Talk:Women's Ways of Knowing
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Criticisms?
[edit]The article is very interesting, but it should offer relevant criticisms to the theory, which is sometimes labeled as a kind of relativism and communitarianism, because it excludes men from a narrow realm of knowledge that is essentialist in its approach of femininity. ADM (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Requested move Suggestion
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Women's development theory → Women's Ways of Knowing – This page refers to the book Women's Ways of Knowing so it ought to be placed under that, with an italic title. The book is just one theory about the way in which women develop (there is currently a redirect page of that name that links to this page). Any page named "Women's development theory" should consider multiple theories and contain a section about this book with a Main article: Women's Ways of Knowing hat note at the top of that section. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC) The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support, the article is entirely about the individual work and the theory it contains. bd2412 T 13:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
inline citations
[edit]I've fixed the inline citations. I've read the book (about two decades ago). Whoever wrote this is mainly getting their info from Love and Gutherie. I agree with earlier comments that we need more criticism to this. I thought the main contribution was that women used different analogies than men in discussing knowledge acquisition -- men focused on sight/light and women sound/voice. I've added a couple references that i think we reallt fundamental to understanding this book. I believe it is a notable book because they've got the tenth anniversary and it's been republished in anthologies like Alice Jaggar's Just Methods (2008) Fred (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Fred. I removed the flag requesting inline citations. I agree there should be a section on criticisms. -- Phil Barker 12:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)