| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Standpoint feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this versionofStandpoint theory was copied or moved into Standpoint feminism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erinbooze.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Authors such as Kristen Schilt in her article Just One of the Guys describe the "who" as transgendered men, who posses women skills but still receive more advantages and benefits as a man than previously as a woman. I'm not sure how to cite that in the main article though... :). CallMeTasteless (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first definition given states that Standpoint Feminism argues a point, but a theory cannot technically argue something, only describe certain points of an aspect of reality. A better definition could, instead, say that Standpoint feminism is simply the view that women's experiences and viewpoints lend more to the understanding of the world in general. --Erinbooze (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Staszek Lem, EvergreenFir, Leutha, Cic, The Vintage Feminist, and Patitsel: There has been a template since October 2016 (added by Staszek Lem) proposing that Standpoint theory § Feminist standpoint theory should be merged into Standpoint feminism, but there has been no discussion on this proposal to date, so I am starting the discussion now, sixteen months later, and I hope other editors will join in and help out. It appears to me that perhaps much of Standpoint theory § Feminist standpoint theory could be merged into Standpoint feminism, but the section Standpoint theory § Feminist standpoint theory should remain with a more limited scope, focused specifically on how feminist standpoint theory relates to (or has contributed to, etc.) standpoint theory in general, with Template:MainorTemplate:Broader at the top of the section pointing to Standpoint feminism for a more comprehensive history of feminist standpoint theory. I am not particularly interested in doing the merge myself, but that is my advice to whomever wishes to do it. Biogeographist (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
should remain with a more limited scopeis in fact the guideline WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
since October 2016-- nobody edited it since then either (besides bots and wikignomes). And no actual content added since 2015. I guess nobody gives a dime for the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess nobody gives a dime for the subject.Or (my theory): The people who are most likely to be qualified to edit this article (namely academics, since the subject is academic theory) think that they have better things to do than edit Wikipedia. A comment herebyKerry Raymond may be relevant: "Most academics are living with 'publish or perish', so thinking they will take time out of their working life to write on Wikipedia (or sister projects) is a bit naive. Unless academic institutions will take Wikipedia contributions into account in recruitment, promotions and grant applications, I can't see it likely that working academics are going to be very interested. Retired academics are probably a more achieveable target." That doesn't apply to all working academics, since some of them do edit Wikipedia, but I imagine it applies to many of them. Regarding readership, Standpoint theory had a daily average of 160 views last year, and Standpoint feminism had a daily average of 58 views, so there appears to be an audience for what is written here, and I would say it is worth editing. I noticed this merge proposal today because someone added a link to Standpoint theory § Feminist standpoint theoryinStrong objectivity, which I have been watching. Biogeographist (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the heading "Establishing a standpoint", there seems to be an inaccuracy or possibly graffiti:
"He then went to say that while both the ..."
The preceding paragraph does not explicitly reference anyone, and the footnote points to "Tracy Bowell", presumably a woman.
(I just stumbled across this page and I'm not in position to edit it.) Espensj (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
