Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 311–314 | Cite as

Martha Albertson Fineman, Jack E. Jackson and Adam P. Romero (eds): Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations

Ashgate, Farnham, 2009, 490 pp, Price £35.00 (PB), ISBN: 978-0-7546-7552-5
  • Rosie Harding
Book Review

Feminism and queer theory make for unlikely bedfellows. In this substantial collection, the editors have drawn together a diverse collection of essays that lay bare the tensions and alliances between feminist and queer approaches to legal theory. The volume includes 21 substantive chapters, around half of which are entirely new works, the others being either re-printings or re-workings of earlier published essays. In the introduction, Fineman argues that “there is much to be gained from negotiating the fault lines and building off the highly critical intellectual energies that the queer-feminist tensions have produced” (p.6). This sets the scene for the theoretical fireworks that the substantive chapters set light.

The collection is organised into five parts, each with a brief introduction setting out the aims and contents of that section. Part One, ‘Queer With or Without Feminist Legal Theory’, seeks to introduce “some of the key texts, political positions and...


  1. Carbado, Devon. 2000. Black rights, gay rights, civil rights. UCLA Law Review 47: 1467–1519.Google Scholar
  2. Case, Mary.Ann. 2001. How high the apple pie? A few troubling questions about where, why, and how the burden of care for children should be shifted. Chicago-Kent Law Review 76: 1753–1788.Google Scholar
  3. Currah, Paisley. 2003. The transgender rights imaginary. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 4: 705–720.Google Scholar
  4. Emens, Elizabeth. 2004. Monogamy’s law: Compulsory monogamy and polyamorous existence. NYU Review of Law and Social Change 29: 277–376.Google Scholar
  5. Fineman, Martha. 1995. The neutered mother, the sexual family and other twentieth century tragedies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Halley, Janet. 2006. Split decisions: How and why to take a break from feminism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kennedy, Duncan. 1993. Sexy dressing etc.: Essays on the power and politics of culture identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Rich, Adrienne. 1980. Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs 5: 631–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. West, Robin. 1986. Deconstructing the CLS-Fem split. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 2: 85–94.Google Scholar
  10. Yoshino, Kenji. 2000. The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure. Stanford Law Review 52: 353–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations