Talk:Gender role/Archive 5

removed coarse language

Somebody has been playing silly buggers and add the word which rymes with "duck" near a link at the bottom of the page. I have deleted this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.130 (talk • contribs) 20 October 2005 (UTC)

List of behaviors linked to gender roles

Don't we need a list of behaviors that are linked to gender role ? This could be a seperate article. e.g. : dress a certain way, talk a certain way, if you are a bride you will have only female brides maids, and if you are a groom you will have males (best man) instead, and so on. This could really help everyone actually notice gender role as they are enforced.

a couple of minor problems and ambiguities?

Not entertaining, but usually highly problematic, however, are cases wherein the external genitalia of a person, that person's perceived gender identity, and/or that person's gender role are not consistent. People naturally, but too easily, assume that if a person has a penis, scrotum, etc., then that person is chromosomally male (i.e., that person has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome), and that the person, in introspection, feels like a male.

Is it me, or does this paragraph seem to be about gender identity rather than gender role? Also, if a person has an apparently normal penis and scrotum, the likelihood of XY karyotype (genetic male sex) is somewhere between 0.999 and 0.9999, but the likelihood of a male gender identity is somewhat less (maybe 0.99-0.999, but I haven't tried to find stats). The first assumption is arguably one of the most reliable assumptions we can ever make about another person based on their appearance, and even the second assumption is pretty darn reliable compared to most inferences we make from appearance. So how easily is "too easily"?

In addition, this person may have always accepted a gender identity that is consistent with "his" external genitalia or with "her" internal genitalia. When the true sex of the individual becomes revealed at puberty, the individual and/or the community will be forced to reconsider what gender role is to be considered appropriate. Biological conditions that cause a person's physiological sex to be not easily determined are collectively known as intersex.

"True sex" is problematic phrase. Do you mean genetic sex, or sex of internal genitalia? Many people might suggest that there is no such thing as "true sex", or that gender identity best deserves to be called "true sex." "Physiological sex" is almost as ambiguous. Look at the levels of sexual differentiation in the sex article; there is no unitary "physiological sex," especially in a person with a discrepancy between internal and external genitalia. These usages don't fit with the message of this section of the article, which appears to be that gender is more complex than most people assume.

Nevertheless, such incidents are rare. For the vast majority of people their gender is commensurate with their genitalia.

Such incidents? Violence and persecution, which are the immediate antecedents of the sentence? Also, commensurate denotes something measurable, usually implying that it varies on a continuum rather than being a binary value such as gender. Perhaps the author meant something like, "Nevertheless, discordances of physical and psychological gender are rare. For the vast majority of people their gender identity and role are concordant with their genitalia."

*[6] According to John Money, in the case of androgen-induced transsexual status, "The clitoris becomes hypertrophied so as to become a penile clitoris with incomplete fusion and a urogenital sinus, or, if fusion is complete, a penis with urethra and an empty scrotum."

This note describes a rare but unpleasant outcome of treating with hormones but not reassigning and surgically reconstructing the genitalia of a genetically female infant with congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. Also, "androgen-induced intersex condition" might be clearer than "androgen-induced transsexual status".

I changed the footnote number in the article to refer to this case because it looked like that was what was intended, but change it back if it was correct as written. I did not make any other changes because I didn't write the paragraphs. alteripse 05:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still POV-problems?

The first two paragraphs of this article are awesome! It gives both the sociology POV and the sexology POV. When I read those paragraphs, I thought, "Hot damn, here's some objectivity!"

I read on, hoping to learn more about the sexology POV, which I thought the second paragraph did a beautiful job of describing: "Gender roles are not norms that were established by some authority, but reflections of the changing habits and customs of individuals in actual societies. Human behavior is there first, and then ideologies and norms grow by an inductive process that occurs informally within these societies and, later on, more formally by researchers."

Unfortunately, the rest of the article seems to be written from the sociology POV. Am I alone in feeling this way? For instance, under the "Socialization" section, it says:

"Sanctions to unwanted behavior and role conflict can become stressful. Thus, gender roles are quite powerful."

It seems to me that sexlogy would downplay the power of sanctions in shaping gender roles, but that view point is not mentioned. In fact, the next section is "Criticism of biologism". I was like "Can we at least have a section explaining biologism before we get to the criticism?"

Now, if you guys want me to go ahead and add the sexology POV, I'll do my best. But I want to know if the sexology POV is missing because no one has bothered to write it, or if it's because people feel the article is already objective. -- Blah99 Jan 17, 2005

I think you are using "sexology" and "sociology" inappropriately -- they are not homogenous "views" and there is much overlap. That said, if you think that this account is missing something by all means add it, but I suggest that following our policies you provide clearer sources (e.g. not "According to sexologists" but "According to x, a professor of ..." I think this is the big problem with the article, a lack of sources. Slrubenstein 20:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to the article, the two sciences define "gender role" differently. In the sociology definition, it says "Society tries to impose these norms upon an individual through a process called socialization," whereas the sexology definition says "Gender roles are not norms that were established by some authority ... Human behavior is there first..." Even if the sciences have a lot of overlap, these seem to be two different views of what exactly gender roles are. How should I refer to these views? As far as sources go, I will definiately provide them if I can find some time to do this. 204.255.71.11 22:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and what you want to do, and am not trying to discourage you in any way. I am just saying that the part of the article you are referring to is itself too vague for Wikipedia, and needs to be improved upon -- not only by elaborating on the views, but by doing so through citing specific researchers. The point is, we are not supposed to do original research -- including extrapolating arguments or interpretations. However logical your suggestions are, whe should be drawing on established research and not just our own logic. Please don't take this the wrong way -- I am not criticzing you but rather calling attention to a task that most editors at Wikipedia need to work on. See Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Cite sources, Slrubenstein 23:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

This article seems to have POV problems in that I do not believe it adequately represents the arguments for traditional gender roles. It seems to be biased towards the belief that traditional gender roles are archaic and outdated in today's society, and that imposing a traditional gender role on someone is to do them a disservice.

It also fails to mention that many untraditional gender roles (i.e. transsexual, intersex, whatever) are extremely uncommon. If someone unfamiliar with society looked at this article, they would get the impression that it is impossible to determine a person's gender by looking at them, and that gender roles/gender personality are completely independent from physical sex. (I'm not in favor of stereotypes, but the article seems to think that you can't classify people by gender.) - Chardish 19:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that I just do not see the bias. Can you give a specific example? I do not think that the article is arguing "for" or "against" anything at all. It is merely providing an account of current research in this area. I do not think any Wikipedia article is a place to provide arguments "for" or "against" such things. Slrubenstein 20:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Chardish. The POV of this article, over and over, is that it is enlightened and progressive to minimize gender roles and to encourage non-traditional gender behavior. This certainly is the dominant POV in "progressive," educated western society. It is the one most of us grew up wth. Every book, article, and link provided in the article supports this perspective. Although the article acknowledges that all societies have gender role differences, there is surprisingly little or nothing in the article that would help the reader understand that the majority of human beings currently alive, and perhaps an even higher proportion throughout human history, support strongly differentiated gender roles. Don't you think it's pretty ethnocentric to ignore the majority opinion and practices of the world or present them as obsolete or immoral? Can you not even speculate why some people and some societies have found strongly differentiated gender roles to have some benefits or advantages to those societies? alteripse 02:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? I just don't see it. Anyway, I rewrote the introduction which made a misleading distinction between sociologists and sexologists and was unclear. Be that as it may, I can't find anything that suggests that it is enlightened to minimize gender roles. The article seems to make clear that gender roles are very important. It certainly presents the views of researchers, like Talcott Parsons, who take gender roles very very seriously. Where exactly does it say that practices that are common in the world are immoral or obsolete? Where?

As to the actual functions of gender roles, I do agree that the article should be developed. I am not sure that you will be happy, as the majority of societies (not individual, societies) have gender roles that you yourselves might find immoral. Either way, I do agree that more material should be added. Slrubenstein 00:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your rewrite of the intro improved it a bit, but here are "specific examples" of each of what you "don't see":

Thanks, and I do appreciate your being specific -- my comments are interspersed with yours, below, Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't find anything that suggests that it is enlightened to minimize gender roles. Where exactly does it say that practices that are common in the world are ... obsolete?

1. There is a general understanding among sociologists that in Western society, gender role differences are decreasing and that gender roles are changing. (you did remove this one just now)

I removed it, but this proposition is a fact: most sociologists do believe this. One of the main elements of our NPOV policy is to be clear about points of view. This is the sociologists' point of view. The proposition presents information about sociologists. That said, I think most Americans agree that with the rise of industrialization gender role differences have decreased -- women and men both wear pants; more men have entered occupations formerly dominated by women (e.g. nursing) while women are increasingly entering occupations formerly dominated by men (physicians and surgeons, lawyers, pilots). This does not mean gender is obsolete -- but it is an accurate observation. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. strictly traditional view of gender roles as compared to a more liberal view.

Again, this is to comply with our NPOV policies. I guess you are from another country (and of course this article needs to be developed to provide accounts from other countries!) but in the United States people commonly contrast liberal and traditional views. In fact, this example is even more specific, stating clearly that the very distinction between traditional and liberal is Parsons' view. Parsons was the dominant sociologist in the US in the 50s, and still important in sociology, and his view should be represented. If you know of other sociologists or anthropologists or psychologists who have different models that do not distinguish between liberal and conservative views, by all means, please add it (and, following the example of the section you are referring to, do provide your source). I don't see anything in the article that states that the traditional view is immoral. Moreover, the very mention of a traditional point of view is evidence that it is not obsolete -- obviously, there are many people who hold this point of view. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Both extreme positions are rarely found in reality. (this follows the description of traditional female roles that are still true for a large part of the world)

Again, the article specifies that it is representing one point of view (sociologists). It also specifies "Western" and "industrialized." And as I said, there is indeed compelling evidence that in Western industrialized countries previous gender divisions are breaking down. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Also, typical encouragements of gender role behavior are no longer as powerful as they used to be a century ago. Statements like "boys don't play with dolls" could typically be questioned by a "why not?", young women would say "I don't want to become like my mother."2

Well, I think it is clear from context that this example too comes from Western industrialized societies. If you think that is not sufficiently clear, then I would support your revising it to make it clear. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "folk" theories of gender usually assume that one's gender identity is a natural given.

I think this is absolutely accurate in Western societies. Can you give me an example of a folk theory that does not assume that one's gender identity is a natural given? But if your point is that in many non-Western societies folk theories do not consider gender as a natural given, I do agree with you (the classic case being the Mehinaku or Mundurrucu). We should change it to say "Many folk theories ..." and then provide examples of societies where people do not believe gender has a biological basis. I would agree with this. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. the idea that gender was unrelated to sex gained ground during the 1980s, especially in sociology and cultural anthropology.

Well, when do you think this idea gained ground in sociology and anthropology? I might push it back to the mid 1970s, but I think 1980s is reasonable. Do you have evidence that it occurred earlier? Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. In 1987, Connell did extensive research on whether there are any connections between biology and gender role 4 and concluded that there were none. (don't you think that this is an astonishing sentence to present to the reader without explanation or support or a suggestion that perhaps not everyone has been persuaded?)

Are you saying Connell did not claim this? Or are you just saying that the article should provide more of an account of how and why Connell reached this conclusion? The fact is, I do not know Connell's work. If your claim is what I suggest in my first question, I would have to take your word for it. But if your point is what I say in the second question -- yes, I completely agree with you. (note though that Connell is not, according to this account, claiming that the traditional system is obsolete or immoral). Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. The current trend in Western societies toward men and women sharing similar occupations, responsibilities and jobs shows that the sex one is born with does not directly determine one's abilities.

I think that this statement would be supported by almost all social sciences and by the vast majority of public opinion in the United States, at least. It seems pretty clear that one's genetalia, or whether one is xx or xy, or whether one has more estrogen or testosterone circulating in their body, has any influence on how good a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or politician one is. If you are suggesting that there are some abilities that are tied to gender (who are the best football-players?) then I wouldn't see any objection to adding them. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Gender roles were traditionally divided into strictly feminine and masculine gender roles, though these roles have diversified today

True, but poorly written. I would write it something like this "In the past gender roles determined a wide range of social activities, but in the past 100 years they have come to determine a narrower and narrower set of activities as people come to be defined by a wider range of non-gendered roles." or something like this. If you think my suggestion is an improvement, please go ahead and change the text. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. The masculine gender role has become more malleable since the 1950s.

What is your evidence that it has not become more malleable? For starts, I see lots of young guys with ear-rings and hair-color, which just wasn't done when I was in high-school. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. According to sociological research, traditional feminine gender roles have become less relevant and hollower in Western societies since industrialization started. For example, the cliché that women do not follow a career is obsolete in many Western societies

All research I know of supports this claim. Far more women now have paid jobs outside of the household than before (in Western industrialized societies). Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. For approximately the last 100 years women have been fighting for equality (especially in the 1960s with second-wave feminism and radical feminism, which are the most notable feminist movements) and were able to make changes to the traditionally accepted feminine gender role

Well, I guess you are right that women have been fighting for equality for a longer time, maybe 200 years. But I don't think it really became a dominant trend until a little more than a hundred years ago, so if you want to change this to "the last 200 years" I think you can, but need to add that it didn't really have an impact on Western societies until the 20th century. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Numerous studies and statistics show that even though the situation for women has improved during the last century, discrimination is still massive: women earn a smaller percentage of aggregate income than men, occupy lower-ranking job positions than men and do most of the housekeeping work.

Which part do you question? If you argue that the situation of women has not improved, then please add that to the article but provide your source (I admit, whoever wrote this sentence should have provided a source. They probably didn't because few people would contest the claim). If you think discrimination is not massive, well, add that to the article but -- as I wish the other editor had done -- can you provide some examples and your sources? Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. At the beginning of the 21st century women who choose to live in the classical role of the "stay at home mother" are acceptable to Western society. There is not complete tolerance of all female gender roles — there is some lasting prejudice and discrimination against those who choose to adhere to traditional female gender roles (sometimes termed being a "girly girl"),

I think this is true in many parts of the West, but not all. If you are proposing to make this sentence more nuanced, I support you. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. The acceptance of these new gender roles in western societies is rising. 6

Well, the article provides sources. If you have sources that support other views, pleas do add them to the article -- and provide your sources! Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. External links International Foundation for Gender Education (http://www.ifge.org) Gender PAC (http://www.gpac.org)

Where exactly does it say that practices that are common in the world are immoral...?

1. Most feminists argue that traditional gender roles are oppressive for them. They assume that the female gender role was constructed as an opposite to an ideal male role, and helps to perpetuate patriarchy.

Again, I think you completely misunderstand what an encyclopedia article is. This article is not providing one, universally held, absolutely true, view of gender relations. It is providing different views about gender. One of those views is that of feministws. Feminists do make this argument. The sentence you quote is absolutely accurate. It is not claiming that gender is immoral, it is claiming that feminists argue that gender is oppressive. And that is a factual claim. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Because that to some members of a society, gay and lesbian people are not adhering to the norms of male and female gender roles, such as a norm that males are attracted to females and vice versa (see also Heteronormativity), these people may act in a negative way towards gay and lesbian people.

Are you disagreeing that some people might act in a negative way to gays and lesbians because of their gender orientation? There is a good deal of documentation that this occurs. What is your evidence that it never occurs? Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. However, there are some who still do not accept these people and may even react violently and persecute them: this kind of negative value judgment is sometimes known as transphobia.

Well, I never heard of "transphobia" but I do know that there are some people who react violently to transgendered people. You have evidence that this never happens? Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, please ask yourself how true these generalizations are for most of human society outside North America and Europe:

1. The most common 'model' followed in real life is the 'model of double burden'

I think it is true world wide -- most literature on woman and development make the point that this is prevalent in third world countries. But this article is making a narrow claim, that it is only prevalent in the West. What evidence do you have that it is not true in the West? You are criticizing a claim that the article coes not make? What sense is there in that? But I will add that this is common outside of North America and Europe, now that you mention it. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. In 1987, Connell did extensive research on whether there are any connections between biology and gender role 4 and concluded that there were none.

I have never read Connell, but if you are saying that this sentence is false -- that COnnell never did this research -- please provide your source and we can change it. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand or misrepresent my points: I am not saying the above attitudes are wrong, but that the authors of this article don't seem to understand that in the larger transcultural and historic view of human society, these values represent an unusual and minority position characteristic of only the most affluent and educated portions of the most extremely developed, powerful, affluent, and differentiated societies. Do you dispute this? Don't you think this is an important aspect of gender role that is worth making clear in the article?

I do not dispute you in principle, but I think your energies are mis-spent. As You know all wikipedia articles are works in progress. As you know we have thousands of editors working on articles all the time. It is taken as a given that no one editor knows everything. We expect editors only to add what they do know, and leave room for others to add more. Whoever wrote this stuff was doing just that: they were very specific about who their sources were, and that these claims apply to the West. How can you possible fault them for suggesting that these views are true world-wide, when they make no such claim? Indeed, I think the article is making precisely the claim you seem to be arguing, which you seem to view as a criticism of the article -- they are claiming that these points apply only to the industrialized West! I just do not see your argument.

That said, I do think that much of what is written here --not all! -- does apply to non Western cultures and I will try to add to it when I have time.

And you seem to know of reputable verifiable research that suggests a different picture in non-Western societies. Okay! Please add it! Just follow our NPOV and no original research policies, as others working on this article have done. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I promise not to make unwarranted stereotypical inferences about what you might or might not think immoral if you will grant me the same respect. alteripse 04:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have I done so? If I have, it was unintentional and you would be doing me a great favor by showing me where I have done this. Slrubenstein 16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Way too much effort into this that both of us should put into articles. Please note I did not claim any of the statements were false (other than the ridiculous Connell sentence), so I have no disagreement. At your request I listed about 20 statements that stated or implied that reduced differentiation of gender roles was good or progressive and implied that traditional roles were becoming outmoded, and a couple of statements implying that the old traditional roles were becoming obsolete and a couple of examples implying that at least some elements of western society find them bad in some way. Most of them explicitly restrict the statement to the West. You have argued that (1) they are largely supportable true statements, and (2) they refer to affluent educated Western culture, not claiming to represent the whole world. You have just conceded my point, which is that that is the only viewpoint presented in this article. When Chardish pointed out that a very culture-centric POV is the only one presented in the article, I agreed with him. Neither of us said it was morally wrong, just that the majority viewpoint of human societies deserves representation in the article. I happen to loathe what little I've know about I____ culture, but the gender role issue has been a recurrent acute problem in current geopolitics because traditional gender roles seem to be valued in so much of the nonwestern world. I am not an anthropologist or comparative sociologist, but do you said you didn't see the bias. Do you now? You invite me to fix it, but I try to stick to things I have more than passing knowledge and expertise to write.

I am glad that we are in agreement. I suppose my point is, there is no point in criticizing an article for being unbalanced because almost all articles are unbalanced, which is why we are a wiki and encourage new editors to contribute. Slrubenstein 18:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have I done so? If I have, it was unintentional and you would be doing me a great favor by showing me where I have done this. I was referring to your sentence, As to the actual functions of gender roles,... I am not sure that you will be happy, as the majority of societies (not individual, societies) have gender roles that you yourselves might find immoral. I notice as I cut and paste that you wrote "yourselves" rather than "yourself" so perhaps I misunderstood your comment. If so, sorry. alteripse 02:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I am sorry, Slrubenstein 18:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clear bias

The idea that differences in gender roles originate in differences in biology has found some (controversial) support in parts of the scientific community.

More recently, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have turned to this problem to explain those differences by treating them as adaptations. This too is quite controversial.

Due to the influence of (among others) Simone de Beauvoir's feminist works and Michel Foucault's reflections on sexuality, the idea that gender was unrelated to sex gained ground during the 1980s, especially in sociology and cultural anthropology. A person could therefore be born with male genitals but still be of feminine gender. In 1987, Connell did extensive research on whether there are any connections between biology and gender role and concluded that there were none.

The current trend in Western societies toward men and women sharing similar occupations, responsibilities and jobs suggests that the sex one is born with does not directly determine one's abilities.

It doesn't even mention David Reimer. Reads more like a feminist essay, rather than a Wikipedia article.

What exactly is your point, and how does David Reimer come into play - his problems was one of gender identity, not just of gender role. Kindly make sure your criticism does not confuse those two, otherwise, the debate will be somewhat pointless. -- AlexR 07:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the article is biased towards social determinism.

From the same POV, let's assume that gender role is entirely social construct. Then we can in theory easily detach gender identity into a separate entity, since it would not have any impact on the gender role (latter is a social construct, right?). We then would be able to socially engineer a girl into a boy and vice versa. From this POV I *maybe* could agree that David Reimer case is irrelevant - though, again - being raised as a girl, somehow he exhibited the behavior in line with typical male gender role - without actually having been taught one. Don't we have too many contraditions already?

From sociobiological POV, gender identity will naturally exhibit itself in behavior associated with corresponding gender role. Mathematically speaking, gender role is a function of gender identity (and of course, social influences).

And since, as someone already pointed out, this article jumps to "Critisism of biologism", without bothering to adequately represent what the "biologism" is, I think it's pretty clear that the reader needs the benefit of the doubt.

David Reimer case offers compelling evidence in favor of sociobiology POV; at the very least it will make anyone capable of critical analysis question the vast body of research performed by gender studies activists, who - unfortunately - are more often motivated by their ideological agenda, than by finding scientific truth. User:67.125.87.135

No, you are confusing two things here - gender role is not quite "a function of gender identity" - that would be biological determinism, BTW. (Granted, the definition in the article is probably improvable.)

Gender role is first the idea of what people should do: "You are a girl, therefore you ought to play with dolls." And second, on the personal level, it is what people do: "I am a girl, and I do like to repair cars." Particularly, the "ought" part is socially construced, and there is little serious debate about that. (The extend is somewhat under debate, but by now, nobody really seriously argues that "girls" have a natural preference for skirts and long hair.)

And you are partially right about gender role possibly being entirely different and independent from gender identity. Some transgender people, as well as some wrongly assigned intersex people, were able to function in the assigned gender role for quite a while, and that both while they only thought there was "something wrong with them" without having a name for the "something" and at times were they were perfectly aware of their gender identity. How well that worked depended partly in the abilitiy of the given person in their given environment - particularly, how much of their "desired" gender role they were able to integrate into the "prescribed" one - and that differs. Now, like David Reimer, others in the same situation were not able to function in that assigned gender role - but one can hardly argue that one of those effects are is more "natural" or "a funtion" or whatever than the other.

So indeed there can be gender role completely independent of gender identity - it does not follow, though, that one can entirely construct a male or a female being independent of their gender identity, since - well, that does not always work. In the same vein, gender role will not "necessarily exhibit itself in behavior associated with corresponding gender role." It can, but it will not necessarily do so.

Therefore, your jump to "gender studies activists" is quite unwarranted, especially since current gender studies usually take the complexity of the matter into account, and to not advocate, as you do, either the complete dependency nor the complete independancy of both gender role and gender identity. It is, on the contrary, a medical establishment together with social conservatives that chooses to ignore the fact that the matter is in deed complicated, and that plain biological determinism works as little as plain social determinism.

Oh, and one last thing - do sign your entries (with -- ~~~~ , I signed your last one for you, and your comments will be taken much more serious by many people if you get a username, too. -- AlexR 14:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are [incorrectly] assuming independency of gender role from gender identity.

Before you accuse people of making inaccurate statements, you ought to proove they are inaccurate. So far, you (and everybody else) has not been able to do so. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, let's define the gender role:

1) idea of how particular gender identity should behave (idea)

2) observation of how particular gender identity actually behaves (fact)

Observation of how particular people behave, who either state their own gender identity, or whose gender identity is assumed, I'd say. ~~ AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this definition sufficient and accurate?

I think you will see an analogy that (2) is an egg, from which chicken (1) grows and in turn, influences behavior in (2). I.e. society didn't just invent arbitrary gender roles - the ideas formed from behaviors of particular gender identities.

That is exactly the point which you cannot proove. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where are the behaviors rooted? Do you still see no relationship between GR and GI?

Uhm, listen, IP, it isn't exactly as if I had only started to think about this matter recently, and no, a plain repetition of an unprooven statement is not going to convince me. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly accurate to say that behavior, *corresponding* to particular gender role is, in fact, a function of a) gender identity and b) "how you should behave" idea - which is created on the basis of observed behavior.

Obviously, it is not - as I already stated above. And you are jumping even further into the mud now by claiming that the "ought" is based on the "is", which is another entirely unprooven assumption. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your argument about "prescribed" gender role vs "desired" is actually a pro-biology argument:

- your gender identity will "choose" your desired (more natural) gender role, regardless of conditioning

- the problem here is that majority of people do not differentiate gender from biological sex (hence the conflict)

Oh, I think I can distinguish between the two very well. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Case of Reimer is somewhat different (gender=sex), but at the very least it shows:

- There are biological roots to gender identity and therefore, to the desired gender role

- Gender identity (biology) can be stronger than social conditioning

Yes, can be - but is not necessarily so. Besides, there is no proof yet that a fixed gender identity within the traditional system - i.e. male and female - is necessarily inborn. It might develop during very early childhood (a position held by surprisingly many persons) and/or it might be outside of the traditional framework. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there recognized cases where a person of gender identity A has been successfully conditioned into roles of gender identity B? By saying successfully, I mean that the person would "feel natural" in role B - which would probably exhibit itself in more or less "happy life".

Yes, sufficiently, namely, intersex people who have been assigned a gender that in the majority of similar cases turned out to be wrong, but worked for some. Not to mention, as I already said, the often rather long time in which transgender individuals managed to function well enough in their assigned gender; and there are quite a few historical cases where people lived cross-gender (and we cannot know today the reason for them doing so), although often we have reports that they were perfectly normal children. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion likely to be drawn from this: social conditioning can work if it doesn't go against biology. And if social conditioning pretends that biology doesn't exist (or is "archaic"), I'm afraid we're venturing into the territory of eugenics.

Nobody has (since the heydays of Money, anyway) assumed that ignoring biology is going to work all that well, Reimer being the case to the point. However, there is sufficient information around that also prooves that the relationship between sex, gender identity and gender role is not quite so simple. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. As for getting a username... I really don't contribute, though I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia - largely because of NPOV. It is usually obvious when article is written with bias - and having read several articles on gender issues - I see that they largely represent feminist POV. Which is surprising, since this is encyclopedia, not a loudspeaker for ideology. At least the opposite POV (masculists?) should be adequately represented, though both are ideologies, and pseudoscientific as such. -- 67.122.204.186 04:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, you are wrong in assuming that the social POV is feminist only, it is not. Secondly, you are wrong in assuming that the whole article is POV, which it is not. And thirdly, if you can't bother to get a username, and don't bother checking even the most basic facts, well, I won't bother talking to you until you did. EOD until then. -- AlexR 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AlexR is entirely correct, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I somehow offended you - I did not mean to. However, in your response, you are mostly asserting that I'm wrong and placing the burden of proof on me.

I do agree that "the relationship between sex, gender identity and gender role is not quite so simple", and I never said it was. What I said was that gender role is NOT independent from gender identity - and argued that had it been independent, then - in theory - it would have been entirely possible to socially engineer gender A into gender B - without their "natural" resistance.

Wrong: a) Gender Role can be independent from gender identity, as explained above. b) It does not follow that if gender role were (always) independant from gender identity, that one could "socially engeneer" one gender into the other - not even if you want to say one could "socially engeneer" one gender role into the other. Once a gender role has taken hold of a person - whether that person's own one or another - it is not exactly simple to change that any more. Switching gender roles is indeed possible for some, but changing the contents of that gender role is a lot harder. [AR]

I said that in the context of gender roles, the roots (or perhaps, origins) of our behavior are biological. It was more so in the past, and it is - less so, but still is - in the present. For example, male hormones are known to increase sex drive, desire to dominate etc. Females are generally more "equipped" for empathy and communication. Have I been conditioned to think that way? I don't think so, it is my observation. Does social conditioning play large part in our behavior? Absolutely, there's no denying that. But there's also our own critical thought:

Unproven crap: Neither your assertions of biological influences are correct, not is it correct to assume from obersving an average that this is necessarily the way things have to be. Case to the point: On the average, men are taller than women. At 5'3, I know a lot of women who are taller than I am. Am I not a man? Are those not women? Or is an average an average, but still doesn't say anything for any particular person? [AR]

If gender roles were socially constructed (i.e. it didn't really have to be that way), then why is it that men have *always* assumed positions of leadership? Why has there never been a matriarchal society? The most logical and probable answer is that matriarchal society would not survive external aggression - a very "biological" factor.

In that case, how come that such societies not only did exist, but still do exist? And do you have any particular proof that a matriarchal society could not survive external aggression? There seem to be quite a few assumptions behind that statement, which are probably as baseless as all your other assumptions. [AR]

But if the "leadership" gender role is not socially constructed - does that mean that maybe other gender roles are not just "inventions" of patriarchal society, but components of optimal survival strategy?

Finally, I did not say that "social POV is feminist only" - it's certainly not. Nor did I say that "whole article is POV". I said "having read several articles on gender issues - I see that they largely represent feminist POV". IMO the articles underrepresent the dissenting viewpoints - be it one of sociobiologists, some social scientists, or the one of opposite ideologies, for example masculists. Or how about evolution theory viewpoint? Perhaps it's a matter of equal amount of material devoted to pro and con argument.

Of course you are free to contribute to the article in a meaningfull way - but what you are writing here does not sound as if you were able too. And the assumption that socio-biologists, or "masculinists" would necessarily disagree does not exactly point to the possibility of meaningful contributions, either. [AR]

I hope you won't be discriminating against me or my argument just because I don't have a username. -- 67.125.85.137 08:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it sure is not a trust-building measure to refuse to get one, but fact is, what you write is such a pointless mass of non-information that you do not have to attribute any disagreements to you not having a username - crap is crap, whether by an IP or a registered user. BTW, I only bothered answering this because I am wating for a phone call, but what I said stands: Get some basic facts, read what I wrote, and then you can come back and argue - right now you are only making an idiot of yourself. -- AlexR 16:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of GLB section

I took a narrow look at the sexual orientation section, and found it very difficult to read, and also somewhat incomplete. So I completely rewrote it in a more active-voice, concrete way, and added some new ideas and examples. Some of the links, like tomboy and effeminate, would seem to apply to men and women in general, so maybe they should be moved or replicated elsewhere in the article. -- Beland 04:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Some see that the adoption of a 'gay' gender role de facto renders an individual out of sync with his true biological gender role, such as William H. DuBay, in his seminal work on gay sex role and identity, Gay Identity: The Self Under Ban, says that

"The gay myth... [places] emphasis on sexual orientation as a component of personality to which the individual must accommodate himself to be 'authentic'."

"Far from being a stable condition, one's commitment to the gay role undergoes constant revision, adaptation, attenuation, and even abandonment."^[1]

• ^ Le Monde Diplomatique, 2004
• ^ William H. DuBay: Gay Identity: The Self under Ban, McFarland & Company, October 1987 (ISBN 0899502695)

I was unable to rewrite the above text because I could not really extract a coherent meaning. Part of the problem is the phrase "'gay' gender role". What is this referring to? There are several different gender-role labels that might count as "gay". Does it actually mean homosexual behavior, orientation, or self-identification? But even establishing that, the two direct quotes appear starkly out of context. The first quote is trying to say something about identity and authenticity. There's a lot to be written on that subject, but I'm not sure here is the best place. The second statement needs to explain "gay role" in order to make any sense to the reader. The underlying phenomena that it is referring to may be too much detail for this piece, but I'm not sure. More explanation should be given if this is to be included at all. -- Beland 04:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't talk about criticism in this article?

Fenice,While I am all about tossing the trolls out on their head, I think it would be best served to actually address the concerns of Blah99. That is, instead of saying 'this is about X not about the criticism of X', why not give an argument why that is not a valid limitation of the quoted reference.

To be honest, I tend to agree with you in a gestalt way. That is, the conclusion seems right to me. Though I honestly haven't applied the logical screws to that issue. If nothing else, I believe in Marx' ideal 'to each according to his or her need and from each according to his or her ability.' So that sort of blows the whole ”you want 'em, you raise 'em” idea out of the water from my basic premises and (decidedly non-neutral somewhat Marxist) POV. However, I realize that most people don't share that premise with me. And I can't come up with a good argument to invalidate Blah99's points using the commonly accepted premises given the NPOV.

However, despite my gut instinct of agreeing with you, the way to get rid of criticism is to invalidate it logically, not say 'this article only says good things about X.' Or alternatively you could have put a criticism section at the bottom if you didn't want it in that section.NickGorton 06:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, my argument is entirely editorial and not factual, because that is the only argument I think is valid. If you approach the section from user Blahs perspective ("this is about a political movement and the opposing view needs to be presented") I can't do anything but agree, let alone on Wikipedia. I don't think we need to have the political discourse on every single page feminism is mentioned, it is enough to link to feminism where criticism is and should be presented. But I will agree to having the criticism in here, it's probably unavoidable in the Wikipedia system. Just keep it short.

In my ideal world, I would write the entire section from a viewpoint of feminist theory, not feminist movement. A theory is obviously just a theory and consequently the political dicussion could be omitted.--Fenice 06:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems we have a disagreement. First off, it is not official Wikipedia policy that criticism should be "kept short". Either the criticism should be there or it shouldn't be. Now, I'm fine with taking out the political point I added about Spain, but the first part of the deleted portion was not political; rather, it was addressing the reference to a "double burden problem". Not everyone would agree that the fact that one gender is more likely to have dual roles is a "double burden" or a "problem". Suppose a Pro-Lifer referenced the practice of abortion as a "baby-murdering problem"...does that type of biased language belong in Wikipedia?

So, either the criticism of feminist theory stays (it can be in a different section on the same page, if you prefer) or the advocacy of feminist theory goes. Also, please don't pretend that I'm the only one who sees advocacy here...a recent post remarked that this article "reads more like a feminist essay, rather than a Wikipedia article."

Here are some possible solutions:

• We remove the advocacy language. Also, every time a theory or study is mentioned that makes a controversial point, than any opposing arguments should be mentioned somewhere on the same page.
• We put the feminist advocacy and criticism on a separate page, such as feminism. Moving only one side, and leaving the other side unchallenged, is biased.

I want to give this page a Neutral_point_of_view. When someone is able to read this page and say, "Damn, I don't know if a feminist wrote this page or not," that's when my work here is done. -- Blah99 02:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I am well aware that a decent article containing information on feminism is absolutely unmaintainable on wikipedia. An ordinary article that conveys that the author has some idea of what he is talking about will not survive here. What you demand (expanding on criticism of feminism in an article on gender role) is hilarious nonsense from an editorial perspective, since there is an entire article on feminism which has a section on criticism (which you obviously did not even bother to read). Your knowledge of the issue you are trying to add text about is inexistent to the degree that you cannot even tell the difference between feminist movement and feminist theory. You are not the only one who will be trying to turn this article into a policy statement against feminism. There will be others to come. So go ahead. Nothing I can do on that score.--Fenice 12:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

1. We can have a decent article containing information on feminism, but it must be from a NPOV. You admit that the feminist argument you wrote is entirely editorial, so you agree that this needs to be fixed, correct? And yet you do not offer any solutions; you only turn others' down. If you are not going to help, at least stand aside and stop removing my improvements.
2. If you don't believe my criticism conveys that I know what I'm talking about, then you should fix it. Reword it, make it stronger, I have no problem with that. But do not weaken it, or worse, omit it completely. That's simply childish.
3. I did read the criticism in the feminism article, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. All articles must be from a NPOV, not just the feminism article. Since you don't want criticism in this article, I will see if I can remove the advocacy and present the information from a NPOV. It's sad that you either can't or won't help in this process.
4. The accusation that I am trying to turn this article into a policy statement against feminism is ludacris. I am clearly responding to advocacy, not creating it.--Blah99 14:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

...and in your statement you are giving the reasons why a discussion will be 100% pointless :
1. The feminist argument you wrote... here is the big researcher. I only deleted your additions.

You wrote an argument that used the "big researcher" as support. I responded to that argument. The research was not disputed; your conclusion and language were. Can you not grasp this concept? user:Blah

I did not write the argument, period. Research it. But again, I know what your reaction will be (Uhuhu, research is not my thing). And yes, your research is severely disputed. Ther is no ever so farfetched hint that it ever took place. --Fenice 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

2. And then we again have an oh so funny and oh so new case of "um sorry, I cannnot read and don't quite understand why others keep writing talk page contributions": And yet you do not offer any solutions. Is your inability to read my solution the consequence of a cache problem? No it can't be because you have already announced that your "contribution" will be lenghty, as opposed to my suggestion.

I already explained why your "solution" is anything but. Leaving a bias in the article is not a solution. Maybe this discussion is pointless if you can't understand this. I read the feminism discussion page and saw more of your "criticism isn't relevant here" crap.user:Blah

Well, you can have that argument with yourself, have I opposed anything or what. This is so stupid.--Fenice 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

3. No, I am not going to 'fix' each and every bs that is written about feminism and related issues on wikipedia, because I'd be busy more than all day. There just isn't enough personnel around here to do that. If you can tell by yourself that you are unable to write an article on feminism and need someone to fix it, I strongly recommend you let it be.

If you are going to write an article for an encyclopedia, you need to write from a NPOV. If you are going to include a view, than you need to include the opposing views as well. Even if you feel a view is poorly written (and I don't think mine was), it is still better than an article with clear bias. First, we establish a NPOV. After that, we can fix up any arguments as need be. But, of course, your idea of fixing an argument is to remove that point of view. Sad. user:Blah

We? You, Blah, AlterBlah and his sockpuppets? Your persistence in having to have an editwar is amazing. There is noone to be edit-warring with, Blah.--Fenice 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

4. Then the "argument" that the 'criticism on feminism' is irrelevant in this section on feminism - which (note!) should also include 'criticism of feminism' according to the same speaker - is errh ...interesting. (Recycle this "contribution" by Blah to meditation as a koan maybe?)

Including criticism is one solution...removing the advocacy is another. I'm not advocating either solution, I'm just saying we need to pick a solution. I'm not going to repeat this anymore.user:Blah

Oh, you want to delete the section feminism from gender role. Maybe we should have that edit-war. You are at least really absurd in your innovativeness.--Fenice 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

5.And - what a surprise - another case of "oh sorry, but reading is not my thing": Since you don't want criticism in this article - well, yes, actually, I am starting to find it funny. I am just wondering how you manage to not even grasp the plainest essence of a statement?

I was saying, "Since you don't seem to like solution 1, let's work together on solution 2." You find this funny? Strange.user:Blah

Yeah. Another reason not to have this edit-war. If you cannot possibly be offensive on a rational basis, "answer" by adding completely unrelated text.--Fenice 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The accusation that I am trying to turn this article into a policy statement against feminism is ludacris. Ludacris. MMh. Should we talk about basic counting abilities now - it might be ludicrous to see how you are trying to argue that double-burden workhours are no "problem". (You may use some linguistic creativity to reinterpret the word "problem" or distort the hour-count somehow. I am sure that there are some statistics that women need less sleep or something. I am personally not even curious.) Ludacris is not quite the word I'd use to describe what is coming up here, I'd just say: funny. Good for a laugh. Like this for instance: Skeptics, however, question the unfairness implied by this study. These skeptics argue that the one who longs the most to have children, or the one who has the lowest tolerance for a dirty home, should naturally expect to bear a greater burden in fulfilling his or her desire, just as the boy who asks for a pet should expect to bear most of the burden in caring for it. Still others have sarcastically asked, "If both partners are expected to contribute equally to the housework, are both partners also expected to bring home the same amount of pay?" Most countries allow the partners to decide how they will split their responsibilities, with Spain being a notable exception.

So, I misspelled a word. As I said before, you're a child who jumps on that rather than attempts to be constructive. It doesn't matter if you agree with the opinion expressed or not, we just need to make everything NPOV. user:Blah

The misspelling - to anybody in their right mind - is more like ten lines. And it just strikes me as especially offensive that you are trying to turn the tables by calling me childish. Just another embarassing reminder, original text by Blah: These skeptics argue that the one who longs the most to have children, or the one who has the lowest tolerance for a dirty home, should naturally expect to bear a greater burden in fulfilling his or her desire, just as the boy who asks for a pet should expect to bear most of the burden in caring for it. Still others have sarcastically asked, "If both partners are expected to contribute equally to the housework, are both partners also expected to bring home the same amount of pay?" No, this is not childish and I am not laughing. --Fenice 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I just have no comment on "contributions" like that. It's a genuine Blah. (Cannot be attributed to any other source!) Just stop arguing and do whatever you like. I am going to take this page off my watchlist to save you from further sarcasm. Add your blah, Blah, if you can't help it.--Fenice 15:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there who actually agrees with Fenice? Please let me know now, before I start changing the page. I think we can reorganize and rewrite certains sections so that we can keep "balancing" to a minimum. In the end, we should have a great article with a NPOV.--Blah99 17:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Now Blah, let's think hard. If Fenice has not expressed a viewpoint is it at all possible that anyone could agree with Fenice.....? No, Blah. This is not possible. I find it hilarious that you are trying to have an editwar against someone who has given you complete liberty in all aspects. So it will be you, Blah, Alterblah and his sockpuppets giving this article a major rewrite. And keep "balancing" to a minimum. Yeah. I can't believe you wrote that. Aren't you ever embarrassed?

Blah, it is far too obvious that you did not come here to write a good article. You are trying just to pick an editwar by all means.--Fenice 17:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I also apologize to all accidental readers for my sarcasm - I am not sure why sarcasm is allowed on WP, maybe there should be a policy against it. But since it is allowed - it was just plain old necessary. And I will stop commenting on this talk page now.--Fenice 15:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixing the Bias

In order to fight bias problems, my suggestion is that we define what the ideal organization should be. Once we have an ideal, we can figure out what needs to be done in order to achieve it. Here is how I propose we organize this article:

1. General Concepts - We describe the general concepts associated with Gender Roles. No evidence is given here, so no one can really dispute any of these concepts; it's basically just a set of definitions.
2. Evidence - We list the evidence that Gender Roles exist. We don't, however, interpret this evidence; we just list and describe the evidence. This is just factual information, so we shouldn't have disputes.
3. Interpretations of the Evidence - We will describe the view that the evidence shows gender roles are completely social concepts, and we will describe the view that biological differences sometimes influence or maintain certain gender roles.
4. Relevance to Feminism - In this section, we might have a brief description of how Individualist feminism and Gender feminism differ on how gender roles should be viewed.

Comments? I'm very flexiable in how we go about this, but the article is not fine right now.--Blah99 17:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ha hm. Can you guys quote a source for that?--Fenice 17:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And also, concluding just from the points you guys listed: are you sure it is not Gender role (popular culture) you want to rewrite? I do not know of any scientific source that would list "evidence that gender roles exist". An article on Gender role (popular culture) could also include your hotly advocated feminism movement instead of feminist theory. Some of the material included in the existing article might also be moved to the new article. (And I am absolutely serious about this suggestion. )--Fenice 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was done talking to you, but now it seems you want to be constructive all of a sudden. First off, source for what? Second, perhaps instead of having a section called "Evidence", I could have two sections: "Evidence that Gender Roles are Influenced by Society" and "Evidence that Gender Roles are Influenced by Biology". And of course, we can have an opposing view for the latter section, which would dispute the evidence and claim that gender roles are completely social constructs. I wasn't trying to imply that some might think that gender roles don't exist, I was just trying to separate the evidence from the interpretation...but this might be a better way to divide things. And yes, I can find scientists who really do believe that there are fundamental mental differences between the sexes, and it's not hard to believe these differences influence how society constructs gender roles (and not just in the obvious ways).--Blah99 18:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources for what you want to write of course. And what science is it, it is not sociology - are these scientists you want to quote sexologists, anthropologists...? The corresponding artilce should be under gender role (sexology) and so on. --Fenice 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, I would only put differing views on a separate page if we were talking about two different definitions. For instance, you could have "Theory (scientific)" and "Theory (popular culture)", because popular culture defines the word "theory" differently than scientists do. If two types of scientists disagree on a topic, and they are both using the same definitions in their disagreement, than their views should be presented on the same page. Finally, please note that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. As long as I can show that a particular view is held by a significant group of people, than that view should be mentioned, regardless of what academics or scientists say. See "What is the neutral point of view?" and "Qualification" on NPOV for more details.--Blah99 19:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Blah, I know you are having huge trouble understanding Wikipedia and I know you have a lot to learn and it is all very complicated. Of course you need sources for your statements. Like any other encyclopedia. And no, you should not mix up politics and theory and this and that. Just like everywhere else. Wikipedia is no dump for texts of yours no one else will print. If you had the faintest idea on what you are (to my amusement) trying to write an article about or even started doing research you could not have missed that the definitions differ. Mixing up this and that is of course unacceptable. If you can manage to write articles on all of these sciences and then stick them in one article - that is possible. Can you? Do you think yourself you can?--Fenice 19:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your arrognance is irritating, so this is the last time I will respond to you. Also, I won't respond to your childish insults at all. I will point out that I never said I wouldn't cite sources. What I said is that the sources merely need to establish that a significant number of people hold a certain view, not that the view is respected by sociologists, for instance. This is what the Wikipedia policy says, which I cited. Anyhow, I'm done talking to you, even if you decide to be constructive again. You said that you would not attempt to stop me (in your own snooty way), but you also said you wouldn't make any more comments on this discussion board, and we saw how long that lasted. So, I have no reason to believe what you say. If you try to stop me again, I suppose we will need to escalate this matter.--Blah99 20:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That you are planing to "escalate the matter" does not surprise me at all, it fits the picture. You were agressive from the first line on. Please cut it out and observe WP:AGF. I know you are new. Again, read the relevant wikipedia policy, it clarifies what sources you should look for, see: Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not and also Wikipedia:No original research. You cannot quote anything that a non-noticeable group says. It is not enough that "a significant number of people holds this view", like "most people in fifth grade believe". It needs to be a party, church or something. Ok? Do you have any clue yet as to what sources you are going to use?--Fenice 21:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have seen in your edit-history that you are completely new to Wikipedia. So that explains some. Please read this: Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not and especially, observe the part on original thought. also, for your rewrite you will need a separate file, you cannot just blank the page and start a new article. You can use this: Gender role/temp for rewrite or work on it in your sandbox.--Fenice 20:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to let everyone know that I consider the debate between Fenice and myself closed. There is simply no reasoning with someone, who, in-between insults, reminds you of the WP:AGF. Should Arbitration be necessary in the future (and I hope it won't), I will gladly stand by all of my comments. I see now why this article has remained this way for so long. Fighting the mindset displayed by Fenice is incredibly taxing.

Anyway, if anyone would like to open an honest debate with me, I would certainly welcome it. For all I know, I could be wrong, and I am always thankful when a kind person points this out to me. However, Ad hominem arguments will not change any of my opinions. I will be working on a better organization for this page, which does not remove any relevant information currently in the article, but instead adds some information and gives the article a NPOV. Contrary to what Fenice believes, I did not come here for an edit war.--Blah99 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, Blah. There is no reason for edit-warring. I have not made ad hominem attacks as you are trying to imply. You have not even presented an issue yet we could be warring about. You asked if you could place criticism in the feminism section, I said yes, you started to argue for no reason whatsoever. I have asked what sources you can offer for your general rewrite, you are not giving any but resort to edit-warring again. --Fenice 22:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also welcome if finally someone else could tune in to accompany this general rewrite Blah's planning.--Fenice 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, I appreciate that you toned down the arrogance a few notches in the above, but let me share a few things with readers, because I've learned a few things since I've started arguing with you. First off, one thing that attracted me to Wikipedia was that, even though no one is paid for their work, as long as everyone keeps making small improvements to a document, then you can have a beautiful article at the end without a large work load on any one person.

For instance, a few months back, I read a sentence that said, "In 1987, Connell did extensive research on whether there are any connections between biology and gender role and concluded that there were none." I thought to myself, "That's not the end of the debate! There has to be at least one scientist who disagrees." So I did a quick Google search for some information, and then posted this sentence: Simon Baron-Cohen, a Cambridge Univ. professor of psychology and psychiatry, argued that "the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, while the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems." But I linked Simon Baron-Cohen's name to a description of his book on Amazon.com! Very lazy, but it was a starting point. Sure enough, someone came along and changed the link to a Wikipedia article about him. This was the type of continual improvement I expected, so I was pleased.

However, this time around, I just added a few arguments which I knew represented the opinion of quite a few people. I gave the other authors the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that they also knew any advocacy should be balanced in some way. I was hoping that my addition would be improved upon...perhaps, replaced with a quote from some respected person. Or, perhaps, it would be removed, along with the advocacy it was responding to. When I say the advocacy would be removed, I don't mean the feminist section would be deleted, I mean the parts that some people would disagree with would be neutralized. For instance, the passage could be carefully rewritten so as not to imply that everyone interprets the results of the "double burden" study as a wide-spread problem, because these types of things are not always black and white. Instead, the view I added was simply removed. I was not even the first person to object to this removal.

So, the point of all this is that my fantasy of continual improvement is dead. I see now that I have an uphill battle. I can't just insert a view point and expect people to improve on it by adding sources or reorganizing the page. I know that I'm not alone in seeing POV problems with this page...but I'm not sure if it's worth my time to fix it if we don't all seem to have the same general idea of what constitutes NPOV. So, if I decide to fight this battle, I will post an update sometime in the future. Until that happens, we may as well just drop this whole thing.--Blah99 00:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, and I completely share your disillusionment with Wikipedia as far as some controversial articles are concerned, even though my argument as to why this happens would be different from yours.

The thing with the "brain thing" is: the conclusion to theses studies - some of them are done by serious respectable scientists - that they are very contradictory. You will find studies that proove that women think in words and men in images as well as studies that claim the opposite. The human brain is not fully understood by scientists. Theses studies include audacious inferences from just a few facts. And even if these differences and their consequences could be established by a sufficient number of studies it is already known that these differences only decsribe a small group with typical features. The statistical variance is high. Like there are studies that men have better spatial perception than women, and women have better linguistic abilities. This only holds true for a limited range of IQ. Higher IQ-women and higher IQ-men tend to have equal results on these kinds of tests.

Still, a few weeks ago, I read that comment about the brain differences you put in and left it in, even though it is a political concession and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. But within the Wikipedia system it would not make sense to take it out, because one of the next persons dropping by would be thinking exactly the same way you do, would again research it and add it. That is why I am saying: add the criticism, even if it gives these articles on Wikipedia a tabloidy appearance, and even though I don't think it belongs here.--Fenice 06:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge masculinity

(This comment was also posted on Talk:Masculinity). I disagree that this should be merged. It's the equivalent of merging Aristocracy into Marxism because you think that class is an intellectual construct. To merge it would be to subscribe to the POV notion that gender is a learned attribute and is merely theoretical/intellectual definition. It also needs to link Femininity. MPS 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Masculinity might be defined in many different ways, anything from testosterone levels in the blood to whether males wear string ties, regular ties, or bow ties. To discuss "masculinity" adequately, one would have to know first of all whether it is associated with a learned gender role, or whether it is associated with unlearned factors. It would be a diversion to bring it in here. 金 (Kim) 07:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

fixin up the bias

ive noticed a compeltely pro-feminist, anti-biologist bias in this article. its written well, but im gonna fix it up, hopefully some people can help

Temporal bias

While I am new to the editing of this article, I am concerned about a temporal bias. In the Changing roles section, for instance, the content gives the impression that masculine and feminine roles remained the same until recently. What we the living consider traditional gender roles are mostly new themselves in the scheme of things. -Acjelen 04:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the pecularities of Wikipedia is the insistance that singular terms only be used in titles. Since the title of this article is "Gender role," it biases the issue to be an explication of the concept of a gender role. Basically, that is the right choice if we can only do one kind of thing because the concepts of "gender role" and "gender identity" are so poorly understood and represented in the mass media.

On the other hand, if we are going to provide instances of gender roles it would make sense to me to go wide in both terms of space and time. An interesting example would be the roles of men and women in early Zhou China (pre 700 BC). There are clearly indications that some features were related to sexual dimorphism, but women were much more positive about their position in society. They did "womanly" things like housekeeping, and the men did "manly" things like hunting (even taking on a tiger in individual combat in one instance), but the women whose points of view were expressed in poetry did not feel themselves inferior to men, beholden to men, etc.

What would be the extremes of gender roles? In Hakka society down into the 20th century, women worked in the fields and men "supervised." In the southern Chinese society of the state of Chu around 300 BC, (at least in the poetry of the time) men were represented as adorning themselves with flowers. and the graphic arts of the period show men wearing adornments that many other cultures would associate with feminimity. There are also indications in both early Zhou and the somewhat later Chu cultures that friendships between males were expressed in terms that would be suspect in 20th and 21st century US culture.

All the above is more-or-less direct from my memory and therefore not provided with citations. My intent is simply to suggest the kinds of things we might look for. In outline form, some of the limit cases or extreme cases that would define the ends of the ranges of several sample continua are:

Greatest exaggeration of female sexual dimorphism (real and imagined): delicate and restricted feminine roles (no duties, responsibilities, or range of action outside a sort of harem domain), sexually submissive

Least delicate and unrestricted feminine roles (weapon bearing, roaming the full domain of her ethnic group, sexually forward)

Most delicate and restricted male roles (the artistic scholar, coddled at home, insulated in the family compound from conflicts or duties, etc.)

Greatest exaggeration of male sexual dimorphism (real and imagined): high appetite for physical conflict, low sensitivity to pain, low empathy, heavy commitment to physical culture, sexually anything but submissive, indifferent to the affection of others except as it make others sexually available

Another thing that we could do would be to look at the distortions imposed by the above-listed cookie cutters, e.g., the omission of males and of females who are eager to have intercourse with anybody and anything capable of providing pleasant stimulii, the omission of males and of females whose primary stance is neither to emphasize their delicacy or their physical prowess but to make their entire beings flexible and resilient tools for the accomplishment of their highest goals, etc., etc.

I think we want to confine this article to talking about the social norms of various times and places and leave the gender roles that were not accepted by members at large of this society or that society to the separate article on atypical gender roles.

One other thing as an afterthought. The acceptable gender roles of a given society are often strongly influenced by class considerations. For instance, in traditional China the upper class women were expected to have bound feet, to not be at all tanned, to be unmuscular and delicate, never to appear unattended on the street, etc. Farm women and women whose families ran the sesame oil business or the butcher shop had fully functional feet, strong bodies, tanned faces and hands, and could probably do all the jobs considered appropriate to a man in a pinch.

Just some ideas off the top. 金 (Kim) 17:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of biologism section revised

In addition to fixing a spot that mentioned gender identity and then talked about gender role instead, I have removed the last few lines, which seem to me to be a kind of straw man just waiting for somebody to knock down. i.e. something to which one might well reply, "So what!?!".

Supporters of biologism point out that women with a college education have a higher statistical chance of doing housework full-time.

I was going to replace that passage with the following:

The observation by supporters of biologism that women with a college education have a higher statistical chance of doing housework full-time points not to the capabilities of men or women to do housework, but to the bias applied by social values pertinent to gender roles to the selection process that determines who actually does these jobs, since the capabilities of almost all men and women fall well within the range needed to perform these tasks.

But then it seemed that once the straw man was tidied up, there was no need to attack what was left of him, so I cut what I had just rewritten. 金 (Kim) 18:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

re:coarse language

what coarse language?

Transgendered and Intersexed people - Humour?

When an individual exhibits a gender role that is discordant with his or her gender identity, it is most often done to deliberately provoke a sense of incongruity and a humorous reaction to the attempts of a person of one sex to pass himself or herself off as a member of the opposite sex. People can find much entertainment in observing the exaggerations or the failures to get nuances of an unfamiliar gender role right.

Maybe I'm misreading this bit, but it doesn't quite make sense to me - in many cases, people may not stick to gender roles even though their gender identify matches their physical sex. Eg, people may cross-dress for reasons other than gender identity but also not for humoor (crossdressing explains this well). Indeed, surely implying that the most common intent is for humour is at odds with the rest of this article? Mdwh 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The end of the 'transgender' section says that "For the vast majority of people their gender is commensurate with their genitalia".

Does anyone have statistics about how vast this majority is? That is, conversely, what are the odds that a person will be born and not have their gender be commensurate with their genitalia?

whoistheroach 23:16, 22 Dec 2005

I would agree that the majority of gender expression of people who transcend the societally-induced gender boundaries is NOT for humor, in opposition to what the article states. The most visible instances, to the general population, are of that humor (movies, television, etc.), but I would suggest that the actual majority of the gender-transgressive behaviour is based on gender dysphoria or crossdressing behaviour (as an aside, nobody's 100% sure what causes either, but the transgender community claims all of them as their own, so I'd suggest that there's some commonality in the causes, though not in the precise results). Of course I have no numbers to back this up, but some time spent googling for crossdressers' and transsexuals' websites might raise a few eyebrows.

With respect to how big that "vast majority" really is, the "industry-accepted" estimate, and I have reason to understand that it can be found in the DSM-IV, is that 1 in 30000 people is transsexual. Lynn Conway has done some interesting calculations of more probable numbers of transgendered identity among the US population: [2] The article itself is biased toward male-to-female transsexualism, as Conway is herself an MtF TS, but Table 2 gives some suggested numbers of many "levels" of gender-transgressive behaviour.

On a more "gut feeling" note, the phrases "most often" (WRT humor) and "vast majority" feel a bit biased to me. Wwagner 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---

While i was reading this article i stumbled across a sentence that read:

"Also, God intended for women to do chores and have offspring while the men provided food and money for the family."

I edited this sentence to read:

"Also, the belief that God intended for women to do chores and have offspring while the men provided food and money for the family is inherent in many monotheic religions"

Please feel free to correct or improve this edit, however it would be much appreciated if statements like that (regardless of how it was intended) didn't pop up again, especially in an article covering a rather sensitive subject.

I think there are a couple of errors, or at least sentences not saying what the author probably intended.

The previous edits were vandalism. I've removed it. Dysprosia 09:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)