Talk:Standpoint feminism

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): Erinbooze.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

who
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)

Not the most accurate definition
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)

Merge proposal, October 2016
There has been a template since October 2016 (added by ) proposing that 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 could be merged into Standpoint feminism, but the section  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:Main or Template: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)
 * Obviously Support. Biogeographist's suggestion should remain with a more limited scope is in fact the guideline WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 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)
 * said: 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 here by 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  in Strong objectivity, which I have been watching. Biogeographist (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick thank you for reversing my close - you're quite right, I was looking at the wrong discussion. Regarding your comments on working academics, I agree that there is a cultural issue; I wouldn't say that we should therefore 'give up' on academics contributing, but rather to continue to nudge them in the right direction. Klbrain (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

✅ Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Other merge proposals

 * Before Christmas 2017 I put in a request for Justice for Men and Boys to be merged into Mike Buchanan. The discussion is here.


 * On 3 February 2018 I requested that Gender feminism and Victim feminism be merged into Social construction of gender as prejorative descriptions of social constructions of gender. The request is pending here.


 * I've read the technical description of how to merge articles, but it is clear as mud to me even how to add the templates. I decided to leave it to those who knew how. I wouldn't know how to go about merging with Standpoint feminism either.


 * I knew there was a backlog but I didn't realise they could stay pending for such a long time. I thought it was like AfD or RfC, that eventually an administrator would draw the discussion to a close and do something with it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've proposed and completed a number of mergers, and I know how easy it is to forget about them because I've forgotten about some of my own merge proposals until I was reminded months later by another editor! As you have discovered, mergers aren't closed by administrators; it's all up to us plebeian editors to do it. Regarding your proposal to merge Gender feminism and Victim feminism into Social construction of gender, the discussion has already started at ; I just added a !vote there. Thanks for your response. Biogeographist (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction needed
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)