4 ms·
No, I don't see that particular line of thought as progressive and empowering for women in today's world. However, the quotes you choose are from a section tha
by jdp23 11y ago
No, I don't see that particular line of thought as progressive and empowering for women in today's world.
However, the quotes you choose are from a section that notes that "Various feminist standpoint theories ground the claim to epistemic privilege in different features of women's social situation" -- and in a paragraph starting with "Some early versions of standpoint theory (including Flax 1983, Hartsock 1987, Rose 1987, and Smith 1974) accept feminist object relations theory ..."
So I'd caution against rejecting the whole discipline based on early views from a handful of a few people.
- gone35 11y agoNo, I don't see that particular line of thought as progressive and empowering for women in today's world. So you reject Standpoint Theory. I guess we agree about that. Yet you also (seem to) accept the notion of "situated knowledge". But, without any recourse to Standpoint Theory to be able to privilege any claim over another, that necessarily commits you to relativism --and a rather extreme form, at that. So you either reject the very notion of "situated knowledge" (and thus a great deal of feminist epistemology), become an extreme relativist, or accept Standpoint Theory. I, for one, reject relativism --so that commits me to reject "situated knowledge"-based feminist epistemology (i.e. pretty much the whole discipline).
- jdp23 11y agoI'm not sure how you got from me saying "there are a lot of different sources of standpoint theory" and "I disagree with a line of thought stated by some early standpoint early theoreticians" and "don't reject the whole discipline based on some early work" to thinking I reject standpoint theory. How many times in this thread have I linked to and quoted Sandra Harding?