Postmodern feminism is a philosophical tendency within feminism that incorporates postmodern theory and thought into its analysis and critiques of gender, sexuality, culture, politics, power, identity, society, and social relations, arguing that reality and power dynamics are socially constructed rather than innate or essential.
Key Takeaways
- Late 20th-Century Origin: Postmodern feminism emerged in the late 20th century, rejecting some traditional feminist ideas in favor of postmodern philosophy.
- Anti-Essentialist: It is critical of essentialism — the idea that categories like “woman” name a fixed, shared nature — along with patriarchy and binary thinking, emphasizing social context and power instead.
- Main Criticism: Postmodern feminism has been criticized for being too theoretical and disconnected from real-world issues.
What is Postmodern Feminist Theory?
Postmodern feminist theory is a school of thought that emphasizes the importance of social and political factors in understanding gender.
Postmodern feminists believe that gender is not determined by biology, but rather by culture and society. They argue that women have been oppressed not because they are biologically inferior to men, but because they have been socially and politically marginalized.
Reaction to Second-Wave Feminism
Postmodern feminism began in the 1970s as a reaction to second-wave feminism. Second-wave feminism was based on the belief that women were oppressed due to their biology (i.e., their sex). This led to a focus on issues like reproductive rights and equal access to education and employment.
This reaction unfolded mainly within feminism’s third wave.
It was the broader period in which postmodern and post-structuralist ideas entered feminist thought.
However, postmodern feminists argued that these issues were not enough. Instead, they believed that women’s oppression was the result of social and political factors (Waugh, 2012).
Postmodern feminism is associated with thinkers as diverse as Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Donna Haraway. Their work spans philosophy, literary theory, and law, showing just how wide the tendency’s reach became.
Differences Among Women
Post-modern feminists assume that the modernist conception of feminism emphasizes gender differences between women and men whilst ignoring the differences within each gender. Not all women experience patriarchy the same way.
White, middle-class women, for example, may have more privilege than women of color or working-class women. Similarly, lesbians may experience different forms of oppression than heterosexual women (Waugh, 2012).
Postmodern feminists also critiqued the notion of a unified “sisterhood” among all women. No single experience unites them. Many factors divide women along lines of race, class, sexuality, and other categories.
As such, they argued that it was important to focus on the unique experiences of each group of women. This same worry, that one account cannot speak for every woman, is the seed of the wider critique of essentialism examined below.
Theoretical assumptions
The personal is political
This means that the private experiences of women are shaped by larger social and political structures.
For example, if a woman is being abused by a male partner, postmodern feminists contend that the societal oppression of women is an important factor in explaining this abuse.
This term was popularized by Carol Hanisch”s 1970 essay, “The Person is Political.”
There is no one way to be a woman
This means that there is no universal experience of womanhood. Instead, each woman experiences gender in their own unique way.
Postmodern feminists also believe that gender is not something that people are born with, but rather something that they perform.
In the postmodernist view, feminism is for everyone. This means that feminism is not just for women. It is for anyone who experiences oppression due to their gender, including transgender and genderqueer people (Rossiter, 2000).
Knowledge is power
This means that women can empower themselves by acquiring knowledge about the social and political factors that shape their lives.
For example, women can learn about sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression. This knowledge can then be used to challenge and resist these structures of oppression.
Critics disagree. Postmodern feminism has been critiqued for its focus on individual experience and its lack of attention to structural issues.
However, it has also been praised for its inclusiveness and its emphasis on the diversity of women’s experiences (Rossiter, 2000).
What are Patriarchy and Sexism?
Patriarchy and sexism are two related but distinct concepts. Together, they structure how postmodern feminists analyze women’s oppression:
- Patriarchy: a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political authority, in both personal life and the workplace.
- Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex, typically directed against women and girls. It ranges from subtle jokes and comments to overt discrimination, such as denying women equal opportunities in education or employment.
Combined, patriarchy and sexism create a system in which women are oppressed both socially and economically. Patriarchy reinforces sexist attitudes and beliefs, giving men the power to act on them.
This can result in women being denied equal rights or experiencing violence and abuse. Sexism alone causes harm, too. Women may be paid less than men for the same job, or passed over for promotions because of their gender (Lerner, 1986).
What is the Difference Between Feminism and Postmodern Feminism?
Feminism is a political movement that aims to end gender inequality and oppression. It emerged in the 19th century in response to the Industrial Revolution, which led to new opportunities and challenges for women.
Postmodern feminism is a later form of feminism that critiqued some of the assumptions of earlier feminist thought by combining both post-modern and post-structuralist theory.
Postmodern feminists reject essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that there is necessarily an inherent difference between men and women. They also emphasize the theory of the symbolic order.
The symbolic order is the idea that as young children learn language, they must submit to a shared linguistic and social order. Doing so lets them follow society’s patterns (Tong & Botts, 2018).
This order is argued to regulate society through individuals. It works through language, which perpetuates gender and other social roles (Ebert, 1991). This is not feminism’s story alone.
Postmodern feminism draws on a wider intellectual movement than feminist theory alone. The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard named this scepticism toward grand narratives. Grand narratives are totalising stories, like Marxism, that claim to explain human experience from a single vantage point (Lyotard, 1984). One story never fits all.
Applied to feminism, this becomes a refusal to treat any single account of women’s oppression as sufficient on its own. No single story is enough.
Each account, postmodern feminists argue, tends to generalize from one group of women, typically white, Western, and middle-class, to all women everywhere.
This is combined with post-structuralism. Post-structuralism holds that meaning is not fixed by a stable relationship between words and the things they name. Meaning is instead produced through differences internal to language itself, an idea postmodern feminists apply directly to categories such as “woman,” “man,” and “gender.”
The Critique of Essentialism
The single idea that unites the otherwise diverse thinkers associated with postmodern feminism is a rejection of essentialism.
Essentialism is the view that categories such as “woman” name a stable, pre-social essence. It assumes a fixed set of traits shared by everyone in the category, regardless of history or culture.
All four thinkers below start here.
Why “Woman” Is Not a Neutral Category
Postmodern feminists argue that treating “woman” as a coherent, unified category is itself a political move. It quietly universalizes one group’s experience: historically, white, Western, heterosexual, and middle-class women.
Other women’s very different experiences get erased in the process.
Nothing about this move is neutral — it decides, in advance, whose life counts as the standard case and whose counts as the exception.
Even feminist theories built to fight oppression can reproduce this same logic. The risk is real.
An appeal to women’s shared biology, or a single idea of “female experience,” risks universalizing one group’s story as everyone’s.
Critics call this the same totalizing move postmodern feminists associate with patriarchal thought itself. This concern is also what separates postmodern feminism from intersectional theory, which treats categories like race and class as real, constructed structures rather than dissolving them entirely.
Two Levels of the Critique
This critique of essentialism operates on two levels. The first is political.
Grand narratives about women’s oppression, whether patriarchy alone, capitalism alone, or biology alone, flatten real differences of race, class, and history among women.
The second level goes deeper.
It is linguistic and philosophical. Drawing on post-structuralist theories of language, postmodern feminists argue that “man” and “woman” are not natural kinds that language simply labels. They are produced through language and discourse itself.
This is the same ground Butler and Kristeva build on below, each in a different way, which is why the two thinkers are so often read together in this literature.
On this stronger claim, there is no essential “womanhood” waiting to be discovered. There is only an ongoing, contested process of construction.
Strategic Essentialism
The literary theorist Diana Fuss offered a key qualification to this anti-essentialism. She called it strategic essentialism: the deliberate use of a shared category, like “women” or “queer,” for political organizing.
Fuss noted the category remains a construction, not a natural fact (Fuss, 1989).
Strategic essentialism lets feminist and queer movements act collectively. It does this without fully resolving whether stable categories exist at all.
The debate is not just academic.
It shapes real decisions feminist and queer movements make about how to organize, and about which categories are worth using even while treating them as constructed rather than natural.
The compromise keeps postmodern feminism’s insights useful for activism, not just academic critique, and it has shaped queer studies and activism directly.
This tension, between deconstructing categories and organizing around them, runs through much of the criticism postmodern feminism has faced, examined in full below.
Examples of Postmodern Feminism Theory
Judith Butler
Judith Butler is an American philosopher and gender theorist whose work has been extremely influential within the field of postmodern feminism.
Butler’s most famous work is Gender Trouble, in which she challenges the idea that there is a natural, essential difference between men and women.
Instead, Butler argues that gender is something that is performed. This means that it is not something that people are born with, but something they do (Salih & Butler, 2004).
For Butler, the performativity of gender is related to power. Gender is not simply imposed on people by society. Rather, people continually reproduce and reinforce it through their own actions and words. They perform gender every time they speak or act in a gendered way.
A crucial distinction runs through Butler’s account. Gender performativity is not the same as a theatrical performance that a pre-existing self chooses to put on. Butler later clarified this.
Performativity is the repeated, citational process by which discourse produces the very effect it appears only to describe. There is no true or authentic gender hiding behind the performance, waiting to be revealed.
Butler calls the effect of this repetition a “matrix of intelligibility.” It is a culturally specific set of norms. These norms determine which combinations of sex, gender, and desire count as coherent, and which are unintelligible or impossible.
Butler later extended this in Undoing Gender.
If gender is something continually “done,” she argued, it can also, in principle, be “undone” wherever it is used by one group to exert power over another (Butler, 2004).
In Gender Trouble (2002), Butler argues that gender is constructed through language. Language does the work. This draws on a critique of Beauvoir, Foucault, Lacan, and Luce Irigaray. Their argument holds that the conventionally feminine reflects what is considered masculine.
Butler also criticizes the sex/gender distinction. She argues it implies a natural difference between men and women, which then justifies men’s dominance over women.
Yet, this argument implies that women’s subordination has no single cause or solution. Critics see this as a gap. In response to the charge that postmodern feminism offers no clear path to action, Butler herself rejected the term “postmodernism” as too vague to be meaningful.
Instead, she advocated for a feminism that is more inclusive and attentive to the particularities of women’s lives (Salih & Butler, 2004).
Foucault, Power, and Discourse
Postmodern feminism’s account of how gender norms feel natural draws heavily on the French philosopher Michel Foucault. Butler’s own account of performativity builds directly on his ideas.
Foucault rejected the idea that sexuality is simply natural, merely repressed or permitted by power. Sexuality, he argued, is actively produced. It is shaped by institutions: medicine, law, psychiatry, confession. These do not just describe reality; they help produce the very categories they describe (Foucault, 1978).
Nothing here is imposed by a single ruler.
A second concept, disciplinary power, explains how gender norms operate without a central enforcer. There is no single boss. Modern power, Foucault argued, works less through repression than through everyday surveillance and self-monitoring. People learn to judge their own behavior against an internalized standard of “normal” (Foucault, 1977).
Applied to gender, this explains why norms rarely need direct force. No one has to enforce them. Individuals police their own and others’ gendered dress, speech, and conduct constantly, through small, everyday judgements.
A study of Black British women’s beauty ideals shows this in practice (Mama, 1995).
The example is concrete.
Many of the women studied resisted a beauty ideal linked to whiteness only once they recognized it as a culturally specific discourse, not a neutral fact about themselves.
Because power produces “truths” about gender rather than just repressing them, resistance is also possible from within discourse itself. Dominant discourses tend to generate counter-discourses that contest them.
Mary Joe Frug
Mary Joe Frug was an American lawyer and legal scholar. She taught at Harvard Law School and New York University School of Law. Her work focused on gender, the law, and postmodern feminist theory.
Legal postmodern feminist theory critiques the legal system from a feminist perspective. This was new terrain. Frug was one of the first scholars to bring postmodernism into the field of law (Frug, 2014).
Frug argued that the law is inherently patriarchal. It benefits men more than women, she held. The law treats women as property, she argued, rather than autonomous individuals.
Frug also criticized how the law often reinforces gender roles. It expects women to be wives and mothers, not workers or professionals, she wrote. She further argued that the law is biased against women in divorce and child custody cases (Frug, 2014).
Frug’s work was groundbreaking. It applied postmodern feminist theory to law for the first time.
She showed that the law is not neutral. Rather, it benefits those already in power.
Frug’s work has been highly influential in subsequent feminist legal scholarship. Her casebook, Women and the Law, is still in publication and used by legal scholars (Schneider, 1991).
Nonetheless, Frug’s work was controversial for its time. Eventually, Frug was murdered by who police believed to be an academic rival, in an unsolved case.
French Feminism
French feminism is a branch of feminist thought that originated in France during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
French feminists typically draw on the work of thinkers such as Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, and Luce Irigary.
Hélène Cixous
Hélène Cixous is a French-Algerian feminist writer, thinker, and literary critic. She is best known for her writing style. She termed it “écriture féminine,” or “feminine writing”: a mode of writing that escapes the rigid, binary logic of a masculine-dominated tradition.
Cixous urged women to write themselves into existence.
She treated writing as a way of reclaiming the body and voice that a patriarchal literary tradition had long denied women.
Cixous’ work often focuses on women’s relationship to language and literature (Cixous & Derrida, 1994). Her most famous article is “The Laugh of the Medusa.” It criticizes how women have been excluded from literature, seen as a masculine activity (Cixous, 2009).
Cixous also critiques how women have been portrayed in literature. They are typically shown as objects, or subordinate to men, she argues. She advocates instead for a “feminine” writing style, more inclusive of women’s experiences and perspectives.
A shared vocabulary runs through this work.
Together with the psychoanalyst Catherine Clément, Cixous identified hierarchised binary oppositions running through Western thought. Examples include activity/passivity, culture/nature, and head/heart. In each pair, the first term is coded masculine and privileged, the second feminine and subordinated.
The devaluation of women, on this view, is woven into the deep structure of binary thought itself. Dismantling it takes more than legal reform.
Cixous’ work exemplifies the postmodern feminist strategy of deconstruction: attacking binary concepts and recasting their opposites in a positive light.
Her ideas about écriture féminine have been especially influential. They allowed a re-examination of the relationship between women and literature, and applied postmodernist thought to feminist issues generally (Cixous & Derrida, 1994).
Luce Irigaray
Luce Irigaray is a Belgian-born French feminist thinker and philosopher. Her best-known work is Speculum of the Other Woman. It studies the uses and misuses of language in relation to women.
Irigaray’s central image is the speculum, a medical instrument used to examine the body. She reworks it as a curved mirror.
The image does real work.
It captures her argument: philosophy and psychoanalysis have only reflected women back as a distorted version of the male subject.
In Speculum of the Other Woman (1974), Irigaray critiques Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex. She says it relies on a masculine view of sexuality. Freudian theory, on her reading, defines female sexuality by what it lacks relative to male anatomy.
Freud’s theories about women are based on stereotypes that further marginalize women, she also argued. Irigaray extended this critique to Lacan’s re-interpretation of Freud. It perpetuates the same problems, she held.
She develops this further in This Sex Which Is Not One (1985).
There, Irigaray argues that women’s sexuality has always been theorized by analogy with a single, male model, denying women a language to represent their own sexuality on its own terms.
Irigaray uses the term phallogocentrism. It combines “phallocentrism,” centring the phallus as the key symbol of sexual difference, with “logocentrism,” the privileging of a single, rational logic as meaning’s foundation.
The term describes how Western language and reason center a masculine point of reference. That reference presents itself as neutral, she argues.
Irigaray has also written about how women have been excluded from philosophy. Reason itself, she says, was built by men. This exclusion follows from philosophy’s own masculine understanding of reason.
Alongside Cixous and Kristeva, Irigaray is often grouped as one of a trio of French feminist theorists.
They share a common concern: how language and the symbolic order construct and constrain women’s subjectivity. Her own work has been highly influential in challenging traditional psychoanalysis and philosophy.
Julia Kristeva
Julia Kristeva is a Bulgarian-born French thinker, writer, and psychoanalyst. She works across feminist theory, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. Her work often focuses on how women have been marginalized by Western society.
Kristeva’s most influential idea is a distinction between two dimensions of language: the symbolic and the semiotic. The symbolic is structured and rule-governed: grammar, syntax, fixed meaning, tied to social convention. The semiotic is different.
Think of an infant’s babble.
It is an earlier, pre-linguistic dimension of rhythm, tone, and bodily drive, tied to the infant’s early bond with the maternal body, a dimension Kristeva calls the chora. It is never fully suppressed once a child enters structured language.
The semiotic keeps disrupting it, surfacing especially in poetry and boundary-pushing writing. This link to the maternal, not the paternal, matters. It lets the feminine be understood as an active presence within language itself, not simply absent or silenced.
Kristeva takes an independent line, too.
In her most famous work, “Women’s Time” (1996), Kristeva argues women have been excluded from history. They were tied to the private, domestic sphere, she says.
She also distinguishes several political “times”: a linear time of equal-rights demands, a cyclical time rooted in the body, and a third position wary of both.
Children, she argues, undergo stages in learning language. Along the way, they come to grasp shared cultural meaning.
Postmodern Feminism Criticism
Postmodern feminism has faced sustained criticism since it originated in the 1990s. The main lines of critique are:
- Loss of Stable Identity: deconstructing “woman” as a category leaves women without a stable identity to organize around, critics argue.
- Erasure of “Woman” as a Group: denying a shared female identity risks denying the existence of women as a group at all.
- No Clear Political Program: rejecting Enlightenment values and essentialism leaves postmodern feminism unable to justify collective political action, modernist critics argue.
- Undermines Collective Organizing: treating power as diffuse rather than located in identifiable hands makes it hard to say who feminist politics should target.
- The Materialist Critique: focusing on language and discourse comes at the expense of attention to the material, economic conditions of women’s lives.
- Academic Inaccessibility: the field’s dense, specialized vocabulary makes it hard for the women it claims to speak for to access or use it.
Loss of Stable Identity
The philosopher Alison Assiter raised this criticism in her book Enlightened Women. She argued that postmodern feminism’s focus on deconstruction (attacking binary concepts and recasting their opposites, rather than arguing for equal treatment within them) leaves women without a stable identity. No stable self remains, she said.
Her target was the whole tendency, not one thinker.
The critique rests on postmodernism’s emphasis on instability and flux. If every category is always shifting, critics ask, what is left to organize around?
Some feminists go further still.
This instability, they say, is inherently anti-feminist, since it undercuts the very ground on which claims about women’s shared oppression are made.
Postmodern feminists have not fully resolved this tension. Their usual response: a category can be used strategically, without treating it as fixed or natural.
Critics regard this as a partial answer at best.
Erasure of “Woman” as a Group
Other feminists press a related but distinct objection. Rejecting “woman” as a coherent category does not just complicate theory, they argue. It risks marginalizing women further.
Denying a shared female identity, these critics argue, can end up denying that women exist as a group at all (Ebert, 1991).
The worry is practical, not just philosophical.
A movement cannot easily campaign against violence or unequal pay if it cannot say who “women” are. This is the same worry Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectional theory answers differently, by treating categories like race and gender as real structures rather than dissolving them entirely.
Postmodern feminists have a reply.
A category can still be used strategically for organizing without treating it as a fixed, natural fact. It is a pragmatic compromise, though the underlying dispute stays unresolved.
No Clear Political Program
Modernist critics argue that postmodern feminism’s rejection of Enlightenment values leaves it unable to justify political action. There is no firm ground left, they say.
Essentialism is the casualty of this argument — without it, critics say, there is nothing left to build a shared political program on.
Without it, postmodern feminism has no shared basis for a political program, the argument goes. Postmodernism is also often linked to relativism.
Some modernists go further.
They argue it becomes impossible to make any claim about women’s oppression under patriarchy at all. No single account can be treated as simply true, on this view.
Postmodern feminists reject this conclusion. Rejecting essentialism, they maintain, does not stop them from making political claims (Ebert, 1991). It only rules out claims that assume one account fits every woman equally.
Undermines Collective Organizing
The political theorist Nancy Hartsock pressed this challenge against the Foucauldian strand of the theory. In an essay, she asked a hard question.
Does Foucault’s account of power give feminism a usable theory at all (Hartsock, 1990)?
Foucault treats power as diffuse and productive, not concentrated in identifiable hands. Nothing pins the blame down.
A feminism built on that framework, Hartsock argued, risks losing something important.
It can no longer say clearly who benefits from women’s subordination, or who feminist politics should target. The stakes are practical.
Postmodern theory arrives, on this reading, at the very moment women are gaining standing as political subjects. Dissolving “woman” into an unstable effect risks undercutting that emerging voice, a tension never fully resolved.
The Materialist Critique
Marxist and materialist feminists raise a different objection. Postmodern feminism’s focus on language and discourse, they argue, comes at the expense of attention to material, economic conditions: wages, unpaid labor, poverty.
Teresa Ebert gave this a name.
Writing from a materialist position, she labeled much of postmodern feminism “ludic.” Playful, but detached, in her view. It treats language and identity seriously while missing the economic structures materialists see as primary (Ebert, 1991).
A woman’s low wages are not fixed by deconstructing the discourse that describes them, on this view.
Material conditions need to change.
The objection is not that language is irrelevant, only that language alone cannot explain or remedy oppression. The clash marks a real fork in feminist priorities: change how people think and speak, or change who controls resources and labor.
Academic Inaccessibility
Postmodern feminism has also been criticized for its academic focus and its dense, specialized vocabulary (Ebert, 1991). The criticism has real force.
Consider the vocabulary itself.
A theory expressed in specialist terms, like phallogocentrism or the symbolic order, is harder for the women it claims to speak for to actually use.
Earlier feminist movements built campaigns around plain-language slogans and demands.
Postmodern feminist writing, by contrast, circulates mostly within universities and academic journals. Critics argue this gap has limited its practical reach, whatever its intellectual influence.
Despite these critiques, postmodern feminism has shaped feminist thought significantly.
Its focus on deconstruction has allowed a re-examination of the relationship between women and literature. Its application of postmodernist thought has also shed new light on familiar problems.
Contemporary Research
Butler’s account of gender performativity is philosophy, not a directly testable hypothesis. That made it hard to test in the lab.
Two psychologists changed that.
Thekla Morgenroth and Michelle K. Ryan have done the most to close the gap between Butler’s theory and testable psychology.
Morgenroth and Ryan (2018) worked systematically through Butler’s key concepts, including performativity and the matrix of intelligibility.
They mapped each onto standard practices in experimental social psychology.
Conventional binary measures of gender, they found, do not just measure gender neutrally. They reinforce the binary instead.
Such measures claim only to describe gender.
Making non-binary responses unavailable actively enforces the binary they measure, the paper argues. It recommends treating “what explains sex and gender” as a research question in its own right.
Morgenroth and Ryan (2021) then went further.
They built an integrative review of the wider psychological literature on “gender trouble,” drawing on research spanning precarious manhood, social identity, and essentialist belief.
Disrupting the gender binary, they proposed, can trigger up to four types of psychological threat.
Masculine status is one; social order is another.
Together, the two papers offer the clearest current bridge between Butler’s theory and testable psychological evidence for why the gender binary persists.
References
Butler, J. (2002). Gender trouble. Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge.
Cixous, H. (2009). The laugh of the Medusa. Feminisms Redux, 416-431.
Cixous, H., & Derrida, J. (1994). T he Hélène Cixous Reader. Psychology Press.
Ebert, T. L. (1991). The” difference” of postmodern feminism. College English, 5 3(8), 886-904.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Vol. 1: An introduction. Pantheon Books.
Frug, M. J. (2014). Postmodern legal feminism . Routledge.
Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature and difference. Routledge.
Hanisch, C. (1970). The Person is Political
Hartsock, N. (1990). Foucault on power: A theory for women? In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 157–175). Routledge.
Irigaray, L. (1974). Speculum of the other woman. Cornell University Press.
Irigaray, L. (1985). This sex which is not one (C. Porter, Trans.). Cornell University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1996). Women’s time. Women, Knowledge, and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Philosophy, 61-83.
Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy (Vol. 1). Women and History; V. 1.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1320.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2021). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1113-1142.
Rossiter, A. (2000). The postmodern feminist condition. B. Fawcett, B. Featherstone, J. Fook y A. Rossiter, Practice and research in social work, 24-38.
Salih, S., & Butler, J. (2004). The Judith Butler reader.
Schneider, E. M. (1991). Violence Against Women and Legal Education: An Essay for Mary Joe Frug. New Eng. L. Rev., 26, 843.
Tong, R., & Botts, T. F. (2018). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. Routledge.
Waugh, P. (2012). Feminine fictions: Revisiting the postmodern. Routledge.
