Gender, Sexuality and Power: Is Feminist Theory Enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dialogue, four authors critically examine how to describe feminism and what it can and cannot do, particularly with regard to sexuality. The authors use the Texas Supreme Court case Twyman v. Twyman, involving divorce, sadomasochistic sex, and a claim of emotional distress, as a focal point to explore how feminism deals with gender, sexuality, and power, and whether it does so sufficiently. The roundtable discussion revolves around Janet Halley's radical suggestion that not only is feminism not enough, but that we should Take a Break from it in order to see the issues feminism does not address as well as the effects of a feminist perspective. In the next Part, Brenda Cossman lays the groundwork with a synopsis of the case. In Part III, Halley describes what she sees as essential elements of feminism, and uses the case to explore feminism's costs and shortcomings and to support her assertion that it would be a good idea to Take a Break from it. In Part IV, Cossman challenges Halley's claim that Taking a Break is the only or best way to analyze sexuality, noting that feminism is a strong tool for analyzing gender and that feminism benefits from the critiques of its limitations. In Part V, Dan Danielsen uses the case to offer his own description of feminism in contrast to both Halley's and Cossman's. He focuses on the practical political project of each strand of feminism, highlighting their varied goals and examining the costs and benefits of the proposed analytic strategies in the context of real political choices. In Part VI, Tracy Higgins contrasts, critiques, and works to reconcile the positions of the first three authors. Part VII contains Halley's response to the discussion. Finally, in the last Part Higgins ties the conversation to the symposium's query.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".