This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fahmida94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Burreaux5.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The references are incomplete, having only the title, author, and year of publication, but lacking the name of the journal and the volume, and page number. A search on Google Scholar shows that all 12 of the present references were published in one journal, "Gender & Society," which also published the article which is the subject of this article. Edison ( talk) 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So far the 12 references are all articles published in one journal, Gender & Society. A notable scientific article should have influenced a field in a larger way than by gaining the notice of the authors, editors, and readers of one lone journal, even though the journal appears to be a proper scholarly journal with peer reviewed articles. When a series of articles are based on one source, it causes some concern about a "walled garden". Unless other reliable sources (other journals, textbooks in sociology, books from academic presses and respected publishers) show significant coverage of this journal article, it should be deleted or merged with Gender role. Edison ( talk) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
One continuing source of potential divergence between Butler and West and Fenstermaker comes from the dual meaning of performativity for Butler--its theatrical and linguistic uses in her work. Though it would be a serious misreading to reduce Butler's conception of gender solely to the theatrical sense of performativity or to treat it as simply a dramaturical exercise, it remains unclear as to what the present status of performativity vis-a-vis performance is in her framework. Without question, for West and Fenstermaker, doing difference is not a set of performances, or a series of "displays" (cf. Goffman 1976). These authors not only do not embrace this model, they actively reject it.
- Moloney and Fenstermaker Doing Gender, Doing Difference p. 203
This article is a classic in its field, and is cited everywhere. You can start with these 1,840 citations (at time of writing) and figure out which ones are notable enough to be included here. Mathglot ( talk) 10:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article was edited as part of the San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon. The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editor's & a healthy environment, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! Sarah ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Over the next few weeks I intend to edit the current article doing gender with the goal of eliminating the concerns posted above. Below is an annotated bibliography of possible sources (some which are currently cited in the article and some new). If anyone has any insight into other appropriate sources, especially from non-sociological disciplines, they would be greatly appreciated!
BRUNI, A., GHERARDI, S. (2007). Omega’s story. The heterogeneous engineering of a gendered professional self. "Dent M. e Stephen W. (edit by). “Managing Professional Identities. Knowledge, Performativity and the “New” Professional”, Routeledge, Londra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.227.130 ( talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender. Social Problems, 36(5), 473–490. doi:10.2307/3096813 Coltrane’s study furthers West and Zimmerman’s theory of “doing gender” (gender as accomplishment) by examining the division of household labor in families and the extent to which child care is essentialized as a “womanly” attribute in families where parents share child care responsibilities and in those where the female parent takes on the responsibility of child care.
Jurik, N. C., & Siemsen, C. (2009). “Doing gender” as canon or agenda: A symposium on West and Zimmerman. Gender and Society, 23(1), 72–75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676750 In 2009, Gender and Society published “A Symposium on West and Zimmerman’s “Doing Gender”, asking scholars to offer critiques of West and Zimmerman’s work. In the current article doing gender, six of the citations provided come from this issue of Gender and Society. I propose using Jurik and Siemsen’s article to discuss legitimate criticism about “doing gender” in an effort to maintain neutrality, while at the same time avoiding the “walled garden” that currently exists on this page.
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. Romaine’s research focuses on the ways that doing gender involves discourse and language. Also discuss the gendered, “man-made” nature of language.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464. doi:10.1177/0891243209340034Schilt and Westbrook use the concept of “doing gender” to examine the interactions between cisgendered and transgendered people and to establish a link between “doing gender” and heteronormativity. Specifically, Schilt and Westbrook further West and Zimmerman’s idea that, “If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals-not the institutional arrangements-may be called to account (for our character, motives, and predispositions)”, by focusing on the consequences of doing gender that is inconsistent with one’s sex during sexual interactions.
Stanton, D. C., & Stewart, A. J. (1995). Feminisms in the Academy. University of Michigan Press.Many of the criticisms about the current article doing gender refer to the lack of sources from other fields of study. Stanton and Stewart provide insight into how doing gender is both important and counterintuitive to the discipline of psychology. Stanton and Stewart describe research methods that may further the psychological study of doing gender.
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9(1), 8–37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/189596 West and Fenstermaker elaborate on West and Zimmerman’s concept of doing gender as a way to maintain the hierarchical structure of sex/gender by demonstrating that the concepts of race and class also maintain societal hierarchies and work in conjunction with gender to maintain social inequalities.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/189945 Using an ethnomethodological approach, West and Zimmerman further the study of gender as a social construct by developing the concept of gender as a lifelong accomplishment, achieved through daily social interactions. West and Zimmerman argue that “doing gender” serves to legitimize and maintain heteronormative gender roles by falsely essentializing them. West and Zimmerman focus on Goffman’s ideas of gender roles and gender display, and particularly take issue with his assertion of gender display as optional. West and Zimmerman also posit that although individuals have agency when it comes to displaying gender, they will still be perceived by others as either male or female. Using the case study of Agnes, a transsexual raised as a boy until the age of 17, from Harold Garfinkel’s “Studies in Ethnomethodology”, West and Zimmerman demonstrate the difference between sex, sex category, and gender.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society, 23(1), 112–122. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676758 In “Accounting for Doing Gender, West and Zimmerman respond to critiques of their seminal work, “Doing Gender”. Specifically, West and Zimmerman elaborate on methods that will allow for the further study of “doing gender”. Ghalmars ( talk) 06:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's been a Merge proposal banner on this article since 2012 suggesting a merge with Social construction of gender difference and Gender performativity. There was some action on the other two articles, but this one was left out of it. I believe I understand the reason for the original Merge proposal, as well as how to resolve it by doing a partial merge instead. The basis for my Partial merge proposal, rests on the fact that a single academic journal article, namely the 1987 Doing Gender by West & Zimmerman, is very highly notable and deserves its own Wikipedia article.
This leads to the following three-part proposal, which I think will resolve the existing confusion among the three Wikipedia articles:
This proposal does not address the scope boundaries between the other two articles or how to resolve them. The hope is that this proposal simplifies a 3-way problem into a 2-way one by solving one sub-problem first, thus (hopefully) making the bilateral one easier to solve.
Currently, there is, in fact, a large overlap between this article and Social construction of gender difference and Gender performativity and it's hard to know what belongs where because of the uncertain scope, chiefly of this article. Refocusing this one to the W&Z article, simplifies that problem by distributing the overlap here to the other two articles.
To justify this, it's necessary to understand the impact and influence of the W&Z article. Candace West and Don Zimmerman published their article Doing Gender in 1987. [note 1] It's hard to overstate the impact that this article has had. Since publication, it has been cited innumerable times, and has been highly influential in the topic of gender as performance. The titles of other articles and books are hat tips or extensions of the name (Doing Gender Diversity; Undoing Gender; Doing gender, doing surgery: Women surgeons in a man's profession; etc.). It's so central to the field, it deserves a Wikipedia article for itself, being both highly notable and referenced innumerable times in reliable sources.
The West & Zimmerman article is well-represented in the WP article, which is obviously named after it. The WP article was created in 2012 at 10,582 bytes, and version one was already a pretty good description of the W&Z article, along with analysis and some criticism of it. But it did have some extraneous material, and over time, that just got worse as other editors added a lot of additional material that either duplicates content in, or more properly belongs in Social construction of gender difference or Gender performativity as it does not directly deal with the West & Zimmerman article. Since creation, the article has grown to 21,877 bytes.
I would be happy to participate in the effort by recasting the lead paragraph to set the focus, and to continue the effort of partitioning out parts of it to the other two, but I'd like to hear more opinions first, if possible. For the time being, I've added an {{ Unfocused}} banner, which hopefully will be considered uncontroversial. Mathglot ( talk) 04:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
References for Partial merge proposal
Ok. I am not a expert in gender studies. However, this statement seems to me to be saying that "gender" is behavior:
"gender is the degree to which an actor is masculine or feminine, in light of societal expectations about what is appropriate for one's sex category"
But the beginning paragraph says:
"In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the idea that in Western culture, gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a psychologically ingrained social construct that actively surfaces in everyday human interaction"
So, in other words, the behavior that can either meet expectations or not is caused not by "innate" things because it is a social construct? That just simply does not follow. These statements cannot both be true.
So, does this mean that there is a common tendency in sociology to believe this? If so, is there some kind of source that can be used to verify this, like a text book for university? Or is the wording somehow off in this article? 88.195.243.29 ( talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment... gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine 'natures'" (p. 126). In that same page they say that people are held hostage to these expectations. I suggest changing the sentence to "
In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the idea that in Western culture, gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a social construct that actively and repeatedly surfaces in everyday human interaction." We might want to add a line about how gender is upheld through this repeated demand for its production in interactions. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed a number of maintenance tags left over from 2012, that no longer hold up: {{
Refimprove}}, {{
POV check}}, {{
citation style}} and {{
Notability}}; justification available at their respective edit summaries. But really, it's the person placing a maintenance tag that needs to justify them, either with the |reason=
param, or here on the Talk page, or both.
I've left in the {{ Essay-like}} tag for now which dates from May 2016; however it, too, lacks justification, and if none is forthcoming within a reasonable interval, it should be removed as well. Mathglot ( talk) 11:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fahmida94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Burreaux5.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The references are incomplete, having only the title, author, and year of publication, but lacking the name of the journal and the volume, and page number. A search on Google Scholar shows that all 12 of the present references were published in one journal, "Gender & Society," which also published the article which is the subject of this article. Edison ( talk) 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So far the 12 references are all articles published in one journal, Gender & Society. A notable scientific article should have influenced a field in a larger way than by gaining the notice of the authors, editors, and readers of one lone journal, even though the journal appears to be a proper scholarly journal with peer reviewed articles. When a series of articles are based on one source, it causes some concern about a "walled garden". Unless other reliable sources (other journals, textbooks in sociology, books from academic presses and respected publishers) show significant coverage of this journal article, it should be deleted or merged with Gender role. Edison ( talk) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
One continuing source of potential divergence between Butler and West and Fenstermaker comes from the dual meaning of performativity for Butler--its theatrical and linguistic uses in her work. Though it would be a serious misreading to reduce Butler's conception of gender solely to the theatrical sense of performativity or to treat it as simply a dramaturical exercise, it remains unclear as to what the present status of performativity vis-a-vis performance is in her framework. Without question, for West and Fenstermaker, doing difference is not a set of performances, or a series of "displays" (cf. Goffman 1976). These authors not only do not embrace this model, they actively reject it.
- Moloney and Fenstermaker Doing Gender, Doing Difference p. 203
This article is a classic in its field, and is cited everywhere. You can start with these 1,840 citations (at time of writing) and figure out which ones are notable enough to be included here. Mathglot ( talk) 10:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article was edited as part of the San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon. The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editor's & a healthy environment, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! Sarah ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Over the next few weeks I intend to edit the current article doing gender with the goal of eliminating the concerns posted above. Below is an annotated bibliography of possible sources (some which are currently cited in the article and some new). If anyone has any insight into other appropriate sources, especially from non-sociological disciplines, they would be greatly appreciated!
BRUNI, A., GHERARDI, S. (2007). Omega’s story. The heterogeneous engineering of a gendered professional self. "Dent M. e Stephen W. (edit by). “Managing Professional Identities. Knowledge, Performativity and the “New” Professional”, Routeledge, Londra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.227.130 ( talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender. Social Problems, 36(5), 473–490. doi:10.2307/3096813 Coltrane’s study furthers West and Zimmerman’s theory of “doing gender” (gender as accomplishment) by examining the division of household labor in families and the extent to which child care is essentialized as a “womanly” attribute in families where parents share child care responsibilities and in those where the female parent takes on the responsibility of child care.
Jurik, N. C., & Siemsen, C. (2009). “Doing gender” as canon or agenda: A symposium on West and Zimmerman. Gender and Society, 23(1), 72–75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676750 In 2009, Gender and Society published “A Symposium on West and Zimmerman’s “Doing Gender”, asking scholars to offer critiques of West and Zimmerman’s work. In the current article doing gender, six of the citations provided come from this issue of Gender and Society. I propose using Jurik and Siemsen’s article to discuss legitimate criticism about “doing gender” in an effort to maintain neutrality, while at the same time avoiding the “walled garden” that currently exists on this page.
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. Romaine’s research focuses on the ways that doing gender involves discourse and language. Also discuss the gendered, “man-made” nature of language.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464. doi:10.1177/0891243209340034Schilt and Westbrook use the concept of “doing gender” to examine the interactions between cisgendered and transgendered people and to establish a link between “doing gender” and heteronormativity. Specifically, Schilt and Westbrook further West and Zimmerman’s idea that, “If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals-not the institutional arrangements-may be called to account (for our character, motives, and predispositions)”, by focusing on the consequences of doing gender that is inconsistent with one’s sex during sexual interactions.
Stanton, D. C., & Stewart, A. J. (1995). Feminisms in the Academy. University of Michigan Press.Many of the criticisms about the current article doing gender refer to the lack of sources from other fields of study. Stanton and Stewart provide insight into how doing gender is both important and counterintuitive to the discipline of psychology. Stanton and Stewart describe research methods that may further the psychological study of doing gender.
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9(1), 8–37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/189596 West and Fenstermaker elaborate on West and Zimmerman’s concept of doing gender as a way to maintain the hierarchical structure of sex/gender by demonstrating that the concepts of race and class also maintain societal hierarchies and work in conjunction with gender to maintain social inequalities.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/189945 Using an ethnomethodological approach, West and Zimmerman further the study of gender as a social construct by developing the concept of gender as a lifelong accomplishment, achieved through daily social interactions. West and Zimmerman argue that “doing gender” serves to legitimize and maintain heteronormative gender roles by falsely essentializing them. West and Zimmerman focus on Goffman’s ideas of gender roles and gender display, and particularly take issue with his assertion of gender display as optional. West and Zimmerman also posit that although individuals have agency when it comes to displaying gender, they will still be perceived by others as either male or female. Using the case study of Agnes, a transsexual raised as a boy until the age of 17, from Harold Garfinkel’s “Studies in Ethnomethodology”, West and Zimmerman demonstrate the difference between sex, sex category, and gender.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society, 23(1), 112–122. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676758 In “Accounting for Doing Gender, West and Zimmerman respond to critiques of their seminal work, “Doing Gender”. Specifically, West and Zimmerman elaborate on methods that will allow for the further study of “doing gender”. Ghalmars ( talk) 06:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's been a Merge proposal banner on this article since 2012 suggesting a merge with Social construction of gender difference and Gender performativity. There was some action on the other two articles, but this one was left out of it. I believe I understand the reason for the original Merge proposal, as well as how to resolve it by doing a partial merge instead. The basis for my Partial merge proposal, rests on the fact that a single academic journal article, namely the 1987 Doing Gender by West & Zimmerman, is very highly notable and deserves its own Wikipedia article.
This leads to the following three-part proposal, which I think will resolve the existing confusion among the three Wikipedia articles:
This proposal does not address the scope boundaries between the other two articles or how to resolve them. The hope is that this proposal simplifies a 3-way problem into a 2-way one by solving one sub-problem first, thus (hopefully) making the bilateral one easier to solve.
Currently, there is, in fact, a large overlap between this article and Social construction of gender difference and Gender performativity and it's hard to know what belongs where because of the uncertain scope, chiefly of this article. Refocusing this one to the W&Z article, simplifies that problem by distributing the overlap here to the other two articles.
To justify this, it's necessary to understand the impact and influence of the W&Z article. Candace West and Don Zimmerman published their article Doing Gender in 1987. [note 1] It's hard to overstate the impact that this article has had. Since publication, it has been cited innumerable times, and has been highly influential in the topic of gender as performance. The titles of other articles and books are hat tips or extensions of the name (Doing Gender Diversity; Undoing Gender; Doing gender, doing surgery: Women surgeons in a man's profession; etc.). It's so central to the field, it deserves a Wikipedia article for itself, being both highly notable and referenced innumerable times in reliable sources.
The West & Zimmerman article is well-represented in the WP article, which is obviously named after it. The WP article was created in 2012 at 10,582 bytes, and version one was already a pretty good description of the W&Z article, along with analysis and some criticism of it. But it did have some extraneous material, and over time, that just got worse as other editors added a lot of additional material that either duplicates content in, or more properly belongs in Social construction of gender difference or Gender performativity as it does not directly deal with the West & Zimmerman article. Since creation, the article has grown to 21,877 bytes.
I would be happy to participate in the effort by recasting the lead paragraph to set the focus, and to continue the effort of partitioning out parts of it to the other two, but I'd like to hear more opinions first, if possible. For the time being, I've added an {{ Unfocused}} banner, which hopefully will be considered uncontroversial. Mathglot ( talk) 04:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
References for Partial merge proposal
Ok. I am not a expert in gender studies. However, this statement seems to me to be saying that "gender" is behavior:
"gender is the degree to which an actor is masculine or feminine, in light of societal expectations about what is appropriate for one's sex category"
But the beginning paragraph says:
"In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the idea that in Western culture, gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a psychologically ingrained social construct that actively surfaces in everyday human interaction"
So, in other words, the behavior that can either meet expectations or not is caused not by "innate" things because it is a social construct? That just simply does not follow. These statements cannot both be true.
So, does this mean that there is a common tendency in sociology to believe this? If so, is there some kind of source that can be used to verify this, like a text book for university? Or is the wording somehow off in this article? 88.195.243.29 ( talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment... gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine 'natures'" (p. 126). In that same page they say that people are held hostage to these expectations. I suggest changing the sentence to "
In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the idea that in Western culture, gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a social construct that actively and repeatedly surfaces in everyday human interaction." We might want to add a line about how gender is upheld through this repeated demand for its production in interactions. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed a number of maintenance tags left over from 2012, that no longer hold up: {{
Refimprove}}, {{
POV check}}, {{
citation style}} and {{
Notability}}; justification available at their respective edit summaries. But really, it's the person placing a maintenance tag that needs to justify them, either with the |reason=
param, or here on the Talk page, or both.
I've left in the {{ Essay-like}} tag for now which dates from May 2016; however it, too, lacks justification, and if none is forthcoming within a reasonable interval, it should be removed as well. Mathglot ( talk) 11:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)