Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:28:15.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amazon Intertextuality and Sinuosity in Sandra Shotlander's Angels of Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Rosemary Keefe Curb
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Angels of Power, by Australian lesbian playwright Sandra Shotlander, illustrates political strategies described by American lesbian philosopher Jeffner Allen. In the play three female members of Australian parliament align to force regulation of new reproductive technologies. Using essentialist, materialist, liberal, and radical feminist arguments, the characters practice sinuous strategies through loading and layering female signs (intertextuality) in order to eradicate patriarchal signification and reenact a contemporary version of ancient Amazons taking over the Acropolis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 90 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, Jeffher. 1988. Poetic politics: How the Amazons took the Acropolis. Hypatia 3(2): 107–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Jeffher. 1989. An introduction to patriarchal existentialism: A proposal for a way out of existential patriarchy. In The thinking muse: Feminism and modern French philosophy, ed. Jeffner, Allen, and Young, Iris Marion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Albury, Rebecca. 1989. Who owns the embryo? In Test‐tube women: What future for motherhood. See Arditti, Duelli Klein, and Minden 1984–1989.Google Scholar
Arditti, Rita, Klein, Renate Duelli, and Minden, Shelley eds., 19841989. Test‐tube women: What future for motherhood. London: Pandora Press.Google Scholar
Corea, Gena. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
Corea, Gena. 1988. What the king can not see: On the reproductive technology of in vitro fertilization. Woman of Power 11: 62–66.Google Scholar
Corea, Gena. 1991. How the new reproductive technologies will affect all women. In Reconstructing Babylon: Essays on women and technology. See Hynes 1991.Google Scholar
Crimeen, Bob. 1991. The joke's on us, fellas. Sunday Herald-Sun, 5 May.Google Scholar
Curb, Rosemary. 1989. Mirrors moving beyond frames: Sandra Shotlander's Framework and Blind Salome. In Making a spectacle: Feminist essays on contemporary women's theatre, ed. Hart, Lynda. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunt, Mary E. 1989. Ethics on ice: Soul chilling dilemmas in new reproductive technology. Conscience: A Newsjoumal of Prochoice Catholic Opinion 10(5): 1–6, 23–24.Google Scholar
Hynes, H. Patricia ed., 1991. Biotechnology in agriculture and reproduction: The parallels in public policy. In Reconstructing Babylon: Essays on women and technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Janet R. 1995. Agency and alliances in public discourses about sexualities. Hypatia 10(1): 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Renate Duelli. 1987. What's “new” about the “new” reproductive technologies? In Man‐made women: How new reproductive technologies affect women, ed. Corea, Genaet al. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Emily. 1992. The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Julie. 1989. Egg farming and women's future. In Test‐tube women: What future for motherhood. See Arditti, Duelli Klein, and Minden 1989.Google Scholar
Radic, Leonard. 1991. Angels of power lock horns with the enemy. The Age, 30 April.Google Scholar
Raymond, Janice G. 1979. Fetishism, feminism and genetic technology. Paper given at American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
Raymond, Janice G. 1990. The marketing of the new reproductive technologies: Medicine, the media, and the idea of progress. Issues in Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 3(3): 253–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Raymond, Janice G. 1991a. International traffic in reproduction. MS. 1(6): 29–33.Google Scholar
Raymond, Janice G. 1991b. Of eggs, embryos, and altruism. In Reconstructing Babylon: Essays on women and technology. See Hynes 1991.Google Scholar
Shodander, Sandra. 1991a. Angels of power. In Angels of power and other reproductive creations, ed. Susan, Hawthorne, and Klein, Renate. West Melbourne, Vic: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
Shodander, Sandra. 1991b. Angels of power. Unpublished manuscript of final version.Google Scholar
Shodander, Sandra. 1989. Framework. In Framework and blind Salome: Two new Australian plays. Winter Park, FL: Wild Iris Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, Alison. 1989. Infertility as crisis: Coping, surviving—and thriving. In Infertility: Women speak out about their experiences of reproductive medicine, ed. Klein, Renate D.London: Pandora Press.Google Scholar
Michelle, Stanworth ed., 1987. Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood, and medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1994. Dismantling the master's house: A Hestian/Hermean deconstruction of classic texts. Hypatia 9(4): 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Barbara G. 1983. The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Woll, Lisa. 1992. The effect of feminist opposition to reproductive technology: A case study in Victoria, Australia. Issues in Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 5(1): 21–38.Google ScholarPubMed