Psikolojide Toplumsal Cinsiyet Çalışmalarının Sömürgesizleştiricilik Açısından Tarihi Bir Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu makale, psikolojide toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmalarının tarihsel olarak kapsamlı bir incelemesini sunarak, bu kavram üzerindeki sömürgeci etkilerin varlığını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Bu amaç doğrultusunda, psikoloji alanındaki toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmalarında geliştirilmiş olan kuramsal yaklaşımların sömürgesizleştirici bir incelemesi yapılmıştır. İlk olarak, toplumsal cinsiyete dair biyolojik ve sosyal inşacı bakış açılarını içeren geleneksel yaklaşımlar ele alınmış ve bu yaklaşımların, özellikle sömürgeci önyargılar ve farklı deneyimlerin dışlanması açısından sınırlılıkları tartışılmıştır. Ardından feminist, kesişimsel ve sömürgesizleştirici bakış açıları olmak üzere üç eleştirel yaklaşım incelenerek, bu yaklaşımların toplumsal cinsiyetin daha kapsayıcı bir şekilde anlaşılmasına sunduğu katkılar ele alınmıştır. Feminist bakış açısının geleneksel erkek odaklı görüşleri eleştirmesi, kesişimsel bakış açısının birbiriyle kesişen sosyal kimliklerin karmaşıklığını ele alması ve sömürgesizleştirici bakış açısının Batı merkezci bulguların evrenselliğini sorgulayarak yerli ve çoğunluk dünyasını temel alan bakış açılarının gerekliliğini vurgulaması üzerinde durulmuştur. Bununla birlikte, eleştirel bakış açıları arasındaki farklılıklar da vurgulanmıştır. Bulgular: Eleştirel yaklaşımlar sayesinde, toplumsal cinsiyet ile ilgili günümüz psikolojik araştırmalarında birtakım ilerlemeler görülmesine rağmen, sömürgeci etkilerin halen varlığını sürdürdüğü ve bu konuda daha fazla gelişmeye ihtiyaç olduğu görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, araştırmaların çeşitli örneklem gruplarını ve araştırmacıları içerecek şekilde genişletilmesi, çalışmalardaki epistemolojik önyargıların giderilmesi ve kuramsal ve metodolojik yaklaşımlara çoğunluk dünyasının bakış açılarının entegre edilmesi önerilmektedir. Bunun, hem toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmalarında bilimsel ilerleme açısından hem de toplumsal cinsiyet meselelerine yönelik geliştirilen çözümler açısından önemli olduğu, mesleki tercihler örneği üzerinden gösterilmektedir. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, psikolojik araştırmalarda toplumsal cinsiyete ilişkin, farklılıklara daha duyarlı ve yerel olarak daha geçerli bir anlayışa ulaşmak için sömürgesizleştirilmeye duyulan ihtiyacın devam ettiği vurgulanmıştır. Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, toplumsal cinsiyet kavramının psikolojik açıdan ele alınmasına dair kapsamlı bir inceleme sunarak, Batı merkezli yaklaşımların sınırlılıklarını eleştirel bir şekilde ortaya koymakta ve sömürgesizleştirici bakış açısının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır. Toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmaları örneği üzerinden geleneksel ve eleştirel yaklaşımları bir arada değerlendirerek, farklı yaklaşımların güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini ortaya koyması ve sömürgesizleştirme yolunda kavramsal ilerlemenin nasıl sağlanabileceğini göstermesiyle literatüre önemli ve özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kültürel psikoloji
• politik psikoloji
• sömürgeleştirme
• sömürgesizleştirme
• toplumsal cinsiyet

A Historical Evaluation of Gender Studies in Psychology from a Decolonial Perspective

Öz

Aim: This article aims to provide a comprehensive historical review of gender studies in psychology while uncovering the presence of colonial influences on this concept. Method: To achieve this goal, a decolonial analysis of theoretical approaches developed in gender studies within psychology was conducted. First, traditional perspectives, including biological and social constructionist views on gender, were examined, and their limitations, particularly in terms of colonial biases and the exclusion of diverse experiences, were discussed. Subsequently, three critical perspectives, namely feminist, intersectional, and decolonial perspectives, were analysed to explore their contributions to a more inclusive understanding of gender. The feminist perspective's critique of traditionally male-centred views, the intersectional perspective’s emphasis on the complexity of overlapping social identities, and the decolonial perspective’s challenge to the universality of Western-centric findings while highlighting the necessity of Indigenous and Global South perspectives were emphasised. Additionally, differences among these critical perspectives were highlighted. Results: Despite some progress in contemporary psychological research on gender, colonial influences persist, demonstrating the ongoing need for further advancements. In this context, it is recommended that research be expanded to include diverse sample groups and researchers, epistemological biases be addressed, and theoretical and methodological approaches integrate perspectives from the Global South. This is not only crucial for scientific progress in gender studies but also essential for developing solutions to gender-related issues, as exemplified in the context of career choices. Conclusion: The study underscores the continued need for decoloniality to achieve a more contextually valid and nuanced understanding of gender in psychological research. Originality: This study offers a comprehensive examination of the psychological conceptualisation of gender by critically addressing the limitations of Western-centric approaches and emphasising the necessity of a decolonial perspective. By evaluating traditional and critical approaches together, it highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives and demonstrates how conceptual progress toward decoloniality can be achieved, providing a significant and original contribution to the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• cultural psychology
• political psychology
• coloniality
• decoloniality
• gender

Kaynakça

1. Abo-Zena, M. M., Jones, K. & Mattis, J. (2022). Dismantling the master’s house: decolonizing “Rigor” in psychological scholarship. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 298-319. doi: 10.1111/josi.12519
2. Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T. & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 213-238. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v3i1.564
3. Adams, G., Gómez Ordóñez, L., Kurtiş, T., Molina, L. E. & Dobles, I. (2017). Notes on decolonizing psychology: from one special issue to another. South African Journal of Psychology, 47(4), 531-541. doi: 10.1177/0081246317738173
4. Alam, S. (2008). Majority world: challenging the West’s rhetoric of democracy. Amerasia Journal, 34(1), 88-98. doi: 10.17953/amer.34.1.l3176027k4q614v5
5. Ansara, Y. G. & Hegarty, P. (2012). Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008. Psychology & Sexuality, 3(2), 137-160. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2011.576696
6. Appiah, K. A. (2020). The case for capitalizing the B in Black. Erişim adresi: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/time-to-capitalize-blackand-white/613159/
7. Arnett, J. J. (2016). The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602-614. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.63.7.602
8. Ashraf, A. & Kennedy-Pipe, C. (2022). Woman, war, and the politics of emancipation in Afghanistan. LSE Public Policy Review, 2(3). doi: 10.31389/lseppr.58

9. Baxandall, R. & Gordon, L. (2002). Second-wave feminism. N. A. Hewitt (Ed.), A Companion to American Women’s History, (s. 414-432) içinde. Malden: Blackwell. Erişim adresi: doi: 10.1002/9780470998595.ch24
10. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. (Basılı kitap)
11. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. Erişim adresi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq86n
12. Bharj, N. & Adams, G. (2023). Dismantling the master’s house with the mistress’ tools? The intersection between feminism and psychology as a site for decolonization. E. L. Zurbriggen ve R. Capdevila (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology (s. 173-189) içinde. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-41531-9
13. Bhatia, S. (2002). Orientalism in Euro-American and Indian psychology: historical representations of "natives" in colonial and postcolonial contexts. History of Psychology, 5(4), 376-398. doi: 10.1037/1093-4510.5.4.376
14. Bhatia, S. (2017) Decolonizing psychology: globalization, social justice, and Indian youth identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erişim adresi: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-43743-000
15. Bhatia, S. (2019). Searching for justice in an unequal world: reframing indigenous psychology as a cultural and political project. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39(2), 107-114. doi: 10.1037/teo0000109
16. Bhatia, S. (2020). Decolonizing psychology: power, citizenship and identity. Psychoanalysis, Self and Context, 15(3), 257-266. doi: 10.1080/24720038.2020.1772266
17. Bhatia, S. & Priya, K. R. (2021). Coloniality and psychology: from silencing to re-centering marginalized voices in postcolonial times. Review of General Psychology, 25(4), 422-436. doi: 10.1177/10892680211046507
18. Biernat, M. & Deaux, K. (2012). A history of social psychological research on gender. A. W. Kruglanski ve W. Stroebe (Ed.), The Handbook of the History of Social Psychology (s. 475-497) içinde. New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi: 10.4324/9780203808498
19. Bohan, J. S. (1993). Regarding gender: essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00673.x
20. Cardinal, L. (2001). What is an Indigenous perspective? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 180-182. Erişim adresi: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/what-is-indigenous-perspective/docview/230307307/se-2
21. Carpenter, S. & Trentham, S. (1998). Subtypes of women and men: a new taxonomy and an exploratory categorical analysis. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 13(4), 679-696. doi: 10.1023/A:1014871929854
22. Cheon, B. K., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. (2020). How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 928-937. doi: 10.1177/1948550620927269
23. Cole, E. R. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: from practice to theory. Sex Roles, 59(5), 443-453. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9419-1
24. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (1. Baskı). Boston: Unwin Hyman. (Basılı kitap)
25. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2. Baskı). New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203900055
26. Coultas, C. (2022). Accounting for colonial complicities through refusals in researching agency across borders. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 413-433. doi: 10.1111/josi.12473
27. Coultas, C., Reddy, G. & Lukate, J. (2023). Towards a social psychology of precarity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62, 1-20. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12618
28. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. doi: 10.2307/1229039
29. Deaux, K. (1976). The behavior of women and men. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. (Basılı kitap)
30. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psychologist, 39(2), 105-116. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.105
31. Decolonial Psychology Editorial Collective (2021). General psychology otherwise: a decolonial articulation. Review of General Psychology, 25(4), 339-353. doi: 10.1177/10892680211048177
32. Díaz-Loving, R. (1999). The indigenisation of psychology: birth of a new science or rekindling of an old one? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(4), 433-449. doi: 10.1080/026999499377402
33. Enriquez, V. G. (1993). Developing a Filipino psychology. U. Kim ve J. W. Berry (Ed.), Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context (s. 152-169) içinde. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. (Basılı kitap)
34. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
35. Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266
36. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjk2wr9
37. Grabe, S. (2013). Psychological cliterodectomy: body objectification as a human rights violation. M. K. Ryan ve N. R. Branscombe (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Gender and Psychology (s. 412-428) içinde. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Erişim adresi: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-gender-and-psychology/book236859
38. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: a practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. New York, NY: Harper Collins. (Basılı kitap)
39. Green, R. J., Ashmore, R. D. & Manzi, R., Jr. (2005). The structure of gender type perception: testing the elaboration, encapsulation, and evaluation framework. Social Cognition, 23(5), 429-464. doi: 10.1521/soco.2005.23.5.429
40. Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: social change in academic titles, 1945-2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(2), 87-96. doi: 10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d
41. Hammack, P. L., Mayers, L. & Windell, E. P. (2011). Narrative, psychology and the politics of sexual identity in the United States: from ‘sickness’ to ‘species’ to ‘subject.’ Psychology & Sexuality, 4(3), 219-243. doi:10.1080/19419899.2011.621131
42. Hegarty, P., Parslow, O., Ansara, Y. G. & Quick, F. (2013). Androcentrism: changing the landscape without leveling the playing field? M. K. Ryan ve N. R. Branscombe (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Gender and Psychology (s. 29-44) içinde. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Erişim adresi: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-gender-and-psychology/book236859
43. Henrich J., Heine S. J. & Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
44. Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: seduction and rejection in the subordination of White women and women of Color. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(4), 833-855. doi: 10.1086/494546
45. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
46. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373-398. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
47. Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C. & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: five challenges to the gender binary. The American Psychologist, 74(2), 171-193. doi: 10.1037/amp0000307
48. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B. & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494-495. doi: 10.1126/science.1160364 Indigenous (t.y.). Cambridge Dictionary (1. Baskı). Erişim adresi: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indigenous
49. Keith, K. D. (2019). Ethnocentrism: seeing the world from where we stand. K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Psychology: Contemporary Themes and Perspectives (2. Baskı, s. 23-38) içinde. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781119519348
50. Kite, M. E., Deaux, K. & Haines, E. L. (2008). Gender stereotypes. F. L. Denmark ve M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories (2. Baskı, s. 205-236) içinde. Westport, CON: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Erişim adresi: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00157-000
51. Krys, K., de Almeida, I., Wasiel, A. & Vignoles, V. L. (2025). WEIRD–Confucian comparisons: ongoing cultural biases in psychology’s evidence base and some recommendations for improving global representation. American Psychologist, 80(2), 247–263. doi: 10.1037/amp0001298
52. Kurtiş, T. & Adams, G. (2015). Decolonizing liberation: toward a transnational feminist psychology. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 388-413. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v3i1.326
53. Kurtiş T. & Adams G. (2017). Decolonial intersectionality: implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. K. A. Case (Ed.), Intersectional Pedagogy: Complicating Identity and Social Justice (s. 46-59) içinde. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315672793
54. Lin, Z. & Li, N. (2023). Global diversity of authors, editors, and journal ownership across subdisciplines of psychology: current state and policy implications. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 358-377. doi: 10.1177/17456916221091831
55. Linn, M. C. & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17-27. doi: 10.2307/1176462
56. Lugones, M. (2007). Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia, 22(1), 186-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01156.x
57. Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Redwood City, NJ: Stanford University Press. (Basılı kitap)
58. Macleod, C. I., Bhatia, S. & Liu, W. (2020). Feminisms and decolonising psychology: possibilities and challenges. Feminism & Psychology, 30(3), 287-305. doi: 10.1177/0959353520932810
59. Maldonado-Torres, N. (2017). Frantz Fanon and the decolonial turn in psychology: from modern/colonial methods to the decolonial attitude. South African Journal of Psychology, 47(4), 432-441. doi: 10.1177/0081246317737918
60. Marecek, J. (2017). Feminist psychology. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 1-3. doi: 10.1002/9781118430873.est0124
61. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771-1800. doi: 10.1086/426800
62. McKenna, W. & Kessler, S. J. (1977). Experimental design as a source of sex bias in social psychology. Sex Roles, 3(2), 117-128. doi: 10.1007/BF00288663
63. McManus, R. M., Young, L. & Sweetman, J. (2023). Psychology is a property of persons, not averages or distributions: confronting the group-to-person generalizability problem in experimental psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 1-23. doi: 10.1177/25152459231186615
64. McNamara, R. A. & Naepi, S. (2018). Decolonizing community psychology by supporting Indigenous knowledge, projects, and students: lessons from Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(3-4), 340-349. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12296
65. Mignolo, W. D. & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality: concepts, analytics, praxis. Durham: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822371779
66. Miles, C. C. (1935). Sex in social psychology. C. Murchison (Ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology (s. 683-797) içinde. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. (Basılı kitap)
67. Mohanty, C. T. (1988). Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30(1), 61-88. doi: 10.1057/fr.1988.42
68. Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Mohanty, C., Russo, A. ve Torres, L. (Ed.), Third World Women and The Politics of Feminism (s. 51-80) içinde. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (Basılı kitap)
69. Ormond, A., Segalo, P., Torre, M. E. & Fine, M. (2024). Decolonizing in a transnational feminist commons perched precariously between the academy and movements for justice. L. Comas-Díaz, H. Y. Adames ve N. Y. Chavez-Dueñas (Ed.), Decolonial Psychology: Toward Anticolonial Theories, Research, Training, and Practice (s. 169-201) içinde. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0000376-008
70. Price, A. (2019). Spell it with a capital “B.” Erişim adresi: https://insightcced.medium.com/spell-it-with-a-capital-b-9eab112d759a#:~:text=In%20an%201878%20editorial%20entitled,of%20inferiority%E2%80%9D%20on%20Black%20people
71. Purdie-Vaughns, V. & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: the distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59(5-6), 377-391. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
72. Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J. & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401-11405. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721165115
73. Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective (rastgele sırayla: Adams, G., Ratele, K., Suffla, S. & Reddy, G.) (2022a). Psychology as a site for decolonial analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 255-277. doi: 10.1111/josi.12524
74. Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective (rastgele sırayla: Adams, G., Ratele, K., Suffla, S. & Reddy, G.) (2022b). Decoloniality as a social issue for psychological study. Journal of Social Issues, 78(1), 7-26. doi: 10.1111/josi.12502
75. Reid, P. T. (1993). Poor women in psychological research: shut up and shut out. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(2), 133-150. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00440.x
76. Rogers, M. F. & Lott, P. B. (1997). Backlash, the matrix of domination, and log cabin republicans. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(3), 497-512. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00489.x
77. Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I. & Broverman, D. M. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 287-295. doi: 10.1037/h0025909
78. Rudman, L. A. & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: how power and intimacy shape gender relations (1. Baskı). New York: Guilford Press. (Basılı kitap)
79. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Türkoğlu, B. & Kuzlak, A. (2018). How are women and men percei̇ved? Structure of gender stereotypes in contemporary Turkey. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi, 6(13), 309-336. doi: 10.7816/nesne-06-13-04
80. San Juan, E. (2006). Toward a decolonizing Indigenous psychology in the Philippines: introducing Sikolohiyang Pilipino Journal for Cultural Research, 10(1), 47-67. doi: 10.1080/14797580500422018
81. Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press. Erişim adresi: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-95080-000
82. Settles, I.H., Jones, M.K., Buchanan, N.T. & Dotson, K. (2021) Epistemic exclusion: scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493-507. doi: 10.1037/dhe0000174
83. Shields, S. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. American Psychologist, 30(7), 739-754. doi: 10.1037/h0076948
84. Shields, S. A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: gender and the social meaning of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erişim adresi: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-17355-000
85. Sesko, A. K. & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: the invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 356-360. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016
86. Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjsf541
87. Stabile, C. A. & Kumar, D. (2005). Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan. Media, Culture & Society, 27(5), 765-782. doi: 10.1177/0163443705055734
88. Tharps, L. (2014). I refuse to remain in the lower case. Erişim adresi: https://myamericanmeltingpot.com/2014/06/02/i-refuse-to-remain-in-the-lower-case/
89. Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34(11), 1085-1094. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.11.1085
90. West, C. ve Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002