Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feminism on flesh

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. See, for example, A. Oakley,Sex, Gender and Society (London: Temple Smith, 1972) and G. Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex”, inToward an Anthropology of Women, ed. R. Rapp (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. Smart, “The Woman of Legal Discourse”,Social and Legal Studies 1 (1992), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. See, for example, J. Butler,Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York and London: Routledge, 1990); J. Butler,Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York and London: Routledge, 1993); E. Grosz,Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Gatens, “Power, Bodies and Difference”, inDestabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates, ed. M. Barrett and A. Phillips (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 120–137, at 129–30.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Grosz,supra n.3, at 14.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid., at vii.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clearly, de Beauvoir was not a legal feminist, but she was a constructionist trailblazer and an early hero for many embryonic legal feminists.

  8. Grosz,supra n.3, at 15.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., at 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See generally,supra n.3.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Supra n.4, at 133.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See generallysupra n.3.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See, for example, C. Smart, “Law, Feminism and Sexuality: From Essence to Ethics”,Canadian Journal of Law and Society 9 (1994), 15–38; F. Valdes, “Queers, Sissies, Dykes, and Tomboys: Deconstructing the Conflation of ‘Sex’, ‘Gender’, and ‘Sexual Orientation’ in Euro-American Law and Society”,California Law Review 83/1 (1995), 1–375.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Bridgeman and S. Millns, eds.,Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1995). All references (markedLBP) in the text are to this work unless otherwise specified.

    Google Scholar 

  16. [1992] 3 W.L.R. 758.

  17. [1994] 1 F.L.R. 614.

  18. K. Davis, “Re-making the She-Devil: A Critical Look at Feminist Approaches to Beauty”,Hypatia 6 (1991), 21–44, at 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Bordo,Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1993), 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grosz,supra n.3, at 9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

  24. Webster v.Reproductive Health Services 494 U.S. 490 (1989).

  25. Planned Parenthood v.Casey 112S. Ct. 2791 (1992).

  26. 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

  27. Note, “Patriarchy is Such a Drag: The Strategic Possibilities of a Postmodern Account of Gender”,Harvard Law Review 108 (1995), 1973–2008, at 1980–1981.

  28. Supra n.27, at 1983.

  29. D. Fuss,Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference (New York and London: Routledge, 1989), 52.

    Google Scholar 

  30. D. Fuss,Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference (New York and London: Routledge, 1989), 52.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grosz,supra n.3, at ix.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Supra n.4,, at 133.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Grosz,Supra n.3, at 20.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Supra n.29, at 51.

    Google Scholar 

  36. D. Riley,War in the Nursery: Theories of the Child and the Mother (London: Virago, 1983), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Supra n.29, at 52.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See generallysupra n.14.

    Google Scholar 

  39. K. Ferguson,The Man Question (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 154.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Butler (1990),supra n.3, 1990); at 7.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Butler (1993),supra n.3, at ix.

  42. Bordo,supra n.19 at 5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Butler (1993),supra n.3, at ix.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid. supra n.3, at ix.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Supra n.19, at 5.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid., at 6.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Grosz,supra n.3, at 8.

  48. S. Ahmed, “Deconstruction and Law’s Other: Towards a Feminist Theory of Embodied Legal Rights”,Social and Legal Studies 4 (1995), 55–73, at 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. See, generally, C. Smart, “Law’s Power, the Sexed Body, and Feminist Discourse”,Journal of Law and Society 17/2 (1990), 194–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. D. Kennedy,Sexy Dressing, Etc. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 157.

    Google Scholar 

  52. S.L. Bartky, “Feminine Masochism and the Politics of Personal Transformations”,Hypatia 7 (1989), 323–345, at 323.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See generally,supra n.19.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid.,S. Bordo,Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1993), 21–22. at 19.

    Google Scholar 

  55. S. Franklin, “Postmodern Proceation: A Cultural Account of Assisted Reproduction”, inConceiving The New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction, ed. F.D. Ginsburg and R. Rapp (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), 323–345, at 332.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  57. A. Rich,Blood, Bread and Poetry: Selected Prose 1979–1985 (London: Virago, 1987), 215.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Supra n.48, at 65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Webb v.EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd No 2 [1995] I.R.L.R. 645.

  60. L. Secomb, “IVF: Reproducing the ‘Proper [Family] of Man’”,Australian Feminist Law Journal 4 (1994), 19–39, at 20.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.156(1).

  62. Johnson v.Calvert 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494.

  63. See, for example, M. Macdonald,Representing Women: Myths of Femininity in the Popular Media (London: Edward Arnold, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  64. See generally,supra n.55.

    Google Scholar 

  65. L. Singer, “Bodies, Pleasures, Powers”,Differences 1 (1989), 57–72, at 58.

    Google Scholar 

  66. J. Sawicki,Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body (New York and London: Routledge, 1991), 64.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Supra n.52, at 66, quoting Iris Marion Young.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ibid., at 66

    Google Scholar 

  69. Supra n.57, at 212.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See, for example,supra n.14 and C.F. Stychin,Law’s Desire: Sexuality and the Limits of Justice (New York and London: Routledge, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  71. See, for example, Valdes,supra n.14; V. Muller, “‘Trapped in the Body’ — Transsexualism, The Law, Sexual Identity”,Australian Feminist Law Journal 3 (1994), 103–21; and R. Sandland, “Between ‘Truth’ and ‘Difference’: Poststructuralism, Law and the Power of Feminism”,Feminist Legal Studies III/1 (1995), 3–47.

  72. M. Garber,Vested Interests (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992), 110.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Supra n.27. Its author maintains that it is difficult to think of the trans-sexual’s gender identity as “anything but a [subversive] performance” once we “have deconstructed the illness trope and introduced the idea of ‘passing’” (at 1993).

  74. Ibid.

  75. 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

  76. Notesupra n.27, at 2008.

  77. Grosz,supra n.3, at 85.

  78. See E. Martin,Flexible Bodies: Tracking Immunity in American Culture from the Days of Polio to the Age of AIDS (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994) and E. Martin, “From Reproduction to HIV: Blurring Categories, Shifting Positions”, inConceiving The New World Order (1995),supra n.55, at 256–269.

    Google Scholar 

  79. E. Martin,The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction (Boston: Beacon Press, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Martin (1995),supra n.78, at 262.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ibid., at 259–260.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ibid., at 263.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ibid., at 267.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Martin (1994),supra n.78, at 247–8.

    Google Scholar 

  88. E. Grosz, “Animal Sex: Libido as Desire and Death”, inSexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism, ed. E. Grosz and E. Probyn (New York and London: Routledge, 1995), 278–299, at 292.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ibid., at 282.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Martin (1995),supra n.78, at 265.

    Google Scholar 

  91. J. Kristeva,Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. L. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  92. M. Douglas,Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  93. L. Irigary,This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. C. Porter with C. Burke (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Martin (1995),supra n.78, at 265.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Supra n.88, at 282.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Supra n.55, at 337. Franklin contends that in the case of the human embryo, this is because “while it fulfils several criteria of relatedness, it also differs markedly from ‘us’ in being a microscopic entity, unrecognizable in any immediate way as a person or even as a human being” (at 337).

    Google Scholar 

  97. R. Petchesky, “The Body as Property: A Feminist Re-vision”,supra n.55, at 387.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Supra n.55, at 337.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ibid., at 301–302.

    Google Scholar 

  100. See generally, M. Strathern,After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  101. A similarly disastrous collapse into culture preoccupies race discourse. In racism today, culture takes the place once occupied by biology, locking “individuals and groupsa priori into a genealogy, into a determination that is immutable and intangible in origin”. In sum, “culture can also function like nature” for the contemporary racist who peddles the insurmountability of cultural differences in order to preserve identity from contamination in much the same way that earlier counterparts deployed biological heredity. (See, E. Martin (1994),supra n.78, at 239, quoting E. Balibar, “Is there a ‘neo-racism’?” inRace, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, ed. E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (London: Verso, 1991), 22).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Supra n.55, at 339.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ibid., at 334.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Nottingham, UK

    Thérèse Murphy

Authors
  1. Thérèse Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murphy, T. Feminism on flesh. Law Critique 8, 37–59 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699760

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699760

Keywords

Search

Navigation