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
Book Review


  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