The eve of de‐struction: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the feminist recreation of paradise

Wanton Eyes &; Chaste Desires: Female Sexuality in The Faerie Queene. By Sheila T. Cavanagh. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.

Colonial American Travel Narratives. Edited by Wendy Martin. London and New York: Penguin, 1994.

The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500–1800. Edited by Lynn Hunt. New York: Zone Books, 1993.     

Using “The gun act”: Federal regulation and the politics of the strike threat during World War I

This study examines the working-class custom of “can rushing,” a.k.a. “rushing the growler,” which was the common saloon-era practice of carrying alcohol (usually beer) from a saloon in a pail for consumption elsewhere. The ubiquitous saloon served as one of the most contentious spaces between the middle class and a burgeoning working class during the Gilded Age/Progressive Era, and reformers attacked it as a blight on their communities and working-class drinking customs as a threat to a moral and orderly society. Reformers' efforts to restrict can rushing was part of a larger effort to impose middle-class control over workers' leisure activities and their parental prerogatives. For much of the working class the saloon and the cultural mores that surrounded it were a mainstay of their culture. While men were the primary customers of the saloon's interior, “rushing the growler” turned women and children into saloon customers as well. Reformers portrayed this practice as the lowest form of saloon patronage for men, while at the same time arguing that it was a dire threat to the moral welfare of women and children. Much of the working class, however, viewed this practice as an efficient and economical way to consume alcohol in the workplace, on the street, and in the home. This study will consider how the struggle over can rushing politicized this cherished working-class leisure activity.     

“I have never met the normal woman”: Stella Browne and the politics of womanhood

Abstract

F. W. Stella Browne (1880–1995) and her views on female sexuality have been much discussed of recent years. These discussions have tended to rely on a limited number of her copious (if often hard-to-find) writings, and have also failed to take into account where Stella, as an individual woman, was coming from. In the light of ongoing researches into her life and career, this article locates her writings in her life of activism in a wide variety of causes. It argues that her opinions about women's needs do not conform to a simplistic model of a ‘New’ feminism of difference, and that her relationship to the thought of contemporary male sexologists has been presented in a one-dimensional and misleading way. Her tripartite commitment to feminism, socialism, and individualism is illustrated, drawing on a wide range of her writings and statements between 1912 and 1937. In her crusade to celebrate and liberate the “variety and variability of women” Stella sought constantly to overthrow concepts of a monolithic female nature as well as to reject the Double Moral Standard: ‘normality’ to her was an instrument for the oppression of women. Consideration is also given to the wider influence of her ideas.     

“Disrupting the surface of order and innocence”: Towards a theory of sexuality and the law

Conclusion The dominant male discourse as expressed in the law of sexuality constructs the male subject. In each area — rape, incest and prostitution, it creates and extends the power which underpins the sexuality of the male subject to facilitate the non-consensual taking of women in rape and incest and the buying of them on the subject's own terms in prostitution.Further, the law constructs the female as Other not as freely consenting subject but as Other for the male subject in the space of unreason, for the logic of desire.In these constructions, lie the paradox of the law of sexuality. It exists purportedly to defend and protect the victims of rape, incest and prostitution but even in so far as it does so, it reasserts, through its constructions, the power of the speaking male subject through and the exclusion of the woman as Other from, the dominant male discourse as it is expressed in and enshrined by that law.The author is grateful for the comments of Glynis Cousin, Mike McConville, Brendan McSweeney and an anonymous referee on this work.     

Childbearers as rights-bearers: feminist discourse on the rights of aboriginal and non-aboriginal mothers in Australia, 1920–50

Abstract

In the post-suffrage era in Australia, feminists invoked maternalist arguments in support of the idea that mothers were political subjects with rights and they extended their campaigns to press for recognition of the rights of Aboriginal women. This article examines the claim made by post-suffrage feminists that ‘the common status of motherhood’ entailed a range of social, economic and civil rights. They argued in Royal Commissions, election campaigns, and the press that all mothers, working class and middle class, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who wished to retain the custody of their children should have the legal right and economic ability to do so. In New South Wales the campaign culminated in the staging of a play called Whose Child? This article explores some of the tensions between Women's claims as mothers and as independent citizens and the difficulties encountered when feminists attempted to have mothers' rights defined as human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.