Talk:Gender role/Archive 4

message: Language is a system of abstractions and frequently deals with idealized cases. The more sharply masculine gender roles are distinguished from feminine gender roles, the less likely it is that any individual human being will comply perfectly with the requirements of that gender role. And besides that fact, every individual in a society is likely to have his or her unique definition of the "proper masculine gender role" and the "proper feminine gender role". Any individual, then, might well be expected to be in compliance with the gender role ideals held by some people and to fail to be in compliance with the gender role ideals held by some other people. When, for instance, a boy cries too readily for the tastes of some people, they will call the child a "sissy" to indicate that in their view he is not a very ideal boy.  There are many  pejorative role-related terms.
For example, in most current and known historical cultures, martial combat has been seen as mostly (or only) appropriate for men, while child-rearing has been seen as mostly (or only) the domain of women. 
I removed this section because it has little to do with language and most of this has been mentioned someplace else in the article.--Fenice 19:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 'language' section

message: For lesbian and gay people, gender roles can have specific legal consequences. On the one hand, in some countries, for example, they are denied the right to marry because they do not comply with the norms of society. On the other hand, their adopted gender role can lead them to act out and to commit inappropriate behaviours, like pursuing sex in public places (e.g., toilets and parks).
Is it just me, or does that not make any sense at all? Ambi 08:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not just you, the inappropriate behaviour and public places thing looks like vandalism to me. I wrote the 'denied the right-to-marry-sentence', but go ahead and change it as you like.--Fenice 08:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and thanks for writing the gay-lesbian section.--Fenice 08:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't thank me, thank User:Dysprosia :) Ambi 08:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thanks Dysprosia and Whiskers --Fenice 10:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What the?

message: Fenice, you removed the image of long nails that I uploaded. Why?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:41, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
:Because I don't quite see the relevance to the article - why did you add it? There are certainly pictures that are much more suitable for the article, for example something about soufragettes --Fenice 18:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long nails 

message: I have added a section about the effects of gender roles on children in the media subsection of the Culture section. This addition adds to the media subsection by showing that gender stereotyping starts in young children and continues throughout their lives. Warmtones1 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Media subsection 

message: I am planning to add more general information about the effects of television media on gender role/stereotyping to the media subsection. This information includes the general trends seen in television shows and advertisements from 1930 to the early 2000s and how these trends have affected women and children. This information is being added to support the information that is already in the article and to add depth to this section of the article. Warmtones1 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of More General Information to Media Subsection 

message: This article one-sidedly favours the view popular in the social sciences at the moment and ignores the research done in other fields to such a degree that this article should either be renamed "Views on gender roles in social sciences" or be deemed NPOV and reworked heavily. The entirety of the article presents only the view of the social sciences, and restricts the view from other fields to a single, small section. It then presents an unbalanced view of all other research, which stands in stark contrast to the what is written in the articles linked to by that section. These articles need to be aligned. As it stands, these articles directly contradict eachother in terms of the claims made about the current status of research on this topic - hence the NPOV tag. Help would be appreciated. - LilySophie (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What fields outside of the social sciences address gender roles? The only thing I can think of is the bio-social approach, but even that a branch within social sciences. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you answered the question yourself. :) The bio-social approach is given little to no space in this article, resulting in an imbalanced article considering the amount of writing and research from that perspective. - LilySophie (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Well, I should think that we would want our articles to be "deemed NPOV", in fact.  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, haha. I corrected it. - LilySophie (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

text: If it helps, where there are main articles linked to sections representing those main articles, the section should be a summary of the main article. See WP:SUMMARY. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Given that gender roles are socially constructed and are mainly talked about in that regard, and we have a "Biological factors" section in the article, I don't see the unbalanced article LilySophie speaks of. The "Biological factors" section and other parts of the article do, however, need cleanup and more can be added on some aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not comprehensive, possible POV 

message: Gender expression duplicates the content of gender role according to the statement in Gender role#Background
Gender role, which refers to the cultural expectations as understood by gender classification, is not the same thing as gender identity[contradictory], which refers to the internal sense of one's own gender, whether or not it aligns with categories offered by societal norms. The point at which these internalized gender identities become externalized into a set of expectations is the genesis of a gender role.
A redirect would be more suitable. Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the first reference in that article, gender expression covers clothing, which is not covered here completely. I haven't looked at other references in that article because they lack page numbers. wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Gender expression]] 

message: "Typically, women are concerned with caring for the family and the home while men are typically providing for the family. This ultimately portrays the man as a leader and the woman as the follower." The problem I have with this quote is the following: "This ultimately portrays the man as a leader and the woman as the follower", this is an opinion and not a fact. I could counter-argue towards this and say that if the female is the homemaker, therefore they are the leader of the household, not the follower. In my opinion this is an opinion and not a fact, it shouldn't be included regardless that it is "sourced". It doesn't benefit the article but rather pushes a Point-of-ViewMigboy123 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While that sentence is in the source, it's just from the part summarizing prior research - and the research it summarizes is from 1982 and 1960 (the paper itself is from 1988.)  It's also a bit tangential to the main focus of the paper, which is on how many gender-stereotypes come from leader-follower associations.  I've removed it for now...  but really, the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten with better sources.  (That is to say, papers that focus on the topic broadly, rather than pulling quotes from extremely specific studies of individual facets of the topic like this one.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion rather than fact 

message: In the section "Changing Gender Roles in Marriage", it is stated that the shift in gender roles have affected marriages, and it also provides the ways in which gender roles have shifted. However, this section does not discuss how the shift in gender roles have impacted marriages. I am going to add this essential information. KCLAY1006 (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! I am planning on adding some different views from around the world about the changing gender roles. As of right now, the section "Changing Gender Roles" is mostly focusing on the USA, Canada, and Europe, but the roles are changing differently depending on the country. I am adding changing roles from different countries in Asia.There is a rough draft of the contribution in my sandbox! Purplelizard5 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just finished reading your rough draft in your sandbox, and it's great! Nice job! KCLAY1006 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding more information 

message: have a few issues:
* It seems it focuses on studies in the United States, without clearly noting it. There may be a geographic imbalance.
* There are 7 paragraphs are about a single study from 1992 with a sample of 23 (Fagot, 1992). This looks like poor sourcing. WP:MEDRS guidelines might be useful here. Is there any systematic review published after that?
* There is no consistency in the section, it jumps back and forth chronologically.
Best, --MarioGom (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Gender stereotypes section 

message: None of the sources in that section are biology sources, a majority of them are sources from sociologists. I mean there aren’t even sociobiological sources in there.
So there is a good chance none of the individuals in that section know what they are talking about.CycoMa (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure about the biological factors section 

message: There are two basic problems about the content in the article concerning John Money and gender role. It is true that Money coined the term, but the article fails to point out that John Money's original definition of gender role (given in this note) is not at all what we mean by the term gender role today. Money's definition had nothing to do with society's expectations for girls or boys; on the contrary, it was all about an individual's behavior.  Money's definition describes essentially what we today call gender expression or presentation, with just a soupcon of sexual orientation thrown in. This is handled poorly in the #John Money section of the article.
Further, I'm not sure Money's 1955 definition belongs in the lead at all.  If he had coined the term with the meaning it has today, then yes, very definitely. But due to the change in meaning, I fear that including it in the lead, will only mislead the reader, as I don't see a way to concisely summarize Money's definition, explain that that was about something else, and show how this is all relevant to the topic of the article, all in a brief, summarized form.  In my opinion, it's better to simply leave a discussion of the evoution of the term to the #Terminology section, which I just now realized, the article doesn't even have.  That would be the proper place to address the topic of the original coinage, and the shift in meaning.
Other, similar articles relegate coinage and shifts in meaning to the body; for example, the articles Transsexual and Transgender, do not discuss coinage and terminology in the lead. The article Gender identity does mention Stoller's coinage, but notably in this case, Stoller's 1964 definition is essentially the same one we use today. (All three articles have a #Terminology section; called differently in Gender identity.) In the case of gender role, there is certainly value discussing terminology and Money's 1955 coinage, but not in the lead, imho. 
As a somewhat separate issue: the third paragraph of the #John Money section regarding Money's debunked theories of socialization of gender and the Reimer case, while true, seem entirely irrelevant here. Better just stick a  link at the top of the section, and let interested readers discover that interesting, but mostly unrelated topic there. Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender role and John Money 

message: If the article discusses gender roles, then why specifically use images of people who are not participating in the subject of the article? Wouldn't it be more relevant to identify traditional gender roles? Parto19 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The lead sentence is incomplete. Currently, it reads:
A gender role, also known as a sex role, is a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for a person based on that person's sex.
This is incomplete. Expected behaviors for men and women (and boys and girls) vary a great deal at different times in the same place, or in different places at the same time. Both should be mentioned, as without time and place, it is impossible to say, for example, whether wearing a long curly hair style (or wig) is more associated with men or with women, or whether a young child with long hair with a bow wearing a pink dress and sewing, is a boy, or a girl. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence in incomplete and must include time and place 

message: This is the first time that I've come to this article and I want to give some praise to the Wikipedia editors who set up the image collage in the lead. I think the images are spot on! Much better than showing people in their "conventional gender roles" (which could have been an alternative approach for this article). This image collage brings the points across very nicely. Well done and thank you! EMsmile (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise for the image collage in the lead 

message: Gender roles refer to social conflicts, and everything that involves social is always a subjective matter because any type of theory is never 100% right or 100% wrong, it's always in the middle.
When you have a theory about social issues, the theory will work in some people but not in others, which ends up making it subjective to the situation. As people usually say, there is not really a "normal" person in the world, because the definition of normal is focused in a very objective shape that is usually unobtainable.
Yet this page does not try to account for this as a social theory, but as an undisputed fact. There is no "the theory defines this, the theory states that", it is written in a way that implies its right with no doubt. 
Trees being green is right, and even then trees being green is wrong when autumn comes. If nature itself does not define reality in an abstract matter, imagine a bunch of primates in 2000 earth transitions discussing some issue that happened some transitions ago. Reality is not an abstract and consistent concept, reality always change.
So, please, not only on this, but on many more. Do not become factual, because none of us ever is. We're not gods, we're mortals. We don't hold the truth in our hands, all we can say is "at this point, we believe this is the right thing". But no matter the time, it never is.
Just leaving the suggestion to state that this is a theory that speculates a repetitive behavior in the world, and not that this is the undeniable truth. And it DOES indirectly state that it's the undeniable truth, by being spoken in an authoritarian way. "babies will learn their gender at age 3" instead of "the theory states that babies will do this x thing". 186.143.202.100 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be interested in this essay.  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  Useight (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is horrendously biased 

message: The opening paragraph says that gender roles are a cultural thing. This can be understood that they have nothing to do with a biological difference. However later in the article it stated that the difference is also biological however not in the assumed extent. So it seems like the opening definition is not an accurate description of what this is Rashba (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph