Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:03:34.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From “We Other Victorians” to “Pussy Grabs Back”: Thinking Gender, Thinking Sex, and Feminist Methodological Futures in Victorian Studies Today

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2018

Jill R. Ehnenn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although this essay is about reading texts from the past, I begin with the present, with a US president who was elected despite widespread knowledge that he had infamously boasted about how he often starts kissing beautiful women without consent. “I don't even wait,” he crowed. “When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” The internet was soon flooded with angry feminist responses to his crass admission of sexual violence, retorts that appropriated his use of vulgar language with wit and resistance, the most prevalent being the meme “Pussy Grabs Back!” (see fig. 1). The Pussy Hat Project soon followed. As we know, the pussy hat phenomenon offended some who felt it was racist (not all vulvas are pink) and/or transphobic (not all women have pussies). Nevertheless, a sea of pink pussy hats, worn by persons of many embodiments and identity categories, would be seen in protest, worldwide, at the record-breaking post-inauguration Women's Marches across the globe. If “Grab ’em by the pussy” rightly offended, “Pussy Grabs Back!” gained traction.

Type
Essay Cluster: The Futures of Feminist Criticism
Information
Victorian Literature and Culture , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 35 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Many thanks to Sushmita Chatterjee, Kim Q. Hall, Talia Schaffer, and Marion Thain for their generous and thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this essay.

References

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sara. Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Sara. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Berman, Mark. “Hate Crimes in the United States Increased Last Year, the FBI Says.” Washington Post, November 13, 2017.Google Scholar
Bickle, Sharon. The Fowl and the Pussycat: Love Letters of Michael Field, 1876–1909. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Brown, Wendy. Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Carastathis, Anna. Intersectionality: Origins, Contestations, Horizons. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “The Climate of History: Four Theses.” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 2 (2009): 197–222.Google Scholar
Cho, Sumi, Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams, and McCall, Leslie, eds. “Intersectionality: Theorizing Power, Empowering Theory.” Signs 38, no. 4 (2013): 785–1055.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill and Bilge, Sirma. Intersectionality. Cambridge: Polity, 2016.Google Scholar
Coombs, David Sweeney, and Coriale, Daniele, eds. “V21 Forum on Strategic Presentism.” Victorian Studies 59, no.1 (2016): 87–126.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Ehnenn, Jill. “‘Our Brains Struck Fire Each from Each’: Disidentification, Difference, and Desire in the Collaborative Aesthetics of Michael Field.” In Economies of Desire at the Victorian Fin de Siècle: Libidinal Lives, edited by Ford, Jane, Keates, Kim Edwards, and Pulham, Patricia, 108–203. New York and London: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
Ehnenn, Jill. “‘Thy body maketh a solemn song’: Desire and Disability in Michael Field's ‘Catholic Poems,’” in Michael Field, Decadent Moderns, edited by Parker, Sarah and Vadillo, Ana, 272–306. Athens: Ohio University Press, forthcoming 2019.Google Scholar
Ehnenn, Jill. Women's Literary Collaboration, Queerness, and Late-Victorian Culture. New York: Ashgate/Routledge, 2008.Google Scholar
Faderman, Lillian. Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship from the Renaissance to the Present. New York: William Morrow, 1981.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. “LII.” Long Ago. London: George Bell & Sons, 1889.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. “Caenis Caeneus.” Dedicated, An Early Work of Michael Field. London: George Bell & Sons, 1914.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. Callirrhoë and Fair Rosamund. London: George Bell & Sons, 1884.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. Sight and Song. London: Elkin Matthews & John Lane, 1892.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. The Tragic Mary. London: George Bell & Sons, 1890.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. Works and Days: From the Journal of Michael Field. Edited by T. and Sturge Moore, D. C.. London: John Murray, 1933.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Jonathan, and Menon, Madhavi. “Queering History.” PMLA 120, no. 5 (2005): 1608–17.Google Scholar
Halberstam, Jack. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. Intersectionality: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Love, Heather. Feeling Backward: Loss and the Politics of Queer History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
May, Vivian. Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries. New York: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
Mayhew, Henry. London Labour and the London Poor (1851). Vol. 3. New York: Dover, 1968.Google Scholar
Meyerowitz, Joanne. “Thinking Sex with an Androgyne.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 17, no. 1 (2011): 97–105.Google Scholar
Michie, Helena, and Warhol, Robyn. Love Among the Archives: Writing the Lives of Sir George Scharf, Victorian Bachelor. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Prins, Yopie. Victorian Sappho. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Puar, Jasbir. “I Would Rather Be a Cyborg Than a Goddess: Becoming-Intersectional in Assemblage Theory.” philoSophia 2, no. 1 (2012): 49–66.Google Scholar
Puglise, Nicole. “‘Pussy Grabs Back’ Becomes Rallying Cry for Female Rage Against Trump.” Guardian, October 10, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/10/donald-trump-pussy-grabs-back-meme-women-twitter.Google Scholar
Rubin, Gayle. “‘Blood Under the Bridge’: Reflections on ‘Thinking Sex.’” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 17, no. 1 (2011): 15–48.Google Scholar
Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” In Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, edited by Vance, Carole S., 267–319. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Tendencies. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Taft, Vicky. “The Tragic Mary: A Case Study in Michael Field's Understanding of Sexual Politics.” Nineteenth-Century Contexts 23 no. 2 (2001): 265–95.Google Scholar
Thomas, Kate. “‘What time we kiss’: Michael Field's Queer Temporalities.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 13, nos. 2–3 (2007): 327–51.Google Scholar
Traub, Valerie. “The New Unhistoricism in Queer Studies.” PMLA 128, no. 1 (2013): 21–29.Google Scholar
Trollope, Anthony. The Last Chronicle of Barset (1867). Edited by Gilmartin, Sophie. New York: Penguin, 2002.Google Scholar
Witcher, Heather Bonzant. “‘A Royal Lady Born’: Balladry, Transport, and Transgression in Michael Field's The Tragic Mary.” Victorian Poetry 55, no. 4 (2017): 495–516.Google Scholar