Talk:Feminist technoscience

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xana1022.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haleymendlin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Metal workers
There are no ancient extant sources for metal workers other than that recorded in the Bible book of Genesis 4:22.. Tubal-Cain, a male, is recorded to be an artisan of both bronze and iron. This would have been approximately between 4000 and 6000 BC.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.104.41 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2014‎ (UTC)

WTF? Bronze and iron artifacts are very large categories! Just go to any reputable museum, find one of them, and ask about it!

And the Bible is not a "record" of anything. It's a fable, a metaphor. Grow up!

198.228.228.165 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Collin237

Neutral Point of View
The article states several opinions as facts:
 * "[women designed] tools such as the machete, hoe, or sickle,"
 * This directly conflicts with the Hoe (tool) page, which doesn't state a direct inventor or designer.
 * The Hoe article does state an inventor in Sumerian mythology, but Enlil is male.
 * The Machete page does not state an author.
 * The Sickle page indicates that the tool is from prehistory, dating as far back as before the Neolithic era. The gender of the person that invented it cannot be known with the level of certainty asserted in this article.
 * "'male machines' replaced 'female wits' as identifiers of modern technology"
 * I'm not sure what this means. It implies that modern machenery is a male invention, and that previous inventions were all female, and that modern machinery is not a good replacement for the preindustrial age. I could be entirely wrong here, but this feels like it is assuming a lot.
 * "liberal and Marxist feminist ... considered the technology as neutral and did not pay attention to the symbolic dimension of technoscience"
 * This implies that the liberal and Marxist feminists were wrong, and that technoscience is correct.
 * This list is not all-inclusive.

This article also lacks any indication of the relative prominence of opposing views. It is unclear whether it gives undue weight to the pro-feminist movement, since this article is about a feminist topic. However, many of the ideas stated in this article are not widespread, so perhaps it is worth discussing undue weight. From this page, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and spaaace. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." - Polemic Thoughts (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate you coming straight to the talking page rather than editing it out yourself. However, one of the core principles of Wikipdia is to be bold in your edits. If someone disagrees, they will probably revert, and then you can make an argument for certain words' omission/addendum. You appear to be a slight overachiever in this regard, as you elaborated on your reasons before rather than after. One of the other sole principle of Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone (under certain guidelines). You seem to be off to a great start, making sure that why you propose something is quite evident. Even though my advice is non binding, I encourage you to improve the article as you see fit and to again, BOLD, be bold. WP:BRD may also be useful as a read. Though if it does get reverted, don't fret. Make your case here once more with the conflicting editor. Ging287 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten a majority of the article, therefore removed the neutrality tag. Corrections to the most above points have either been done, or cited correctly. If anyone would like to add a criticism section to balance out the (feminism focus) of the page, please do so!  Otherwise, I will try to add one when I have some spare time.  Leinith (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Microwave
This article claimed "the microwave was designed for men who live alone". This directly contradicts both the article on microwave ovens as well as advertisements from the time of the first home microwave ovens. removed. Please refer to "Raytheon Company: The First Sixty Years" ISBN-13: 978-0738537474 for clarification on the origin of the microwave oven.95.44.74.171 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To those who created this page, you are the sexist pigs who claim to want equality, yet assert "Surperiority." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.69.38.164 (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, ad hominem doesn't work very well, especially since there's a policy against personal attacks. Please provide constructive criticism of the article, or be bold and attempt to fix it up yourself. Ging287 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminist technoscience. 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/20140407084517/http://musejhuedu.hs3esdk.ru/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/technology_and_culture/v041/41.4law.pdf to http://musejhuedu.hs3esdk.ru/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/technology_and_culture/v041/41.4law.pdf

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) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fringe Theory
This page appears to rely almost entirely on a single source: Judy Wajcman, TechnoFeminism, 1st ed. Other sources seem to only corroborate some statements in the middle of the article, indicating there is probably a lack of consensus and notability.

Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Feminist technoscience is not so much a 'fringe theory' as much as it refers to a specific body of thought in critical feminist scholarship. It's notable for criticising the notion that science is 'objective' and suggests instead a more explicitly political mode of governing scientific innovation. For example, funding research that may more directly address social inequalities. Or, notably, ensuring that women were included in trials of various pharmaceuticals. Ellemrei (talk)

Calling mainstream science non-objective IS a fringe theory. 173.79.225.131 (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WGS 300w Feminist Theories
— Assignment last updated by Kalijaye77 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)