just because you are offended by, or disagree with, some point doesn't mean it should be deleted. If there are studies suggesting that women in traditional roles are less likely than others to experience discrimination, then it should be presented. Opinions on either side of the issue should not be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.190.18 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Blank Slate is hardly about science; it is really evidence of just how much a non-scientist (in this case, a linguist) misunderstands science. If you really want to know about feminism and science, read Reflections on Gender and Science by Evelyn Fox Keller (a real scientist). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

feminism is a branch of sociology, sociology is a science.

Why is a linguist not a scientist?Manormadman (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Manormadman

I was unclear, and whould have written "natural scientist." The question is not whether a linguist is or is not a scientist. The question is whether Stephen Pinker is an authority on the science of gender roles, or the natural sciences. He is not. His training and research is in linguistics and if his book were on language, and if this article were on language, perhaps his views would be notable. However, his book is about evolutionary models of human behavior, an area in which he has no training or expertise - in terms of the subject matter of the book, he is as much a non-scientist as if he were writing a book on his views of string-theory. I stick to my original point: of we want to inject more science into this article, the best source is Evelyn Fox Keller´s book (she is a trained and published physicist, and in her book she writes about the relationship between gender and the natural sciences. My point is, she is an expert on the natural sciences and Pinker is not). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree generally with Slrubenstein. In general any source is more reliable in their area of expertise. There's no shortage of biologists, linguistics, sociologists, anthropologists, and other types of scientists and social scientists who have studied the biology and sociology of gender; Pinker is not among them. (Even his linguistics work is not oriented toward gender.) --Lquilter (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant who does the science, if it is sound it should be included. This is simply an ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.120.209 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats definitely not the norm

"In case of conflict, man has the last say, for example in choosing the place to live, choice of school for children, buying decisions"

Maybe somewhere in the world thats the expected, but for everywhere I have ever been, that has not been true. It seems stereotypical that guys -want- to have the last say, but in comedy acts, television, movies, and personal life experiences, the woman is usually portrayed (or in the case of actual experiences, IS) the one in control of the majority of decisions.

So while its easy to blame all gender roles on men, females actually feed this one.

"Somewhere in the world"? try most places, and it has only been in the last hundred years or so that it has stopped being the norm in western cultures due to the womens' rights movement and the domestication of the western adult male by women. Rpm2005 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted paragraph

I deleted the following

Women in most societies are more likely to end up in the role of homemaker. It has been suggested by scientists that biology plays a role in this, while other scientists argue that it is the result of socially constructed gender roles (as well as economic pressures). Many scientists and feminists believe that gender behavioural differences occur because of both factors. However, some have argued that gender roles themselves are abstractions of overall differences between men and women, introducing the idea of circularity and the idea of the social reinforcement of natural tendencies leading to a factitious separation between the activities of males and the activities of females.

because the first sentence is simply wrong, and the rest is already elsewhere in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps poorly phrased, but not wrong. Most societies are way less advanced than upper class Western academia. Women in them rule the home and take care of the children, the less advanced the society, the more it is so. This is dictated by factors of economic origin, and more importantly - the law in these societies is often unwritten, passed from generations, and enforced by local power conglomerates, which are in turn composed of stronger/older - basically dominating men, entrusted to maintain order, resolve conflicts, and defend society from outside threats. So, weaker men and women do what the powerful men tell them to do. This is a no-brainer to understand for anyone with a little life experience. But the thing is - in any society power belongs to those who can first and foremost defend themselves - US govt maintains army and police, the difference is - we resolve our conflicts using written laws that anyone (with a lawyer) can comprehend. But overall, we're not that far from the animal kingdom, you know.69.107.82.107 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I kinda went on a tangent there - my point was that at least 2 important conditions are needed for traditional gender roles to begin to break down. First, the legal system that actually works the way it says it works, so that a weak person could go to court and get justice against a shark. This is only true for a handful of Western democracies, and incidentally, this is where we observe the biggest breakdown of traditional gender roles. They are alive and well in corrupt democracies such as Russia, Brazil etc, not even mentioning the rest of the world.

Second, someone said that it wasn't women's lib that gave rights to a woman, it was dishwasher, day care, washing machine, a car, etc. The level of society's economic development determines whether a woman takes care of the home and baby herself, or outsources these tasks and goes earning money instead. Last time I checked, most of the world was beyond the poverty line.

So, if you want to fight those oppressive gender roles, you first have to get past the monsters of poverty and corruption, mkay?69.107.82.107 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the scholarship to support your claims? remember, this is not a chat room and we have a policy against original research. Even if there is scholarly literature expressing the view you advocate, it is at best one view among many. There is a good deal of literature that argues that the role of "homemaker" (and what you call "traditional" gender roles) is a specifically western concept and that women in non-agricultural societies (what we call the West is all agricultural because even people working in industry get their food from agriculture) enjoy a fair amount of equality with men and definitely are not "home-makers." The idea of "traditional gender roles" meaning 1950s Western middle-class gender roles understood to be universal and having existed long before industrialization is according to a great number of scholars a Western myth. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Transgender section

Serious organizational issues aside, this section makes completely improper use of the word "transgender". To quote:

"Another example to consider is transgender people, who mix gender roles to form a personally comfortable androgynous combination or transcend the scheme of gender roles completely, regardless of their physiological sex . Transgender people can also be physically androgynous or identify as androgynous."

The author of this section is describing genderqueer, not transgendered. A very large number of transgendered people (possibly the majority) fit the description they use for "transsexual", though not necessarily involving the medical aspects usually associated with transsexualism (which the author doesn't mention). Even allowing for the perspective (which I have seen) that "transsexual" and "genderqueer" are both subsets of "transgender", they are still using the terms confusedly. --M.C. ArZeCh 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree this usage is improper (actually the whole section needs a rewrite). It seems to be describing bigender or androgyne (special cases of genderqueer) here, not transgender. --DavidHopwood 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Transgendered is an umbrella term used to describe anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes and includes "gederqueer", transsexuals, drag kings and drag queens, intersex, gender varient, and some argue all homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.15.254 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)147.160.181.8 (talk)Josephine Shaffer

Genderqueer and transgender are also discussed in the Changing roles section:

Traditionally only feminine and masculine gender roles existed, however, over time many different acceptable male or female gender roles have emerged. An individual can either identify themselves with a subculture or social group which results in them having diverse gender roles. Historically, for example, eunuchs had a different gender role because their biology was changed.

Androgyny, a term denoting the display of both male and female behaviour, also exists. Many terms have been developed to portray sets of behaviors arising in this context. The masculine gender role in the West has become more malleable since the 1950s. One example is the "sensitive new age guy", which could be described as a traditional male gender role with a more typically "female" empathy and associated emotional responses. Another is the metrosexual, a male who adopts or claims to be born with similarly "female" grooming habits. Some have argued that such new roles are merely rebelling against tradition more so than forming a distinct role. However, traditions regarding male and female appearance have never been concrete, and men in other eras have been equally interested with their appearance. The popular conceptualization of homosexual men, which has become more accepted in recent decades, has traditionally been more androgynous or effeminate, though in actuality homosexual men can also be masculine and even exhibit machismo characteristics. One could argue that since many homosexual men and women fall into one gender role or another or are androgynous, that gender roles are not strictly determined by a person's physical sex. Whether or not this phenomenon is due to social or biological reasons is debated. Many homosexual people find the traditional gender roles to be very restrictive, especially during childhood. Also, the phenomenon of intersex people, which has become more publicly accepted, has caused much debate on the subject of gender roles. Many intersexual people identify with the opposite sex, while others are more androgynous. Some see this as a threat to traditional gender roles, while others see it as a sign that these roles are a social construct, and that a change in gender roles will be liberating.

According to sociology research, traditional feminine gender roles have become less relevant and hollower in Western societies since industrialization started[citation needed]. For example, the cliché that women do not follow a career is obsolete in many Western societies. On the other hand, in the media there are attempts[by whom?] to portray women who adopt an extremely classical role as a subculture. Women take on many roles that were traditionally reserved for men, as well as behaviors and fashions, which may cause pressure on many men to be more masculine and thus confined within an even smaller gender role, while other men react against this pressure. For example, men's fashions have become more restrictive than in other eras, while women's fashions have become more broad. One consequence of social unrest during the Vietnam War era was that men began to let their hair grow to a length that had previously (within recent history) been considered appropriate only for women. Somewhat earlier, women had begun to cut their hair to lengths previously considered appropriate only to men.

Some famous people known for their androgynous appearances in the 20th century include Brett Anderson, Gladys Bentley, David Bowie, Pete Burns, Boy George, Norman Iceberg, k.d. lang, Annie Lennox, Jaye Davidson, Marilyn Manson (musician), Freddie Mercury, Marlene Dietrich, Mylène Farmer, Gackt, Mana (musician), Michael Jackson, Grace Jones, Marc Bolan, Brian Molko, Julia Sweeney (as Pat (fictional character)), Genesis P-Orridge, Prince and Kristen McMenamy.

I might describe "metrosexual" as sexual orientation fluidity layered on top of gender role fluidity. It's interesting to mention here, but should follow this sentence instead of preceding it: "The popular conceptualization of homosexual men, which has become more accepted in recent decades, has traditionally been more androgynous or effeminate, though in actuality homosexual men can also be masculine and even exhibit machismo characteristics."

I think it would be best to adjust the article's overall structure, but I'm not sure where to start. Pnm (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Gender roles and socialization section

In majority of the traditional and developmental social systems, an individual has a choice to what should he or she extent as a conformed representative of a socialization process. In this voluntary process, the consequences can be beneficial or malfunctional, minor or severe for every case by a behavior's socialization influence forming gender roles or expectations institutionalizing gender differences. Typical encouragements and expectations of gender role behavior are not as a powerful difference and reforming social trait to a century ago. Such developments and traditional refineries are still a socialization process to and within family values, peer pressures, at the employment centers and in every social system communication medium.

Still, once someone has accepted certain gender roles and gender differences as an expected socialized behavioral norms, these behavior traits become part of the individual's responsibilities not influential roles in gender relationships on a personal and social levels to the individual's own socializing role or self (identity). Sanctions to unwanted behavior and role conflict can be stressful.

What? Can someone who understands what this is trying to say please fix it? I can't even parse the grammar. --DavidHopwood 01:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Those two paragraphs are patent nonsense.

Pnm (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?

Can anyone explain what exactly is being disputed here. I can understand that tags in Gender roles in prisons and The role of ideology in the enculturation. But why is the whole article's neutrality disputed? If somebody can't explain this I'll remove the tag in one week (on 23 September 2007)--Cailil ^talk 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay the article has been retagged.[1] However there was no edit summary explaining this, nor was there a comment identifying where there is a NPOV problem - please state why you are using tags like {{NPOV}} and {{POV}} so that other users can help. If nobody can say why the article is being tagged by the end of this month (December 2007) I'm going to remove the tag--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I took it off. It has been posted for more than 2 weeks with no discussion and Cailil's query was met with silence from the poster. --Lquilter (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The role of ideology in the enculturation of gender roles" and "Gender roles in prison"

I noticed that both "The role of ideology in the enculturation of gender roles" and "Gender roles in prison" are tagged and awaiting citation or resolution of validity, but most of the content of both of these sections are completely uncited, and they are full of stereotyping and generalizations. Frankly, I find them to be very offensive. I rarely edit wiki articles so i thought it would be best to let you guys decide what to do with it, but I suggest you remove it.

155.246.115.66 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The section on "Gender Roles in Prisons" seems to be entirely based on personal experiences and anecdotes. There are no "facts" that can be attributed to any published information on this topic. There are a number of criminology academic journals that address gender roles and sexuality with the prison environment. The entire section should be deleted and re-written, without the personal bias, and with credible citations.

83.160.12.170 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the "Gender roles in prison" section here for further discussion. It has been tagged since March 2008, and as you say lacks credible citations. With the recent addition of a (short at this point) section on gender roles in criminal justice that does have some decent references, perhaps something well researched can be added there. But I fully agree that this content is unsalvageable original research, and should be rewritten entirely from sources if it is to be included in the article. For reference and further discussion, here is the removed content. 74.98.41.234 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided to leave it in for now. Perhaps discussion will prompt action. 74.98.41.234 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ontology vs. Phenomenology

Essentialism is the philosophical view that men and women are different by nature ; it is opposed to the practical view that men and women are mere appearances, and that genders are social constructs. The article should present countering views on what exactly constitutes a gender role, including philosophies that may downplay the social significance of such roles. For instance, the bar on womenpriests implies that Jesus is ontologically a man, and that his maleness is not a representation or construct, but rather an integral reality. ADM (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says that the bar on women priests implies that Jesus was a man? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cf In persona Christi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADM (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That page claims that the principal is used to explain why priests are men, but in a verrrrry unencyclopedic sentence: it does not say who uses it this way, and provides no source. From what I know, this is not the reason historians provide to explain the custom, nor the reason the Catholic Church gives. I would prefer a verifiable, reliable source and not another Wikipedia article where anyone can write anything and often-times in ways that fall short of our own standards. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So... Some people think Jesus was a woman? That reminds me of how some people think Jesus was a "Mexican" just because he had dark skin. 70.184.106.88 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Priests aside, it's an interesting point. Pnm (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias?

Does anyone else notice a bias in this paragraph?

For approximately the last 100 years women have been fighting for the same rights as men (especially around the turn from 19th to 20th century with the struggle for women's suffrage and in the 1960s with second-wave feminism and radical feminism) and were able to make changes to the traditionally accepted feminine gender role. However, most feminists today say there is still work to be done.

Let me know. -Zeus-^u_c 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to point that out, Wikipedia is no place to preach, the whole 100 approximation feels unneeded, and I don't know if the word "approximately" should be followed by "the last", it seems like it works just with approximately.

It also seems like an over-generalization, there have been women who've fought for equal rights as men, although I doubt to much avail. I'd edit it myself but I'm afraid somebody will bite me. 70.184.106.88 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources 8 and 9

Source eight is a 404/page not found. Source nine redirects to a search for the url keywords. These are not verifiable sources of information, and should be updated, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.114.2 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender role and Criminal Justice

This is a topic that is being discussed more in the academic world, and I was surprised to see that it was yet to be added to the discussion. I added the section from knowledge I had, and I hope it will be developed further. Social beliefs and values impact how we implement institutional systems, including criminal justice. Leininge (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Masculism

Is it possible to also add a section on masculism and the men's right's movement? There's one on feminism anyway, so I figured I'd point this out. (Now I'm off to the talk page for Gender Equality to write in several cutting remarks about the irony of the discrepancy of its subject matter and its content.)

Agent1022 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With my experience on working on gender issues of men in a non-western setting, that recognizes more than two genders of 'man' and 'woman,' I can safely say that, from this pov, feminism represents only one form of femalehood, one which is more of masculine gendered. As such, feminism is a bit of a misnomer, nevertheless its exact counterpart masculism would represent the feminine gendered male, the issues of which are in represented already by the strong LGBT movement in the West. What we need is a space and term for the gender issues of the other segment of males, the masculine gendered males, whose issues and rights are totally unrepresented so far. This may not be catered to by 'masculim' which would seek to fight for the right of males to be feminine. From this pov, feminism and masculism are both aspects of third gender in humans. (Masculinity (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

No original research "my experience" is not good enough. Also you have no idea what feminism is if you think it's only or more "masculine gendered". Snapdragonfly (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lead

In the modern West, this essential requirement has been changed to a heterosexual desire, resulting in the Western concepts of 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual,' instead of the usual gender identities for males. 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.^{[citation needed]} Creativity may cause the rules and values to change over time. Cultures and societies are dynamic and ever-changing, but there has been extensive debate as to how, and how fast, they may change. Such debates are especially contentious when they involve the gender/sex system, as people have widely differing views about how much gender depends on biological sex.

Just an example of things pruned from the lead - this has been unsourced for a whole three years. It has to either be rewritten or it needs to go. Snapdragonfly (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead was reverted back again to the version that is entirely uncited. I will note that I had written nothing new, simply removed uncited material. I was not the one who needed to cite proof. Snapdragonfly (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted all of Masculinity's version of the lead again. Going on and on about the non-West, and the West being biased, is not the way to go. Furthermore, the lead is only supposed to summarize, per WP:LEAD, not be a book. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and gender roles

I would dispute the need to have a large paragraph on crossing dressing (actually, I'd dispute whether cross-dressing is relevant to gender roles at all), and dispute the statement "Cross-dressing is also quite common in gay and lesbian culture." Evidence? Research? The sentence then goes on to say that it's usually restricted to "festive occasions" - Christmas? Easter? Halloween? I assume that it's referring to Pride events and such like, but that's not at all clear, and I think that having such a large section on cross dressing detracts from the subject of the article, and to a certain extent promotes the stereotypcial view of LGBT people. Lesbians wearing t-shirts, jeans and boots is mentioned (again that stereotypcial view), but as women commonly wear t-shirts, jeans and boots, regardless of their sexuality, it's hardly cross-dressing. It does have some balance as it goes on to say "though there are people of all sexual orientations who routinely engage in various types of cross-dressing, either as a fashion statement or for entertainment," but I think that having such a large section on cross dressing in relation to gender roles just muddies the water. If anything it's more suitable for the subject of gender expression rather than gender roles. BlissC (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that cross-dressing is not relevant to the discussion of gender roles, but, from what you describe, that section needs work. This whole article needs work. If I had the time, I would work very hard on it. I see no section on cross-dressing specifically, though. It is just a paragraph, one that you see as too large. I am not opposed to it being trimmed. Go for it, but I would say some mention of cross-dressing (real cross-dressing) should remain. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Biology section

FYI: Biology section renamed to Anthropology and evolution. Reason: biology means body organs and hormones, why certain body traits are connected to biological gender, and how many genders there really are. The text in the section instead tries to relate to archaeology and other primates. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the article could include a section on education and the upbringing of children and teenagers of both sexes, and how they learn and assume gender roles and how the sooner boys and girls have unprejudiced contact and interaction with children of the other sex, the more they will come to understand people of the other sex are not that much different to themselves. Read article in The Guardian here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki11mgm (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Education and upbringing

Maybe a section on education and children upbringing would be most interesting. Showing how boys and girls assume their roles when growing up is crucial. Nowadays a debate is going on about going back to single-sex schools. Is that a step in the right direction? Read article in the Guardian here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki11mgm (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender Stereotypes

The primary title of this article should be gender stereotypes. Roger6r (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's about gender roles -- roles assigned to males and females at birth and later in life -- which just so happen to be stereotypes by definition. There's a reason Gender stereotypes currently redirects to Sexism, though it could redirect here instead. I see no need for a title change. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, that is a good point. I think the relationship between stereotype and gender role should be better explained in the article. Roger6r (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a Gender stereotypes section in this article. It could use some expansion. And the whole article could use some fixing up, which can also be said for the Stereotypes article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a quote from Virginia Woolf, and a ref. to how Carol Gilligan, in the 1980s, was to show the underlying reason for the (up to then) commonly held psychological opinion that women did not measure up to men, in terms of human maturity.Unimpeder (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claim

The culture section currently claims that "In pre-industrial Europe, for example, the practice of medicine (other than midwifery) was generally seen as a male prerogative." Originally, medicine was viewed as the domain of women, especially older women, in Europe. This tradition was pretty much wiped out by the witch obsession that preoccupied Europe for much of the Middle ages. It wasn't until about the 18th century that medicine emerged as a "legitimate profession" and became both institutionalized and dominated by men. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree after reading the History of medicine. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph with citations. Hope that looks good. Kaldari (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The extremely lengthy section on Julia Wood's theories

We currently devote almost a thousand words to Julia Wood's theories of gendered communication styles. This is longer than most articles on Wikipedia, and certainly seems to be unbalanced compared to the other content in the article. We should condense this into a summary rather than listing everything Wood has said on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)