Jump to content

Talk:Gender role/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Some sections a bit one-sided

Just recently a large edit was done and added sections to the section Gender stereotypes. I have marked this section as "undue weight" because I think that while it is important to show that many studies indicate that women are underepresented in high positions and offices, they way that it is stated in this article now makes it seem as if all researchers agree that social gender roles cause this. This is not the case, however, and it would increase the quality if other views were also discussed. Inequality is important but the passage does not do a very good job at demonstrating that they are due to gender roles... and there is an seperate artivle on inequality so it would be more concise to just link to that and maybe move this content there (if it is ok with editors there).

Furthermore, the sections give a very US-centric view. Some of the claims made there are not valid in other Western nations where women do indeed participate in politics at high levels, do participate in higher education (for example in scandinavia where university students are 60% women etc). The section is also a bit underreffed because some of the refs are opinions and do not really support the claims as they appear in the text. I realize this is a bit of "nitpicking" but just saying that it would be significantly more interesting to read if these things were there. 88.195.243.29 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can provide reliable sources (WP:Secondary or tertiary sources, to be exact) showing that what is stated in the "Consequences in the workplace" and "Consequences for political office" sections is not the general viewpoint, then your WP:Undue weight tags are unwarranted. One thing I should note is that it's common for most reliable sources on matters such as these to be "western" or U.S.-based because most of the literature on the topic is "western" or U.S.-based, and/or because editors do not have access to sources from other countries. If we look at Template:POV, it states, "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender role. 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) 23:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Source definition lead

The definition of gender roles in the beginning of the article needs sources to back up the information givenStewartB (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

StewartB, if the content is sourced lower in the article, it doesn't necessarily need to be sourced in the lead. See WP:CITELEAD. Also, I reverted you on this because it's a poor source. See WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Positivity99 and Alychap: Can you tell us if you're here as part of a class assignment? Some of your changes are good, some are decidedly less so. --NeilN talk to me 18:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The recent edits by Alychap (talk · contribs) and Positivity99 (talk · contribs) are somewhat problematic and need to be reverted so that any good addition can be added appropriately. This edit, for example, includes WP:Synthesis when it states "Similarly, female superheros are more and more frequently being represented in live action films, such as in the Wonder Woman movie, premiering in 2017" and uses this imdb.com source for support. And this edit has poor formatting and poor sourcing. Per WP:BADHEAD, we should not create faux headings. And per WP:Reliable sources, the sources need to pass Wikipedia's standard of reliability. If I get no response about objecting to reverting these additions, I will revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. If editors see that any of the content should remain, I ask that they re-incorporate the text with WP:Manual of Style and reliable sourcing in mind. I see some wording and heading improvements and will be restoring those. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

With this edit (followup fix here), I restored some of the content. I also see that the WP:BADHEAD stuff was there before these latest edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender role. 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) 05:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender role. 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) 22:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency on whether the roles are absolute

The bottom row of the table about models for gender stereotypes is inconsistent in that the cell in the model A column of this row is saying "the most part", which represents the lack of absoluteness; but the model B cell of this row is using the word "equally", which means "50% each" and is thus absolute. Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender role. 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) 04:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I give up

File:60313-N-NL127-453 (25177838634) - Afghan policewomen.jpg
Clockwise from top right or from top to bottom (mobile): a male midwife in Oslo, Norway; women being sworn into the Afghan National Police; male nurse assists a doctor in Wickford, England; woman doing construction work in the Solomon Islands;

I've looked at probably four or five thousand images on Commons last night and this morning, in basically every category I can think of. My goal was to do something similar to the lead image on Humour, but show two examples of females doing traditionally male work, and visa versa. I've got absolutely nothing for a fourth image. Anything I've found that's illustrative is a crap image. Anything I've found that's a quality image is either totally lacking in context, or is too overtly sexualized to use.

I've looked at child care, social workers, school teachers, fatherhood, parenting, librarians, beauty contestants, makeup artists, on and on. I looked through several news articles to get leads on different professions, and... I'm basically out of ideas. So, I'm just going to put this here in case anyone can find something good for the last corner. Hopefully someone else has more luck than I've had. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the image be of traditional gender roles? This image seems like a negative example to give as the thumbnail of gender roles. I do think it's a good image to have on the article, but not as the lead. Brettwardo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Timothy, how 'bout this (see above)? Or if not, then this? Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think at least the receptionist should be removed since (apart from the medical profession, I assume due to nurses and such) males are fairly well represented, as hotel receptionists for example. Google images for "hotel receptionist" shows about 1/3 male pictures which is indicative I think that this is not necessarily fitting. I will try to find something else. Kulukimaki (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Kulukimaki, regarding the change you made, being a nurse, receptionist or secretary is still mostly associated with women. It is common for people to be surprised by hearing or reading "male nurse." A quick Google search of "Male nurses exist" shows this. Also see the Men in nursing article. Furthermore, it's still a fact that more nurses are female than male. As for secretaries, who are sometimes thought of as receptionists, this 2013 CNN source states that being a secretary is still the top job for women. I know that kindergarten teachers are mainly female, but we should look at what sources tie that to gender roles. Any sources indicating that it's a stereotype or is as prevalent a stereotype as the female nurse or female receptionist? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with either one. I purposefully didn't use a nurse here because it would largely duplicate the midwife. My only sticking point on the image was that I prefer he be white and from the americas, for the purpose of diversity (I try to hit at least four distinct ethnicities and continents in these that ive done.) Other than that the hard part is finding really high quality images. GMGtalk 22:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I know what you mean. It took a while to find the image and I'm still not quite happy with it, but I think it is better than it was. Kindergarten teachers in the U.S. are one of the most gendered jobs (according to this at least), but that is not necessarily indicative of a gender role and also I have to admit that receptionists aren't far behind (though there is a difference between receptionists and secretaries). At least in my mind there are exceptions to this rule in certain parts of this field where men are well represented, but this is again not necessarily a gender role, which is hard to pin point. I think that Kindergarten teachers being female is a long historic norm not only in Anglo-America, though I don't have a lot to back it up. Either way I thought it was a small improvement though the other images are qualitatively (in terms of photographic talent) better. Kulukimaki (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Redundancies in the lead

Since social norms are already "regarded as collective representations of acceptable group conduct as well as individual perceptions of particular group conduct." the redundancy "dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable [...]" is not necessary and doesn't really add to the understanding of 'gender roles' since 'social norms' is relatively self-explanatory.

Additionally I think we need to clarify that gender role is a term mostly(?) from sociology as I understand it (and my understanding on the subject is limited, so if you change it back please tell me why). I don't know if we can insert the article into the Sociology branch like Norm (social)?

Lastly I don't like the hiding of 'third gender' and 'genderqueer' behind 'exceptions' and 'variations', but I don't know how to fix that yet.

Kulukimaki (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Kulukimaki, I reverted because I don't think that "from a sociological perspective" is best. It is not simply a "sociological perspective." Gender roles are social roles, no matter the debate that exists regarding what extent biology applies to them. I also don't see the redundancy issue you see. Well, I see what can be considered redundancy, but it makes sense to explain how the social norms apply. Simply stating "social norms" and automatically expecting all readers to know what that entails or wanting readers to click on the Wikipedia link to the article on it does not suffice. Redundancy can be argued in you stating "from a sociological perspective" and "social norms" since social norms obviously concern sociological perspective. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Citing Sociology: "Sociology is the scientific study of society, including patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture." Looking at google scholar and searching for "gender roles" shows that most studies are in the field of sociology or psychology. I think you will have to support your argument better than you did if you want to argue that 'gender roles' isn't a term that originated and is applied in a sociological environment as per the definition of sociology. If 'gender roles' does not exclusively apply to sociology we will have to clear up the differences between the definitions. Just because the term 'gender roles' is used in society does not mean we have to even clarify the colloquial use if there are no good sources about it. We have to adhere to source-able material, and all I see at the moment is from a sociological perspective. They are a model in sociology and we have to make that clear or we are unscientific in my opinion. (I don't know why you note the biological component. I don't think it applies to my argument. Or maybe you misunderstood me?)
Regarding the redundancy, it makes the sentence unclear. Do all social norms dictate the types of behaviors that are generally acceptable or does that only apply to the social norms that apply to gender roles? Since 'social norms' is such an intuitively understandable term (norms are what is considered normal and social norms are what is considered normal by society) it bloats and makes the introduction more complicated than it has to be. So the redundancy is imprecise, confusing and unnecessary in my opinion.
I will leave it as is for the moment because I don't want an edit war. I have changed the link for 'social norms' back to how it was though since it should link from 'social norms' instead of 'norms'. Still I think that an edit as I suggested would be strongly for the better and unless you can make a better argument I will change it back and support with good sources, though this will take some time. Kulukimaki (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't state that "gender roles" isn't a term that originated and is applied in a sociological environment. Your "from sociological perspective" wording suggests that there is some other perspective without specifying what that other perspective is. It was also redundant for the reasons I stated. The only reason I can see for adding "from sociological perspective" is if one is trying to argue a biological viewpoint for gender roles. And, yes, we have a "Biological factors" section in the article. Considering how long I've been editing Wikipedia, I know all about following what the sources state, but the current lead sentence is unsourced. And I will go ahead source it, and tweak it if needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I understand your position better now though I still disagree with it. But I can see how "from a sociological perspective" might seem unclear. I used this phrasing since it was used in the article for Norm (social) and I think it is used rightfully so. The term gender role can be used quite differently from the sociological term that we are using here and as I stated it is not necessary to define the other meanings since they aren't well-sourced nor probably well-defined. To give you a (ridiculous) example, a gender role could be a role in a theater play that deals with a personified gender. Just because we say "in sociology" we don't have to go into detail regarding any other definition, nor that one even exists to be honest. Just because a juice contains "12% sugar from fruits" doesn't mean that there is any other sugar in it. "From a sociological perspective" adds important context to the article. I would like to add that just because there is a biological aspect to gender roles this doesn't change the context away from sociology, just that other fields might be necessary to understand it. The blood stream isn't part of physics just because it follows principles of physics. In the same way gender roles aren't a part of biology just because certain parts are influenced by lactation. I feel you misunderstood the point I was trying to make by adding "from a sociological perspective" and hope I was able to phrase it better this time.
The other issue is that the definition of social norms does not belong in this article since it is sufficiently intuitive to understand the article on gender roles. It greatly confused me when I was reading the article and the way it is worded is ambiguous in the way I already stated.
I hope you can understand my position on this since I feel the changes would improve the article. Also, I feel I offended you before and I did not mean to, so I'm sorry for that. Kulukimaki (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked the lead with sources. As for "in sociology" or similar, we often (though not always) add that at the beginning of the lead when we are going to define some other definition in the lead. And per WP:Lead, the lead should adequately summarize the article, which is why the biological debate aspect is mentioned in the lead. I understand your point about qualification; we do this in some of our articles and we used to do it in the Slut-shaming article before it was recently changed. In the case of this article, though, I still don't see that "from a sociological perspective" or "in sociology" is needed. Also, since the lead now begins with "A gender role is a social role," stating "from a sociological perspective" or "in sociology" would be even more redundant than before. I thought about having the lead state "is a social role and a range of behaviors and attitudes," since the second cited source lists "social roles" in addition to "behaviors" and "attitudes," but the Social role article is clear that it's about a range of behaviors and attitudes that are considered the norm for whatever person or group of people in question; so stating "is a social role and" instead of "is social role" seemed redundant to me. I didn't follow the exact wording of any of the two sources because it's not needed and because of WP:Copyvio. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Defining gender socialization in the lead section

Hello. Gender socialization is discussed in one of the sections of this article, namely Theories_of_gender_as_a_social_construct; do you believe that the concept should be defined in the lead section? I've made a revision to the article, and subsequently had a discussion with Mathglot -- both on their talk page and on mine -- about whether that addition should be kept. I'm told that before it can be legitimately reinstated, the subject should first be breached on the talk page of the article. 77.126.47.196 (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi, 77.126.47.196, and thanks for creating this section to raise this issue here. To bring others rapidly up to speed (for details, see here): "77" first added something about gender socialization to the lead, with sources, which seemed to me to be unique to the lead, so I reverted, and explained lead-as-summary on 77's TP, and later explained WP:BRD and suggested that they raise the topic here. This they have now done. (In theory, the reinstatement of the content in the lead by 77 following the initial revert is contrary to WP:BRD while this discussion is still underway, and should be undone.)
It's up to those interested to reach consensus whether it's worth adding that sentence to the lead or not. My feeling is that we should not, because it would be undue weight to add this expression to the lead, and not others that are equally worthy. This is already a longish article (150kb), which mentions and/or defines a lot of expressions related to Gender role, such as: non-binary, genderqueer, third gender, androgyny, trans women, cisgender, externaliazation, or any of the (too many!) thirty-three items in the #See also section. I see no particular reason why the expression Gender socialization should be preferred over any of those, and including them all would be lead clutter. Best to leave them out, imho. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, good to see you again. So we haven't actually discussed this question, namely how the concept of gender socialization may be uniquely distinct from the ones you listed in terms of its relevance for the article. Some points to consider:
1. None of those other concepts directly address gender roles in their social genesis, i.e. their source and way in which they start and develop in an individual. All of them but one (an obscure one) have a narrower and less direct relation to the concept of gender roles as such, expressing only variations or irregularities in them, rather than anything that affects the whole.
2. Many of the other concepts you listed are neologisms from postmodernist academic discourse, often ideologically loaded, often tied to this or that clique or subculture; gender socialization, on the other hand, is an established scientific term that has been in circulation since the 1970s.
3. While the other terms you listed do indeed occur in the article, none of their concepts has an entire primary section dedicated to it. 77.126.47.196 (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I would weigh in. But I know who the above IP is, and would rather not encourage his editing since she shouldn't be editing at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, I suppose it must be a sign of fame to discover you are known by people who you don't know yourself. ;) On a more serious note, I welcome personal criticisms on my talk page; this particular talk page is for the improvement of this particular article, not of my own personal editing. 77.126.47.196 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Now, less about myself and more about the article, it occurred to me that per WP:LEAD the length of the article might actually be an argument for a longer lead than a shorter one, as it is expected to summarize all the major parts; hence, the existence of Template:Inadequate lead and Template:Lead too short. Just a small point that I thought might be relevant. 77.126.47.196 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Playing coy does not suit you. Anyone with eyes can see that you are no newbie. And the fact that you shouldn't be editing this article or Wikipedia at all matters. Since you were recently caught as a sock, it's not surprising that you've decided to stick to an IP for now. Yes, this talk page is for improving the article. Criticisms have already been given. I couldn't care less about your counterarguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hm, it sounds highly likely that you're confusing me with someone else. I've never said I was a newcomer. Mathglot actually assumed I was, but I corrected them in our conversation (the part which is on my talkpage), where I also stated my rationale for preferring to edit without a registered account. This is honestly the first exchange I can remember having with you, so your statements seem cryptic to me, and I apologize for how baffled I am about them. 77.126.47.196 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I was just being(overly?) polite. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, everyone, I just noticed my IP address is dynamic and has changed since my last edit here (this is reason enough for me to switch to using a registered account). Anyway, since this section did not generate any more discussion, I will instead incorporate the definition of gender socialization lower in the body of the article, as had been suggested by Mathglot all along. 77.126.11.183 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Images removed from top

I have removed images of non-traditional gender roles from the top of the article because they're against several well-established Wikipedia's principles.

1. Principle of least astonishment. People are expecting to see photos of "gender roles", not opposite gender roles.

2. NPOV. The top image should specify how gender roles are commonly depicted in reliable sources. Certainly, gender roles are not depicted in opposite direction.

3. Wikipedia is not an advocacy. It seems likely are our editors, though in good faith, were motivated by political views. If they do, it might violate non-advocacy requirement of Wikipedia.

Thus, while images depicting opposite gender roles might be notable in limited cases down there in the article, putting such images on the lead section is not warranted. best. 24.172.241.150 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

1. No they're not. That would be commonplace: "dog bites man".
2. Certainly not POV.
  • top image should specify how gender roles are commonly depicted in reliable sources: Okay, what image do you propose as an improvement, then? The point here is to improve the article.
3. Correct. No: and that's sounds exactly like an accusation of bias and lack of good faith.
I'm for leaving the images as is over removing them, but I would certainly be in favor of changing the images to better ones, if such could be found. Are you aware that there was already discussion about this point earlier? It's a bit high-handed to just walk in here and undo the work of a consensus of previous editors. There's no objection to you gaining a new consensus now, but get off your high horse, and stop reverting. Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Well... There's been a struggle to find a good image/images for this article. I think the current mashup is illustrative at some level, more so than no image, and definitely more so than the previous image used. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I've not been able to come up with anything that's a marked improvement at least over the last six months that I've been trying on and off. GMGtalk 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with retaining the current image mashup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. I don't know how to format but concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayhouser (talk • contribs)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_role/Archive_8&oldid=1039566530"