|WikiProject Articles for creation||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
Quality Scale Help
Working on making some improvements, starting with some basic fixes like misquotes from sources. Eventually there needs to be more categorical distinctions, and depth, in order to at least attempt to bring the article closer to Stanford Ency. of Philo. standards.Maxxx12345 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This "Analytical feminism asserts that there is a gender bias in the theoretical framework of international relations; in this context, gender does not refer to the "biological" differences between men and women, but the social ideas of masculine and feminine identities. Analytical feminists normally propose neo-realistic ideas and often detest use of domestic explanations for explaining interstate conduct as an instance of this bias." is a bit of a mess, covering multiple issues such as international relations, gender and social concepts of both into two sentences in a section detailing the philosophical approach of analytic feminism. I'm just going to remove these two sentences wholesale. Hopefully (no promises) I'll be able to expand the article to include some sections where this would be better suited in the next few hours. I don't want to eliminate these concepts, just the opposite: I want to expand them and place them in more relevant sections.
Use of Reason
This article implys that analytical feminism uses reason more than other types of feminism? I understand that postmodernism frowns on the traditional but the lack of reason is a strong claim. Please discuss and confirm. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not just a strong claim, it's a restatement of fact: reason is just another virtue for postmodernism, which is the very basis for third wave feminism. It's not an insult to note that analytic approaches to feminism rely strongly on reason while other forms of feminism reject reason: that distinction is in fact key to the differentiation. For postmodern feminism, there is no ontologically objective reasons to wield, reason is just another socially constructed hierarchy which may, and does for many, entail bias and oppression. This is why such positions entail that even mathematics are bias and oppressive. The work(s) of Newton are akin to rape manuals and equations are privileged for example. In a related vein, this is why analytic feminism is all but non-existent. If the approach is analytic, if it is neutral and object, then by definition it can't be predicated as any form of feminism: it is simply analytic philosophy. The context, the subject of say feminism, of course does not impact logical form. The subject, be it feminism or epistemology, in no way predicates the neutrality of reason purely by definition. It's probably, all but certain really, why this article is languishing so greatly. There are no more than a handful of thinkers who even attempt to deal with such a blatant contradiction. This is why it's all but universally dismissed within analytic philosophy. There is no intelligible concept of analytic feminism any more than there is analytic liberalism, or analytic anarchism. The concept simply collapses into an analytic approach to a field of inquiry, be it feminism, or liberalism or anarchism. It is just simply analytic philosophy.
I just did a whole lot of copy editing for this page; I changed around a whole lot of it, making it more concise and easier for your average person to read, corrected major grammar errors and removed redundant statements, along with several baseless claims that analytical feminists value truth and are more reasonable than other people. I didn't remove the "this article may require copy-editing" thing because I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure if that's a customary thing to do if you believe that you have fixed a problem. -$5KHPD (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Baseless claim? One can only say the claim is baseless if they have, basically, no understanding of the subject matter. Of course analytic approaches champion objective truth value more so than other approaches: it's true by definition. Other approaches, such as postmodernism, denies the very possibility of objective truth. You don't seem to even understand that the very distinction between analytic and continental philosophy was based upon the value of objective truth: analytic philosophy most certainly valued truth more greatly whereas continental more greatly valued experience (and called into question the very possibility of objective truth). Wow. Only on wikipedia can people say analytic philosophy does not value truth more so than any form of philosophical thought and not be embarrassed. Amazing.
Approach to method
Sorry, I forgot to include what change I made. I deleted the suggestion that analytic feminists use "stylistic aggressiveness" and the related comments about adversary methods and counterexampling. This is pejorative in the context of feminist theory and inaccurately describes the commitments or methodology of analytic feminists. There are many different forms of analytic feminism and there is little use of this method. Shaslang (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)