"Howard and Kopalyan's Sex, Power, and Politics traces the ways that femininity has played a role throughout the history of global politics. Looking at women who capitalized on, transgressed, and manipulated inherited gender roles - femme fatales - the book complicates histories of sexuality, power, and politics in controversial, interesting, and inspiring ways." - Laura Sjoberg, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Florida, USA "Howard and Kopalyan have written a remarkable book on the concept of femme fatale. Through a rich historical analysis, this book offers a theoretically sophisticated analysis. It is a must-read for scholars and students of politics and history." - Yasemin Besen-Cassino, Associate Professor of Sociology, Montclair State University, USA As Professor Howard indicates, this manuscript would be appropriate for advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in Women's Gender & Sexuality Studies, Political Science and History. Professor Howard is proposing an interesting read that is sure to be a popular text for those interested in sexuality studies and women and power. Howard offers an interesting read of one of the most popular topics of gender and women's studies-sex, sexuality, and power. She adds the perspective of the impact of sex, sexuality and power on state political institutions and governing. In her focus specifically on political power makes this a text that would be of interests to students across disciplinary locations. Given the highly interdisciplinary nature of the text, Howard is advised to strengthen the manuscript's appeal varied audiences by increasing her attention to definitions as scholars reading this text may not be familiar with the ways courtesans, consorts and others are used in historical analyses. For example, students of political science would be interested in the nature of power and decision making that this text explores but would have little to no understanding of the standings and existence of courtesans and consorts as Howard is presenting these actors. Likewise, the text would benefit as well from a more explicit conversation throughout on the importance of the state, state power and institutionalized regimes and their decision making processes. For example, how are we to understand the power of 19th century European monarchs? What was the breath of their power, was their power regulated through other governing institutions? This helps to situate the rise of courtesan culture and adds to the culture's political significance. As well, some attention to definitions and historicizing definitions at the onset would add tremendously to the manuscript. Offering some discussion of how courtesans, consorts, mistresses and prostitutes differ will help toward putting them into a proper historical context and to help readers think about the commonality of these positions, who was more likely to occupy such positions. Some explicit discussion of terms used in the text and denoting the appropriate changes in titles over specific periods of time would add to the manuscript. What is the consequence of these changes in titles? Are material changes reflected in these name changes between royal mistress, courtesans, prostitutes, concubines? How do we distinguish between these various titles? How does context geographical and time period inform these distinctions and how these women are regarded? Women's power and access to power is a fascinating aspect of this text. Howard is encouraging her reader to expand definitions and conceptualizations of women's power. To make this point stronger in the text, in Chapter 1 it seems prudent to discuss the limitations of women's power during each period discussed as a way of understanding why one chooses sex and sexuality as a means of accessing power. This returns Howard to some of the discussions by feminists on women's limited access to power. This conveys that other avenues to power during the periods under study are inaccessible for these women by virtue of a host of factors of course most prominently being gender, but class status and other identity markers confirm their outsider status. Throughout the proposal, Howard suggests that these women used their sexuality to influence men in power, but Howard does not explain or discuss the evidence of these women's power and influence? More so, how is Howard defining power? What would be the evidence that these women did in fact wield power? In a classic understanding of power, what did these women get their lovers to do that they would not ordinarily do in the absence of these women's insistence? How do we recognize their power when we see it? How do we know these women are wielding their own power, rather than acting in the interests of the monarch or ruler who is their lover? Can what Howard is reading as power be survivalist politics for disenfranchised groups? Is this really political power and agency? Are these women wielding power on behalf of their personal interests or are they wielding power in the advancement of some group interests? The latter would make for a stronger case that this is indeed political power leveraged against the state. Major Concern: One major concern emerges regarding how Howard reasons that femininity, sexuality and women's power are' innate.' Howard writes, 'Through case study analyses of the women who epitomized these roles, I redefine existing notions of power through the lens of femininity. Thus, I conflate femininity with innate sexuality unique to the female, my reasoning for this, I elaborate upon in my manuscript.' This treatment of an innate sense of femininity suffers from gross essentialism and constructs a concept of the feminine and womanhood as naturalized or predestined aside from culture and societal engagement. An argument that suggests women possess a certain sense of femininity and express a set type of sexuality runs counter to large bodies of literature that counter that conceptualization. I would challenge Howard to consult the broad literature on social constructions, which suggest that sexuality and femininity are conditioned by contexts, time period, regions. Women's roles, power, sexuality, and performance of sexuality are all socially constructed and vary over time, place and vary for specific groups of women at any given time. Class and social status, for example might matter in how women's roles are configured in most every period Howard analyzes and this is likely to inform the expressions of sexuality available to women. Chapter Reviews: Chapters III & V: Howard argues that Chapter III is one that is most important as it explores the courtesan's role across periods in Europe and she argues that this time period popularizes and glamorized the courtesan. I agree that this chapter seems to establish much of her argument and serves as the crux of making the case for why these women's actions can be conceived as wielding power. Chapter V appears equally engaging in that if Howard's argument holds, she is offering a radically different reading of geisha culture and the dominant understanding of passivity. Chapter IV: If the chapter on the Americas stands as an anomaly, perhaps it could be eliminated allowing more in-depth analysis of the contexts in which women have been able to wield the type of power Howard is most interested in exploring. Instead of using an entire chapter to discuss the Americas as different and not conforming to the theoretical framework, this could be addressed in the first chapter and woven into what sets the cases under consideration apart from those mistresses and lovers who were not politically motivated or able to realize power as a result of their relationships. Limitations: This proposal reads as a political historical analysis and I do not see this as a text speaking to contemporary issues of women, politics, and power. Howard is encouraged to exercise caution in making comparisons to contemporary contexts. As political history, it is critical to remain adept to the timeline one is discussing and the political, economic, and social history of the period. As comparisons cross these lines, these variables likewise change often making the comparisons mute.
