Feminism in Becoming: Considerations on the Man Question and the Future of <i>Feministing</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within contemporary feminism, perspectives on men being feminist range from those who are “viscerally opposed” to those who argue that engaging with men more systematically is “the most consequential move feminists can make.” While some feminist political scholars have called to expand the feminist agenda to include analyses of men as gendered, resistance to this expansion is significantly entrenched, and men who identify as feminist are frequently regarded with distrust. Yet, if feminist efforts are to transform deeply entrenched gendered power structures, there is good reason to engage fully with the many ways all conceptions and practices of gender work to maintain and/or challenge current power structures. This article offers a relational approach to feministing—that is, an approach grounded in becoming feminist through praxes centred on uncovering points of solidarity across and within gender identity categories, the pursuit of coalition-oriented politics and the prioritization of accountability through action not identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".