Wilson Nathan J, Parmenter Trevor R, Stancliffe Roger J, Shuttleworth Russell P, Parker Desrae
University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia.
J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2010 Mar;35(1):1-8. doi: 10.3109/13668250903496351.
A focus on male social pathologies may have evolved within parts of the intellectual disability research literature. This article explores this notion and makes some connections between mainstream gender theory about hegemonic masculinity and the current gendered discourse in intellectual disability research.
We conducted a thematic analysis of all journal article titles from four prominent intellectual disability journals where "man," "woman," "men," "women," "male," "female," "girl," and "boy" were mentioned in the title.
Thematic differences were identified between articles that focused on males or females, with less research attention on male health compared with female health. A strong focus was evident on problematised male sexual behaviour.
There is a distinct difference evident between articles that problematise males and articles for females encouraging health promotion that suggests a disparate focus on male social pathologies. A deeper contextual analysis of unique sex differences in research is proposed.
在部分智力残疾研究文献中,可能逐渐形成了对男性社会病态的关注。本文探讨了这一概念,并在关于霸权男性气质的主流性别理论与智力残疾研究中当前的性别化话语之间建立了一些联系。
我们对四种著名的智力残疾期刊中所有标题中提及“男人”“女人”“男性”“女性”“男孩”和“女孩”的期刊文章标题进行了主题分析。
确定了关注男性或女性的文章之间的主题差异,与女性健康相比,对男性健康的研究关注较少。明显强烈关注的是被问题化的男性性行为。
将男性问题化的文章与鼓励健康促进的女性文章之间存在明显差异,这表明对男性社会病态的关注截然不同。建议对研究中独特的性别差异进行更深入的背景分析。