User:Enwebb/AR
What makes Annual Reviews a good source for Wikipedia's goals?
[edit]- Review the verifiability and reliable sources policy
- Compare Annual Reviews to other source types
- Include an image
- Include an italicized quote
- Include 3 bolded words
.jpg)
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
— Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to compile the sum of human knowledge and give this knowledge to its readers for free. Several policies shape how Wikipedians strive towards this. Notability determines what kinds of subjects should be included, for example. Verifiability determines what information is included about a given subject. Content added to Wikipedia must be sourced so that readers and other Wikipedians can see the origin of a fact and gauge whether or not the source, and by extension, the fact, is trustworthy. The preference for trustworthy sources is codified in the reliable sources policy. The ideal source for Wikipedia is secondary, not primary or tertiary, and from an organization or person with a reputation for fact-checking. By allowing experts to summarize and contextualize the current body of knowledge of their fields, Annual Reviews is well placed to provide the secondary sources necessary to grow Wikipedia's depth and quality of coverage. For biomedical content, Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources solidifies into a mandate. Several Annual Reviews journals, such as Cancer Biology and Clinical Psychology, can be used to fulfill the requirements of WP:MEDRS and provide critical health information to our readers.
Explain how the following review could help improve the article on Gender role
[edit]- Read [1]
- Read and link to the Wikipedia article Gender role
- Discuss where in the Wikipedia article coverage or citations are lacking
- Identify parts of the AR review paper that would be useful
- Explain how you'd integrate the AR review into the Wikipedia article
- Include an inline citation in your answer
- Include at least two headings in your answer
One of the first things I noticed about the article gender role is that the lead is quite short relative to the length of the article, and almost certainly does not adequately summarize the body of the article. Given that the average reader only spends a few minutes on Wikipedia, it is critical that the lead provide a complete and concise overview. Other things that immediately caught my attention were the maintenance templates in the section Theories of gender as a social construct indicating where non-primary sources are needed. And while the section for Biological factors doesn't have maintenance tags indicating the need for secondary sources, it is evident that this section suffers from over-reliance on primary sources as well. Some sources in use in this section are quite old, with the oldest published in 1981 (nearly forty years ago!) There is also no clear structure in this section, with a piecemeal construction involving several short and fragmented paragraphs rather than a logical flow.
Gender role#Biological factors (current)
[edit]Because of the influence of Simone de Beauvoir's feminist works and Michel Foucault's reflections on sexuality (among others), the idea that gender was unrelated to sex gained ground during the 1980s, especially in sociology and cultural anthropology.[1] This view asserts that the relationship between gender and sex (presence of genitals/gonads) is not causally determinate. That is, that one may have the genitals of one sex while having the gender of another.[2]
There continues to be debate on the subject. Simon Baron-Cohen, a Cambridge University professor of psychology and psychiatry claims 'the female brain is predominantly "hard-wired" for empathy, while the male brain is predominantly "hard-wired" for understanding and building systems'.undue weight on this person's opinion[3][4] However, Nash and Grossi describe his study of newborns as "fraught with methodological problems".[5]
Several studies have been conducted looking at the gender roles of intersex children.
One such study looked at female infants with adrenal hyperplasia, and who had excess male hormone levels, but were thought to be females and raised as such by their parents. These girls were more likely to express masculine traits.primary source[6][7]
Another study looked at 18 infants with the intersex condition 5-alpha reductase deficiency, and XY chromosomes, assigned female at birth. At adult age only one individual maintained a female role, all the others being stereotypically male.primary source[8]
In a third study, 14 male children born with cloacal exstrophy and assigned female at birth, including through intersex medical interventions. Upon follow-up between the ages of 5 to 12, eight of them identified as boys, and all of the subjects had at least moderately male-typical attitudes and interests.primary source[9]
Dr. Sandra Lipsitz Bem is a psychologist who developed the gender schema theory, based on the combination of aspects of the social learning theory and the cognitive-development theory of sex role acquisition, to explain how individuals come to use gender as an organizing category in all aspects of their life. In 1971, she created the Bem Sex-Role Inventory to measure how well an individual conformed to a traditional gender role, characterizing those tested as having masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated personality. She believed that through gender-schematic processing, a person spontaneously sorts attributes and behaviors into masculine and feminine categories, and that therefore individuals processes information and regulate their behavior based on whatever definitions of femininity and masculinity their culture provides.forty year old source[10]
While there are differences in average capabilities of various kinds (E.g. better average balance in females or greater average physical size and endurance in males) between the sexes[11] the capabilities of some members of one sex will fall within the range of capabilities needed for tasks conventionally assigned to the other sex. Eve Shapiro, author of Gender Circuits, explains that "gender, like other social categories, is both a personal identity and a culture set of behaviors, beliefs and values."unrelated to the section topic of how biology relates to gender roles[12][relevant to this paragraph? – discuss]
Research at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center has also shown that gender roles may be biological among primates. Yerkes researchers studied the interactions of 11 male and 23 female Rhesus monkeys with human toys, both wheeled and plush. The males played mostly with the wheeled toys while the females played with both types equally.[13] Study co-author Kim Wallen has, however, warned against overinterpreting the results as the color and size of the toys may also have been factors.primary source[14]
References
|
|---|
|
Gender role#Biological factors (proposed)
[edit]Historically, gender roles have been largely attributed to biological differences in men and women. One hypothesis attributed differences in gender roles to evolution. It was believed that men's fitness was increased by being aggressive, allowing them to compete with other men for access to females, as well as by being sexually promiscuous and trying to father as many children as possible. Women were benefited by bonding with infants and caring for children. These evolutionary roles led to the establishment of traditional gender roles with women in the domestic sphere and men dominant in every other area.[1]
Another hypothesis attributed differences in gender roles to prenatal exposure to hormones. Early research examining the effect of biology on gender roles by John Money and Anke Ehrhardt primarily focused on girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), resulting in higher-than-normal prenatal exposure to androgens. While it was said that these girls exhibited tomboy-like behavior, were less interested in dolls, and less likely to make-believe as parents, many methodological problems were identified with the studies.[2] Sociologist Linda L. Lindsey critiqued the idea that gender roles were a result of prenatal hormone exposure, saying that while hormones may explain sex differences like sexual orientation and gender identity, they "cannot account for gender differences in other roles such as nurturing, love, and criminal behavior".[1]
Biology is now understood as a minor factor in gender role development. Multiple studies that examined biological sex in relation to volume of brain tissue, connectivity of different regions of the brain, cognitive performance, social behaviors, and mental well-being found larger differences within groups of men and women than between them. Therefore, sex was not a meaningful predictor, providing evidence against the idea that biology has a main role in gender role differences. The societal roles and differences in power between men and women are instead much more strongly indicated.[3]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Lindsey, L. L. (2015). Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Routledge. pp. 29–34. ISBN 9781317348085.
- ^ Berenbaum, Sheri A.; Blakemore, Judith E. Owen; Beltz, Adriene M. (2011). "A Role for Biology in Gender-Related Behavior". Sex Roles. 64 (11–12): 804–825. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9990-8. S2CID 145689071.
- ^ Ellemers, Naomi (2018). "Gender Stereotypes". Annual Review of Psychology. 69: 275–298. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719. hdl:1874/362624. PMID 28961059.