PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 1
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY
Abdul Majeed
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Author Note
Abdul Majeed
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Email: amajeed@liberty.edu
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 2
Abstract
This paper attempts to highlight the battles and influences of feminism, queer theory, and the
pro-family movement in our societies. The fight for equal rights has faced constant criticisms
from the religious and political arenas throughout our existence. In addition, the paper breaks
down the different stages that feminism and queer theory went through to reach acceptance in the
political arena and the society in general. Furthermore, the paper will point out the challenges
each these movements faced at each stage of their quest. Interestingly, even with significant
progress made by these movements, we still live in a patriarchal society where men
overwhelmingly hold positions of power than women. In our societies today, women still handle
most of the domestic duties in addition to their means of employment. Furthermore, it is beyond
question that the gender revolution is not at its ultimate destination. Incidentally, the success of
these movements will not likely end the quest for equality because naturally there may be the
emergence of a new sect that may feel disadvantaged by our societal norms.
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 3
Pro-Family Movement, Feminism, and Queer Theory
There have been significant calls for equal rights for women, gays, lesbians, and anyone
that did not fit the patriarchal societal standards since the early nineteenth century and continues
to date. The fight for equality has been documented for several decades and even centuries prior
to the nineteenth century which many point as the beginning of feminism. However, the
nineteenth century provided the opportunity for the efforts of women towards achieving equal
rights into an organized and identifiable movements. Irrespective of the opportunities presented,
the nineteenth century presented several challenges to the quest for equality especially for the
feminist movement and LGBT community. In the traditional sense, women were to run the
household while the men provided for the family. Even though the opinion of women has been
largely ignored in most traditional societies, they still managed to get their voices heard in their
neighborhoods and church groups. These groups addressed issues that were considered
appropriate for women such as the prices of food, sexual behavior, morality, and so forth (Moses
2012, p. 758). Gradually, women organized around improving the conditions of their daily lives
including providing food and shelter for their families and attempting to help change the work
conditions for themselves and their husbands.
As women and the LGBT communities were gaining traction in their missions, it seemed
to attack the acceptable moral clause and social definition of a family which in turn triggered the
pro-family movement. The middle-class family system as seen in the 1950s represented a symbol
of morality and respect which equally represented what the family should look like in a
traditional religious perspective (Bendroth 1999). The Supreme court rulings of Griswold v.
Connecticut, United States v. Vuitch, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade and many more played a
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 4
significant role in the traction gained by the pro-family movement even though its ideals were
principally found in the historical legacy of fundamentalism.
Feminism
The feminist ideology from a shallow perspective represents a movement that fights
against the inequalities of all women. Karen Offen (2011) explains that feminism has outgrown
its identification as a ‘social history’ to one of politics because it involves a more extensive
history of politics that analyzes the politics involved in ensuring gender equality (Offen 2011).
She asserts that the political history of feminism focuses on the fairness in education, economics,
civil rights, and politics. Comparably, Leanne Bibby agrees with the political description of
feminism in the sense that, she believes it allows women to “make sense of our political
positioning as women” and in reality “culture is intensely political” (Bibby 2006, p. 50).
According to Gillis et. al. (2004), in a patriarchal society the “mother’s role of subordination and
self-sacrifice is what the daughter does not want to inherit”. Gillis references the unwritten
commandment ‘Thou Shalt Not Become Thy Mother’ which has had significant effects on the
feminist movement throughout generations and thus “militating against the odds of turning
feminism into a cultural inheritance to be passed on from metaphorical mothers to their
daughters” (p. 10).
The discussion of feminism cannot be had in today’s world without respect over women
having control over their own bodies, abortion, fertility, etc. Unfortunately, throughout the
movement, the major issue that arises in contemporary feminism is the discussion over
difference. For instance, women of color found it difficult to accept the “we” offered by white
middle class feminists included them. It is important to note that, when the feminist movement
began, people of color were essentially ‘second class’ citizens to whites. Would it then be fair for
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 5
women of color to assume in these times that the white feminists were fighting for the cause of
only white women and not all women? The challenge of the feminist movement was to learn to
“acknowledge women’s diversity while simultaneously describing their oppression as a group”
(LeGates 2001, p. 2). Furthermore, Moses (2012) asserts that, political issues of race and class
gained the attention of women organizers in the modern West, reminding society that “women’s
interest have been shaped by their positioning in multiple social hierarchies and not just by their
sex” (Moses 2012, p. 759). As Eva Sedgwick (1990) puts it, “the distinctive vulnerability to rape
of women of all races has become in this country a powerful tool for the racist enforcement by
which white people, including women, are privileged at the expense of Black people of both
genders” (Sedgwick 1990, p. 32).
The role of women in our societies is seen beyond the local level, it transcends state
boundaries to national levels as seen in the early 1960s where housewives “nurtured an emerging
peace movement”. Also, it is important to point that, the actions of women were not “always
emancipatory”; as Moses explains that women also organized to “defend hierarchical, male-
dominant families and their belief in the purity and supremacy of white, Protestant families” and
studies have equally shown the role of women in organizing Ku Klux Klan activities in the 1920s
and 1930s (Moses 2012, p. 759). Marlene LeGates explains that there are too many variations of
feminism in the world today to the point that it is quite confusing to understand, and it sometimes
takes away from having one collective force absent the contradictions that present themselves in
having some many divisions. LeGates believes that the most important theoretical distinction
today with the precursors of the past is the distinction between “liberal, equity, or equal rights
feminism on one hand, and cultural feminism on the other” (LeGates 2001, p. 5). Cultural
feminism as LeGates asserts was referred to as social or maternal feminism in the late nineteenth
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 6
and early twentieth centuries. According to LeGates (2001), liberal or equal rights feminism
focuses on the similarities between women and men and having a society free of gender
differences whilst cultural feminism stresses the difference between the two. Furthermore,
cultural feminists adopt a women centered perspective, “one that emphasizes the female values
and culture arising from women’s unique experiences” (p. 6). LeGates continues that, cultural
feminists would not accept a definition of feminism as a “pursuit of political, economic, or legal
equality” but would rather define it as a representation of “women’s growing autonomy, judging
their success by the extent to which women have imposed their values on society” (p. 6).
The belief that the divinely ordered patriarchal relationship of the family offered a model
for the political society itself was attacked by several political writers in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries including Sir Robert Filmer’s work in 1680, Patriarcha (Rendall 1985, p.
8). Filmer argued that nature presented two reasons for the superiority of men over women. He
asserts that for the fact that Eve was carved out of Adam and not the other way around justifies
that the man was not created for the woman, but the woman was for the man. He states that,
before the fall of Eve or any command given to her by God “she was made in a state of
subjection to her husband and he very well understood it when he gave her a name which was a
mark of his sovereignty and Dominion” (Filmer 1980, 25). On the other hand, Rendall (1985)
refutes that even though “marriage was a contractual relationship in which, although the male’s
superiority ability might give him the right to manage joint affairs, it gave no absolute
sovereignty (p. 9). Similarly, according to Sedgwick (1990), “a woman's use of a married name
makes graphic at the same time her subordination as a woman and her privilege as a presumptive
heterosexual” (Sedgwick 1990, p. 32).
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 7
As explained by Martha Rampton (2015), it is common to categorize feminism into three
phases but there is no mutual understanding on where to place women activities prior to the
nineteenth century into any of those groups hence the need for the discussion of a fourth wave of
feminism. She asserts that the first wave of feminism started in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries emerging from “urban industrialism and liberal, socialist politics”. The goal
of this wave was to create opportunities for women with a “focus on suffrage”. According to
Rampton, the wave started at Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 which brought about three
hundred men and women to rally for the equality of women (Rampton 2015, pp. 1-2).
Furthermore, she points that the second wave began in the 1960s to the 1990s. This wave as
Rampton explains was more radical and it unfolded in the “context of the anti-war, civil rights
movements and the growing self-consciousness of a variety of minority groups” across the globe.
The focus of this wave was on sexuality, reproductive rights and the passing of the Equal Rights
Amendment which guaranteed equality regardless of sex (Rampton 2015, p. 2). The second wave
gained momentum in this time partly because of the civil rights and movements such as the
Black Power movement which gave a voice to the oppressed in our societies.
Gillis at. al (2004) assert that there continues to be a doubt about the existence of a third
wave of feminism. Obviously, it is beyond question that from an educational and economic
standpoint, young women are much closer to equality with men than their mothers were with
their male counterparts. According to them, “as the economic disadvantages of femaleness are
made apparent later in life, overwhelmingly with motherhood itself, feminism has a different
significance to women at different stages of life” (Gillis et. al. 2004, p. 11). The third wave of
feminism began in the mid-90s and was inspired by the post-colonial and post-modern thinking.
According to Rampton, during the third wave, “many constructs were destabilized” including the
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 8
views of “universal womanhood, body, gender, sexuality, and heteronormativity” (Rampton
2004, p. 4). Both the second and third wave of feminism criticize the “concept of objectivity, and
instead champion epistemologies based on situated knowledge. Within feminism, identity
politics is a political error that occurs when an individual or group overemphasizes the impact of
or naturalizes a given standpoint”. For instance, treating people affiliated with a group as if they
were representatives of that group (Lewis 2016, p. 12).
Interestingly, in the beginning of the feminist cause, not all their supporters who
advocated for the end of sex discrimination supported abortion liberalization. The late 1960s is
when childbearing was viewed as indispensable to the fight for women equality and ultimately
the push for decriminalizing abortion. This, according to Greenhouse & Reza changed the image
of the movement which was initially pushed by male doctors. They continued that, Betty
Friedan, the founding president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) was one of the
first leaders of the feminist movement to make publicly claims for abortion rights to be included
in the feminist cause (Greenhouse & Siegel 2011, p. 2042).
The global world we live in today has presented several opportunities for several
movements including feminism. Similarly, it has presented a vast medium to channel support all
over the world for women to share their stories and enforce social change in our societies. This
highlights the new feminism as seen in the MeToo movements across the globe. Kaitlynn
Mendes’ (2011) points out the significant change of the perception of the feminist movement
throughout the years. She asserts that between 1968 to 1982, which represented the peak of the
second wave feminism, coverage and support of the cause was fragmented and contradictory and
the media attempted to delegitimize the cause by defining its agenda as radical and unacceptable
(Mendes 2011, p. 10). The MeToo movement has giving feminism a higher level of appreciation
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 9
and “exemplifies increased visibility alongside an embrace and appreciation of feminism” in our
communities and globally (De Benedictis et. al. 2019, 729). Ultimately, the feminist fight is far
from over, we still live in a world where Catholic Bishops are adamant if the President Biden
should qualify to receive communion based on his stance regarding abortion.
Pro-Family Movement
As explained by Anderson (1988), the pro-family movement generates a significant
amount of its support from the ranks of white, middle to upper-middle class Protestant and
Catholic women. Motivated by their religious belief, they dedicate a great deal of their energy
and resources towards fighting the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion rights, liberal textbooks,
and so forth. Research has shown that pro family activists are “highly religious and relatively
conservative on both traditional economic and foreign policy issues and on social issues”
(Anderson 1988, p. 232). The link between the family and conservative religious group politics is
perplexing in the case of American societies. As explained by Bendroth, the political rhetoric of
the pro-family movement centered around anti-abortion debates and protests but since the mid-
1970s, millions of conservative Protestants who would usually be ‘uninvolved’ in politics have
been attracted to the voting booths to be heard. The pro-family movement has expanded
throughout the past few decades to include abortion, school board politics, parental rights
legislations, homosexuality, and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The incorporation of these
issues triggered the push for conservative Protestants into the national political arena and have
proved essential to fund raising and getting people to the polls (Bendroth 1999, p. 1).
The origins of the modern pro-family movement equally serve as a measure for the
changes in the role of culture in family and religion in our societies. A similar change is seen in
the American Protestant Fundamentalism movement which evolved to take up the fight to protect
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 10
the family as a “theological and much less political” cause. Although, in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, gender issues were pivotal to fundamentalism identity, it did not take a
solid stance in protecting the traditional family system in the sense of a political agenda
(Bendroth 1999, p. 2). Bendroth asserts that this change was seen after World War II and boomed
in the late 1970’s. The timing and change seen here highlights the relationship between the
“evolving nature of the modern family as with the developing shape of religion in American
societies”. And most importantly, the shift reflects the “transformation of erstwhile
fundamentalists into a new group calling themselves neo-evangelicals” (Bendroth 1999, p. 2).
It is noteworthy to mention Kristi Anderson’s work on the sources of pro-family beliefs
where she correlates the creation of political schemas by people to make sense of environmental
stimuli. She asserts that the presentation of new information to the average person who is
apolitical leads to the creation of a new schema or alters their current support once they are
“convinced of the validity of certain pieces of new information” (Anderson 1988, p. 234).
According to Anderson (1988), the positions liberals took on certain policies such as abortion
and ERA fueled the push for the pro-family movement because for many supporters of the pro-
family movement, the liberal stance on other issues “such as gun control, busing, school prayer,
and childcare must also be interpreted in the light of their potential impact on the traditional
God- ordained nuclear family” (p. 237). Ultimately, Anderson’s analysis of the women who
supported the pro-family movement suggests that it would be inaccurate to “assume they simple
deduced their pro-family positions from their religious beliefs but rather, they justified their
political stances ultimately be reference to God’s Law” (Anderson 1988, p. 241).
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade, a newspaper column with a gallop
pull saved in Justice Blackmun’s case file showed that sixty-four percent of Americans (and
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 11
fifty-six percent of Catholics) believed that the decision to have an abortion should be left solely
to the woman and her doctor (Gallop 1972). Similarly, sixty-eight percent of Republicans
supported held that belief as compared to fifty-nine percent Democrats (Greenhouse & Siegel
2011, p. 2031). The opposition to abortion is a logical one because the “freedom to abort breaks
the connection between sex and procreation, denies the sanctity of motherhood and the authority
of the father, and implies that it is the individual and not the family which is the basic social
unit” (Neitz 1981, p. 265). According to Greenhouse & Siegel (2011), President Nixon began to
attacking abortion to win votes from Catholics who were aligned with the Democratic party and
to attract social conservatives by “tarring George McGovern”, Nixon's opposition in the
presidential election of 1972, as a “radical” for his support of feminists’ organizations which
were seeking to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment and “abortion on demand” (Greenhouse &
Seigel 2011, p. 2033). In the end, people are entitled to support their beliefs, but the choices
made should not be imposed unto others for the sake of disagreement on what we were created
on this earth for. Ultimately, its only God who knows who is right or wrong.
Queer Theory
The term queer has been used by people who do not fit the societal ‘norm’ of been
heterosexual. It has often been used by people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, intersex,
transgender, and many more. According to Lewis (2016), queer theory asserts that identity, “as a
conceptual category, serves as a disciplinary apparatus that pigeonholes the fluidity of the self
into a politically docile normativity” (Lewis 2016, p. 12). Queer theory questions the obvious
categories “upon which conventional notions of sexuality and identity rely” (Hennessy 1993, p.
964). In this sense, queer theory shares the same motivation as contemporary feminism where
both seek freedom from the collective categorization of their identities. According to Hames-
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 12
Garcia (2001), queer theory, lesbian and gay studies never adequately addressed the fact that they
are founded on the erasure of a substantial body of critical literature by people of color and of
gay liberation’s original commitment to a materialistic analysis at the same time that these bodies
of work are included for strategic purposes” (Hames-Garcia 2001, pp. 214-215). As explained by
Hennessy, both see “identity politics as a form of expressive pluralism where identity is reified-
understood to be represented in a self-evident and authentic way through one's body-and
collectivity is reduced to group affiliation defined according to the standard of authentic
embodiment” (Hennessy 1993, 964). Queer theory has been motivated by critical social theory
even though not much was documented from the critical theory standpoint to include queer
theory. Barnard (2001) asserts that “queer is as ambiguously feminist as is feminism’s own
deconstructive suspicion of the categories of sex (Barnard 2004, p. 11). The fight for recognition
in feminism is indistinguishable from that of queer theory. The distinction between lesbian
feminism and queer theory is seen based on the difference of emphasis, where queer theory
focuses on sexuality whilst lesbian feminism on gender (Garber 2001, p. 7). Unfortunately, both
theories failed to accept the fact that a choice need not to be made and a movement can enact
change from multiply axes.
Heike Schotten (2019) highlights the commonality between queer theory and morality by
referencing Nietzsche’s theory of morality which views morality as a political tool used to
segregate people based on “manufactured idealizations of merit or worth in order to stigmatize,
demean, ostracize, and punish those deemed undeserving by its measure” (Schotten 2019, p.
217). Similarly, Kirsch (2000) explains that the lesbian and gay movements in the 1970s and
1980s were the beginning of the politicization of everyday life and culture. Our daily activities
are either consciously or unconsciously political because “it supports a particular point of view”
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 13
but this theoretical point of view becomes challenging when social change and social movements
are incorporated (Kirsch 2000, p. 9). According to Schotten (2019), the lack of evidence may be
due to the fact of the “rigorous critique of those 1990s origins for its race, class, and other
exclusions, not to mention its inattentiveness to white supremacist, capitalist, and imperial and
colonial forms of domination” (Schotten 2019, p. 217). Similarly, Hames-Garcia (2001) asserts
that, in dominant text, race tends to be addressed in at least two interrelated ways; “either a
silence that projects whiteness as a universal or an inscription of race onto the bodies people of
color, leaving the normative claims of whiteness intact and inscribing the existence of people of
color into a reified category of otherness” (Hames-Garcia 2001, p. 215).
We live in a society today where one can no longer definitely assert that a lesbian is a
feminist. It seems that in our societies today, lesbians and gay men who consider themselves as
queer are required to “invest their homosexuality with a political component” which most often
than not implies “perversely the desirability of queerness rather than merely submitting to its
genetic inevitability or objective immutability” (Barnard 2004, p. 12). As explained by Barnard,
the aggressive stance of queerness exemplifies their quest to be recognized just as everyone else
rather than celebrating their differences in the sense of what makes them queer (odd) (Barnard
2004). Queer subjects are diverse but share a collective understanding of gender discipline that
forms a basis for political cohesion. Lewis (2016) declares that ‘identity politics from a queer
theory standpoint is derogatory because it assumes the desirability of clear-cut identities and
definitions. According to Lewis (2016), the Marxist critique of queer theory is centered on the
analysis of inequality as systemic. He believes that a better understanding requires exceeding the
capability of the individual mind because “if knowledge is contained within a standpoint, rather
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 14
than capable of being inflected by a standpoint, then systemic knowledge is not possible and,
consequently, inequality cannot be fought systemically” (Lewis 2006, p. 12).
Eve Sedgwick in Epistemology of the Closet asserts that the “newness and consequent
relative underdevelopment” of Queer theory has left the theory lagging feminism and has a lot to
learn from the latter especially in asking serious questions that feminism has learned to ask.
According to Sedgwick (1990), antihomophobic readers should learn to ask questions such as
“How a variety of forms of oppression intertwine systemically with each other; and especially
how the person who is disabled through one set of oppressions may by the same positioning be
enabled through others” (Sedgwick 1990, p. 32). Ultimately, asking these questions may help
raise awareness in our communities and perhaps led to policy changes to ensure equality
irrespective of one’s sexuality, gender, or beliefs.
Biblical principles of statesmanship and government
The word of God in Genesis 1:26 tells us that we are made in the image of God hence no
human should be seen as inferior to the other. If we are made in the image of God, why should
we view lesbians, bisexuals, gays, etc. as inferior? Does their sexuality or belief negate them
from the kingdom of God? Dr. Fischer states that, “no government should dare to infringe upon
on the inalienable rights of another person, for to do so would be to disregard the very image of
God (Fischer 1998, p. 25). Our societies have hidden behind religious teachings to justify actions
that are demeaning to various groups that do not conform to the ‘normality’ of the genders.
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:19 to carry their bodies as temples of God to glorify God.
Margaret Kamitsuka (2010) asserts that Christians took the directive of Apostle Paul to mean
elevating “spiritual concerns over bodily desires”. Kamitsuka believes that it is difficult to hold
“sexuality and spirituality together in respect to human beings, the difficulty is magnified in
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 15
respect to God” (Kamitsuka 2010, p. 296). The government should be accountable to the truth
and God. The word of God talks about the sinful nature of humanity and thus our reliance on His
word as the ultimate source of the truth will lead to our salvation. It is therefore important to note
that logic is equally essential to guiding mankind to the truth if we acknowledge God as the
source of absolute truth (Fischer 1998, p. 17).
The Holy Bible tells us in Leviticus 18: 22 that, “You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman; it is an abomination” (ESV). This scripture along with a few others addresses the
sinfulness of homosexuality. But it does not negate the fact such actions are natural human
behavior. According to Fischer (1998), “homosexuality is a natural derivative of human life and
behavior”. The Biblical worldview acknowledges the naturalness of homosexuality but that does
not negate its sinfulness (Fischer 2021). The discussion of sexuality is not for the government to
judge and punish but that of God Himself. As believers we are encouraged to love our neighbors
as ourselves and to pray for one another so that our Lord God may turn them towards
righteousness. We should not dehumanize others just because of their beliefs, sexuality, gender,
and so forth, for in the end it is God who executes justice for every sin, including ours.
.
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 16
References
Andersen, K. (1988). Sources of pro-family beliefs: A cognitive approach. Political
Psychology, 9(2), 229-243. https://10.2307/3790954
Barnard, I. (2004). Queer race: Cultural interventions in the racial politics of queer theory. Peter
Lang.
Bendroth, M. L. (1999). Fundamentalism and the family: Gender, culture, and the american pro-
family movement. Journal of Women's History, 10(4), 35-54.
Bibby, L. (2016). 3 feminisms. The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, 24(1), 43-66.
De Benedictis, S., Orgad, S., & Rottenberg, C. (2019a). # MeToo, popular feminism and the
news: A content analysis of UK newspaper coverage. European Journal of Cultural
Studies, 22(5-6), 718-738.
Filmer, R. (1980). Patriarcha, or, the natural power of kings. R. Chiswel, W. Hensman, M.
Gilliflower, and G. Wells.
Gallup, G. (1972). Abortion seen up to woman, doctor. Washington Post, 25
Garber, L. (2001). Identity poetics: Race, class, and the lesbian-feminist roots of queer theory.
Columbia University Press.
Gillis, S., Howie, G., & Munford, R. (2004). Third wave feminism. Springer.
GREENHOUSE, L., & SIEGEL, R. B. (2011). Before (and after) roe v. wade: New questions
about backlash. The Yale Law Journal, 120(8), 2028-
2087. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41149586
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 17
Hames-García, M. (2001). Can queer theory be critical theory. New Critical Theory, , 201-222.
Hennessy, R. (1993). Queer theory: A review of the" differences" special issue and wittig's" the
straight mind". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 18(4), 964-973.
Kamitsuka, M. D. (2010). The embrace of eros: Bodies, desires, and sexuality in christianity.
Fortress Press.
Kirsch, M. H. (2000). Queer theory and social change. Psychology Press.
LeGates, M. (2001). In their time: A history of feminism in western society. Routledge.
Lewis, H. (2016). The politics of everybody: Feminism, queer theory, and marxism at the
intersection. Zed Books Ltd.
Mendes, K. (2011). Framing feminism: News coverage of the women's movement in british and
american newspapers, 1968–1982. Social Movement Studies, 10(01), 81-98.
Moses, C. G. (2012). "What's in a name?" on writing the history of feminism. Feminist
Studies, 38(3), 757-779. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23720210
Neitz, M. J. (1981). Family, state, and god: Ideologies of the right-to-life
movement. Sociological Analysis, 42(3), 265-276.
Offen, K. (2011). The history of feminism is political history. Perspectives on History, 45, 22-24.
Rampton, M. (2015). Four waves of feminism. Pacific University Oregon, 25
Rendall, J. (1985a). The origins of modern feminism: Women in britain, france and the united
states, 1780-1860. Macmillan International Higher Education.
PRO-FAMILY MOVEMENT, FEMINISM, AND QUEER THEORY 18
Schotten, C. H. (2019). Nietzsche and emancipatory politics: Queer theory as anti-
morality. Critical Sociology, 45(2), 213-226.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Eve kosofsky sedgwick. Epistemology of the Closet, Berkeley.
Somerville, S. B. (2010). Feminism, queer theory, and the racial closet. Criticism, 52(2), 191-
200.
