A vexing relationship: Gender and contemporary rhetorical theory

The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 247-262

  Stormer, Nathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84952649848     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4135/9781412976053.n14     Document Type: Chapter

References (127)

1. Alcoff, L. Cultural feminism versus poststructuralism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13 (1988). 405-436. doi:10.1086/494426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494426
2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3. Bell, K.E., Orbe, M.P., Drummond, D.K., Camara, S.K. Accepting the challenge of centralizing without essentializing: Black feminist thought and African American women’s communicativeexperiences. Women’s Studies in Communication 23 (2000). 41-62.
4. Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism incontemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.
5. Biesecker, B. Coming to terms with recent attempts to write women into the history of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric 25 (1992). 140-161.
6. Biesecker, B. Negotiating with our tradition: Reflecting again (withoutapologies) on the feminization of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (1993). 236-242.
7. Blankenship, J., Robson, D.C. A "feminine style" in women’s political discourse: An exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly 43 (1995). 353-366. doi:10.1080/01463379509369982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369982
8. Bordo, S. The Cartesian masculinization of thought. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11 (1986). 439-456. doi:10.1086/494250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494250
9. Braidotti, R. Comments and reply: Comments on Felski’s "The doxa of difference": Working through sexual difference. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 23 (1997). 23-40. doi:10.1086/495232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495232
10. Braidotti, R., Butler, J. Feminism by any other name. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6 (1994). 27-61.
11. Bridwell-Bowles, L. (Ed.). (2005). Rhetorical women: Roles and representations. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
12. Brookey, R.A. Keeping a good wo/man down: Normalizing Deborah Sampson Gannett. Communication Studies 49 (1998). 73-85. doi:10.1080/10510979809368519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979809368519
13. Brookey, R.A. (2002). Reinventing the male homosexual: The rhetoric and power of thegay gene. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
14. Bruner, M.L. Producing identities: Gender problematization and feminist argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 32 (1996). 185-198.
15. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
16. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex." New York: Routledge.
17. Butler, J. (1995). Contingent foundations. In S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D.Cornell, N. Fraser, & L. Nicholson, Feminist contentions: Aphilosophical exchange (pp. 35-57). New York: Routledge.
18. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
19. Buzzanell, P. Commentary about Aimee M. Carrillo Rowe’s "Locating feminismssubject: The paradox of white femininity and the struggle to forgefeminist alliances." Communication Theory 10 (2000). 81-89. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00180.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00180.x
20. Campbell, K.K. The rhetoric of women’s liberation: An oxymoron. Quarterly Journal of Speech 59 (1973). 74-86. doi:10.1080/00335637309383155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637309383155
21. Campbell, K.K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her: A critical study of early feminist rhetoric (Vol. 1). New York: Praeger.
22. Campbell, K.K. (1989b). Man cannot speak for her: Key texts of the early feminists (Vol.2). New York: Praeger.
23. Campbell, K.K. Biesecker cannot speak for her either. Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (1993). 153-159.
24. Campbell, K.K. Gender and genre: Loci of invention and contradiction in the earliest speeches by U.S. women. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995). 479-495. doi:10.1080/00335639509384130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639509384130
25. Campbell, K.K. Inventing women: From Amaterasu to Virginia Woolf. Women’s Studies in Communication 21 (1998). 111-126. doi:10.1080/07491409.1998.10162552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1998.10162552
26. Cheah, P. Mattering. diacritics 26 (1996). 108-139. doi:10.1353/dia.1996.0004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dia.1996.0004
27. Cheah, P., Grosz, E. Of being-two: Introduction. Diacritics 28 (1998a). 3-18. doi:10.1353/dia.1998.0003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dia.1998.0003
28. Cheah, P., Grosz, E. The future of sexual difference: An interview with Judith Butler and Drucilla Cornell. Diacritics 28 (1998b). 19-41.
29. Colebrook, C. (1999). A grammar of becoming: Strategy, subjectivism, and style. In E. Grosz (Ed.), Becomings: Explorations in time, memory, and futures (pp. 117-140). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
30. Colebrook, C. From radical representations to corporeal becomings: The feminist philosophies of Lloyd, Grosz, and Gatens. Hypatia 15 (2000). 76-93. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb00315.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb00315.x
31. Collins, P.H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and thepolitics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
32. Condit, C.M. In praise of eloquent diversity: Gender and rhetoric as public persuasion. Women’s Studies in Communication 20 (1997). 91-116. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1997.10162405
33. Dale, C.M. A queer supplement: Reading Spinoza after Grosz. Hypatia 14 (1999). 1-12. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1999.tb01036.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1999.tb01036.x
34. Darlington, P.S., Mulvaney, B.M. Gender, rhetoric, and power: Toward a model of reciprocal empowerment. Women’s Studies in Communication 25(2) (2002). 139-172. doi:10.1080/07491409.2002.10162444 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2002.10162444
35. Davis, A.Y. (1989). Women, culture, & politics. New York: Random House.
36. Deem, M. Scandal, heteronormative culture, and the disciplining of feminism. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 16 (1999). 86-93. doi:10.1080/15295039909367074 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039909367074
37. Donawerth, J. (Ed.). (2002). Rhetorical theory by women before 1900: An anthology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
38. Dow, B.J. Feminism, difference(s), and rhetorical studies. Communication Studies 46 (1995). 106-117. doi:10.1080/10510979509368442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979509368442
39. Dow, B.J. Politicizing voice. Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997). 243-251. doi:10.1080/10570319709374574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319709374574
40. Dow, B.J., Tonn, M.B. "Feminine style" and political judgment in the rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (1993). 286-302. doi:10.1080/00335639309384036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639309384036
41. Downey, S. Rhetoric as balance: A dialectical feminist perspective. Women’s Studies in Communication 20 (1997). 137-150. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1997.10162407
42. Downs, L.L. If "woman" is just an empty category, why am I afraid to walkalone at night? Identity politics meets the postmodernsubject. Comparative Studies in Society& History 35 (1993). 414-437. doi:10.1017/S0010417500018429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500018429
43. Durham, M.G. On the relevance of standpoint epistemology to the practice of journalism: The case for "strong objectivity." Communication Theory 8 (1998). 117-140. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00213.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00213.x
44. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
45. Felski, R. The doxa of difference. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 23 (1997). 1-21. doi:10.1086/495231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495231
46. Flax, J. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (1987). 621-643. doi:10.1086/494359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494359
47. Foss, K.A. Feminist scholarship in speech communication: Contributions and obstacles. Women’s Studies in Communication 12 (1989). 1-10.
48. Foss, K.A., & Foss, S.K. (1991). Women speak: The eloquence of women’s lives. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
49. Foss, K.A., Foss, S.K., & Griffin, C.L. (1999). Feminist rhetorical theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Foss, K.A., Foss, S.K., & Griffin, C.L. (Eds.). (2004). Readings in feminist rhetorical theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Foss, S.K., Griffin, C.L. A feminist perspective on rhetorical theory: Toward a clarification of boundaries. Western Journal of Communication 56 (1992). 330-349. doi:10.1080/10570319209374422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319209374422
52. Foss, S.K., Griffin, C.L. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitationalrhetoric. Communication Monographs 62 (1995). 1-18.
53. Foss, S.K., Griffin, C.L., Foss, K.A. Transforming rhetoric through feminist reconstruction: A responseto the gender diversity perspective. Women’s Studies in Communication 20 (1997). 117-135. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1997.10162406
54. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, vol. 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage.
55. Fraser, N. (1995). False antitheses: A response to Seyla Benhabib and Judith Butler. In S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, N. Fraser, & L. Nicholson (Eds.), Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange (pp. 59-74). New York: Routledge.
56. Frye, M. The necessity of differences: Constructing a positive category of women. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21 (1996). 991-1010. doi:10.1086/495128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495128
57. Gatens, M. (1996). Imaginary bodies: Ethics, power, and corporeality. London: Routledge.
58. Gatens, M. Feminism as "password": Rethinking the "possible" with Spinoza and Deleuze. Hypatia 15 (2000). 59-75.
59. Gearheart, S.M. The womanization of rhetoric. Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2 (1979). 195-201. doi:10.1016/S0148-0685(79)91809-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685%2879%2991809-8
60. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Gilman, S. (1985). Difference and pathology: Stereotypes of sexuality, race, and madness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62. Gordon, L. On "difference." Genders 10 (1991). 91-111.
63. Griffin, C. The essentialist roots of the public sphere: A feministcritique. Western Journal of Communication 60 (1996). 21-39. doi:10.1080/10570319609374531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319609374531
64. Grosz, E.A. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
65. Grosz, E.A. (1999). Thinking the new: Of futures yet unthought. In E. A. Grosz (Ed.), Becomings: Explorations in time, memory, and futures. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
66. Gunderson, E. (2000). Staging masculinity: The rhetoric of performance in the Roman world. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.
67. Gunderson, E. (2003). Declamation, paternity, and Roman identity: Authority and therhetorical self. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511482212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511482212
68. Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
69. Hallstein, D. L.O. A postmodern caring: Feminist standpoint theories, revisionedcaring, and communication ethics. Western Journal of Communication 63 (1999). 32-57. doi:10.1080/10570319909374627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319909374627
70. Hallstein, D. L.O. Where standpoint stands now: An introduction and commentary. Women’s Studies in Communication 23 (2000). 1-15.
71. Haraway, D.J. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modernscience. New York: Routledge.
72. Haraway, D.J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
73. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
74. Harding, S. (1993). Reinventing ourselves as other: More new agents of history and knowledge. In L. Kaufman (Ed.), American feminist thought at century’s end (pp. 140-164). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
75. Hartsock, N. (1983). Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historicalmaterialism. New York: Longman.
76. Hawkesworth, M. Confounding gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (1997). 649-685. doi:10.1086/495188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495188
77. Heinämaa, S. What is a woman? Butler and Beauvoir on the foundations of thesexual difference. Hypatia 12 (1997). 20-39.
78. hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End Press.
79. Irigaray, L. (1985). Speculum of the other woman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
80. Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.
81. James, S., Lloyd, G., Gatens, M. The power of Spinoza: Feminist conjunctions. Hypatia 15 (2000). 40-58. doi:10.2979/HYP.2000.15.2.40 http://dx.doi.org/10.2979/HYP.2000.15.2.40
82. Johnson, N. (2002). Gender and rhetorical space in American life, 1866-1910. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
83. Kramer, C. Women’s speech: Separate but unequal? Quarterly Journal of Speech 60 (1974). 14-24. doi:10.1080/00335637409383203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637409383203
84. Laqueur, T. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
85. Lloyd, G. (1993). The man of reason: "Male" and "female" in Western philosophy (2nded.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
86. Lloyd, G. (1994). Part of nature: Self-knowledge in Spinoza’s Ethics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
87. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientificinquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
88. Lunsford, A. (Ed.). (1995). Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the rhetorical tradition. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
89. Lyons, A.P. (2004). Irregular connections: A history of anthropology and sexuality. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
90. McGrath, R. (2002). Seeing her sex: Medical archives and the female body. New York: Manchester University Press.
91. Minh-ha, T. Difference: A special third world women’s issue. Discourse 8 (1986). 11-37.
92. Mohanram, R. (1999). Black body: Women, colonialism, and space. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
93. Mohanty, C.T. (1991). Cartographies of struggle: Third world women and the politics of feminism. In C. T. Mohanty, A. Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism (pp. 1-47). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
94. Moi, T. (1999). What is a woman? And other essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
95. Morris, C.E., III Pink Herring & The Fourth Persona: J. Edgar Hoover’s sexcrime panic. Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (2002). 228-244. doi:10.1080/00335630209384372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335630209384372
96. Nicholson, L. Interpreting gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 20 (1994). 79-105. doi:10.1086/494955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494955
97. Parry-Giles, S.J., Parry-Giles, T. Gendered politics and presidential image construction: Areassessment of the "feminine style." Communication Monographs 63 (1996). 337-353. doi:10.1080/03637759609376398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376398
98. Peterson, C. (1995). "Doers of the word": African American women speakers & writers in the North (1830-1880). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
99. Pollack, D. (1998). Introduction: Making history go. In D. Pollack (Ed.), Exceptional spaces: Essays in performance & history (pp. 1-45). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
100. Rakow, L.F. Looking to the future: Five questions for genderresearch. Women’s Studies in Communication 10 (1987). 79-86.
101. Rich, A. Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian experience. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5 (1980). 631-660. doi:10.1086/493756 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/493756
102. Ritchie, J., & Ronald, K. (Eds.). (2001). Available means: An anthology of women’s rhetoric(s). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
103. Rose, H. Hand, brain, and heart: A feminist epistemology of science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 9 (1983). 73-90. doi:10.1086/494025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494025
104. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the "political economy" of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157-210). New York: Monthly Review.
105. Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267-319). Boston: Routledge.
106. Rubin, G., Butler, J. Sexual traffic. differences 6 (1994). 62-99.
107. Sandoval, C. U.S. third world feminism: The theory and method of oppositional consciousness in the postmodern world. Genders 10 (1991). 1-24.
108. Schiebinger, L. (1993). Nature’s body: Gender in the making of modern science. Boston: Beacon Press.
109. Scott, J.W. (1988). Gender and the politics of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
110. Scott, J.W. The evidence of experience. Critical Inquiry 17 (1991). 773-797. doi:10.1086/448612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448612
111. Scott, J.W. The tip of the volcano. Comparative Studies in Society & History 35 (1993). 438-443. doi:10.1017/S0010417500018430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500018430
112. Scott, J.W. (1999). Gender and the politics of history (Rev. ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
113. Shome, R. Postcolonial interventions in the rhetorical canon: An "other"view. Communication Theory 6 (1996). 40-59. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00119.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00119.x
114. Shome, R., & Hegde, R.S. (2002). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections.
115. Shugart, H.A. Performing ambiguity: The passing of Ellen DeGeneres. Text & Performance Quarterly 23 (2003). 30-54. doi:10.1080/10462930310001602039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462930310001602039
116. Sloop, J. (2004). Disciplining gender: Rhetorics of sex identity in contemporary U.S. culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
117. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Beacon Press.
118. Spitzack, C., Carter, K. Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987). 401-423. doi:10.1080/00335638709383816 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383816
119. Spivak, G.C. (1988). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. New York: Routledge.
120. Spivak, G.C. (1993). Outside the teaching machine. New York: Routledge.
121. Spivak, G.C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
122. Stoler, A.L. (2002). Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and the intimate incolonial rule. Berkeley: University of California Press.
123. Webster, F. The politics of sex and gender: Benhabib and Butler debate subjectivity. Hypatia 15 (2000). 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb01077.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb01077.x
124. Wertheimer, M.M. (1997). Listening to their voices: The rhetorical activities of historical women. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
125. Wood, J.T. Gender and moral voice: Moving from woman’s nature to standpoint epistemology. Women’s Studies in Communication 15 (1992). 1-24.
126. Wood, J.T. Ethics, justice, and the "private sphere." Women’s Studies in Communication 21 (1998). 127-149. doi:10.1080/07491409.1998.10162553 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1998.10162553
127. Zita, J. (1998). Body talk: Philosophical reflections on sex and gender. New York: Columbia University Press.