被监禁的妇女:来自印度的叙述

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL ISSUES
Shreejata Niyogi
{"title":"被监禁的妇女:来自印度的叙述","authors":"Shreejata Niyogi","doi":"10.1080/09589236.2023.2215661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"than is often considered. The book closes with an epilogue stepping into the 1980s to combine feminist film and science fiction by examining Lizzie Borden’s 1983 film Born in flames. Even among feminist critics, there was disagreement over the film seemingly advocating violence. Samer argues that while feminist documentary and experimental film and feminist science fiction ostensibly did the same thing – ‘engender[ing] the vast imagination of what might follow the Lesbian in her wake’ (p. 218) – they did not intertwine often, and Samer found little evidence of overlap in participation. The ‘intensity’ of Born in flames’ reception was, Samer argues, due to it being one of the few pieces of media that engages both genres and ‘reveals that lesbian potentiality was not for all’ (p. 218). Samer makes clear that this book is a reaction to the erasure of lesbian feminism in modern queer studies. They argue that queer studies, in the dismissal of 1970s lesbian feminism, in fact, perpetuates hegemonic white feminist histories, which ignored the key roles played by women of colour as well as trans and gender non-conforming feminists. Contrary to this dominant discourse, Samer argues that trans lesbians were central to the creation of lesbian feminist cultures and spaces. ‘This era does not belong to transphobic feminists, and trans and queer scholars should not cede it to them’, Samer writes (p. 33). Furthermore, they argue, ‘[t]he writing of feminist historiography need not stall in the face of trans existence. Trans existence does not erase, replace, or diminish cis lesbian existence’ (p. 34). This is one of the greatest strengths of the book: Samer, a self-described nonbinary queer scholar, argues that both the heteropatriarchy and queer studies share what Sara Ahmed has described as ‘the investment in [the] misery’ of the lesbian feminist, a figure that queer studies has found ‘particularly deserving of derision’ (p. 8). They find the current literature lacking in regard to lesbian feminists, particularly of the 1970s, and with Lesbian potentiality and feminist media in the 1970s, they seek to change the discourse.","PeriodicalId":15911,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gender Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"515 - 517"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Women, incarcerated: narratives from India\",\"authors\":\"Shreejata Niyogi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09589236.2023.2215661\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"than is often considered. The book closes with an epilogue stepping into the 1980s to combine feminist film and science fiction by examining Lizzie Borden’s 1983 film Born in flames. Even among feminist critics, there was disagreement over the film seemingly advocating violence. Samer argues that while feminist documentary and experimental film and feminist science fiction ostensibly did the same thing – ‘engender[ing] the vast imagination of what might follow the Lesbian in her wake’ (p. 218) – they did not intertwine often, and Samer found little evidence of overlap in participation. The ‘intensity’ of Born in flames’ reception was, Samer argues, due to it being one of the few pieces of media that engages both genres and ‘reveals that lesbian potentiality was not for all’ (p. 218). Samer makes clear that this book is a reaction to the erasure of lesbian feminism in modern queer studies. They argue that queer studies, in the dismissal of 1970s lesbian feminism, in fact, perpetuates hegemonic white feminist histories, which ignored the key roles played by women of colour as well as trans and gender non-conforming feminists. Contrary to this dominant discourse, Samer argues that trans lesbians were central to the creation of lesbian feminist cultures and spaces. ‘This era does not belong to transphobic feminists, and trans and queer scholars should not cede it to them’, Samer writes (p. 33). Furthermore, they argue, ‘[t]he writing of feminist historiography need not stall in the face of trans existence. Trans existence does not erase, replace, or diminish cis lesbian existence’ (p. 34). This is one of the greatest strengths of the book: Samer, a self-described nonbinary queer scholar, argues that both the heteropatriarchy and queer studies share what Sara Ahmed has described as ‘the investment in [the] misery’ of the lesbian feminist, a figure that queer studies has found ‘particularly deserving of derision’ (p. 8). They find the current literature lacking in regard to lesbian feminists, particularly of the 1970s, and with Lesbian potentiality and feminist media in the 1970s, they seek to change the discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gender Studies\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"515 - 517\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gender Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2023.2215661\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gender Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2023.2215661","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比通常认为的要多。这本书以一段进入20世纪80年代的后记结尾,通过考察莉齐·波登1983年的电影《生于火焰中》,将女权主义电影和科幻小说结合在一起。即使在女权主义评论家中,也对这部似乎提倡暴力的电影存在分歧。Samer认为,尽管女权主义纪录片、实验电影和女权主义科幻小说表面上做了同样的事情——“产生了对女同性恋者身后可能发生的事情的巨大想象”(第218页)——但它们并不经常交织在一起,Samer几乎没有发现参与重叠的证据。Samer认为,《生于火焰中》受到的“强烈”欢迎是因为它是少数同时涉及两种类型的媒体之一,并“揭示了女同性恋的潜力并非所有人都有”(第218页)。Samer明确表示,这本书是对现代酷儿研究中女同性恋女权主义消失的回应。他们认为,事实上,酷儿研究摒弃了20世纪70年代的女同性恋女权主义,延续了白人女权主义的霸权历史,忽视了有色人种女性以及跨性别和性别不合的女权主义者所扮演的关键角色。与这种主流话语相反,Samer认为跨性别女同性恋者是女同性恋女权主义文化和空间创造的核心Samer写道:“这个时代不属于恐跨性别女权主义者,跨性别和酷儿学者不应该把它交给他们。”(第33页)。此外,他们认为,女性主义史学的写作不必在跨性别存在面前停滞不前。跨性别的存在并不能抹杀、取代或减少独联体女同性恋的存在(第34页)。这是这本书最大的优势之一:自称非二元酷儿学者的Samer认为,异父权制和酷儿研究都有Sara Ahmed所说的女同性恋女权主义者“对痛苦的投资”,酷儿研究发现这个人物“特别值得嘲笑”(第8页)。他们发现当前的文学缺乏对女同性恋女权主义者的关注,尤其是20世纪70年代的文学,而随着20世纪70世纪70年代女同性恋的潜力和女权主义媒体,他们寻求改变话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Women, incarcerated: narratives from India
than is often considered. The book closes with an epilogue stepping into the 1980s to combine feminist film and science fiction by examining Lizzie Borden’s 1983 film Born in flames. Even among feminist critics, there was disagreement over the film seemingly advocating violence. Samer argues that while feminist documentary and experimental film and feminist science fiction ostensibly did the same thing – ‘engender[ing] the vast imagination of what might follow the Lesbian in her wake’ (p. 218) – they did not intertwine often, and Samer found little evidence of overlap in participation. The ‘intensity’ of Born in flames’ reception was, Samer argues, due to it being one of the few pieces of media that engages both genres and ‘reveals that lesbian potentiality was not for all’ (p. 218). Samer makes clear that this book is a reaction to the erasure of lesbian feminism in modern queer studies. They argue that queer studies, in the dismissal of 1970s lesbian feminism, in fact, perpetuates hegemonic white feminist histories, which ignored the key roles played by women of colour as well as trans and gender non-conforming feminists. Contrary to this dominant discourse, Samer argues that trans lesbians were central to the creation of lesbian feminist cultures and spaces. ‘This era does not belong to transphobic feminists, and trans and queer scholars should not cede it to them’, Samer writes (p. 33). Furthermore, they argue, ‘[t]he writing of feminist historiography need not stall in the face of trans existence. Trans existence does not erase, replace, or diminish cis lesbian existence’ (p. 34). This is one of the greatest strengths of the book: Samer, a self-described nonbinary queer scholar, argues that both the heteropatriarchy and queer studies share what Sara Ahmed has described as ‘the investment in [the] misery’ of the lesbian feminist, a figure that queer studies has found ‘particularly deserving of derision’ (p. 8). They find the current literature lacking in regard to lesbian feminists, particularly of the 1970s, and with Lesbian potentiality and feminist media in the 1970s, they seek to change the discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gender Studies is an interdisciplinary journal which publishes articles relating to gender from a feminist perspective covering a wide range of subject areas including the Social and Natural Sciences, Arts and Popular Culture. Reviews of books and details of forthcoming conferences are also included. The Journal of Gender Studies seeks articles from international sources and aims to take account of a diversity of cultural backgrounds and differences in sexual orientation. It encourages contributions which focus on the experiences of both women and men and welcomes articles, written from a feminist perspective, relating to femininity and masculinity and to the social constructions of relationships between men and women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信