Academic literature on the topic 'Sex differences – social aspects – great britain'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Sex differences – social aspects – great britain.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Sex differences – social aspects – great britain"
Spasovski, Milena, and Danica Santic. "Development of population geography from antropogeography to spatial-analitical approach." Stanovnistvo 51, no. 2 (2013): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/stnv1302001s.
Full textStewart-Williams, Steve, and Lewis G. Halsey. "Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done?" European Journal of Personality 35, no. 1 (January 2021): 3–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326.
Full textEspinoza, Francisco, Alys Young, and Claire Dodds. "Political participation among deaf youth in Great Britain." PLOS ONE 19, no. 4 (April 4, 2024): e0301053. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301053.
Full textBROESE van GROENOU, MARJOLEIN, KAREN GLASER, CECILIA TOMASSINI, and THÉRÈSE JACOBS. "Socio-economic status differences in older people's use of informal and formal help: a comparison of four European countries." Ageing and Society 26, no. 5 (August 1, 2006): 745–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x06005241.
Full textMarques, Iuri, Sarah Caroline Willis, Ellen Ingrid Schafheutle, and Karen Hassell. "Development of an instrument to measure organisational culture in community pharmacies in Great Britain." Journal of Health Organization and Management 32, no. 2 (April 9, 2018): 176–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jhom-06-2017-0131.
Full textŽygaitienė, Birutė, and Evelina Buivydaitė. "A Teacher of Technological Education in Lithuania, Great Britain and Finland. What is She Like?" Pedagogika 129, no. 1 (April 25, 2018): 268–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.15823/p.2018.18.
Full textJeder, Daniela. "Pedagogy of diversity in teacher training." Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism 3, no. 2 (December 1, 2022): 236–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2022-0029.
Full textPROTASOV, ANDREI D., ELENA S. STARODUBTSEVA, GABRIEL A. MOSHLYAK, and ALEXANDER V. ZHESTKOV. "CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHER MEDICAL EDUCATION IN THE USA, GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND CHINA." Bulletin of Contemporary Clinical Medicine 16, no. 5 (October 2023): 127–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.20969/vskm.2023.16(5).127-135.
Full textPless, Ivan B., Christine Power, and Catherine S. Peckham. "Long-term Psychosocial Sequelae of Chronic Physical Disorders in Childhood." Pediatrics 91, no. 6 (June 1, 1993): 1131–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.91.6.1131.
Full textSage, Lucas, Marco Albertini, and Stefani Scherer. "The spreading of SARS-CoV-2: Interage contacts and networks degree distribution." PLOS ONE 16, no. 8 (August 25, 2021): e0256036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256036.
Full textDissertations / Theses on the topic "Sex differences – social aspects – great britain"
Ben-Galim, Dalia. "Equality and diversity : the gender dimensions of work-life balance policies." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2008. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d078b9c7-ceab-454c-a1b6-09ebe88fb725.
Full textBooks on the topic "Sex differences – social aspects – great britain"
Harman, Harriet. The century gap: 20th century man, 21st century woman : how both sexes can bridge the century gap. London: Vermillion, 1993.
Find full textParents, gender, and education reform. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1993.
Find full textJennifer, Coates, and Cameron Deborah 1958-, eds. Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex. London: Longman, 1988.
Find full textAbraham, John. Divide and school: Gender and class dynamics in comprehensive education. London: Falmer Press, 1995.
Find full textKent, Susan Kingsley. Gender and Power in Britain 1640-1990. London: Taylor & Francis Inc, 2002.
Find full textBen, Cosin, Hales Margaret, and Open University, eds. Families, education, and social differences. London: Routledge in association with the Open University, 1997.
Find full textPrescott, Sarah. Women, authorship, and literary culture, 1690-1740. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Find full textJohn, Costello. Love sex and war: Changing values 1939-45. London: Guild Publishing, 1985.
Find full textJohn, Hill. Sex, class, and realism: British cinema, 1956-1963. London: BFI Pub., 1986.
Find full textOrme, Joan. Gender and community care: Social work and social care perspectives. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Sex differences – social aspects – great britain"
"interpreted in different ways by individual scholars. Why, for example, is the preponderance of male depictions seen at Grot ta di Porto Badisco interpeted as meaning male domination of Neolithic society in Italy (Whitehouse, 1992b) whereas Hodder (1990: 68) declines to interpret the common occurrence of female figurines in the Neolithic of S.E. Europe as an indication of an equivalent female domination of society, but instead suggests "To put it over-simply, women may or may not have had any real power in the Neolithic of S.E. Europe, but certain aspects of being a woman were conceptually central."? One can cite a similar example from Skeates (1994: 207-8), where he accepts Whitehouse's identification of the human figures as males or females, but disagrees with her interpretation of male dominance and hostility between the sexes in Italian Neolithic society. Each of these two scholars also has their own interpretation of the important group 16 painted scene from the Grotta do Porto Badisco — needless to say, I also have mine. By turning to burial evidence, can one avoid the above dilemmas? Physical anthropological methods can be used to identify male and female human remains, and, knowing the sex of burials could then lead to a better understanding of the gender affiliations of accompanying grave goods. These artefacts can then be investigated in other contexts such as settlement sites. However, there is a surprising amount of uncertainty involved in sexing human remains. In this paper I wish to discuss the uncertainties in the physical anthropological methods of sexing human remains and their implications for gender studies by focussing on a recent analysis of an Iron Age necropolis at Pontecagnario, Campania, carried out by Vida Navarro (1992). PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL METHODS OF SEXING HUMAN REMAINS Since gender is culturally constructed, it is possible for individuals or groups to have a gender that is different from their biological sex, or is intermediate or anomalous in some way. For example, in Ancient Rome, a Vestal Virgin had an ambiguous status in Roman society as shown by the fact that she could give evidence in a law court like a man. Usually Roman women had to be represented by a male relation or their spouse and could not speak in court on their own behalf or give evidence (Beard 1980: 17). Nevertheless, a Vestal Virgin was still a woman, and was allowed to marry, if she so wished, after her term of office finished (Beard 1980:, 14, note 21). Although ambiguous groups of this kind have been recognised in many societies, it is nonetheless the case that one would expect a high level of correlation between biological sex and social gender. The accurate identification of the biological sex of human remains would therefore be a great step forward in understanding gender construction and gender roles in prehistory. Unfortunately, physical anthropological methods are reliable only to a certain extent, and it is important for all archaeologists to be aware of the limitations of these methods. Like other primates, humans show sexual dimorphism i.e., the males have a larger body and show other skeletal differences from females, especially in the shape of the pelvis. When an intact pelvis is present in a burial, the identification of those remains as male or female can be made with 95% confidence (Krogman & Iscan 1986: 259). This, of course, applies to recent skeletal material, as the morphological and morphometric methods for sex identification used by anthropologists are based on reference collections from modern human populations. As Gotherstrom et ¿z/. (1997) point out, the application of these standards to prehistoric remains may be inappropriate. Prehistoric females may have been more skeletally robust, so that in the absence of a diagnostic pelvis, they could appear to be males, according to standards derived from modern populations. The pelvis anchors muscles, and "Considering the plasticity of the skeleton in response to external forces and stimuli, there are reasons to proceed with caution in interpreting all morphological differences in the pelvic region as a result of differential reproductive function." (Gotherstrom et al. 1997)." In Gender & Italian Archaeology, 44–58. Routledge, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315428178-13.
Full text