Abstract
Tomlinson has two objectives with this book. First, she illustrates how the trope of the angry feminist has been used to deligitimize feminist rhetoric. She defines the trope as a theme or device that is used repetitively to repudiate an argument. Second, Tomlinson describes and uses an analytical toolkit to scrutinize the trope and delineate an interpretation of feminist and antifeminist “textual affect,” for example, how anger is used as a method for constructing an authoritative argument. The analytical toolkit she uses is called feminist socioforensic discursive analysis (FSD). The purpose of this analysis is to reframe how we critique and interpret public and scholarly texts through a gender lens, which examines how rhetorical strategies are used to establish dominance via intersectional privileges (race, gender, and class). These objectives meet Tomlinson’s overarching goal, which is to encourage readers to use FSD to explore all academic and political arguments. Doing so entails examining how an argument is constructed, the evidence that is used, what authorities are cited, and what rhetorical devices are used to create the effect.
Tomlinson begins the book by illustrating how readers are shaped by unexamined cultural and political ideologies, which permeate journalism, entertainment, politics, and social systems to create antifeminist dogmas when readers engage a feminist rhetorical argument. She cites Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s comments about a new feminist studies program at the University of California, Santa Barbara, as an example of how feminist scholarship is framed as a shrill, angry, and unreasonable method of inquiry. Tomlinson skillfully illustrates how Dr. Laura’s comments do not explore the rationale for such a program, but rather deploy the same shrill, angry, and unreasonable rhetorical tactics that Dr. Laura accuses feminist scholars for using. Tomlinson exemplifies the trope of the angry feminist as a tool used to deligitimize arguments that are centered on examining structures of power within dominant discourses. She illustrates how readers are already antifeminist before they are exposed to feminist rhetoric, because of the pervasiveness of the trope in all rhetorical sources. Ensuing chapters center on how feminist writers have used affect to structure arguments that interpret the sexism and racism that are embedded in legal, biological, and musicology texts.
Salient strengths of this text include Tomlinson’s use of textual examples from multiple disciplines to explicate a nuanced analysis of how vehement affect can create a powerful social justice argument. Another attribute is that she provides detailed models of how to adopt FSD to analyze and interpret feminist and antifeminist texts. Furthermore, Tomlinson’s writing style subverts the very antifeminist rhetoric that she dismantles. Tomlinson uses metaphor, affect, and precise rhetorical examples of antifeminist texts using the same “affect-laden” rhetorical devices that antifeminist writers unjustly label as a crazed, unreasonable feminist argument. A limitation of this book is that readers from disciplines outside rhetorical studies may dismiss this book as inapplicable to their field. Tomlinson uses discipline-specific vocabulary and techniques, which can be alienating. However, she engages conscientious definitions and methodical, applicable models for FSD, which renders this book relevant for feminist scholars in all disciplines.