User talk:Sabrinajoy1020
| This user is a student editor in Boise_State_University/SOC_GENDER_371_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Sabrinajoy1020, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Sabrina! My name is Dalton Tiegs and I am excited to collaborate in our class. I've never participated in content creation for Wikipedia before. Dtiegs (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
[edit]I chose to read the article titles "social construction of gender" because I feel like the socialization of gender is a huge part of why we have stereotypes and social "rules" when it comes to gender. Like boys cant cry and girls must be delicate and sensitive.
When reading this article I do feel like the author kept pretty neutral when discussing the social construction of gender. I feel like when writing articles like these I can be difficult to keep your own opinions at bay, but because the author cited so many other psychologists as well as other authors, I think they did a fairly decent job at it. I also think that since they did use so many other sources it kind of made the article difficult to follow along with especially because all of the psychologists that the author cited had a different variation of what they believed about social construction of gender. Generally they all believe the same thing but there were differences between all of them which made it hard to focus on what exactly was being said and what was correct and where the gray area lied. Nevertheless, I do think that the majority of what was said in this article is relevant to the overall point of the social construction of gender. Every source the author used did give something to the article to help the reader better understand gender a little more.
When I finished reading this article I looked over the sources that the author used and some of them surprised me. For the ones that i clicked on all of the links did work, which is a great sign that the sources are liable ones. But, some of the sources for this article were from as early as 1980. Which could mean that the source is highly inaccurate of the social construction of gender today since it is almost 40 years later. Even articles that were written in 2008 are probably inaccurate since that was ten years ago and I strongly believe that our social construction over the past ten years has changed a lot. There are definitely some things that happened in 1980 that still reign true in todays society but I don't feel like it is necessary to use this source in this article. I think that even though this article was written relatively neutral, the sources the author used are probably not neutral. I think every author has an opinion on the subject of social construction and wrote their articles based off of their own opinions on the subject which make the article very biased towards their own beliefs. Even the ones that constructed social experiments were written in a biased tone. Also there were a couple articles that I clicked on and read through that I felt didn't really belong in the article in my opinion. Like the article that discusses the risk of HIV among black men. I wasn't totally sure where that fit into the article because I didn't feel like it had a ton to do with social construction it had more to do with homosexuality and the risk of getting HIV. Overall the article was written very well and I think it definitely hit the point of social construction.