Cited by 251Feminist Theory and Gender StudiesFeminism, Gender, and IntersectionalityGender and Feminist Studies

Rethinking Power

Allen, Amy·1998·Hypatia

Abstract

This paper argues that feminists have yet to develop a satisfactory account of power. Existing feminist accounts of power tend to have a one-sided emphasis either on power as domination or on power as empowerment. This conceptual one-sided’ ness must be overcome if feminists are to develop an account complex enough to illuminate women's diverse experiences with power. Such an account is sketched here.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01350.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Allen, A.
Corresponding author
Allen, Amy
Venue
Hypatia
Published
1998
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
21-40
ISSN
  • 0887-5367 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-2001
OpenAlex
W4249467748
Cited by
251
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Hypatia (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminism, Gender, and Intersectionality
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
power, feminist theory, domination, empowerment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review