Jump to content

Talk:Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGender roles in non-heterosexual communities was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 10, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 31, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that gay and bisexual boys who adopted more feminine gender roles at a younger age are at higher risk for suicide, sexual abuse, and drug abuse than other gay and bisexual youth?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Student02A.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this content

[edit]

I wonder if this content would not be better served by being chopped and edited into the article on Heteronormativity. I mean, the entire article is about heteronormativity. It's not a sufficiently independent subject to warrant a different article. To keep this separate gives us a very "meh" B class article on heteronorm. (which is a generous rating and would totally not fly in other communities with an article of that quality) and another "meh" probably C class article on a related and basically synonymous subject. Instead they could be combined to make a very high B class or A. I say merge them and make one stellar article on a widely important subject. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood, since this draft is about being non-heterosexual, the Non-heterosexual article is also a WP:Merge option. That way, that article would not be primarily about the term non heterosexual. And, of course, the Gender role article is perhaps the ideal WP:Merge option. Yes, that article is currently big, but it needs a lot of cutting anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either would work finely. I hesitate to put it on Gender Roles though because the article is a complete cluster fuck and really needs significant work before expansion is going to do a whole lot of good imo. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Timothyjosephwood, I see that you are doing work on the Gender role article; so that's a start. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can glean the intended sources for most of the unsourced claims fairly easily. They seem to be a skimming of the standard cannon of feminist literature. (Read: Yes! My minor in gender studies is finally paying off!)Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Palate

[edit]

I think the RuPaul interview should read "palette" instead of "palate." Palate is the ability to taste, or the roof of the mouth. A palette is the set of colors an artist uses for a particular painting, or their preferred colors to use in all their paintings; it's also the object colors are mixed on. It's similar to "repertoire" in music or drama. Roches (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of GA Review recommendations, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. I was tempted to fail this article for GA outright, but then I thought better of it and thought I'd at least give you a chance. I'll write down a lot of recommendations and place it as GA on Hold. Unfortunately, this article needs a lot of work.
  3. The lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Please expand lede intro sect to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
  4. I count at least nine (9) large amounts of blockquoted text of quotations in the article, in addition to other quotations in the article body text. This is way, way, way too much use of quotations. I strongly strongly strongly recommend paraphrasing what is being said here, and remove all quotes.
  5. Women = subsection is completely unsourced. Also, this sect is significantly smaller than the Men sect. That seems like an overweighting to the Men sect. This should be cited and then balanced out in overall weight somehow.
  6. Footnotes sect = 2nd footnote is formatted quite oddly. Again, can paraphrase instead of blockquote here. But in any event quite oddly spaced here.
2. Verifiable?:
  1. Not passing here at present. I've placed a couple citation needed tags, please add cites at those places.
  2. Citations = strongly recommend going through and making sure all citations use WP:CIT templates, to increase standardization and uniformity.
3. Broad in coverage?: Okay here, good enough at least for GA standards at this point in time.
4. Neutral point of view?: Okay here, good enough at least for GA standards at this point in time.
5. Stable? Upon inspection, both the article and its talk page have not been edited at all since August 2015. Therefore, no outstanding problems with stability.
6. Images?:
  1. File:Gay flag.svg = image review checks out okay = good image page at Wikimedia Commons.
  2. File:Lesbian family.jpg = image review checks out okay = good image page at Wikimedia Commons.


#NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of GA Review recommendations, and not interspersed throughout, thanks

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not GA at this time

[edit]

Unfortunately, the page is not GA at this time. The lede intro sect still doesn't meet WP:LEAD standards, and there's still the at least eight (8) uses of heavy blockquoting and way too much quotations throughout the article itself. Doesn't meet WP:BIAS, as the Women sect is still much shorter than that for Men. Conclusion: There's been some good improvements, but still needs a lot of work. Please consider a Peer Review before renominating again for GA, and at the peer review try to ask for input by posting neutrally worded notices on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Good luck, it's a topic of value for the encyclopedia, for sure, — Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

terms "top" and "bottom" in section "Women"

[edit]

this edit removed the text: Often, more so in the gay male community, these gender roles are sexualised, with the "tops" and "bottoms" being considered "male" and "female". on the grounds that "tops and bottoms are terms within the gay male community". This was sourced, although the source may not be highly reliable. However, I am confident that the terms "tops" and "bottoms"are used in at least some sections of the lesbian community, although I don't have a source at hand, and those sections may be quite unrepresentative of the wider community. Still this removal seems to indicate a stereotype or an assumption about what terms are and are not used by women. Perhaps someone can find an actually reliable and comprehensive source or sources on the usage of these terms? Unstated and possibly unexamined assumptions can be risky. DES (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel (DES), I see that Bridenh was the one to remove the content; since those terms are primarily used in the gay male/men who have sex with men (MSM) community and the text included "Often, more so in the gay male community," I don't fault Bridenh for having removed the content. You are correct, though, that these terms are sometimes used in the lesbian community. That's why I stated "primarily used." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights activist fighting for LGBT roles?

[edit]

I am confused about this passage: 

Men's rights activists worked to stop second-wave feminists from having influence in the gay rights movement and promoted the idea of hypermasculinity as an inherent part of gay sexuality.[71]

Can one quote the source or reword it? (Hello @Zumoarirodoka? :) Zezen (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen: Sorry for not replying sooner: I've deleted the passage as I do not have access to the source. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Time Reference

[edit]

I think the sentence, "Following a period of non-recognition from the media, gay men have been presented in the media in a stereotypical feminine way, which is open to ridicule (as well as lesbians and transvestites), although films such as Brokeback Mountain are breaking this stereotype," could be changed to, "Following a period of non-recognition from the media, gay men have been presented in the media in a stereotypical feminine way, which is open to ridicule (as well as lesbians and transvestites), although films such as Brokeback Mountain challenge this stereotype." So "challenge" would replace "are breaking" to make this reference more applicable for future readers.Student02A (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the relative time reference change, but this sentence may still be in need of some revisions. It was been brought to my attention that "stereotypical feminine way" and the parenthetical phrase could also be edited.Student02A (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Parenting, marriage and the family section

[edit]

I was considering adding the following: "While psychologists, Costa and Davies (2012), found that enforcing conservative gender roles, a social structure, is correlated with holding negative feelings and ideas for the LGBT community." I would put this after the Maggie Gallagher source and before the Margaret Somerville quotation. My intention is to balance the findings to reflect more widespread attitudes. The citation would be

Costa, P. A., & Davies, M. (2012). Portuguese Adolescents' Attitudes Toward Sexual Minorities:

Transphobia, Homophobia, and Gender Role Beliefs. Journal Of Homosexuality, 59(10), 1424-
1442. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.724944 Student02A (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I believe the following sources can be used in the expansion of the Parenting, marriage and the family section:,[1],[2],[3] and.[4] Student02A (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kelly, Maura; Hauck, Elizabeth (27 April 2015). "Doing Housework, Redoing Gender: Queer Couples Negotiate the Household Division of Labor". Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 11 (5): 438–464. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1006750.
  2. ^ Doyle, Carol M.; Rees, Amy M.; Titus, Tana L. (17 July 2015). "Perceptions of Same-Sex Relationships and Marriage as Gender Role Violations: An Examination of Gendered Expectations (Sexism)". Journal of Homosexuality. 62 (11): 1576–1598. doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1073038.
  3. ^ Broad, K. L.; Crawley, Sara L.; Foley, Lara (May 2004). "DOING "REAL FAMILY VALUES":. The Interpretive Practice of Families in the GLBT Movement". The Sociological Quarterly. 45 (3): 509–527. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02301.x.
  4. ^ Lev, Arlene Istar (11 October 2008). "More than Surface Tension: Femmes in Families". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 12 (2–3): 127–144. doi:10.1080/10894160802161299.

New subsection in Parenting, marriage, and the family

[edit]

I was thinking of adding a new subsection on the division of labor within families because it would provide more insights into marriage and family life. This would be my proposed section:

Division of Labor

[edit]

Maura Kelly and Elizabeth Hauck conducted research on the division of labor within same-sex relationships through interviewing a sample of same-sex couples (2015).[1] Kelly and Hauck found that no division of labor within a same-sex relationship can be viewed as setting a precedent as to what gender roles are normal. A female partner in a same-sex relationship may perform chores that are considered feminine, like cooking, cleaning, and child rearing. However, the other female partner may perform chores that are considered masculine, like outside work and employment outside of the home. The partners’ behaviors do not support gender roles because all the roles performed are done by females. There is not an inherent distinction made between masculine and feminine because females are the ones performing both types of chores.

Kelly and Hauck’s study found that labor in same-sex couples is divided on the basis of time availability and personal preference.These factors are more influential in the division of labor than the belief that the labor should be divided evenly between the partners in same-sex couples.

I will include an additional citation on the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph as well.Student02A (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kelly, Maura; Hauck, Elizabeth (27 April 2015). "Doing Housework, Redoing Gender: Queer Couples Negotiate the Household Division of Labor". Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 11 (5): 438–464. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1006750.

References

Additional Sources

[edit]

I am planning to use the following sources in my contributions to the Parenting, marriage, and the family section:,[1],[2],[3] and.[4]Student02A (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Golombok, Susan; Mellish, Laura; Jennings, Sarah; Casey, Polly; Tasker, Fiona; Lamb, Michael E. (March 2014). "Adoptive Gay Father Families: Parent-Child Relationships and Children's Psychological Adjustment". Child Development. 85 (2): 456–468. doi:10.1111/cdev.12155.
  2. ^ Berkowitz, Dana; Ryan, Maura (September 2011). "Bathrooms, Baseball, and Bra Shopping: Lesbian and Gay Parents Talk about Engendering their Children". Sociological Perspectives. 54 (3): 329–350. doi:10.1525/sop.2011.54.3.329.
  3. ^ Gato, Jorge; Fontaine, Anne Marie (June 2013). "Anticipation of the sexual and gender development of children adopted by same-sex couples". International Journal of Psychology. 48 (3): 244–253. doi:10.1080/00207594.2011.645484.
  4. ^ Moskowitz, David A.; Rieger, Gerulf; Roloff, Michael E. (29 January 2010). "Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage". Journal of Homosexuality. 57 (2): 325–336. doi:10.1080/00918360903489176.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_roles_in_non-heterosexual_communities&oldid=1235968813"