Harding

Strong objectivity, if I understand it coherently at all, places the "standpoint" of its epistemology at the feet of "marginalized peoples". The biggest criticism I have of this theory is that it claims that we will gain more knowledge by talking to the marginalized peoples and incorporating their viewpoints into our understanding of the world--but it nevertheless continues to compare these viewpoints and this knowledge to the dominant culture. This leads me to believe that although Harding is espousing an epistemology that is enraptured with marginalized peoples and wishes to cut off the diseased head of the dominant culture from any knowledge claims whatsoever, what she is actually describing seems to be a theory of "all access points", not just the ones from marginalized peoples, because she cannot escape the fact that these marginalized viewpoints must be compared to the dominant ones. She claims it matters where you start from. I am claiming it doesn't matter, as long as you consider them all, and I also think that she would have to concede to this point when she realizes that one cannot escape the dominant culture's viewpoints anyway.

I think Judith Butler would agree with me :) She also may propose the argument that since "gender" is most likely a social construct, it is problematic to start from the standpoint of persons whose identities have been constructed by (usually) the dominant culture in the first place.