Feminist Theory and Criticism: 2.

Anglo-American Feminisms
Johns Hopkins University Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism

Second Edition 2005

Womens experience as encountered in female fictional characters, the reactions of

women readers, and the careers, techniques, and topics of women writers was the focus
of the most accessible second-wave feminist criticism in the United States and Britain
starting in the mid-1970s. A goal became the detection and further cultivation of a
womens tradition in literature. Originally opposed to theory as male-inflected, scholars
engaged in these projects gradually acknowledged and cultivated it.

Initially, feminist critics of this group had part-time, adjunct, or assistant-professor status
in academic institutions, and they turned their activism toward the formation of the
womens studies programs that came to exist in most U.S. universities. By the early
1990s, institutions that had been slow to start womens studies programs were recruiting
feminist scholars at the top level. Feminists Florence Howe and Catharine R. Stimpson
had been elected to the presidency of the Modern Language Association of America,
Phyllis Franklin had become executive director, and Womens Studies in Language and
Literature had developed into the third-largest division in the organization and a major
force in its programming.

The process of recovering neglected work by women writers was greatly assisted by
feminist reprinting houses, such as the Feminist Press in the United States and Virago
Press and the Womens Press in Britain. Founded by Florence Howe, the Feminist Press
published its first book in 1972 and regularly offers work that recovers marginal cultural
subjectsthe working class, raceand 1930s texts. Howe reaffirms experientially
centered feminist study in her introduction to Tradition and the Talents of Women, a 1991
collection that includes the borderline geopolitics of Chicanas and disperses work on
lesbian and black womens experience into various categories. Howe prefers strategically
to argue a singular tradition of women because she is "convinced that to imagine a series
of separate, monumental traditions is only to establish (or to continue) a hierarchy
among them, in which the traditional white male canon would survive dominant" (13).

Feminist periodicals such as Signs, Feminist Studies, Womens Studies Quarterly, Women
and Literature, and Chrysalis have provided a forum for feminist theoretical discussion.
Founded in 1975 by Catharine Stimpson, Signs set out to publish "the new scholarship
about women" as "a means to the end of an accurate understanding of men and women,
of sex and gender, of large patterns of human behavior, institutions, ideologies and art."
In the experiential vein, it wanted its audience to be able to "fix and grasp a sense of the
totality of womens lives and the realities of which they have been a part" (Signs 1
[1975]: v). It has also published landmark French feminist work in translation. In its
second number, Elaine Showalter presented a review essay on feminist scholarship in
literature that moved into the project of a separate womens tradition. Signs declared itself
interdisciplinary, and theoretical borrowing from history, sociology, and psychology has
remained crucial to literary study. Signs publishes special numbers and debates on
emerging issues, such as lesbian identification and the uses of Nancy Chodorows The
Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (1978)in
theoretical revision of the mother (vol. 6). Chodorows post-Freudian theory reconstructs
the Oedipal crisis for men and women, and its continuing post-Oedipal mother-daughter
relation has served the theorizing of womens traditions. The first issue of Signs
contained the historian Carroll Smith-Rosenbergs "Female World of Love and Ritual,"
which relies on womens correspondence to recover a tradition of "long-lived, intimate,
loving friendship between two women" (1) and all-female rituals and customs as focal
events of nineteenth-century American womens lives.

virginia woolf offered the most important literary-critical model to feminists interested in
recovering the experience of women writers. Now a standard text, A Room of Ones Own
(1929)gives an account of the frustrations that a fictional female researcher must go
through to arrive at a theory of women and fiction. Gender bias hampers her access to the
resources of the university, and historical and imaginative male accounts of woman,
whether distorted by anger or by the imagination, fail history and experience. Woolf
imagines historical woman writers in their social contexts and searches out the sources of
the bitterness she reads in their works. Jane Marcus has been the most active editor of
feminist Woolf collections. In Art and Anger Marcus identifies her own training as
American new criticism and intellectual history and attributes what theory she exhibits to
"the texts under discussion in relation to their historical context, as well as to a
problematizing of the issue of reading by gender gained from reading Virginia Woolfs
fiction" (xiii). She identifies Woolf as a socialist feminist and has collected work on her
mystical aspect, women in her contexts, and Bloomsbury group misogyny, revising views
expressed in the family biography by Quentin Bell. In "Still Practice, A/Wrested
Alphabet" (in Art and Anger ) Marcus resists the contemporary hierarchy that privileges
language-centered deconstruction. She argues for the importance of studying the
production of a literary work in process and identifies with the mythos of Penelope "the
tradition of making the art object," rooted in daily experience, as a feminine aesthetic.
Like Lillian Robinson in Sex, Class, and Culture, Marcus asserts the importance of
Woolfs radical feminist work Three Guineas.

The importance of female experience is marked in the significantly titled collection The
Authority of Experience (1977), edited by Arlyn Diamond and Lee R. Edwards. Although
they collected their essays "practically and intuitively," the editors found that theory was
emerging. They saw "concern with societys beliefs about the nature and function of
women in the world" as the concern of feminists and brought "personally felt reality" to
the fore as a criterion. Their authors examined art as "the product of a particular cultural
milieu, sometimes embodying a societys most deeply held convictions, sometimes
questioning these values, sometimes disguising an artists own ambivalence with regard
to these matters" (ixx). Unlike in subsequent studies by Ellen Moers and Elaine
Showalter, there was a balance between male and female writers. Geoffrey Chaucer,
William Shakespeare, and Samuel Richardson come off well in rendering the historical
experience of women through their female characters. The Diamond and Edwards
collection is an early example of the importance of anthologies and collections to the
development of feminist theory, enriching the sense of womens experience of specific
historical periods and new genre traditions. Diverse examples are Shakespeares Sisters:
Feminist Essays in Women Poets, edited by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar (1979);
The Private Self: Theory and Practice of Womens Autobiographical Writings, edited by
Shari Benstock (1988); The Voyage In: Fictions of Female Development, edited by
Elizabeth Abel, Marianne Hirsch, and Elizabeth Langland (1983); Arms and the Woman:
War, Gender, and Literary Representation, edited by Helen M. Cooper, Adrienne
Auslander Munich, and Susan Merrill Squier (1987); Breaking the Sequence: Womens
Experimental Fiction, edited by Ellen G. Friedman and Miriam Fuchs (1989); and The
Gender of Modernism: A Critical Anthology, edited by Bonnie Kime Scott (1990).
Among the theoretical collections incorporating diverse practices, see The Poetics of
Gender, edited by Nancy K. Miller (1986); Feminist Issues in Literary Scholarship,
edited by Shari Benstock (1987); and The New Feminist Criticism: Essays in Women,
Literature, and Theory (1985)and Speaking of Gender (1989), both edited by Elaine
Showalter.

Judith Fetterleys The Resisting Reader (1978)considers the work of male writers from
Washington Irving to Norman Mailer, including canonized figures such as William
Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and henry james. Fetterley discusses
the loss and mental confusion of the "immasculated" woman reader, forced to identify
against herself with male characters, whose essential experience is betrayal by the female,
and forced to see women characters scapegoated and killed off in the typical scenarios.
Against this politics of male empowerment, Fetterley offers the female reader the power
of naming what is real in terms of her own experience. Fetterleys strategy for re-vision
of the reading process for women was inspired by Adrienne Rich and Kate Millett and
has been further theorized by Patrocinio Schweickart, who suggests the importance of
establishing the subject-object relations between the female reader and the text.
Fetterleys representation of American literature as a "masculine wilderness" and of
America as a female to be discovered and conquered is resonant with Annette Kolodnys
The Lay of the Land (1975)and with the ecofeminism of Susan Griffin (Woman and
Nature, 1978). Studies of James Joyce can represent the continuing analysis of male
writers. Joyce was credited with a degree of cultural realism in representing the familial,
vocational, and artistic experiences of women characters (Women in Joyce, ed. Suzette
Henke and Elaine Unkeless, 1982 , and Joyce and Feminism, by Bonnie Kime Scott,
1984). By the late 1980s Joycean feminist analysis favored psychoanalytic and French
feminist approaches (see psychoanalytic theory and criticism: 3. the post-lacanians).

Marginal development of a female countercanon posed a challenge to the central literary

canon and contributed to a questioning of canonicity itself. Nina Bayms Womens
Fiction: A Guide to Novels By and About Women in America, 18201870 (1978), for
example, introduces an alternate tradition of trivialized women writers. Her essay
"Melodramas of Beset Manhood: How Theories of American Fiction Exclude Women
Authors" encourages a reexamination of criteria of greatness, noting the masculine
limitation of concepts such as that of America as a nation and the myth of individual
opportunity in the wilderness. Lillian S. Robinsons "Treason Our Text: Feminist
Challenges to the Literary Canon" questions limitations of both old masculinist and new
feminist canons. Feminists also tested the adequacy of periodization based exclusively on
male literary production and introduced gender as a factor in genre. Annette Kolodny
introduced the concept of a coded language of a female subculture in "A Map for
Rereading," its title a reaction to the narrow literary culture defined in harold blooms A
Map of Misreading.

"Gynocritics" is the name Elaine Showalter gave to those critics wishing "to construct a
female framework for the analysis of womens literature, to develop new models based
on the study of female experience, rather than to adapt male models and theories"
( "Toward a Feminist Poetics," New Feminist Criticism 131). In a series of essays
Showalter is increasingly willing to talk about various schools of feminist theory. She
finds the social theory of subcultures useful to gynocriticism in "Feminist Theory in the
Wilderness." In "Critical Cross-Dressing" she is skeptical about the ability of prominent
male critics (Jonathan Culler and terry eagleton, in particular) to turn feminist as readers
without surrendering "paternal privileges." What she fears is that "instead of breaking out
of patriarchal bounds," they will merely compete with women, failing to acknowledge
womens feminist contributions (143). She includes feminist aesthetics and French
feminism in the introduction to her edited collection The New Feminist Criticism and
begins talking more about men through the category of gender in her later edited
collection Speaking of Gender.

Feminist freedom from male theory was a goal for Showalter, but its accomplishment
remains problematical in critiques of gynocritics practices. There are traces of
Freudianism and traditional literary categories in work by Ellen Moers and by Sandra M.
Gilbert and Susan Gubar. Toril Moi places Showalter in a humanist tradition. For Moi,
the empirical methods and close textual analysis of gynocritics links them to the male
practice of New Criticism, though their construction of female social history certainly
mitigates this. The extensive archival work of Showalter, Baym, Marcus, and Gilbert and
Gubar, by their own admission, applies skills learned in traditional graduate study (see
Marcuss "Storming the Toolshed" in Art and Anger ). Myra Jehlen found the self-
contained gynocritical position problematical. In "Archimedes and the Paradox of
Feminist Criticism" Jehlen advocates attending to confrontations along the long border
contingent to dominant male traditions, achieving "radical comparativism." Annette
Kolodny has advocated a "playful pluralism" for feminist theory and practice ( "Dancing
through the Minefield"), a model that excited objections from gayatri chakravorty spivak,
whose juxtaposition of feminism with Marxism, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and,
later, subaltern studies discloses numerous perils. Further discussion by Judith Kegan
Gardner offered a political model of several schools of feminist criticism: liberal,
socialist, and radical. The radical views of lesbians and black critics had been neglected
in the pluralist concept and indeed in much of the 1970s feminist criticism. Standpoint
epistemology emerged as a means of discussing racial and ethnic differences among
women, as seen in the work of Patricia Hill Collins, bell hooks, Barbara Smith, and
Gloria Anzalda. Smiths Home Girls (1983)and Anzaldas Making Face, Making Soul:
Haciendo Caras (1990)were important women-of-color collections.
By the late 1970s major female-centered studies had begun to appear. In Literary Women
(1976)Ellen Moers expresses the intention not to impose doctrine on women writersan
attitude that resembles Showalters in its distrust of theory. She presents a practical, living
history of women writers from the eighteenth century through the twentieth, attempting
to shape it with their concerns and language. The account features new anecdotal details
and minute observations from manuscript sources, selected for their relevance to
womens unique experiences. Many of the categories she uses to discuss the history and
tradition of women writers in the first half of her study are derived from traditional period
and genre studies: "The Epic Age," "Traditions, Individual Talent," "Realism," and
"Gothic." In the second half she sets out to familiarize readers with literary feminism, a
heroic structure for the female "voice" in literature that she calls "heroinism." Her
categories of heroinism incorporate characters in roles of loving, performing, and
educating. Her discussion of female erotic landscape emerges from an introduction of
sigmund freuds sexual dream symbols, assessing male bias that goes back to the naming
of female anatomy (vagina = scabbard). This introduction of metaphors of the female
body finds a response in French feminist theory, with luce irigarays "two lips" of the
female body and hlne cixouss concept of writing in mothers milk.

Showalters landmark work, A Literature of Their Own (1977), constructs a history of

British women novelists literary subculture in three phases, designated as "feminine"
(184080), "feminist" (18801920), and "female" (continuing since 1920, with a new
phase beginning in 1960). Showalters dates are not to be taken rigidly; they overlap, and
multiple phases can be seen in a single writer. Critical of the practice of selecting only
great figures for analysis, in an appendix she lists 213 women writers with "sociological"
data, writers who provide diversity and generational links. She also avoids concepts of
female imagination, preferring to look at the ways "the self-awareness of the woman
writer has translated itself into a literary form in a specific place and time-span" and to
trace this self-awareness within the tradition (12). Her "feminine" phase includes intense,
compact, symbolic fiction that used "innovative and covert ways to dramatize the inner
life" (2728), as well as "an all-inclusive female realism" that was "a broad, socially
informed exploration of the daily lives and values of women within the family and the
community" (29). "Feminists" confronted Victorian sexual stereotypes, produced
socialistic theories of womens relationships to work, class, and the family, and
entertained an "all-out war of the sexes" (29). Some writers fantasized sexual separatism
in Amazonian or suffragette communities. Early parts of the "female" phase of self-
exploration are seen by Showalter as carrying "the double legacy of feminine self-hatred
and feminist withdrawal" (33). It polarized sexuality, but the female sensibility moved
from sacred to self-destructive and paradoxically failed to confront the female body. The
concept of androgyny, explored from the Greeks to Bloomsbury in male as well as female
authors by Carolyn Heilbrun (Toward a Recognition of Androgyny, 1973), comes under
attack as an escapist "flight" in Showalters controversial handling of Woolf (26397), a
position that echoes the attacks of Queenie Leavis and f.r. leaviss Scrutiny. The phase of
the female novelists since 1960 operates in Freudian and Marxist contexts and for the
first time accepts anger and sexuality as "sources of female creative power" (35).
Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar have theorized the position of woman and the literary
imagination in the nineteenth century (The Madwoman in the Attic, 1979 ) and the
twentieth (No Mans Land, 3 vols. , 198794) and offer a large selection of women
authors who conform to their paradigms in their edition of The Norton Anthology of
Literature by Women (1985, rev. ed., 1996). Their approach includes historical references
to the material, social, and gendered conditions of authors lives; to literary canons and
archives; and to popular movements and artifactstypical strengths of American feminist
theory. Like Showalter and Moers, they detect historical stages of a female literary
tradition, but they ground these in male comparisons and frequently make their points
through metaphors and puns, as seen in their titles. According to them, for early
nineteenth-century women writers the dominant vision of literary creativity was paternal.
Women had to cope further with male fantasies of the female. These fantasies come in
angelic and monstrous versions and were imposed as literary models. The madwoman or
monster repeatedly created by women writers is the authors double, expressing her
anxiety, rage, and "schizophrenia of authorship" (Madwoman 78). They detect
asymmetrical male and female responses to the rise of female literary power. Women
have emerged from their liminal position in the attic to wage the battle between the sexes.

In The War of the Words, volume 1 of No Mans Land, which offers numerous studies of
male authors, the battle is manifested in tropes of erotic dueling, the advent of the "no-
man" to replace the virile man, and plots of males defeating alarming forms of female
sexuality through a theology of the phallus, mutilations, rapes, and campaigns against the
mothers of "castrated" sons. Women begin to have literary reactions to preceding female
writers, sometimes arriving at parodic or comic treatments, as well as serious and positive
ones. Gilbert and Gubars collection of stereotypes and misogynistic plot types that
progress through the decades is reminiscent of Kate Milletts Sexual Politics (1970).
Women writers express belligerence less directly and render characters who are
victorious through duplicity, subterfuge, or luck. The suffragist movement gives the early
century metaphors of militarism and sacrifice. Modernist women offer private triumphs.
Later women writers respond to male backlash with nightmares of defeat or dreams of
triumphant women warriors. Volume 2, Sexchanges, and volume 3, Letters from the
Front, sustain the model of sex war refined into the consideration of ways: "The sexes
battle because sex roles change, but when the sexes battle, sex itself (that is eroticism)
changes" (2:xi). Major changes include the rebellion against the feminization of the
American woman, powerful roles assumed by women in World War I, varied lesbian
arrangements, and transvestism. A more tortured experience of women in war emerges in
Cooper, Munich, and Squiers essay collection Arms and the Woman.

Two theoretical models in Gilbert and Gubar are worthy of mention. Their concept
"anxiety of authorship," used perhaps too broadly to describe nineteenth-century women
writerslike Harold Blooms male-applied term "anxiety of influence" derives from
Freuds psychosexual paradigm of the Oedipus complex. If women follow a normative
female resolution of the Oedipus complex, the father (the male literary tradition) becomes
the object of female desire, and the pre-Oedipal desire for the mother (or her literature) is
renounced. Twentieth-century women writers have the option of the "affiliation
complex," which allows them to "adopt" literary mothers and to escape the male
"belatedness," or the "anxiety of influence" theorized by Bloom, which is in effect a
biological imperative for literary descent from an originatory father. Normative resolution
of the Oedipus complex may leave women anxious about the fragility of paternal power,
worried about usurping paternal primacy, and fearful of male vengeance. Nonnormative
Freudian resolutions of the Oedipus complex offer advantages to authors such as gertrude
stein. The resulting "masculinist complex" grants autonomy, a new maternal relation, and
the creative option of male mimicrya departure from Freuds negative judgment.

Gilbert and Gubar also implicate fantasies in theory, The War of the Words focusing on
linguistic fantasies, and Sexchanges on fantasy identifications. The feminist linguistic
fantasy grants an intuitive primacy in language acquisition to the mother rather than to
the father, a more powerful position than the male-associated symbolic language and
social contract of julia kristevas post-Lacanian analysis. Proceeding from Woolfs
remarks on womens language, Gilbert and Gubar suggest that women fantasize a
revision, not of womens language, but of womens relation to language. They would
overturn male sentencingthe sentence as definitivein judgment, decree, or
interdiction. They see agonistic oral competitiveness and the acquisition of a privileged,
priestly language, as theorized by Walter Ong, as a male fertility rite, resisting vernacular
and controlling mother tongue. Modernist men such as Ezra Pound, D. H. Lawrence,
James Joyce, and t.s. eliot and the deconstructionist theory of jacques derrida have
mystified, claimed, or transformed mother tongue so as to retain priestly authority.
Sexchanges begins with fin-de-sicle myths of popular culture that have also interested
Nina Auerbach (Woman and the Demon) and Elaine Showalter (Sexual Anarchy).
Increasingly, women writers find enabling fantasies and rolesSappho as a predecessor,
Aphrodite as an erotic authority, and transvestism as metaphor. In the same sexchanges,
men express loss and failure. The interest in the turn to the twentieth century, also
embraced by Showalter in the introduction of her expanded Literature of Ones Own, is
increasingly discussed in terms of The Gender of Modernity, Rita Felskis 1995 study.
New transnational geographies have been mapped, for example, by Susan Stanford
Friedman (1998). Third-wave feminists assess their relationship to the second-wave
feminism, to which the above works are now assigned.

Bonnie Kime Scott

TOP

Bibliography
Primary Sources

Elizabeth Abel , Marianne Hirsch and Elizabeth Langland The Voyage In: Fictions of
Female Development (1983).

Gloria Anzalda Making Face, Making Soul: Haciendo Caras (1990).

Ann Ardis, New Women: New Novels (1990).

Nina Auerbach, Woman and the Demon (1982).

Eileen Barrett and Patricia Cramer Virginia Woolf: Lesbian Readings (1997).

Nina Baym, Melodramas of Beset Manhood: How Theories of American Fiction Exclude
Women Authors (1981, Showalter, New Feminist Criticism).

Nina Baym, Womens Fiction: A Guide to Novels By and About Women in America:
18201870 (1978).

Suzanne Clark, Sentimental Modernism (1991).

Helen M. Cooper , Adrienne Auslander Munich and Susan Merrill Squier Arms and the
Woman: War, Gender, and Literary Representation (1987).

Arlyn Diamond and Lee R. Edwards The Authority of Experience (1977).

Josephine Donovan Feminist Literary Criticism: Explorations in Theory (1976).

Rachel Blau DuPlessis, Writing beyond the Ending: Narrative Strategies of Twentieth-
Century Women Writers (1985).

Rita Felski, The Gender of Modernity (1995).

Rita Felski1981 (Feminist Readings: French Texts / American Contexts special issue,
Yale French Studies, vol. 62).

Rita Felski1982 (Feminist Theory special issue, Signs, vol. 7).

Rita Felski1996 (Feminist Theory and Practice special issue, Signs, vol. 21).

Judith Fetterley, The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction (1978).

Susan Stanford Friedman, Mappings: Feminism and the Cultural Geographies of

Encounter (1998).

Jane Gallop, Around 1981: Academic Feminist Literary Theory (1992).

Judith Kegan Gardner et al., 1982 (An Interchange on Feminist Criticism: On Dancing
through the Minefield,Feminist Studies, vol. 8).

Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and
the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination (1979).

Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, No Mans Land: The Place of the Woman Writer in
the Twentieth Century ( 3 vols., 198794).
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The
Tradition in English (1985, 2d ed., 1996).

Susan Griffin, Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her (1978).

Carolyn Heilbrun, Toward a Recognition of Androgyny (1973).

Florence Howe Tradition and the Talents of Women (1991).

Mary Jacobus Women Writing and Writing about Women (1979).

Myra Jehlen1981 (Archimedes and the Paradox of Feminist CriticismSigns, vol. 6).

Sydney Janet Kaplan1985 (Varieties of Feminist CriticismMaking a Difference: Feminist

Literary Criticism, Gayle Greene and Coppelia Kahn).

Annette Kolodny1980 (Dancing through the Minefield: Some Observations on the

Theory, Practice, and Politics of Feminist Literary CriticismFeminist Studies, vol. 6).

Annette Kolodny, The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in
American Life and Letters (1975).

Annette Kolodny, A Map for Rereading: or, Gender and the Interpretation of Literary
Texts (1980, Showalter, New Feminist Criticism).

Annette Kolodny1984 (Lesbian Issue special issue, Signs, vol. 9).

Janet Lyon, Manifestoes: Provocations of the Modern (1999).

Jane Marcus, Art and Anger (1988).

Ellen Moers, Literary Women: The Great Writers (1976).

Toril Moi, Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (1985, 2d ed., 2002).

Adrienne Rich, On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose, 19661978 (1979).

Lillian Robinson, Sex, Class, and Culture (1978).

Lillian Robinson, Treason Our Text: Feminist Challenges to the Literary Canon (1983,
Showalter, New Feminist Criticism).

Patrocinio P. Schweickart1986 (Reading Ourselves: Toward a Feminist Theory of

ReadingGender and Reading, Schweickart Flynn and Elizabeth Flynn).

Bonnie Kime Scott Introduction to, The Gender of Modernism (1990).

Bonnie Kime Scott, Refiguring Modernism ( 2 vols., 1995).

Elaine Showalter, A Literature of Their Own: British Women Novelists from Bront to
Lessing (1977, rev. ed., 1999).

Elaine Showalter, Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Sicle (1990).

Elaine Showalter The New Feminist Criticism: Essays on Women, Literature, and Theory
(1985).

Elaine Showalter Speaking of Gender (1989).

Barbara Smith Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology (1983, rev. ed., 2000).

Carroll Smith-Rosenberg1975 (The Female World of Love and RitualSigns, vol. 1).

Dale Spender, Man Made Language (1980).

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak1987 (Feminism and Critical TheoryIn Other Worlds: Essays
in Cultural Politics).

Catharine R. Stimpson, Where the Meanings Are (1988).

Catharine R. Stimpson1987 (Within and Without: Women, Gender, and Theory special
issue, Signs, vol. 12).

Catharine R. Stimpson1980 (WomenSex and Sexuality special issue, Signs, vol. 5).