This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The quotation "Isaac Newton's Principia ... of female nature'" does NOT appear on p. 264 of Harding 1986 (the page in question is part of the index). Please provide the correct citation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OverOceans ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
In particular, her assertion that men and women produce fundamentally different scientific truths is considered to be nonsense by mainstream scientists. [1]
Harding doesn't actually make this claim (or, if she does, you'll have to show me the citation! Her positions on gender, race etc are far more subtle than this.) Furthermore, a single paragraph on Harding by a mathematician in the AMS notices in no way proves that "mainstream scientists" as a group think any such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpia.mossmonn ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
From Harding's article in Feminism and Science (ed. Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen Longino, Oxford 1996): "The starting point of standpoint theory--and its claim that is most often misread--is that in societies stratified by race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, or some other politics shaping the very structure of society, the activities of those at the top both organize and set limits on what persons who perform such activities can understand about themselves and the world around them." (240) In other words, *under conditions of sexism and gendered division of labor*, women will be able to make different knowledge claims than men. At least some "other scientists", including Donna Haraway and Fox Keller, agree (as cited in the same article). Finally, note that Sullivan doesn't refute Harding's claim, he simply states a different position ("it is my view that... the engine is sound".) So, three reasons I cut "relevant, sourced material" from the article: 1) it egregiously misrepresented Harding (and Sullivan, who doesn't cast her as an essentialist); 2) it is factually inaccurate to say that "mainstream scientists" as a group disagree; 3) Sullivan doesn't offer a refutation, let alone show that Harding's work is "nonsense".
Re: point two, I'm adding a "some" to further soften the claim.
The science wars produced a lot of vituperative, uninformed material on both sides. Let's not contribute on Wikipedia, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpia.mossmonn ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
References
I think it would be useful if someone with knowledge in this area could expand a bit on some of her more well known controversies, such as her (now retracted) claim that Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual." This is mentioned very briefly at the end of the lead but offers no context or background for why she made this claim and why she later regretted it. Laval ( talk) 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I edited the passage as she never referred to the book as a rape manual, she mentioned that a hypothetical feminist could call it a rape manual if a certain condition was true about metaphor in science. 24.193.83.14 ( talk) 20:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Antithesis
I don't know know why or who included the last sentence of the lead about Newtons' 'rape manual' - either a. there (in the lead, or b. why the line reads:'In her book...' and then cites Scientific America? You can't smear a prominent feminist postcolonial science studies figure in the lead of their article. There could either be a controversy section added, which people can research and populate if necessary, or this needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joldt ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
why the line reads:'In her book...' and then cites Scientific America?This one is actually easy: for reasons of weight and npov, if we're going to select parts of someone's writings to comment on, we should be guided by what parts of their writings have been noted by secondary sources. I also agree with everything Woodroar said. (I have no knowledge or opinion opinion on the following topics: (1) what did Harding write on this topic? (2) was it covered in secondary sources to the extent that it belongs in her biography? (3) was the sentence you removed an appropriate combination of source and content?) -- JBL ( talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The quotation "Isaac Newton's Principia ... of female nature'" does NOT appear on p. 264 of Harding 1986 (the page in question is part of the index). Please provide the correct citation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OverOceans ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
In particular, her assertion that men and women produce fundamentally different scientific truths is considered to be nonsense by mainstream scientists. [1]
Harding doesn't actually make this claim (or, if she does, you'll have to show me the citation! Her positions on gender, race etc are far more subtle than this.) Furthermore, a single paragraph on Harding by a mathematician in the AMS notices in no way proves that "mainstream scientists" as a group think any such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpia.mossmonn ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
From Harding's article in Feminism and Science (ed. Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen Longino, Oxford 1996): "The starting point of standpoint theory--and its claim that is most often misread--is that in societies stratified by race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, or some other politics shaping the very structure of society, the activities of those at the top both organize and set limits on what persons who perform such activities can understand about themselves and the world around them." (240) In other words, *under conditions of sexism and gendered division of labor*, women will be able to make different knowledge claims than men. At least some "other scientists", including Donna Haraway and Fox Keller, agree (as cited in the same article). Finally, note that Sullivan doesn't refute Harding's claim, he simply states a different position ("it is my view that... the engine is sound".) So, three reasons I cut "relevant, sourced material" from the article: 1) it egregiously misrepresented Harding (and Sullivan, who doesn't cast her as an essentialist); 2) it is factually inaccurate to say that "mainstream scientists" as a group disagree; 3) Sullivan doesn't offer a refutation, let alone show that Harding's work is "nonsense".
Re: point two, I'm adding a "some" to further soften the claim.
The science wars produced a lot of vituperative, uninformed material on both sides. Let's not contribute on Wikipedia, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpia.mossmonn ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
References
I think it would be useful if someone with knowledge in this area could expand a bit on some of her more well known controversies, such as her (now retracted) claim that Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual." This is mentioned very briefly at the end of the lead but offers no context or background for why she made this claim and why she later regretted it. Laval ( talk) 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I edited the passage as she never referred to the book as a rape manual, she mentioned that a hypothetical feminist could call it a rape manual if a certain condition was true about metaphor in science. 24.193.83.14 ( talk) 20:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Antithesis
I don't know know why or who included the last sentence of the lead about Newtons' 'rape manual' - either a. there (in the lead, or b. why the line reads:'In her book...' and then cites Scientific America? You can't smear a prominent feminist postcolonial science studies figure in the lead of their article. There could either be a controversy section added, which people can research and populate if necessary, or this needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joldt ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
why the line reads:'In her book...' and then cites Scientific America?This one is actually easy: for reasons of weight and npov, if we're going to select parts of someone's writings to comment on, we should be guided by what parts of their writings have been noted by secondary sources. I also agree with everything Woodroar said. (I have no knowledge or opinion opinion on the following topics: (1) what did Harding write on this topic? (2) was it covered in secondary sources to the extent that it belongs in her biography? (3) was the sentence you removed an appropriate combination of source and content?) -- JBL ( talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)