In Gender Trouble, Butler writes "the critical point of departure is the historical present, as Marx put it." What do they mean by this? I'm really struggling to understand and can't find any example of Marx actually talking about the historical present, only historical materialism. Thanks!
Edited for more context: The whole paragraph is "Obviously, the political task is not to refuse representational poli- tics—as if we could. The juridical structures of language and politics constitute the contemporary field of power; hence, there is no position outside this field, but only a critical genealogy of its own legitimating practices. As such, the critical point of departure is the historical present, as Marx put it. And the task is to formulate within this constituted frame a critique of the categories of identity that contemporary juridical structures engender, naturalize, and immobilize."
Here Butler is talking about feminism and the complications that come with defining what a "woman" or "women" are and how this can lead to exclusions of people who do not fit that definition and the misrepresentation of those people who may be considered as such but not self-identifying as such.

I'm using a throwaway.
I do not know the structure this post will take, but the theme is that basically I am someone sympathetic to conservative and reactionary political opinion (including having favourable opinions of Donald Trump), who understandably seems to think I have gotten something "missing" about the current political zeitgeist, and I'm trying to figure out what.
A few of facts about my life, to contextualise things:

• I am a a mid-20s-year-old graduate living in the UK with a Sociology degree.
• I have lived my entire life, prior to and after university, in a city that is >90% "White British" (according to census data). I identify now as bisexual - having originally identified as homosexual for the first 7 or so years of my coming out. I live in a working-class nuclear family - me, my mother and father, a younger brother, and a disabled half-sister. brother and half-sister are left-leaning, whereas my parents (being a bit older) are more traditionalist, but (I would argue) more politically confused (they are both Old Labour supporting, and yet also fans of Margaret Thatcher).
• I entered university in 2014 with far-left sympathies, and during my degree found my views move further rightward. My university studies landed right in the middle of both Brexit and the Trump election - and, during both, individual lecturers on my degree chose lecture sessions to not teach the syllabus, and have a lecture session to "just talk about" the results and process what had occurred. I recall at the time, already beginning my change in political position, I viewed such lectures as a waste of my student funding (university courses here being funded for £9000 per annum from student loans).
• I was raised secular, but post-university I even joined an evangelical church for a brief time, because I considered that their social positions aligned with my sympathies at the time.
• My earliest political awareness was around the time of Gordon Brown.

During my degree, I read a lot of sources around social theory, and found it difficult to apply to my own understanding of my lived experiences. I found a lot of other social theorists (ones who I would consider more conservative) were left off the syllabus - some even openly addressed, with statements like (as I recall from one lecture) "Don't reference them, they aren't respected in European Sociology, even if they are in American Sociology" (I cannot recall who the figure was - it may have been someone like Charles Murray or Samuel Huntingdon, or it may have been one of the functionalists like Talcott Parsons or Emile Durkheim; I only recall it being a prominent name in the field, and one that surprised me when they were announced).
Having an interest in online privacy, I did my university dissertation on a topic of "self-censorship" in a social media context. I made use of sources such as Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's book "The Spiral of Silence" and Timur Kuran's book "Private Truths, Public Lies". I performed two-hour-long interviews - albeit, limited to university students - and, of the sample I had, the common experience I found that repeatedly came up was that of conservative students feeling uncomfortable expressing their views online, as well as in-person. In spite of other literature I had read, the women, ethnic minorities and LGBT people I interviewed did not provide any information directly related to feeling any sort of self-censoriousness as a result of their particular identity. This only reinforced the conservative political sentiments I had previously been coming to terms with, and led to my scepticism of the sources I was taught on the syllabus.
The syllabus has a lot of material that I found particularly egregious. There was an article referencing race, that took a quote by Michael Jackson and discussed him as being an expert on race issues. Another article was directly on fat pride, discussing the author feeling judged in a shop for their weight, imploring the obese (which I would fit into the BMI category of) to declare "Yes, I am a Fatso!". We also read sources around race and post-colonialism (Edward Said's "Orientalism", Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth" and "Black Skin, White Masks"), feminist theory (Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex" and Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble"), and queer theory (Jeffrey Week's "Sexuality"). None of these were materials I could understand, in large part because they had no relevance to anything I was experiencing in my daily life, nor had any relevance to the experience of my immediate social network - rather, it seemed so completely detached to me, that I could only interpret the things described as either historical artefacts or simply things that the author had themselves constructed.

• On critical race theory, the only BME person I knew and could discuss these things with was a student from Hong Kong who became my best friend on the course. He was a free-market libertarian, and similarly so no relation between what he was reading and his own life experiences. As diverse as the university I was at was, I can only recall perhaps two or three ethnic minorities on the course, of which this person was one.
• On feminist theory, it did not match with what I witnessed in my daily life at all, even if I looked at economic data. Of all the women I knew in my social network - i.e. family and friends' families - almost all were employed, and in many cases seemed to be in higher-status positions than their husbands. Of the ones I knew well enough to ask about the issues, by all means some worked part-time but by choice and often at a higher rate of pay than their husbands. I would discuss the sources I had read with them, and got a response dissonant to what I was reading. These were all, given my background, working-class people. Later on, my own anecdotal experiences have involved working in three separate workplaces where women have made up all positions of upper management, and the majority (or all, in some cases) of lower management positions. Although my jobs to date have all been low-status, this is still very discordant from what I was taught.
• On queer theory, my own experience provided no correlation to what I was reading. I came out at a young age to my Catholic mother, and received acceptance. I received no negative repercussions from anyone in my family. I joined a local LGBT youth group in my teenage years, but of the people I had met, none had troubled backgrounds that I was aware of. During my time at university, I also dated a trans man (AFAB) for two years, who I bounced ideas off of (e.g. Judith Butler). While they were radically left-leaning, they simply did not relate to the source material I was presenting to them either. My only time experiencing abuse was once, after years of holding partners' hands in public without response, one guy took offence one time and expressed verbal disapproval.

On the more economic topics, I simply became convinced of other positions. Brexit and Trump pushed me over the edge, to believing that the Marxist interpretation of class was lacking - that, rather than representing working-class sentiment, it was intellectuals trying to predict what the working-classes should want for themselves while being themselves separated (whether that be in terms of educational capital, or social capital - to use Bourdieu's view of different types of capitals) from the working-classes themselves. The exceptions sympathetic to anything left of social democracy in the UK, funnily, are mostly that of working-class (and upper-class, as I met in many cases) socially mobile students aspiring for or attending university but with little working experience, much like the background I was.
So, in regards to Trump and Brexit, all I see is largely the identified "privileged" from my degree - white, cis, straight celebrities etc. - being the spokespeople, and then come to learn of more conservative voices from minority communities (Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Milo Yiannopolous, Peter Thiel etc.) be condemned. I live in a society where the two first woman Prime Ministers - Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May - are not applauded by feminists as progress because they are the wrong type of women; a society where the death of the first woman Prime Minister after a long battle with dementia are celebrated by "progressives" with the song "Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead". When I looked on social media - Reddit (e.g. reclassified), Facebook, Twitter - it's not discussions of civil rights that see people hedging their words over, or that I see there being a risk of banning over. I saw all this, even from my far-left bubble, and thought "There is something wrong here", and those were the sorts of things that pushed me right.
However, long story, but I read Reddit and see that my background and views are not the background and views of the majority. I read these sources and see nothing of value; while others read these sources and can empathize with them. I see people here daily becoming more and more leftward, and I find myself understanding them less and less (despite being of a view that I myself once held). What am I missing?

Hi everyone. At the request of a reader, this post (made 4/5/2019) has been recovered (on 9/30/2020) from a now thankfully banned debate subreddit. I'm no great fan of my thinking from this period, but it's a healthy biographical marker in that it was the last time I ever tried to commune in good faith with women who hate me for being trans. The main point about queer theory sharing much of its thought with radical feminist theory remains compelling. The comments which were also lost were pretty much all cruel, hostile, and abusive, but if you know what you are doing you can recover them using RedditSearch.
Hello everyone. Effortpost incoming. I do not usually post here but have considered starting.
After reading this post and its comments, it is clear to me that most users on this forum do not know what queer theory is. So this is an introduction to queer theory. I am covering basic concepts: use of language, beliefs about identity, and relationship to radical feminism. I am writing this to clear up what I believe are obvious misconceptions both trans-accepting and trans-denialist people seem to have, and to serve as a masterpost link to others making misstatements about queer theory in the future.
I am a queer feminist. More relevant to this forum, I am transgender. I have read feminist theory and queer theory since I was a teenager. I am a queer advocate and a woman advocate. I say this is to make clear that I am partisan. However, I hope this is well-cited enough that all parties find it helpful. I have tried to speak as simply as possible.

What Is Queer Theory?

In this primer, I will repeatedly stress the following analogy: queer theory is to sex-gender nonconformity as feminist theory is to women. I say "sex-gender nonconformity" to express the full breadth of queer theory, which can range from intersex writers (Iain Moorland, Morgan Holmes), to studies in something as seemingly superficial as drag (The Drag King Book, Judith Butler), to racial intersections (Mia McKenzie, Tourmaline) & Che Gossett) and postcolonial third genders (Qwo-Li Driskill).
Like feminist theory, queer theory is not one thing. It is a collection of diverse approaches to explaining the condition of sex-gender nonconformity in society, and, in the case of radical queers, improving that condition towards the radical end goal of the abolition of all sex-gender norms. Like feminist theory, queer theory is theory. Not all feminism is feminist theory. Not all queer advocacy is queer theory. Queer studies is not queer theory. Queer history is not queer theory. Queer praxis is not queer theory. Being queer is not queer theory.

Queer Theory & Language

Not all people who practice sex-gender nonconformity consider themselves queer. In fact, some consider the word exclusionary or pejorative. This is no more exceptional than the fact that some women do not consider themselves feminists, and consider the word exclusionary or pejorative.
Just as some black women reject feminism as being white (Clenora Hudson-Weems), some black sex-gender nonconformers reject queerness as being white (Cleo Manago). And just as some women reject feminist theory as harmful to society (Esther Vilar), some sex-gender nonconforming people reject queer theory as harmful to society (Sheila Jeffreys).
This problem, in which the purported subjects of a theory actively reject it, and even their positions as subjects within it, is no more destructive for queer advocacy than it is for feminism. The challenge has been answered affirmationally in various ways in both queer theory and feminist theory (MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, pgs. 115-117; Dworkin, Right Wing Women; Haraway, A Cyborg Manifesto; Stone, A Posttranssexual Manifesto).
However, because much more of queer theory takes its subject's status as queer to be uncontroversially entirely socially constructed, and its use of language to be therefore open to social change, queer theorists encounter this problem less often than feminist theorists. We usually acknowledge that, in forcing people to be queer or not queer, we are passively reinforcing the exact forms of oppression we seek to end through our analyses. Leslie Feinberg, who did not use the word queer as a political identity, noted in hir Transgender Liberation (1992):

Transgendered people are demanding the right to choose our own self-definitions. The language used in this pamphlet may quickly become outdated as the gender community coalesces and organizes—a wonderful problem.

Today, Feinberg's "transgender[ed] people" is now most often used apolitically, for what was once called "transgenderists": the demographic of those who live or attempt to live, socially, as a sex-gender outside of that first placed on their birth certificate. "Queer" has come to have most of the solidarity-driven political meaning of Feinberg's "transgender." However, Feinberg's conception of "transgender" is not uncommon today.
Insofar as queer advocacy permits its subjects to change, establishing their own voice, own vocabulary, own concerns, and own dissent, while feminism does not, the two must be antagonistic. Riki Wilchins addresses this tension directly in hir essay "Deconstructing Trans":

Genderqueerness would seem to be a natural avenue for feminism to contest Woman's equation with nurturance, femininity, and reproduction: in short to trouble the project of Man. Yet feminists have been loath to take that avenue, in no small part because queering Woman threatens the very category on which feminism depends.

However, Wilchins is wrong: this tension between feminist theory and queer theory is local to specific versions of queer advocacy and feminism, and is not inherent to either.

Queer Theory & Gender Identity

What the hecky, y'all? Queer theory rejects gender identity politics almost unconditionally. Get it right.
There are very few things queer theorists universally agree on: this is one. In fact, queer theorists reject sexual identity politics almost unconditionally (e.g. Rosemary Hennessy, Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism). Queer theorists regularly assert that all identity formation (including identity formation as a man or woman, flat) and even the very concept of selfhood emerge as a regulatory apparatus of power, usually that of The State. These critiques in queer theory are developed out of postmodern critiques of identity and the self. Consider, for example, these quotes from Deleuze & Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus:

To write is perhaps to bring this assemblage of the unconscious to the light of day, to select the whispering voices, to gather the tribes and secret idioms from which I extract something I call my Self (Moi). I is an order-word.
Where psychoanalysis says, "Stop, find your self again," we should say instead, "Let's go further still, we haven't found our BwO yet, we haven't sufficiently dismantled our self." Substitute forgetting for anamnesis, experimentation for interpretation. Find your body without organs. Find out how to make it.
There is no longer a Self (Moi) that feels, acts, and recalls; there is "a glowing fog, a dark yellow mist" that has affects and experiences movements, speeds.

This denial of self is directly tied to Deleuze's concept of becoming-minority), and is constructed again and again and again in queer theoretic concepts: in anti-sociality, in death drive, in anal sublimation and butch abjection, just over and over and over again. Anyone who does not understand this general concept does not understand a single thing about queer theory, straight up.
Among the transgender population specifically, it is extremely easy to find transgender people rejecting the concept of gender identity as something forced upon us by a cisgender establishment which has all the power. It's easy to find on writing. It's easy to find on video. It's easy to find on reddit. And most of us aren't even queer theorists.
So, what is it queer theorists do, if not snort identity for breakfast? Well, generally, we sort through history, literature, science, language, the social psyche, most especially real-life experience, and whatever else we can ooze our brainjuices over to analyze and undo the structures of our oppression, the very means through which we become "queer." We argue that this oppression and our position as uniquely oppressed subjects within it is socially constructed, unnecessary, and morally outrageous. And, on most analyses, this is what many feminist theorists do with women, as well. Few have even argued that, in a culture that constructs manhood as its norm, there is a sense in which to be a "woman" is also to be "queer."

Queer Theory & Radical Feminism

It has never been clear what radical feminism is. In general, I understand people who call themselves or are called "radical feminists" to be one of the following:

• Socialist feminists, who assert women are a class in some previously understood, usually Marxist sense, who must achieve liberation through techniques espoused in pre-existing theory, e.g. wages for housework.
• Post-Marxist feminists, who assert women are a "sex-class," where "class" is some new, peculiarly feminist sense of the word, who must achieve liberation through some specifically feminist method yet to be decided, outside of Marxist, anarchist, or liberal methodologies. Its origins are often supposed to be Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. Post-Marxist radical feminism is usually considered "true" radical feminism, or even just feminism, proper (MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, pg. 117).
• Cultural feminists, who assert "man" and "woman" compose two competing cultures, and (more importantly) "feminism" as women's culture. Under this view, there can be no end to feminism because women cannot achieve equality, only the dominance of female culture. Men cannot be feminists because feminism is not a political position. Cultural feminists are ambivalent about their positioning on a left or right which are both seen as "male culture." Cultural feminists often call for a return to "the natural order," and approve of "biologism," the belief that one's cultural categorization is and should be derived from biology. Their purpose is to preserve women as feminists rather than achieve the radical goal which is the abolition of all classes. See Mary Daly's Gyn/Ecology; Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto; Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born. Not all cultural feminists claim to be radical (or cultural); see écriture féminine.

On cultural feminism, radical feminist historian Alice Echols noted in The Taming of the Id (1984):

I believe that what we have come to identify as radical feminism represents such a fundamental departure from its radical feminist roots that it requires renaming.

Brooke Williams's Redstocking's piece The Retreat to Cultural Feminism (1975) begins:

Many women feel that the women’s movement is currently at an impasse. This paper takes the position that this is due to a deradicalizing and distortion of feminism which has resulted in, among other things,"cultural feminism.”

Inasmuch as cultural feminism asserts "man" and "woman" as essential and non-relative social categories in need of preservation, queer theory can have no truck with radical feminism, because radical feminism maintains a cultural institution which is usually seen as a major genesis of queer oppression.
However, insofar as radical feminism is post-Marxist, it is often deeply aligned with queer theory. Queer theory is also usually post-Marxist, as postmodernism was developed partly in response to the failures of Marxism. Queer advocacy often adopts radical feminist methodology, particularly consciousness raising. Many radical feminists effectively advocate queerness, in what Andrea Dworkin calls a "political, ideological, and strategic confrontation with the sex-class system," as a necessary part of feminism. Please consider what radical feminists and queer advocates have historically said about the following topics common to both:

Family Reform:
RadFem: "So paternal right replaces maternal right: transmission of property is from father to son and no longer from woman to her clan. This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property. In such a family woman is oppressed." (De Beauvoir, Second Sex) "Patching up with band-aids the casualties of the aborted feminist revolution, it [Freudianism] succeeded in quieting the immense social unrest and role confusion that followed in the wake of the first attack on the rigid patriarchal family." (Shulamith Firestone, Dialectic of Sex, pg. 70).
Queer: "The family has become the locus of retention and resonance of all the social determinations. It falls to the reactionary investment of the capitalist field to apply all the social images to the simulcra of the restricted family, with the result that, wherever one turns, one no longer finds anything but father-mother - this Oedipal filth that sticks to our skin." (Deleuze & Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, pg. 269)
Pansexuality:
RadFem: "[Through feminist revolution] A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality - Freud's 'polymorphous perversity' - would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality." (Firestone, Dialectic of Sex, pg. 11)
Queer: "When queerness began to mean little more than 'pansexual activist', Bash Back! became a liberal social scene rather than a space from which to attack, which i think had been the whole point of bashing back all along." (Interview with Not Yr Cister Press, Queer Ultraviolence: Bash Back! Anthology, pg. 385)
Degendered Gestation:
RadFem: "Scientific advances which threaten to further weaken or sever altogether the connection between sex and reproduction have scarcely been realized culturally. That the scientific revolution has had virtually no effect on feminism only illustrates the political nature of the problem: the goals of feminism can never be achieved through evolution, but only through revolution." (Firestone, Dialectic of Sex, pg. 31)
Queer: "The gender of gestating is ambiguous. I am not talking about pregnancy’s deepening of one’s voice, its carpeting of one’s legs in bristly hair, or even about the ancient Greek belief that it was an analogue of men’s duty to die in battle if called upon. I am not even thinking of the heterogeneity of those who gestate. Rather, in a context where political economists are talking constantly of “the feminization of labor,” it seems to me that the economic gendering of the work itself—gestating is work, as Merve Emre says—is not as clear-cut as it would appear." (Sophie Lewis, All Reproduction is Assisted)
Institutional Debinarization:
RadFem: "[A]ll forms of sexual interaction which are directly rooted in the multisexual nature of people must be part of the fabric of human life, accepted into the lexicon of human possibility, integrated into the forms of human community. By redefining human sexuality, or by defining it correctly, we can transform human relation­ship and the institutions which seek to control that rela­tionship. Sex as the power dynamic between men and women, its primary form sadomasochism, is what we know now. Sex as community between humans, our shared humanity, is the world we must build." (Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating, pg. 183)
Queer: "'Boy' and 'girl' do not tell the genital truth that Zippora knows. Quite the opposite: instead of describing her baby’s sex, these words socially enact the sex they name... Intersexuality robs 'boy' and 'girl' of referents, but it is unclear how far this intersexed scenario differs from any other gendered encounter... I suggest the claim that sex is performative must operate constatively in order to be politically effective. One has to say that performativity is the real, scientiŽc truth of sex in order to argue that intersex surgery, which claims to treat sex as a constative, is futile constructivism." (Iain Morland, Is Intersexuality Real?)

I hope these few quotations are enough to demonstrate that queer theory and radical feminist theory are deeply interwoven, and the former is in many ways a continuation of the latter.
I have noticed debate here seems quite one-sided, but I think that I could contribute something to fix what I see as a pretty egregious misrepresentation issue. I know this primer wasn't exactly structured for debate, but I can try to answer any questions below. If you read this all, thanks!

I'll try and write these summaries within as short a time as possible after having had the lecture, in order to work with fresh and hopefully accurate information. I make no guarantees when it comes to quality, but will strive to make it as high as possible, as I intend to revisit these notes come the exam period. I'll also attempt to present the information presented in the course and the material, and leave out opposing information I believe I have access to, if I did not share it with the rest of the course.
First, quick information about the course. It is explicitly made with a Nordic perspective, and carries clear influence of this. Additionally, it is meant to be a critical course, with an understanding of academic work as intent on influencing society. Finally, it focuses on a sociocultural approach, taking primary inspiration from the social sciences and the humanities.
As an opening to the course, this lecture focused mostly on the historical development of the perspectives on sex and gender, and a brief introduction to most perspectives. While it did not define any lens that is the right one, it was helpful in deciding on one that is wrong. We proceed to biological determinism
First, the lecturer did grant that biological sex is a thing, and that it causes certain differences between men and women. Among these differences were: Genitals, different on a rather essential level, serving different functions and the like; differences in anatomy, physiology, and hormones, which are relatively small and nearly all biologists agree about that. Furthermore, the small sex differences in biology are not big enough to offer a valid explanation of societal differences between the genders.
Biological determinism was seen to rise out of the inception of the two-sex model. This segment takes Thomas Laqueur's book "Making Sex" as the primary source. In it, a history of views on sex is detailed. Put briefly, for a while it followed the logic of a one-sex model, where men were men, and women were incomplete men, where the differences between men and women were in degree. On the other hand, coming around with biology and anatomy research, a dichotomy of the sexes as different in essence came around. This difference was seen as an absolute, and separated the sexes with little to no acknowledgement of overlap. This information was used to discriminate based on sex, fueling such arguments as different voting rights, or different pay.
When asked whether the fault in this lay with the underlying facts, or the reasoning that accompanied them, the lecturer called it a good question. It was extrapolated upon that the reasoning was not necessarily wrong, different lengths in parental leave being brought up as a reasonable way to discriminate based on biological facts. On the other hand, it was acknowledged that it depends on whether one were to identify as a "liberal" or a "radical" on the matter of equality, where the former would be more prone to want equal treatment, and the latter more likely to condone differential treatment.
Then we asked the question of what defines sex. What counts, who decides, and when/where is biological sex important? Intersex examples were offered to outline the blurring of the line, the ethics of sex conforming surgeries on intersex infants was questioned. Hormones and chromosomes were offered as possible measurements of what biological sex is. As for when it is important, reproduction was a clear example, while sports was mentioned, and the lecturer offered that one might find some other metrics than genitalia to sort people in categories that might be just as fair for the competitors. Affirmative action was also mentioned, where a counter that it regards social gender, was offered.
The matter of gendering items was also discussed, where the students were prompted to find different items that were gendered, and discuss how they were gendered, and why. This takes inspiration from this research, featuring a broad set of household items, and how they have been gendered. The example I will bring up is an electric screwdriver versus an electric whisk. Where the purpose of both is to make things spin, they tend to be different in design. More rounded lines, lighter colors, less accessibility to dismantle, and ease of operation were things described to be associated with gendering an item as feminine. Social commentary about how we in turn treat these items was offered. In this sense, designers were presented as ignorant as to what gender their product was getting, and unconscious bias was briefly mentioned, but not elaborated upon. I don't completely understand the offered perspective, but will try and dive deeper into it if anyone is interested in discussing the gender of things.
The matter of social gender was next up. With the defined areas being gender role, gender identity, gender relations, gender in relation to society, and gendered language. The main argument seemed to be that sex and/or gender inform all of these, who in turn affect gender.
After this primer, the course proceeded to extrapolate on how the different understandings of gender were created. We have the biological-medical perspective, which has been extrapolated on, and will not be very relevant going forward. Then we have sociocultural perspectives, and critical perspectives, forming the main categories that will be brought forward into the course.
Margaret Mead, an anthropologist and the author of "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive societies" (1935) was used as an example of a sociocultural perspective, representing anthropological and ethnographic studies of gender which challenged biological understandings. The research is an example of criticism against understandings of gender based on white, western culture. Outlining three societies living on a single island, with widely different gender expressions, it was used as activist research, prompting the quote: "if the characteristics we consider as feminine can easily be considered as masculine in other cultures, there is no ground for linking these characteristics to the biological sex." On this note, the book does briefly acknowledge that her research has been criticized for being overly simplistic, stating she did it to clarify her arguments in relation to the American society. It (the book, not the lecture) concludes that even though her overarching points underline cultural organization of gender, and are correct, her handling of details in research shows that the relationship between activism and science at times can be strained.
Simone de Beauvoir, with her book "the second sex" (1949), forms a representation of gender seen from the humanities. And Toril Moi, with her interpretations and critique of Beauvoir was brought up in the same category. In this case, it was described that Simone described society as she saw it, with gender roles put on women, and being something that was learned. While transcendence was something she considered tied to the masculine, she argued that the immanence of women was a necessary contrast in the dominant system. Transcendence in this sense refers to a certain accessibility of the future, and freedom of action, while immanence is the lack of awareness of free choice brought on due to oppression.
Our ending note is on Judith Butler with Gender Trouble (1990), whose attributed view is that sex is as much a product of social construction as gender. A central theory is centered around performance. Where one performs gender in ones daily life, and thereby reproduce the social norms connected to that gender. An additional note is that she doesn't consider gender to be something one is, but rather something you do, act like, and look like. Her view of gender comes across more as if it was a tradition, where stepping too far outside ones gender causes social sanctions, and seemingly arguing that "misquoting" ones performance of gender serves as a way to change gender. Strikes me as very "be the change you want to see in the world."
Next week, we will look at feminism and gender studies, the former being another category of lenses to view gender through. I have noticed that I haven't been able to get everything down, but this was a four hour course, and a couple more hours of comparing notes, literature, and the slides. I'll try and see if I can produce a more accurate transcript to work with next time. I'll also, happily accept comments on the format. Could be that I should use bullet-points, and extrapolate on the most interesting bits in the comments upon request.

So I tried watching Thought Slime's latest video, the one on Lobsterdaddy Peterson, but I can't get over the whole bad faith arguments. ans it'll actually end up being my first unwatched video of his.
Just to give two examples, he first says he didn't read Peterson's book and relies on some online summary. And he gives an example of how convoluted JP's writing style is:

[The] “partially implicit” mythic stories or fantasies that guide our adaption, in general, appear to describe or portray or embody three permanent constituent elements of human experience: the unknown, or unexplored territory; the known, or explored territory; and the process - the knower - that mediates between them. These three elements constitute the cosmos - that is, the world of experience - from the narrative or mythological perspective.”

The thing is... as far as academic writing is concerned, it isn't? Let's take a counterexample of Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble", chosen totally at random: first paragraph on page 161: ^{(161 geddit?)}

Note as well that the category of sex and the naturalized institution of heterosexuality are constructs, socially instituted and socially regulated fantasies or “fetishes,” not natural categories, but political ones (categories that prove that recourse to the “natural” in such contexts is always political). Hence, the body which is torn apart, the wars waged among women, are textual violences, the deconstruction of constructs that are always already a kind of violence against the body’s possibilities.

I mean, of course, Butler is dense. But I can clearly see people like Thunderfoot or Sargon reading this quote exactly the same way TS does with JP's. Because without context it doesn't make sense.
The same thing goes for JP's charts he's making fun of later on. I mean, I'm no Jung/religious studies scholar, I've only watched the Joseph Campbell interview series and read like half of an Eliade's book and... I still kinda get what Peterson's going for?
But isn't reading without context the domain of the alt-right? Apparently not, because there's a 1000 comments (why I chose to post here than there), and even bigger names like Mexie, Non-compete and The Serfs are going full validation gang. I've scrolled a bit, and couldn't find a single critical one.
Does that mean that since JP is an enemy and everything is allowed? Or that we can pull the "it's not real science" that the alt-right, again, loves to use?
To me, still the best critique of Peterson remains Angie's one, because she alone seems to have actually go out of her way to explain JP on JP's terms. But then she's kind of a Jungist herself.
And that's the thing, I'm not defending JP's ideas (not even sure what they are, some pop-Jungism probably), but if we want to interact with them, we should act like the intellectual left that we claim to be, and not imitate anti-intellectual reactionaries.

Not just feet of clay, but a faceful. Justin Trudeau went into Canada’s election on October 21st amid a row about his past penchant for applying black and brown make-up in the name, supposedly, of a laugh. The contrast between past blackface and current carefully cultivated wokeface was sharp. But the prime minister’s right-wing adversary, Maxime Bernier of the Canadian People’s Party, raised a question that has troubled feminists for a while. Why is it blatantly unacceptable for white people to dress up as black or brown, but harmless fun when men dress up as women? Aren’t drag queens effectively doing womanface? In a month when the BBC splurged publicity on RuPaul’s Drag Race UK (pictured, right) the question deserves attention here too.
In a 2014 article in Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy argues that just as white people in blackface appropriate exaggerated cultural stereotypes of ethnicity in order to mock black people, drag queens mock women by appropriating exaggerated cultural stereotypes of womanhood. These include hairstyles, make-up, nails, dresses and supposedly feminised traits like “cattiness”. Worse, just as white people who don blackface typically have whiteness-related privileges that black people lack, drag queens typically have male-related privileges that women lack.
So do drag queens mock women? Individual intent is less relevant than it might seem. In his defence, Trudeau rightly avoided talking about whether he had intended to mock anyone, referring instead to racism he didn’t see at the time. The real question, raised by Murphy, is if drag has a mocking cultural meaning beyond its practitioners’ intentions. In fact, drag often isn’t directed towards humour at all. In his book The Changing Room, historian Laurence Senelick describes the antecedents of modern drag: shamanism, aimed at ends like divination and the expulsion of spirits, and various stylized forms of theatre, such as Japanese Kabuki and English Elizabethan. Even so, he does little to dislodge the suspicion that drag is very often misogynistic. “[T]he contaminating reality of woman was to be sublimated by means of abstract, masked impersonation”; “The perfect universe of poetic illusion is best configured by a youth in women’s garb, rather than a girl in men’s clothes”; and “women in local theatre troupes . . . faded into the background because they were being women, rather than playing women” are just a few sentences from the book.
The central question is whether drag’s modern, Western, humorous incarnation has a misogynistic, mocking cultural meaning. I think it does. As with blackface, a fundamental source of humour operates independently of any wittiness, observation, or timing. Namely: a white person as a black person, or a man as a woman, is found by audiences to be hilariously incongruent, given the presumed superior social status of the performers relative to the “inferior” groups they respectively impersonate. The temporary, assumed degradation of a performer’s status is in itself funny. This explains why drag kings—women performing as men—or black people playing white people, are not usually found funny at first sight, though witty or well-observed material may make them so. It also explains the outcome of the following thought experiment: for any given drag performance, an identical performance, though this time given by what the audience knew to be a woman underneath equally heavy make-up and sequins, would not be as funny.
Some in the gender studies field argue that drag queens positively “queer” gender: that is, they subvert otherwise rigid cultural binaries that would put men and masculinity on one side, and women and femininity on the other, and assign heterosexuality to both of them. The philosopher Judith Butler argues (jargon alert): “Parodic proliferation deprives hegemonic culture and its critics of the claim to naturalised or essentialist gender identities.” Yet drag has been around for millennia, and the binaries still look pretty stable to me. Far from drag queens making it more acceptable for men to exhibit femininity, in the UK at least it seems rather to have become more acceptable for young women to look like drag queens. I am not sure if that is much of an advance.
A further problem with Butler’s thesis is that contemporary drag queens tend to aim for humour, and humour is often highly conservative. Many jokes depend on shared norms between the performer’s persona and the audience, in order to subvert those norms for comic effect. But usually the subversion is only temporary, and purely instrumental—to produce the belly laugh, leaving the norms untouched, and arguably even reinforced by the enjoyably cathartic experience. The laugh reveals, at least to others, if not to its owner, the structure of prejudices but does not challenge them. Much laughter towards drag queens depends on, and simultaneously nurtures, the attitude that a man can be made to look preposterous by dressing up as a woman, but not vice versa.
Performers can and do use creativity and intelligence to try to work subversively against drag’s inbuilt reactionary grain. To that end, they may call upon its long, rich history for inspiration, to quote or satirise. (As Ru Paul has said: “I don’t dress like a woman, I dress like a drag queen”.) The fact remains, though, that in uncreative hands, drag collapses all too quickly into “look at the silly man in the dress”; with an accompanying persistent undertone of “aren’t women silly?”
If there can be non-misogynist drag, then the door is left open, in some distant but possible world, for a performance in blackface to challenge and genuinely subvert the racism in which actual cases of blackface, in our actual world, are thoroughly grounded. Those who reject this suggestion as outrageous need to explain why creative recuperation is eternally impossible for blackface, but not for drag. And the answer can’t simply be “because misogyny’s fine, but racism isn’t”.
(source: https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/november-2019/blackface-is-evil-why-isnt-drag/)

UNLOCKED! Now open for commenting! There were a few things that eluded my Google-fu, so if you have a great resource, please post it in the comments, too. I may continue to edit if other subreddits get back to me (I'm still waiting on LGTB and Latino subreddits), so continue to check back. After about a month, I will probably unsticky this and place it in the FAQs so it'll be available to reference.

Hello, FemmeThoughts family!
This post is an evolving list of resources for Intersectional Feminists who are looking for concrete ways to support one another in a Trump administration. As of this moment, the plan is to create a launch-pad for entry-level support and will avoid any affiliation with American political parties. If interests, events and resources permit, I would be willing to build on these to include assertive political action. At the moment, this is a working document, so check back frequently!
Below are some common concerns about a Trump administration negatively affecting American communities, a quote from Trump illustrating the validity of their concern, and some links to resources people can reference to support said community.
First, a primer on how to confront all kinds of everyday bigotry
Trump is a Misogynist

"She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t have the stamina."

Since his offenses to women are too numerous to account for just one quote, I've linked to an article detailing the many horrible things Trump has said about women to demonstrate that he is no ally to women, gender equality or the things that matter to feminists.
Since feminism is the focus of the /FemmeThoughts family, this will be the biggest section as I take everything he has said about his policy and it's affect on women one by one (it's a lot, so bear with me until it's done!)
First, if you live in a small community (I do), you may not have all the different organizations and resources urban areas do and it may be too difficult for you to travel to these cities. The YWCA has 220 local members and has a wide range of feminist issues they support. So, if for example, your community does not have a BLM chapter, the YWCA's mission is eliminating racism and could be a good place for you to start.
Update 2/13/17, I know many people may have problems with the philosophy and origins of the Women's March, but they do have some good ideas for activism and resistance. Here is the main page for their website. I, personally, am cribbing their postcard script for my postcards to my representatives.
Women's Health
How to get involved, from NARAL
A plug to donate money (I want those playing cards!)
Update yourself on Planned Parenthood's platform to get informed
What Planned Parenthood needs
Get Involved with Planned Parenthood communities
Victims of Sexual Violence
Go on the RAINN website to learn more. Sign the petition.
Volunteer
Women in the Military
Read about the Military Justice Improvement Act and take the recommended actions to get it passed.
Women in Government
Poke around Emily's List
Breastfeeding
Know the laws
Convince new allies
Sexual Harrassment
How to confront sexual Harrassers and other resources
Workplace Sexism
A few tips
Domestic Violence
Contact a local domestic violence shelter near you and ask how you can help
Trump is Racist
Asian People

"They say, 'We want deal!'"

These are sourced from communications with a few of /AsianAmerican mods.

• Do not equate Asians with Asian-Americans; politics and conflicts tend to be left behind in the second-generation. Also, stop trying to "guess" an Asian-American's cultural origin.
  
• Asians are not -nor do they want to be- honorary white people. They have their own culture and struggles that put them at odds with white oppression just as any other culture.
  
• In that vein, stop exotizing Asian culture. The West has othered the East in a peculiar way, not at all in the same manner they've othered the Africas or the Americas. (Read Orientalism from reading list below.)
  
• And, simply enjoying Asian culture does not make you an ally of Asians. Having an Asian wife makes you no less racist than enjoying sex with women automatically makes you less misogynist.
  

Black People

"I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."

Volunteer
How to contact your local chapter of Black Lives Matter to see what support they would like.
On being an ally to a black person confronted with racism
On getting involved at the municipal level to end police brutality. Even if --especially if-- your town is small and/or seemingly liberal, it is vital you get involved; there are fewer citizens to work for change and likely a much smaller and less-visible black community.
One way to record and report police brutality
What to say if police tell you to stop recording them
Jewish People

"And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."

Reporting Anti-Semitic Incidents
On Activism
Confronting Anti-Semitism I did not read the whole thing. Could someone please read it and make sure there's nothing odd in it?
Latinos

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Contact a National Council of El Raza affiliate near you - explore the site for other ways to help, like issues that matter to the organization.
Muslims

"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down."

When you are witnessing Islamaphobia harassment
On wearing the hijab in solidarity
On wearing the kufi in solidarity
On combating false information
On how to show support to your Muslim-American community. Asked by a college student, but the ideas are still good, even for off-campus communities.
American Indian

"I think I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up the reservations."

Being an ally to American Indians. Note that alliance does not garner you entry into aspects of their culture; support should not require an in-kind exchange.
Support No-DAPL and keep an eye out for other ways in which the American Government undermines Tribal sovereignty.
In a similar vein, get involved advocating for climate change and conservation; taking care of our Earth is a major focus of many Indian Tribes.
Search for a Tribe near you to ask what they need Please note many Tribes may not want any outside assistance. Respect that.
A discussion in /IndianCountry about what support American Indians want
Know that American Indians have enough to work on and, as a rule, do not want to get pulled into politics that don't concern them.
Trump is homophobic

America is “going to hell” because the NFL defended openly gay player Michael Sam.

Trump is ablist

Trump mocked a disabled reporter and called a deaf woman the "R-word."
And, for all our own Priveledge Check, an excellent article warning us away from equating Trump's behavior with mental disabilities. Credit Adahn

American Association of People with Disabilities Get Involved page.
An Ablist Priveledge Checklist
Trump is not an ally of transgendered people

While he's since walked it back, a week ago, Trump was going to sabotage Obama's Title IX extensions to transgendered people using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

Resources for transgender people and allies
Trump is a climate-change denier
Personal steps to take
Get involved at the state level
How to be a politically involved citizen
Read first, an excellent essay on a Theory of Citzen Involvement. You have to understand how a government wants your participation to know how to be effective when you get involved.
Also recommended from bellebrita is Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda here.
Recommended from Libralily: http://whatdoidoabouttrump.com
Compiled from various online sources:

• look for information in newspapers, magazines, and reference materials and judging its accuracy - a good citizen is an informed citizen
  
• find out when your municipality has its council meetings and attend - understand what is going on in your own community to better understand your neighbors
  
• participate in political discussion - once you are introduced to the facts, start asking questions. Demand clarity and transparency.
  
• wear a button or putting a sticker on the car - seems a little silly, but public presence and visibility is what is necessary.
  
• sign a petition - and--
  
• write letters to elected representatives - be a visible citizen and advocate for what you want. Find your representatives here.
  
• or call them: https://www.callmycongress.com/ for details. From bellebrita, "if you get nervous on the phone, google a script that works for you on the issue you want to call about. Copy and paste it into a doc. Make sure you change all the "your name" and "member of Congress" blanks with your information! Read through it a few times out loud. Anytime you hesitate or trip over your words, try to revise the script to sound more natural to you."
  
• persuade others to your side - gain allies to your cause
  
• serve as a juror - it is your duty and your responsibility.
  
• serve your community through military, disaster relief, or volunteer works - get involved beyond what directly affects you and your community; step out of your comfort zone and embrace a new community, too.
  
• lobby for laws that are of special interest - wear your differences proudly: woman, POC, LGTBQ, veteran and answer as a member of your community
  
• demonstrate through marches, boycotts, sit-ins, or other forms of protest - and, when necessary --
  
• disobey laws and taking the consequences to demonstrate that a law or policy is unjust - non-violent resistance, when properly organized, is extremely effective.
  
• contribute money to a party or candidate - and/or --
  
• campaign for a candidate - find someone who supports your interests and volunteer to help them get elected into office, or --
  
• run for office - if you can't find anyone in your municipality who supports your interests, consider running for office yourself.
  
• vote in local, state, and national elections - be a voice in your community to decide how next to act.
  
• hold public office - try being an example and hold it for a term, only. You'll gain a better understanding of our government system once you're on the other side.
  

Your political involvement will keep your community grounded in issues that matter to you. Your vocal, active presence; being known for someone who cares about the issues, will remind people who don't socialize with others like you that you are a very real, very present, very human person and that you deserve the same rights as they do. By taking on civic responsibilities, you are also nipping in the bud any prejudices others may have about your age, gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, sexual orientation, etc. The most important thing to remember in all levels of politics is visibility. If your political leaders don't know how you stand on the issues, they can't represent you. So be present. Make them learn your name. Have them recognize your face. Create a relationship with them and speak up for yourself and the people of your community you represent.
Reading Lists
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker - how to read the signs of impending violence and survive.
Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship by Engin F. Isin - a history of citizenship.
Autocracy: Rules of Survival by Marsha Gessen - a primer on resistance from an openly gay Russian-American journalist who chronicled Putin's rise.
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini - a bit pop-psychology, but an easy introduction to framing persuasive arguments.
198 Methods of Nonviolent Action by The Albert Einstein Institution - a list of non-violent resistance techniques.
How to Make Your Congressman Listen to You by Emily Ellsworth - the most effective ways to get you representative's attention as detailed by a staffer.
Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft - landbreaking feminist treatise. Please read with historical context. Free Kindle version on Amazon.
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan - arguably the start of the American feminist movement. Second-wave feminism, so please read as an introductory/historical text and with a critical eye to intersectionalism.
Women, Race and Class by Angela Y. Davis - a history and examination of US feminism and how racism and classism of its leaders effected the movement.
Undoing Gender by Judith Butler, essentially a primer for her quintessential book (quite dense without context and entry-level readings), Gender Trouble.
Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine - a study of brain science and gender.
Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks - a short (138 page) feminism primer.
The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf - how beauty is used as a tool against women; essential in a Trump America.
Women of Color and Feminism by Maythee Rojas - how women of color experience sexism.
Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism by bell hooks - an examination of how sexism and racism affect black women.
Redefining Realness by Janet Mock - a memoir of a poor, multi-racial transwoman growing up in America with insight into the challenges these marginalized populations have.
Whipping Girl by Julia Serano - experiences of a trans-woman and her reflections on gender.
Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates - focuses on, among other things, the ways that white America has repeatedly shown black people that their bodies are not their own. Recommended by myplantscancount
Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto by Vine Deloris, Jr. - a book of essays about what it means to be American Indian.
Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Andrea Smith - a critic of white colonialism in America and how it undermined American Indian women.
Do Muslim Women Need Saving by Lila Abu-Lughod - a critic of Western feminism interference in the Muslim world. Other texts here
Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza by Gloria Anzaldúa - essays and poems from the author's experience as a chicana, a lesbian and an activist.
Orientalism by Edward Said - how the West othered the East in a peculiar way, not at all like they othered the Africas or the Americas.
Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White by Frank Wu - how a binary view of race marginalizes other minorities.
Asian-American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People by Helen Zia - on Asian-American issues.

The bad history in this case comes from my sister's Facebook feed. She's not all that relevant to this, really, but it's her friends. I suspect, though, that the idea of binary sexes with no room for in between or fluidity that they're expressing in this particular instance is one that is shared not only between them, but by those who share their ultra-conservative leanings. It's the idea that, by possessing a vagina, one automatically ought to have (and indeed does have) certain traits, like modesty, submissiveness, and all that jazz (but no jazz because jazz is evil). There's nothing bad history about this particular bit, don't get me wrong. The bad history comes in with this quote in which one person expresses the idea that the study of gender, the gendesex division, the theory of gender as a social construct, and the general discussion about gender and sexuality was created solely to justify lifestyles that she, personally, doesn't agree with or follow. Now, regardless of your feelings about sexuality or debates about nature and nurture or inherent qualities of a sex or gender, the history of gender studies and of gender as a socially constructed thing is an entirely separate thing, and one which I am more than happy to describe in greater detail than anyone cares about.
We'll start with the history of the understanding of social constructs. To be clear, I'm not a sociologist, but I do live with one, which I think gives me some credit. I also don't know how familiar people are with the theories and thinkers I'll be invoking, so I'll explain them as I understand them. Social constructs, briefly, are things that have meaning or which exist solely because society has agreed they should exist. Money is a good example of a social construct - without a society to back it, money would be meaningless and worthless. It is what it is because of society. Another example is a cup. While there may be some inherent characteristics to the cup (holds stuff), society assigns greater meaning to it, and assigns different meanings based on which society or what cup it is (think Holy Grail vs. sippy cup. Both are cups and both have the same basic properties, but they are radically different cups).
What about gender? The traditional view is that gender is inherently linked to sex, and that we are "men" or "women" because of what's between our legs and the hormones that are produced because of it. Men are male and masculine because they have penises, and women are female and feminine because they have vaginas. Nature made us who we are. However, a social construction theory of gender says that, rather than being inherent, our gender is a product of the environment around us (to what degree is debated, with some saying it's completely a result of the environment around us, and others saying there's a combination of nature and nurture at work). This theory is not entirely accepted, though it is largely accepted within the social scientific community. To make it absolutely clear how it works, bear in mind that the social construction theory works with two terms - sex and gender. "Sex" is what hangs between your legs and is the physical aspect, while "gender" is your attributes and how you behave. Some accept that there's a distinction, and some do not.
So what about history? This is /badhistory, after all, even if so far I've managed to turn it into /Quouarspoutssociology. In her article "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis," Joan Scott states that the sex/gender distinction has its roots in 1975 with Natalie Davis' call for inclusivity of women and women's studies within social science. This is not wholly inaccurate - gender studies certainly has its roots in the 1970s and the feminist movements of the time. UC Berkeley's gender studies department makes it very clear that their goal is to "introduce the subject of women into serious academic inquiry." In short, gender studies sprang up to address the fact that women had been largely excluded from study and from the historical narrative. It sprang out of feminism, sure, but that is different from saying that it sprang up to justify a particular lifestyle. Rather, it served to address a gap in academia, much like religious studies, anthropology, or sociology.
And speaking of sociology! The idea of sex and gender being separate is much older than gender studies and has its roots in sociology and the gender equality movement. By the late 18th century, early feminists (and I use the term loosely, knowing the arguments that can arise) such as Mary Wollstonecraft were publishing tracts espousing equal rights for women. While these tracts don't touch on the ideas of the linkages between sex and gender, they do present the idea that women are more than they have been traditionally viewed as. These works establish the idea that the image of "woman" that had been traditionally agreed upon was flawed. If that was flawed, what else about the conversation might be flawed? Once again, none of these early thinkers argued that gender and sex were different things, but without their work, the argument could not have been made. Possibly one of the earliest examples of tackling the question of nature vs. nurture in terms of gender can be found in John Stuart Mill's "The Subjection of Women", published in 1869. In it, Mill argues that:

The anxiety of mankind to interfere in behalf of nature, for fear lest nature should not succeed in effecting its purpose, is an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing.

Is that not the most feminist piece of writing you've ever laid eyes on? In all seriousness, there is more to it. While it does talk about the "nature" of women, it does open the door to the idea that what we think of as the "nature of women" is not necessarily a product of nature, but rather, a moulded and shaped thing, a product of influence. He's opened the door to the idea that traditional views of femininity are a product, not a reality. Was Mill trying to justify a particular lifestyle? While his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, was a large advocate for women's rights and women's equality, she was also a dutiful mother and wife, and probably didn't live a life that would be considered terribly scandalous today (though she was scandalous by the 19th century's standards). Likely, this essay was written out of an earnest desire to argue for gender equality, not to make Harriet and John feel better about their lifestyles.
While there continued to be discussion of women and what women ought or ought not to be doing throughout history, 1949 saw the publication of one of the major works of second-wave feminism. Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex" is a major feminist work, tracing the treatment of women through history. While the work itself doesn't necessarily make a claim regarding sex and gender and the relation between them, it does have the fantastic idea that:

One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.

as well as

Social discrimination produces in women moral and intellectual effects so profound that they appear to be caused by nature

This is much closer to what I mean when I talk about a theory of the social construction of gender. While Simone de Beauvoir likely wasn't going into what you or I would consider a thorough examination of social construction, the first hints of it are there. There is the idea that what a woman is is developed over time rather than there from the outset.
Couple this with Money's quote from 1955 which states that:

The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself/herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively.

and you start to have a very familiar sight indeed. Money was the first to use the term "gender role" and is credited for having introduced it with its current implications.
The work that I'd argue provides the biggest counter-argument to the linked quote and the biggest counter-argument to the idea that feminism and the modern gender debate are created to justify a certain lifestyle would be "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. In it, Friedan looks at housewives in the 1950s who were largely unhappy with their lives and their lifestyles. Despite living what could be seen as a perfectly feminine life, these women wanted something more out of life and more from themselves. Friedan examines media portrayal of women and how it changed from women as adventurers and heroines in the 1920s and 1930s to a dichotomy of women as either happy housewives or unhappy workers. From this and other analyses of the 1940s-1950s refocusing on women as housewives and mothers, she draws the conclusion that what women are is not what they are being presented with. The idea of femininity presented to women differed wildly from what women actually wanted. It's not that these women were trying to justify an alternative lifestyle or that they wanted to engage in what the linked poster might consider a deviant lifestyle. Rather, they found that the image of femininity they were presented with didn't match what they themselves understood themselves to be.
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a rapid increase in the number of thinkers looking at what made women women. Activist Kate Millett, for instance, wrote that gender was "the sum total of the parents', the peers', and the culture's notions of what is appropriate to each gender by way of temperament, character, interests, status, worth, gesture, and expression" and that it had "essentially cultural, rather than biological bases." de Beauvoir's idea of becoming rather than being a woman is in full display here, with ideas of gender as a formed thing.
In this same climate of social change and an increased desire to include previously buried narratives, we find the formation of gender studies as a formal academic discipline. While the 1960s did see some efforts to include women and women's voices into "free classes" in universities across the world, it wasn't until 1969 that formal classes in women's studies were taught in American universities. It was in these American classes that we first find the sex/gender distinction, and by 1975, it was being used regularly within gender studies literature (though sometimes with terms reversed, and radically differently in other languages). This new inclusion of women was due to women perceiving the exclusion of a female voice from academia as a political decision, and thus one that could be changed. It was based in ideas of increasing knowledge as broadly as possible, and was coupled with a call for racial, ethnic, class, and sexuality studies. In the 1970s, gender studies more firmly focused not only on including women in history, but also on examining what forces formed women (and, by extension, men). There were, however, debates over what women's studies ought to be, with some feeling it ought to be almost exclusively dedicated to feminist critiques of academic disciplines and others believing it should be more consciousness-raising and knowledge-building. There were lawsuits over this, with some gender studies' students wanting to exclude men and male professors. These debates still go on, though lawsuits are far less frequent. Largely, however, gender studies can be viewed as wanting to include women's voices in social science and examining how gender is formed and performed.
There is one more text well worth mentioning in our brief sweep through the formation of gender studies and gender as a social construct. In 1990, Judith Butler published "Gender Trouble," a seminal work in both gender studies and queer studies. In it, she critiques the idea of a universal "feminine experience," arguing that it's vital to keep in mind the myriad of other factors - such as race, class, and sexuality - that characterise a lived experience. Indeed, she argues, there is nothing but a gender performance, with everything being a product of this performed experience. It is vital to look at sex and gender as both having more than two possibilities, seeing as it's being influenced by so many things, and seeing as there's so many ways to perform. In this view, the new appearance of lifestyles that were previously unknown could be seen as "the exposure of the failure of heterosexual regimes ever fully to legislate or contain their own ideals." Basically, the new exposure of gay rights or feminism was not to convert children to the gay, but to perform gender in a way it needed to be performed and in a way which was natural to perform.
Neither sociology nor gender studies stop there, of course, but I'm not comfortable enough in my own knowledge to continue. Besides, the question that was raised was one of the motivating factors behind the current gender and sexuality debate, and the questions about gender and sex. Of course gender studies wasn't founded by women trying to justify sleeping around, and of course sociology didn't investigate the sex/gender connection to justify "unfeminine" women. Of course not. These are questions of human knowledge that have been raised for centuries, or so I hope my post has shown. The problem that I've run into, though, is that the women who are interested in these questions and the women who have written about and devoted their lives to their investigation are precisely the type of women that my linked poster would squawk at as "bad women." They were active outside the home and outside the domestic arena. Some of them did have sex outside marriage or refrained from having kids or wore pants on a Sunday. To someone like the poster, these are more than enough reasons to say that gender studies and investigations of gender must have been clearly instigated to justify women being "unfeminine." I can't necessarily argue against it because whatever I do, the fact that these women were active outside the domestic sphere means that they were both the type of woman that would be able to go out and found these disciplines as well as the type of women that would be excluded from the poster's definition of "woman" is still there. That's fine. I accept that I won't convince that particular poster. What I will say, though, is that the expansion of human knowledge should not itself be dismissed because the people doing it don't ascribe to your particular lifestyle. Gender studies, sociology of gender, and the theory of gender as a social construct is still valid, and would be even if it had set out with the explicit purpose of throwing gay pride parades and having women work in busy careers. Which it wasn't. That's just dumb.
Things I read so you don't have to:
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
Women's studies: Its origins, its organization and its prospects by Sheila Tobias, published in Women's Studies International Quarterly volume 1 issue 1
The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill
Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis by Joan W. Scott, published in The American Historical Review volume 91, no. 5
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on feminism and sex and gender
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
The history of the women's studies department at UC Berkeley
EDIT: Fairlee has a nice addendum here that fills in some of the things I missed (and post-90s information). I'll copy it here as well:

Wonderful post OP! As far as I am aware, it is Ann Oakley who is widely credited within sociology as drawing the distinction between biological sex and and gender as social constructions of masculine/feminine characteristics in her work, Sex, Gender, and Society , published in 1972. Her argument was that these socially constructed characteristics are then crudely mapped onto human bodies, so that, for example, because women give birth, therefore to be feminine is to be nurturing and caring. Although you don't go beyond 1990 with Butler, a current trend starting with Martin (2003) is to consider the performance of gender as the selection from repertoires of practice; repertoires of social actions and behaviours that individuals enact in response to their environment and context, so you can construct different forms of masculinity and femininity (so, for example, a male builder on a building site is likely enacting a different form of masculinity to a male software developer in a high-tech startup). This allows for more fluidity in how we express our gendered identity (e.g. a man acting boisterously whilst spectating at a sports match is enacting a different form of masculinity to when he wakes up in the morning and helps his child with their schoolwork), but the challenge then becomes whether the repertoires of practice that you choose are contextually appropriate, and overly rejecting the appropriate gender roles is a risky practice as it would be seen as subverting the "natural order" of things. So gender is fluid in that we are all capable of (and expected to) select from different repertoires of practice depending on the context, and as you say, these concepts weren't created to justify sleeping around but are rooted in a long and deep inquiry into why and how men and women act differently not only between sexes but within sexes!

To be fair it takes an altitudinal IQ to comprehend, nein, fathom Richard and Mortimer. The humour is extrêmement subtile, and without a doctorate degree covering Bell inequalities, micro-lattice structures, and Schrödingerian quasi-contradictory quandaries et cetera (basically common knowledge among the top 10.3% among the world's best theoretical physicists) most of the jokes will evanesce or float away like Kantian noumena vis-a-vis Kantian phenomena, in other semantic units AKA words to plebes, as they say in some ethno-linguistic communities, but I digress: ありがとうございました. Furtherthus, to neologize a neologism henceforth, Rick’s existential-ideological naysaying, which is ITSELF located within/via Althusserian/Foucauldian poststructuralism along the subversive-critical lines of various neo-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analyses - his tacit (cf. Polanyi) schemata appropriates affective resonances from Narodnaya Volya literature, AKA 네 엄마는 너무 뚱뚱해. The fans understand this 陰毛, as colloquially known (excepting for Gettier cases), to quote the Chinese media scholar Jean-Claude Baudrillard: "Un jugement négatif vous donne plus de satisfaction que d'éloges, à condition que cela ressemble à de la jalousie" ; they have the Intelligenz/くそ to truly (BUT WHAT IS TRUTH, cf. Sura 2:140, John 18:38) appreciate the Aristotelian-Thomistic-Hegelian synthetic a priori interpenetrative dialogic concealed within and without these tokens of jokes, to realise that they’re not just totalitarian HAHAHAs :D in a post-postmodern world of hegemonic HUHUHUs :( - light-hearted Chopin to your heavy-handed Brahms, if I may, no pun intended - they betoken something deep about Heidegerrian Dasein (cf. Mahabharata 5.39.58) through which we can, in the words of the poet William Wordsworth, 一个巫师从来没有迟到，他总是一个有力量的人 (Nǐ shìgè báich for those who aren’t fluent in Korean). m_nkind (note: "Mankind" is a sexist term, see Judith Butler's Gender Trouble published by Routledge, London:London March 1990) or should I say, specimens of m_nkind who manifest disaffection (i.e. βοηθήστε με, παρακαλώ να με βοηθήσει κανείς) contingent upon “their” finite liminal qualia vis-a-vis Rick & Morty’s transcendental apperception via meme-ification truly (but again, WHAT IS TRUTH? お前はもう死んでいる) ARE idiotos (masculine of idiota in German, contra p_triarchal discourse)- of course, necessarily they wouldn’t appreciate vis-a-vis their unity-of-consciousnesses, for instance, the linguistico-Bayesian formal articulation in Rick’s slogan existentiel “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a Derridian poly/hypertextual para-dactyllic reference to Turgenev’s Lacanian epic отцы и изюм (reminiscent of Turgenev's earlier вы используете переводчика, не так ли, сука?) I’m smirking right now in several languages just envisioning in my corpus callosoom one of those cisgendered, capitalist-fascist, hyper-Puritanical, anti-anti-anti-omnicorporatistic biguts scratching their 陰茎 (EXCUSE MY FRENCH) in anti-jouissance as polyglot, Renaissance Zen m_n Dan Harmon’s Minervian owl unfolds itself (Note: あなたは実際にこれを翻訳していたのですか？あなたはあなたの時間を無駄にしています ) at the break of dawn/don/DUNE (semantic balderdash!) on their Lovecraftian-boob-tubes, to subtly reference the semantic units of the Scottish philosopher David Hume who would also say: “あなたのママはとても太っている.” What 아 름 다 운 영 혼 을 가 진 바 보 들 .. je suis tout seul.

To be fair it takes an altitudinal IQ to comprehend, nein, fathom Rick and Morty. The humour is extrêmement subtile, and without a doctorate degree covering Bell inequalities, micro-lattice structures, and Schrödingerian quasi-contradictory quandaries et cetera (basically common knowledge among the top 10.3% among the world's best theoretical physicists) most of the jokes will evanesce or float away like Kantian noumena vis-a-vis Kantian phenomena, in other semantic units AKA words to plebes, as they say in some ethno-linguistic communities, but I digress: ありがとうございました. Furtherthus, to neologize a neologism henceforth, Rick’s existential-ideological naysaying, which ITSELF located within/via Althusserian/Foucauldian poststructuralism along the subversive-critical lines of various neo-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analyses - his tacit (cf. Polanyi) schemata appropriates affective resonances from Narodnaya Volya literature, AKA 네 엄마는 너무 뚱뚱해. The fans understand this 陰毛, as colloquially known (excepting for Gettier cases), to quote the Chinese media scholar Jean-Claude Baudrillard: "Un jugement négatif vous donne plus de satisfaction que d'éloges, à condition que cela ressemble à de la jalousie" ; they have the Intelligenz/くそ to truly (BUT WHAT IS TRUTH, cf. Sura 2:140, John 18:38) appreciate the Aristotelian-Thomistic-Hegelian synthetic a priori interpenetrative dialogic concealed within and without these tokens of jokes, to realise that they’re not just totalitarian HAHAHAs :D in a post-postmodern world of hegemonic HUHUHUs :( - light-hearted Chopin to your heavy-handed Brahms, if I may, no pun intended - they betoken something deep about Heidegerrian Dasein (cf. Mahabharata 5.39.58) through which we can, in the words of the poet William Wordsworth, 一个巫师从来没有迟到，他总是一个有力量的人 (Yīgè wūshī cónglái méiyǒu chídào, tā zǒng shì yīgè yǒu lìliàng de rén for those who aren’t fluent in Korean). m_nkind (note: "Mankind" is a sexist term, see Judith Butler's Gender Trouble published by Routledge, London:London March 1990) or should I say, specimens of m_nkind who manifest disaffection (i.e. βοηθήστε με, παρακαλώ να με βοηθήσει κανείς) contingent upon “their” finite liminal qualia vis-a-vis Rick & Morty’s transcendental apperception via meme-ification truly (but again, WHAT IS TRUTH? お前はもう死んでいる) ARE idiotos (masculine of idiota in German, contra p_triarchal discourse)- of course, necessarily they wouldn’t appreciate vis-a-vis their unity-of-consciousnesses, for instance, the linguistico-Bayesian formal articulation in Rick’s slogan existentiel “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a Derridian poly/hypertextual para-dactyllic reference to Turgenev’s Lacanian epic отцы и изюм (reminiscent of Turgenev's earlier вы используете переводчика, не так ли, сука?) I’m smirking right now in several languages just envisioning in my corpus callosoom one of those cisgendered, capitalist-fascist, hyper-Puritanical, anti-anti-anti-omnicorporatistic biguts scratching their 陰茎 (EXCUSE MY FRENCH) in anti-jouissance as polyglot, Renaissance Zen m_n Dan Harmon’s Minervian owl unfolds itself (Note: あなたは実際にこれを翻訳していたのですか？あなたはあなたの時間を無駄にしています ) at the break of dawn/don/DUNE (semantic balderdash!) on their Lovecraftian-boob-tubes, to subtly reference the semantic units of the Scottish philosopher David Hume who would also say: “あなたのママはとても太っている.” What 아 름 다 운 영 혼 을 가 진 바 보 들 .. je suis tout😎

Hi everyone,
Something that has been discussed for a while among the moderators is presenting newcomers with several materials that would help them better understand feminism and its concepts.
I would like to start by presenting articles here, and have the community participate with various materials (transcripts from books where possible, relevant quotes, links to articles and studies, etc).
Our materials should respect our posting rules:

• promotion of equality of rights
  
• oppressive belief system are not allowed, such as: sexism, classism, heterosexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, racism
  

The structure will likely be inspired byhttp://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/ but there are several dead links there and overall I think we can do much better, and such a collective effort, with a palpable result, would help at community building as well.
The process will be something along these lines:

• we will post here the initial form of the articles
  
• the community gives feedback on what should be included/modified/removed
  
• all suggestions are taken under advisement, and the final form is then linked in the /Feminism sidebar (probably reposted there as well, not sure yet)
  

Preferably, these threads should focus less on debate, and more on participating in making these materials (of course, feedback on factual incorrect information is welcomed).
Pastebin link in case you want to offer a different formatting
Start of article:
On defining feminism:
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".
Wikipedia
For me being a feminist means starting with the basic axiom of feminism -- that ensuring women's freedom and equality of opportunity in all spheres of life is a crucial priority-- and then coming to my own conclusions on each feminist issue.
The Happy Feminist: Feminism is not a monolith
In many ways, I suspect my feminism is fairly bourgeois. I don't want a revolution that doesn't allow me to dance, flirt, and buy shoes. On the other hand, my feminism is fairly absolute in that I will not allow myself (or others) to demonize "radical feminists" or to ignore poor women or women of color, and I object very strongly when I see women fighting with each other over crumbs. I'm sure I do it too, sometimes, but I try very hard not to. My feminism is material in the sense that I believe that the body is irreducible (more and more so, as I age, and more since becoming a mother). I do not believe that there are no differences between men and women; but I believe that what differences there are have been vastly exaggerated by social conditioning, and I reject essentialism. My feminism likes men, and is sympathetic to the ways that they, too, suffer from narrow definitions of gender. My feminism insists on being heard, and will not give up a fight, and will not back down. On the other hand, my feminism deplores unfairness, meanness, and insensitivity. I believe in principles, including the principle that people matter. I believe in forgiveness and second chances, and in teaching, and in learning; and I also believe in having high expectations and firm boundaries. My feminism is polemical but embraces ambiguities. My feminism is aggressive and protective.
Bitch PhD: Feminisms
Quotes:

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute…”

Rebecca West, The Clarion

“The reason racism is a feminist issue is easily explained by the inherent definition of feminism. Feminism is the political theory and practice to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, physically challenged women, lesbians, old women –as well as white economically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.”

Barbara Smith

Feminism is also about the context surrounding people’s choices. Two beliefs pretty much all contemporary feminists have in common are that social, cultural, and economic contexts are really important, and that it’s improper to speak of someone’s “choice” as if its presence somehow absolves us all of our roles in creating those contexts. Many feminists, myself included, would characterize social pressure as a lesser cousin to forcible coercion, which doesn’t need to meet the same standards as the use of force but still ought not to be applied willy-nilly.

yami Defining Feminism: Once More, with Feeling
Introductory articles:
Feminism in the United States: A Short Illustrated History from about.com
International Women’s Day: a brief history from the UN
Sarah Bunting: Yes You Are
Academic articles:
[Not sure if this should remain here, looking forward to feedback]

• Simone de Beauvoir "the Second Sex" (1952)
• Parveen Adams "A Note of the Distinction between Sexual Division and Sexual Difference" (1979)
• Nancy Hartsock "The Feminist Standpoint" (1983)
• Christine Delphy "The main Enemy" (1984) ; Rethinking Sex and Gender (1991)
• Gale Rubin "Thinking Sex" (1984)
• Donna Harraway " A Cyborg Manifesto" (1985)
• Judith Butler "Gender Trouble" (1990)
• Chandra Mohanty Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses (1991)
• Monique Wittig "The Category of Sex" (1992)
• Olivia Favreau, "Sex and Gender Comparisons" (1997)
• Bell Hooks - "feminism is for everybody" (2000)