Talk:Feminist economics

Maintaining Feminist Content

The "employment equity" section could use improvement to better reflect the large amount of feminist economics work in this area. Feminists of all stripes have challenged the idea that differences in employment outcomes between men and women can be entirely explained by innate, biologically-dictated preferences. Such an argument has been used to exclude and oppress women for generations. Instead, feminists are cognizant of the effects of economic and political power differentials, social stereotypes, cultural upbringing, and so on. Some feminists believe that differences in employment outcomes are entirely due to these latter factors, while others are more open to considering some role for biology. But additions to this section that make inferences from biology to economic outcomes without consideration of these other factors must be considered anti-feminist, and not in keeping with the expositional nature of this wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan02465 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether opinions are feminist or anti-feminist is not relevant (in particular not in one-editor subjective estimate). What matters is whether the presentation of the article is NPOV, encyclopedic, and helpful for the reader. Keep private agendas out of WP.88.77.145.230 (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with user 88.77.145.230. It is relevant whether information on this page is feminist or not because the page itself is about feminist economics. For example, if you read the Ecological Economics wikipedia page, it represents the research and views of ecological economists. That page does not include elaborate objections to ecological economics made by those outside that sub-discipline. Likewise, in this case, NPOV means that the findings and views of feminist economics are represented in a neutral way. But for the sake of compromise, I moved the employment equity material to a "Other Explanations for Inequalities" section and added Jan02465's comments.--Mankad (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Feminist Economics

Here are notes, ideas, and goals for development of the page:

Add this page to the feminist series sidebar thingy. Add a picture. See the board picture on the IAFFE site, http://www.iaffe.org/about/index.php.

Flesh out the origins section with factual information.

Flesh out Theory and Methodology section. It could include critiques of Homo Economicus by Julie Nelson.

Any additional information on the methodology used in a Feminist Economic Approach would be helpful. Marilyn Power's outline is probably not exhaustive.

Add new sections to Major Areas of Inquiry. These could include Unpaid Labor and Caring Labor, Labor economics and markets, Economic history, Status of Women Economists, Environmental economics, Gender and statistics, Globalization and International trade, Finance and taxes, Human Development and Capabilities Approach, etc.

I revised the Employment Equity section. It still needs to cite feminist economists who have published in this area in the last ten years. I reduced the space devoted to Jane Jacobs. If there are only going to be a handful of feminist economists covered in detail, she should not be one. She published before feminist economics emerged and contemporary feminist econonists do not seem to draw from work, at least not very often. And she has a whole page devoted to her, which is linked to. Also, Human Development and Ecological Economoics were mixed into the discussion, which is confusing. I rearranged so they are covered as distinct, but related areas. I qualified chronology, and implied causation.

I revised the Relation to other Disciplines section. Connections with other disciplines have to be actual ones that can be substantiated with examples. There has been extremely little dialogue between Feminist Economists and Ecological Economists. They should not be presented as merging or encompassing each other. See the Feminist Ecological Economics Exploration in the 10.3 issue of the journal Feminist Economics.

Add section on leading feminist economists

Look for suitable content for this page that's on notable feminist economists pages and link to those pages where appropriate

References to add: Elgar dictionary of feminist economics, Lourdes Beneria's Economics as if People Mattered, Bina Agarwal's A Field of One's Own, Nancy Folbre's The Invisible Heart, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom

Also the references need to be cleaned up using the Wikipedia style manual.

Mankad 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Added side bar --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Verbose

Example:

Instead of:

"...Feminist economists seek to include the ramifications of this work in their data,...

Write:

"...Feminist economists include this work in their data,..."

--Atikokan (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Substantive and Organizational Changes

Template:WAP assignment

I am a student enrolled in a course on global poverty and gender at Rice University. In our course we often utilize a feminist economic framework and interact with key theories that have arisen from the feminist economic matrix. In my view, the current feminist economic page does not accurately reflect the theoretical and scholarly depth of feminist economics as a field. Consequently, I propose to reorganize the page, update the definition, expand the history section and include more information on the cornerstones of feminist economic theory, methodology and central areas of inquiry.

Specifically the article begins by defining feminist economics as “a developing branch of economics that applies feminist lenses to economics.” I would modify this definition to reflect more accurately the Feminist Economic goal of challenging the andocentric assumptions of neoclassical economics—which are at the very core of this system— (England 1993; Strassmann 1993) including 1) that interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible 2) that tastes are exogenous and unchanging 3) that actors are selfish 4) that household heads act altruistically. I believe that maintaining a focus on this goal of feminist economics throughout the page would more accurately reflect what feminist economics truly is as a field.

It seems that many of the largest changes are required in the Theory and Methodology section. Currently, this section is entirely based on Power’s 2004 article, “Social Provisioning As A Starting Point for Feminist Economics.” While the information Power presents is important and useful, Feminist Economic theory and methodology as a whole is broader than this review suggests. Indeed, one Wikipedia editor on the talk page has already indicated that this is not an exhaustive overview of feminist economic theory and methodology in any sense. As a result, I propose to continue to draw on Power’s work, but to include substantial changes in this area.

In order to fulfill these gaps, I plan to draw heavily on the three volume feminist economics series edited by Benería, May and Strassmann, released in 2011. The volumes are broken into three parts 1) Feminism, Economics, and Well-Being 2) Households, Paid and Unpaid Work and the Economy and 3) Global Perspectives on gender. It seems that a presentation along these lines may be more fruitful in presenting a broader and more accurate illustration of the breadth of feminist economic inquiry. These works also provide a multitude of collected journal articles and book chapters that I plan to draw on as references (a lacking feature of the current article).

I agree with user Mankad that the Major Areas of inquiry would benefit from new sections. Areas of inquiry from Households, to Care Work (a page that should be linked to this site, but currently is not), to Human Capabilities are simply unmentioned. Each of these should be mentioned and critical citations noted. I plan to make such changes.

In my view, the final three sections—“Antecedents”, “Relation to other Disciplines” and “Other Explanations for Inequalities”—seem only peripherally related to feminist economics and should likely be removed altogether or shortened and incorporated into other sections. I welcome feedback if others feel that these sections should be maintained.

In regards to the above discussion on maintaining feminist content on the page, I agree with user 88.77.145.230 and Mankad that it is appropriate to maintain a feminist lens on this page. As a result, I will seek to do so in my edits. I do welcome other stances on this issue, however.

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on particularly useful resources for feminist economics or insights into how best to present and organize this information, especially in the way that would be most appropriate to wikipedia. Virginiawhite09 (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Great changes. I have a few suggestions.

-You need more citations. For instance, the “Inclusion of non-market activity” section only has one citation, and it’s for the first sentence. Another example is the “Reformation of economic actors” section, because through all those paragraphs, there are only give citations. Ideally every statement you make would be cited.

-Make sure you introduce people’s names. For instance, not everybody knows that Nancy Folbre is a scholar. Put “feminist economist” or something else so that it doesn’t seem like you’re quoting a random person.

-Be sure to relate the “Challenges” section concerning measurements back to feminist economics. Currently it seems to only be information about the problems with time-use measurements, not really connecting it back to feminist economics.

-“Globalization” could use expansion.

Alissahart (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions. I plan to include more citations in my final draft. I also plan to do a better job of introducing who specifically supports the claims in my page. I will also seek to expand the globalization section. Virginiawhite09 (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Measuring/Valuing Unpaid Labor

I am a student taking Gender and Economic Development (ECON 5560) at the University of Utah, and I was hoping for some feedback. I plan to write a Wikipedia article on the measurement and valuation of unpaid labor. I will include the different methods that feminist economists have proposed to accomplish this, as well as arguments for and against these quantifications. Data acquisition methods include: time use data, survey questions, in-depth interviews, diaries, participant observation, and the inclusion of multitasking. Some problems included in these methods are collecting accurate information, ease of comparability across societies, the lack of adequate universal language, and the complexity of domestic labor and the separation of unpaid labor categories.

The valuation methods proposed fall into several main categories: opportunity cost, replacement cost, input and output costs, and outputs of care. There are a host of different problems associated with these valuation methods, which include the difficulty of deciding which monetary levels are to be chosen for each of these methods, as well as the problems of using the market system to determine values.

This topic needs to be expanded on Wikipedia, as it is only minimally addressed under Feminist Economics, Theory and Methodology: Domestic Systems. On the Labor Force site, it does mention the issue briefly under Paid and Unpaid Labor: Unpaid Labor and Gender, as well as on the Work Intensity article page, as it is mentioned under Multitasking, and the Labor Economics site, under Criticisms of Labor Economics and Recent Research. Although on all of these sites unpaid labor is mentioned, it is only explained enough to say that it exists, and that the attempts to measure it exist as well. I plan on revising an existing article subsection, specifically: Feminist Economics, 2.1 Domestic systems, under 2. Theory and methodology of the Feminist Economics article. There are also multiple other articles which I will add a few sentences to, along with a link to the revised article (mentioned above).

I would like feedback on the general arguments for and against, and the other info I plan to include – perhaps some reference suggestions or just points to include that I may have left out? Thanks!

Fmveblen (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Fmveblen

Peer Review

This section on Unpaid Work is very well written, well-rounded, thorough and easy to understand. I say well-rounded because critiques as well as support for valuation methods used, and measurement methods, etc. are both presented well. The content feels complete, concise, informative and without bias. I only have a few suggestions:

1. Under the section titled "Common methods of measurement" the GDI and GEM are mentioned and considering that those are past measurements used by the UNDP in their HDRs and that they have been replaced by Gender Inequality Index, did you find any articles that mention the GII? This measure also does not count unpaid work. Perhaps this index should be mentioned as well. Including GDP and its relation (or lack thereof) to unpaid work in this section should also have some consideration.
2. Under "Accurate information," the sentence that begins with "It is usually argued that direct care should..." could use some revision so that it flows better.
3. Lastly, I would suggest more paraphrasing. A lot of direct quotes are used from: Folbre, Nance (2006); Luxton, Meg (1997); and Mullan, Killian (2010). The quotes used are placed perfectly and make sense in the way they are integrated but it may be a bit better to paraphrase more rather than use direct quotes.

Job well done!

LupeAguilera (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Overall, the article is well written and covers the topic of Feminist economics well. The lead effectively introduces the entry by expressing the overall topic of Feminist economics, and conveying why it is significant. It is an appropriate length as stated in the WP:LEAD. I do have one suggestion; however, I believe the first sentence should be revised to read “to produce.” I also have a few suggestions for the main body of the entry. I would site more scholarly resources in many sections of your entry, such as the “Inclusion of non-market activity,” “Reformation of economic actors,” “Economic epistemology,” “Economic history,” “Household bargaining,” and “The care economy” sections. Also, I believe the fourth sentence in the “Power relations in economic models” section should be revised to read there is “never…”. Additionally, you mention individuals, such as Matthaie and Urningin Sara Cantillon, but never introduce them or provide their qualifications, which may lead the reader to question whom the individual is and why he/her description of Feminist Economics is important. Furthermore, there are many red linked pages in the section on “Household bargaining.” Please change the links to existing wikipages. In the same section you mention new home economics but do not really explain the concept. Please consider adding a couple of sentences to describe the topic. The section of challenges is very thorough, good job! Please consider expanding the section on the Feminists Economic Journal. Again, overall this is a nicely written entry. You have made some great improvements and I hope that you will continue to do so. Nqogu (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions. I do plan to include more references throughout, that is definitely crucial. Also thank you for the line edit with the power relations sentence. I will remove the red wikilinks. Thank you again!

Virginiawhite09 (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this article is really well done and there was not a lot that I found needed to be changed. There were a few minor mistakes and one section that may need a bit more explaining.

-The final sentence under the economic epistemology has a small typo, the word areas.

-Also the well-being section may need a few references

-The human capabilities approach section has a small typo. It should say draw attention instead of draws attentional

-The methodology section may need a bit more of an explanation. Maybe contrast the use of GDPs to measure poverty verses other methods such as HDI or provide an example.

-Overall this is a huge topic and you’ve done a good job. I would suggest maybe a further breakdown of the more complex areas so that readers who are unfamiliar with the topic will have a good understanding. Hope this helps. Bellechic (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

The first sentence of the second paragraph is missing the word "is". There is very little else that I think needs to be changed. It was well written, unbiased and factual. I think the section on ethical judgement and Interdisciplinary data collection were particularily well written. The section about relating other economics to feminist economics seemed a little light possibly a much larger section. There were appropriate links to other sources and pages which I found really helpful. Bryner2 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC). This comment is by Bryner2 BerikG (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Comments on Unpaid Labor section

This section needs an introduction sentence along the lines of "Feminist economists adopt a broad concept of economic activity that includes paid and unpaid activities[Reference to the FE article of Power (2004)]. The feminist economics argument is that individuals' participation in paid work is premised on unpaid activities and there is interdependence between the two sets of activities in producing people's livelihoods." The section also needs paraphrasing of quoted text in many places. The reference to a methodology being adopted in "at least 20 countries" needs the specification of the year in the text. BerikG (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

The section "Proposed methods of measurement" needs a revised title: "Methods of measurement of unpaid work," since at this point the methods you describe are well-established ones. Secondly, the section should open with a basic definition of the task of measurement, something like, "to measure the value of unpaid work two sets of data are needed: time devoted to each unpaid activity and the monetary value of each hour spent on each of these activities." This section should also discuss the disagreement among feminist economists regarding the usefulness of attaching a monetary value of unpaid household labor (housework plus care work) to estimate contribution of unpaid household labor. Discussion of Bergmann's critique and the response to that, for example, by Beneria (2003) is important to include. More generally, the argument in favor of measurement (conceptual and policy) needs to be explained. Why bother with this tedious task of measurement? Also, some feminist economists argue in favor of counting the hours of unpaid labor but do not favor estimating the monetary value (e.g. Waring). These femecons want to see an assessment of the time commitment entailed (the disproportionate workload issue) but want to stay away from applying the market values. The noncommensurability of market provided care work vs. mother provided care work argument (Himmelweit) is in this category. Again, Beneria provides a response to this type of argument. The unpaid work section could reference/discuss more sources.

Under replacement cost method the following sentence/idea is not clear. "There are also issues with the uniformity of this method not just across multiple individuals, but also for a single person: it "may not be uniform across the entire day or across days of the week".[51]" How so?

It would be good to identify what the input-output method entails. BerikG (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

The first paragraph of the Unpaid Work section needs to mention that unpaid work is predominantly women's work globally, especially in the form of domestic labor, care work, subsistence work. And it is mostly invisible work. Also, fetching water is not a good example of subsistence work, but rather growing food in one's garden plot or milking the cow for own food consumption is. Fetching water may be an extension of subsistence production if it is to water the garden plot, but not if it is to cook food or to wash clothes.

Finally, it would be good to add a discussion of examples of estimates of gender differences in time use in unpaid work and also the monetary value of unpaid work (e.g. household work). World Development Report 2012 has a few tables that summarize the latest estimates. BerikG (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting off Unpaid work into a new article

The 'Unpaid work' section is quite lengthy and may benefit from being shortened by the use of summary style, i.e. moving to a separate article and summarizing that content here. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

B-class concerns

Before this is ready for a GA, this needs to satisfy B-class concerns, as so far it quick fails those due to insufficient references. A number of sentences are unreferenced; in some case entire paragraphs (and at least one section) are missing references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are very few paragraphs without inline citations, and of those at least one makes an explicit source reference in prose. The remainder do not seem likely to be challenged per WP:CK. I'll do a GA review. —Cupco 07:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Feminist economics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cupco (talk · contribs) 07:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I thought the prose looked unnecessarily convoluted and difficult in several places, so I tried automated readability scoring which resulted in estimated U.S. grade levels necessary for comprehension from 17 (postgraduate) to 24 (postdoctorate). An example sentence flagged as particularly difficult from the intro is: "These examinations include explorations of areas of traditional economic inquiry that have a particular relevance to women (for example, care work or occupational segregation) or phenomena poorly represented by existing models (for example, intra-household bargaining) and, the subsequent use of different forms of data collection, measurement (for example, the GEM as opposed to GDP), and interpretation (for example the use of the capabilities approach) to produce more gender-aware theories." Something needs to be done about readability. Update: I made about a zillion edits to address the readability issues in essentially every section with prose in it. Googling a couple dozen phrases selected at random from the text showed absolutely no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Spelling is fine.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout is generally good. I removed a pair of empty level-five headers which were pushing their subsections to an unnecessary and ridiculous level six. I see no WP:WORDS but I'll take another look after getting some sleep. [Update: Y still good.] There are a couple of enumerated lists which don't need to be enumerated and don't need to be lists, but with four and five elements nobody can reasonably say that they detract from anything; in my opinion they break up the dense prose in a welcome fashion. There is a large unordered list of graduate programs at the end, which is fine because converting to prose would make it much worse. Why are books "Literature" but journals "Further reading"? I don't know and it didn't bother me, but I fixed it to conform to the Manual of Style anyway.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The lack of web links for a large number of citations is going to make verification of this article almost impossible for me. Could ISBNs be added to the book reference citations and DOIs or courtesy URLs if available be added to the journal sources, please? I will help with this while the review is on hold to the extent that I can, but I'm no expert in this area so I need help. I do not have easy access to a library likely to have many of these sources except on occasional weekends. Update: I was able to add courtesy or preview URLs to almost all of the references which lacked them, and in so doing I verified about a dozen cited statements without any issues. This satisfies me that the sourcing is adequate for GA status.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All potentially contentious material, statistics, and quotations are supported by citations to apparently reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am withholding judgement on this until I am able to perform much more extensive verification per criterion 2a above. Update: There is no evidence of any original research in this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good breadth as far as I can tell. I will double-check after the verification issues are addressed. Update: Y Coverage is fine per textbook sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think the depth judgements are very good here. There are a handful of proper summary style sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I was going to ask that views critical of feminist economics be included, but to my astonishment I have been unable to find any examples of such after several minutes of searching. There are innumerable critiques of feminism but no critiques of feminist economics? That seems impossible to me. I will take another look at this tomorrow after getting some sleep. Update: essentially the only critique of any feminist economic concepts beyond hints of conference sessions that I could find was [1]. It's not much of a critique, but it answers the critiques which may or may not exist based on the conference session descriptions. I cited it in the OECD graph caption.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Dashboard and history are both clear of any hint of instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All three images check out fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	"A Colombian domestic worker" could be any Latina in any kitchen; perhaps her caption can pull some facts explaining why she is pictured? Update: I enhanced her caption with a discussion of non-market labor. This article could really use some charts of things like wage disparity between men and women over time in the "Gendered macroeconomic variable" section, e.g. one or more of these graphs. This is not enough to prevent the article from attaining GA status per the strict criteria, and so I will not fail it if it's not done, but I feel quite strongly that such graphical information is crucial to the central theme of the article and would improve it immensely. Update: I added three graphs showing different aspects of the gender wage gap, which is central to the theme of the article. Breaking up the wall of text with their visual complexity helps very much, in my estimation.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for two weeks to address the readability concern marked  On hold above. If it is addressed prior to that, please ping me on my talk page. —Cupco 00:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Update: Done! Pass! —Cupco 02:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing readability

There are three separate problems with readability issues here: sentence length, vocabulary level, and jargon. The first two can be addressed with ordinary paraphrasing, but jargon presents more of a problem, because many of the terms used in the article are both specific to and very widely used in feminist economics literature. Many of the concepts around which jargon has arisen were ignored to the extent that there are no common one-word terms for them, so I understand the importance of keeping those terms prominent in the article, and suggest that they should be addressed by defining them when they appear in parentheticals or similar, even if it means lengthier sentences.

I'm using this table to try to brainstorm through some ideas for simplification:

original	proposed replacement	notes
Feminist economics is diverse area of economic inquiry that highlights the androcentric biases of traditional economics through critical examinations of economic methodology, epistemology, history and empirical study.	Feminist economics is the critical study of economics including its methodology, epistemology, history and empirical research, attempting to overcome pervasive androcentric (male and patriarchal) biases.	slightly less length, defining one term and some semantic re-work
These examinations include explorations of areas of traditional economic inquiry that have a particular relevance to women (for example, care work or occupational segregation) or phenomena poorly represented by existing models (for example, intra-household bargaining) and, the subsequent use of different forms of data collection, measurement (for example, the GEM as opposed to GDP), and interpretation (for example the use of the capabilities approach) to produce more gender-aware theories.	It focuses on topics of particular relevance to women, such as care work or occupational segregation (exclusion of women and minorities from certain fields); deficiencies of economic models, such as disregarding intra-household bargaining; new forms of data collection and measurement such as the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), and more gender-aware theories such as the capabilities approach.	worst sentence in the intro... not happy with semicolons but can't think of a better way. It is a laundry list which intros are full of anyway. GEM isn't "opposed" to GDP; they're complementary.
Ultimately, feminist economics seeks to produce an economics that is more gender inclusive. ¶	Feminist economics ultimately seeks to produce a more gender inclusive economics.	reword to shorten and simplify
Contrary to common conceptions of economics as a positive and objective science, feminist economists call attention to the social-construction of economics, highlighting the ways in which its models and methods reflect masculine preferences.	Feminist economists call attention to the social constructions of traditional economics, questioning the extent to which it is positive and objective, and showing how its models and methods are biased towards masculine preferences.	not sure this is shorter, but less complex clause structure and somewhat less jargon
In response to the typical construction of economics focused on "culturally 'masculine' topics" including "autonomy, abstraction and logic," feminist economists call for the inclusion of "feminine" topics "such as women and family behavior as well as...connection, concreteness and emotion" in economics and illuminate how the exclusion of these topics is a detriment to the field.	Since economics is traditionally focused on topics said to be "culturally masculine" such as autonomy, abstraction and logic, feminist economists call for the inclusion of more feminine topics such as family behavior, connections, concreteness, and emotion, and show the problems caused by exclusion of those topics.	structure, vocabulary, and length improvements
Moreover, feminist economists, claim that modifications along these lines supports the creation of policies that will reduce inequities across gender, race, and ethnicity and that such normative goals are important in economics. ¶	Inclusion of such topics has helped create policies that have reduced gender, racial, and ethnic discrimination and inequity, satisfying normative goals central to all economics.	The fact is far more than a claim because it has been applied so successfully over the past decades. There are essentially no critiques of or opposition to the topics in economics literature, and they have clearly been assimilated fairly rapidly by policy makers, developed governments, and hegemony economists.
Various scholars, among them Ester Boserup, Marianne Ferber, Julie A. Nelson, Marilyn Waring and Nancy Folbre, have contributed to the development of the discipline, and by the 1990s feminist economics had become recognised as an established field of research within economics.	Many scholars including Ester Boserup, Marianne Ferber, Julie A. Nelson, Marilyn Waring and Nancy Folbre have contributed to feminist economics. By the 1990s it had become recognised as an established field within economics.	easy shortening; split run-on sentence

I think I can do this without making too many semantic changes. I'll try just editing from here on but I need help making sure I don't lose nuances. —Cupco 18:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

One bit of jargon that we can probably get rid of is the use of the adjective "gendered" to mean "gender balanced." —Cupco 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done! —Cupco 02:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)