Talk:Feminist economics

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Mattsaathoff. Peer reviewers: FPizzo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Diagrams
Several of the diagrams are incorrectly devised. Chopped off scales do not belong in a serious article, so diagrams like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_womens_earnings_and_employment_by_industry_2009.png seriously harm the credibility of the article. This is not because the diagram actually shows incorrect data, but because it exaggerates the point to be made, at a quick glance they do not portray the data.

The risk is that readers who would otherwise have found the article informative and reasonable might view it a dubious and POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.240.230 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this even a field of study/school of thought?
This article is currently classified amongst "Economic thought" in the box at the bottom of the page which includes schools of thought such as Classical, Neo-classical, Keynesian, etc. Doesn't seem as though "feminist economics" is considered as a distinct school of thought; surely it takes more than one peer-reviewed journal and a Wikipedia page to give the school the credibility it needs to be stood amongst Marx, Keynes, the Austrian School, etc? Many of the female specific issues mentioned in the introduction to the article are also covered by other fields, such as labour economics. The article even includes the statement "there is no definitive list of the principles of feminist economics". Is this really a school of thought? Can someone explain and/or condense the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.83.226 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a good chance it isn't. Anything on Wikipedia given the attachment "feminist" tends to get a pass whether it's legitimate or not (ie, systemic bias). It could at least use a criticism section if not a nomination for deletion. 96.63.25.34 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Is a 'Criticisms of Feminist Economics' section needed?
At first glance, this seems to be a very interesting and informative article. But I couldn't help being a bit surprised by the apparent absence of any section called 'Criticisms of Feminist Economics'. This seems a pity, as it makes the otherwise-seemingly-excellent article appear unbalanced. Or alternatively it would be a bit depressing if the absence was because there were no criticisms yet, tending to suggest that the discipline was still at the earliest stage ('First they try to ignore you') of the journey a new idea is said to have to travel towards general acceptance ('First they try to ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they condemn you, and then you win', or alternatively, in more pessimistic versions, 'and then they claim it was known all along'). However I know too little of the subject to feel competent to try to supply such a section myself, and I'm probably also temperamentally poorly suited to doing so. Can anybody else have a go? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary here. Criticism sections can actually compromise the neutrality of articles (see WP:CRIT). Criticism in this article is integrated into the specific sections and I don't think our readers would be well served by having all of the negative material in one location. If you do find reliably sourced negative material that can contribute to the improvement of the article, by all means add it. gobonobo  + c 19:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:CRIT link. It confirms our guidelines are against my suggestion. (I suspect the guidelines are wrong and harm this article by making it look POV, at least in my eyes, but I haven't read the discussions that led to those guidelines, and in any case this is the wrong place to try to get them changed even if I wanted to - which I don't, as I've had too many unpleasant experiences with past attempts to change other guidelines)
 * I don't know of any criticisms, I've no plans to look for any, and in any case I've already said I think I'm temperamentally unsuited to supplying them if I found them - I'm rather more comfortable adding references to Feminist economics into other Economics articles (as I've just done a few hours ago in Positive economics, see this diff), but, as a semi-retired editor who wishes he were psychologically able to quit Wikipedia entirely, I suspect I'm not particularly well-suited to doing that either (though I suspect others here might be well-suited for it).
 * Thanks again for your reply. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neoclassical Economics, Socialist Economics, Austrian Economics, and Ecological Economics all have dedicated criticism sections. That being said Keynesian Economics and Anarchist economics do not. I do think such sections are useful, for if I want to look up the criticism of a particular school, where else should I go. Must I scan the whole article for criticism? Why is that better? LastDodo (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There most definitely should be a criticism section, especially for something as dubious as "feminist economics". 96.63.25.34 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer review
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion of non-market activity section
There may be an opportunity here to discuss theories regarding the monetizing of the non-market activities and the effects thereof. Amartya Sen would be a good source for looking into this. Alexbolden15 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminist economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102232157/http://www.celj.org/best_new_journal to http://www.celj.org/best_new_journal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Feminist economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527114151/https://www.e-elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.lasso?id=3226 to https://www.e-elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.lasso?id=3226
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003175716/http://aacu.org/psew/publications/Classroom_Climate_ChilyOne.pdf to http://www.aacu.org/psew/publications/Classroom_Climate_ChilyOne.pdf
 * Added tag to http://tek.bke.hu/regikorok/sen/docs/development.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909194253/http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/hoytw/751/articles/samuelsonsic.pdf to http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/hoytw/751/articles/samuelsonsic.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626004713/http://www.ucm.es/cont/descargas/documento6327.pdf to http://www.ucm.es/cont/descargas/documento6327.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140119062111/http://appweb.cortland.edu/ojs/index.php/Wagadu/article/viewFile/383/729 to http://appweb.cortland.edu/ojs/index.php/Wagadu/article/viewFile/383/729

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article rating under "Economics" project
This article has been rated as Mid-importance in the Economics project, which is defined as:

''Subject fills in more minor details of economics, or adds a depth of understanding to the field. A practicing economist would find these subjects useful, but lay people would likely not.''

I would dispute the current article rating. Feminist economics is gaining relevance in the mainstream and established schools of economic thought and I believe it should be tagged as High Importance:

''Subject is important but not vital to a lay person's overview of economics. Broad economic topics taught at the undergraduate college level are likely of high importance.''

Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)