"Youcanplaywiththeball,butdon'tgetdirty":

Ahierarchyofheterosexualwomen’sgenderexpressions

KytheraWatson-Bonnice

SubmittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsofthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy

FacultyofHealth,Arts,andDesignSwinburneUniversityofTechnology

February2018

i

Abstract

ThisPhDthesiscontributestosociologicalunderstandingsofhowfemininities

areunderstoodandexperiencedbyAustralianheterosexualwomen,and

developslanguageforconceptualisingthehierarchieswithinfemininities,and

femininitiesandmasculinities.Furthermore,throughanalysisofgender

maneuveringthisresearchprovidesinsightintotheintricaciesoftherelationship

betweenstructureandagencyinexpressingone’sgender.Motivatedbyalack

theoreticalworksonmultiplefemininities,thisthesisusesfocusgroupswith

differentcommunitiesofpracticetounderstandhowwomen’sgender

expressionsareconstructedhierarchically,andtoexaminethecomplexities

aroundembodyingvariousformsoffemininities.

Understandinghowmenexpress‘beingaman’andtheirmasculinityhasbeenof

considerableinterestinsociologyinrecentyears.However,women’sgender

expressionshavereceivedlessattention,andmuchoftheworkthathasoccurred

withinthisfieldhasexaminedtheexperiencesofqueerwomen,leaving

heterosexualgenderexpressionsarelativelyunderexploredarea.Iarguethat

dominantwomen’sgenderexpressionscanbeunderstoodasbeingconstructed

throughthreekeydimensionsoffemininity:thephysical(body),themalleable

(appearance)andtherestrictive(demeanour).Non-dominantandpariah

femininitiesmanifestwhenthesedimensionsareviolatedinsomeway,attracting

stigmaandsignificantsocialpenalties.Byfocussingonhowmyparticipants

collectivelygrouptogetherandrankparticularformsofwomen’sgender

expression,ahierarchythroughwhichtoanalysefemininitiesisproposed.Within

this,theintragenderrelationsbetweenwomen’sgenderexpressionshighlights

notonlytherelationalitybetweenthefeminineandmasculine,butalsobetween

thefeminineandunfeminine.Throughexaminationofthemultiplicitiesof

femininitiesandtheirrelationships,Idemonstratehowthelackoflinguistic

alternativesforheterosexualwomen’sgenderexpressionsresultsina

reinforcementofbinaryconstructionsofgenderthatmaintainsnotonlya

positionofsubordinationtomen,butalsoprivilegesfemininitiesthatmaintain

thisrelationality.

ii

Iexplorethewaysthatwomenfindspaceswheretheyareabletochallenge

dominantidealsofwomen’sgenderexpressionsandreconstructfemininityon

theirownterms.Relationswithinparticularcommunitiesofpractice

demonstratethatviolationsofthedimensionsoffemininitydonotalwaysattract

thesamestigmabutinsteadcanenablealternativegenderrelationstodevelop

throughgendermanoeuvring.However,onceoutofthesespaces,pressuresto

embodyfemininecharacteristicsarefeltthroughoutwomen’slives,exacerbated

bydating,relationships,co-habitationandchildrearing.

iii

DeclarationIdeclarethatthisthesisdoesnotincorporatewithoutacknowledgementany

materialpreviouslysubmittedforadegreeinanyuniversityoranother

educationalinstitutionandthattothebestofmyknowledgeandbeliefitdoesnot

containanymaterialpreviouslypublishedorwrittenbyanotherpersonexcept

whereduereferenceismadeinthetext.

KytheraWatson-Bonnice

May2017

iv

Acknowledgements

Iwouldliketoacknowledgethesupport,encouragement,andadviceofthemany

peoplewhohaveassistedinmakingthecompletionofthisthesispossible.

Firstly,Iwanttoextendmymostheartfeltthankstothewomenwhoso

generouslygavemetheirtimeandsharedtheirstorieswithme.

Iwouldliketoexpressmysincerethankstomyincrediblesupervisors.Iam

profoundlygratefulforalloftheirpatienceandsupportformeovertheyears.To

AssociateProfessorPaulaGeldens,youwerethereasonIchangedmymajorall

thoseyearsago–IamjustasinspiredbyyounowasIwasbackthenasan

undergrad.Ifeelhonouredtohavegonethroughthisjourneywithyouatmyside.

Thankyouforallofyourtime,yourdetailedcommentsoneverydraft,for

keepingmeontrackandmostofall,foralwaysbeingthere.ToProfessorKaren

Farquharson,thankyouforyourfeedback,guidanceandencouragement.Your

faithinmehascarriedmethroughmanyperiodsofself-doubt;ithasbeena

privilegetohaveyouasasupervisor.ToDrLucyNicholas,Iamimmensely

thankfulthatyoucameonboardwhenyoudid.Withoutyourexpertiseand

knowledge,thisthesiswouldnothavebeenpossible.Thankyouforalways

findingtimetohaveachatandhelpingmethroughthetoughtimes.Therecould

benobettersupervisionteamthanthethreeofyou.

Thankyoutomycolleaguesandpeers,andtotheSociologyDepartmentat

Swinburneforprovidingagreatcommunitywithinwhichtoworkandstudy.To

DrJulieKimber,youmaynotknowit,butyouinspiredmetobecomean

v

academicandbeginthisPhDjourney.Iamalsogratefulforthesupportprovided

bySwinburneUniversityandtheAustralianPostgraduateAwardthatenabled

thisresearchtobeundertaken.

Iwouldliketothankmyfamilyandfriendsforeverythingtheyhavedone.While

myfatherGerarddiedbeforeIbeganthisthesis,hisbeliefinmeandenthusiasm

duringmyundergradmotivatedmetoreturntostudy.Tomymother,Sandra,

whopatientlysatontheotherendofthephoneasIspokeather,bouncing

aroundideas,andabruptlyhangingupwhenIhadabreakthrough–thankyou

forlistening.ToDave,thankyouforyourfinancialassistanceandgenerosity.To

mybrother,Keiran,Iamfortunateforallofthesupportandencouragementyou

havealwaysgivenme.ToRob,youhavebeenthereformethroughmanyofthe

upsanddowns,Iamforevergratefulforallofyourhelp.ToKate,thankyoufor

yourfriendshipandourlatenight,redwinedfuelled,stimulating,intellectual

discussionsongender.

Tomychildren,OpheliaandJonas,youwereonlybabieswhenIstartedthis

journey,andformanyyears,itwasjustthethreeofus.Thegenuineinterestyou

haveshownformyresearchamazesme(despitenotnecessarilyunderstanding

anyofit!).YouhavebothalwaysbeensounderstandingwhenIhavebeen

distractedorneededtoworkonmyresearch-thankyou.Nowgocleanyour

rooms.

WritingthisthesishasbeenthehardestthingIhaveeverdone,thankyoutoall

whohavehelpedalongtheway.

vi

TableofContentsAbstract..............................................................................................................................iDeclaration......................................................................................................................iiiAcknowledgements.......................................................................................................ivTableofContents...........................................................................................................viListofFigures..................................................................................................................ixChapter1:PlayingwithGender..................................................................................1

ContextualInformationandBackground......................................................................3AimsoftheProject...................................................................................................................7TheChapters...............................................................................................................................9Conclusion.................................................................................................................................12

Chapter2:Sex,Gender,andSexuality.....................................................................14SexandGender........................................................................................................................15

SexastheDefault.....................................................................................................15RelationshipBetweenSexandGender............................................................18

TheorisingGender.................................................................................................................21FunctionalistApproaches.....................................................................................22GenderSocialisation...............................................................................................23GenderasaPerformance......................................................................................26

Sexuality.....................................................................................................................................29GenderandSexuality..............................................................................................30DoingSexuality.........................................................................................................35RelationalityandtheGenderingofSexuality...............................................37QueerTheoryandHeteronormativity.............................................................40

Conclusions:Sex/Gender/Sexuality.............................................................................44Chapter3:Women’sGenderExpressions..............................................................46

MasculinitiesandFemininities........................................................................................47FemininityandFemininities.............................................................................................50CurrentTypologies:EmphasisedandHegemonicFemininities.....................54

EmphasisedFemininity..........................................................................................54HegemonicFemininities........................................................................................60

DominantFemininitiesandHeterosexuality............................................................64Non-DominantFormsofWomen’sGenderExpression.......................................70SubtypesofWomen’sGenderExpression..................................................................80

Tomboys.......................................................................................................................81Butch..............................................................................................................................83FemaleMasculinities..............................................................................................85Androgyny...................................................................................................................87Polygendered.............................................................................................................89

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................90Chapter4:“Whyaren’tyoutalkingtolesbians?”.................................................93

FeministandQualitativeMethodologies....................................................................94Recruitment...........................................................................................................................100FocusGroupsandProcedure........................................................................................104Analysis....................................................................................................................................109ParticipantDetails..............................................................................................................111FocusGroupComposition...............................................................................................113

vii

EthicalIssuesandLimitations......................................................................................115Conclusion..............................................................................................................................117

Chapter5:HegemonicFemininities.....................................................................119“Iunderstandwhatthewordmeans,justnothowtosayit”.........................120PhysicalDimensionsofFemininity............................................................................124

OccupyingSpaceandMovingwithPurpose..............................................125TheRulerandtheHourglass............................................................................131

MalleableAspectsofFemininity..................................................................................134TheSensibleWoman............................................................................................135Shoes,Shoes,Shoes:AccessoriesandPersonalGrooming...................141“YoucanstillbesexyinHardYakka”...........................................................148

RestrictiveDimensionsofFemininity.......................................................................150BehavioursandTraits:WaitingYourTurn...............................................151Speech:NoYelling,NoSwearing,NoLaughing.......................................153Mannerisms:YouCanPlaywiththeBall,butDon’tGetDirty...........155Employment:TheCookandtheChef............................................................158

TheTropesofHegemonicFemininity.......................................................................161TheBarbie................................................................................................................162TheMother...............................................................................................................169

Conclusion:Changingtimes?Maybenot.................................................................171Chapter6:Non-DominantGenderExpressionsandPariahFemininities..175

LanguageandSubjectPositions...................................................................................177Androgyny................................................................................................................179FemaleMasculinity...............................................................................................187

“Otherkindsoffeminine”................................................................................................197TheTomboy.............................................................................................................200HeterosexualButch..............................................................................................204

Unfeminine.............................................................................................................................214HierarchyofFemininities...............................................................................................227Conclusion:InescapableFemininities......................................................................238

Chapter7:ContingentandRelationalGenderExpressions...........................240AgencyandIndividualFemininity:ThisishowIdoFemininity..................242AgencyandFemininityinCommunitiesofPractice:ThisisHowWedoFemininity...............................................................................................................................253

TheFootballGroup...............................................................................................255TheRollerDerbyGroup......................................................................................261TheCircusGroup...................................................................................................263TheExecutiveManagementGroup................................................................264TheMothersGroup...............................................................................................268

Structure,ContradictionandRelationality.............................................................271“Ifyoudon’thaveachild,you’renotreallyawoman”:MotherhoodasFemininity................................................................................................................272“I’mnotfeminineunlessI’mdatingsomeone”:HeterosexualRelationships,Dating,andGenderExpression.........................................282“Iusedtomowmylawn”:Relationships,GenderRoles,andtheHome...........................................................................................................................285“WhyandIsupposedtocare?”:GenderintheWorkplace..................290

Conclusion:LimitedAgency...........................................................................................295Chapter8:Resistance...............................................................................................296

viii

References...................................................................................................................304Appendices..................................................................................................................333

AppendixA:ConsentInformationStatement........................................................333AppendixB:InformedConsentForm........................................................................335AppendixC:DemographicQuestionnaire...............................................................336AppendixD:BlankGenderExpressionsMap........................................................337AppendixE:FocusGroupSchedule............................................................................338AppendixF:ParticipantDemographics....................................................................340AppendixG:EthicsApproval.........................................................................................342

ix

ListofFiguresFigure1:Ashley–FootballGroup.........................................................................122Figure2:Anonymous–ExecutiveManagementGroup...................................126Figure3:Sammie–FootballGroup.......................................................................149Figure4:Kylie–FootballGroup............................................................................156Figure5:Ruby–CircusGroup................................................................................163Figure6:Tess–MothersGroup.............................................................................163Figure7:Lily–CircusGroup...................................................................................168Figure8:Donna–FootballGroup.........................................................................201Figure9:Anonymous–ExecutiveManagementGroup...................................206Figure10:Belinda–FootballGroup.....................................................................217Figure11:Ez–FootballGroup...............................................................................229Figure12:Sonia–ExecutiveManagementGroup.............................................230Figure13:Anonymous–ExecutiveManagementGroup................................232Figure14:Ruby–FootballGroup..........................................................................232Figure15:Anonymous–ExecutiveManagementGroup................................233Figure16:Anonymous–FootballGroup.............................................................235Figure17:Joey–FootballGroup...........................................................................259Figure18:Anonymous–FootballGroup.............................................................259Figure19:Taylor–ExecutiveManagementGroup..........................................266Figure20:Alison–ExecutiveManagementGroup...........................................266Figure21:Zoe–MothersGroup............................................................................273Figure22:Lou–FootballGroup............................................................................278Figure23:Georgie–MothersGroup....................................................................281

Chapter1

PlayingwithGender

Growingup,Ioftentookgreatpleasureinplayingwithgender.Manyaweekend

foundmecompetingagainsttheguysinhighschoolinkegstands,swearingin

waysthatmadeeventhemblush,andoutsmartingtheminpoliticaldebates–all

thewhiledressedinashortdenimskirt,fullmake-up,andbighoopearrings.My

‘costume’createdapowerfuldisguisethroughwhichIwasseenasameek,soft

‘girl’,andthenBam!Iwouldpinthemdowninawrestlingmatch.Itookgreat

pleasureinthelooksofsurprisewhenIchangedatireorjumpstartedacar.I

lovedbeinggirlyandstrong.Butnoteveryoneelsedid.BoyfriendsfoundthatI

didn’t‘need’themsomuchandpromptlystoppedneedingmeatall.Othergirls

couldn’tquiteworkmeout.Didn’tIwantguystolikeme?Igotbetteratbehaving

inmoresociallyacceptablefeminineways,butasIgotolderandwasabletogo

furtheroutintotheworld,IdiscoveredIwasn’ttheonlyone.Therewerestraight

womenalloverwholikedtoswearandargue.AndsoIwondered,whathappens

whenheterosexualciswomen(thosewhosegenderalignswiththesextheywere

assignedatbirth)don’tfitintothetraditionalnotionsofwomen’sgender

expressionandfemininity?Whatword(s)doweusetodescribethis?HowdoI

describemyself?

2

Notsurprisingly,theworkofJudithButlerwasoneofthefirstplacesIsought

answers.Asoneofthemostinfluentialgendertheorists,herworkprovidessome

insightintomyexperiences.Shewrites:

‘Intelligible’gendersarethosewhichinsomesenseinstituteandmaintain

relationsofcoherenceandcontinuityamongsex,gender,sexualpractice,

anddesire.Inotherwords,thespectresofdiscontinuityandincoherence,

themselvesthinkableonlyinrelationtoexistingnormsofcontinuityand

coherence,areconstantlyprohibitedandproducedbytheverylawsthat

seektoestablishcasualorexpressivelinesofconnectionamongbiological

sex,culturallyconstitutedgenders,andthe‘expression’or‘effect’ofboth

inthemanifestationofsexualdesirethroughsexualpractice.(Butler1990,

p.17)

WhileButler’sanalysishelpedmetounderstandaspectsofmyinteractionswith

others,itdidnotprovidemewiththewordsIneededtofullyexplorethe

experiences.Intelligiblegendersarethosethatalignwiththesociallyassigned

sexofanindividualandheterosexuality,andthosewhoembodyintelligible

genderhavemorepowerthanthosewhosegenderislessreadable(Schippers

2007).Femininitycanbeunderstoodasthesocialnormsaroundwhatis

acceptablebehaviourandwaysofbeingwomanly,includingbeingcompliant,

passive,other-oriented,dependentandsexuallyconservative(Charlebois2011;

Connell1987;Messerschmidt2010;Schippers2007).Thisthesisisessentiallya

studyaboutunintelligiblewomen.Forwomentobeintelligible,theyneedtobe

feminine,andfemininityiswhatmasculinityisnot(Connell1987).Therelational

natureofwomen’sgenderexpressionsishighlightedthroughoutthisthesis,both

betweenmasculinityandfemininity,andbetweenthefeminineandunfeminine.

3

WhenIbeganmyresearch,Iwasprimarilyinterestedinunderstandingwhatit

meantforheterosexualwomentoembodytraditionallymasculinetraits.At

present,thereisalackofcohesivetheoreticalframeworksforfullyexploringthe

complexitiesoffemininities.However,asmuchoftheresearchontheseissues

wasfromaqueercontextandassuchdidnotspeakdirectlytomyown

experiences.Whilethisprojectbeganthroughpersonaldiscovery,itsfocusison

addressingbroaderintellectualissuesaroundheterosexualgenderexpression.

Thisstudythereforebeginsbylookingathowitiswecometobeunderstoodas

intelligiblyfemale.Itisonlythroughunderstandingtheseidealfemininetropes

thatonecanthenexploretherelationalother–thatoftheunintelligiblewoman.

ContextualInformationandBackground

Overthepastseveraldecades,therehavebeenapparentchangesinthetypesof

women’srepresentationsthroughoutthemedia,howeverthediscourses

surroundingthemoftenstillreaffirmthecurrentgenderorder(Gallagher2014).

ThiscanbeseenforexamplewithrepresentationsofJuliaGillardasachildfree

AustralianPrimeMinister,singerPinkwhoembodiesunconventionalfemininity

orAmélieMauresmo’smasculinephysique;differingimagesofwomen’sgender

expressionarebecomingmorevisible.However,thisvisibilityisaccompaniedby

criticismandstigma.Gillard,alongwithotherwomenpoliticianssuchasBritish

PrimeMinisterTheresaMay,havehadtheirabilitytobeempatheticandleada

nationcalledintoquestionbecauseoftheirchildlessness(Dunlevy2016;Kelly

4

2011).Pink,bornAleciaMoore,hasrecountedthedifficultiesshefacedearlyin

hercareer,beingtoldshewas“notprettyenough”tobecomesuccessfuldueto

her“butch”appearance(Fox2013).Idealfemininitycentresonnotionsof

empathy,nurturing,andappealingtomaledesires(Ambjörnsson2004;

Messerschmidt2010).Thesocialpenaltiesfornotadheringtotheseexpected

gendernorms,inbehaviourandappearanceaswellasotherfacets,canbeharsh

andoftencentrearoundthenotionthatthesewomenarenot‘properwomen’

(Allan2009).Womenwithpublicprofilesarenottheonlyonestofeeltheimpact

ofnotembodyingidealfemininity.Oneofthethingsthatstrikesmeaboutmy

researchtopicishowrelatabletheseissuesareforeverydaywomen.WheneverI

explainwhatmyprojectisabout–non-dominantformsofgenderexpression–

womeneitherrespondwith,“Oh,thatistotallyme!”or“Iknowsomeonejustlike

that.”Butlikeme,theexactwordstodescribetheseexperienceswaslacking.

Theimportanceofgenderexpressionsextendswellbeyondfindingwordsto

describeone’sself.Femininityservesasaformofcompliancewiththeglobal

dominanceofmenoverwomenbysubmittingtothepositionofsubordination

andcreatinganasymmetryinthegenderorder(Charlebois2011;Connell1987;

Schippers2007).InWesternsociety,andindeedmostsocietiesthroughoutthe

world,unequalpowerrelationsstillexistbetweenmenandwomen.Despitean

increaseofwomeninAustraliaengaginginpaidwork,theystilldothemajorityof

domesticunpaidlabour(AustralianInstituteofFamilyStudies2015;Craig2007),

arepaidroughly17.3%lessthanmales(ABS2016)andoneinfourwomen

experiencepartnerviolence(ABS2012).Theimportanceofthisresearchisto

gaininsightintohowwecanmovebeyondthebinariesofgenderexpressionsto

5

provideapieceofthepuzzletochallengethegenderorder.Maledominationis

maintainedwithinthegenderorderbymasculinityholdingapositionof

superiorityoverfemininity(Schippers2007).AsNancyFinley(2010,p.363)

argues:

…theinternaldynamicsoffemininityhaveimportanceinthegenderorder.

Interactionsthatconstructtheseintragenderdynamicscanbeusedtonot

onlysustaingenderrelationsbutalsotochallengetherelationships

betweenmasculinitiesandfemininities.

Suchafeatrequiresareconfigurationofthewaysinwhichweviewgender

expressionsthroughnotonlyshiftingthevaluesplaceduponthetraditional

understandingsofmasculinityandfemininity,butalsobycreatingaspacein-

betweenthatfreesgenderexpressionsfromthesexedbody.Ideologiesbecome

normalisedandreconstructedthroughlanguage(Charlebois2011).Iarguethat

atpresent,wedonothavethelinguisticoptionsforconceptualisingwomen’s

genderexpressionsinordertodothis.Thecurrentmodelsforwomen’sgender

expressionsareinadequateandfailtomakesenseofthebreadthofwomen’s

genderexpressionsforheterosexualwomen.Assuch,women’sgender

expressionsareunderstoodonlythroughthelensoffemininityandarerelegated

toapositionofsubordination.Animportantsteptheninmountingachallengeto

thegenderorderistofirstestablishaconceptualframeworkfromwithwhichto

interrogatetheconstructionandmaintenanceoffemininitiesandmasculinities.

Whilewomenwhochallengenotionsoftraditionalfemininitymaybebecoming

morecommonplaceinWesternsociety,manyhavenotedthelimitedacademic

literatureonwomen’sgenderexpressions(seeforexampleBudgeon2014;Finley

6

2010;Gill&Scharff2011;Schippers2007).Followingachallengetotheideathat

genderisonlyaconcernforwomen,therehasbeenextensiveresearchonmen

andmasculinities,andasmallerbutsignificantbodyofworkonfemininities.

MimiSchippers(2007,p.85,emphasisinoriginal)hasstatedthat,“acompelling

andempiricallyusefulconceptualizationofhegemonicfemininityandmultiple,

hierarchicalfemininitiesascentraltomaledominantgenderrelationshasnotyet

beendeveloped”.Finley(2010,p.361)echoesthis,statingthat“scholarshave

notadequatelydevelopedtherelationsamongmultiplefemininities”.Gender

expressionssuchasfemininityandmasculinityarethewaysinwhichone

expressestheirgenderidentitythroughdress,mannerism,andbehaviour

(Connell1987).Researchonheterosexualwomen’sgenderexpressionsis

noticeablyabsentinthecontemporaryfield,andinparticular,thereislittle

researchfromanAustraliancontext.Understandinghowheterosexualwomen’s

genderexpressionsmanifestandfunctionenablesamorethoroughscrutinyof

thepowerrelationsbothbetweenmenandwomen,andbetweenwomenand

women.

Researchonthewaysinwhichwomenexpresstheirgender,particularlythelittle

thathasfocussedonheterosexualwomen,hasalmostexclusivelydoneso

throughthelensoffemininity.However,Iusethetermwomen’sgender

expressionsthroughoutthisthesistohighlightthepossibilityofseparatingout

women’sbodiesfromfemininityandtoopenthisspaceuptootherlinguistic

options.WhileIwillarguethatwedonothavelanguageoutsideoffemininityfor

women’sbodiesyet,Idonotwanttolimitthepossibilitythatwemaysoonfind

thesewords.ItisalsoimportanttonotethatIoftenusethepluralterm

7

femininitiestoindicatethatthereisnotsolelyonewayofbeingfeminine.

Femininity,likemasculinity,comesinmanyforms(Connell1987).Thesevarious

formsrestwithinahierarchywherethemostdominantandculturallyacceptable

formsaresituatedatthetop,garneringthemostpower(Schippers2007).There

havebeenseveralattemptstoframemultiplefemininitieswithinahierarchy,

howevertodate,theredoesnotexistacohesiveframeworkandthisisanareain

needoffurtherinvestigation.

AimsoftheProject

Therearemultipleaimsforthisproject.Firstly,thisstudyaimstoinvestigate

women’sgenderexpressionsandhowtheyareexperiencedbyheterosexual

womeninordertoexpandourunderstandingsofwhatcontemporarydominant

andnon-dominantfemininitieslooklike.Indoingso,thisthesisalsoaimsto

explorethein-betweenspacesbetweenfemininityandmasculinitytoprovidean

accountofunintelligiblegendersandtoestablishamannerthroughwhichto

conceptualiseahierarchyofmultiplefemininities.Furthermore,afocuson

heterosexualfemininitywillenableanalysisofthewaysinwhichgender

expressionsarecompoundedbyheterosexualexperiences.

Iarguethatdominantfemininitycanbeunderstoodthroughthreekeyaspects,

thephysical(body),malleable(appearance)andtherestrictive(demeanour).

Thesethreedimensionsshapethewayinwhichnon-dominantwomen’sgender

expressionsareconstructedandpositionedwithinthefemininitieshierarchy.

8

Whilewedonotyethavetheeverydaylanguagetoadequatelycapturethe

multitudeofwomen’sgenderexpressions,womenwhoembodytheseformsof

femininityhaveasophisticatedunderstandingoftheirexperiencesandcreate

waystofindagencywithinthisspace.Assuch,thegoalofthepresentresearchis

toexploreideasaround,andexperiencesof,bothdominantandnon-dominant

formsofgenderexpression,includingfemininityandmasculinity,forfemale-

bodiedheterosexualAustralianwomeninordertouncoverthemeanings

attachedtothoseexperiences.Afurtherintentionofmyresearchistocontribute

totheestablishmentofacohesivetheoreticalfemininitiesframework.Iproposea

hierarchyoffemininitiesthatdrawsuponthethreedimensionsoffemininityto

establishthewaysinwhichhegemonicfemininitiesaremaintainedwhilealso

enablingabroaderconceptualisationthatincludeswomen’sgenderexpressions

thatdonotrestonsolelyfemininity.

Myresearchprojectrestsinthein-betweenspacesof,andthecomplex

relationalitybetweenthefeminineandunfeminine,andthefeminineand

masculine.Accordingly,theprimaryresearchquestionsare:

• Howisfemininityunderstoodbyheterosexualciswomen?

• Whatdodominantandnon-dominantformsofgenderexpressionsfor

heterosexualciswomenlooklikeandwhatdifferentiatesthevarious

formsfromoneanother?

• Whataretheexperiencesofheterosexualciswomenwhoembodynon-

dominantgenderexpressionsandfemininities?

Thesequestionsguidethechaptersthroughthisthesis.

9

TheChapters

Thisthesisconsistsofeightchapters.Thisfirstchapterhasprovidedabrief

overviewoftheaimsandpurposeofmystudy,outliningtheimportanceof

developingaframeworkforconceptualisingwomen’sgenderexpressions.Sucha

taskrepresentsasmallsteptowardsprovidingachallengetothegenderorder.

Thisthesisthereforeaimstoaddtothebodyofliteratureonwomen’sgender

expressionsand,inparticular,toprovidemuchneededresearchthatfocusseson

heterosexualwomen.

Chapter2:Sex,Gender,andSexualitydefinesandexaminesunderstandingsofthe

categoriesofsex,gender,andsexuality.Keydebatesregardingthewaysinwhich

thesecategoriesareconstructedandtheirrelationshipstooneanotherare

exploredtosituatetheworkwithinthebroadercontext.InlinewithButler’s

(1990)work,Iarguethatgenderisnotadirectresultofaperson’sassignedsex

categorybutratheritisthroughtherepetitionofeverydaygenderedactsthatwe

cometounderstandapersonasmasculineorfeminine.Sexualityisalso

discussedtoillustratethewaysinwhichheterosexualityislinkedtothewaysin

whichweconceptualisesexandgender.Sex,gender,andsexualityareunableto

beseparatedoutfromoneanotherandthereforemustallbeconsideredwhen

discussingwomen’sgenderexpressions.

InChapter3:Women’sGenderExpressions,Iextendthetheorisingfromthe

previouschaptertoassessresearchongenderexpressionsmorespecifically.I

beginwithabriefoverviewofmasculinitiesbeforediscussinginmoredetail

10

literatureonfemininities.Themainframeworksutilisedbyfemininities

researchers,emphasisedandhegemonicfemininity,areevaluatedandthe

debatessurroundingthemarediscussed.Iarguethathegemonicfemininity

providesamoreusefulwayofunderstandingandanalysingwomen’sgender

expressions.Qualitativeresearchondominantandnon-dominantfemininitiesis

alsopresentedtoillustratethebreadthofdifferenttypesofwomen’sgender

expressions.However,thelackofcohesiveframeworkspresentinthisbodyof

existingresearchishighlighteddemonstratinganeedforfurtherscholarshipin

thisarea.

Chapter4:ResearchMethodsoutlinesmyfeministmethodologicalapproach

embeddedinthisresearch.Symbolicinteractionismandphenomenologysupport

theepistemologicalapproachanduseoffocusgroupsfordatacollection.The

focusofsymbolicinteractionismonsharedmeaningsandsymbolsinmeaning

makinglendsitselfwelltomyresearchandisideaforgroupdiscussions.

Furthermore,phenomenologysuggestsacommunalityinthesharedexperiences

ofaparticularphenomenonenablingrichdiscussionsregardingthewomen’s

experiencesofgenderexpressionintheircommunitiesofpractice.

Myfindingsarediscussedoverthreechapters.InChapter5:Hegemonic

Femininities,IexplorethewaysinwhichthewomenIspokewithunderstand

dominantfemininitiesandconceptualisetheseonthreedimensions.Physical

(body),malleable(appearance),andrestrictive(demeanour)aspectsof

femininitiesareoutlinedandanalyseddrawingonthetheoreticalworks

presentedinthepreviouschapters.Thedominantformsoffemininitythatthey

11

expresscanbeunderstoodasthatoftheMotherandtheBarbie.Theseare

discussedascentraltounderstandingsofSchippers(2007)conceptofhegemonic

femininity.

Chapter6:Non-DominantGenderExpressionsandPariahFemininitiesopensup

thediscussiontoexaminenon-dominantformsofwomen’sgenderexpression.I

describethewaythewomeninthisresearchmadesenseofgenderexpressions

thatdeviatefromidealfemininity.Analysisofmyparticipants’discussions

highlightthedifficultyinfindingwordsthatspeaktotheirexperiences.Words

suchas‘androgyny’,‘masculinity’,‘tomboy’,and‘butch’areallexploredbutfound

tobeinadequateandinstead,allformsofwomen’sgenderexpressionwereread

asformsoffemininity.However,whenembodyingnon-dominantfemininities,

theywereunderstoodasexpressionsofunfemininity.Iarguethatthebinariesof

femininityandmasculinityareinescapablewhentryingtomakesenseofgender

expressionsaswedonotyethavethelanguagetodescribesuchmanifestations.

InChapter7:ContingentandRelationalGenderExpressions,Idiscussthewaysin

whichwomenemphasisedparticularcharacteristicsastheirownindividual

formsoffemininitythatoftendifferedfromhegemonicfemininity.Thisis

followedbyanexaminationofthewaysinwhichthedifferentcommunitiesof

practice‘did’femininity.Inbothofthesecases,therewasasenseofsubjective

agencypresentwherebythewomenfeltthattheycouldoptinandoutofthese

variousfemininesubjectpositionsdependingonthesituation.Ianalysethisby

drawingonSchippers(2007)conceptofgendermanoeuvring,illustratingthatfor

somegroupsofwomen,alternativefemininitiesenableareconfigurationof

12

genderrelationsinalocalcontext.However,thelimitsofgendermanoeuvring

arealsoevidentformanyoftheparticipants.Despitetheagencyexpressedby

manyofthewomen,overarchingstructurallimitationswerefeltbyallofthe

participants.Afurtherfocusofthischapterisontherelationalitybetween

hegemonicfemininityandnon-dominantgenderexpressions,andbetween

femininityandmasculinity.Motherhood,datingandrelationshipshighlightthis

relationalityandthewaysinwhichtheysustainstructuralgenderinfluenceson

theirlives.

Inthefinalchapter,Chapter8:Resistance,Isummarisethekeyarguments

throughoutthethesisandoutlinehowtheresearchquestionshavebeen

addressed.SupportforButler(1990)andSchippers(2007)workisdiscussed

andrecommendationsforfutureresearchareprovided.

Conclusion

Asnotedearlier,therehasbeenlittleresearchspecificallyexamining

heterosexualwomen’sgenderexpressions.Furthermore,therehavebeen

multiplecallsforthedevelopmentoftheoreticalframeworksthroughwhichto

explorethehierarchyofmultiplefemininities.Thisthesisaimstoaddressthese

issues.Iwillarguethatfemininityisconstructedthroughthreekeydimensions,

thatofthephysical,themalleableandtherestrictive.Genderexpressionsare

readasunfemininewhentheydonotadheretothesedimensions.Throughthis

process,multiplefemininitiescanmanifestandarethensituatedwithina

13

hierarchy,wherethemostlegiblearelocatedinahegemonicposition.While

womenmaynotalwayshaveeverydaylanguagetodescribetheirexperiences,

theymostcertainlyunderstandtheconsequencesforembodyingnon-dominant

formsofwomen’sgenderexpressions.

14

Chapter2

Sex,Gender,andSexuality

Anexaminationoftheliteraturehasrevealedthatgenderexpressionscannotbe

separatedoutfromtheirconnectionstosex,gendercategoriesandsexuality.

Thus,inordertoexploregenderexpressions,wemustfirstdiscusssex,gender,

andsexuality.Thischapterwilloutlinethesekeytermsandsomeofthedebates

surroundingthem,aswellasprovidesomebackgroundforthetheoretical

conceptsutilisedthroughoutthisthesis.Definitionsofsexandgenderwillbe

outlined,followedbytheoriesofgenderanditsconstruction.Socialisation,

performativityand‘doinggender’arealsoexplored.Therelationshipbetween

sexuality/desireandgenderisthenexamined,followedbyadiscussionof

relationalityandheteronormativity.Aswillbeillustrated,sex,gender,and

sexualityareinextricablylinkedinthesocialimaginationthroughthe

heterosexualmatrix(Butler1990)andconfinedtoessentialistthinking

(Richardson2007).However,byviewingtheseassocialconstructsthatare

malleable,thefluidityofthecategoriesisopenedupandchallengestothebinary

categoriesaremadepossible.

15

SexandGender

Thetermsexhasacomplicatedrelationshipwithgender.Oftenused

interchangeably,thetwotermshavealteredmeaningoverthepastcentury.Itis

importanttofirstestablishanunderstandingofwhatthecommonusageofthe

termsexcurrentlymeansbeforediscussingthedifferencesbetweenthisandthe

conceptofgender.

SexastheDefault

Earlysociologicalworkusedtheterm‘sex’torefertonotonlyone’sbiological

makeup,butalsotheirroles,identityandsexuality(Muehlenhard&Peterson

2011).Intheircollaborativeworks,KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels(1998

[1848])madenoteof‘sex’inequalitiesthroughcritiquesofthebourgeoisfamily,

notingtheexploitationofwomen,butofferedlittleanalysisbeyondthat.Emile

Durkheim’s(1964)functionalistwritingsviewedwomenasnaturally

subordinateandsuggestedthattherewasanaturalevolutiontowardssexual

differencesbetweenmenandwomenascivilizationadvanced.Inasimilarveinto

Durkheim,TalcottParsons(1954)sawthedivisionbetweenmenandwomenas

‘functional’.Heusedtheterm‘sexroles’torefertothecomplementaryactivities

andnormsassociatedwithmenandwomen.Theseworksdrewon

understandingsofmenandwomenbasedonadichotomyofbiological

differenceswheremenandwomeneachhavedifferentphysicalcharacteristics

associatedwithparticularbehaviours.

16

Thetermsextodaystillcentresonbiologyandtakesintoaccountseveralaspects,

includingaperson’schromosomemakeup,externalandinternalgenitals,

reproductiveorgans,hormonesandsecondarysexcharacteristicssuchas

physicalbodyshapeandhairgrowth(Lindsey2011;Muehlenhard&Paterson

2011).Sexcanbeseenasastatusasoneisbornintoit(Hird2000).However,the

abovedefinitionfallsvictimtobiologicalessentialismwheresexisseenasa

primarilydichotomousarena;youareeithermaleorfemale,andthese

characteristicscanbeneatlytypologisedintotwoexclusivecategories.Fausto-

Sterling’s(1993;2000)researchsuggestedthatthereare,infact,severalpossible

combinationsofmaleandfemalesexcharacteristics.Thishasfuelledasomewhat

tongue-in-cheekcallfortheretobeanewwayofviewingsex,whereratherthan

humansbeinga“perfectdimorphicspecies”weinsteadcouldviewfiveseparate

possiblesexes(Fausto-Sterling2000,p.20).Fausto-Sterling’s(1993;2000)work

demonstratestheneedforabroaderconceptualisationofhowwedefineanduse

thetermsex.

Theterm‘intersex’hasbecomefamiliarvernaculartodescribepeoplewhodonot

fallneatlyintothemaleorfemalecategoriesbasedonphysicalandbiological

markers(Hird2004;Fausto-Stirling2000).Whiletheideaofathirdcategory

allowsustobreakawayfromthebinaryviewofsexasmaleorfemale,itshould

benotedthatformanypeople(includingthosewithintersextraits),thereisa

preferencetoviewintersexasadisorderofsexdevelopment(Davis2016).

Nonetheless,asthedevelopmentofsexcharacteristicsareseentonotadhereto

thebiologicaldimorphicunderstandingsofmaleandfemale,theyareoftenseen

as‘wrong’andinneedofcorrection(Hird2004;Holmes2007;Fausto-Sterling

17

2000).Thishaspreviouslytakenplacewhenachildisveryyoungthroughsuch

meansas‘corrective’or‘assignment’surgerywheregenitalsaremadetolook

moreclearlyonegender(Fausto-Sterling2000).Justificationsforsuchsurgeries

stemmedfromthebeliefthathappinessrequiresadheringtooneofthetwo

sociallyacceptedsexes(Fausto-Sterling1993,p.24).Suchdrasticmeasures

demonstratesocieties’needtocategorisepeopleaseithermenorwomenin

ordertoreducethe‘threat’tothedimorphicsocialorder.Intersexbodies

challengethenotionofmalesandfemalesastwo‘naturally’distinctand

complementarycategories,aconceptthatunderpinsheteronormativity

throughoutmanysocieties.Heteronormativityreferstothewaysinwhichsocial

institutionsandstructurespromoteheterosexualityasagivenand,indoingso,

privilegeitaboveallotherformsofrelations(Berlant&Warner1998).

Thewayswedescribethesexcategoriesasmale,female,andintersex,arenot

biologicallyintrinsicbutrathertheyarerelativetotimeandplace.Theveryfact

thatdifferentcultureshavedefinedandmadesenseofsexvariationinsuch

diverseways,andthattheseunderstandingshavechangedovertime,highlights

thatthissupposedlyfixed,biologicalnotionismostcertainlysociallyconstituted.

Researchershaveamassedasignificantbodyofanthropologicalworksupporting

arejectionofatwo-sexmodel(seeforexampleHird2004,Fausto-Sterling2000;

Kessler&McKenna1978;Nanda2000;Peletz2009;Roscoe1998;Whitehead

1994).However,asHird(2004,p.2)argues,Westernunderstandingsof‘sex’are

constructednotsomuchthrough“actualknowledgeofsexdifferencesrootedin

morphology”butratherthroughdiscoursesthathighlightandreinforcesex

dichotomy,notdiversity.

18

Whilethetermsexisoftenseentocorrelatewithbiologicalmarkersformales

andfemales,sexcanbeunderstoodasasocialconstructionandsubjecttochange

overtimeandplace(Butler1990).Withthisinmind,throughoutthisthesisthe

usageofsexwillrefertothosewhohavebeensociallycategorisedasmale,

femaleorintersex.Asinferredinthissection,genderisunderstoodtorefertothe

expressionofsociallyacceptedmasculineorfemininecharacteristics,regardless

ofsexassignedatbirth.However,itisofcourse,notnearlythissimple.

RelationshipBetweenSexandGender

Priorto1960,theterm‘gender’appearedonlyinahandfulofacademicpapers

(Jackson&Scott2010)andhasonlycomeintocommonusageoverthepast40or

soyears(Muehlenhard&Peterson2011).Inthisshorttimehowever,theterm

hasstirredupawhirlwindofdebateandcontroversy(Bradley2007),fromwhat

itmeanstoitscomplicatedrelationshipstosexandsexuality.Whilesexcanbe

seenasastatusoneisborninto,genderisunderstoodasastatusinthatitis

learnedthroughsocialinteractionswithinasociety(Hird2000).Putsimply,“Sex

makesusmaleorfemale;gendermakesusmasculineorfeminine”(Lindsey

2011,p.4).

Intheearlydecadesofusageofthetermgender(fromtheearly1960-70’s),sex

andgenderwereoftenusedinterchangeablyandinconsistently(Oakley1972).

InitiallyatermutilisedbyAmericanpsychiatrists,‘gender’enabledawayin

whichtoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewhosebiologicalandsocialsex

19

differed(Oakley1972).Theconstructionoftheconceptofgenderenabledseveral

newpossibilities,includingenablingthevarioussocialdifferencesbetweensexes

tobeencompassedinoneconcept(Delphy1993).Inoneofthefirstworks

directlyaddressinggender,AnnOakley’s(1972,p.16)‘Sex,GenderandSociety’,

thedifferencesbetweenthetwotermsweredefinedasfollows:

‘Sex’isawordthatreferstothebiologicaldifferencesbetweenmaleand

female:thevisibledifferenceingenitalia,therelateddifferencein

procreativefunction.‘Gender’howeverisamatterofculture:itrefersto

thesocialclassificationinto‘masculine’and‘feminine’.

Separatingoutgenderfromsexallowedforanemphasisonthesocialfactors

ratherthanbiologicalindeterminingavarietyofbehaviourswhichhadbeen

usedasajustificationforwomen’ssubordination(Hood-Williams1996).The

commonassumption,thatgenderdifferencesare‘natural’,wasabletobe

challengedthroughthisnewconcept.Thedistinctionbetweensexasthe

biologicalandphysiologicalbodyandgenderasthesocialconstructionofit,

becamecommonplaceamongstsocialscientists(Gould&Kern-Daniels1977).

Thereisstill,however,vigorousdebateregardingexactlyhowtodistinguishthe

twotermsandpreciselywhattheyeachconstitute,orifthetwocanbeseparated

(Carlson2010;Hood-Williams1996;Kessler&McKenna1978;Muehlenhard&

Peterson2011).

Itisimportanttonotethatthisconnectionbetweenthephysicalbodyand

understandingsofsexnotonlyaffectsthemannerinwhichwecategorisepeople,

butalsointhewaywemaintainourbodies.Formanyyears,thebodywas

problematicforresearchersduetothedualistictendenciesinherentinthetwo-

20

sexmodelsofdifferenceandtherecurrentviewofwomen’sbodiesasdeviant

(Holmes2007).However,researcherssuchasGermaineGreer,AnnOakley,and

JudithButlerwroteextensivelyontheseissues.Greer(1970)arguedthatwhile

theremaybesomesmallbodilysexdifferencesevidentinmalesandfemales,

theyaremostlyemphasizedthroughsocialpractices,mannersofdressandother

aspectsofsociallifetocreatetheillusionofdifference.Butler’s(1990)extension

ofFoucault’s(1979)ideasinTheHistoryofSexuality,positedthatourbodiesare

sitesontowhichfemininityandmasculinityareimposedthroughthedaily

actionsoneundergoesinregulatingtheirgender.Sex,sheclaims,is“anideal

constructwhichisforciblymaterializedthroughtime”(Butler1993,p.xi).Itis

nota“fact”butratheritisa“process”throughwhichsocialnormsmakeit

becomereal(Butler1993,p.xi).Inotherwords,socialinfluencesimpactthe

understandingsofsexandthuscannotbeunderstoodassimply‘whatisbetween

ourlegs’(Butler1990;Butler1993;Hird2000).

Furtherchallengestodeterministicbiologicalargumentscanbeseeninthework

around‘embodiment’(Budgeon2003;Coffey2013;Coleman2009).Dualistic

understandingsofthemindandbodyasseparateconstructshavebeencritiqued

fortheirtendencytoassociatemenandmasculinitywiththemind,andwomen

andfemininitywiththebody,apositionwhichmaintainsgenderdivisionsand

theglobalgenderorder(Grosz1994).Messerschmidt(2004,p.31)explainsthat

theembodimentperspectiveenablesanalysisof“thesocialprocessesand

practicesthroughwhichthebodybecomesmeaningfultothesocialagent”.Sucha

viewchallengesmind/bodydualismsthroughconceptualisingthemindandbody

asworkingtogetherratherthanasseparateandbinaryconstructs(Butler1990;

21

Coleman2009;Grosz1994).Thisisofimportancetothepresentresearchasthe

connectionbetweenwomen’sexperiencesoftheirbodiesandsocietalinfluences

iscrucialinanydiscussionofgenderexpression.

Sofar,ageneralbackgroundtotheusageofthetermssexandgenderhasbeen

outlined,howeverashasbeenindicated,thereisgreatercomplexitytothese

wordsthatextendsbeyondbasicdefinitions.Thenextsectionwillexploresome

ofthetheoreticalunderpinningsinvolvedintheconstructionofgenderasa

conceptandtheassociatedunderstandingsoftheterm.

TheorisingGender

Thissectionwillconsiderhowtheterm‘gender’hashistoricallydevelopedand

exploresomeofthekeydebatessurroundingtheoriesofhowgenderis

constructed.Asexplained,thetermgendercarrieswithitacomplexmyriadof

debatesandtheoreticalunderstandingsaroundnotjustwhatitis,butalsohowit

comestobe.Gendercanbedefinedbroadlyasthevarioussocialandcultural

characteristicsoffemininityandmasculinityassignedtoaperson,often

attributedtoaperson’sbiologicalmakeup(Oakley1972).Thus,genderisthe

expectedbehavioursforone’ssex.Whilethisdefinitionmayseemrather

straightforward,therehasbeensignificantdisagreementregardinghowitisthat

genderisconstructed(Risman2004).Therearemanytheoriesofgender

formationandgenderdifferencesthathavetakendifferentapproachesto

answeringhowitispeoplecometobeseenaseithermaleorfemale.Manyhave

22

fallenoutoffavour,becomingout-datedasthetimeshavechanged,andothers

haveremainedpartofthetheoreticaldiscourses,maintainingstrongsupport,

oftenbeingtakenupandreworkedbyothersalongtheway.Thissectionwill

discussthebroadhistoricalandtheoreticaltrajectoriesofearlyfunctionalist

theories,socialisation,andgenderassomethingwe‘do’.

FunctionalistApproaches

Asomewhattraditionalviewofgenderisthatofthestructural-functionalist

approachwhichfocusedonthedifferencesbetweenmenandwomen(Bradley

2007).Keytheoristsofstructural-functionalism,ParsonsandBales(1955),saw

sexrolespecialisationascrucialtothesmoothfunctioningofsociety.Drawingon

biologicalargumentsregardingwomenandchildbirth,theysuggesteditwas

therefore‘natural’thatwomencareforandnurturechildren(Lindsey2011).

Similarly,menwereviewedas‘naturally’aggressiveandcompetitiveduetotheir

physiqueandhormones(Lindsey2011).Inthisway,masculinityandfemininity

areattributedtodichotomousbiologicaldifferencesinmenandwomenwhich

arethenshapedandreinforcedthroughascribedcomplimentarysexroles

(Bradley2007;Holmes2007).Thestructuralist-functionalistapproachtogender

haslostcredibilityoverthepast50yearsasitdisregardsthedifferencesthat

existamongmenandwomen(Connell2002)aswellasvariationacrosssocial

contexts(Holmes2007).Inthe1970’smanyscholarsbegantocritiquethis

approach,arguingthatitwasusedasameansforsupportingmaledomination

andgenderstratification(seeforexampleFirestone1971;Greer1970;Oakley

23

1972;Ortner1972;Russo1976).Fromtheseworks,anewconceptualisation

begantoemergethatproposedsocialreproductionasresponsibleforthe

differencesbetweenmenandwomen.Thisenabledchallengestotheessential

inevitabilityoftheseroles.

GenderSocialisation

InTheSecondSex,SimonedeBeauvoir(1953,p.34)pavedthewayforfeminist

analysisofsexandgenderarguingthatphysicalsexdifferencesmayexist,but

thattheyhad“nosignificance”.Thatthesocialenvironmentandcontextshape

howwecometobothunderstandandbewomenwasthecornerstonefor

feministswhosoughttodeconstructthesex/genderdistinction(Jackson&Scott

2010).Asnotedearlierinthischapter,Oakley(1972)proposedthatsexand

gendershouldbecompletelyseparatedoutfromoneanother.Oakley(1972)

usedthetermsocialisationtoexplorehowinstitutionsteachchildrenwhatis

appropriategenderedbehaviourformenorwomen,focusingonthesocial

aspectsoverthebiological.Atitscore,framingourunderstandingofgender

throughthelensofsocialisationsuggeststhatthewayinwhichonelearnstobea

manorwomanoriginatesthroughaninteractionwithsocietalnormsof

masculinityandfemininity(Garfinkel1967;Kessler&McKenna1978;Oakley

1972;Rubin1984).Throughthisprocessoneactivelyformsnotionsofwhatitis

tobeamanorawoman,aswasillustratedindeBeauvoir’s(1953,p.301)famous

quote,“Oneisnotborn,butratherbecomes,awoman”.Scholarshipclearly

indicatesthatappropriatebehaviours,valuesandbeliefsassociatedwitheach

24

genderareinternalisedandreproducedwithinsociety,andwhiletheymaydiffer

overtimeandfromplacetoplace,theprocessismuchthesame(Bradley2007;

Wearing1996).

Thesocialisationapproachutilisedbytheearlygendertheoristsprovideda

much-neededshiftfromviewingsexasthedeterminantofanindividual’ssocial

role.Oakley(1972)viewedsocialgenderasimposedupon‘blankslate’sexed

bodies,wheresexwasviewedasanaturalandgenderwaswhollyplacedupon

suchbodies.Butsuchaviewstillassumesadimorphicpositionandinherentin

thesex/genderdistinctionistheassumptionthatthe‘naturalbiology’ofbodies

resultsintwodistinctcategories,maleandfemale(Hood-Williams1996).The

bodywasseenasbiologicalevidenceforOakley(1972)ofmaleandfemaleness

andthebasisforsocialgenderdivisions.Forher,sexisnatural,genderisthe

socialandshearguedthatthesesocialandculturalaspectsweremalleable,while

thebiologicalwasconstant(Oakley1972).Thissex/genderdividechallengedthe

‘naturalist’perspectivethatfemininityandmasculinitywerespecificallyresults

ofbiologicalcharacteristicsofwomenandmen.Ononehand,suchaview

providesforaseparationbetweenthetwoconceptstoexploretheminwaysthat

hadnotpreviouslybeenpossible,butatthesametime,despiteattemptingto

breakthelinkbetweenthetwo,genderbecomesdependentonthenotionofsex,

creatingaproblematicbinaryrelationshipbetweenthetwo.

Whilethesex/genderdistinctionbecamecentraltotheworkofmanyfeminist

scholars,thereweremanywhocontestedit.Delphy(1993,p.4)arguedthatwe

thinkofgenderintermsofsex,suggestingthatgenderisthe“contentwithsexas

25

thecontainer”.Inthissense,sexcanbespokenaboutwithoutreferringtogender,

butgendercannotbediscussedwithoutreferencetosex.Suchdiscussionslead

tothequestionsofwhethergendercanbetrulydisentangledfromsex,and

inevitablywhichcomesfirst.Assexisassignedatbirththroughphysiological

markers,ittendstobeassumedtobe‘first’.Suchaviewsuggeststhenthatsex

notonlycausesbutalsoexplainsgender;genderisthendependantwithinthe

relationship,collapsingbackintotheprimaryconcept,sex.However,not

everyoneagreeswiththis.

LizStanley(1984)arguedthatwhilemanyfeministacademicscontestedideasof

biologicalessentialism,theyoftendidsowhilealsoacceptingthepossibilityof

‘pre-given’sexdifferences.Stanley(1984)challengedthesex-genderdistinction

andcoinedtheterm‘correspondencetheory’todescribethe‘correspondence’

betweensex,gender,sexualorientationandreproductivesexualbehaviourthat

formanaturalorder.Stanley(1984,p.40)positedthatthisisan“impermeable

theory”aswhenevidenceisprovidedthatcontradictsthisnaturalorder,itinfact

provesthetheorythroughitsperceived“unnaturalness”.Thecollapseofsexand

gendercanalsobeseeninideasofSuzanneKesslerandWendyMcKenna(1978)

andtheirworkwithtranssexuals.KesslerandMcKenna(1978)developedthe

ideaof‘culturalgenitals’,orgenitalsthatapersonisassumedtohaveundertheir

clothing,regardlessofwhetherornottheydidinfactpossessthem.AsKessler

(1998,p.86)explains:“Theculturalgenitals(notsomeconfigurationofbiological

material)arethefoundationforanygenderattributionmade”.Thissuggeststhat

thereislittleseparationbetweensexandgender;theyareinevitablyintertwined.

26

Genderattributionisalmostalwaysactuallygenitalattribution,andthusgender

informssex.To‘pass’asamanorawomanrequiresexpressionofparticular

mannerismsandbehavioursthatarespecificallytiedtoaparticularsex.

Garfinkel’s(1967)casestudyofAgnes,amale-to-femaletranssexual,illustrates

this.WhileAgnesdidnothavethebiologicalcharacteristicsociallyascribedto

females,shewasabletopassasawoman(Garfinkel1967).Agnes’mannerisms

andbehaviourswereseenassignsof‘gender’attributedtoher‘sex’,andnotas

effeminate.Stanley(1984,p.39)interpretstheaccountofAgnesasanexampleof

the“symbioticrelationshipofsexandgender”,wheregenderworksbecauseof

linksbetweennaturalorder,sexandgender.Thiswasachievedthroughstudying

andthenenactinghowtobeawoman,consciouslydoingwhatmanywomendo

withoutthinking(West&Zimmerman1987).Thisnotionof‘doinggender’will

bediscussedinthefollowingsection.

GenderasaPerformance

Thenotionthatgenderissomethingwe‘do’hasgarneredmuchsupport,even

fromthosewhodisagreeontheextentandmannerinwhichsexandgenderare

related(Butler1990;Connell1987;Garfinkel1967;Goffman1976;Kessler&

McKenna1978;West&Zimmerman1987).Gendercanbeseenaseithera

performance,somethingwehavetoworkatorarepetitionofgendernorms

(Butler1990).Whenviewedasaperformance,peopleareseenasactors,drawing

ongenderedscriptstopresentagoodshowoffemininityormasculinity

(Goffman1976).Thisviewdrawsonthedramaturgicalapproachstemmingfrom

27

symbolicinteractionismandtheworkofErvingGoffman(1976).Goffman(1976)

didnotseepresentationsofgenderasnatural,butratherasaproductof

inequalitythatseemsnaturalthroughourcontinualdisplaysinoureveryday

interactions.Thegenderdisplaysreproduceagenderhierarchyandinequality

thatisessentiallyanillusioncreatedthroughourdailyinteractionswithothers.

Inoneofthemostinfluentialpiecesofliteratureongender,CandaceWestand

DonZimmerman(1987)coinedtheterm‘doinggender’todescribeasimilar

understandingtoGoffman(1976)regardingthewaysinwhichpeoplecontinually

workatdoinggenderthroughtheirinteractions.WestandZimmerman(1987)

understoodgenderasnotsomethingweare,butsomethingwedothrough

performeddailyinteractionsandtherelationalexperienceoneencountersin

theirengagementwithinsociety.WestandZimmerman(1987)stressedthe

importanceofthedistinctionsbetweensex,sexcategoryandgenderinorder

elaboratehowtheprocessofdoinggenderunfolds.Inthiscontext,thetermsex

referstosociallyestablishedbiologicalcriteriaofapersonandthesexcategoryis

theapplicationofthesesexcriteria(West&Zimmerman1987).Ineverydaylife,

one’ssexisnotalwaysdiscerniblesoitisthroughsocialcuesoneisplacedwithin

asexcategory.Gender,however,istheenactmentofnormativebehaviour

appropriateforones’sexcategory(West&Zimmerman1987).Bybehavingina

masculineorfemininemannerone‘becomes’genderedthroughtheirinteractions

withotherswithinasociety(West&Zimmerman1987).

JudithButler(1990)alsoreimaginedtherelationshipbetweensexandgender.

Oneofthemostinfluentialpoststructuralistgendertheorists,Butler(1990;

28

1993a)rejectedtheideathatgenderisanexpressionofsexandarguedthat

genderisusedtoconstructsexthroughrepetitiveacts.ExtendingFoucault’s

genealogicalapproach,Butler’sworkexploredthepowersustainingpopular

understandingofgenderasnaturalbybreakingdownthebinaryconstructionsof

genderidentity.InGenderTrouble,Butler(1990,p.33)argued,“Thereisno

genderidentitybehindtheexpressionofgender…identityisperformatively

constitutedbythevery‘expressions’thataresaidtobeitsresult”.Ratherthan

seeinggenderandsexsimplyasperformed,Butler(1990)argueditis

performative.Shesuggestedthatwe‘do’gendernotforourselves,butforothers,

whetherrealorimaginary.Inordertoknowhowtorelateandinteractwitha

person,wefirstmustascertaintheirgender;withoutdiscoursesofgender,oneis

unintelligible.Bodiesarenotabletobe‘intelligible’unlessclassifiedormarked

bysex/gender(discussedinmoredetaillaterinthechapterwithrelationtothe

heterosexualmatrix).Inthisway,Butlersawgenderassomethingthatisdoneto

us.

Butler(1990)alsodiscussedwhatshecalls‘pastiche’,areplicationcomprisingof

anassortmentofidentityforms,whichinturnthenmocksanynotionofaninner

trueself.Pasticheenablestheexaminationofthefluidityofidentity,asisthecase

withresistancetofixeddragidentities.Whenmenportraythemselvesaswomen,

itsuggeststhatallformsofgenderaresimplyimpersonations:

…genderisakindofimitationforwhichthereisnooriginal;infact,itisa

kindofimitationthatproducestheverynotionoftheoriginalasaneffect

andconsequenceoftheimitationitself.(Butler1993b,p.313)

Thisishernotionof‘performativity’.

29

ForButler,genderidentityisaperformance.Ithasno‘real’essence.Thesocalled

maleorfemale‘identity’ismerelytheresultofpublicandsocialdiscourses

entailingunrelentingechoesofinnumerablegenderacts,makinggenderseem

‘real’throughthisactofrepetition.Ifgenderonlybecomesrealthrough

discourse,thensotoodoessexuality.Theseideasarecentraltothepresent

researchandwillbediscussedinthefollowingsection.

Sexuality

Sex,gender,andsexualityareinextricablyandinescapablylinked.Attimesthe

terms,meaningsandrelationshipscollide,causingpoliticalandtheoretical

problems(Richardson2007).Aswithsexandgender,therearethosewhohave

arguedthatwecannotunderstandsexualitywithoutdrawingontheother

conceptsandthereforetheymustbeanalysedinconjunctionwitheachother,

whileotherssuggestwemustseparateouteachtermandunpackthem

individually.Evenwithinthesefieldsofthought,therearedifferencesinhowthis

shouldbedoneandthedegreetowhichtheymustbeunderstoodas

interconnectedorasseparate.Theseissueswillbeexploredbyoutliningsomeof

themaindebatessurroundingthegender/sexualityrelationshipandthe

theoreticalbordersbetweenthetwo.Understandingsofhowwe‘do’sexuality

willalsobediscussedinordertoillustratethepoweroftheperceivedbinariesof

sexualityanditsimpactuponhowwemakesenseofgender.Therelationalityof

thegenderingofsexualityisthenconsidered,followedbyadiscussionofQueer

Theoryandheteronormativity.

30

GenderandSexuality

Sexualitycanbeunderstoodas“alleroticallysignificantaspectsofsociallifeand

socialbeing,suchasdesires,practices,relationshipsandidentities”(Jackson

2006b,p.106).Whatisdeemedassexualvariesfrompersontopersonandis

influencedbyhistoricalandgeographicalcontexts.Inunderstandingthis

complicatedrelationshipbetweengenderandsexuality,wemustalsoconsider

thevariedusageoftheterm‘gender’asdiscussedintheprevioussection.Gender

hasbeenusedsynonymouslywithsexuality,causingdebateastowhereoneends

andtheotherbegins.Manytheoristsstillusethetermsindiversewaystosignify

verydifferentthings(Richardson2007).Oneofthemainconceptualisationsof

thegenderandsexualityrelationshipisthenotionthatthereisastrongoverlap.

Thedegreeanddirectionofthisrelationshipdifferswiththeoristsprioritising

oneovertheother.Broadly,thisdistinctioncanbeseenasthedividebetween

feministandqueertheorists(Richardson2007).Thissectionwillbeginbybriefly

outliningtheessentialistapproach,followedbyadiscussionofsexualityand

genderrelationshipasviewedbythosewhoprioritisegenderoversexuality,and

thenthosewhoseesexualityasprimarytogender.Next,theviewofsexualityand

genderasseparatetheoreticaldomainswillbeexplored.

Theessentialistapproachtosexualitystemsfromuniversalisedunderstandings

ofsexualidentitiesandsexacts,oftenbasedonbiologicalassumptions.Itaimsto

explainsexualityascomingfromaninnateinnertruth,reducingcomplexhuman

behavioursintosimplifiedpre-socialbiologicaloriginsbasedonpsychological,

physiological,hormonalorgeneticgrounds(Rahman&Jackson2010;Weeks

31

2010).Withinthisframework,sexualitycanbeseenaposterioriofgenderinthat

itcomesaboutasaresultofthenaturallyoccurringbinaryrelationshipbetween

menandwomen(Richardson2007).Oneofthemanyproblemswithsuchan

approach,asdiscussedearlierinrelationtogender,isitsclaimtobeabletoplace

variousaspectsoflifeintoneatmeasureableunits.Feministtheoryhasrigorously

critiquednotionsofsexandsexualityasanaturalconsequenceofphysiologyto

justifywomen’ssocialrolesandpurposewithinsociety(Greer1970;Firestone

1971).

ForfeministtheoristandpsychoanalystNancyChodorow(1978;1994),there

wasastrongoverlapbetweensexualityandgenderthatattimesparallelsthe

essentialistviewpoint.Chodorow(1978)arguedthataperson’ssexualityforms

asapartoftheirindividualdevelopmentwithinfluencesfromtheirfamilylife

andlearnedgenderidentity,althoughthisdiffersforboysandgirls.Sheargued

thatwomenmaybemoreopentobisexualityandhomosexualityduetoattempts

torecreatethemother-daughterrelationshipbutthat“mostwomenare

heterosexual”(Chodorow1978,p.200).Thispositionhasdrawnmuchcritique

fromotherfeministsandsexualityresearcherssuchasAdrienneRich(1980).Ina

shiftawayfromChodorow(1978),Rich(1980)maintainedpeoplearepressured

intotakingon‘conventionalgenderidentities’throughthelargersocialcontextas

opposedtotheimmediatefamilysetting.Thissocialprocesstakesplacethrough

thebothpositivereinforcements,suchaseconomicrewards,aswellas

punishmentslikeharassmentandviolencetowardsthosewhodonotconformto

heterosexuality.Rich(1980)referredtothisascompulsoryheterosexuality.

However,shesuggeststhattherehavebeenmanywomenthroughhistorywho

32

strayfromthiscompulsoryheterosexualitybyarrangingtheirlivesinrelationto

otherwomen,ratherthanmen.Rich(1980)claimedthatanywomanwho

choosestocreatealifearoundanotherwomanisthenalesbian,aslesbianismisa

politicalact,notasexualdesire.Shearguedthatsexualitywasaproductofmen’s

powerandsocialcontrol,andadirectexpressionofgender.

BothChodorow’sandRich’sworkhavedrawncriticismsfromeachotherand

others(Gatens1994;Young1997).Thesecriticismstendtofocusonthe

reinforcementofuniversallyinscribedgendercategories.Furthermore,

intersectionswithclassandraceareoverlooked,whichmaskissuesofpowerand

domination(Sprague&Kobrynowicz2006).However,bothChodorowandRich’s

theoriesofgenderandsexualitydemonstrateastronglinkbetweenthe

formationofsexualitythroughtheprismofgender.Incontrast,GayleRubin

(1984)objectedtothenotionthatsexualitywasadirectmanifestationofgender

arguingthatsuchviewsnotonlyignorethedifferenceswithinwomen’sand

men’ssexualities,butalsolacktheabilitytoadequatelytheorisesexuality

throughgender.Insteadherapproachinsistedonaradicalseparationofgender

andsexualityongroundstheyaretwoseparatedomains:“...althoughsexand

genderarerelated,theyarenotthesamething,andtheyformthebasisoftwo

distinctarenasofsocialpractice”(Rubin1984,p.170).Thisideaofasex/gender

systeminfluencedpoststructuralistapproachestogenderandsexuality,allowing

theanalysisofgenderandsexualitytobeexploredinnewwaysandenabling

morecomplexunderstandings.Theseideaseventuallyaddedfuelleadingupto

thechallengeofthecategory‘women’asafixedcategoryandtowardsthe

‘culturalturn’towardspostmodernthinking(Rahman&Jackson2010).

33

ChristineDelphy(1984)andMoniqueWittig(1981),likeRich(1980),viewed

genderandsexualityasaresultofthelargersocialcontext.Thematerialist

approachisoftenequatedwiththesocialconstructionistapproach(Beasley

2005).DelphyandWittig’sapproachesdiffersignificantlyfromRich’sinthatthey

refutethegenderdifferenceorientedexplanationsandinsteadfocuson

dominancesuggestingthatthecategoriesofmanandwomanarerelativeand

dependentuponparticularsocialandeconomicpositionswithinanygiven

society.Delphy(1984)andWittig(1981)arguedthatitisfromgenderthatthe

binarydividebetweenheterosexualityandhomosexualitystems.Wittig(1981)

usestheterm‘heterosexualcontract’torefertothewayinwhichbinarysexual

differencesandheterosexualityaretheresultofpoliticalinfluences,creatinga

socialcontractwhichreinforcesrelationsbetweenmenandwomen.The

heterosexualcontractplacesboundariesongenderidentitythatmustsitwithin

thenormofheterosexualdesires.WhilebothDelphyandWittig’sviewsstill

maintainastronglinkbetweengenderandsexuality,theydosothroughtheuse

ofmeta-narratives.MorerecentworkbySteviJackson(2005)buildsuponthe

ideasofDelphyandWittig,acknowledgingthatsexualityisinherentlygendered,

butplacestheemphasisontheinterconnectionsbetweengenderandsexuality

allowingforanalyticaldistinctions.

Buildingupontheseearlierworks,JudithButler(1988;1990;1993;2004)wrote

extensivelyonsexualityandgender.Herworkhasfocussedonchallengingthe

ontologicalbasisofthesecategories.Butler(1990)doesthisbydrawingonRich’s

(1980)‘compulsoryheterosexuality’andWittig’s(1981)‘heterosexualcontract’

tocreatewhatshetermsthe‘heterosexualmatrix’.Withinthismatrix,sex,gender

34

anddesire(sexuality)arepositionedsuchthattheframeworkenablesmeaning

tobeextracted.Idealrelationsareproducedinwhichgendernaturallyfollowson

fromsex,andsexualitynaturallyfollowsonfromgender.Genderand

heterosexualityarethereforeinterdependentandinterwoveninsuchawaythat

deviationsfromnormativeexpressionsofmasculinityandfemininitycancausea

person’sheterosexualitytobeinquestion.Butler(1990,p.151)callsthis

intelligiblegenders:

Iusethetermheterosexualmatrix…todesignatethatgridofcultural

intelligibilitythroughwhichbodies,genders,anddesiresare

naturalized…ahegemonicdiscursive/epistemologicalmodelofgender

intelligibilitythatassumesthatforbodiestocohereandmakesensethere

mustbeastablesexexpressedthroughastablegender(masculine

expressesmale,feminineexpressesfemale)thatisoppositionallyand

hierarchicallydefinedthroughthecompulsorypracticeofheterosexuality.

Inordertocreateatheoryofgenderthatenabledescapefromthismatrix,Butler

turnedtoidentityandperformativity(discussedearlier).Byintegratingand

combiningcategoriesofsex,gender,andsexuality,Butler’sworkhasbeenseento

haveenabledthecreationofaQueerpoliticsthatrefusedanysenseofaset

identity(Jagose1996).Butler’s(1990;1993)‘mixingup’ofidentitiesand

traditionalpresentationsofgenderisofimportancetothepresentresearch.

35

DoingSexuality

MichelFoucaultisoneofthemostinfluentialtheoristsregardingthesocialand

politicalpowerofsexuality(Seidman2010).Similartoseveralofthetheorists

discussedpreviously,Foucault(1979)disputedtheviewthatsexwasinherently

biologicalornatural.Inthe‘HistoryofSexualityVol.1’,Foucault(1979)examined

historicalaswellascontemporarydiscoursesthatledtoourunderstandingofsex

andsexuality.Heexplained:

Sexualitymustnotbethoughtofasakindofnaturalgivenwhichpower

triestoholdincheck,orasanobscuredomainwhichknowledgetries

graduallytouncover.Itisthenamethatcanbegiventoahistorical

construct:notafurtiverealitythatisdifficulttograsp,butagreatsurface

networkinwhichthestimulationofbodies,theintensificationof

pleasures,theincitementtodiscourse,theformationofspecial

knowledges,thestrengtheningofcontrolsandresistances,arelinkedto

oneanother,inaccordancewithafewmajorstrategiesofknowledgeand

power.(Foucault1979,p.106)

Foucault’s(1979)claimwasthatsexualityisapowerfuldiscursiveconstruct.He

arguedthatpowerwasatthecoreofthisconstructionandthatbycontaininga

person’ssexualbehavioursandidentities,internalisingthiscontrol,societyis

abletobettermonitorandmanagebehaviourofindividualsandwhole

populations(Foucault1979).Oneoftheresultsofthisisthatwebecomemore

andmorea‘disciplinarysociety’.Thetypesofdiscoursesthatarisefromthis

involvejudgementsofwhatisnormalandabnormal,creatingfurthermeansto

controlpeople’sbodies(Foucault1979).Bycontrollingbodiesandsexuality,or

36

ratherpeople’ssexualdesiresandfeelings,asocietycontrolsideasofwhatis

normal,shapingpeopleintodisciplinedandproductivemembersofsociety

(Foucault1979).

AccordingtoFoucault(1979),sexualityisamoderncreationthatisproducedby

us,enablingexplorationofhowitisthatwe‘create’,orrather,‘do’sexuality.

Echoingtheconceptof‘doinggender’(West&Zimmerman1987),‘doing

sexuality’restsonthenotionthatsexualityisnotsomethingthatsomeone‘is’but

rathersomethingoneactivelydoes.Schippers(2002,p.200)explainsthat

sexualityisnotrestrictedtogenitalcontactorevensexualdesire,butthat:

“…actionsthatreproducethesexualorder,whethertheyconsistofgenital

contact,sexualdesire,orassumptionsaboutsexualityconstitutedoingsexuality”.

Withinthisthesis,muchoftheanalysiswilldrawonideasthatstemfromsocial

constructionism,howeveraswithmanywhoresearchissuesrelatingtosexuality

andgender,thereissignificantoverlapwithotherstreamsoftheorythatwillbe

utilised.Thisincludesworkthathascomeoutofpoststructuralism,

postmodernism,Butler’s(1990)heterosexualmatrix,Foucault’s(1979)

discursivepracticesaswellasideasfromQueertheory.Thesocialconstructionist

approachisparticularlyopposedtoessentialisms,bothinrelationtobiological

andsocialarenas.Earlier,variedsocialconstructionistideasfromJackson,

MacKinnon,DelphyandWittigwerediscussedinrelationtotheriseofthe

sexualityandgenderrelationshipdebate.Inthefollowingsection,thesocial

constructionistapproacheswillberevisitedinrelationtolatertheoristswho

haveembracedtheterm,includingJefferyWeeksandKenPlummer.

37

PostmodernismandQueertheorywillalsobediscussedtoexplorebeyondthe

genderandsexualitycausalitydebate,andlookintotheimpactofthe

male/femaleandheterosexual/homosexualbinaries.

RelationalityandtheGenderingofSexuality

Evenifonewantstomovebeyondthetheoreticalbinariesofmale/female,

masculine/feminineorheterosexual/homosexual,thereisnoclearin-between

space.Ourunderstandingsofwhatitistobe‘female’arealltoooftenintertwined

with,andoppositionalto,whatitistobe‘male’.Thisiscentraltothisthesis

whichinterrogatesthespaceswithinandaroundwomen’sgenderexpressions.

SherryOrtner(1972)exploredtherelationshipbetweenmenandwomen

drawingontherelationalityofnatureandculture.Ortner(1972)positedthat

women’ssubordinationcanbeunderstoodasaresultoftheassociationof

womenwithnatureandmenwithculture.Themale/cultureapproachisawarded

moreprestigeandstatus,thusresultinginunequalpowerinthemale/female

dichotomy.Thishelpsustounderstandhowitisthatthegenderorderis

structuredandhighlightstherelationalitybetweenthecategoriesofmaleand

female,anideaintheworkofShulamithFirestone(1971).

AlthoughFirestone’s(1971)‘DialecticofSex’hasbeenonthereceivingendof

muchcriticism(seeforexampleMerck&Sandford2010),herworkwasa

foundationaltextforcritiquingbinarygender.Hertextprovidedaframeworkfor

understandingthemale/femalebinarybybuildinguponandrethinkingde

38

Beauvoir’s(1953)workdiscussedearlier.WheredeBeauvoir(1953)camefrom

asocialconstructionistview,Firestone(1971)attimestookamorebiological

reductionistapproach,suggestingthatgenderfollowsonfrombiologicalsex,and

morespecificallyfromchildbearing.However,shearguedthatnotonlyis

biologicalsexnot‘fixed’,itinfactproducesthepossibilitytooverthrowitself.Her

propositionforachievingthiswastodoawaywiththenuclearfamilyandtake

reproductionoutoftheequationalltogether,withconceptionmadepossible

throughuseofartificialinseminationandwombs(Firestone1971).Firestone’s

(1971)approachhasbeenheavilycriticisedasbeingtootechnologically

determinist,andforignoringthepowerofthegenderorder(Merck&Sandford

2010).

Comingfromaratherdifferentangle,theworkofJohnGagnonandWilliam

Simon(1973)providedsomeinsightintotherelationalityofthemale/female

rolesinintimatesexualencounters.Theyproposeda‘script’theoryofsexuality

thatsuggestedpeoplearenotbornsexualbutratherlearntobecomesexual.They

rejectedthenotionofsexorsexualityasanaturalforceorthatanythingis

intrinsicallysexualinsteadsuggestingthatanythingcanbecomesexualisedaswe

aretaughtbysocietywhatfeelingsanddesiresareconsideredtobesexual

(Gagnon&Simon1973).Sexualityisthus“interwovenwiththeeverydaysocial

fabric”(Jackson&Scott2010,p.816)drawingonbothpastandpresent

experiencesallowingforreflexivity.ThiscanbeseeninGagnonandSimon’s

(1973)scripttheory,whichproposedthatsexualscriptsorblueprintsenableus

tomakesenseofoursexualexperiences.Theyhelpustounderstand,“thewho’s,

thewhat’s,thewhen’s,where’sandwhy’sforgiventypesofactivities”(Gagnon

39

1977,p.6).Withinthesexualscriptsmetaphor,GagnonandSimon(1973)

explainedthatculturalscenarioshelptoorganisesexualmeaningsonabroad

levelwhileinterpersonalscriptstakeplaceinindividualsocialinteractions.This

helpustoknowhowtoplaythepartofthemanorwomanwithinthesexual

encounter(Gagnon&Simon1973)andtiesinwith‘doinggender’and

performancediscussedearlier(Garfinkel1967;Goffman1976;Kessler&

McKenna1978;West&Zimmerman1987).Kim,Sorsoli,Collins,Zylbergold,

Schooler,andTolman(2007),utilisedGagnonandSimon’s(1973)sexualscripts

andRich’s(1980)compulsoryheterosexualitytocreateaheteronormativeand

dominantsexualscript.Whileothershavemadeuseofheterosexualscripts(see

Frith&Kitzinger2001;Ward1995),theyhavetendedtoseparateoutthemen’s

andwomen’s‘roles’,whereasKimetal.(2007)drewonButler’sworktoargue

foroneintegratedscriptwithtwoparts;oneforthemen,andoneforthewomen.

Astheyexplained,“Liketwovoicesengagingindialogue,thesecomplementary

‘parts’compriseasingle,integratedscript,workingintandemtoproduce

‘culturallyintelligible’heterosexualinteractionsandrelationships”(Kimetal.

2007,p.146).Theheterosexualscriptreinforcesandsupportspowerinequalities

betweenmenandwomen(Kimetal.2007).Thisworkhelpstoprovideameans

bywhichtounderstandheterosexualsexualinteractions(Jackson&Scott2010;

Richardson2007).

Whilesexualscriptshelptounderstandintimateheterosexualencounters,

heterosexualityismorethanphysicalacts.VanEvery(1996)arguedthat

heterosexualityshouldbeviewedasasocialinstitutionratherthanasexual

preferenceorsexualacts.Suchaviewallowsforexaminationofthewaysin

40

whichmasculinityandfemininityareproducedthroughheterosexualrelations

(VanEvery1996).Heterosexualitypresupposesdifferenceasitrestsonthe

notionofoppositionbetweenmasculinityandfemininity(Richardson1996).The

relationalitybetweenmale/female,masculine/feminine,and

heterosexual/homosexualareepitomisedinheteronormativityandwillnowbe

discussedinmoredetail.

QueerTheoryandHeteronormativity

Inthefollowingsection,theinfluenceofQueertheoryonourunderstandingsof

thegender/sexualityrelationshipwillbediscussed.Theconceptof

heteronormativitywillbeexploredtohighlighthowgenderandsexualityare

inextricablylinked.Thewaysinwhichsexualityhasbeenviewedoverthepast

centuryhaveclearlyalteredsignificantly(Plummer2003).Assuggestedearlier,

societyhasapersistentnotionofhumansasanaturallydimorphicspecies.

Alongsidethisbias,heterosexualityhasalsocometobeseenasthenaturalstate

ofsexuality.Heterosexualityconstructssexasbinarybyproducingmenand

womenasdiscreteoppositionalcategories.However,interrogationsofsuch

discretecategorieshaveenabledachallengetothenotionofheterosexualityas

thenorm.

Duringthe1980’stheimpactofthe‘culturalturn’wasfeltwithinsocialtheory,

eventuallyleadingtothedevelopmentofQueertheory(Jagose1996).Thisbody

ofscholarshipdrewheavilyonthepoststructuralistandpostmodernworkof

41

MichelFoucaultandJudithButlerbytakingupthenotionofmeaningas

constructedthroughlanguage,identitiesasproductsofdiscourse,andknowledge

asbeingproducedthroughlocaliseddiscursiveinteractions(Rahman&Jackson

2010).Queertheoryviewsidentityasconstructedthroughthesocialarena,as

wellasnotonlyunstablebutalsodisjointed(Jagose1996).Forthemostpart,

Queertheoryfocusesontheareasthatareexcludedormadeinvisibleby

heterosexualtheories,insteadconcentratingonothersexualities(Jagose1996).

Queertheorychallengestheconceptofaunifiedidentity,suchasgayorstraight,

asthesetermsareseenaspracticesofpowerthatsilence(Jagose1996),instead

positingthatidentitiesarefluidandmultiple.

InagerminalworkwithinQueertheory,MichaelWarner(1991)coinedtheterm

heternormativity.Heteronormativitywastoucheduponpreviouslyinthe

discussionofRubin’s(1984)sexhierarchy,Rich’s(1980)compulsory

heterosexuality,Wittig’s(1981)heterosexualcontract,andButler’s(1988)

heterosexualmatrix.Theseworkssharethenotionthatheterosexualityisatthe

centre,andthatallelseisdefinedinrelationtoit.BerlantandWarner(1998,p.

548)usedthetermheteronormativitytomean,“theinstitutions,structuresof

understandingandpracticalorientationsthatmakeheterosexualityseemnot

onlycoherent–thatis,organisedasasexuality–butalsoprivileged”.Within

essentialistframeworks,thosewhodonotfitwithinthisframeworkofbinary

heterosexualityorheteronormativity,‘deviate’fromthenorm.Thus,formuchof

thepastcenturyhomosexualityhasbeenviewedas‘deviant’andsuch

constructionsofhomosexualityhaveinfluencedthegenderperformance(Hird

2000).Anexampleofthedimorphicgender/sexualityrelationshipcanbeseenin

42

biologicalmalespresentingaperformanceofgenderwheretheyappearmore

‘feminine’(Pascoe2012).Ifamanistobeinasexualrelationshipwithanother

man,thereisoftenanexpectationthatoneofthemmustatleast‘act’likea

womaninordertomaintainbalanceexpectedwithinheterosexualrelationships.

TraceySteele(2005)illustratedthepowerofheterosexualassumptionswellin

herarticle‘DoingIt’.Sheaskedthereadertomakeagestureusingonlytheir

handsfor‘sex’,notingthewaysinwhichtheyshapeandmovetheirhands.Steele

(2005)explainshowthesesimplehandmovementsspeaktothecorecultural

assumptionsaboutsex:“Themostcommongestureforthesexactinvolvesone

handorfingeractivelybreachingthepassiveboundariesoftheotherinamock

penetrativemotion”(Steele2005,p.17).Thisactdemonstratesthepervasive

natureofseeingsexasanactbetweenamaleandfemalebody.Variationsonthis

‘naturalorder’becomedeviant.Britishsociologist,KenPlummer(1975)wrote

abouttheimpactofhomosexualityasadeviantsexuality.Hearguedthatpeople

arenotbornhomosexualbutratherlearntobecomehomosexual.Bythishe

meantthatalthoughapersonmayhavesexualdesiresforsomeoneofthesame

sex,itisonlythroughsocialinteractionthattheylearnthatthesefeelingsare

indicativeofahomosexualidentity.Othersalsohavesuggestedthatbyfocusing

onthelivedbodyratherthanaspecificgender,wecanviewdifferencesinsexual

desiresasjustdesires,ratherthanan‘innercore’identityorsexualorientation

(Moi2001;Young2002).However,asgenderandsexarestillthecornerstonesof

howwemakesenseofothers,itappearswearenotyetreadytobeabletofocus

ondesireswithoutattachingsexualmeaningtothem.

43

Inastudyon‘doingbisexuality’,theauthorquestionshowitisthatonecan‘see’a

person’sbisexuality(Miller2006).ThearticledrawsontheworkofGarfinkel

(1967)andKesslerandMcKenna(1978)whichsuggestthatweseeallpeopleas

either‘male’or‘female’,‘masculine’or‘feminine’andaseither‘heterosexual’or

‘homosexual’.Miller’s(2006)findingsreinforcethenotionofhomosexualityas

dependentonheterosexualityinthesamewaythatwomanistoman,and

femininitytomasculinity.Genderandsexualityareinevitablyintertwined.Eve

Sedgwick(1990,p.31)hasarguedthat,“Withoutaconceptofgendertherecould

be,quitesimply,noconceptofhomoorheterosexuality”.Consequently,ifgender

constructsdonotallowforanythingotherthanhomoorhetero,bisexuality

becomesinvisible(Miller2006).Therelationalitybetweenthesecategories

blindsustootherpossibilities.Itisimportanttonotethatsexualidentitiesalso

extendbeyondthecategoriesofstraight,gayandbi.Othersexualidentitiesused

contemporarilyincludequeer,pansexual,polysexual,asexual,heteroflexible,

bisensual,tonamejustafew(Smith,Jones,Ward,Dixon&Hiller2014).

Whenideassuchascompulsoryheterosexuality,correspondencetheory,the

heterosexualmatrixandheteronormativityareinterrogated,whatiscentraltoall

oftheseconceptualisationsofrelationshipsandsocietyistherelationality

betweenmenandwomen,masculineandfeminine,heterosexualand

homosexual.Theseideaswillbeappliedtoandexploredintheresponsesofmy

researchparticipantsinthefindingschapters.First,thethesiswillturntoother

empiricalliteraturethathasattemptedtomakesenseoffemininityandwomen’s

genderidentity.

44

Conclusions:Sex/Gender/Sexuality

Thischapterbeganwithabriefhistoryoftheusageofthetermssexandgender.

Bothtermshaveoriginsinbiologicalessentialismbuthavesincebeen

reconceivedofassocialconstructionsamongstscholars.Variationinhistorical

andculturalsexcategoriesdemonstratestheroleoftimeandplaceincreating

labelstodescribedphysicalbodiesinparticularways.Whilethebinaryviewof

sexasjustmaleorfemaleisstillprominentthroughoutgeneralsociety,

researchershavecometounderstandsexasastatusassignedatbirthbasedon

physicalcharacteristics.Thewaysinwhichgenderhasbeentheorisedwere

discussed,bothwithregardstowhatthetermmeans,andwithrespecttohowit

constructed.Gendercanbeunderstoodasthesociallyascribedcategoryfor

particularbehaviours,andmuchlikesex,gendertendstobeviewedasdimorphic

bymany.However,theconstructionofthesegenderidentities(manorwoman),

arenotnecessarilyaresultofaperson’sassignedsexcategorybutrather,gender

comesintobeingthroughperformativity,orourrepetitionofeverydaygender

acts.Sexualitywasalsodiscussedwithafocusonitsconnectiontogenderand

sex.Thewaysinwhichwe‘do’sexualityarerootedinheterosexuality.Despite

evidencesupportingthenotionthatsex,gender,andsexualityaresocial

constructionsreinforcedthroughdiscursiveprocesses,thepowerofthe

heterosexualmatrixandheternormativityresultsinanongoingperceptionofa

naturalbinarismforallofthesecategories.

Inspiteoftraditionsthatsuggestotherwise,itismyviewthatthe

45

interconnectionbetweensex,gender,andsexualitypreventsusfromfully

separatingthemoutfromoneanother.Inordertoresearchgenderexpressions,

theseconnectionsneedtobeacknowledgedandincorporatedintotheanalysis.

Byviewinggenderasasocialconstructthatisinformedbysexandsexuality,we

canthengainfurtherinsightintohowitisthatbinarygenderexpressionsareso

pervasive.Thenextchapterwillexpanduponthisbyexaminingthetheoretical

workandempiricalresearchpertainingtogenderexpressions,andmore

specifically,women’sgenderexpressions.Dominantandnon-dominant

femininitieswillbediscussedtoprovideadetaileddescriptionofthetheoretical

frameworksthepresentresearchissituatedwithin.

46

Chapter3

Women’sGenderExpressions

Thepreviouschapterpresentedsomeoftheimportantdebatesrelatingtothe

definitionsandintersectionsbetweensex,gender,andsexualitytoprovidethe

foundationsformakingsenseofgenderexpressions.Thischapterwillfocuson

thetheoreticalandempiricalresearchonwomen’sgenderexpressionmore

specificallytoestablishtheframeworkthepresentresearchislocatedwithin.It

willbeginbyexaminingmasculinityandthesignificanceofmasculinitiesin

understandingfemininity.Asfemininityisconstructedrelationallyto

masculinity,anunderstandingofhowmasculinitiesareconstructedand

theorisedisessential.Thekeytheoreticalframeworksutilisedinexploring

women’sgenderexpressionandthedebateregardingthesewillbeexplored,

followedbyadiscussionoftheterminologyusedfordescribingthemost

culturallydominantformsofwomen’sgenderexpression.Connell’s(1987)

conceptofemphasisedfemininitywillbethendiscussed,aswillSchippers’

(2002)alternativeofhegemonicfemininity.Thischapterwilldrawonarangeof

qualitativeresearchinthisareainordertointerrogatehowfemininitieshave

beentheorised.Therearemyriadoftermsthathavebeenusedtodescribe

femininity;someoverlapintheideastheyareconveying,whileothersmake

differentclaimsabouttheconnectionbetweenfemininityandthegenderorder.

Finally,non-dominantformsofwomen’sgenderexpressionaswellasanumber

ofsubtypeswillbeoutlined.

47

MasculinitiesandFemininities

Aswasdetailedinthepreviouschapter,oneofthemajorproblemswith

scholarshipaboutgenderhasbeenthedefaulttotwodistinctanddichotomous

sexcategories(Butler2004;Charlebois2011;Connell2002).Whilebiologicalsex

issociallyconstructed(Butler1990),thisnotionstillformsthedefaultbasisfor

howmasculinityandfemininityareunderstood:wheremenaremasculineand

womenarefeminine(Charlebois2011).Viewingmasculinityandfemininityas

fundamentallydifferentencouragesustothinkofmenandwomenasalso

different(Johnson2005).Intheirmostbasicform,masculinityandfemininitycan

beseenassetsofsocialnormsaboutmenandwomen’sbehaviour,andmore

significantlythegenderspecificexpectationsofwhatthosebehavioursshould

include(Johnson2005).Asthefollowingwillestablish,withinWesternsocieties,

masculinecharacteristicsandbehavioursareoftenconsideredtoincludebeing

aggressive,competitive,independent,strong,confidentandpermissive

heterosexuality(Charlebois2011;Francis2010;Messerschmidt2010).For

femininity,thekeyaspectsareseentobecompliance,dependence,cooperation,

passivityandconservativesexuality(Charlebois2011;Connell1987;

Messerschmidt2010;Schippers2007).Inessence,femininityiswhatmasculinity

isnot(Connell1987).

Thetermmasculinityhasbeeninusagesincethe1800’sandhassurprisingly

alteredlittleinitsmeaning(Whitehead2002).Whilewhatconstituted

masculinityintheearlydaysofthetermsusagebearslittleresemblancetoits

morecontemporaryunderstanding,theessenceofthetermremainsthesamein

48

thatmasculinityrepresentsanidealisedversionofwhatitmeanstobeaman

withinagivensociety(Whitehead2002).Aprominenttheoristinthestudyof

genderandmasculinities,RaewynConnell(1987,p.71)describesmasculinityas

“...simultaneouslyaplaceingenderrelations,thepracticesthroughwhichmen

andwomenengagethatplaceingender,andtheeffectsofthesepracticeson

bodilyexperience,personalityandculture”.AccordingtoConnell(1987),

masculinityinvolvesasetofpracticesandcharacteristicsthatbyengagingin,

peopleareabletopositionthemselveswithinthespaceofmasculinity.Inother

words,byactinginparticularways,onebecomesmasculine.Whenpeople,but

meninparticular,engageinthesepracticesthereareveryrealandsignificant

effectsonthesocialandculturallandscape.Fromthiswork,thetermmasculinity

hasextendedfromjustpertainingtothevariousideasaboutwhatconstitutes

malebehavioursandcharacteristicstonowbeinganentireareaofresearch

examiningpowerrelations,stratificationandidentity(Haywood&MacanGhaill

2003;Whitehead2002).

WorkbysociologistssuchasConnellandMesserschmidt(2005)haschallenged

theessentialistviewbyexaminingthedifferencesthatarepresentwithinthe

samesexcategoriesandthemanyformsofmasculinitiesandfemininities.Within

anycategoryofclassificationexistsahierarchalorderandthussome

masculinitiesand/orfemininitiesembodyamoredominantpositionoverothers.

Messerschmidt(2010)andConnellandMesserschmidt(2005)suggestthatin

ordertounderstandhowthehierarchieswithinfemininitiesfunction,weneedto

firstunderstandtheirrelationtothehierarchyofmasculinitieswithwhichthey

areinextricablylinked.

49

Oneoftheproblemswithtryingtodefinemasculinityisthatitobscuresthe

processesinvolvedinbeinggendered,andindoingsoneglectstherelationships

betweenandamonggenders(Connell1987).Forthisreason,Connell(1987)uses

thetermmasculinitiestomakeitclearthatisnotjustoneformofbeing

masculine,butmany.Ratherthanconceivingofmasculinebehavioursand

attributesunderthesingleheadingofmasculinity,conceptualisingmultiple

masculinitiesallowsexplorationofthevariousformsmasculinitycantakeon.In

thisvein,theconceptofhegemonicmasculinitywasdevelopedbyConnell(1987)

todescribethedominantformofmasculinitywithinagivensocietyandsincehas

becomeanessentialcomponentingenderandmasculinitiesstudies.When

particularideasandmeaningsaroundwhatismasculinedominateagiven

society,theformsofmasculinitythatarelesspowerfulthendefertothe

hegemonicform.Connell(1987)alsoarguesthatthewayinwhichwe

understandhegemonicmasculinityisoftenthroughcomparingittowhatitisnot,

suchasfemininityandlessdominantformsofmasculinity.Inthisway,Connell

(1987)viewsmasculinityandfemininityaspartofgenderedpowerrelations

wheredifferentmasculinitiesarethoughtofinrelationtooneanotherwithina

hierarchy.

Duetotheinfluenceoftheprominentviewthatthereisadichotomyofmenand

women,andmasculineandfeminine,muchoftheresearchintomasculinityhas

pertainedonlytothosewhoexhibitclearmalesexcharacteristics.Pascoe(2006,

p.1)challengesthedominantapproachestosociologicalmasculinityresearch

whichviewsmasculinityas“whateveritisthatmalebodiesdo”.Researchby

Pascoe(2012)andothers(seeforexampleHalberstam1998;Sasson-Levy2003)

50

hasbeguntobuildabodyofworkbreakingdownthisdichotomyandexamining

masculinityinmorefluidtermswheresexandthebodyarelesscentraltothe

analysis,includingmasculinityandwomen’sbodies.Thiswillbeexploredin

moredetaillaterinthischapter.

Understandingmasculinityisessentialtounderstandingfemininity,asbothare

constructedinrelationtoeachother.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,within

theheterosexualmatrixmasculinityandfemininityarecentraltomaking

genderedbodiesintelligible(Butler1990).Ofinteresttothisthesisisthewaysin

whichwomen’sbodiesareseenasunintelligible,orratherbodiesthatdonot

presenttheexpectedgenderedbehavioursandpresentation.Inordertodiscuss

this,aclearunderstandingoftheexpectedbehavioursisneeded.Thefollowing

sectionwillexploretheseideasfurtherbyunpackingwhatitmeanstobe

feminine.

FemininityandFemininities

Inasimilarfashiontomasculinity,femininitycanbeseenaswhatgroupsof

peoplethinkitmeanstobewomeninaparticularsociety(Paechter2007).As

discussedinChapter2,bothsexandgenderaresociallyconstructedcategories

andthesecategoriesinformunderstandingsofgenderexpressions(Butler1990;

Connell1987).Areviewoftheliteraturerevealsthatfemininityisanexpression

ofwomen’sbodiesthatencompassesparticularbehavioursandattributesthat

hasshiftedovertime(Butler1990;Skeggs1997).Inthe1700’s,thehegemonic

51

idealsofthebourgeoiswomanwerepushedupontheworkingclass,creating

femininityasacategorywomenstrovefor(Skeggs1997).AccordingtoSkeggs

(1997),atthistime,femininitywasfocusedpredominantlyonsimplicity,

composure,moderationandopulenceinone’sappearance(Skeggs1997).

However,bythe1800’s,femininitybegantoincludebehaviouralaspects(Skeggs

1997).Centraltotheseunderstandingswasthenotionof‘respectability’(Skeggs

1997).Whilerespectabilityisstillanimportantcharacteristicofmodern

femininity,therearemanyotheraspectsthatareseenasmoresignificant.As

outlinedearlier,theseincludequalitiessuchasbeingpassive,compassionate,

submissive,nurturing,andweak(Ambjörnsson2004;Messerschmidt2010).

Empathy,control,sexualdesirability,andsoftnessaresimilarlyconsideredtobe

partoffemininity(Ambjörnsson2004).Theroleofmotherhoodasacornerstone

intheconstructionsoffemininityhasalsobeennotedbyscholars(Charlebois

2012;NakanoGlenn1994;Nash2014;Russo1976;Skeggs1997).

Femininityisconstructedinrelationtohegemonicmasculinity,wherewomenare

subordinatetomen(Charlebois2011;Connell1987;Schippers2007).These

notionsoffemininityrestupondifference;femininityiswhatmasculinityisnot

(Connell1987).Thiscanbeseeninthetypesofcharacteristicsthathavecometo

beunderstoodasfeminine:passiveversusaggressive,submissiveversus

dominating.Underpinningthenotionofdifferenceistheheterosexualmatrix.

Heterosexualityprovidesarationalefordifference,aswomenandmenareseen

ascomplementaryopposites,justifyingpowerinequality(Charlebois2011;

Connell1987;Schippers2007).Ashighlightedinthepreviouschapter,sex,

gender,andsexualityareintertwinedandcontingentupononeanother.Itisfor

52

thesereasonsthatfemininitycannotbeunderstoodoranalysedwithout

acknowledgingitsconnectiontomasculinityandheterosexuality.

Whilemasculinityhasbeenanareaofgreatinterestforresearchers,femininity

hasreceivedsignificantlylessattention(Finley2010).Inthepasttwodecades,

therehasbeenanincreaseinqualitativeresearchonvariousaspectsof

femininityexploringanumberofareasrangingfromtheinternet(Elm2009),

geek(Currie,Kelly&Pomerantz2006),Gothculture(Wilkins2004),andmusic

(Mullaney2007;Schippers2002).Education(Allan2009;Cockburn&Clarke

2002;Esposito2011;Fahey2014;Hill2015;Renold&Allan2006),work

(Demaiter&Adams2009),druguse(Haines,Johnson,Carter&Arora2009),

drinking(Rolfe,Orford&Dalton2009),graffiti(Halsey&Young2006),and

homelessness(Huey&Berndt2008)havealsobeenareasofinterest.Likewise,

substantialresearchhaslookedatfemininitiesinparticularcultures(Beutel,

Borden&Burge2015;Charlebois2014;Cole&Zucker2007;Pyke&Johnson

2003),anditsintersectionalitywithclass(Armstrong,Hamilton,Armstrong&

LotusSeeley2014;Fahey2014).Femininityandsportisafurtherareathathas

receivedsignificantattentionfromresearchers(Adams&Bettis2003;Cohen

2008;Grindstaff&West2010;Ezzell2009;Grogan,Evans,Write&Hunter2004;

Krane,Choi,Baird,Aimar&Kauer2004;Packard2009).Thislistisbynomeans

exhaustive,butdespitetheamountofresearchpresentedhere,thereislittle

consensusastoaframeworkwithinwhichtoanalysefemininity.Infact,the

majorityofthesequalitativestudiesdonotutiliseanyframeworkfor

understandingfemininityinabroadercontext.Assuch,whilethefindingsof

muchofthisworkareofinteresttothefieldofgenderexpressions,theydonot

53

servetofurtheranunderstandingoftherelationshipsbetweenfemininitiesor

theirrelationshiptomasculinities.

Formanyofthestudiesonfemininitythatdoengagewiththeoretical

frameworksforunderstandingfemininity,thereistremendousvariationinthe

terminologyandconceptsutilisedincludingtraditional(Groganetal.2004;

Sasson-Levy2003),dominant(Charlebois2011;Rosdahl2014),emphasised

(Connell1987),hegemonic(Schippers2007),conventional(Gonick2004),

successful(Ringrose2007)ornormative(Ambjörnsson2004;Adams&Bettis

2003;Fahey2014;Jaji2015;Pascoe2006;Renold&Allan2006)andnew

femininities(Budgeon2013).Whiletheamountofresearchthathastouchedon

femininitymayappeartoconstituteasubstantialbodyofwork,withinthese

worksthereremainsalackofconsensusonhowtobesttotheorisethese

femininitiesortherelationshipswithnon-dominantformsoffemininity.

Schippers(2007)hascalledforamoreusefulframeworkforthroughwhichto

analysethewaysinwhichhierarchiesofmultiplefemininitieshelptoreinforce

thegenderandFinley(2010)hasalsohighlightedthelackofadequate

scholarshipregardingmultiplefemininities.Furthermore,Hockey,Meahand

Robinson(2007)arguethatheterosexualityhasnotbeencentraltoempirical

sociologicalresearchandsuggestfurtherresearchintoexperiencesof

heterosexuality,includingtheroleoffemininity.Itisclearthatthereisadistinct

lackofinvestigationintothepracticesthatconstitutefemininity(Gill&Scharff

2011),andinparticularheterosexualfemininity(Hockeyetal.2007).Thereare

howevertwodominantframeworksthatprovidesomeinsightintothe

complexitiesoftherelationshipsbetweenfemininities,thatofemphasisedand

54

hegemonicfemininities.Thefollowingsectionwilldiscussandcritiquethese

typologiestoconsiderhowtheymaybeusefulforanalysingthedatacollectedin

thisproject.

CurrentTypologies:EmphasisedandHegemonicFemininities

Asnotedabove,acohesiveframeworkforunderstandingwomen’sgender

expressionshasnotyetbeenadequatelydeveloped,however,thereareseveral

importantconceptsthathavepavedthewayforgreaterunderstandingof

multiplefemininities.Theacademicdominanttypologiesoffemininitieswillbe

discussed,thatofemphasisedfemininity(Connell1987)andhegemonic

femininity(Schippers2007),inordertoprovideaviewofthecurrentworkon

women’sgenderexpressions.Thesetwoperspectivesarethemainframeworks

throughwhichhierarchicalfemininitieshavebeenexploredandhavealsobeen

thebasisformuchofresearchinthisarea.

EmphasisedFemininity

MuchoftheresearchonfemininitieshasstemmedfromConnell’s(1987)workon

masculinitiesnotedearlier.Whilefemininitieswerenotanareaofsignificant

focusforher,Connell’s(1987)workisstilloneofthemostdominanttheoretical

frameworkswithinfemininityresearch.DrawingonWestandZimmerman’s

(1987)conceptofdoinggender,Connell(1987;2002)arguesthatrelations

55

betweenandamongmasculinityandfemininityareseenwithinalltypesof

powerrelations,includinglabour,emotionalandsymbolicrelations.Connell

(1987)conceptualisesamodelofgenderrelationsthatacknowledgesthe

constraintsofsocialstructureswhilealsoallowingformultiplemasculinitiesand

femininities.Inexploringthesemultiplefemininities,Connell(1987)coinedthe

term‘emphasisedfemininity’todescribethemostculturallydominantformof

femininity.

Connell(1987)initiallydevelopedaconceptofhegemonicfemininityalongside

hegemonicmasculinity,butsoonafterreconceptualisedtheconceptas

emphasisedfemininity.Sheargueswomenhavelittleinstitutionalisedpower

overotherwomenandthereforethetermhegemonicwasmisleading.However,

shesuggeststhatthetermemphasisedfemininitycapturesthepatternof

femininitythathasmostculturalsupportwithinagivensociety.Itcanbeseenas

traditionalfemininitythatis“definedaroundcompliance”tothesubordinationof

menand“orientedtoaccommodatingtheinterestsanddesiresofmen”(Connell

1987,p.183).Thiscompulsoryheterosexualityiscentraltoconventionalgender

identities(Rich1980).Whileitisoftenthemostvaluedformoffemininitywithin

aculture,itisnotnecessarilythemostcommon.Furthermore,likehegemonic

femininity,emphasisedfemininityisnotaformofgenderexpressionthatcan

everbe‘achieved’,ratheritisaculturalidealwomenaimtoembody,shaping

theirbodilypracticesandalteringtheirbehaviourtoalignwiththenotionsof

whatfemininityis(Charlebois2011).

56

Emphasisedfemininitycanbeseenasboth“historicallyandgeographically

mobile”(Charlebois2011,p.26).Inotherwords,thedominantformsof

femininityhavechangedovertimeanddifferfromplacetoplace.Forexample,

whatwasconsideredtoemphasizeone’sfemininityin1500’s(paleskin)differs

fromcontemporaryunderstandings(tannedskin)inaWesterncontext

(Charlebois2011).Moreover,theseaspectsdifferacrosscultures.Whilein

Westernculturetannedskinisdesired,inotherpartsoftheworld,emphasised

femininitymayrequirelighteningofone’sskincolour.Culturalunderstandingsof

emphasisedfemininityareoftenpromotedandcommercialised,reinforcing

legitimation(Charlebois2011;Finley2010).Thiscanbeseeninthegrowing

numberof‘diet’businesses,andtheexerciseandmakeupindustrieswhichall

stemfromthenotionthatwomen’sbodiesaredeficientandneedtobefixed

(Bartky1990;Charlebois2011).Attemptstocontrolandmodifythebody,and

thuspresentmorefeminisedbodies,areseentobedonetoappeasemaledesires

(Bartky1990;Greer1970),reinforcingfemininityassubordinatetomasculinity.

Thewaysinwhichwomenoveremphasiseorexaggeratetheirfemininityin

certaincontexts,suchaswhenengaginginmoremasculinesportsoractivities,

reinforcessuchideasandwillbediscussedinmoredetaillaterinthischapter.

Whileemphasisedfemininitywasconstructedinrelationtotheconceptof

hegemonicmasculinities,itdiffersfromthemasculineforminthewaythatit

reflectstheacceptanceofglobaldominanceofmenoverwomen,thuscreatingan

asymmetryinthegenderorder(Finley2010).Messerschmidt(2004)hasalso

extendedConnell’s(1987)conceptbysuggestingthatemphasisedfemininities

arepracticedinamannerwhichaccommodatestheinferiorrelationshipwith

57

hegemonicmasculinities,bothlegitimizingtheirexistenceandmakingvisible

their“meaningandessence”(MesserschmidtcitedinCharlebois2011,p.26).Itis

throughtherelationshipbetweenhegemonicmasculinitiesandemphasised

femininitiesthatwecanseehowthepositionswithinthehierarchyare

perpetuatedthroughinteractions,inturnrevealingwhatconstituteshegemonic

masculinitiesandemphasisedfemininities.Itisonlywithinthiscontextofthe

hierarchalrelationshipthattheseconceptscanexist;theymustbeunderstoodin

relationtooneanotherinordertohavemeaning(Charlebois2011;

Messerschmidt2004).

Esposito(2011)explorednotionsofemphasisedfemininityinherresearchon

theexperiencesofyoungwomenfromuniversitiesintheUnitedStates.Inher

study,Esposito(2011)spokewithyoungwomenidentifyingtwotypesof

femininity,the‘Hillgirl’and‘Citystyle’.The‘Hillgirl’wasinfluencedby

traditionalnotionsoffemininityandconsumptionpractices,andrepresenteda

particularformofdominantfemininityontheuniversitycampuswherethey

attended.Despitethis,Esposito(2011)assertsthatevenwiththisstatus,itdid

notofferthewomen“areprievefromheteropatriarchy”.Suchfindingssupport

Connell’s(1987,p.187)rejectionofhegemonicfemininitysuggestingthatsucha

categorycannotexistas“allformsoffemininityinthissocietyareconstructedin

thecontextoftheoverallsubordinationofwomentomen”.Esposito(2011)

contendsthatforthisreason,thetermemphasisedfemininityismore

appropriate.Furthermore,she,likeConnell(1987)andPaechter(2006),argues

thatfemininitiesdifferfrommasculinitiesastheyenablepatriarchy.

58

Charlebois(2012)alsoutilisesthetermemphasisedfemininityinhiswork

exploringtheJapanesesubjectpositionsof‘salarymen’and‘professional

housewives’.Intheiraccountsoftheirlives,Charlebois(2012)suggeststhatthe

womendiscursivelyconstructemphasisedfemininitybyinternalisingnotionsof

heterosexuality,marriageandmotherhood.Charlebois(2012)understandsthis

throughtheframeworkofboundedmasculinityandunboundedfemininity,

wherethemenareboundtotheirworkandthewomenarefreedfromthat

pressure.Thewomenviewedtheirpositionasaprofessionalhousewifeina

positiveway,wherethedomesticrolewaspreferabletobeingboundto

employmentoutsideofthehome.Increatingsuchadynamic,menmaintaina

positonofdominanceandwomen,ofsubordination.Thewomen’s“complicit

subjectpositions”ashousewivesareunderstoodbyCharlebois(2012,p.28)as

“legitimatinganunequalrelationshipbetweenmasculinityandfemininity”.This

unequalrelationshipisatthecoreofemphasisedfemininityandcanalsobeseen

insportingcontextsasdiscussedatlaterinthischapter.

Inexploringrelationshipsbetweenmenandgirls,TerryLeahyalso(1994)draws

onConnell’s(1987)conceptofemphasisedfemininityandDorothySmith’s

(1988)‘codes’offemininityasastartingpointforanalysisfordiscoursesof

femininity.Smith’s(1988,p.53)notionof‘codesoffemininity’assertsthat

women,“use,playwith,breakwith,andoppose”thesetextuallyorganised

practicesofculturalunderstandingsoffemininity.Usingthisasastartingpoint,

Leahy(1994)arguesthatratherthanbeingsituatedwithineitherdominant

cultureorresistantsubcultures,asissuggestedinConnell’swork,femininities

areinfactnotnearlythis‘neat’.InsteadLeahy(1994,p.49)suggeststhat,

59

Emphasizedfemininityisnotacoherentunified‘culture’butarisesfrom

practicesoccasionedwithinavarietyofdiscourses–forexample,

motherhood,beauty,orromance.Thesedonotcometogetherasa

watertightpackage,butindividuallytheyprovidearangeofsubject

positionswhichmaywellcontradicteachotherinaparticularsituation.

Thisalsoaffectsotherareasthatmayseemunrelatedsuchasadolescence,health

orsportsbycreatingtensionbetweenthedifferentsubjectpositionsaswellas

enablingafluidityinexpressionsofgender.Genderconstructionwithinand

acrossthefacetsmayattimesbothadheretoandcontradictdiscourseof

dominantfemininity(Leahy1994).Thisnotionofmultiple,incongruoussubject

positionswillbeexploredthroughmyfindings.However,thecomplexityofthese

variousmanifestationsoffemininityarenotadequatelycapturedthroughthe

emphasisedfemininityframeworkasallfemininitiesareunderstoodsubordinate,

limitinganypossibilityofpoweroveroneanother.

WhilemanytheoristshavebuiltupontheconceptofConnell’semphasised

femininityincorporatingvariousotherelementstocounterperceivedlimitations

withinthetheory(Charlebois2011;Messerschmidt2000;2010),therearealso

thosewhohavecritiquedit(Finley2010;Schippers2007).Withtheshiftto

emphasisedfemininity,Connell(1987)arguedthatallfemininityissubordinate

tomasculinity,andthatnoformoffemininitycouldeverhaveenoughpowerto

beseenashegemonic.Thisreplacementofhegemonicfemininitywiththe

conceptofemphasisedfemininitythereforerestrictsanalysisofthehierarchiesof

femininitiesandthepowerrelationswithin(Finley2010).Furthermore,while

Connell(1987)suggestedthatwomenhavelittleinstitutionalisedcontrolover

60

otherwomen,PykeandJohnson(2003)arguethatthisdisregardsthewaysin

whichage,class,sexualityandracearesubjugatedinordertoestablisha

hegemonicformoffemininity.Theprivilegingofparticularformsoffemininity

overotherscreatessubordinateformsthatareconstructedasoppositionalto

dominantfemininity(Charlebois2011;Pyke&Johnson2003).Bydrawingon

suchaframework,researchersarebetterabletoexplorethe“multiplicityof

women’sexperiences”withrelationtoraceandclass(Pyke&Johnson2003,p.

35).Forthesereasons,manyhavereturnedtothetermhegemonicfemininity.

HegemonicFemininities

Drawingonherworkwithwomeninthealternativehardrockmusicscene,

Schippers(2002;2007)addressedtheconcernsnotedbyPykeandJohnson

(2003)regardingalackofanalysisofthehierarchywithintheemphasised

femininityframework.Sheproposedanalternativetheoreticalframeworkthat

reconceivedofhegemonicfemininitythatenabledfurtherinvestigationofthe

genderorderanditsmaintenanceinthehierarchiesoffemininity.Schippers

(2007)theoryofhegemonicfemininitystemsfromButler’s(1999)heterosexual

matrixbysuggestingthatheterosexualitystructurestherelationshipsbetween

masculinityandfemininity.Complementarybutasymmetricalrelational

variationsbetweenmenandwomenallowforthishegemonytobemaintained.

Schippers’(2007,p.92)understandspeopletooccupythesociallocationofman

orwoman:

61

Itisthroughsocialpracticethatthehierarchicalrelationshipbetween

masculinityandfemininityorganizesmaterialrelationsofsociallife.

Practice,then,isnotmasculinityandfemininityasConnellsuggests;social

practice,inallitsforms,fromembodiedinteractiontochildraising…isthe

mechanismbywhichmasculinitiesandfemininities,aspartofavast

networkofgendermeanings,cometoorganizesociallife.Masculinities

andfemininitiesprovidealegitimatingrationalenotjustforembodiment

andbehaviorbyindividualsbutalsoforhowtocoordinate,evaluate,and

regulatesocialpractices,andthereinliestheirhegemonicsignificance.

RatherthanviewpeopleoccupyingConnell’s(1987)notionof‘place’,Schippers

(2007)arguesthatpeopleoccupythe‘sociallocation’ofwomanorman.From

thislocation,theycanthenparticipateinpracticesandembodycharacteristics

symbolicallyunderstoodasmasculineorfeminine.Suchaviewenablesanalysis

ofthehierarchalrelationshipsthatexistnotonlyinrelationtomasculinities,but

withotherfemininitiesaswell.Furthermore,itdistinguishesfemininityfrom

subordinatemasculinity,enablingaviewofmultiplefemininitiesthatdoesnot

reduceittothepracticesofwomen,andmasculinitytothepracticesofmen

(Bäckström2013;Halberstam1998;Schippers2007).

Connell(1987,p.188)suggestedthat“femininityorganizedasanadaptionto

men’spower,andemphasizingcompliance,nurturance,andempathyaswomanly

virtues,isnotinmuchofastatetoestablishhegemonyoverotherformsof

femininity”.Theemphasisedfemininityframeworkdiscountstherelationships

betweenmultiplefemininities.Incontrast,Schippers(2007,p.11)arguesthat

“whenawomanisassertive,shemovesawayfromidealfemininity.Whileothers

mightevaluatehernegatively,itdoesnotmakesensetosaysheisina

62

subordinatepositioninrelationtootherwomen”.Thisisanimportant

conceptualdeparturefromemphasisedfemininity.InthisrethinkingofConnell’s

work,Schippers(2002;2007)explainsthatwhenawomanembodiesmasculine

traitstheyarenotunderstoodinsamewayasamanexhibitingidentical

behaviours.The‘content’ofgenderstillrestswithinthe‘container’ofsex(Delphy

1993).Expressionsofmasculinitycollapsesbackontothesexassignedatbirth,

preventingusfromseparatingoutgenderfromsex.UnlikeConnell,Schippers

(2007,p.89)alsoarguestheformsoffemininitiesorgenderexpressionthatare

seenasdeviatingfromthe“normal,idealordesirable”shouldnotnecessarilybe

consideredtolocatea‘subordinate’positiontothedominantformsastheyoften

havemasculinequalitiesandthuscannotnecessarilybeconsideredinferior.

Furthermore,thecomplementarynatureofmasculinityandfemininityarewhat

maintainthecurrentgenderorder,andthusthroughcontinueduseoftheterm

‘hegemonicfemininity’ratherthan‘emphasisedfemininity,’thisrelationshipis

highlighted.

Schippers(2007)contendsthatbyreworkingConnell’s(1987)theoryofgender

hegemonyintheseways,theconceptofhegemonicfemininitycanbeusedto

examinehowmasculinitiesandfemininitiesworktomaintaindominanceover

womenasagrouponvariousscales,localtoglobal.Onamoreglobalscale,it

allowsforexplorationofthewaysinwhichgenderhegemonyjustifiesand

continuesinequalitybasedonrace,ethnicity,classorsexualityaswellas

enablinganunderstandingoffemininitythatallowsformultipleconfigurations.

Onalocalscale,Schippers(2007)speaksoftheresistantformsoffemininityas

‘alternative’and‘pariah’femininities.Thistypologyoffemininitiesallowsforan

63

explorationofwomen’sgenderexpressionnotavailablethroughtheemphasised

femininityframeworkasitallowsforanalysisofmultiple,hierarchical

femininities.

Theconceptualisationofmultiplehierarchicalfemininitiesisanimportant

distinctionbetweenhegemonicfemininityandemphasisedfemininity.Connell

(1987,p.188)arguesthatfemininityis“organizedasanadaptationtomen’s

power”andcentredaroundcompliance,empathyandnurturing,andthereforeis

“notinmuchofastatetoestablishhegemonyoverotherformsoffemininity”.

However,Schippers(2007)suggeststhatthiswouldonlybethecaseif

masculinityandfemininitywereunderstoodseparately.By“placingthe

relationshipbetweenmasculinityandfemininityatthecentreofgender

hegemony”weareabletoexaminethe“multipleandhierarchicalconfigurations

ofmasculinitiesandfemininities”asitisthroughtheidealisedrelationship

betweenthetwothatcontentsofgenderareconstructed(Schippers2007,p.94).

ThiscanbeseeninMesserschidt’s(2004)researchonfemininityamongsthigh

schoolstudentswherevariousformsofwomen’sgenderexpressionwere

evident.Thereweretwomaingroupsofgirlswhocompetedfordominance

againsteachother,aswellasasmallseparategroupofgirlswhobehavedin

typicallymasculineways.Thesemasculinegirlswereawardedahigherstatus

thatothers,buttheywerestillsubordinatetomales.Multiple,differingformsof

femininityheldhegemonicsocialpositionswithinthesameschooling

environmentandcompetedfordominance.Schippers’(2007)genderframework

enablesanalysisofthesetypesofintricateintragenderrelationsbetween

femininitiesinawaythatemphasisedfemininitydoesnotprovidefor.

64

Connell’s(1987)workonfemininitieswasfoundationalinourunderstandingsof

genderexpression,howevertherearemanylimitationstothetheory.Buildingon

theworkfromConnell(1987),Schippers’(2007)hegemonicfemininity

frameworkprovidesausefulwayinwhichtoexplorethemostculturally

dominantformsoffemininityandsubordinatefemininitiesandwillbeutilisedin

thedataanalysisofthisproject.Hegemonicfemininityalsoenablesanalysisof

theintersectionalityofraceandclasswithfemininities.Afurtherusefulaspectof

Schipper’s(2007)workisthatitdrawsonButler’s(1990)heterosexualmatrix,

suggestingthatheterosexualityunderpinstherelationalvariationsbetweenmen

andwomen.Thenextsectionwillexplorethisinmoredetail.

DominantFemininitiesandHeterosexuality

Someresearchersusehegemonicandemphasisedinterchangeably(Fairchild&

Gregg2014,Hill2015;Jaji2015),whileothersdonotutiliseanyofthesemain

theoreticalframeworksatall.However,thesefindingsstillprovidevaluable

insightintofemininitiesandgenderexpressionthatcanbeconsideredinanalysis

ofthedata.Someofthesewillbebrieflydiscussed.

Budgeon’s(2014)workon‘newfemininities’hasaddedtoSchippers’(2007)

hegemonicgendertheory.Duetovarioussocietalchanges,includinganalleged

shifttowardsafeminizationofthepublicsphere,Budgeon(2014)hasargued

thatidealisedfemininityhasbeguntoincorporateelementsofempowerment.

Thegirlpowermovementofthe1990’sbroughtaformoffemininitytothe

65

foregroundthatincorporatedtraditionalaspectsalongsideasenseofagencyand

liberation(Budgeon2014).Characteristicssuchasbeingassertiveandactiveare

partofwhathasbeendeemedthe‘newgirl’(Gonick2004).Thiscanalsobeseen

inthenotionofthe‘futuregirl’(Harris2004).Youngwomenarenowexpectedto

enactaspectsofbothtraditionalfemininityandmasculinity,creating

contradictorysubjectpositions(Harris2004;McRobbie2007;Ringrose2007).

However,Budgeon(2014)arguesthatratherthanrejectthegenderorder,these

newfemininitiesoftenplayintoitaspluralfemininitiesareproducedalongside

hegemonicrelations.McRobbie(2007)echoedthis,suggestingthatneoliberal

discourses“re-regulateyoungwomenbymeansofthelanguageofpersonal

choice”(p.38)andtheillusionof‘choice’thatisactually“amodalityfor

constraint”(p.36).Thisisofinteresttothepresentresearchasthenewformsof

femininitypresentinthemedia(notedintheintroduction),oftendrawon

notionsofcontradictoryexpressionsofgenderthatcentreonthenotionof

‘choice’.Assuch,theseideaswillbedrawnoninthefindingstoseethewaysin

whichwomenmayexperiencetensionbetweenhegemonicfemininityand

aspectsofmasculinity.

Whilehegemonicfemininitycanbebroadlydescribedaswhatisdeemedsocially

acceptableforwomentoboth‘be’and‘do’,withinthiscategorytherearevarious

formsoffemininity,oneofwhichishyperfemininity.‘Hyperfemininity’canbe

understoodasasociallyacceptableformoffemininity,howeveritisseenasan

extremeformoffemininity(Allan2009;Connell1995;Holland&Harpin2013;

Paechter2010;Renold&Allan2006).Hyperfemininityislocatedatthefarendof

thewomen’sgenderexpressionspectrum,anexaggeratedandidealperformance

66

offemininitythatisinextricablylinkedto(hetero)sexuality(Allan2009;Paechter

2010).Withinhyperfemininity,the‘girly-girl’occupiesaparticulartypeof

embodimentthatfocusesonbothlooksandbehaviour(Allan2009),where

attentiontoone’sappearancebecomesaleisureactivity(Holland&Harpin

2013).Pink,fluffy,wellmadeup,niceandcompliantareallaspectsofthegirly-

girl.ThisnotionalignswithwhatHalberstam(1998)describesasa‘compliant

formoffemininity’thatallowsforthesubordinationofmenoverwomen.The

underpinningofheterosexualitydiscussedinthepreviouschapteriscrucialin

themanifestationofsuchformsoffemininity.

Inastudyofhyperfemininity,AlexandraAllan(2009)undertookresearchwith

younggirlsinaprivateprimaryschooltoexploretherelevanceofButler’s(1990)

heterosexualmatrixandtheintersectionsbetweenclass,genderandsexuality.

Allan(2009)foundthatheteronormativityandthemalegazeplayedalargerole

inhowtheseyoungwomenconstructedtheiridentities.Thegirly-girlswere

describedbytheparticipantsasthemostpopulargirlsinschool,seenas

beautiful,attractiveandnice.Theyweretheidealfemininetypemanyofthegirls

strivedtobelike,despiteoftennotfeelingpositivelytowardsthosetheysawas

embodyingit.Paechter(2010,p.221)usesaframeworkthatseesmasculinities

andfemininitiesas“waysof‘doingman/woman’or‘boy/girl’thatare

constructedwithinlocalcommunitiesofmasculinityandfemininitypractice”.She

contendsthatthegirly-girlisalwaysconstructedasheterosexual,andthatthe

girly-girlidentitywasconstructedinoppositiontothe‘tomboy’identity

(discussedlater).UnlikeAllan’s(2009)researchhowever,Paechter(2010)found

thatlooksandbehaviourwereseparatedoutfromeachotherwhenconstructing

67

thegirly-girlidentity.The‘nice’aspectofbeinggirlybecamelessrelevantasgirls

grewolderandbegantoembodymoreofa‘flirty-fashion’discourse(Renold

2005).ThisdiscoursedescribedbyRenold(2005)involvesthegirlsapplying

makeup,alteringclothing,andbeginningto‘flirt’withthesexualboundariesof

child/adult.Theseworksonthe‘girly-girl’provideinsightintohowgirlsfeminine

identities,evenfromayoungage,arecloselyintertwinedwithheterosexuality.

Educationalsettingsprovidearichsiteforviewingcomplexgenderidentity

negotiationsthatsupportheteronormativity.Inthisvein,MyersandRaymond

(2010)undertookresearchwithgirlsundertheageofninetoexplorehow

heteronormativityisconstructed.Theyfoundthat,ratherthanbeingapartof

growingupand‘comingofage’,itwasapartofeverydaylife.Myersand

Raymond(2010)contendthatthegirlsintheirresearch‘performed’

heteronormativityforotherboysandgirlsbyfocussingtheirinterestson‘boys’.

Muchliketheworkdoneon‘girlygirls’(Allan2009;Paechter2010;Reay2001;

Renold2005)heterosexualitybeginstoshapechildren’sunderstandingsof

themselvesandothersatayoungagethroughtheirconstructionofgender

identities.AsSchippers(2007,p.100)suggests,menandwomenwhoembody

“intelligiblegender”havemorepowerwithinsocietythan“thosewhodonot”.

Theinfluenceofheterosexualitycanalsobeseeninsitessuchassportsand

athleticswheregendercanbebolsteredand/orchallenged(Bäckström2013;

Davis-Delano,Pollock&Vose2009).Researchhasexaminedhowfemininitycan

beseentobeperformedthroughparticipatinginsportssuchascheerleading

(Adams&Bettis2003;Grindstaff&West2006;2010).Thiscanbeseeninthe

68

caseofcheerleadersinsecondaryschoolswhoareoftenattractive,sportyand

well-liked(Charlebois2011).Priortothe1940’s,cheerleadingwasseenas

masculinesportthatencompassedathleticismandtechnicalskilloutofreachfor

women(Hanson1995).However,inthe1950’s,thisbegantochangeandthe

sportbecamemorefocusedonthetypicallyfemininecharacteristicsweassociate

withittoday,suchasmannersandcheerfulness(KutzcitedinAdams&Bettis

2003).Aroundthistime,womencheerleadersbegantoengageina‘performance’

wheretheyprovidedasubordinatebutsupportiveroletomaleathletes(Adams

&Bettis2003;Eckert1989,2003;Grindstaff&West2006;2010).Cheerleading

hastypicallyreinforcednotionsofheteronormativity,wheremenaretheprimary

focusofattentionaswithworkandpoliticsinbroadersociety,whilewomenare

relegatedtothe‘sidelines’,orthedomesticsphere(Grindstaff&West2010).

Furthermore,theperformanceinitselfisadisplayandenforcementof

heterosexuality(Grindstaff&West2010).

However,whilesidelinecheerleadingcanbeseenasaformoffemininitythat

embodiesnormativeand/orhyperfemininity,competitivecheerleadingcontains

transgressiveaspectsofthefeminineideals.Inrecentdecades,theroleofthe

cheerleaderhasmovedbeyondsidelinesupporterintoanextremelyphysically

demandingsportofitsown.AdamsandBettis(2003,p.88)pointoutthatdespite

alloftheir“athleticism,toughness,andrisktaking”,womencheerleadersstilldo

notchallengehegemonicmasculinityortransgressgenderboundaries.

Cheerleadersarenotseenasathreattodominantexpectationsabouthow

womenshouldbehave,asit“isaperformativeact”thathasbeentraditionally

doneasameansforprovidingpleasureandsupportforothers,andmost

69

commonlyforthebenefitofmen(Adams&Bettis2003,p.87).Thisisnotthe

caseformanyothersportswheregenderexpression,andinparticular‘violations’

offemininity,areseenasathreattomaledominance.

Ezzell’s(2009)workwithwomenrugbyplayersfoundthattheiridentitywork

resultedinareinforcementofgenderinequality.Thewomeninherresearchhad

recentlyjoinedawomen’srugbyteamonlytofindthattheywerebranded“butch

lesbians”,asoftenoccurswhenwomenengageinphysicallyaggressivesports

(Blinde&Taub1992;Cahn1993;Ezzell2009;Griffin1998).Thewomencreated

aspaceforthemselveswheretheycouldrejectthisstereotype,however,in

attemptingtoresistthebutchlesbianstereotype,thewomeninadvertently

reinforcednotionsofheteronormativityandthestigmaofwomenasweak(Ezzell

2009,p.118).Bydistancingthemselvesfromthe“mannishlesbians”,thewomen

inEzzell’s(2009,p.118)researchnotonlyemphasisedtheirfemininity,butthey

creatednarrativeswheretheywerethe“exception”.Thiswasaccomplishedby

engaginginbodyworkandemphasizingconventionalnotionsoffemininityand

beautytoensuretheirsexualappealtomales.Ezzell(2009)referstothisas

‘heterosexy-fit’.Theheterosexy-fitsubjectpositionissimilartotheconceptsof

emphasisedfemininityandhegemonicfemininity,butincludesaspectsof

toughness,assertivenessandathleticism(Ezzell2009).Ratherthansubvertor

resistthegenderorder,thisformoffemininitysupportsbothheteronormativity

andthegenderorder.Heterosexy-fitcanbeunderstoodasaformoffemininity

withinthehierarchyofwomen’sgenderexpressionsthatholdsapositionof

statusasitisreflectiveofidealfemininityandservestosupportmaledominance

andthegenderorder.

70

Thebodyiscentralnotjusttotheheterosexy-fitfemininity,buttoalldominant

formsofwomen’sgenderexpressionandhegemonicfemininity.Femininityis

reproducedthroughthebody(Bordo2003).Coffey’s(2012;2013)Australian

researchonbodyworkandgenderfoundthatwomenfeelpressureto‘workon’

theirbodiestoadheretotheidealfemininity.Shearguesthatpowerofbinary

genderandheterosexualitymakesitdifficulttoacceptanythingotherthan

slenderfemininityasideal(Coffey2012;2013).Theimportanceof

heterosexualityinunderstandinggenderrelationshipsisevidentthroughthese

examples.Womencometobeunderstoodasfeminineastheyareconstructed

relationallytowhatmenarenot.Womenwhofailtoadheretotheexpected

gendernormsriskupsettingthedelicatebalancebetweenfemininityand

masculinity.Hegemonicfemininityistheformofwomen’sgenderexpressionthat

womenarecomparedto,eitherbythemselvesorotherswithinsociety.The

variousmanifestationsofactuallivedexperiencesofgenderexpressionvary

greatly,butcanbeunderstoodassituatedwithinahierarchyunderidealised

expressionsofhegemonicfemininity.Thoseformsofgenderexpressionthatare

seenassubordinateoroppositionaltodominantformsoffemininityarecentral

tothepresentstudyandwillbediscussedthroughtherestofthechapter.

Non-DominantFormsofWomen’sGenderExpressions

Whentalkingaboutthemostculturallydominantformsoffemininity,

emphasisedfemininityandhegemonicfemininityarethetwomainframeworks

researcherstendtoworkwithin.However,thisareaisstillunderresearched

71

resultinginalackofcohesiveconceptualisationregardingtherelationsamongst

femininities.Therearevariousframeworksandtermsutilisedtodescribeand

analysenon-dominantformsofgenderexpression,howevermuchlikewith

dominantfemininities,non-dominantfemininitiesareundertheorized.Thereisa

significantamountofworkthathasexamineddeviantornon-dominantformsof

femininitywithoutengagingwithanytheoreticalframeworksorconcepts

relatingtogenderexpressionspecifically.Theseworksstillprovideinsightinto

thewaysinwhichwomen’sgenderexpressionscanmanifestandhelptoexpand

theunderstandingsoftherangeofmultiplefemininities.Giventhatthisthesisis

aboutnon-dominantformsofgenderexpression,manyofthetermsutilisedin

genderresearch(evenwithoutthepresenceofatheoreticalframework)are

relevanttothedatacollectedfrommyparticipants.Myworkisaninterrogation

ofthisspaceofnon-dominantwomen’sgenderexpressionsandaimstoaddto

thisfieldofscholarshipbylookingathowwomenthemselvesunderstandtheir

experiencesofnon-dominantfemininities.Iwillnowoutlinesomeofthemain

termsusedtodescribewomenwhoembodythesetypesofgenderexpressions.

Termssuchassubordinate(Connell1987),genderdeviantgirls(Charlebois

2011;Brown2003;Messerschmidt2004),pariah(Schippers2007)alternative

(Bäckström2013;Schippers2007),andoppositionalfemininities(Charlebois

2011;Messerschmidt2000)haveallbeenusedtoexplorethewaysinwhich

womenchallengedominant,hegemonicoremphasisedfemininity.Thiscanalso

beunderstoodthroughtheprocessof‘gendermanoeuvring’(Bäckström2013;

Finley2010;Pomerantz,Currie&Kelly2004;Schippers2007).Eachofthese

conceptswillbediscussedinrelationtohowtheyaretheorisedtooperateas

72

formsofdefiantfemininities,wheretheyoverlapandwhichprovidethemost

usefulframeworkforanalysingthenon-dominantformsoffemininitiesthatwill

beexploredinthepresentresearch.

Inorderforgenderhegemonytofunction,theremustexistanalternateform

overwhichthehegemonicformsdominate.AsButler(1993)hasstated,each

normhasarelational‘constitutiveoutside’thatmakesthenormpossible.As

previouslymentioned,Connell(1987)initiallyusedthesameterminologyfor

femininityasshedidformasculinity.Soon,hegemonicfemininitywasreplaced

withthetermemphasisedfemininitytoenablefurtherexplorationoftheunique

genderdifferenceintherolesofthevariousformsoffemininity.Connell(1987)

proposedthatthereweresubordinatefemininitiesthatenabledresistanceto

hegemony.ThesesubordinatefemininitiesareclaimedbyConnell(1987)tobe

mostvisibleinresistantsubculturalalternatives.However,asLeahy(1994)

importantlypointsout,resistanceoftentakesplaceinareasthatonewouldnot

necessarilylabelasasubculture.Despitethis,muchoftheresearchintonon-

dominantfemininitieshasbeenundertakenwithwomenwhooccupyparticular

subculturesthatareperceivedtooutwardlyresistnotionsofemphasised

femininity.

JamesMesserschmidt(2000;2004;2010)hasbuiltuponConnell’sworkon

femininity,labellingsubordinatefemininitiesas‘deviant’tobothemphasisedand

dominantfemininities.Whenonefailstomeettheexpectationsforeither

emphasised,hegemonicordominantfemininity(suchasattractivenessand

heterosexuality),itresultsinbullyingandpeerabuse(Messerschmidt2004).

73

Charlebois(2011)positsthatsubordinatefemininitiesaredeviantinrelationto

dominantfemininitiesinparticularcontextsandcanmanifestbasedonrace,

class,age,sexuality,bodilydisplay,orbehaviour.Thegirlisthenviewedas

‘unfeminine’(Charlebois2011).Manyotheracademicshaveutilisedtheterm

‘genderdeviant’intheirresearchtoexploretheboundariesofacceptableand

unacceptablefemininebehaviour(Adams1999;Adams&Bettis2003;Carr2005;

Inness1999).

Schippers(2007)usestheterm‘pariahfemininities’todescribeaspectsofwhat

ConnellandMesserschmidt(2005)refertoassubordinatefemininities.Inboth

casesthetermsrefertoasimilarpatternoffemininity,butitisthemannerin

whichSchippers(2007)interpretstheirplacewithinthegenderhegemonythat

differs.BothConnell(1987)andSchippers(2007)contendthatwomenandgirls

whoexpressandembodythecharacteristicsofhegemonicmasculinitydefythe

workingsofthehegemonicrelationshipthatexistsbetweenmasculinityand

femininityarestigmatisedforupsettingthebalance.AccordingtoSchippers

(2007),Connellsuggeststhatthesetypesoffemininitiesare‘inferior’tonotonly

hegemonicmasculinity,butalsotoemphasisedfemininity.However,Schippers

(2007,p.95)viewsthisformoffemininityasnotinferiorbutas“contaminating

therelationshipbetweenmasculinityandfemininity”.

Therearethreemaincomponentstopariahfemininities:deviationfromfeminine

practices;athreatto“men’sexclusivepossessionofmasculinecharacteristics”;

and“refusaltoembodytherelationshipbetweenmasculinityandfemininity

demandedbygenderhegemony”(Schippers2007,p.95).Whenwomenembody

74

thesetypesofbehavioursthatchallengemaledominance,theirbehaviour

becomesbothstigmatisedandfeminisedastheirgenderexpressionsmaketheir

genderlessintelligible.Womenwhoexhibitthisbehaviourtheyarethenlabelled

inspecificallyfeminisedways,suchasalesbianorslut(sexuallynon-compliant),

bitch(authority)or‘badass’(physicallyviolent),andthusbecomesocially

undesirableasameansto‘contain’them(Schippers2007).Inthesecases,their

genderisreaddifferentlyaccordingtotheirsexassignedatbirth,howeverbeing

overlyfemininecanalsoattractstigma.Thesethenarethe‘pariahfemininities’.

Interestingly,studieshaveshownthatwomenareoftenthe‘labellers’ofthe

pariahstomaintainhierarchalpositions,muchinthesamewaymalesdoto

women(Lundstrom2006;Tanenbaum2000).The‘slut’issituatedassubordinate

andoppositionaltothe‘nice’girl(Schippers2007).Thisandotherpariah

femininitiesestablishasetofrelationalhierarchalfemininities.Thesetypesof

intragenderrelationsoffemininitiesplayanimportantroleinthegenderorder

andimpactuponwomen’slifechances(Finley2010).

Budgeon(2014)hasprovidedcritiqueofSchippers(2007)theory,suggesting

thatthereisalackofdistinctionbetweenthemanydifferentformsofpariah

femininitythatmaymanifest.Darwin(2017)hasechoedthisinherresearchon

pariahfemininities,bodyhairandfat.Inarguingthatbodyhaironwomenis

moreseverelystigmatised,Darwin(2017)isabletodemonstratethewayin

whichdifferentformsofpariahfemininitymaybepositionedaboveoneanother

withinthehegemonicfemininityhierarchy.Darwin’s(2017)findingsillustrate

theneedforgreaterunderstandingsofhowdifferentformsofpariahfemininities

arepositionedwithinthegenderhierarchy.Whileitappearsthatthereisaclear

75

hierarchywithinpariahfemininitiesaswellasfemininitiesasawhole(Budgeon

2014;Darwin2017),thereisalackoftheorisingastowhatthesetypesof

femininitieslooklike,howtheyareunderstood,andhowtheyareexperienced.

AsDarwin(2017,p.2)argues,“Schippers’originalformulationdoesnotaccount

forthesubordinationofcertainpariahfemininitiesbeneathothers”.Theseideas

areparticularlyimportantforthepresentresearch,asmappingfemininitiesisa

primarygoal.

AlternativefemininitiesisanothertermthatSchippers(2002;2007)hasutilised

toexplorethehierarchyoffemininities.Bothalternativeandpariahfemininities

areformsofgenderexpressionthatareresistiveofhegemonicrelations

(Bäckström2013;Finley2010;Schippers2002,2007),however,theydifferin

howtheyarereceived.Alternativefemininitiescanbeunderstoodaslocalised

discursivetraitsandpracticesthat“donotarticulateacomplementaryrelationof

dominanceandsubordinationbetweenwomenandmen”(Schippers2007,p.98,

emphasisinoriginal)butthatarenotstigmatisedinthesamewaythatpariah

femininitiesare(Schippers2002;2007).Becausestigmaisassociatedwithpariah

femininitiestheyareactuallynotmuchofathreattohegemonicrelations(Finley

2010),howevertheyhavethepotentialtoturnintoalternativefemininities

(Bäckström2013).Alternativefemininitiestakeplaceinamore‘local’context,

suchaswithintherocksubcultures,whereface-to-faceinteractionsbetween

masculinityandfemininityareabletobereplacedbynegotiationsoutsideof

thoseinthebroaderculture(Schippers2002;2007).Inotherwords,femininity

canbereconstitutedtoallowfornormallystigmatisedbehaviourstobe

acceptableincertainspaces.

76

Bäckström’s(2013)workwithwomenskateboardersillustratesthewaysin

whichyoungwomenareabletorenegotiatetheinterandintragenderrelations

insuchawaythatenabledanalternativetypeoffemininitytodevelopthat

supportedandvaluedtheiroutspokenmannerandnon-traditionalexpressionsof

femininity.Womeninrollerderbyhavealsobeenfoundtochallengedominant

gendernormsandcreateaspaceforanalternativefemininity(Finley2010)and

isdiscussedinmoredetailinthenextsection.Itisimportanttonotethat

alternativefemininitiesvaryfromonecontexttoanother,whereaspariah

femininitiesareculturallydefinedascontaminatingtothegenderorderasthey

arerelationallyunderstoodagainsthegemonicfemininity.

There-negotiatingofgenderrelationspresentinalternativefemininitiesarepart

ofwhatSchippers(2002;2007)calls‘gendermanoeuvring’.Gendermanoeuvring

isatypeofinteractionwhereaperson’s(orgroups)performanceofgenderis

manipulatedbytheminordertoshiftthegenderedmeaningswithinthelocal

context(Schippers2002).Thisallowsforalternativegenderrelationstodevelop.

Thiscantakeplacenotonlyinrelationtomen,butalsoinrelationtothe

negotiationsbetweenthemultiplefemininities(Finley2010).Finley(2010)

undertookresearchontherecentresurgenceandpopularinterestofwomen’s

rollerderbyutilisingtheconceptsofhegemonicandalternativefemininitiesto

exploreintragenderrelationsbetweenfemininities.Intheethnographicstudy,

Finley(2010)observedandinterviewedmembersoftwowomen’sflattrack

rollerderbyleaguesfromthesouthernUnitedStatestogaininsightintothe

gendermanoeuvringwithinafeminizedbutveryaggressivesport.Women

athleteswhoplayaggressivesportsareeasilystigmatisedaspariahfemininities

77

(Gill2007).DrawingonSchippers(2007)work,Finley(2010)demonstrateshow

rollerderbyisableto‘transport’thepariahfemininitydiscoursetoalocalsetting,

andthroughgendermanoeuvring,recreateitintoanalternativefemininitythat,

whileresistivetohegemonicmasculinity,doesnotattractthesamestigmaand

scrutinyapariahwould.Duringderby‘bouts’(games),thewomenskaterswould

“flauntthehegemonicmasculinityofsportsunapologeticallywithapridein

toughnessandaggression”whilesimultaneouslyexaggeratingmarkersof

femininity(Finley2010,p.371).Ratherthanaformofapologetics,thewomen’s

amplifiedfemininityservesasaformofmockery.Indoingthesethings,the

womenareabletoreclaimthelabelofpariah.Oftenmen,intheformofpartners,

friendsorjustfansofthegame,willcometotheboutsandplayasupportiverole

(Finley2010).Thisshiftingoftherolesupsetstheboundariesbetween

femininitiesandmasculinities.Gendermanoeuvringenabledthewomento

transformthepariahfemininityintoanalternativefemininity(Finley2010).

However,rollerderbyisstillproblematicinthatitmaintainshypersexualisation

throughthepresentationofheterofemmesignifiersinthewomen’sappearances.

Assuch,oftenthecreationofthealternativefemininityislimitedtothelocal

contextandcannotbeextendedtobroadergenderrelations.

Skateboardingalsoprovidesasitethroughwhichtoexaminenon-dominant

femininities.Pomerantzandcolleagues(2004)workwithyoungwomen

skateboardersfoundthattheskateridentitycreatedbytheirparticipantsenabled

themtoconstructanalternativeformoffemininity.Asskateboardingtendstobe

amostlymaleactivity,thegirlsfelttheneedtoprovethemselvestotheboysin

thehopesofacceptanceandtolegitimatetheiruseoftheskatepark.Theyfaced

78

strugglesinchallengingtheboyscontrolanddominationoftheskate‘space’and

vigorouslyresistedtraditionalfemininitybywearingcomfortableclothes,alack

ofmake-upandmostimportantlybytakingonarole‘doing’ratherthan

‘watching’.‘Doing’skateboardingallowedtheseyoungwomentoexceedthe

boundariesofthesociallyconstructedbodilyrestrictionsoftenplacedupongirls.

Kelly,Pomerantz,andCurrie(2005)foundsimilarresultsintheirresearchinto

‘alternativegirlhood’andskateboarding.Theyarguethatthewomenintheir

studyusedtheirskatergirlidentityasameanstodistancethemselvesfrom

emphasisedfemininity.Byexploringthelivesofeverydaygirlsdoingeveryday

things,resistanceagainstemphasisedfemininity,andmalecontroland

domination,areuncovered.ThisresistancecanalsobeseeninBäckström’s

(2013)researchintowomenskateboardinginSweden.UtilisingSchippers(2002;

2007)theoreticalframework,Bäckström(2013)exploresinterandintragender

relationsandgendermanoeuvringinalocalandregionalcontext.Herfindings

identifiedthreemainformsoffemininities,the‘bitch’,the‘lesbian’,andthe

‘tomboy’,whoengagedingendermanoeuvringprocesses.The‘bitch’exhibited

authorityandindoingsochallengedhegemonicmaledominance.The‘lesbian’

contaminatedfemininitythroughthepromiscuityandsexualdesireforother

women.Thesefemininitiesprovidea‘liberatinginfluence’fortheyoungwomen

involvedintheskatercommunity,helpingtotransformtraditional‘gender

scripts’.However,whilethe‘tomboy’alsocontaminatesfemininity,Bäckström

(2013,p.41)arguesthatitdoessobyreinforcingthegenderorder,“Thecategory

ofwomanispositionedascomplementaryandalsoisinferiortothecategory

maninthatitsqualitycontentislessvalued”.Thiswillbeexploredfurtherinthe

nextsection.

79

Whenwomenparticipateinmoretraditionaland‘masculine’sportingactivities

theirfemininityandheterosexualitycomeintoquestion.Attemptstoovercome

thistendoftenleadtoconstructionsoffemininitiesthatreinforce,notcontestthe

genderorder(Lowe1998).However,inlesstraditionalsports,likerollerderby

andskateboarding,thereismoreroomforgendermanoeuvringallowingforthe

creationofalternativefemininitiesthatchallengehegemonicgenderrelations.

Therehavebeennumerousstudiesonfemininityandfemininitiesfromwithin

variousothersportingenvironments,includingbodybuilding(Obel1996;Shea

2001;Wesely2001),soccer(Caudwell2003),rugby(Ezzell2009;Gill2007),

football(Scraton,Fasting,Pfister,&Bunuel1999)andhorseracing(Butler&

Charles2012),thatexploretheimpacttraditionallymasculinesporting

environmentshaveonwomenandgenderexpressions.Theresearchonbody

buildingshowsaconstantbalancingactbetweenbeingmuscularathleteand

femininewoman(Groganetal.2004;Shea2001).Whenwomenactivelyalter

theirbodiestobecomemoremuscular,theymoveawayfromthe‘natural’state

theyareseentobesocloseto(Shea2001;Ortner1972).Thewomen

bodybuilder’sbodyrepresentsachallengetoconstructionsofnotjustfemininity,

butalsoofmasculinityandtheideaofsexdifferencesasawhole(Schulze1990).

However,womenwhoengageinsuch‘masculine’practicesoftenenhancetheir

‘feminine’traits.Thiscanbeseenintheresearchwithwomenrugbyplayers

discussedearlier(Ezzell2009).Whenwomenengageinasportthatrequires

toughness,theyencountersexistandhomophobicstigma.Inordertocombatthis,

womenengageinbeing‘heterosexy-fit’.

80

Charlebois(2011)critiquesSchippers(2007)pariahfemininitiesforfailingto

capturethemanyotherfemininitiesthatresistemphasisedorhegemonic

femininity.Charlebois(2011)suggeststheusageofMesserschmidt’s(2000)term

‘oppositionalfemininities’todescribenoncompliantfemininitiesthatdonot

generatethesamenegativeconnotationsaspariahfemininities.Charlebois

(2011)arguesthattheuseofoppositionalfemininitiesenablesviewingformsof

resistancethataresubtlerthanthosethatSchippersdescribesinherwork

(Charlebois2011).WhileCharlebois(2011)makessomeinterestingpointsinhis

critiqueofpariahfemininities,oneofthemaincomponentshetakesissuewithis

Schippers’focusonwomenwhoembodyhegemonicmasculinity.Asthefocusof

thisthesisisinterestedinexactlythat,womenwhoembodytypicallymasculine

traits,thesecritiquesarelessrelevant,butarecertainlyworthacknowledging.

SubtypesofWomen’sGenderExpression

Whilemuchoftheresearchdiscussedhasfocusedonthedominantformsof

femininitiesandthewaysinwhichwomenmanoeuvrewithinthebroader

contextof‘femininity’,thereisalsosubstantialworkthathasexploredcategories

ofgenderexpressionthatarenotnecessarilyclassedasaformof,orareonthe

borderof,‘femininity’.Thisincludesresearchon‘tomboys’,‘butch’,‘female

masculinity’,‘androgyny’and‘polygender’.Theseconceptualisationswillalsobe

explainedalongsidethefindings.

81

Tomboys

Whenchildrenareyoung,notionsofsexandsexualityarealmost‘unthinkable’

(Renold2006)andyet,researchsuggeststhatpeers,parents,mediaand

schooling“channelgirlsinaheterosexualdirection”(Hyde&Jaffee2000,p.287)

informingtheirunderstandingsoftheirownidentityandtheirpeerinteractions

(Renold2000).Renold(2000;2005;2006)haswrittenextensivelyonthe

experiencesofyounggirlsandtheirgenderidentitieswithparticularfocuson

thosesheclasses‘tomboys’.Renold(2006)drawsonmultipleunderstandingsof

tomboystodefinehowsheusestheterm,suggestingthatthesubjectpositionof

‘tomboy’forchildrenisaformofgendertransgressionthatrejectsnormative

femininityandralliesagainsttherestrictionsthatcomewithbeingawoman.She

arguesthat“beingatomboyisperhapsoneofthefewremaininglegitimate

subjectsofgirlhoodthatcandirectlydeflectthemaleheterosexualgazeand

subvertorqueer(heterosexualised)girlieculture”(Renold2006,p.503-4).

ForPaechter(2010),thetomboyisconstructedinoppositiontothegirly-girl.

Whensheaskedthechildreninherstudywhatitmeanttobeatomboy,the

responsewasofteneither“agirlwholikestodoboythings”orbyreferringtoits

opposite,thegirly-girl(discussedearlier)(Paechter2010,p.226-227).However,

incontrasttotheparentsandteacher’sunderstandingsoftomboys,thechildren

whoidentifiedastomboysexpressedthatitwassomethingthey‘did’sometimes

andnotothers.Inthissense,theywere‘abittomboy’.AsPaechter(2010,p.226)

explains,thedescriptionof‘abittomboy’does“notsomuchdescribeamixedor

androgynousidentityasonethatvariedaccordingtocircumstances”.

82

Thetomboyisoftenaffordedmoreacceptanceintheirgendertransgressionthan

theirmalecounterparts,sissies,whoareviewedas“failedmale[s]”(Thorne

1993).Thismaybeinpartduetodisplaysofmasculinebehaviourswhichreceive

moreapproval(Thorne1993)aswellastheviewthattomboyismisa‘stage’that

younggirlsgothrough,butwillgrowoutof.However,Halberstam(1998,p.6)

arguesthattomboyidentityisonly“toleratedaslongasthechildremains

prepubescent”.So,whathappenswhenthetomboygrowsupandreaches

puberty?Carr(1998;2004;2005;2007)soughttoshedlightonthisquestion.A

commonreasonprovidedbythewomenforwhythemovedawayfrom

tomboyism,was‘boys’.ManyoftheparticipantsinCarr’s(2004)research

expressedthesesocialpressuresto‘conform’inordertoattractmaleattention.

“Awomanmustsurrenderher‘masculine’mannertoattractaman”(Carr2004,

p.9).Thisisnotsurprisingasadolescenceisatimeingirls’liveswherethe

pressurestoadheretodominantidealsoffemininityincreasesignificantly

(Currie1997).Afurtherfactorinthe‘disappearance’oftomboysistiedinwith

notionsofmaturity(Carr2004).Asgirlsbecomewomen,maturitybecomes

associatedwithfemininity.Tobemasculine,ortomboyish,istothenbe

immature.Inarelatedworkafewyearslater,Carr(2007)identifiedasimilar

pattern.Thewomeninherstudywhoidentifiedastomboyswhenyounger:

…lostinterestinchildhoodgames;theyembraced‘grownup’,‘femininity’,

‘androgyny’,‘butch’,or‘jock’status;theyviewedtomboyismas

incompatiblewithincreasedheterosexualurges;and/ortheyaccededto

harassmentandwarningsfromparentsandpeers.(Carr2007,p.446)

Negotiatingadulthoodandheterosexualitymeansalossofthetomboyidentity.

Butdoesitbecomesomethingelse?Inexploringtheconflationbetween

83

lesbianismandtomboyism,Carr(2005)identifiedtwodifferentcategories,those

whointheiradolescence‘chosemasculinity’without‘rejectingfemininity’and

thosewho‘chosemasculinity’but‘rejectedfemininity’.Herfindingssuggestthat

thewomenwhodidn’trejectfemininitytendedtoidentifyasheterosexual.These

womenweredescribedas‘straightbutch’.Thetermbutchwillbediscussedin

thenextsection.

Butch

Theterm‘butch’hasbeenusedbymanytheoriststodescribeamore‘masculine’

typeofwoman(Carr1998;2004;2005;2007;Feinberg1993;Halberstam1998;

Hart1998;Levitte&Hiestand2004;Pascoe2012).However,itisatermthatis

almostexclusivelyusedtorefertowomenwhoidentifyasqueerorare

labelled/misidentifiedasqueer(anexceptiontothisistheworkbyCarr(2005)

mentionedabove).Thetermfirstbegantobeusedinthe1940’sinrelationto

lesbianwomenwhosesurvivalrequiredthemtoimitateheterosexualgender

roles(Feinberg1993).Womenwouldtakeoneitherabutchorfemme

appearance,wherethebutchwomanincorporatedmasculinestyleandthe

femme,anexaggeratedformoffemininity.Inthe1970’s,thismimickingof

heterosexualrelationshipscametobeseennegativelywithinthelesbian

community,asitwasthetypeofpatriarchalinstitutiontheyweretryingtoreject

(Feinberg1993).Thebutchmasculinemarkerswerecritiquedandinsteada

moreandrogynousaestheticwasadopted.However,sincethe1990’s,the

butch/femmedynamichassincere-emerged(Levitte&Hiestand2004).

84

Muchoftheworkexaminingthebutchidentitydoessowithrespecttothe

butch/femmedynamic.Ithasbeensuggestedthatmuchoftheliterature

examininglesbianculturedoessobylookingatthebutchandfemmeaspartof

oneandthesame,butitisthebutch’svisiblenaturethatenablesfemmetobe

seen(Hart1998).Withoutthepresenceofthebutch,thefemmecouldeasilybe

assumedtobeaheterosexualwoman.Forthesereasons,weoftenfindthat

researchonbutchwomenarediscussedinconjunctionwiththefemme.Thisonly

furtherreinforcesbutchasalesbianidentity.

Butchismorethanamasculinewoman;itis“analternativegenderingofthe

femalebodythroughanappropriationofmasculinity”(Nguyen2008,p.674)that

extendsbeyondmasculinitybeingperformedbywomen’sbodiesandthewearing

ofmaleclothingbywomen(Feinberg1993;Halberstam1998;Levitte&Hiestand

2004).Throughsimultaneouslyinvokingandrejectingheterosexuality,butchisa

distinctiveformofgenderconstructionthatcanbeunderstoodasaformof

lesbiangender(Nguyen2008;Rubin1992,p.466).Forlesbianwomen,butchis

anidentity;ithassymbolicpowerandmeaning.Assuch,therehasbeenalmost

noresearchonbutchgenderexpressionsandheterosexuality.Myprojectaimsto

addressthisgapbyexploringhowheterosexualwomenunderstandwhatbutch

meanstothem.

85

FemaleMasculinities

Thereisasmallbodyofresearchthathasexplicitlyexploredwomenand

masculinity,althoughtheareahasbeenrelativelyignoredinacademia

(Halberstam1998).Oneofthemostwell-knownworkswithinthisareaofstudy

isthatofJackHalberstam’s(1998)book,FemaleMasculinities,whicharguesthat

masculinityshouldnotbethoughtofonlyinrelationtomalebodies.Hiswork

examineshistoricalaccountsandcontemporarypopculturetoexploreinstances

ofmasculinityinbothfemale-bodiedandtranswomentocreateataxonomyof

femalemasculinities.Intheseinstances,femalemasculinityisseenasnotan

imitationofmasculinity,butratherasa‘fabrication’nodifferenttothatwhich

menembody.However,whenmasculinityexistswithinqueerorfemalebodies,it

losesitspoweranddominance,becomingaformofsubordinatemasculinity.As

notedearlier,intelligiblegendershavemorepowerthanthosethatarenotas

legible(Schippers2007).Theinterconnectionsbetweensex,gender,and

sexualityareapparentthroughsuchinstances.WhileHalberstam’s(1998)work

hasbeenincrediblysignificantingenderresearch,thefocusofisalmost

exclusivelyonsame-sexdesire;theheterosexualwomanisnotofinteresttohim.

Pascoe(2012)exploredideasaroundfemalemasculinityinherbook,Dude,

You’reaFag.Theopeningquotefromherchapteronfemalemasculinitystates:

“Girlscanbemasculinetoo,youknow”(GenevievecitedinPascoe2012,p.115).

Pascoe’s(2012)researchwithhighschoolstudentsfoundthatboysandgirls

describedmanyoftheirfemalepeersas‘masculine’.Thesewerenotwomenwho

weretryingtopassasmales,norweretheynecessarilytomboys,norwerethey

86

alllesbians.Rathertheywere“girlswhoactlikeguys”(Pascoe2012,p.115).

Pascoe(2012)exploreswhatitmeanstodefinemasculinitybylookingatitasa

setofpracticesthatbothmenandwomencanengagein.SheutilisesSchippers’

(2002;2007)conceptofgendermanoeuvringtomakesenseofthemovement

betweenmasculineandfeminineidentities.

Sasson-Levy’s(2003)studyonIsraeliwomeninthemilitaryutilisedButler’s

(1990)notionofperformativityandConnell’s(1987)conceptof‘genderregime’

togaininsightintotheexperiencesofwomenwhooccupied‘masculine’roles

duringtheirservice.Shefoundthattherewasarejectionof‘traditional

femininity’whileatthesametimeacompliancewiththemasculinegenderorder.

AsSasson-Levy(2003,p.441)explains,thewomenrefused“toacceptdefinitions

offemininityandmasculinityasessentiallydichotomousidentities”.Insteadthey

createdanewformofgenderidentitythatbreaksdowntheboundariesbetween

masculinityandfemininitybycombiningaspectsofboth;they“donotturninto

men,butarealwaysonly‘likemen’,similarbutdifferent”(Sasson-Levy2003,p.

451).Theyarelocatedsomewhereinbetweentraditionalwomanandmasculine

soldier,activelydistancedthemselvesfrom‘traditionalfemininity’through

repetitiousactsincludingchangingthetoneoftheirvoice,wearingoversized

clothingandswearingmorewhilealsoonlymimickingmasculineidentities.

Sasson-Levy(2003)understandsthisdistancingfromthefeminineasawayin

whichthewomencancreateapositiveperceptionofthemselves.Byconstructing

theiridentitiesinoppositiontotraditionalwomen,theyareabletobecome

‘masculine’.Thesefindingssupportthenotionofrelationality,wherefeminine

existsasoppositionaltomasculine.Researchonwomeninthemilitaryin

87

Americahasfoundsimilarexperiencesinthattheparticipantssoughtouta

balancebetweenmasculineandfeminineidentities,howevertherewasa

strongerneedfortheAmericanwomentoreinforcetheirheterosexuality,and

thusfemininity(Herbert1998).Thiswasattributedtothe‘don’task,don’ttell’

policyintheAmericanmilitary(Herbert1998)whichbannedlesbiansand

homosexualsfromopenlyservinguntil2010(Don’tAct,Don’tTellRepelActof

2010).Inorderforwomentonotbeperceivedastoomasculineandtherefore

lesbian,theyemphasisedfemininepracticesincludingwearingperfume,painting

theirnailsanddatingmen(Herbert1998).

Androgyny

Anotherareaofinterestingenderexpressionresearchistheconceptof

‘androgyny’.Historically,thetermhasbeenusedinamedicalsensetodescribea

personwhoispartmale(andro)andpartfemale(gyne)(Ferguson1974).Inthis

sense,anandrogynouspersonwassomeonewhowasintersex.However,

understandingshaveshiftedfromthisviewtofocuslessonphysicalsex

attributesandmoreonmasculineandfemininetraitsthatareassignedtogender

(Bem1974;Singer1976;Woodhill&Samuels2004;Young2002).Intheearly

1970’s,androgynybecameanareaofinterestforresearchers,predominantlyin

thefieldofpsychology.JuneSinger(1976)wroteextensivelyontheconceptof

androgyny,definingthetermastheabilitytochoosebetweenmasculinityand

femininitydependingonthecircumstances.Shearguedthatandrogynywasthe

ambitionofindividuationasitallowspeopletoreacttosituationsbydrawingon

88

eithermasculineorfeminineresponses,regardlessofthesocialprescriptionsas

towhatamanorwomanshoulddo.Aroundthesametime,SandraBem(1974)

developedtheBemSexRoleInventorytomeasurelevelsofmaleness,femaleness

andandrogyny.Bem(1974)suggestedthatmasculinityandfemininityshouldnot

beseenasonlybinaryoppositesastherewasroomfortremendousoverlap.In

herview,sex-typingstifledgenderidentityformationandthattobe

psychologicallyhealthy,“behaviorshouldhavenogender”inordertoallow

peopletochoosetheirownuniqueidentity(Bem1974,p.361).SimilartoSinger

(1976),Bem(1974)definedandrogynyasapersonwhohasbothmasculineand

femininetraitsprovidingforflexibilityandadaptabilityinthewaythatthey

conductthemselves.

Whilethesepsychologicalunderstandingsofandrogynyprovideaninteresting

attemptatpossibleavenuesfortheorisinggender,theyarestillinherently

riddledwiththeneedtodrawonfeminineandmasculine,andgenderandsexas

binaryopposites,todoso.Theyalsorendtonaturalisebinarysexasessential.

BuildinguponbothSinger(1976)andBem’s(1974)work,FabioLorenzi-Cioldi

(1996)attemptedtodothisbyproposingamodelofandrogynythat

differentiatedbetweenthreeseparateforms,‘co-presence’,‘fusion’and

‘transcendence’.The‘co-presence’formofandrogynyismostsimilartoSinger

andBem’sdefinitionsandreferstowhenapersonhasfeminineandmasculine

traitsanddrawoneitherdependingonthecircumstances.‘Fusion’,ontheother

hand,involvesameldingoffemininityandmasculinity,while‘transcendence’is

theformofandrogynyinwhichfemininityandmasculinityarenolongerrelevant

andtheyhavetranscendedabovegenderandsexuality(Lorenzi-Ciolodi1996).It

89

issuggestedthattranscendenceprovidesthemeanstoovercomethephysical,

socialandculturalrestraintsofsexandgender.

Polygendered

Inherbook,PolygenderedandPonytailed:TheDilemmaofFemininityandthe

FemaleAthlete,DaynaDaniels(2009)presentsabold,althoughnotnewcallto

viewbodiesasnottwodichotomouscategoriesofmaleandfemale,butratheras

one‘polygender’.Shearguesthattraditionalunderstandingofmasculinityas

dependantonamalebodyandfemininityonafemalebody,isoneofthemost

significantbarriersinsports.DrawingonButler’s(1990)notionsof

performativitydiscussedearlierthatviewsgenderasnon-essentialistandfluid,

Daniels(2009)arguesthatbodiesshouldbeviewedasbeingabletobeboth

masculineandfemininetovariousdegreesatanyonetimeandneednotbeseen

asbeingmutuallyexclusive.Tovaryingdegreeseveryoneis“amixofthose

characteristics,interests,behaviours,andappearancesthathavebeen

traditionallyusedtosortfemalesandmalesintoexclusivecategoriescalled

feminineandmasculine”(Daniels2009,p.1-2).Polygenderisauseful,albeit

optimistic,conceptbutunderplaystheroleofhegemonicgenderrelations.Until

theinequalityinthecurrentgenderorderandthebinariesinherentwithinitare

brokendownfurther,polygenderisnotlikelytoprovideaspacetochallenge

gendernorms.

90

Conclusion

Therehasbeensignificantresearchexploringwomen’sgenderexpression,

howeveritisstillsubstantiallylessthanhasbeengiventomasculinities.Areview

oftheliteraturerevealsthattheframeworksforunderstandingtherelationships

betweenmultiplefemininitiesarestillundertheorisedanddisjointed.Itis

importanttonotethatmuchoftheworkinthisareacomesfromtheGlobal

North,andinparticularfromtheUSandtheUK.Whiletherearesomedifferences

inwomen’sgenderexpressionsthatcanbenotedacrossGlobalNorthnations,

therearemanysimilaritiesinthegenderhierarchiesandideasarounddominant,

hegemonicgenderexpressions.However,Australianresearchisnoticeably

absent,particularlywithrelationtoempiricalworksthatengageswiththe

theoreticalframeworksandlanguagerelatedtogenderexpressions.

Theconceptofemphasisedfemininityhasbeenchallengedwithmanyexpressing

dissatisfactionwiththetermandinsteadpreferringtousealternatives.Other

researchersusehegemonicandemphasisedinterchangeablywhileothersdonot

utiliseanyofthesemaintheoreticalframeworksatall.Theseworksstillprovide

valuableinsightintofemininitiesandgenderexpression,butdonotfurtherour

understandingsoftheintraandintergenderrelations.Basedonthereviewofthis

literature,hegemonicfemininityappearstoprovidesuswithamannerwith

whichtoexploremultiplefemininitiesthroughtheuseofgendermanoeuvring,

andalternativeandpariahfemininities.However,thisframeworkisnotwithout

itsproblems.Assuch,thisthesiswillalsousetheterm‘dominantfemininities’to

refertothemostculturallycelebratedformofwomen’sgenderexpressionwithin

91

aspecificculture.Thiswillbedonetoprovideameansbywhichtoexplore

beyondthehegemonicfemininitiesframework.

AsdiscussedearlierwithregardstoMesserschidt’s(2004)research,thereare

formsoffemininitythatcanbecomethemostdominantwithinasocialsituation

orlocalisedcontextthatdonotnecessaryalignwiththenotionsofhegemonic

femininity.Furthermore,non-dominantfemininitieswillbeusedtodescribe

thosethatdeviatefromthedominantandhegemonicforms.Inlinewiththe

critiquesfromCharlebois(2012),itisarguedthattolimitnon-hegemonic

women’sgenderexpressionstoonlythecategoriesofalternativeandpariah

femininitieswouldrestrictthefullexplorationofthepossibleresistantformsof

femininitythatmaydevelop.Thus,thetermnon-dominantfemininitieswillbe

usedasanoverarchingtermtorefertoformsofgenderexpressionsuchas

oppositional,resistant,alternative,orpariahfemininities-thosethatcarrywith

themsomeformofstigmaforupsettingthebalanceinthegenderorder.

Thesecondhalfofthischapterhasprovidedabriefoverviewofsometothe

literatureregardingparticularsubtypesofwomen’sgenderexpressionthatare

located,tosomedegree,‘outside’offemininity.Theseincludedthe‘tomboy’,the

‘butch’woman,‘femalemasculinity’and‘androgyny’.Thesearecategorieswere

examinedastheyprovideavenuesthroughwhichwomencancometo

understandtheirgenderidentitythatarenotwithinthehegemonicand

dominantfemininitiesframeworks.Theywilleachbeconsideredfortheir

usefulnessinunderstandingthewaysthatthewomeninthisresearch

understoodtheirowngenderandothers’expression.

92

Femininitydoesnotnecessitatefemalebodies,nordoesmasculinitymalebodies

(Halberstam1998),andyetthemajorityofresearchthatanalysesgender

expressiondoessobydrawingonbinarynotionsoffemininityandmasculinity.

Evenwhensubvertingfemininity,theoristsstillattachtheactasaformofbeing

‘feminine’.Asyet,definitionsofandrogynyareinadequateinprovidinganavenue

toexploretheseareasas,despiteitsbestefforts,itisstillconstrainedbythe

physicalbody.So,whatdowecallthesenon-dominantformsofgender

expressionthatwomen’sbodies‘do’?Butler(1990,p.9)suggeststhatweare

constrainedby“…whatlanguageconstitutesastheimaginabledomainofgender”.

Thecurrentlanguagetoexplorewomen’sgenderexpressionisconstrainingour

understandingoftheexperiencesofwomenintheireverydaylives.

Agreatdealoftheresearchintohyper-femininity,thegirly-girl,andthetomboy

hasbeenundertakenwithyoungwomen,moststillschoolaged.Whenresearch

hasbeendonewithathletesandsportingwomen,theparticipantsareoftenstill

young.Littleresearchhasinvestigatedadultversionsof‘girly-girls’orhow

heterosexualtomboysembodytheirgenderwhentheybecomeadults.Therehas

alsobeenalackofinvestigationonwhatotherformsoffemininitiesexistfor

adult,professional,heterosexualwomenfromavarietyofwalksoflife(Hockeyet

al.2007).ThisthesisseekstoexaminetheseissuesinanAustraliancontext.The

nextchapterwillprovideanoverviewofthemethodforthepresentresearchthat

soughttoaddresstheseconcerns.

93

Chapter4

“Whyaren’tyoutalkingtolesbians?”

InChapter2,Ihighlightedthediscursiveandsocialnatureofgender

constructions.Itisthroughperformativity,therepetitionofeverydaygenderacts,

thatgendercomesintobeing.Intertwinedwithinthisinthecontextofthe

presentstudy,isthecomplexityoftherelationshipsofgenderwithsexand

sexualityandthepervasiveunderstandingsofthesecategoriesasdichotomous.

Thepreviouschapterfollowedonfromthisdiscussionwithadetailedanalysisof

women’sgenderexpressionsresearch.Whiletherehasbeenasmallbut

significantamountofresearchinthisarea,theneedforfurtherexplorationinto

women’sgenderexpressionisneededandthewaysexperiencesofheterosexual

womenwhoembodynon-dominantformsofgenderexpressionisyetto

thoroughlyinvestigated.AsnotedinChapter3,muchoftheliteratureand

researchongenderexpressionhasfocusedonqueerwomenas‘troubling’the

sex/genderbinariesandtheheterosexualmatrix.However,likeConnell’s(1987)

workonmasculinities,thisthesisaimstodecentrethenormandexaminehow

theheterosexualmatrixandinstitutionalisedheterosexualityismaintained.

Understandingthoseonthe‘inside’isvitaltounderstandinghowotherscometo

beonthe‘outside’ofthegenderedsocialnorms.Thisistheprimaryfocusofthis

thesis,aswellastocontributetothegeneralunderstandingsofmultiple

femininities.ThischapterwillprovidearationalefortheapproachIhavetakenin

addressingtheseissues.Assuch,theresearchquestionsareasfollows:

• Howisfemininityunderstoodbyheterosexualciswomen?

94

• Whatdodominantandnon-dominantformsofgenderexpressionsfor

heterosexualciswomenlooklikeandwhatdifferentiatesthevarious

formsfromoneanother?

• Whataretheexperiencesofheterosexualciswomenwhoembodynon-

dominantgenderexpressionsandfemininities?

Toexplorethesequestions,Iusedamixedmethodapproachandconductedfive

focusgroupsthatincludedvisualmappingdatacollection.Intotal,36women

participatedinthestudy.Eachgroupwasmadeupofself-identifying

heterosexualwomenwhocamefromcommunitiesofpracticewheretheywere

familiarwitheachotherandhadacommoninterestorexperience.Thischapter

willbeginwithadiscussionofthemethodologiesunderpinningtheresearch.

Detailsregardingrecruitmentarethenpresented,followedbyanoutlineofthe

procedureandanalysisundertaken.Participantdetailsandinformation

regardingthefocusgroupcompositionareprovided,andfinallytheethicalissues

oftheresearchareconsidered.

FeministandQualitativeMethodologies

Feministmethodologieshaveinformedthedesignofthisproject.Thissectionwill

provideabackgroundofwhatthatentailedandarationaleforimplementing

suchamethod.Feminismhasbeendescribedasbothatheoryandapractice

(Kelly,Burton&Regan1994),andwhileitsgoalistounderstandwomen’s

oppression,itisatthesametimeanactiveattempttoilluminateitandeliminate

it(Kellyetal.1994).Withthisinmind,feministresearchcanbeseenas

95

contributingtoknowledgeofgenderoppressionaswellastryingtochangeit

(Kellyetal.1994).Suchresearchrequiresacknowledgementoftheweightof

responsibilityontheresearcherfortheirpoliticsandpractice(Ramazanoglu&

Holland2002).

Centraltoafeministapproachtoresearchistheassumptionthatoppressive

genderrelationsexistandtherearecommoninterestsbetweenwomenwhile

simultaneouslyacknowledgingthedangersof‘universalism’intheexperiencesof

women(Ramazanoglu&Holland2002).Inordertoaddressthis,thisthesiswill

notaimtomakeanyuniversalgeneralisationsfromthedata,butratherwilldraw

outunderstandingsthatarerelevanttothespecifictimeandplaceinwhichthe

participantsarelocated.

Anotherkeyaspecttofeministresearchistheacknowledgementofthereciprocal

natureoftherelationshipsbetweeninterviewerandintervieweeduringthe

researchexperience(Bailey2007).Assuch,duringthefocusgroupstherewere

timeswhereitwasimportantformetoshareinformationaboutmyownlifeand

experiences.Thisenabledmetoestablishareciprocalsettingforthefocusgroups

bysharingwithmyparticipantswhatIwasrequestingofthemandtoattemptto

maketheparticipantfeelcomfortableandfreetoopenupaboutissuesthatat

timesmayhavebeendifficulttodiscuss.Onseveraloccasions,Isharedstoriesof

myownlife,interactionswithmypartner,oranecdotesfromworkorplaying

sports.Attimesthiswasdonesimplytoprovideamannerinwhichtohelpthe

participantstoconnectandfeelmorecomfortablewithmeandthesetting.Other

timesitwasdonedeliberatelytohelpsteertheconversationbackontrackas

96

oncethewomenweremorecomfortable,storieswouldwanderofftrack.By

sharingasimilarexperiencewiththewomen,itenabledagentleseguefrom

storytellingbacktotheresearchquestions,refocusingtheconversationonthe

topicsofinterest.Iwouldinvitethewomentoreflectuponthestoriesweall

sharedbyaskingdirectquestionsoftheexperiencesandtyingthemintothe

interviewschedule.Thisseemedaneffectivemethodforkeepingthe

conversationsontracksoastonotrunbeyondthetimecommitmentaskedofthe

participantsduringrecruitment.Itisimportanttotakeintoaccountthatthese

interactionscansignificantlyimpactthefindingsandoutcomesoftheresearch

andthusithasbeenvitaltobeawareofthemduringtheprocess(Bailey2007).

Reflexivityisimportantnotonlyforfeministresearch,butforqualitative

researchingeneral.Assuch,ithasbeencrucialthatIreflectuponmyownroleas

researcherandhowmyexperiencesmayimpactmyunderstandingsand

interpretationoftheparticipants’stories.Ihaveendeavouredtokeepthisin

mindwhenconductingallaspectsofthisresearch.

Whilefeministstudiesdonotnecessitatetheuseofqualitativetechniques,they

arecommonlyusedbyfeministresearchers(Kellyetal.1994;Ramazanoglu&

Holland2002)asisthecaseinthepresentstudy.Qualitativemethodsallowthe

researchertofocusonthesubjectiveexperienceandmeanings(Ramazanoglu&

Holland2002);notionsinlinewiththepoliticalnatureoffeministresearchand

forgainingthetypesofknowledgeseenasimportanttofeministresearchers

(Kellyetal.1994).Thisstudyisprimarilyconcernedwithwomen’ssubjective

understandingsoffemininitiesingeneral,aswellastheirownsocialidentities,

genderexpressionsandviewsoffemininities.Qualitativemethodsenable

97

interpretationoftheparticipants’meaningsattachedtonotionsofgender

expressionandfemininities.Furthermore,theuseofopenendedquestions

facilitatestheexplorationoftheparticipants’viewsontheirlivesand

experiences,allowingthemtofreelydiscussissuesandconsequentlymakesit

possiblefor“theresearchertogeneratetheory”(Reinharz1992,p.18).Withthis

inmind,myanalysishasdrawnheavilyonthewomen’sstoriesoftheirown

experiencesandobservationsofpeopleintheirlivesinadditiontotheirdirect

responsestothespecificfocusgroupquestions.Qualitativemethodsenable

analysisofparticipants’socialworldsthroughexplorationoftheirexperiences

andunderstandingsoftheirlives(Wheeldon2009)andfocusgroupsin

particular,facilitateexplorationofhowtheseareconstructedsocially.

Inadditiontousingasemi-structuredfocusgroupschedule,conceptmapshave

alsobeenutilisedtocollectqualitativedataforanalysis.Conceptmappingisa

qualitativetechniquethatfunctionsasageographicalmeanstoarrangeand

representknowledge.Conceptmappingenablestheanalysisoflevelsand

hierarchies,andthevisualisationofrelationshipsbetweenconcepts(Wheeldon&

Åhlberg2012).Generally,conceptmapsuseaseriesofconceptsrepresentedas

nodeswhicharethenconnectedtootherconceptswithlines(Wheeldon&

Åhlberg2012).However,Wheeldon(2009)arguesthatconceptmapsneednotbe

thoughtofinsuchstricttermsandsuggestsinsteadthatothertypesofmapsthat

maynothave‘lines’,suchasthoseutilisedinthepresentresearch,canstill

representrelationshipsbetweenconceptsincludinghierarchies.Ithasalsobeen

arguedthatthesetoolsshouldbeusedinconjunctionwithotherresearch

methods,suchasfocusgroups(Wheeldon2009).Asthepresentresearchis

98

interestedininvestigatingtherelationshipsbetweenvariousformsofdominant

andnon-dominantwomen’sgenderexpressions,suchamethodfacilitates

participantstoillustratetheirunderstandingsthroughqualitative,visualmeans,

inadditiontothefocusgroups.

Chapters2and3outlinedthetheoreticalapproachesbeingutilisedwithinthis

researchandtheimportanceofsocialconstructionisminunderstandingissues

relatedtosex,gender,andsexuality.The‘doing’ofgendercanbeseeninthe

symbolicrelationsbetweenandamongfemininities(Connell1987).Furtherto

that,symbolicinteractionismandphenomenologyunderpintheepistemological

baseforthecurrentstudy.Symbolicinteractionismisinterestedinuncoveringa

sharedsetofsymbolsandunderstandingsthatinformthemeaningspeoplemake

fromtheirexperiences(Patton1990).Thisepistemologicalmethodisidealfor

useingroupdiscussions(Patton1990)andassuchisparticularlypertinentto

thestudy.Theaimhasbeentounderstandtheparticipants’collective

understandingsoftraditionallyfemininewomenandthosewhodivergefromthis

formoffemininity.Thesymbolicinteractionisttraditionenablestheunearthing

ofthewaysinwhichtheparticipantsmakemeaningfrominteractionstheydeem

tobeeithertraditionallyfeminineor‘unfeminine’,aswellastheirown

experiencesofbeingwithinthesecategories.

Aphenomenologicalapproachassumesthatthereiscommunalitytotheshared

experiencesofaparticularphenomenon(Patton1990),suchaswiththewomen

ineachfocusgroupofthisresearchandtheirongoingexperiencesofgender

expression.Suchanapproachismostappropriateforresearchingthelived

99

experiencesofparticipantsasitisconcernedwithtryingto“seethingsfromthat

person’spointofview”ratherthangeneralise(Bryman2008,p.27).Focus

groupsenablediscursiveunderstandingsofsocialnormstobehighlighted,

providinginsightintohowwomenviewgenderexpressionsnotjustfroma

personalperspective,butalsohowgroupunderstandingsinfluencethese.

Individualinterviewswouldnothaveallowedforthegroupunderstandings

withinparticularcommunitiesofpracticetobefullyexamined,inmuchthesame

wayquantitativemethodswouldhaverestrictedexplorationofthecomplexity

thewomen’sexperiencesofgenderexpression.Thisapproachalsoinfluencesthe

typeofparticipantsamplingused.Ratherthanrecruitarandomsampleof

women,specificselectioncriteriawereimportantinensuringthatthe

participantsforeachfocusgroupwerepartofthesamecommunityofpractice,

female-bodiedandheterosexual.

Therearemanybenefitstoemployingfeministreflexivityinone’sresearch.

Firstly,suchanapproachenablestheresearchertoexaminetheirimpactand

involvementintheirresearchthroughtheirinteractionswiththeirparticipants

whilealsoacknowledgingpotentialunconsciousmotivationsandbiases,andthe

roleofpowerrelationshipswithintheresearchprocess(Finlay2002;Fonow&

Cook2005).Inadditiontothis,reflexivityisassociatedwithaccountabilityfor

theknowledgethatisproducedthroughone’sresearch(Ramazanoglu&Holland

2002).However,itisimportanttoacknowledgetheconcernswithusingsuchan

approach.Finlay(2002)notesthatresearcherspositioningthemselveswithinthe

workmayinadvertentlyresultintheirvoiceovershadowingthatoftheir

participants’.Assuchitisimportanttobeconsciousofnotunintentionally

100

claimingmoreauthority(Finlay2002).Theseconcernshavebeenkeptinmind

throughtheresearchprocess.

InthefindingschaptersofthisthesisIwilldiscussmyinterpretationsofthe

storiesandexperiencesmyparticipantssharedwithmeinthecontextofthe

conceptsandliteratureoutlineinearlierchapters.Keepinginmindtheintuitive

andcreativenatureofmanyfeministmethodologies(Ramazanoglu&Holland

2002),IdonotclaimthewayinwhichIrecountanddrawmeaningfromtheir

storiesistheonlytruthtobetold,butmerelymyreasonedunderstandingof

theminthecontextofmypreviousresearch.However,Iendeavourtopresentthe

participantsexperiencesfromtheirpointofview(Grbich2009;Bryman2008)

andthroughdrawingonthetheories,literatureandframeworks.

Recruitment

Asthegoalofthefocusgroupswastoexploreeverydayviewsofwomen,

samplingaimedtohaveabroadrangeofwomenfromdifferentsocio-economic

andculturalbackgroundsaswellasvariouseducationlevels.Inordertofacilitate

this,eachfocusgroupsconsistedofdifferentcommunitiesofpractice.Ihave

selectedcommunitiesofpracticeinordertoelicitabroadunderstatingofthe

women’ssharedrepertoire.

Focusgroupsinspiredbycommunitiesofpracticewereusedassitesformydata

collection.Communitiesofpracticereferstogroupswherethereexistsregular

101

interaction,ageneralsharedgoalanda‘sharedrepertoire’inwhichterminology,

routinesandgestureshavespecificmeaningwithinthegroup(Homes&

Meyerhoff1999).Ratherthanjust‘communities’,thecommunitiesofpractice

conceptemphasesthenotionof‘practice’ascentraltounderstanding,allowing

thediscursiveinteractionstobeexaminedinmoredetail(Holmes&Meyerhoff

1999).Forthisreason,thecommunitiesofpracticeconceptlendsitselfwellto

thesocialconstructionistandsocialpracticetheoryapproachesasitenables

analysisofagroup’s“activeengagementinthereproductionoforresistanceto

genderarrangementsintheircommunities”(Eckert&McConnell-Ginet1992,p.

466).Thefocusgroupsinthepresentresearchconsistedofgroupsofwomen

whowereallfamiliartoeachother,sharedacommongoal,andoftenengagedin

groupspecificformsofcommunication.

Intotal,therewerefivefocusgroupsconducted.Theywererollerderbyplayers,

circusperformers,amothersgroup,Aussierulesfootballteammates,andwomen

inexecutiveandmanagementrolesinalargecorporation.Theparticipantsfor

thisstudywereallwomenwhoidentifyasfemale-bodiedandheterosexual.The

majorityofthewomenlivedwithinthegreaterMelbournearea,whileonefocus

groupconsistedofwomenfromaruraltown.Furtherdetails,including

demographics,willbediscussedlaterinthischapter.

Whilegainingavarietyofbackgroundsfortheparticipantswasimportant,the

samplewasalsopurposiveinthatitaimedtomakeuseofparticipantsthat

enabledfullexplorationoftheexperiencesofwomenwhowereabletospeakto

variousdifferentformsofgenderexpression(Liamputtong&Ezzy2013).Itwas

102

forthisreasonthateachofthefocusgroupswerespecificallychosenastheyeach

representedlocationsforvariousformsoffemininitiestobepresent.Forroller

derby,thereissubstantialliteraturesuggestingthatwhileattimeshyper-

feminized,italsoanaggressivesport(Carlson2010;Cohen2008;Finlay2010).

Thismakesitavaluablesiteforexploringresistiveoralternativefemininities.

Similarly,researchoncircuswomensuggestsitasasitefor‘non-normative’

femininities(Douglas2014).Rugby,andsimilarsportssuchasAustralianRules

football,alsofallintoacategorywhere‘non-normative’andcompeting

discoursesaroundfemininitiesarepresent(Chase2006).Thesetypesof

‘masculine’sportsareviewedassitesofresistancetohegemonicfemininity

(Broad2001;Wheatley1994)andassuchprovidearichinsightinto

understandingsandexperiencesofgenderexpression.

Researchwithwomeninpositionsofauthorityintheworkplacesuggeststhat

theyareexpectedtobeboth‘feminine’and‘masculine’dependingonthetaskat

hand,creatingacomplexenvironmentforgenderexpression(Demaiter&Adams

2009).Afurtherareaofinterestforgenderexpressionisinrelationto

motherhood.AswasdiscussedinChapter2,tobea‘goodwoman’onemustbea

mother(Skeggs1997).Motherhoodisseenasthe‘cornerstone’offemininity

(NakanoGlenn1994;Russo1976;Skeggs1997).However,Gillespie(2003)

suggeststhatinmorerecenttimessomewomenexperiencea‘rejection’ofsorts

ofmotherhoodandwithitsassociationswithhegemonicfemininity.Thismakesa

mothersgroupalsoanidealplacetoexplorenotionsofgenderexpression.Itis

forthesereasonsthatIhaverunfocusgroupswiththewomenIdidastheyall

providedarichandvariedsourceofexperiencesfromwhichtodrawon.

103

Allparticipantswithinthesegroupsself-identifiedascisheterosexualwomen.It

wasimportantduringtherecruitmentprocesstoformthecorrespondencein

suchawayastomakeitclearthattherationaleforonlyinvitingheterosexual

womentotakepartwasthedesiretoaddressagapintheliterature.

Theparticipantswererecruitedviaconvenienceandsnowballsamplingthrough

peopleknowntomeandthroughestablishedconnectionswithvarious

communitygroups.Participantdidnothaveadirectrelationshipwithme.

Recruitmenttookplacethroughvariousmeansincludingemail,Facebook,

telephoneandpersonalinvitationsuponattendingwomen’sgroupmeetings.

Initially,Iapproachedvarioussportingclubsandotherpotentialgroupsthrough

formalchannels,writingemailsandcallingthestateorregionaldepartments.

Forthemostpart,thesemethodsdidnotresultinmuchinterestsoIturnedto

Facebooktoreachouttomyexistingcontacts.Thisresultedinestablishing

connectionsthatledtotherecruitmentofintheAussierulesfootballgroupand

themothersgroup.Facebookwasalsoinstrumentalinorganisingboththeroller

derbyandcircussessions.Duringthisprocess,Ifoundthatoneofthemain

questionsIwasasked,waswhyIwasn’ttalkingtolesbiansformyresearch.In

responsetothis,Iprovidedasmallsectionintherecruitmentinformation

explainingtheneedtofillthegapintheliteratureregardingheterosexualwomen.

Ihighlightedthatthepresentresearchwasdrawingonandaddingtowork

previousconductedwithlesbianandqueerwomeninordertoenablebroader

understandingwomen’sgenderexpressions.

104

Uponinitialcontactwithpotentialparticipants,Iprovidedeitheraprintedcopy

oranemailedversionoftheConsentInformationStatement(AppendixA).

Potentialparticipantswereaskedtocontactmeiftheywereinterestedintaking

partintheresearch,uponwhichfurtheremailorphonecontactwasusedto

organiseadateandlocationforthefocusgrouptotakeplace.

FocusGroupsandProcedure

Toidentifyhowwomenperceiveformsofgenderexpressionthatdivergefrom

traditionaland/ordominantforms,ithasbeenessentialtocollectdatafroma

broadrangeofwomentoinvestigatethenormativeunderstandingsofwhatit

meanstobefeminineandwhatitmeanstodifferfromthis.Usingsuch

techniquesfacilitatesthedevelopmentofmoreholisticdescriptionofwhatthese

formsofgenderexpression‘looklike’(Weiss1994).Withinsocialinteractionism,

ontologicalassumptionsviewsocialmeaningsascollectivelyconstituted.Focus

groups,inparticular,enableresearchersinuncoverthemeaningsandprocesses

thatfacilitategroupassessments(Bloor,Frankland,Thomas&Robson2001).

Furthermore,theuseoffocusgroupsprovidesaccesstohowgroupsformulate

normativeunderstandings(Blooretal.2001).Byutilisingsuchamethod,amore

thoroughunderstandingisgainedofhowwomenviewvariousformsofgender

expressionsandthesiteswherewomendifferfromtheirself-defined

understandingofwhatitistoexpressbeing‘awoman’.

105

Theprocedureforthestudyentailedholdingfiveseparatefocusgroups:roller

derbyplayers,amothersgroup,circuswomen,footballplayers,andwomenin

executivemanagementatalargehardwarestore.Allofthefocusgroupswere

heldatcentralandconvenientlocationsforgroupmembers,includingtheirown

groupmeetingroomsandprivatelyhiredmeetingspaces.Thesessionswere

recordedusingdigitalaudioandvideorecordingdeviceswiththeparticipants’

permission.Initiallyitwasanticipatedthateachfocusgrouprunfor

approximately60to90minutes,howeverseveralgroupschosetocontinue

discussionsforupto120minutes.Onmultipleoccasionsdiscussionscontinued

forsignificantlengthsoftimeafterIhadfinishedaskingquestionsandbeganto

packup.Thiswasparticularlythecasewiththeexecutivemanagementgroup

(EM),whereIstayednearly45minutesaftertherecordingshadstopped.

Groupdiscussionsbeganwithabriefoverviewofmyselfandtheresearch,at

whichtimeIthenaskedtheparticipantstoreviewandfillinpaperwork,

includingaConsentInformationStatement(seeAppendixA),InformedConsent

Form(seeAppendixB)andbriefDemographicsQuestionnaire(seeAppendixC).I

alsoprovidedeachparticipantwithaBlankGenderExpressionsMaptofillout

(seeAppendixD).Nametagswereprovidedandindividualintroductionswere

usedtohelpfamiliarisemyselfwiththewomenandtogettheparticipants

talking.

Apilotfocusgroupwasrunseveralweeksbeforethefirstformalfocusgroup.

Thiswasdoneforseveralreasons,firstly,toenablemyselftogainexperiencein

runningagroupsession,andsecondlytogetafeelforhowtheintended

106

questionswouldworkwiththeparticipants.Fromthepilotfocusgroup,Iwas

abletorearrangeandrewordseveralquestionsthatwerenotsufficientlyclear.I

alsofoundthattheconceptmapneededtoberedesignedfortheparticipantsto

haveenoughspacetowritetheirresponses.Aftertheadjustmentsweremade,

theformalfocusgroupswereundertaken.

Priortostartinganygroupdiscussions,eachparticipantwasaskedtofillina

blankconceptmap.Theparticipantswereinstructedtofilloutthemapbyplacing

words,termsorlabelsthattheyfeltwererelatedtotheidealormostcommon

typesofwomentowardsthecentre,andthosethatwerelessso,towardsthe

outside.Throughpilotingthefocusgrouppriortoformaldatacollection,Ihad

foundthattheconceptmapsneededsomeexplaininginordertogetthewomen

started.Assuch,Idemonstratedanexampleofhowtheycouldbefilledoutusing

malecharacteristics.Itwasdoneasagroupprocess,withmeaskingthe

participantstosuggestwhattermstouseandwheretoplacethem.Examplesof

someofthepromptsinclude:“Ifyouweretothinkofareally‘manly’man,what

wordswouldusetodescribehim?”and“Whattypesofmenorwordsmightyou

puttowardstheouteredge?”.Thishelpedthewomentounderstandwhatthe

activityinvolvedandgavethemanopportunitytoaskquestions.Igavethe

groupsapproximatelyfiveminutestofillinthemaps.Onthefollowingpageisan

exampleoftheblankconceptmapusedduringthefocusgroups.

107

BlankConceptMap

Theconceptmapsservedseveralpurposes.Firstly,astheywerefilledoutatthe

startofthefocusgroups,Iwasabletoseethetypesofideasthewomenheld

priortodiscussionsbegan.Whilesomewomenaddedwordstotheirmapsduring

thediscussions,Iaskedthewomenwhattheyhadaddedandthesewere

recordedinmynotesofthesessions.Theconceptmappingalsoenabledavisual

meansofanalysingtherelationshipsbetweenmultiplefemininitiesbythe

distanceandlocationofthedifferentlabelsorterms.Itisinterestingtonotethat

althoughIaskedtheparticipantstoputtheirnamesonthemaps,mosteither

chosenottoorforgottodothis.Assuch,manyofthemapsusedinthefindings

donothavethenamesincluded.Wherepossible,Ihaveprovidedtheparticipants

pseudonymswiththeirmaps.

Aftertheconceptmapswerefilledin,Ibegantoposequestions.Iencouraged

opendiscussionsamongstthegroups,howeverasemi-structuredFocusGroup

Schedule(seeAppendixE)wasutilizedtoensureparticulartopicsandareas

108

werediscussed,aswellasarollinginterviewguide.Arollinginterviewguideisa

methodforconductingfocusgroupsinwhichtheinitialfocusgroupscheduleis

reviewedaftereachgroupandalteredasneededtoelicitfurtherdatacollection.

Suchatechniqueenablesmoredetailedinformationaboutatopictobeexplored

byfocusinginonnewlyuncoveredtopicsorareasofinterestthatarisewithout

directquestioningduringthefocusgroupdiscussion(Stewart,Shamdasani&

Rook2007).Thistechniqueallowedforminoralterationstotheschedulebased

onthefindingsofthefirstfocusgroup.Suchalterationsincludedrearrangingthe

orderofthequestionstoalignmorenaturallywiththedirectionsthe

conversationstendedtogoin.Initially,myfocusgroupschedulebeganwith

questionsexclusivelyrelatedtofemininity,andthenmovedontoquestions

focusedmoreonnon-dominantgenderexpressionandmasculinityinwomen.

However,ineachfocusgroupparticipantsbegantodiscussbothdominantand

non-dominantfemininitiesandgenderexpressionsinrelationalterms.Assuchit

becameevidentthatseparatingoutthesectionswasnoteffectiveandIneededto

altertheinterviewscheduletoallowforthistooccurwithoutdoublingupon

topicsandquestions.

Itcanbearguedthatsincetheuseofarollingfocusgroupguidemeansthatno

focusgroupwillbeaskedexactlythesamequestionsorinthepreciselythesame

manner,comparisonsbetweenthegroupscanbemorechallenging(Stewart,

Shamdasani&Rook2007).However,asthealterationswereminorandmore

structuralinnatureforthisresearch,thiswasnotofamajorconcernanddidnot

outweighthebenefitsofbeingabletocreateamoreorganicconversationlike

109

seriesofquestions.Furthermore,thistechniqueallowedformetoelicitmore

detailsaboutareasthatwerenotpreviouslyconsidered.

Analysis

Eachfocusgroupwastranscribedverbatimalongwiththefieldnotestaken

duringthesessions.Thefieldnoteswereusedtokeeptrackofdiscussionsto

ensurethatifatopichadalreadybeencovered,itwasnotrepeated.Theyalso

enabledmetokeeptrackofanyprobingquestionswithoutinterruptingthe

participantsastheyspokewitheachother.Additionally,thefieldnotesallowed

formetorecordparticipantobservations(suchasbodylanguage),asnotallfaces

werevisibleinthevideorecordings.Transcribingeachfocusgrouppriortothe

nextallowedforchangestobemadeasnotedabove.Transcriptionprovedtobe

challengingattimesduetoparticipantsspeakingovereachother.Asa

consequence,Ifoundtheuseofvideorecordingsinvaluablefordeterminingnot

onlywhowasspeaking,butalsoasasecondarysourceaudiosource.In

particular,onefocusgroupthatwasconductedwithmotherswhosechildren

werepresent,requiredsubstantialtimetotranscribeastherewasagreatdealof

backgroundnoise.Myfieldnotesalsoprovedtobeausefultoolinclarifying

statementsandtheterminologyusedbyparticipants.

Thetranscriptsofthegroupinterviewshavebeenthematicallyanalysed.Iused

aniterativeapproachtothedata.Iterativeanalysisprovidesforbothemicand

eticreadingsthroughareflectiveprocesswherethedataiscontinuallyrevisited

110

toprovidefurtherconnectionsanddeeperunderstandings(Srivastava&

Hopwood2009).Throughthisprocesscodingwasusedtoclassifythethemes

andconceptsastheywereidentified.Initiallythisinvolvedcarefulrereadingof

thetranscriptsandselectionofpertinentsectionsofthediscussionsandquotes

basedonthequestions,orclusterofquestions,fromtheinterviewschedule.

Thesequoteswerethenarrangedaccordingtothemesandrecordedinan

analysisgrid.Fromthis,words,phrases,orareasofdiscussionthatfocussedon

similarideasenabledtheidentificationofpatternsandthemesthatinformedthe

identificationofthreedimensionsoffemininitythatwillbediscussedinthe

followingchapters.

Thecompletedvisualconceptmapshavealsobeenusedfordataanalysis.By

havingtheparticipantslocateandlabelvariousformsof‘femininities’or‘typesof

women’onpre-designedblankmaps,therelationalandhierarchicalaspectsof

women’sgenderexpressionsareabletobyexamined.Participantswere

instructedtoplacetermsandwordslocatedtowardsthecentreofthemapsthat

wereindicativeofthosetheyfeltwerestronglysymbolicoforrelatedtowomen’s

genderexpressions.Thefurtheroutfromthecentre,thelessstronglythe

participantsrelatedthosewordsortermswithdominantwomen’sgender

expressions.Ratherthanhavingaverticalhierarchalmap,Ichosetousea

circularbullseyemap.Thisfacilitatedmorecomplexityformappingthedifferent

locationsofwordsassociatedwithwomen’sgenderexpressions.Suchamethod

allowedformoreoverlapandgroupingofsimilarwordsthatwouldnotbe

possiblewithaverticalhierarchy.Byhavingtheparticipantsfillinthemapsprior

toourdiscussions,itallowedforthewomentoprovidemewithinformationthat

111

wasnotconstructedasaresultofourdiscussionsandinteractions.Thewords

andphrasesontheconceptsmapswereenteredintoaspreadsheetbasedonthe

‘ring’withinwhichtheywerewritten.Similaritiesregardingthetypesofwords

orexpressionswerefoundtocorrelatewiththeselocations.Fromthis,Ihave

usedtheconceptmapsinvariousways,includingtogetasenseofhierarchical

relationshipspresentbetweendifferentwomen’sgenderexpressions,aswellas

toidentifythemes.

ParticipantDetails

Asnotedabove,the36womenwhotookpartinthisresearchcamefromGreater

MelbourneandruralVictoria.Allfocusgroups,exceptfortheMothersGroup,

tookplaceinMelbourne.GeographicaldetailsareincludedinAppendixF,

howevermostwomeneithercurrentlylivedin,orwerepreviouslyfromthe

GreaterMelbournearea.Furtherdetailsabouttheirages,occupations,education

levels,raceandethnicity,relationshipstatusandchildrenisprovidedbelowand

inAppendixF.Informationabouteachcommunityofpracticeisdiscussedbelow.

Ages

Theaverageageofparticipantswas37years,withtheyoungestbeing18andthe

eldest60.Theexecutivemanagementgrouphadtheoldestaverageage,whilethe

footballgrouphadtheyoungest.Therangeofagesfortheparticipantswas

reflectiveofthosewhochosetoparticipateintheresearch.Thevarietyprovided

forabroaderunderstandingofconstructionsoffemininitythatwerenot

112

restrictedtoparticularagecohort.However,itshouldbeacknowledgedthat

doingsoalsoreducestheabilitytoidentifygenerationalspecificunderstandings

ofwomen’sgenderexpressions.

Occupations

Experiencesintheworkplaceplayedanimportantroleinthegroupsdiscussions.

Alloftheparticipantswereeitherworkingatthetimeofthesessions,orstated

thathadbeeninpaidemploymentwithinthepast12months.Occupationslisted

bytheparticipantsincluded:manager,jeweller,retailworker,truckdriver,

teacher,designer,lawyer,andsocialworker,tonameafew.Twoparticipants

statedthattheywereunemployedandthereweresixstudents.

EducationLevel

Therewasarangeofeducationlevelsthroughoutthefocusgroups,howeverthe

majorityofwomenhadcompletedsomeformofhighereducation.Sixteen

womenhadcompletedanundergraduatedegree,andsevenapostgraduate

degree,whilesevenlistedadiploma,certificateorapprenticeshipastheirhighest

levelofeducation.ThreeofthewomenhadnotcompletedYear12andanother

threelistedYear12astheirhighestlevelofeducation.

Race/ethnicity

Themajorityoftheparticipantsidentifiedas‘Australian’or‘Anglo’.One

participantidentifiedasDutch,oneasItalian,oneasBritish,oneasAmericanand

oneasAboriginal.Thereforthemajorityoftheparticipantswerefroma

Europeanbackground.

113

Relationshipstatus

Mostofthewomenwereinrelationships,withtwelvebeingmarried,two

engagedandsevenindefactorelationships.Elevenofthewomenweresingle

andonehada‘complicated’status.Allwomeninallofthegroupshadbeeninat

leastone‘serious’relationship.Notably,allofthewomeninthecircusgroup

weresingleatthetimeoftheresearch.

Children

Twooftheparticipantswerepregnantandseventeenhadchildren.Theaverage

numberofchildrenwastwo.Therewerenomothersinthecircusgroupandonly

oneintherollerderbygroup.

FocusGroupComposition

Thefollowingsectionwilloutlinesomedetailsaboutthemakeupofeachgroup.

EachcommunityofpracticethatIconductedfocusgroupswithvariedinthe

numberofparticipants.Thesmallestfocusgroupconsistedofthreewomenand

thelargesthad14.Throughoutthefindings,allparticipants’namesarefollowed

bytwolettersinparenthesesthatindicatewhichfocusgrouptheywerea

memberof.

Therollerderbygroup(RD)consistedofthreeparticipants,astwootherswere

unabletoattendatthelastmoment.Duetothedifficultyinrecruitingwomenfor

thisgroup(mostlyduetofamilyresponsibilities),asecondfocusgroupwasnot

114

organised.Whilelargefocusgroupsareoftenseenastheideal,smallfocus

groupssizes(particularlywithyoungwomen)havestillbeenfoundtofacilitate

meaningfuldiscussions(Bloor,Frankland,Thomas&Robson2001).However,

smallgroupscanbeatriskofamore‘questionandanswer’sessionifparticipants

arereticent(Bloor,Frankland,Thomas&Robson2001).Thiswasnotthecase

withtherollerderbyplayers,asallwereopenandrespondedenthusiasticallyto

myselfandeachother.Twoofthewomenwererollerderbyplayers,andonea

referee.Theyhadallbeenplayingforbetween6monthsand8years.Allwere

fromGreaterMelbourne,onewasamotherofateenager.Whilethewomenall

kneweachother,theyhadnotspenttimewitheachotheroutsideofrollerderby.

Therewerefourattendeesforthecircusgroup(CG).Allhadbeenwiththesame

localwomen’scircusforatleastayear,regularlyseeingeachotherattraining

andperformances.Thewomengottogetheroutsideofthecircusonaregular

basis.AllofthewomencamefromtheGreaterMelbournearea.

Allsixofthewomenfromthemothersgroup(MG)livedwithinthesamerural

areainVictoriaandhadchildrenagedbetweenthe1and4years.Children

attendedthefocusgroupsessionwiththeirmothersandwerecaredforbya

babysitterorganisedbymyself.This,however,didnotpreventthechildrenfrom

routinelyjoininginonthediscussionswithrequestsforsnacksorthetoilet.This

madeforchallenging,butalsoratheramusingtranscriptionofthesession.

TheAussierulesfootballgroup(FG)consistedofmembersfromthesame

footballteam.Ninewomenattendedthesessionwhichwashelddirectlyafter

115

trainingatalocaleateryadjacenttothetraininggrounds.Thewomenwerevery

vocalandcomfortablewitheachother,sharingin-jokesandlaughingastheyhad

justfinisheduptraining.Therewereseveralwomenwithchildreninthisgroup.

ThewomeninthisgroupcamefromsimilarareasinGreaterMelbourne.

Fourteenwomenparticipatedinthefocusgroupforwomeninexecutive

management(EM).Theyallworkedforthesameorganisation,butinvarying

executiveandmanagementpositions,whichmeantthatnotallwomenwerewell

knowntoeachother.Aroundhalfofthewomenweremothers.Thewomenlived

indifferentsuburbswithinGreaterMelbourneatthetimeoftheresearch.Seven

ofthewomenhadgrownuponruralfarmingproperties,atopicwhichformeda

largepartoftheconversationsinthisfocusgroup.

EthicalIssuesandLimitations

Informedconsentiscrucialtoensuresoundethicalfoundationsforpractice

(Liamputtong&Ezzy2013).UponreceivingapprovalfromtheSwinburne

UniversityHumansResearchEthicsCommittee(seeAppendixG),detailed

informationregardingtheintentofthestudywasprovidedtoeachparticipantto

ensurefulldisclosureofthepurposeandobjectives.Writtenpermissionfrom

eachindividualwasobtainedbeforecommencinginterviews.Withinthe

InformedConsentform,questionsregardingfurthercontactforfollowup

questionswereincluded.

116

Confidentialityisvitaltotheresearchdesigntoensurethat(Liamputtong&Ezzy

2013).Priortoeachfocusgroupsessionandindividualinterview,confidentiality

wasdiscussedwiththeparticipantstoensuretheyfeltcomfortablethatanything

theysaywillnotbeidentifiable.Iexplainedtheimportanceofnotdiscussingthe

contentofthesessionoutsideoftheinterviewsettingwitheachgroup.Upon

transcriptionoftheinterviewsandallrecordingsandmaterialsrelatingtothe

participantshavebeenkeptinasecurelocationuntilcompletionoftheresearch,

atwhichtimetheywillalsobedestroyed.Externalconfidentialitywas

additionallyensuredthroughtheuseofpseudonymsforallparticipants.In

keepingwithafeministnatureofthisresearch,theparticipantsweregiventhe

optionofchoosingtheirownpseudonyms.Thiswasdonetoprovidethewomen

withmorecontrolovertheinterviewingprocess.Unintentionally,italsoserved

asanice-breaker,allowingthewomentojokeandlaughaboutthe‘nameswished

theyalwayshad’.

Althoughthepossibilityofcausingdistressorharmduetotheresearchwaslow,I

wasawarethatsomeofthequestionsraisedmayhavebroughtupsome

uncomfortablefeelingsregardingtheparticipants’experiences.Sensitiveissues

werediscussedwithparticipantsbeforeproceedinganyfurther,andtheoptionof

stoppingtheinterviewswasmadeclear.ContactinformationfortheSwinburne

EthicsCommitteewasmadeavailabletotheparticipantsshouldtheyrequired

furtherassistancewithanyaspectoftheresearch.Additionally,Iencouragedthe

womentocontactmeiftheyhadanyconcernsabouttheinformationthey

disclosed.

117

Qualitativeresearchisoftencriticizedforitslackofgeneralisabilityofresultsto

thegeneralpopulation(Liamputtong&Ezzy2013)).Thisisthecaseinthe

presentresearch,andthefindingsofthisstudycanonlybeseentorepresentthe

patternsandtrendsofthepeopleinterviewed.However,theaimofthisresearch

isnottoascertainaclear-cutanswertospecificquestionsbutrathertoexplore

discoursesrelatedtotheissuesoffemininityandgirlhood,andtogaininsight

intotheexperiencesofasmallgroupofwomen.Assuch,generalisabilityisnota

primaryconcern.

Conclusion

Thischapterhasoutlinedsomeoftheepistemological,methodologicaland

practicalconsiderationsinvolvedinresearchingwomen’sgenderexpression.

Feministandqualitativemethodologieswerediscussedtoprovidearationalefor

theuseoffocusgroupsandconceptmappingtechniques.Detailsregardingthe

recruitmentandsamplingwereprovided.Communitiesofpracticewereutilised

inthisresearchastheyprovideasitethatcomplimentsthesocialconstructivist

approachandenablestheexplorationofsharedmeanings.Theprocedureofthe

focusgroupswasexplained,highlightinghowtechniquessuchasgroup

discussionsenableexplorationofthewaysinwhichsex,gender,andsexualityare

socialconstructed.Conceptmappingfurtherfacilitatedthisbyallowingavisual

representationoftherelationshipsbetweenvarioustypesofwomen’sgender

expression.Informationregardingthedataanalysishasalsobeendiscussed,

followedbyabriefoverviewoftheparticipants’detailsandthefocusgroup

118

composition.Finally,theethicalissuesandlimitationswereconsidered.Thenext

chapterwillfocusonhowthewomeninthisresearchmakesenseofdominant

women’sgenderexpression,andprovidingadescriptionofwhattheyunderstand

femininitytobe.

119

Chapter5

HegemonicFemininities

Thischapterwillexplorewhatthetermfemininitymeanttothewomeninthis

researchandprovideanunderstandingofhowthisalignswiththeliteraturein

thisfield.Thefindingsdiscussedbelowaredrawnfromfocusgroupdiscussions

andthecompletedconceptmaps.Generalunderstandingsof‘femininity’are

discussedandthenbrokendownintothreemaindimensions:thephysical

(body),themalleable(appearance),andtherestrictive(demeanour)aspectsof

femininity.Withinthesecategories,topicsrelatingtothephysicalbody,

appearanceanddemeanourareexplored.Aspectsofthefindingspresented

supporttheresearchinthisarea,outlinedinChapter2and3.Lastly,the

dominanttropesoffemininityasevidencedinthisresearch,theBarbieandthe

Motherarediscussed.Theseidealsrepresentthemostculturallydominantform

ofwomen’sgenderexpressionforthewomeninthisresearch,butthesecannot

beunderstoodas‘emphasizedfemininity’.Connell’s(1987)notionofemphasized

femininitysuggeststhattherearelittletonopowerrelationsbetweenwomen,as

theyalloccupyaninferiorpositiontomales.Schippers(2007),ontheotherhand,

arguesthattherearehierarchicalrelationshipsbetweendifferentfemininities.

Thisintragenderorderbecameapparentthroughthediscussionswiththe

womeninthisresearch.Whenthevariousdimensionsoffemininitiesoverlapand

intersect,amultitudeofgenderexpressionscanmanifest,somewithmore

120

culturalacceptancethanothers.Thesymbolicpowerofthehegemonicideal

femininitywasfeltbyallofthewomen.

“Iunderstandwhatthewordmeans,justnothowtosayit”

WhenIinitiallyaskedmembersofeachofthefocusgroupswhattheword

‘feminine’meanttothem,Iwasoftenmetwithstaresandsilence.Ibeganeach

groupwithsomegeneralconversationtoeasetheparticipantsintofeelingmore

comfortablespeakinginthegroupenvironmentandhadthemfillouttheir

conceptmapstogetthemthinkingabouttheideasoffemininityandgender

expression,butthisfirstformalquestionseemedtocloseeveryonedown.Rather

thanasignofresearchweakness,thisseemedtobemoreasaresultofnotonly

thedifficultiesindiscussinggenderexpressions,butalsoinhowtodescribesuch

abroadconcept.Emma(RD),fromtherollerderbygroup,smiledandsaidin

whatappearedtobeajokingmanner,“You’reaskingaboutmainstreamstuff

fromthosewhoaresittingoutsideofthemainstream?”.Theparticipants

expressedanawarenessofthehierarchalnatureinherentwithingender

expressionsandthattherewasaculturallydominantor‘normativefemininity’

(Ambjörnsson2004;Cole&Zucker2007;Renold&Arnold2006;Shoemaker

2004;Schippers2007).Afterthedifficultythefirstfocusgroupshowedin

respondingtothequestion,Ichosetoalterthewordingofthisfirstquestion

slightlytobeginbyexaminingwhattheythoughtsocietyviewedfemininityas.

However,Iwasstillmeetwithsomenervouslaughterinthemothersgroup,

whereCece(MG)said,“Iknowwhatthewordmeans,justnothowtosayit.”And

121

muchthesame,Karen(CG)inthecircusgroupsaid:“Iknowwhatitis,butIdon’t

knowhowtoarticulateit”.Iusedsomegentleprobingforseveralofthegroups,

includingasking,“Ifyouhadhadtodescribethetermtosomeone,whatwords

wouldyouuse?”andwhilethiselicitedsomeresponses,itseemedthatmostof

thewomenneededabitoftimetothinkonthisquestionbeforetheycould

respond.However,oncetheydidgettalkingaboutwhat‘feminine’meanttothem

andwhatwordstheywoulduse,theyallhadalotmoretosaytheyexpected.

Theoneexceptiontothiswasthefootballgroup,wherethewomenjumped

straightintoresponding,callingoutmultipleresponsesovereachother.Several

factorsseemedtocontributetothis.Firstly,thewomenwereengagedinregular

competition,andthequestionseemedtosparkanopportunityforthewomento

‘oneup’eachotherinafriendlyway.Secondly,itwasclearthatfemininitywasan

issuethatthesewomenhadspentconsiderabletimereflectinguponduetothe

masculinenatureoffootball.Theresponsestheyprovidedincludedsuchasbeing

‘girly’and‘ditzy’,spendinghoursinthebathroom,highmaintenanceandhaving

lotsofshoes.Thesetypesofdescriptionsweresimilartowhatmanyhadwritten

ontheirconceptmaps(seeFigure1below).Thewomenwereaskedtoplace

wordsorphrasestheyassociatedwithacceptablewaysofbeingawoman

(dominantfemininity)towardsthecentreofthemap.Thiscouldbeintheformof

descriptors,labels,typesofwomen.Thosethatwereplacedfurtherout,indicated

wordsthatwerelessassociatedwithfemininity.Ascanbeseen,towardsthe

centreoftheimagebelow,dressesandprincesshavebeenplacednearthe

middle.Theseideastieinwiththenotionofhyperfemininity,wherefemininityis

seenasaperformancethatisexaggerated,primarilyfocussedonlooksand

122

behaviour(Allan2009).Hyperfemininityisanextremeformofhegemonic

femininity.

Figure1:Ashley-FootballGroup

Thereseemedtobeafairamountoflaughterandnegativitypresentinthegroup

whenspeakingofthingsthatwere‘feminine’,withoneparticipantequating

femininegirlsto‘scary’dramaqueensanddivas(discussedfurtherinChapter6).

Someresistedthesegeneralisationsandpaintedamorepositiveviewofgeneral

femininity,butoverall,Donna(FG)summedupthefeelingofthegroupwellwhen

shedescribedfeminineas“notdoingsportystuff”.Thecentralelementthat

broughtthesewomentogetherwas,exactlythat–sportystuff.Additionally,out

ofallthegroups,thefootywomenwerepartofacommunityofpracticethat

embodiedthemostovertmasculinecharacteristicsasdescribedintheliterature

(Connell1987;Messerscmidt2010;Whitehead2002),perhapsforcingthe

123

womentoreflectuponfemininitymorethanmost,explainingwhyasagroup,

theyweresoquicktorespondtoquestionsaboutfemininity.

Eachfocusgrouphadparticularareasthattheyemphasisedduringthesessions,

despitethesedifferencestherewerestrongoverarchingthemesthatemergedas

towhatfemininityconstituted.Thesethemesallcentredaroundaspectsof

hegemonicfemininity.AsoutlinedinChapter3,hegemonicfemininityistheform

ofidealformoffemininitythatwomencomparethemselvesto(Schippers2007).

Assuch,itisnotsurprisingthattheemphasisoftheirdiscussionscentredonthe

behavioursandqualitiesthataretheorisedtobecentraltenantsofhegemonic

femininity.

Asmentioned,throughthevariousdiscussionsonwhatfemininityconstituted,

therewereseveralthemesthatemerged.Theyincludedvariousaspectsof

femininitythattendedtofallintoeitherphysicaldimensions,‘malleable’

dimensionsorrestrictivedimensions.Thesectiononphysicaldimensionsfocuses

onaspectsoffemininitythatwereseentoberelatedtothebody,including

controloverandshapeofone’sbody.Themalleabledimensionsoffemininityare

thecomponentsoffemininityrelatedtoappearancethatareeasilyputonor

takenoffeachday,includingclothing,make-upandhairstyles.Thesepartsof

femininitycreateasenseofagencyforwomen’sgenderexpressionattimes.

Restrictivedimensionsoffemininityontheotherhandreferstotheaspectsof

femininitythatwomenfeeltheyareconfinedby,includingdemeanour,

appropriatebehaviourandinterests.Theserestrictionsoftenarefeltthrough

judgementsandpressure,notfromspecificpeople,butfromsocietyasawhole.

124

Whenthesedimensionswerediscussed,thewomenoftendrewonwhat‘wasnot’

femininetoillustratewhat‘was’.Thishighlightstherelationalityoffemininity

withmasculinityandwillbeexploredfurtherinChapters6and7.However,

thosediscussionsarealsoincludedhereastheyhelptopaintapictureofwhat

theparticipantsunderstoodfemininitytomeanandtoprovideanunderstanding

ofhowhegemonicfemininityisconstituted.

PhysicalDimensionsofFemininity

Oneofthefirstthemesthatbecameapparentwhenanalysingthedata,wasthe

relationshipbetweenfemininityandthebody.Thereweremanycomments

regardingnotonlythewayinwhichwomenmovetheirbodies,buthowour

bodiesareshaped.Thebodyhasattimesbeenseenasproblematicforgender

researchersasitoftenreifiesatwo-sexmodel.However,whiletheremaybe

somebodilydifferencesbetweenmalesandfemales,itisthroughsocialpractices

thatthesedistinctionsbecomemorepronounced,creatingbothsexcategoriesas

wellasgendercategories(Butler1990;Foucault1979;Greer1970).Forthe

womeninthisresearch,thesesmallbodilydifferencescarriedsignificant

meaningfortheirunderstandingsoftheirownbodies.Thisoccurredwithregards

tothebodyitself,andthewayinwhichthebodymovedandtookupspace.

Drawingonthenotionthatwomenareonaveragephysicallysmallerthanmen,

femininityencompassed“petite”physiques,occupyinglessspace,andhaving

morecontrolledandcontainedmovementsthanmales.Thesenotionsunderpin

125

hegemonicfemininity,wherefemininityisconstructedoppositionallyto

masculinity.

OccupyingSpaceandMovingwithPurpose

Themannerinwhichwomenoccupiedandmovedthroughspaceplayeda

significantroleinourdiscussions.Thesediscussionsimpliedthattheywerenot

alwaysconsciouschoices,butrather‘thewayyouwere’.Theroleofthebodyand

howitisconstructediscentralinunderstandingone’sidentity(Butler1990;

Butler1993a;Connell2002;Gatens1992;Kellyetal.2005;West&Zimmerman

1987;Young2005).Thenotionthathowyouuseandexperienceyourbodyisjust

partofthewayyouaretouchesButler’s(1990)conceptionthatgenderasnot

somethingthat‘weare’,butsomethingthatisimposeduponusthrough

unconsciousrepetitiousacts.Butler(1988,p.519)explains:“Genderisinstituted

throughthestylizationofthebodyand,hence,mustbeunderstoodasthe

mundanewayinwhichbodilygestures,movements,andenactmentsofvarious

kindsconstitutetheillusionofanabidinggenderedself.”Butler’s(1990)notion

ofperformativitygoesbeyondagenderdisplaysassimplyaperformance;itisthe

repetitionoftheacts,orperformance,thatestablishesasetofmeanings,andin

thiscase,thatofagenderidentity.Manyofthewomenwerenotconsciousof

howtheymovedtheirbodiesinfemininewaysuntilitwasdiscussedinthefocus

groups.Oncemadeaware,thiswasoftenattributedas“justhowIam”(Louise-

RD);itwasjust“natural”(Kim-MG).However,therewereotherwomeninthe

groupswhosuggestingthattheyweretrainedintoknowinghowtomovetheir

126

bodies,resultingfromperformingrepetitiousactsuntiltheybecamean

unconsciouspartofthemselvesandtheiridentities.Butler(1990)arguesthatthe

illusionofgenderdisplaysasnaturalisinfactaconsequenceofcoercionand

socialsanctions.Thiscanbeseeninmanyofthecommentsthewomenmade

abouthownottobefemininesuchassittingwithyourlegstoowide.Theseare

discussedfurtherinthefollowingsection.

Thewaywomenmadeuseoftheirbodiesbothwheninmotionandwhenstill

werealsoseenasindicatorsoffemininity,inlinewiththeliteratureon

performativity(Blaikieetal.2003;Bordo2003;Cole&Zucker2007;Young

2005).Thetopicsthewomendiscussedincludedwalking,sitting,shakinghands,

thestrengthoftheirtouchandamountofspacetheyoccupied.Viewsonfeminine

movementweresimilarforallparticipants.Inthemothersgroup,Cece(MG)

describedfemininityas,“Movingwithpurpose”.Young(2005)arguesthat

femininemodesofcomportmentmobilityandspatialityareintentional,working

towardsaparticulargoalwhilealsoresistinganybigmovements.

Louise(RD)spokeoffemininewomenholdingthemselvesinaparticularmanner,

onewhichwasdelicateandgentle.‘Gentle’isoneofthekeycriteriausedbyCole

andZucker(2007)toassessfemininity,andcameupofteninthediscussionsof

feminineaswellastheconceptmaps(seeFigure2below).Inthefigurebelow,

thewords“soft”,“gentle”and“delicate”arewrittenatthecentreofthemap,

indicatingthatthesecharacteristicsareseenascentraltofemininity.

127

Figure2:Anonymous-ExecutiveManagementGroup

Femininewomenwereseentowalkwithgraceandpoise;theirtouchwassoft.

Alison(EM)saiditwas,“thewayyouwalkintoaroom”.Joey(FG)feltthat

femininewomen,“…understandtheirbodies”andBarb(FG)thattheyhavea

stronger“connectiontotheirbodies”thannon-femininewomen.Thisisnot

surprisinggiventheexpectationsofwomentomanageanddisciplinetheirbodies

onadailybasis(Blaikieetal.2003;Bordo2003).ItalsospeakstoOrtner’s(1972)

discussionofwomenandnature.Womenareseenwithinsocietyascloserto

naturethanmalesastheirbodiesareresponsibleforreproductionandnurturing

infants(Ortner1972).Thisconnectionbetweenbodyandnaturethenbecomes

naturalandinstinctive,whilemalesusetheirbodytoovercomenature(Ortner

1972).Awomanwhoisnotconnectedtoherbodyisthenseenaslessnaturaland

unfeminine.

128

Theconnectionwithawoman’sbodywasevaluatedthroughone’sabilityto

controlitinparticularways,andfailuretodosodisruptsthefeminine

performance.Aswithmanyaspectsoffemininity,whendescribinghowwomen

‘walk’,theparticipantsoftentoldmewhatfemininewomen‘didn’tdo’.Mary(CG)

statedthatfemininewomendon’t“stompwhentheywalk”andLaura(MG)said

theyshouldn’t“swagger”.AccordingtoKylie(FG),womanshould“floatintothe

room”.Therewasasensethatwomenshouldbelightanddelicateontheirfeet,

andbegracefulandelegantwhentheymove.Thiswayofwalkingwasnota

deliberateandconsciousact,butrathersomethingthatwasingrainedinthem

fromayoungage,againillustratingButler’s(1990)notionofperformativity.

Researchongaitandgenderdifferencesattributes‘habit’asasignificantfactor

thatinfluencethewayapersonwalks(Kozlowski&Cutting1977).Thesehabits

areoftendistinctlygenderedwhereamasculinemen’sstrideisproportionally

longerthanafemininewoman’sandwheregenerallywomenare“notasopen

withtheirbodies”incomparisontomen(Young2005,p.5).Thiswassimilarto

thedescriptionsthatthewomeninthisresearchgave.

Oftenindescribingfeminineattributessuchaswalkingstyle,thewomenfound

themselvesdrawingonwhatwasnotfeminineinordertoillustratewhatwas.

Muchofthisbehaviourwastypicalformen,butinappropriateforwomen.

Femininewomen“don’tsitwiththeirlegsspreadoutwide”(Joey-FG).Thiswas

seenasoneofthemostunfemininethingsawomancoulddo,andwhenIasked

whatwouldhappenifawomandidthiswhileinaskirtordress,theresponses

wentfromlaughtertodisgustinallofthegroups.Thewomensaidtheysatwith

theirlegstogetheroutofhabit.AsYoung(2005,p.43)suggests,“Thegirllearns

129

activelytohamperhermovements”.IncontrasttoGoffman’s(1976)

dramaturgicaltheory,whichsuggeststhatwhenwearebackstagewe‘stop’the

performance,thewomennotedthatevenwereathomebythemselvestheyfound

themselvessittingwiththeirlegscrossed.Thiswasalsothecasewhenwearing

pants,suggestingthatthisbehaviourwasnotbasedonaneedtokeep

undergarmentshidden,butratherasanembodimentoffemininitythathadbeen

learntandeventuallyingrainedintohowtheyunderstoodtheirownbodies.

Theseexperiencescanbebetterunderstoodthroughperformativity(Butler

1988;1990)asdiscussedearlier.Young(2005,p.41),alsosuggeststhatthe

feminine“body’sspaceislivedasconstituted”.Georgie(MG)spokeofbeing

carefulnottolooktoocasualwhenyousit,andexplainedthatitwasimportant

forwomento,“beatattentionandawareofyoursurroundings”.

Sittingwithyourlegstogetherwasalsoseenaspartofalargercomponentof

femininity,thatof“takingupaslittlespaceaspossible”(Lily-CG).Bysittingwith

yourlegsapart,youwere“claiming”morespace.Tobefemininewastooccupyas

littlespaceaspossible(Bordo2003;Crowder1998;Nguyen2008;Pascoe2012).

ForLily(CG),smallandleanwereseenas“attributes”offemininity,andalthough

shedidn’tnecessarilydesireitconsciouslyforherself,shewasawareofthe

pressuretofitintothatideal:

Thatthingaboutnottakinguptoomuchspace,IthinkthatissomethingI

reallyattributetofemininity.It’ssortof,it’sbeingpassive,butalso…Iwas

broughtupinanall-girlsschool,everyonewasondiets,butitisalways

thatthing,lotsoffemaleswanttobelittle,wanttobethin.Lotsoffemales

havethisideaofbeingsmallandleanandIthinkthatstillsortofsticksin

130

myheadasafemaleattribute.NotthatIhavetobelikethatbutthatit’s

expected.

This‘sticking’ofthenotionofaparticulartypeoffemininephysiquemanifests

throughunconsciousrepetitiousacts.Performativityestablishesasetof

meanings(Butler1990),suchasinthiscasethatthinequalsfeminine.Coffey

(2012,p.138)foundherparticipantsexpressedsimilarsentimentsdescribingthe

idealwoman’sbodyas“definitelynotfat”butalsonottoomuscularasthiswas

seenasmasculine.SuchfindingssupportBordo’s(2003)discussionofthe

slenderidealthatcomesaboutfromwomenstrivingtomeetthecultural

expectationsofweakness,passivityandoccupyinglessspace.

Kim(MG)pointedoutwomenshouldn’t“slouch”,theyshouldmaintaingood

posture.Iaskediftherewereparticularsituationswere‘slouching’was

acceptable.Themothersgroupallagreedthatwhenintheirweeklymeet-ups,the

traditionalrulesregardingsittingandslouchingdidnotapply.ForLaura(MG),

menbeingpresentdidn’taffectthis.However,Ez(FG)feltthat“womenwere

moreawareofpeoplelookingatthem”andthatthiswasparticularlythecase

withmenlookingatthem.Wecanseeheretheimpactofthe‘malegaze’withthe

awarenessofmalepresencebringingaboutaneedtopresentthemselvesinmore

feminineways.Thewomenfeltthisinparticularinpublicspaces,feminine

womenwereexpectedtobe,“heldandcomposedsonicely,evenwhenthetram

bumpsaround”(Mary-CG).

Women’sbodiesandthemannerinwhichtheyaremoved,heldandmaintained

playacrucialroleintheperformanceoffemininity.Muchofthisworkcanbe

131

understoodasbeingdone,whetherconsciouslyorunconsciously,withmale

desiresinmind.Wecanseethepoweroftheheterosexualmatrixhere.The

pressuretoappealtomaledesiresismaintainedbytheunderliningassumptions

ofheterosexualitythatstructurestherelationshipsbetweenmasculinityand

femininity.Itisthecomplementarybutasymmetricalrelationalvariations

betweenmenandwomenallowforthishegemonytobemaintained.Feminine

physicalmannerismsandmovementshelptodistinguishfemininityfrom

masculinityandthussupportingthepositioningofmasculinityassuperior,but

alsoestablishingahierarchyamongfemininities.Therewasconsensusamongst

thegroupsthatthosewomenwhodonotengagewiththetypicallyfeminine

movementsandposturebecomesubordinatetothosethatdo.Thiswasalsothe

caseforthephysicalbodytypes,althoughthiswasmoredifficulttocontrolin

someaspects.

TheRulerandtheHourglass

Thewomeninthefocusgroupsidentifiedseveralkeyaspectsandphysicaltypes

thatrepresentedfemininebodiestothem.Itwassuggestedthatwithoutthese

physicalcharacteristics,youwouldhavetoworkhardertoappearfeminine.

Oneofthewordsthatcameuponseveraloccasionsacrossthefocusgroupswas

‘curvy’.Thesizeofbreasts,hips,waistandbottomallhelpedtoincreasea

woman’sperceivedfemininity.Inthediscussions,Iaskedthewomenwhichof

thesebodyareaswasmostinfluentialindeterminingsomeone’sfemininity.The

132

responsesvaried,butoverall,theconsensuswasthatifawoman“haswell-

proportionedfeatures”(Louise-RD)intherightplaces,shewouldbeconsidered

feminine.Idealfemininebreastsweremediumsizedandround,hipsshouldbe

“almostplump”,waistneededtogoinsignificantlyinthestomacharea,legslong

andherbottomround–notsquareorflat;sheshouldbean“hourglass”(Kylie-

FG).AsKaren(CG)putit,thiswas“havingallthatistheultimatewoman”.While

researchonidealwomen’sbodytypesoftenhighlightstheimportanceof

‘slimness’(Bordo2003;Grogan2000),thefocusforthewomeninthepresent

researchwasonshapeliness.Manyofthewomensuggestedthatevenifawoman

worefeminineclothing,make-upandjewellery(discussedfurtherinthe

followingsections),buthada“rulershaped”(Joey-FG)body(onewhichdidnot

haveadistinctwaist,definedhipsandnobreasts),shewouldnotbeviewedas

‘feminine’.Thissentimentwaspresentinallofthefocusgroups.

Surprisingly,slimnesswasnotseenasthemostimportantfactorindetermining

femininity,butthismaybedueinparttothenatureofthecommunitiesof

practicetheycamefrom.Rollerderby,footballandcircusareallgroupsthat

centreonphysicalactivityandtherewasastrongemphasisonmuscularbodies

asbeingfeminine.Muscularbodiesinherentlyhavemorecurvesthannon-

muscularbodies.Andwhileattimesthepresenceofbreastswasmentionedasa

hassle,“theyjustgetinthewaysometimes”(Mary-CG),theyalsohelpto

reaffirmawoman’sheterosexuality.Researchsuggeststhattocombat

assumptionsofhomosexuality,womenoften‘rampup’theirfemininity(Ezzell

2009).Asoutlinedintheliteraturereview,Ezzell(2009)referstothisas

‘heterosexy-fit’,wherewomenwhoareengagedinmoremasculinesportsplayup

133

their‘sexiness’toreinforceheterosexuality.Thiswaspresentforsomeofthe

womeninthefootballgroupandisdetailedfurtherinChapter7.Whileforthe

mothersgroup,anemphasisonashapelybodyisalsonotsurprisinggiventhe

connectionsbetweenbeingawomanandfemininewithbreasts,breastfeeding,

hipsandchildbearing(Ortner1972).Thus,weighthadlittleimpactintheirideas

offemininityifthecurveswereintherightplaces.Aslongassomeonehadat

leastoneofthe‘womanly’bodycharacteristics,shewouldpresentasfeminine:“If

sheischubby,buthasboobs,yeah,shewillbefeminine”(Louise-RD).

Differenceswerenotedbetweenthegroupsintheirviewsontheroleofthebody

infemininity.Acceptanceofallsizesofbodyshapesinrollerderbyisalso

commonandoftenthebreastandcurvesareemphasizedandcelebrated(Cohen

2008).Ez(FG)statedthat“Theboobsareallthatyouneed”whileJoey(FG)said

“Itdoesn’tmatterifsheisthinandhasnoboobs,ifshehasawaist,it’sfine”.In

bothcasesthepresenceofcurveswasemphasized.Forthecircuswomen,itwas

similar.Mary(CG)explainedthatifyouwere,“toofat,anddon’thavetheright

curvesthenpeopleseeyouasnotfeminine,”andhadbeentoldthatsheshouldn’t

dotoomanypush-ups“‘causeitwouldmakemyboobsgetsmaller”.Inthe

mothersgroup,Cece(MG)toldusabouttwoofherfriends,oneamanandonea

woman.Shedescribedthemasbothround,withnorealshape.Thislackofshape

“tookawayhismasculinityandherfemininity”(Cece-MG).Coffey’s(2012;2013)

researchonbodyworkalsofoundthatone’sbodyshape,albeitdifferentformen

andwomen,wasimportantforherparticipantsinfeelinggoodaboutthemselves.

ThemannerinwhichCece(MG)sharedherstorysuggestedthatthelackof

134

genderedsignifiersinherfriends’bodyshapeswassomethinghavingafeminine

bodyshapewasimportantandvalued.

Again,drawingonthenotionoftakingupaslittlespaceaspossible,height

influencedhowfeminineawomanappeared,butonlyattheextremeend.

Perhapsalsoduetotheideathatoverlytallwomentendedtohavemore‘ruler’

likebodyshapes,femininewomenwereseenas‘shorttomedium’.Theother

exceptiontothiswasmuscles.Karen(CG)toldthegroupthatpeopleoftenhave

saidtoherthingslike,“You’vegotreallybigmuscles,that’snotreallyfeminine,

thatdoesn’treallyworkwithadress”.Evenifawomanhadseveraloftheideal

femininebodycharacteristics,ifshewasoverlymuscular,shewaslessfeminine.

Inthisway,femininitywasfragile.Whilenotembodyingallofthesephysical

aspectsoffemininitydidnotpreventyoufrombeingabletoachievefemininity,if

aviolationissignificant,suchasnobreastsandlotsofmuscles,femininity

becomesharderandhardertoachieve.However,therewerefurtheraspectsof

femininitythatcouldbe‘added’toaidinthisperformance.Thesefallwithinthe

dimensionIhavelabelled‘malleablefemininity’.

MalleableAspectsofFemininity

Whilesomeaspectsoffemininityseemedunchangeable,suchasbodyshape,

manyoftheotherelementswereclearlylearnedbehaviours,suchasthose

discussedabove.ForMary(CG),thiswasasourceofdisappointment,“I’dliketo

bemorefeminine,butInevergottaughthowtodoit.”Despiteher

135

disappointment,therewasasensethatifshewantedto,Mary(CG)couldlearn

howtodo‘feminine’.Thefollowingsectionswilldiscusssomeofthewaysthat

femininityis‘done’.Clothing,highheels,make-up,jewelleryandhairwereall

identifiedbythewomenasplayingasignificantroleinmakingsomeoneseem

andfeelfeminine.Thesemalleableorremovableaspectsoffemininitywereseen

asoptionalchoicesthatenabledwomento‘becomefeminine’.Therewasastrong

senseofagencyinthesediscussionsattimes,andatothersasenseofresentment

thattherewassuchpressuretoappearacertainway.Thispressurerelatednot

onlytodatingandthe‘malegaze’,butalsoinrelationtoworksituations,formal

familyaffairs,andsocietyingeneral.Inthesesituations,the‘femalegaze’was

alsofeltbythewomen.Theseideaswillbeexploredthroughlookingatdressing

likea‘sensiblewoman’,theimportanceofshoes,accessoriesandpersonal

grooming,andlooking‘sexy’.Itwilldothisbyexaminingtheseaspectsof

femininityasaperformanceratherthanasperformative.

TheSensibleWoman

WhenthewomenIspokewithbegandescribingwhatafemininewomanlooked

like,‘welldressed’,‘respectable’,‘elegant’werealltermsthatwereused.Itwas

clearthattobefemininewastobe,asCaroline(EM),Cece(MG)andvarious

othersputit,‘wellkept’.Themaintypesofclothesthatwereassociatedwith

femininewomenweredressesandskirts.Karen(CG)saiditwasthewaythe

clothingwascutthatwasimportant;fittedv-linenecksorshirtsthatemphasized

thehipsandwaistwereallseenasfeminine,reaffirmingtheimportanceof

136

particularbodyshapesinfemininity.However,uponfurtherdiscussionofthis

feminine‘archetype’,animportantdistinctionwasmadethatitwasn’tjustwhat

youwore,buthowyouworeit.

Caroline(EM)toldusthatwhenshethoughtaboutfeminine,thefirstthingthat

cametomindwasawomanina“frillypasteldress”.Femininityoftenconjuresup

imagesof“frillypinkpartydresses”assymbolicoftheirdemurenessandlackof

power(Holmes&Schnurr2006,p.32).Thewomeninthefocusgroupsalso

spokeofthesoftgentle‘lady’whoworefloralprintsandthestylish‘woman’in

fittedfashionabledresses,bothofwhichwereseenasideal,butsomewhat

different,formsofafemininewoman.Ineithercase,thewomeninthisgroupfelt

thatthecommonthreadwasbeing‘sensible’aboutwearingappropriateclothing

forthesituation.Dorothy(EM)explainedthatbeingfeminine“…meansIknow

thatIamawoman.Iampractical,Idresspractically”.Alison(EM)agreedwith

thissentimentandaddedthatitdidnotnecessarilymatterwhatyouwore,itwas

allaboutpresentationofit.Theperformanceneedstobeconvincing,itwasnot

simplyenoughtowearadress,youneededtowearadressinafeminineway.

Thismeantsomethingthatwasflattering,andfityousoastoaccentuatetheright

curves,andwasappropriateclothingfortheparticularsituation.

Lou(FG)fromthefootballgroupalsopointedoutthatforheritisn’tabout

wearingspecifictypesofclothing,buthowyouwearthatclothing:“Lookatmein

mytrackiesandtop,comparedtoBelinda(FG)inhertrackiesandtop,weare

essentiallywearingthesamething,butwelooktotallydifferent”.Lou(FG)wore

“daggy”(herwords)blacktracksuitpants,thickandstraightlegged.Herhoodie

137

washeavyandnavywithboldletteringacrossthechest.Itwasnot“shapely”as

Ez(FG)putit.Belinda(FG)ontheotherhandhadwornathinfabric,tight,white

hoodie,brightpinkfittedtracksuitpantsandherhairinahighbunonherhead.

Underneaththeirclothingbothofthesewomenhadthesamephysiological

markersofbeingfemale,butasGreer(1970)argues,gender,andthusgender

expressions,areemphasizedthroughmannersofdresstohelpcreatetheillusion

ofdifference.

Belinda(FG)madeclearthedifferencesbetweensheandhermalecounterparts,

wearingclothingproducedspecificallyforwomentoaccentuatetheirbodiesin

theappropriateplaces,emphasizingthecurvesofthehipsandbreasts.This

‘heterosexy-fit’approachtogenderexpressionisoftenseenwhenwomenengage

insportsthatareroughandmoreassociatedwithmalesandmasculinity,they

oftenencountersexistandhomophobicstigma(Ezzell2009).Byplayingupthe

sexinessoftheirclothingandappearancetheyareabletocombatthisstigma,

combiningaspectsofhegemonicfemininityandassertivenessandathleticismto

createadistinctformoffemininity,theheterosexy-fitidentity.Ezzell(2009)

explainsthatdespiteincorporatingcharacteristicsthatareoftenassociatedwith

males,thisisnotasubversiveorresistantformoffemininity.Ratheritreinforces

boththegenderorder(byappeasingmaledesires)andheteronormativity.

AlthoughLou(FG)andBelinda(FG)woreitemsofclothingthathadthesame

functionandlabels,therewasastarkcontrastthatthegroupwasveryawareof,

referringtoBelinda’s(FG)appearanceasthe‘dressingsexy’lookandLou(FG)as

justbeing‘comfortable’.Comfortablewasnotseenasfeminineforthesewomen;

beingfemininerequired“lotsofwork”(Karen-CG)to‘do’femininity.

138

Inasimilarvein,thecircusgroupdiscussedtheamountof“effortyouneedtoput

intocreatetherightoutwardlook”(Karen-CG).Buttheyalsotiedthisinwith

theideaofknowingwhenandhowtowearparticularthings.Mary(CG)spokeof

thewomanwhohas,“gotitalltogether,sheiscomposedandknowswhatto

wear,when….Youcanbe‘SallyHomemaker’andwearaprettydress,oratough

girlinleatherandheels,butyouknowwhenandwheretowearit”.Beingaware

ofyouraudiencewascrucial.Despitemanyofthewomenacrossthefocusgroups

statingthatthey‘dressedforthemselves’,itwasevidentthatthiswasnotcase

throughtheirstories.Thissenseofagencybegantobechallengedlaterinthe

discussionswhentheyspokeofthepressurestolookacertainwayincertain

circumstancesorwhentryingtoattractmaleattentionandbeingother-oriented,

bothofwhicharefurtherdiscussedlaterinthischapterandinChapter7.

Joey(FG),inthefootballgroup,describedthe“functionalwoman”,whomaywear

workappropriateclothingduringtheweekthatincludestracksuitpantsora

daggyuniform,butcometheweekend,willwearmorefeminineattireand‘dress

up’,orassheputit“BeingwhoIneedtobebasedonwhatIneedtodoand

dressingthepart”.Importantly,thefunctionalaspectherewasnotaboutthe

clothesbeingpurposeful(ierunnersfortraining),butratheraboutsmoothly

transitionfromonestyletoanotherandknowingwhattowearwhen.Joey(FG)

saidshelikedtotellheryoungerpeersthat,“Youdon’thavetobejustonekindof

person,youdon’thavetobejustonecategory”meaningthatwearing

comfortableclothesdoesn’texcludeyoufromputtingonasexyoutfitand

‘dressingfeminine’.Similarly,Caroline(EM)spokeofputtingonadressand

139

instantlyfeelingmore“elegantandfeminine”.Ez(FG)suggestedthat“sexy

undies”couldmakeyoufeelfeminine,despitewhatyoumightbewearingover

them.Inthiscontext,femininewassomethingyoudid,youputonparticular

clothesinaparticularwayandyoucould‘become’feminine,butknowingwhenit

wasappropriatewasalsocrucialtopullingoff‘feminine’.

However,quiteanumberofwomendidn’tfeelthattheycouldpresent

themselvesinatypicallyfeminineway.Donna(FG)said:“WhenIwearadress

andstuff,Ifeellikeablokeinadress.IlookinthemirrorandIseeabigbutch

blokeinadressanditjustdoesn’tlookright.ButIdoit…”Oncethegroup’s

laughtersettleddown,Iaskedherwhyshedidifitifitmadeherso

uncomfortable.Belinda(FG)answeredforher,“sometimestheoccasioncallsfor

it”andanothercalledout,“becausewearemadetodoit,we’regirls”.Thisquote

epitomisesButler’s(1990)notionofgenderbeingdonetous.Fromthemomenta

childisbornandpronouncedagirl,thegenderingbegins(Butler1990).Even

whenshefeltuncomfortableandnotherself,Donna(FG)feltpressuretoconform

totheexpectednormsofbeingawoman.Ifshedidnotatleastattempttopresent

herselfinthiswayshefearedlettingherfamilydownandthatshehadn’tmade

“anyeffort”.Thegroupseemedtofeelthatevenwhenwearingadressfelt

unnaturalandwasnotliked,itwasanecessarypartofbeingawoman.However,

asistouchedoninChapter6,whenawomanislesbian,thisisnotaprerequisite.

Themandatorywearingofdressesincertaincircumstanceswasseenasapurely

heterosexualdemand.

140

Particularoccasionscalledforamoreoutwardexpressionofhegemonic

femininity,suchasweddingsandbabyshowers.Fortheseeventsthewomen

expressedincreasedpressuretowearmorefeminineclothing,“IfeellikeIshould

wearmakeupifIgotoanawardsceremonyorsomethingformal”(Emma-RD).

Intheseformalevents,theexpectationswereevengreatertopresentone’sselfas

clearlyfeminine,requiringmoremaintenancenotjusttolookrespectable,butto

lookrespectablyfeminine.Wearing“anicepairofpantsandlooseblouse”,in

otherwordslookingmoreandrogynous,wouldnotsufficeinthese

circumstances.Therewasaclearpressureexpressedbymanyofthewomento

wearadressandheels,dotheirhairandwearmakeup.Theinfluenceofthe

heterosexualmatrixcanbeseenhere(Butler1990).Notonlydoesafemaleneed

tobeclearlypresentingasawoman,shealsoneedstoexpressthisthrough

displayingfemininityinherdress,makingclearsheisalsofeminineand

heterosexual.Thisprocessisnotdonejustforthemalegaze,butalsoforthe

femalegaze.Muchlikethemalegaze,thefemalegazeinfluenceshowwomen

constructtheiridentities(Allan2009;Renold&Allan2006).Womenplayarole

inthesurveillanceofeachother,orasRenoldandAllan(2006,p.462)state,they

are“faithfulemployeesofthe“malegaze””,ensuringthatfemininityisadhered

to.ThewomenIspokewithacknowledgedthattheyjudgedeachotherontheir

femininity,butdeniedthatthiswasinanywayrelatedtomales.Forthem,itwas

moreaboutfashionandpreferences.

Whilemostofthewomenarticulatedthepressuretheyfelttodressup,manyof

themalsoenjoyedthisprocess.InFrancombe’s(2014,p.594)researchwith

younggirls,bodywork,andleisuretime,shefoundthatwhileactively

141

questioningmanyofthepracticesinvolvedinmaintainingafemininebody,the

girlsoftencontinuedtoaspiretothe“popularideal”andevenfoundpleasurein

theprocess.Thiswasechoedinthepresentfindings,wheremostofthewomen

werecriticalofthesocietalpressuretoconformtotheideal,butmanystilltook

enjoymentindressingup.Thistypeofbehaviour,whereattentiontoone’s

appearanceisseenasaleisureactivity,isassociatedwithhyperfemininity

(Holland&Harpin2013).Thewomenwereawareoftheneedto‘ampup’their

femininityinordertoseenasattractivetomales,andtheirenjoymentindoingso

wasattimesexpressedasagencyandchoice.However,thenotionof‘choice’can

bearguedtobemerelyanillusionthatsimplyservesasamethodtomaintain

regulationofyoungwomen(McRobbie2007).Thiswillbeexaminedfurther

throughthecomingchapters.

Shoes,Shoes,Shoes:AccessoriesandPersonalGrooming

Ez’s(FG)responsetothequestionofwhatisfeminine,was“Someonewhoowns

morethantenpairsofshoes”.Thiswasfollowedbygrouplaughter,butBarb(FG)

jumpedintopointoutthat“…there’sadifference!Ihavetenpairsofshoes,ten

pairsofrunners!”.Ez(FG)clarified,“Tenpairsofheels.”Shoescameup

frequently.Andwhileuntilrecentlytherehasbeenlittleliteraturespecificallyon

women,femininityandfootwear,recentqualitativeresearchsuggeststhatshoes

areasignifieroffemininity(Dilley,Hockey,Robison&Sherlock2015;Groganet

al.2004;Holland&Harpin2013;Kellyetal.2005;Paechter2010;Robinson

2015).

142

InKellyetal.’s(2005)studyonskateboardingandfemininity,theyspeakofthe

high-heeledshoeasapowerfulandcommonsymboloffemininity.Thiswasalso

trueforthewomeninthisresearch.Dorothy(EM)toldmesheneverthoughtof

herselfasa“girlygirl”,butwhenexpressingthattoacolleaguetheprevious

week,“helaughedandsaid,‘Please,yesyouare.Youloveshoes!’Andit’strue,I

loveshoes!”Evenwhenawomandoesn’tviewherselfasfeminine,bysimply

engaginginoneofthekeysignifiersoffemininity,itcanalterhowyouare

perceivedbyothers,regardlessofyourownself-image.Similarly,Kim(MG)told

usofherhusband’scolleague,Sarah,whomshehascometoknowthroughthe

workingenvironment.Workingonbuildingsites,Sarahworestealcappedboots

wheneverKim(MG)sawher,butlastyearshecamedresseduptoaChristmas

party,“…andshewaswearingthehighestpairofheelsIhaveeverseen!Itwas

likethistransformation!Itdidmyheadinabit.Ithought,‘youcanreallystepon

bothsidesofthatline’”.Kim(MG)hadthoughtofSarahas“non-traditional”when

itcametohergenderperformance,butbywearinghighheelsandadressshe

was,inaninstant,seenasabletobefeminine.Robinson(2015)haswrittenabout

the“identityshift”thatoccurswithregardstoone’ssenseoffemininityby

wearingdifferenttypesofshoes.Suchashiftisindicativeofgendermanoeuvring

andagency(Robinson2015).

Highheeledshoeswereaparticulartypeofshoecommonlyassociationwith

beingvery‘feminine’thateachgroupbroughtupatvariousdifferenttimes

throughthediscussions,butitwasalwaysspokenofasacrucialcomponentof

whattheysawasfeminineattire.TheEMgroupspokeof‘PowerHeels’aspartof

143

‘PowerDressing’,whileGeorgie(MG)sawthemasmakingawoman,“willowy

andfragile”asisarguedbyJeffreys(2005).Highheelshavebeenseenasawayin

whichtokeepwomen’sstepsshortandmoredelicateaswellasaccentuatingthe

curveofawoman’sbody(Jeffreys2005;Rossi1989),bothofwhichwere

discussedearlierinthischapter.Thepowerofwearingheelsinawork

environmentwasbeingabletointegrateconfidenceandfemininity.Andrea(EM)

said,“Itcanbeamasculinestyle,butyou’vegotyourheels,yournecklace,you

lookfeminine”.Herefemininitywasseenasastrength,thisimaginedwomanwas

owningherfemininityanddoingitinawaythatworkedforher.Comingfroma

slightlydifferentperspective,themothersgroupfocusedonthephysicalimpact

ofwearingheels.Laura(MG)pointedoutthatheelsincreasethecurvatureof

yourbottom,enhancingyourbodyinafemininemannerandZoe(MG)spokeof

theinstabilitytheycausedaddingtothe‘delicate’natureoffemininewomen.

Theywereseenhereasmoreproblematicthantheotherfocusgroups,perhaps

duetothepracticalityofheelswhenyouhaveyoungchildrenyouarecaringfor.

Regardlessofwhetherheelswereseeninanegativeorpositivelight,Ruby(CG)

fromthecircusgroupsummedupeveryone’sfeelings,“Everyonejustseems

morefeminineinheels.”Inlinewiththeliterature,thewomeninmyfocusgroups

sawfootwearasapartoffemininity.

Wearingjewellerywasoftenalsoamarkeroffemininity.Earrings,necklaces,

ringsandbraceletsallhelpedtoadornthebodyinsuchawayastoincrease

femininity.HandbagswereanotherimportantaccessorymentionedbytheFG

group.Kylie(FG)toldus:

144

Iwasonmywayhereandoneoftheotheryoungerplayershadherperiod

butwastooawkwardtoaskanyiftheothersiftheyhadany‘stuff’,soI

justsaidtooneofthegirls,doyouhaveyourhandbaghere?Andshesaid,

‘Ah,Idon’thaveahandbag’andIwaslike,ohyeah!

EveryonelaughedandEz(FG)said,“Youwereaskingthewronggirl!”Whatwas

impliedthroughthisexchangeandthecommentsthatfollowedwasthatshehad

askedoneofthemanynon-heterosexualplayersontheteam.Thesewomenwere

seenasunlikelytohavefeminineaccessorieslikehandbags.“Somethingas

simpleasapurseorahandbagcanbereallydefining.Yougeteverygirlatthe

clubtoputtheirbagsonthetable,andIbetyoucouldtell.”(Kylie-FG)Iasked

whatitwasthatyoucouldtell,towhichEz(FG)said,“Thegirly-girlswillhavethe

pursesandotherswilljusthavewallets.”Again,whatwasbeingimpliedwasthat

ifyouweren’tagirly-girlanddidn’thaveclearmarkersoffemininity,your

sexualitywasquestionable.Donna(FG)pointedoutshedidn’townapurse,while

Lou(FG)tookoutherwalletanddroppedinonthetable.Everyonelaughed

hysterically.Clearlythiscommentwasnotjustaboutlevelsoffemininitythough,

itwasalsolacedwithassumptionsregardingsexualityandthesetwo

heterosexualwomenhadjustillustratednicelytheproblemswithsuchthinking.

Belinda(FG)feltthatsomeonewhoisfemininetakesprideintheirappearance

whileEz(FG)calledthis“caringaboutpersonalgrooming”.Whilediscussing

theseissues,thetopicofwaxingandshavingcameupwiththefootygroup.For

thewomentowaxwasanimportantpartofbeingfeminine.Evenwhenmen

engagedinwaxingactivitiesforathleticpurposes,itwasstillseenassomewhat

femininebehaviourduetoitsconnectionwithbeautification.Eyebrowsandthe

145

pubicregionwereconsideredimportantareasto‘maintain’.Inreferenceto

shavingarmpits,Joey(FG)said:“Itseemsunhygienicnotto,butguys…itjust

different.”Thesefindingssupportresearchthatsuggestsbodyhairremovalisan

essentialpartofproducingasociallyacceptablefemininity(Francombe2014;

Toerien,Wilkinson&Choi2005).

WhenIaskedwhatthefemininegirlmightlooklike,Kylie(FG)spokeofagirl

whotakesalongtimetogetready,spendingforeveronhermakeup,can’tchoose

betweenhundredsofpairsofshoesandthatwouldfirststraightenherhaironly

tothenuseacurleronit.Thisidearesonatedwiththeotherwomenandwas

referredtoseveraltimesthroughoutthesessionas:‘thegirlwhostraightensher

hairthencurlsit’torepresentagirlwhowasextremelyfeminine.Italso

demonstratestheimportanceofhairandhairstylesintheperceptionof

femininity.

Ineverygroupdiscussion,theparticipantsallagreedthatshorthairwasnot

feminine.Emma(RD)toldusshewouldnevercutherhairshortagain.Asayear

sevengirl,hermotherhadmadehercutherhairshort“likeaboy”.Shedescribed

thisexperience“horrible”asshenolongerfeltlikeagirl,“Iwas12,Ididn’thave

tits,Ididn’tanyidentifyingfeaturesthatmademeagirl.Ididn’tfeelparticularly

feminine,butthatwasreallyunpleasant.So,Ikeepmyhairlongnow.”Fiona(RD)

saidofhair,“That’swhatcomestomindwhenyouthinkoftraditionallyfeminine

women,aniceprettylittleup-do.”Intheirresearchofgirlsandskateboardingin

theUnitedStates,Pomerantzetal.’s(2004,p.553)participantsspokeofagroup

ofgirlstheyreferredtoasthe“BunGirls”.Thesegirlsgottheirnameduetothe

146

waytheystyledtheirhairoften–upandinabun.Theywerepopular,thin,

displayedaparticulartypeof‘sexiness’andwereseentobeconstantlytryingto

attractmaleattention.Thesesametypesofjudgementscouldbeseeninsomeof

thediscussionsinmyfocusgroups.Puttingyourhair‘up’wenthandinhandwith

otheraspectsoffemininity,howeverwomenwhowereseentospendtoomuch

timebeautifyingthemselveswereoftenheavilycritiquedormadefunof.Women

inthemothersgroupdescribedthosewhospenttoolongdoinguptheirhairas

‘superficial’.Aswithmanyaspectsoffemininity,whendoneintheextremeit

cametobeseenasabadthingforthewomeninthefocusgroups.Mills(2005)

arguesthatfemininityconjuresupastereotypeoftenseennegativelybut

acknowledgesthattherecanbeadifferencebetweenfemininityand

womanliness.

Womenneededtohavelonghairnotjusttofeelfeminine,buttospecificallybe

seenasfeminineintheeyesofmen.ThiswasillustratedthroughastoryRuby

(CG)toldusregardingarecenttriptothehairdresser.Ruby(RD)explainedthat

shewas“veryreluctantly”notcuttingherhairatthemomentasshewantedtobe

seenas“oneofthegirls”.Priortogoingtothehairdresser,shementionedtoa

malecolleaguethatshemightcutherhairshort.Shetoldusthatheacted

“weirdly”andtoldhernottocutit.Forher,thisrepresentedtheinfluencemen

placedonwomenregardingtheirappearancesandfemininityanddemonstrates

theinfluenceofthemalegaze.Whilehewasnotmeanorunpleasantinanyway,

thepowerofhiscommentswasfeltstronglybyRuby(CG).Witheachfocus

group,shorthairwasaclearsymbolofambiguoussexuality.Byhavinglonghair,

womenwereabletoescapethequestioningoftheirsexuality.

147

TheEMgroupexpressedtheirviewonhairinadifferentway.Wearingyourhair

downwasseenasmore‘fun’,whichisnotsurprisinggiventheyounggirlsin

Pomerantzetal.’s(2004)studysawtheBunGirlsastryingtobemore

sophisticatedandmature.IntheEMgrouphavingyourhairupsymbolisedalevel

ofmaturitythatwasneededfortheworkplace.Duringthisdiscussion,Caroline

(EM)sharedthatshehadbeen“thinkingaboutgettingahaircutbecauseIdon’t

lookprofessionalenough…IjustwonderifIwouldbetakenmoreseriouslyifI

hadshorterhair.”Dorothy(EM)agreewiththisnotion,pointingtoherselfand

saying,“Long,blond,curls…comesacrossaslessprofessional.”Therewasasense

thatlonghair,whenworndownandinaprofessionalbusinesssetting,was

problematic.Perhapsfortheveryreasonthattheothergroupsidentified–it

symbolisedfemininityandthusweaknessandpassivity,notcharacteristicsyou

aspiretowheninpositionsofmanagement.However,throughdiscussingitwith

theothergroupmembers,itwasdecidedthatdespitethepotentialtobetaken

lessseriously,sheshouldnotcutherhair.Therewasalmostareverseresistance

wherebythewomensuggestedthatsheshouldnotgiveintobecomingmore

masculine(throughcuttingherhairshorter),butratherreclaimherlong,

femininehair.

Hairlengthwasseenbythewomeninthefocusgroupsasaninfluentialfactorfor

determiningsexualityinbroadersociety.Assuch,longhairwasseenasvaluedas

itrepresentedheterosexualityandfemininity,appealingtomaledesires.

However,someofthewomenresistedthisbychoosingtohaveshorthairstyles,

butforthemostparttherewasasensethatlonghairwasanecessityifthey

wantedtobeaccepted.Thepowerofhegemonicidealsrestsinthesetypesof

148

choices.Inorderforthewomentofeelattractive,theymustfeelfeminine.But

feminineinthissensewasnotwhattheypersonallyfelt,ratheritwasthe

hegemonicidealthattheywerecomparingthemselveswith.

“YoucanstillbesexyinHardYakka”

Duringthesediscussions,thefootballgroupspokeaboutwomenwhoworkin

traditionallymaledominatedworkplaces,suchasinconstruction.Lou(FG)

pointedoutthateveninthesejobs,therewerefeminine‘looking’women,“You

canstillbesexyinHardYakka”.HardYakkaisabrandofworkclothesthatare

typicallyusedbymalelabourersandconstructionworkers.Ez(FG)attributed

thistothosewhowearmake-upandthosewhodonot.Louise(RD)feltmuchthe

same,“Igetaroundinjeansalot,sothefemininesideisthehairandmakeup.”By

engagingintheseaspectsofbeautification,womenfeltabletotransform

themselvesintobeingfeminine,regardlessofwhattheywerewearing.

Makeupwasabigdiscussionpointforallofthegroups,andaclearindicatorof

femininity.Byputtingoneyeshadowandlipstick,womenfelttheycouldgofrom

“blahtoagirl”(Kylie-FG).Lily(CG)saidthatmake-up“helpsyoufeelfeminine,

butit’snotnecessary”.WhileLouise(RD)spokeatlengthaboutthe

transformativepowerofmakeupforher,itwashowshefelt“feminineonthe

track”.Thefootballgrouphaddifferentviewsaboutmakeuponthefield:

149

Thegirlswhogooutandplayfootybeingthereallygirly-girls–doyou

rememberPrincessfromthatteamweplayed?Sheusedtowearafullface

ofmakeuptoplay-thosepeopleareridiculedbecausetheyarenotfitting

thetypeofrightthen.It’snotpractical.(Ez-FG)

Bywearingmakeup,atypicallyfemininethingtodo,inthenon-feminine

environmentofplayingaroughsport,‘Princess’becameunfemininewithinthis

environment.Itwasseenasinappropriatewhileonthefield,butoff,itwas

acceptable–toadegree.Toomuchmakeupwasassociatedwithwomenwho

were‘highmaintenance’,demandinganddiva-esque(seeFigure3below).To

knowwhenandwheretowearmakeupwaspartof‘doing’femininity.The

conceptof‘doinggender’isvisiblehere(West&Zimmerman1987)aswellasthe

dramaturgicalapproach(Goffman1976).Thewomen‘did’femininethrough

engaginginthefemininepracticeofwearingmakeup,performinginagendered

manner.

Figure3:Sammie-FootballGroup

150

Ascanbeseeninthefigureonthepreviouspage,Sammie(FG)positionedthe

phrase“highmaintenance”towardsthecentreofherconceptmap,indicatingthis

wascentraltoherunderstandingofdominantwomen’sgenderexpression.

Duringthediscussions,thefootballgroupwererathercriticalofwomenwho

werehighmaintenance.Inthemothersgroup,theparticipantsalsospokefairly

negativelyaboutmakeup,seeingitaspartofabroadersuperficialformof

femininity,similartothe‘highmaintenance’girlthefootballgroupspokeof.

Whilethemalleabledimensionsoffemininitywereseenasaplaceofagency

wherethewomencouldchoosetoenhancetheirfemininitythroughparticular

stylesofdressandattire,itwasalsoclearthattherewasafrustrationwhenthis

performancewasexpectedofthem.Thehoursofworkthatwererequiredto

appearfeminineandthediscomfortthatoftenaccompaniedthiswasseenaspart

ofwhatwasrequiredofthemiftheywantedtoattractpositivemaleattention.

RestrictiveDimensionsofFemininity

Therewereaspectsoffemininitythatthewomenspokeofthatcarriedwiththem

anumberofrestrictionsandlimitations.Theseincludedbehaviouralaspectssuch

asspeech,mannerisms,employmentandactivitiesandwereoftenaccompanied

bystatementsregarding‘whatnottodo’.Inordertounderstandsomethingas

feminine,itwasconstructedrelationallywithmasculinity.Statementssuchas,

‘mencandothis,butwomencan’t’werecommonandpaintedapictureofwhat

hegemonicfemininitywasbyhighlightingwhatfemininitywasnot.Thus,this

151

dimensionoffemininitycentresonthewaysinwhichfemininityconsistsof

restrictiveaspects,alistof‘whatnottodo’s’(mostofwhichwerebehavioursand

traitsthatwerecommonandacceptableformales).Whendiscussingthesetopics,

thewomenoftenseemedresentfulandjudgediftheydidnotadheretothem.

BehavioursandTraits:WaitingYourturn

Throughoutourconversations,thewomenmentionedcertainexpected

behavioursandtraitsthatwereseentobeimportantforaheterosexualwoman’s

genderexpression.Adheringtothesepromotedaperson’sperceivedfemininity,

whileviolatingthemresultedinwomenbeinglabelledinavarietyofdifferent

ways,establishingahierarchyoffemininities(discussedfurtherinChapter6).

Forinstance,therewerealsomanycommentsaboutpassivityandcompliance,

being“notoutspoken”(Alison-EM),sensitiveandnurturing.Expectationsof

“havingitalltogether”(Karen-CG)andbeingabletomultitaskwerealsoseenas

feminine.Thesequalitiesalignwiththeliteratureonhegemonicanddominant

femininities(Charlebois2011;Messerschmidt2010;Pomerantzetal.2004).

Asthewomeninthecircusgroupdiscussedfemininespeech,Mary(CG)saidwith

asmile,“Andyoushouldwaitforyourturntotalk,likeIjustdid.”Thisnotionof

notspeakingoverorinterruptinghasbeenstudied(Cutler&Scott1990;Smith-

Lovin&Brody1989).Mary(CG)alsospokeofwhathappenswhenyoudon’twait

tospeak:“IfIamwithagroupofwomenandIinterrupt,theyaremorelikelyto

listentowhatIhavetosay.Butifitisagroupofmen,itgetsignoredandthe

152

otherpersonjustkeepstalking.”Thisquotesuggeststhatevenwhenitwas

anotherwomaninterrupting,womenaremorelikelytobecompliantandallow

themtodoso.Karen(CG)reframedthisexperienceintosomethingpositive,a

strengthtobeproudof,“Weareusedtowaiting,wehavehadtoforsociety,butit

meanswecanmultitask.IcankeeptrackofwhatIwanttosayandwait,Idon’t

needtoblurtitout.”Thiswasnotseensofavourablybytheothers,“ButwhatifI

wanttoblurtstuffout?”(Lily-CG).Again,thesenseofrestrictionwaspresent

here.Itwasinterestingtonote,thatfortherestofthefocusgroupsessionwith

thecircuswomen,interruptionswerefewerandwhentheydidoccur,therewere

oftenapologiesexchanged.

Therewasageneralsensethatwomenspoke‘gentler’thanmen.Thesefindings

supportresearchonspeechandgender(Mills2005;Sung2012)whichsuggests

thatwomen’sspeechisinterpretedrelationallyasmore‘polite’thanmen’s.When

womenspeakinmoremasculineways,thisbehaviourisseennegativelyand

inappropriate(Mills2005).Thewomenwereveryawareoftheseculturalnorms

expectedofthem.Karen(CG)toldme,societalexpectationsincludedthat:

“Womenshouldberestrained,notdominantinanyway,orelsetheydon’tseem

feminine.”Again,thewomenaredrawingonwhatwomenshouldnotdoinorder

toestablishwhattheyshouldtobeunderstoodasfeminine.Asestablishedin

Chapter2,womenareconceivedofasrelationaltomen;theyarewhatmenare

not.Mostoftheresponsesabouthowfemininewomenbehavewerebrief;itwas

howtheyshouldn’tbehavethattheparticipantsspentthemajorityoftheirtime

discussing.

153

Speech:NoYelling,NoSwearing,NoLaughing

Thereseemedtobeaviewthatinordertomaintaintheperceptionofbeing

feminine,onemustmonitortheleveloftheirvoice,thetypesofwordstheyuse,

andhowloudtheylaugh.Intellingmeoftheserestrictions,manyofthewomen

expressedacleardislikeforsuchexpectationstoputuponthem.

Tess(MG)saidfemininitywas“notyellingatyourkidsloudlyallthetime”.This

ideatiesintoboththatofthemotherwhoshouldbepatient,andthatofwomenin

generalwhoshouldmonitortheirtoneandvolume.Othersmentionedbeingable

tomoderateyourvoiceortospeaksoftly.Raisingone’svoicewasseenaformof

losingcontrolandmaintainingcontrolwasanimportantpartofbeingfeminine.

Laughterwasalsoanareawhenwomenfeltrestrictedinthewaystheyexpressed

themselves,aslaughingtooloudlywasconsideredunfeminine.Interestingly,

researchhasfoundthatwomenlaughatmenmorethanmenlaughatwomen

(Glenn2003;Provine1996).Whatseemedtoupsettherollerderbywomenwas

thelimitonlaughter,astheyallacknowledgedthatacute‘girlygiggle’wasokay,

butaloud‘roaring’laughwasnot.Evenwithintheirexpressionsofpleasureand

delight,therewasasenseofrestrictionpresent.TheFGandMGwomenalso

spokeofgigglingasafemininebehaviouranddifferentiateditfromlaughter

whichwasviewedaslessattractiveorfeminine.Again,weseeherethesenseon

restrictionrequiredofwomen–agiggleissmall,cuteandcontrolled.Laughteron

theotherhandisloudandfreeflowing.

154

Similarly,theissueofswearingcameupinallofthefocusgroups.Unequivocally,

toswearistonotbefeminine.Thisfeltrestrictiveandunfairtomany.Emma

(RD)putthisbluntly:“Saying‘cunt’isun-ladylike.ButI’mtheonethathasone,

shouldn’tIbetheabletosayit?”TheEMgroupdiscussedswearinginthe

workplace,withmanysayingthatitseemedacceptablefortheirmalecounter

partstoengagein,butforthewomeniswasseenasextremelyinappropriate.

Swearinghasbeenassociatedwithmasculinityandthusfemininewomenare

expectedtofindmore‘lady-like’waysofexpressiontheirdispleasure(Jackson

2006a;Kraneetal.2004;Sasson-Levy2003).Swearingalsoextendedtonotjust

thewomenengaginginthesewaysofspeaking,butalsotheideaofswearingin

thecompanyofwomen.Suzanne(EM)sharedstoriesofmenfeelingfrustratedat

notbeingabletoswearbecausetheywerepresentatthetime,“Theyalwayssay

thingslike,‘Ican’tsaythatwithaladypresent’or‘Well,ifyouweren’thereI’d

saywhatIreallythought’”.

Notonlywasswearingrestricted,butthetypesofdiscussionswomenwere

expectedtoengageinalsocausedfrustrationforsome.Thetopicsfeminine

womenweredescribedasbeinginterestedin,suchasgossip,celebrities,and

fashion,wasseenas“superficialcrap”(Georgie-MG).Notably,Georgie(MG)later

admittedtoreading“trashymags”.Inthesamewaythattheythoughtmenwere

expectedtodiscusssportswhenineachother’scompany,womenwerefeltthe

needtodiscusstopicsthatrelatedtoappearanceandstylewhenaroundothers

theydidnotknowwell.Thethemeofsuperficialitywasevidentinallofthefocus

groups,wherewomenwhospenttoomuchtimeorenergyontheirappearance

155

wereseenasshallow.Butthelinebetweenhowmuchwasenoughandacceptable

andwhatwassuperficialwasnotclear.

Mannerisms:YouCanPlaywiththeBall,butDon’tGetDirty

Inthecircusgroup,aswitheachoftheothergroups,mostofthememberssaw

netballasafemininesport,citingtheskirtandnon-contactrulesaskeyfactors.

However,Ruby(CG)disagreedwiththisassessment,“Ihavealwayslovednetball,

Iplaynetball.Idon’tthinkithastobefeminine.”Bycallingnetballfeminine,it

hadimpliedanegativitythatRuby(CG)reactedto.Sheexplainedthatmen

sometimesplayednetballonherteam,drawingontheirparticipationtojustifyit

asavalidandnon-feminineactivity.

Hockeyplayerswereseenaslessfemininethannetballplayers,eventhoughthey

bothworesimilaruniforms.Thedifferenceseemedtostemfromtheperceived

levelofaggressionandlikelihoodofseriousinjury.Zoe(MG)usedtheimageof

BrettfromtheTVshowKathandKimplayingnetballtodemonstrateofthelevel

offemininitythatwasingrainedinthesport.Whenmentakepartinnetball,their

masculinityseemstocomeintoquestion.Themothersgroupalsousedroller

derbyasanexampleofa‘strictly’femininesportasnomentookpartotherthan

torefereeorbeaspectator.Rhythmicgymnastics,synchronizedswimmingand

calisthenics,withtheiremphasisongraceandtightclothing,werealsodeemed

highlyfeminine(seeFigure4onthefollowingpage).

156

Figure4:Kylie-FootballGroup

InKylie’s(FG)figureabove,gymnasticsareplacedinthemiddle,indicatingthat

thissportwasconsideredtobetypicallyfeminine.Sportssuchasgymnasticsare

seenasasociallyacceptableactivityforwomenthatemphasisesflexibility,grace

anda“waiflikebody”(Cahn1994,p.207).

Thewomeninthecircusgroupfoundsomeenjoymentindiscussing‘feminine’

sportsandactivitiesdespitethattherewasacleardistainfordominant

mainstreamfemininityinthisgroup.Theypokedfunattheideaofwhatthese

womenwouldgetupto.Ruby(CG)jokingsaid,“Anythingtoloseabitofweight”,

whichwasfollowedbytheotherslaughingandsaying,“Anyoneforabitof

cardio?Bitofaerobics?Bitofcycling?”Thisinteractiondemonstratedthe

frustrationtheseathleticwomenfelttowardswhatwereacceptableand

unacceptableformsofphysicalexertion.

157

Thefootballgroupshadalottosayaboutsportsandfemininityanditwas

interestingtoseethewaysinwhichtheyfeminisedtheirmannerismsand

appearancetocombatthenegativestigmaassociatedwithsuchamasculine

sport.Duringadiscussiononsportsclothes,thefollowingexchangetookplace

aboutfootballboots:

Kylie(FG):Ilikethemgirly.Iwantthemgirly.

Ez(FG):Youcanusuallytellthegirlyfootyplayers‘causetheyhavepinkboots.

Joey(FG):CanIsaythatImatchedmyfootybootstomyuniform?Whichmakesitasgirlyaspossible!

Kylie(FG):That’safemininething!

Jenna(FG):WhenIbuyboots,Iusuallytrythemonfirstbywhatcolourtheywere.Thenevenifthoseonesfitbetter,I’llgettheonescauseit’sanicercolour.

Kylie(FG):That’safemininething!Goingawayfromcomfort.

Ez(FG):Goingawayfrompracticalfortheprettierthings.

Whilethesecommentscontradictsomeoftheearlierdiscussionsregarding

feminineasbeingpracticalbyknowingwhattowearandwhen,ithighlightsthe

constantchallengesthewomenexperiencebetweenwhentryingtonegotiate

femininityandathleticism.

Theacceptableformsofexertionandsportswerethosethathelpedtoreinforce

femininity,eitherthroughattire(netballskirt)orthroughtypeofactivity

(gracefuldancemovements).Thiswassimilarwiththetypesofinterestswomen

wereexpectedtohave.CraftingwasuniversallyseenasfemininebythewomenI

158

spokewith.Craftingisoftenaleisuretimeactivity,notonewhichusually

producespaidemploymentorpracticaloutcomesforthehome(ascomparedto

gardeningor“fixingupwoodstuff”(Mary-CG)).Eachgroupmentionedcrafting

asanactivitythatwomendo,butnotmen,thusmakingitseemevenmore

femininetothemastheyspokeaboutit.Thisisnotsurprisinggiventhewaysin

whichcraftshavebeentaughtingenderbasedwaysasprimarilyfocussedon

women(Kokko2009).Artingeneralwasalsoseentohaveanelementof

femininitytoit,whetheryouwereamanorawoman.Ruby(CG)putthisdownto

theideathatartwasaboutexpressingemotionsandcreativity,bothseenbyher

asfemininecharacteristics.However,iftoolswereinvolvedintheartprocess,it

becamemoremasculineagain.Toolsimpliedcreatingsomethingthatwas

useableandhencemasculine,whereascraftwasaboutmaking‘pretty’

accessories.Karen(CG)explainedthisas,“Mengettousehammersandnailsand

makerealstuff,womenmakeuselessdoilies”.Thisdifferenceinleisuretime

activitiessupportstheasymmetricalnatureofhegemonicfemininitiesand

masculinities.

Employment:TheCookandtheChef

Inlinewiththeliteratureonwomenandwork,femininejobswereseenasless

valuedthanthemoremasculineequivalentsandtakenlessseriously(Demaiter&

Adams2009).Ruby(CG)toldusaboutsomethingshesawonTVrecently,“Ilove

theshow,‘TheCookandtheChef’,butitshows,like,ifwomenareinvolveditis

notasprofessional”(inthisprogram,thecookisawoman,thechef,aman).Zoe

159

(MG)madetheimportantdistinctionthatwhiletherearestereotypically

femininejobs,thewomeninthosejobsarenotnecessarilythemselvesfeminine.

Sheacknowledgedthatbecausethesetypesofindustriesemployedasignificant

numberofwomen(i.e.nursingandchildcare),thejobsbecamefeminised.Once

feminised,theyweredevalued(Demaiter&Adams2009).Similarly,Lily(CG),

whoworkedincaringroleinherjob,saidthatnursingwasseenas“essential

work,butnotvaluedwork”.Anythingtodowithnursing,disabilitywork,

teaching,allwereseenasfeminine,andfitwithintheidealfemininecategoryof

‘mother’,asisdiscussedinthenextsection.Thesejobscentrearoundthenotion

ofwomenasinherentlymorepatient,emotionalandempathetic.“Anycaring

typeroles,likesocialwelfareworkers,theyareseenasfeminine,‘causepeople

thinkthat’swhattheyaregoodat”(Ez-FG).Thisincludedchildcare.Cece(MG)

suggestedthatthiswasonlywhenitwaspaidchildcare,“Ithinkifit’sunpaid,

timesarechanging,it’smoreequalnow.”However,laterinthesessionshespoke

ofthedifferencebetweenwomenandmen,“Whenthehusbandsstayhomewith

thekidsit’scalledbabysitting,butwhenwedoit,it’snothing,it’snormal.”

Childcarewasseenasanaturalextensionofbeingawoman.

Otherprofessionsthatwereseenasfeminineincludedhairdresser,stylistand

model.Thisclustertiesinwiththeotheridealfemininetype,thatoftheBarbie.

“Hairdressersalwayslooksodoneup,theyhavethebighairandthemake-up.It’s

totallyfeminine”(Karen-CG).‘Hairdresser’wereoneofmostcommonterms

placedatornearthecentreofthegenderexpressionmaps,andwasclearlyseen

asatypicallyfemininerole.Lily(CG)pointedoutthatevenwhenmenare

hairdressers,theyareassumedtobegayasitissuchafemininerole.

160

Throughmydiscussionswiththewomen,threemaindimensionsoffemininity

wereidentified,thatofthephysical(body),themalleable(appearance)andthe

restrictive(demeanour).Thesethreedimensionscoverdifferent,butoften

overlappingaspectsoffemininity.Muchofthesearepartofwhatthewomensaw

as‘ideal’femininity.Thisidealfemininityreflectshegemonicfemininity;itisthe

dominantformthatgarnersthemostpowerandstatuswithinthefemininities

hierarchy.Hegemonicfemininityinvolvesparticipatinginpracticesand

embodyingcharacteristicssymbolicallyunderstoodfemininesuchasthose

describedbythewomenacrossthethreedimensionsoutlined.Itwasthisformof

femininitythatthewomencomparedthemselvesagainst.Thephysicalelements

incorporatednotonlytheshapeofone’sbody,butalsothewayinwhichitis

used.Thewomensuggestedthatalthoughonecannotalwayschangetheirbody

shape,theycan,intheory,alterthewayinwhichtheyuseittoappearmore

feminine.However,itisn’talwaysaseasyassimply‘deciding’todothisasmany

ofthemorefeminineaspects,suchasadelicategaitoroccupyingaslittlespaceas

possible,havebecomesoingrainedthroughrepetitionthattheyarehardtoalter.

ItisthroughthesestoriesthatwecanseeButler’s(1990)performativityatwork.

Thisperformativityenablesthemaintenanceofhegemonicfemininity,butalso

additionallyprovidesforavenuesformultiplefemininitiestomanifest.

Themalleabledimensionsoffemininitywerethosethatthewomenfeltthey

couldeasily‘do’inordertoenhanceone’sfemininity.Theseincludedthingssuch

asclothing,make-upandhairstyles.Byengagingwithsuchpracticesinfeminine

ways,womenwhodidn’tnecessarilyhaveafemininephysiquewereabletoaid

theirpresentationoffemininity.Thisofteninvolvedlotsofworkandeffort,

161

somethingthatmanyofthewomenopenlyexpresseddisdainfor,buttheywere

presentedas‘optional’.Therestrictivedimensionsontheotherhandwerethose

thatwomenfelttheyhadlittlecontrolover.Theseincludedthewayinwhichthe

womenspoke,theirdemeanour,andtheirinterests.Beingfemininerequired

adheringtoaparticularsetofbehavioursthatwereseenaslimitingtothe

womeninthisresearchandnotreflectiveoftheirowndesires.

TheTropesofHegemonicFemininity

Thethreedimensions,thephysical(body),themalleable(appearance),andthe

restrictive(demeanour),worktogetherinawaythatallowsforvarious

manifestationsoffemininity,butidealfemininityincorporatesallthe‘right’

elementsofthese.Whilethereweremanylabelstheparticipantsusedtodescribe

different‘types’ofwomenwhenfillingouttheirconceptsmaps,thereweretwo

mainthemesthatwereimmediatelyevidentasbeingtheepitomeoffemininity

andwomen’sgenderexpression:theyweretheBarbieandtheMother.These

termsalsocameupthroughouteveryfocusgroup.Georgie(MG)madethe

followingobservationduringourdiscussions:“Ifeellikewearedescribingtwo

typesofwomen:themothergoddesstypeofwoman,whoIfeelquitepositive

about,andthenthereistheotheronethatIbroughtupthat’smoresuperficial

andaboutappearances.”Thisstatementcapturesmuchofthesentimentnoted

acrossthefivefocusgroups;theidealwomanwasattimesatoddswithherself–

theappearancefocusedBarbieorthecaringMotherfigure.Forthecategoryof

Barbie,othersimilarlabelsthatwereusedwere‘Cheerleader’,‘Princess’,orjust

162

simplytheterm‘Make-Up’,whilefortheMothercategorytermsalsousedwere

‘SallyHomemaker’and‘SoccerMum’.Whileinmanywaystheseideals

representedverydifferentformsoffemininity,thekeysimilaritywasthatthey

werebothabout“pleasingotherpeople”(Mary-CG).Theseideaswerediscussed

atlength,andwhilenoteveryparticipantusedoneoftheselabelsontheirmaps,

almostalldiscussedtheideasinmuchthesameway.

TheBarbie

Theterm‘Barbie’wasusedbywomeninallfivefocusgroupstodiscussnotjust

thephysicalbody,butalsoonthewaythatiswasadornedandparticular

personalitytraits;sheembodiedkeyaspectsfromallthreedimensionsof

femininity.Barbiewasalsowrittendownbymanywomenontheirconceptmaps,

alwayslocatedtowardsthecentre,suggestingthis‘type’ofwomanencompasses

aformofdominantwomen’sgenderexpression(seeFigures5and6onthe

followingpage).

163

Figure5:Ruby-CircusGroup

Figure6:Tess-MothersGroup

Barbieispositionedtowardsthecentreofbothoftheseconceptmaps,suggesting

thatthewomenviewedcharacteristicsofBarbiedollsascentraltotheir

164

understandingsofdominantwomen’sgenderexpressions.Whiletheparticipant

fromtheCircusgrouphadmyriadwordswrittenonhermap,thewomaninthe

mothersgrouponlyhadacouple.However,bothincludedthisnotionofa“barbie

doll”.‘Barbie’womenweredescribedasbeingskinny,wellproportioned,hada

‘softness’andfragilitytothem,woremake-up,jewellery,hadlonghair,got

manicures,andworedressesandskirts.Shewasthegirlwhostraightenedher

hairandthencurledit,who“wearspinkandactslikeaprincess”(Kylie-FG).

Thistypeofwomanwasalsoreferredtoasthe‘girly-girl’byeverygroup.The

picturetheyallpaintedisthesimilartothatfoundbyAllan(2009)inher

discussionofhyperfemininityandgirly-girlfemininity.Sittingatthefarendof

thegenderexpressionspectrum,hyperfemininewomenareseentoengageina

performanceofexaggeratedandidealfemininitythatisstronglyconnectedto

heterosexuality(Allan2009;Paechter2010).

Byusingtheexpression‘Barbie’,thewomeninthefocusgroupsaredrawingon

ideasofunattainablebeauty,voidofdepth.Asoneparticipantputit,it’s

“superficialyouknow?Skindeep”.Thenotionofbeautyandappearanceasa

centralcomponenttobeingfemininetiesinwithgeneralunderstandingsof

femininityasbeingcloselyintertwinedwithappearance(Holland&Harpin2013;

Skeggs1997).Participantsfromallthegroupsexpressedaclearnegativity

towardsthosewhoembodythischaracteristic,describingthemas‘off-putting’,

‘shallow’,‘flakey’and‘bitchy’.Tracy(EM)describedthe‘girly-girl’as“more

interestedontheoutsidethantheinside”.

165

However,afterdescribingtheBarbiegirl,theconversationsoftenshiftedtowards

rationalisingthebehaviours.Taylor(EM)drewonthefilmLegallyBlonde,in

whichaseeminglyshallow,blondefashionfocussedgirlwhodecidestobecomea

lawyerandintheprocess“itturnsoutthegirlhasalotofsubstance”.Someofthe

participantsinthemothersgroupalsopointedoutthattheremaybemoretoit

thatwedon’tgetachancetoseewhenwemakethesesnapjudgments.Zoe(MG)

discussedtheseideasfurther,suggestingthatinmostofthosecasesthewomen

wereengaginginthesebehavioursforreasonsoutsideofone’scontrol:

Yeah,butunderneath,youmightseethatpersonandnotfeelgreatabout

them,liketheyareabitofabarbie,butunderneathofthattheymightnot

belikethat,buttheyneedtodothattofeelgoodaboutthemselves,orthey

needtodothatbecausethatiswhattheirboyfriendwantsthemtolook

like.Orthatiswhattheyhavetolooklikeforwork.Itmightnotbewho

theyare,theymightjustlooklikethat,butsometimesit’sreallyhardto

separateitbecauseyoudon’tgettotalktothosepeople.

Similartothis,Kim(MG),feltcapitalismandconsumerismweresignificant

factorsinthepressureonwomentofocusontheirphysicalappearance,“Welive

inthisworldthatputsalotofpressureonwomen.”Forsome,thegirly-girlor

barbiewomenwereunconsciouslybeingmanipulatedintobuyingproductsto

beautifythemselves,keepingthemassivebeautyindustrybooming.Georgie(MG)

expandedonthisfurther:

Ithinkit’slargelyenvironmental,popculture,entertainmentculture,the

marketingissoclever,andyougetitfromsuchayoungage.Everyone

aroundyouisenactingitsoitscompounded.Andthepenaltiesfornot

adheringtothegendercodesaresostrong.

166

Thewomeninthecircusgrouppresentedasomewhatsimilarviewonmake-up

andtheBarbieimage,“It’sjustaboutdifferentchoices.Youknow,like,forme,it’s

notessentialtomyeverydayidentity”(Karen-CG).Generally,forthecircus

women,toengageinthebeautificationrelatedaspectsoffemininitywas

somethingonecouldoptinoroutof,drawingonthediscourseof‘choice’.ForLily

(CG),itcamedownhowmuchyouwantedtopleaseotherpeopleandhow

agreeableyouwere,andan‘off-putting’qualitytohave.Sheseemedawarethat

the‘choice’wasstillmostlyaboutothers,ratherthanherself.Severalofthe

womenacknowledgedthesocietalpressureto‘lookgood’,toliveuptotheideals

associatedwithBarbie–thin,pretty,blonde,shapelyinalltherightplaces,and

non-threatening.ItwasevidentthattheBarbietropewasintertwinedwith‘Ken’;

themalegazeandthepowerofheteronormativitywereseentobecentraltoher

decisionmaking.ButtheBarbiegirlwasalsoseenas,“abitofabitch”(Lily-CG)

towardsotherwomen.Thelabellingofawomanasa‘bitch’canhavemultiple

meanings(discussedfurtherinChapter7).Inthiscase,shewasseenasbeing

competitive,butnotinamasculineway;rathershewaschallengingotherwomen

formen’sattentionandapprovalandindoingsoisseenasbitchytowardsother

women.Finley(2010)suggeststhatthiscompetitioncanbeunderstoodasa

“negotiationbetweenfemininitieswithinthepatriarchalsystem”.Bylabelling

othersinparticularways,suchasabitchorslut,thesesubjectpositionsbecause

stigmatized.Theclassificationofthe‘bitch’isconstructedinrelationtothe‘nice

girl’,acomparisonbetweenfemininitiesestablishingahierarchyofwomen’s

genderrelationsseparatefrommasculinities.Connell’s(1987)conceptof

emphasizedfemininitysuggeststhatwomenhavelittlehegemonicpowerover

eachother,butitisinthesetypesofexamplesthatwecanseethatthisisnotthe

167

case.Tosuggestthatthereisnohegemonicfemininityunderestimatesthe

complexityofwomen’sgenderexpressions.Thus,theBarbiehadtowalkathin

linebetweenlookinggoodandbeingabitchinordertooccupyadominant

positioninthehierarchy.

Intherollerderbygroup,thefocusalsoleanedtowardsthebitchy,deceptiveand

destructiveaspectsthatwereperceivedtobeassociatedwithwomenwhoare

focusedontheirlooks.Unliketheothergroups,littledirectconnectionwasmade

toitbeingabout‘choice’whenitcametothesuperficialaspects,howeverthe

participantsdiddescribewomenwhoengagedinthesetypesofactivitiesas

beingpressuredtolook‘pretty’inordertofeelokayaboutthemselvesaswomen.

Forthewomeninthecircusgroup,concentratingonyourphysicalappearance

meant‘givinguppartofyourself’orasatoolformanipulation.

Itisinterestingtonotethattheparticipantsdidnotassociatethemselveswith

engaginginanyofthesetypesofbehaviours.Whenattentionwaspaidtotheir

ownappearanceitwasalwaysseenasapurelyselfishactbeingdoneonlyto

pleasethemselves.Intheseinstances,attentiontoone’sappearancewasalwaysa

choice,andachoicethathadlittleornooutsideinfluence.Whenaskedabout

whatitfeltliketo‘dressupfeminine’(i.e.makeup,femalespecificclothingsuch

asskirtsanddresses,hairstyled),thewomendescribeditasempowering

evokingasenseofagency.Andyet,whentalkingaboutfeminineinmoregeneral

terms,oneparticipantinthecircusgroupstatedthat“Feminineistheoppositeof

powerful”,towhichtheotherparticipantsagreed.Thiscontradictionbetween

168

agencyandstructurewasacommonthemeinthewomenmakingsenseoftheir

owngenderexpressionsandisdiscussedindetailinChapter7.

Whileanidealtype,theBarbiewasnecessarilyseeninafavourablelight,“…it’s

kindaofanegativestereotype,youknow,callingsomeoneaBarbiedoll”(Zoe-

MG).

Figure7:Lily-CircusGroup

Onthefigure7above,Lily(CG)hasincludedmanynegativetraitsthatshe

associatedwithwomen’sgenderexpression.Whenthewomendiscussedothers

whoembodiedthecharacteristicsoftheBarbieideal,therewasacleardistainfor

them.Shewasfake,ditzyandvain.Andyetforsome,suchasKaren(CG),there

wasaclearpressureandattimesdesiretobemorelikeher,“IwishIwasmore

femininesometimes,IwishIdidn’tcare,butthat’swhatmakesyouseem,you

169

know,pretty.Guyslikethat.”WhileMary(CG)said,“Ifindit[femininegirls]off-

putting‘causeIthinkIwon’thaveanythingtosaytothem.Iftheylooklikea

reallygirly-girl,I’mjustnotthatinterestedintalkingtothem.”Andyet,itwasthis

formofhegemonicfemininitythattheyoftenfoundthemselvesunconsciously

comparingthemselvesagainst.

TheMother

Theothertermthatwaspresentthroughoutallofthefocusgroups,was‘mother’.

Thiswasbroughtupbythosewhohadchildrenaswellasthosewhodidnot.The

‘mother’wasseentoencompassallthreedimensionsoffemininity,albeitina

differentmannerthanthatoftheBarbie.AlsoliketheBarbie,theMotherwas

centrallylocatedwithinnumerousconceptmapsasillustrated.Researchby

Gillespie(2003,p.123)exploredthediscoursesofmotherhood,findingitwas

viewedasthe“ultimatefulfilmentforwomenandthecornerstoneoffeminine

identity”.Motherhoodascentraltofemininityhasbeenwellresearched(Connell

1987;Firestone1971;Gillespie2003;Nash2014;Ortner1972;Rich1980),and

muchofwhattheywomendiscussedalignedwiththeideasfromtheliterature.

WhilethenotionoftheBarbiewasfocusedonappearance,theMotherwasmore

focussedonthebehaviouralaspectsofbeingawoman.Wordsandphrasessuch

asgentle,caring,emotionallytunedin,selflessandwarmwereallusedwhen

talkingaboutfemininityandmothers.

170

The‘mother’idealdidn’tjustapplytoactualmothers,butratheritwasan

expectationthatwomenshouldhavethecharacteristicsofagoodmother

whethertheyhadchildrenornot.Whenexplainingherwhysheplacedtheterm

motherinthecentreofhergenderexpressionmap,Cece(MG)said,“Ithinkit’s

aboutnurturing,expressingthattoyourownchildrenortosomeoneor

somethingelse.It’sthoseattributesthatareimportant,notifyouhavechildren.”

Thisincludedworkandactivities.Wendy(EM)feltthat,“nurturing,that

mothering‘thing’,it’sstillthatasfemininity.”Forheritwascentralto

understandingwomen’sgenderexpression.Sheherselfwasnotamother,butshe

feltalloftheexpectationsthatshenotonlyshouldbe,butalsosheshould

naturallyhavetheassumednurturingqualitiesthatgohandinhandwithbeinga

mother.Pixie(EM)saidshefeltpressuretobethe“caringone”inherfamily,

takingcareofothersemotionsfromayoungageeventhoughshehadtwoolder

brothers:“Ifeellikethathasbeenplacedonmeasadaughter.It’sjustan

unwrittenexpectation.”Thestructuralimpactsofmotherhoodareexplored

furtherinChapter7.

Theideaofwomanas‘wife’wasalsostronglyconnectedtomotherhoodandis

alsodiscussedfurtherinChapter7,butitisimportanttonotehereasthese

notionsformwhatwasdeemedtobethe‘ideal’formsofheterosexualfemininity.

Inherentintheterm‘wife’(ascomparedtopartner),isalevelofhierarchyand

dominance.Thiscamethroughinthediscussionswithwomenreferringtoa

‘goodwife’,meaningonethatwassubmissivetotheirhusband,the‘Sally

Homemaker’idealwhohasahotdinnerwaitingwhenherhusbandgetshome

fromworkeachday.Zoe(MG)describedthisasthetypeofwomenwhowas

171

happytosaytohermalepartner,“…yougooffandhaveabeer,I’llstayhomeand

dothedishes.”Thistypeofwomanwasalsodescribedasthe“Soccermum”(Tess

-MG).Thesoccermumconjuredupideasoftheidealmother,onewhoputstheir

children’sneedaheadoftheirownandmanagestogetahealthymealonthe

tableeachnightandkeepacleanhouse(Reger2001;Russo1976).Aswiththe

Barbie,theMotherwasoftenseeninsomewhatnegativeways–thatofthe

boring,compliantwoman.But,aswiththeBarbie,itwasalsothiswomanthatthe

participantsmeasuredthemselvesagainst.

BoththeBarbieandtheMotherpresentidealformsofhegemonicfemininity.

Theyencompassthemostculturallyvaluedaspectsofbeingawoman,albeitwith

slightlydifferentemphases.TheBarbieismorefocusedonappealingtomale

desires,whiletheMotherencapsulatesthebehaviourcharacteristicsandtraits

expectedofwomen.Thus,Barbie’sMotherbecomestheultimateidealtype,a

womanwholooksgoodwhilecaring.However,asNash(2011;2014)has

highlighted,contradictionsarisewhentryingtoembodyidealfemininityand

goodmotherhood.

Conclusion:Changingtimes?Maybenot…

Thischapterhasdiscussedthreedimensionsofwomen’sgenderexpression,the

physical,malleableandrestrictive.Thephysicalelementsoffemininityfocussed

ontheaspectsoffemininitythatweremorecentrallylocatedwithinthebody

itself.Thisincludedcontrolovermovementandtheshapeofone’sbody.The

172

women’saccountsoftheirexperiencesoftheirbodiesreinforcedthenorms

expectedfromhegemonicfemininity;womenfelttheyneededtobesmall,

gracefulandcontrolled.Themalleableaspectscarriedwiththemastrongersense

ofagency.Thissectionincludeddiscussionsonappearanceincludingstylesof

dress,accessories,andmakeup.Whilemanyofthewomenfeltthattheycould

choosetoengageinthesefeminisingactivities,therewasalsoasenseofpressure

toadheretotheminparticularsituation,creatingasenseoffrustration.This

frustrationwasfurtherexpressedwhendiscussingtherestrictivedimensionsof

femininity,whichincludeddemeanour,behaviours,traits,verbalcommunication,

leisureactivitiesandemployment.Whileonthesurfacethesemayappeartohave

somechoiceassociatedwiththem,thewomenfeltthattherewereconstantly

beingjudgediftheydidnot‘choose’correctly.Thishighlightthe‘illusion’of

‘choice’,wherewomenarebeingre-regulatedthroughsuchdiscourses

(McRobbie2007).

Connell(1987)arguedthatallfemininityispositionedassubordinateto

masculinityandthus,therecanbenohierarchyoffemininitiesorhegemonic

femininity.Butaswasevidentwithinthediscussionsinmyfocusgroups,there

areformsoffemininitythatdohavepowereachother.Thedominanttropesof

theBarbieandtheMotherconstituteformsofhegemonicfemininitythatboth

supportthedominanceofmenoverwomen,andofwomenoverwomen.Inline

withSchippers(2002;2007),itcanbeseenthatthesedominantfemininitieshelp

tomaintainthegenderorderanditisonlybyexaminingfurtherthehierarchies

withinwomen’sgenderexpressionsthatwecanunderstandtheseprocesses

further.Whilehegemonicfemininitiesarearchetypesthatcannotbefully

173

embodied,toomuchvariationfromtheseideasofwhatitmeanstobeawoman

resultsinharshsocialpenalty.Femininitywasafragileperformance,easily

disruptedbyeventheslightestoftransgressions.

Throughoutallofthefocusgroupswhenwespokeofgenderandfemininity,I

heardtheparticipantstellmethat‘timeshavechanged’or‘it’sdifferentnow’.

Thesecommentsspeaktotheworkonnew‘girlhood’wherethereareshifting

notionsofidealfemininity(Adams&Bettis2003;Budgeon2014;Harris2004).

Therewasasensethatthereweremorechoicesnow,andthustherigidrulesof

feminineappearanceandbehaviourwerenotenforcedandwomendidn’thaveto

adheretothesocietalpressures.Andyet,afterlisteningtostoryafterstory,a

differentpictureemerged.Anexampleofthisoccurredduringthecircusgroup

whereLily(CG)statedthatfemininityhad“changedovertheyears”butbeganto

describetheimportanceofmakeupanddressinginthefemininewaysdiscussed

earlierinthischapter.Karen(CG)cutheroffandpointedoutthat,whileshesaid

thingshadchanged,shehaddrawnonexactlythestereotypeofwhatithasbeen

fordecades.Shewentontosay:

Therearewaysofbeingawomanthataren’tmaybebeingtraditionaland

theyareslowlymoreacceptednowadays,buttheideaofbeing“feminine”

[handquotes],isaboutlonghairandmake-upandbeingseductiveand

caringforpeopleandthatkindofcrap.That’swhatfeminineis.(Karen-

CG)

Thegeneralnotionof‘feminine’was,formost,notagoodthing.TheBarbiewas

theepitomeofthesenegativeideasaroundfemininity;sheisshallow,superficial,

unattainablyattractive,overlyconcernedwithappeasingmales-butshewas

174

whatthewomencomparedthemselvesto.‘I’mnotfemininelikethat’wasa

sentimentIheardoften.TheMotheralsohaditsnegatives–shewasboringand

tooself-sacrificing.Whilethesemayseemlikeopposingversionsonfemininity,

bothareconstitutedinrelationto,andinsupportof,males.TheBarbiepresents

herselfinwaysthatwillappealtomaledesires,theMothertakesonthe

subordinateparentingandcaringrolestoenablingmentopursueother

endeavours.Neitheroftheseidealsappealedtothewomeninthefocusgroups

andmanyactivelyrejectedsuchsubjectpositions.Insteadtheyfoundtheirown

typeofgenderexpressionthattheywerewillingtoembrace,onethatenabled

themtopickandchoosewhichelementstheywouldengagewith,andwhichthey

wouldleavebehind.Itwasinthesesubjectpositionsthediscoursesofnewways

ofbeingfeminineemerged.ThesewillbediscussedinChapter7,butfirstthe

“lesstraditional”(Karen-CG),non-dominantgenderexpressionswillbe

discussed,aswillthelackofestablishedsocialorsociologicallanguagetodiscuss

themandthesocialconsequencesofembodyingthem.

175

Chapter6

Non-DominantGenderExpressionsandPariah

Femininities

Thepreviouschapterfocusedondominantandtraditionalwomen’sgender

expressions,itexaminedthevariousdimensionswithwhichwomenunderstood

anddescribedsuchfemininities.InlinewithSchippers(2007),dominant

femininitiesareunderstoodashegemonicastheywieldpoweroverotherforms

ofwomen’sgenderexpressions.Theformsoffemininitythatintentionally

confrontorrejecthegemonicgenderrelationsaredescribedbySchippers(2002;

2007)as‘alternative’orpariahfemininities.Thealternativefemininitiesas

describedbySchippers(2002;2007)enabledwomentocreateacceptable

women’sgenderexpressionsthatresistthegenderorderinlocalisedcontexts.As

thenexttwochapterswilldemonstrate,thiswasnotthecaseformostofthe

womenIspokewith.Whilethereweredegreesofagency,oftenitcameataprice.

Insomesituations,thewomenwereabletocreateanalternativefemininity,but

moreoftenthannot,thiswasnotachievedandthetransgressionsresultedin

thembeinglabelledintermsindicativeofpariahfemininities.

Thischapterwillexploreunderstandingsofnon-dominantgenderexpressions

andthewaysthewomeninthefocusgroupsmadesenseofthese,bothby

drawingontheirownexperiencesandaswellasothers.Thisisdonethrough

176

discourseanalysisenablingexaminationofhowassumptionsregardinggender

andgenderexpressionsareproduceddiscursively.Whilediscourseinfluences

society,societyalsosimultaneouslyshapesdiscourse.Suchanapproachallows

forconsiderationofhowsuchunderstandingsaremaintained,negotiatedand

resistedaswellasthelinguisticcharacterofsocialandculturalprocessesand

structures(Lazar2007).However,itshouldbenotedthattherehasbeendebate

regardingthebiasedinterpretationsthatmayarisethroughtheapplicationof

discourseanalysis(Lazar2007).Wodak(2013,p.xxxiv)explainsthereis

“inherentfuzzinessofitsconceptsanddefinitions”.Therefore,itisimportantto

clarifythatforthepurposesofthisthesis,understandingsofdiscourseand

discourseanalysiswillstemfromaFoucauldianviewthat‘texts’are“sitesof

struggleinthattheyshowtracesofdifferingdiscoursesandideologies

contendingandstrugglingfordominance”(Wodak2013,p.xxix).

Overall,theconversationsaboutnon-dominantgenderexpressionweremore

variedthanthoseregardingfemininity.Somegroupsfocusedontryingtofinda

suitabletermandsexualitywasraisedasasignificantissue.Thechapteris

structuredaroundtheterminologythatcameupduringthefocusgroups.The

firstsectiondiscusseslanguageandsubjectpositions,exploringtheusefulnessof

theterms‘androgyny’and‘masculinity’.Thisisfollowedbyadiscussion

regardingtheinescapabilityoffemininityforwomen.The‘tomboy’andthe

‘heterosexualbutch’arehighlightedasexamplesofthis.Therestrictionsofthe

languageavailableforthewomeninthisresearchwasevidentintheirstruggleto

findterminologythatmatchedtheirexperiences.Oftenthenon-dominantforms

ofwomen’sgenderexpressionwereconstructedspecificallyinrelationtowhatis

177

‘not’feminine.Thisisdiscussedwithrelationtotheparticipants’usageofthe

word‘unfeminine’asanumbrellatermtodescribeallnon-dominantformsof

women’sgenderexpression.Despitethelinguisticlimitations,thepatternsof

behavioursthatarepositionedaspariahfemininities(thatis,thosethatreject

hegemonicgenderrelations,orthatdeviatefromtraditionalfemininepractices),

willbediscussedinrelationtotheirrelativepositionswithinthefemininities

hierarchy.

LanguageandSubjectPositions

AsdiscussedinChapter2,thereisdebateabouttowhatextentmeaningis

constructedthroughlanguage.Foucault(1979)andButler(1990)arguethat

identitiesandknowledgeformasproductsoflocalizeddiscursiveinteractions.

Discoursesprovideconceptualwaysofbeing,orsubjectpositions,thatenableus

todescribe,categoriseandmakesenseofourselvesandothers(Davies&Harré

1990).Thissectionwillexplorethesesubjectpositionsandthelanguageusedby

theparticipantstogaininsightintohowwomenunderstandandconstructnon-

dominantformsofgenderexpressions.Aswiththepreviouschapter,thelabels

andtermsontheouteredgesoftheconceptmapsarealsodrawnontoexplore

theseideasfurther.

Inthediscussions,‘masculine’wasgenerallyconsideredtoostrongandloaded

formany,butchworkedforsome,butwasunabletobeseparatedoutfrom

sexualityinmostofthegroupstobeusefulinaheterosexualcontext,andtomboy

178

wasrestrictedbyageforallofthosewhodiscussedit.Theseterms,andothers,

willallbediscussedinfurtherdetaillaterinthischapter,butthedebatearound

themdemonstratedtherewerenoclearwordswithintheparticipants’lexicons

thatadequatelydescribedthesenon-dominantheterosexualgenderexpressions

thattheybothexperiencedthemselvesorsawinothersthattheyknew.This

pointstoalackofwordswithinoureverydaylanguagetoexploresuchtopics.In

thepreviouschapter,theparticipantsdiscussedfemininitywithease.Althoughat

timesthereweresomeaspectsthatweremoreemphasizedthanothersbetween

thegroups,therewaslittledifferenceastowhatconstituteddominantformsof

femininity.Notsurprisinglythen,femininitywasoftendrawnontotryand

illustratetheirownunderstandingsandexperiences.

OneofthefirstquestionsIaskedregardingnon-dominantgenderexpressions

wasifwomenhadtobefeminineorcouldtheybesomethingelse.Inthecircus

group,therewasaninstantechoingof‘no’s’indicatingthatindeedthey

consideredtheretobeanalternativetobeingfeminine.However,whenIasked

themtodescribewhatthiswas,therewasalongsilence.Twoofthewomen

laughed,anotherleanedbackinherchairandputherhandonherchin,looking

offincontemplation.Finally,Mary(CG)said,“Idon’tknow,Iguesstheyarejust

female.They’rethemselves.They’rejustnot‘feminine’.”Ineveryfocusgroup,

therewasnoescapingtheconnectionoffeminineandmasculinetocisfemales

andmales,evenwhenthewomenwantedto.Whilewomenoftenexpressedthat

onecouldhavetraitsofbothfemininityandmasculinity,furtherdiscussion

suggestedthattheseideaswerestillverymuchrootedinnotionsofdimorphic

sexandgendernormsandthatsexandgenderwereco-constructed.

179

Oneparticipant,Mary(CG),explainthatshefelttherewere“justfemalewaysof

beingthatareirrelevanttobeingfeminine”.Thisstatementimpliesthat

femininityisnottheonlywaywomen’sgenderexpressionscanbeunderstood.

Thiswasacommonsentiment,thatpeopleshouldjustbethoughtofbytheir

abilities,andnothavegenderplacedonthem.Andyet,itwasimpossibleto

escapebinarygenderedcategoriesandlanguageduringourdiscussions;asMary

(CG)putit,“societyjustdoesn’thavethewordsyet”.Duringthefocusgroups,it

becameapparentquiteearlyonthatthelanguagewithintheparticipants’

lexiconswasnotadequateforunderstandingtheexperiencesandfeelingsabout

genderexpressionsthatdeviatefromthedominanttropes.Thiswillbeexplored

bylookingattheconceptsof‘androgyny’and‘femalemasculinity’andtheir

usefulness.

Androgyny

Afterourdiscussionofwhattheterm‘feminine’meant,Ispoketotheparticipants

aboutwomenwhodidn’tfitneatlyintotheideaof‘feminine’thattheyidentified

(asdiscussedinChapter5).InsomeofthefocusgroupsIspecificallyaskedthe

womenwhattheythoughtoftheterm‘androgyny’,inothergroupsitcameup

withoutprompting.Itbecameapparentfromtheirdiscussionsthatandrogyny

wasnotanadequateconcepttodescribetheexperiencesofthewomeninthe

focusgroup.AsdiscussedinChapter2,thetermandrogynyhistoricallyreferred

toconsistingofbothmaleandfemalephysicalcharacteristics(Ferguson1974).

Overtimeforfieldofpsychologyitcametomeantheabilitytochoosebetweenor

180

drawonfeminineormasculinetraitsinagivensituation(Bem1974;Singer

1976;Woodhill&Samuels2004;Young2002).However,somedisciplinesbegan

toviewandrogynyasautopianideal(Ferguson1974),whileothersusefemale

androgynyasmoreofawayofdescribingawomanorgirlbeing“oneoftheboys”

(Reynolds&Press1995).Inanattempttoshiftawayfromviewingandrogynyas

dependentongenderasconsistingofmasculinityorfemininity,oracombination

ofthetwo,Lorenzi-Cioldi(1996)suggestedthattherewasthepossibilityof

androgynyintheformof‘transcendence’,whichbrokeawayfromtheconstraints

ofgenderaltogether.Whileideaslikethistheoreticallyprovideanavenueto

breakawayfromthebinaryandrestrictivenatureofgenderexpression,through

thediscussioninmyfocusgroupsthisdidnotappeartobethecase.Itis

interestingtonote,thatwhilethetermcameupmanytimesduringthefocus

groups,notasingleparticipantwroteitdownontheirconceptsmapssuggesting

itwasnotseenasaformofgenderexpressionbutratherencapsulatedanother

setofmeaningsasdiscussedbelow.Aswiththedebateswithintheliterature

(discussedinChapter2),androgynywasnotacohesiveconceptforthe

participants.Somewereunfamiliarwiththeterm,othersfounditinsulting,and

othersstillsimplysawitasawayofdescribingaparticularstyleofdress.The

theoreticalandacademicunderstandingsofandrogynydidnothavethatsame

meaningintheeverydaylanguageusedbymyparticipants.Itjustwasn’taword

theyfelttheycouldeitherconnectwithorthathadanysignificantmeaningto

them.

Thewomendefinedandrogynythroughfeminineandmasculineterms,butrather

thanacombinationofthetwo,itwasoftenseenasalackofeither.Mary(CG)

181

explained:“Ithinkofandrogynyasnotoneitherendoftheextremeofmasculine

andfeminine.”Inthefootballgroup,Kylie(FG)expressedasimilaridea:“It’snot

either,it’sinthemiddle.”Thesedefinitionsdifferfromthenotionofandrogynyas

anoverlappingoffeminineandmasculinetraitssuggestedbysometheoristssuch

asBem(1974)andWoodhillandSamuels(2004).Insteadofseeingandrogynyas

amixtureofgenderexpressions,formanyoftheparticipantsitcametomean

moreanabsenceofgenderexpressionatall,particularlytheabsenceof

femininity.

Inmanycases,androgynywasn’tjustseenastheabsenceoffemininity,butoften

itwasthepresenceofmasculinity.Whileintheresearchandrogynysuggeststhat

androgynyprovidesthepossibilitytoexploregenderexpressionoutsideof

purelyfeminineormasculineterms,inpractice,thiswasnotthecase.The

womenintherollerderby,executivemanagementandmothersgroupsgenerally

tendedtoviewandrogynyasmuchmoremasculine,butonlyinsofarasto

describeappearances.Inthecircusgroup,IaskedMary(CG),whowasaverseto

usingthewordandrogyny,todescribewhatanandrogynouswomanwastoher.

Shesaid,“Iwouldsayshehaslikespecifictraits.Youmightsayshehasreally

shorthair,andsheisreallystrong[looking].Shewearsalotofmen’sclothes.”

Karen(CG)thenresponded,“Seeyou’redescribingmasculinity!”Notethatthese

‘traits’werenotsomuchtraitsastheywerephysicaldescriptions.Thisisnotan

uncommonsocialunderstandingofandrogyny.Kellyetal.(2005,p.136)describe

thewomenskateboardersintheirstudywhohadadoptedmasculinetraitsas

exhibiting“non-sexualizedandrogyny(read:masculinedressstyle)”.Such

understandingsdonotcorrelatewithmuchoftheearlieracademicliteraturethat

182

viewsandrogynyasabalancedcombinationofmasculineandfeminine

characteristics(Bem1974).Theandrogynydiscussedbythewomeninmy

researchmoreoftenthannot,drewheavilyonmasculinity.Inotherwords,the

participantssawandrogynouswomenasmoremasculinebutatthesametime

voidofheterosexualityastheylackedfemininity.

Themasculinitythatwasseentobepresentinandrogynouswomen,cameinthe

formofclothing.WhenIfirstaskedthecircusgroupiftherewaswordtodescribe

womenwhoareheterosexualbutnotfeminine,thefollowingexchangetook

place:

Ruby(CG):What’sthatword?And…

Lily(CG):Androgynous?Ruby(CG):Androgynyismore,like,neithertoofeminineortoomasculine.Lily(CG):That’snotwhatIthinkofwhenIthinkofandrogyny.

Karen(CG):Yeah,Ithinkofamorepolishedlook,theycarealotabouthowtheylook.Ruby(CG):Yeah,howtheydress.

Whilethewomeninthisgrouphadtouchedontheideaofandrogynyasamixof

femininityandmasculinity,thediscussiononphysicalappearancedominatedthe

conversation.Shorthairandclothingstyleelicitedastrongerresponseand

greaterdiscussionthantheideaofsomekindofbalancebetweenmasculinityand

femininity.However,thisfocusonappearanceisamoretypicallyfeminine

characteristic(Skegss1997).Thiswasalsothecaseforthewomeninthe

183

executivemanagementgroupwherewasseenasa“fashionthing”(Alison-EM)

mostoftenassociatedwithyoungpeople.

Severalwomen,includingDonna(FG),hadneverheardofandrogyny,sothe

othermembersofthefootballgroupprovideddescriptionsofwhatitmeantto

them,mostlyaroundsimilarnotionstowhatisdescribedabove,butIalso

providedamoreacademicdefinitionofbeingabletodrawonbothmasculineor

femininetraitswhenneeded.IthenaskedDonna(FG)ifshefeltandrogynywasa

usefultermforunderstandinggenderexpression.Shereplied,“No,Imean,if

you’replayingfooty,you’renotgonnatorunoutallfenimim,orgirlyorwhatever,

you’regonnarunouttherelikestrong,andstrideandstuff.Butthat’snot

necessarilybeingmasculine.So,no.”[Donna(FG)struggledwiththe

pronunciationoffeminine,theabovespellingisphonetic]Therewerevarious

othertimeswherethewomendescribedsomeoneasabitmasculineandabit

feminine,orapersonwhoswitchedbetweenthetwo,andwhilethisdescribes

muchofwhatthetermandrogynypurportstomean(Bem1974),thetermsimply

hadnorelevancetothewomenandtheywerereluctanttouseit.Kylie(FG):

“Androgynous?Soundslikeyou’reaweirdooryougotsomethingwrongwith

you.IfindthatwordmoreinsultingthanifsomeonesaidIwasbutch.It’slike

queerandstuff.”Notonlywasthewordseennegatively,therewasanassumed

linkbetweenandrogynyandsexuality.Thisslippagebetweengenderand

sexualitycameupthroughoutmyconversationswiththewomen,bothinrelation

toandrogynyandalsovariousotherformsofnon-dominantgenderexpression

thatcameupdiscussedthroughoutthischapter.Byreferringtoanandrogynous

personas“queer”,thepowerofButler’s(1990)heterosexualmatrixbecomes

184

evident.Theheterosexualmatrixpositionsbiologicalsex,gender(gender

expression)andsexualitywithinaframeworkthatenablesmeaningtobe

extracted.Whengendernaturallyfollowsonfromsex,andsexualityfollowson

fromgender,idealheterosexualrelationsareproduced.Thismatrix

demonstratestheinterdependencebetweensex,gender,andsexualityandhow

whenapersondeviatedfromtheexpectedgenderexpressionfortheirassumed

biologicalsex,theirheterosexualitycomesintoquestion.

Thiswasvisibleinthefootballgroup.Ez(FG)explained:“It’slikesayingsomeone

doesn’thaveanykindofsexuality.Ithinkofandrogynousasnotmasculineor

feminine.”Inotherwords,androgynywasakintoasexuality.Foraheterosexual

womanwhoidentifiedasfeminine,theideaofnotwantingtoappealtomale

desiresthroughfemininityconfusedEz(FG).Shefeltfairlynegativetowardsthe

word,makingascrunched-upfacewhensayingthewordandusingdescriptors

suchas“silly”whendiscussingtheterm;thissentimentwasnotuncommonin

thefocusgroups).Thiscanbeunderstoodthroughthelensoftheheterosexual

matrix,whereallsexuality‘should’beheterosexualandthuswomen‘should’be

feminine.AsRuby(CG)pointsout,androgynytoherwasanabsenceof

femininity,andthusanabsenceofsexuality.Inadditiontoreadingandrogynyas

asexual,manyotherssawitasassociatedwithlesbians,particularlyintheway

theydress.Lily(CG)discussedthatcallingsomeoneandrogynouscouldbe

presumptuousandshouldbeavoided,“Imean,areyoucallingthatpersongay?”

Shewentontoexplain:

185

Lily(CG):Whenyouaredescribingareallymasculinegirlorareally

feminineguy,it’salmostlikewhenyouareawhitepersonandyouare

describingapersoninawaythatyoudon’twanttoappearasracist.It

feelslikeyouaredoingthesamething.Youarereallytiptoeingaroundit.

Youknow[gesturingintheair],theyaretall,darkhair…youarereally

tryingtogoaroundthetopic.Youdon’twanttogetstraighttoit.Youdon’t

wanttosayit.Cause,isthatwordright.

Ruby(CG):Yeah,assoonasyouaredifferent,itbecomesanegative.

Thenegativityseemstocomefromthelackofconformingtotheexpectednorms

forgenderexpression.Bycallingsomeoneoutonthis,theybringtheperson’s

sexualityintoquestion.Thistoocanbeunderstoodthroughtheheterosexual

matrixwherewomenareassumedtobeattractedtomasculinityaspartof

heterosexuality(Butler1990).Thus,ifawomanisdisplayingsignsoftraditional

masculinitybybeingandrogynous,theymustthenbeattemptingtoattract

women.

Therewasalackofconsensusastoexactlywhatandrogynyreferredto.Thiswas

astarkcontrasttotheeaseandagreementthatwaspresentwhendiscussing

femininity.Theeverydayunderstandingsofandrogynybymyparticipantsandits

inseparabilityfromsexualitydemonstratethepowerofheteronormativity,orthe

privilegingofheterosexualityaboveotherformsofsexualityandpositioning

theminrelationtoit(Berlant&Warner1998).Forthewomen,androgynydoes

notadheretotheirunderstandingsoftheexpectedofgenderexpression,andin

doingsobecomeslinkedtosomethingotherthanheterosexuality,thatof

asexualityorhomosexuality.

186

Contrarytomuchoftheliterature(Bem1974;Lorenzi-Ciolodi1996;Singer1976;

Woodhill&Samuels2004),thetermandrogynouswasnotusedtodescribethe

mannerinwomenspoke,theactivitiestheyengagedin,thewaytheyheld

themselvesorothertraitsinherenttogenderexpression.Androgynywas

understoodtobemoreofafashionstatementaboutbeingeithermasculineor

asexual,femininitywasneverincorporatedintotheidea.Thisisnotsurprising

giventhefragilityoffemininityandhoweasyitistodisrupttheperformance.In

thiscase,whenawomanchoosestowearmoretypicallymasculineclothing,they

haveviolatedthemalleableaspectsoffemininityandtheirgenderbecomes

somewhatunintelligible,conflatingtheirdressstylewiththeirsexuality.

Whatdidbecomeclearthroughourdiscussionswasthattheparticipantsdidfeel

thatwomencouldembodybothmasculineandfemininetraits,itjustwasn’tseen

as‘androgynous’.Non-dominantgenderexpressionsforwomenaremore

complexthancanbecapturedbya‘third’categorythatsitsin-betweenmasculine

andfeminine.Lorenzi-Cioldi’s(1996)notionof‘transcendence’,inwhichgender

expressionshavetranscendedabovegenderandsexualitywerenotrelevantfor

myparticipants.Non-dominantgenderexpressionsthathave‘masculine’aspects

arenotahomogenouscategory.Noraretheysimplyamatterofbracketingoff

masculineandfemininetraitsandmixingbitshereandtherecreateandrogynous

genderexpressions.Thesameactsperformedbyamanandawomanwerenotin

factthesamething,eachwerereaddifferently;wehavenotyetbrokenfreeofthe

binariesofgender.

187

FemaleMasculinity

Inmostofthefocusgroups,smalldebatesarosearoundwhatwordstouseif

someonewasseenassomethingotherthanfeminine.WhenIaskedthe

participantsiftheythoughwomencouldbe‘masculine’,itstoppedconversation

andrequiredfurtherthought.Inthefootygroup,Joey(FG)said,“Yeah,women

canbemasculine.”Iprobedfurtherandaskedifbeingamasculinewomanmeant

youweren’tfeminine,shereplied,“No,Idon’tthinkthat’strue.Youcanhave

traitsofboth.”Thissparkedadiscussionaboutafellowteammatewhowasnot

present.ShewasdescribedbyDonna(FG)as“reallygirly-girl,likewithhairand

makeupanddresscodeandeverything,butthenontheothersideshe’sreally

masculine.Burps,farts,swears,strong.”Thisnotion,ofthewomanwhoisboth

feminineandmasculine,cameupthroughouteachofthefocusgroups.However,

asdiscussedearlierinthischapter,thiswasnotseenasandrogyny.Nearlyevery

womanwhotookpartinthisresearchsawthemselvesassomesortof

combinationoffeminineandmasculinewhenitcametoparticulartraitsor

interests.However,intermsofhowtheyunderstoodthemselvesortheirgender

expressions,noneofthewomensawbeingonly‘masculine’aspossible;

femininitywasalwayspresent.

Theideaofembodyingaspectsoftraditionalfemininityandmasculinityaligns

withSasson-Levy’s(2003)workwhereshefoundherparticipantsrejected

dichotomousgenderidentitiesandinsteadcreatedanewformofgenderidentity

thatbrokedowntheboundariesbetweenmasculinityandfemininitywherethey

combinedaspectsofboth.However,therearesignificantdifferences.Sasson-

188

Levy’s(2003)researchwasundertakenwithwomensoldierswhowereinvery

differentdailyscenariosthanthewomeninthisresearch.Theneedforthe

womeninherresearchto‘bemoremasculine’wasverymuchsituationaland

theyoftenexplainedthatwhentheyreturnedhome,thesemannerismandtraits

diminished.Assheexplains,thewomeninherresearchlearnedhowto‘do

masculinity’withinthecontextofthemilitary.Theidentitythatthewomenthen

createdwasfoundedonintegratingthemasculineideologyandvaluesinherent

tothemilitary,ratherthananandrogynousbalancebetweenmasculineand

femininetraits(Sasson-Levy2003).Thus,herproposed‘in-between’gender

identitydoesnotfullyaccountfortheexperiencesofthewomeninthisresearch,

howeveritdemonstratesasimilarexperienceinthatgenderexpressionswere

seenassomethingthatonecouldsubvertandrecreateinparticular

circumstances.Thiswasparticularlyevidentwiththewomenfromtheexecutive

managementgroup,acommunityofpracticewheremasculinetraitsarehighly

valued.

Intheexecutivemanagementgroup,thewomenwerereluctanttodescribe

themselvesortheirbehavioursasmasculine(orfeminineasdiscussedinChapter

5).Dorothy(EM)toldusthatshecouldseewhereinherfamilyshegother

stubbornnessfrom,“Idon’tthinkofitasparticularlymasculinethough,even

thoughitcomesfrommyfather,it’sjustwhoIam.”Therewasasenseinthis

groupthatthetraitstheyembodiedwhichhelpedthemintheseniorrolesat

work,werequalitiesthatcameaboutthroughpersonalachievement.Theyhad

gottentowheretheywerenotbecausetheywerewomen,norinspiteofbeing

women.Becauseofthis,thewomenwereinitiallyresistanttolabelanyoftheir

189

behavioursasmasculine.Butasthefocusgroupprogressed,Pixie(EM)saidthat

shefeltshehadsomecharacteristicsthatweremoremasculine.Thisopenedup

thewayformorewomentotalkfreelyaboutmasculinityduringwhichmanyof

thewomenbegantosharestoriesandaccountsofhowtheydidmasculinity.This

beganwithadiscussionontheimportanceofafirmhandshake,withmany

suggestingitwasn’tgendered,Tracy(EM):“Ifamanhasaweakhandshake,

they’llsay,‘Ohwhataweakhandshakehehas,don’ttrusthim’,soastrong

handshakeisjustaboutpower,notifyouareamanorawoman.”However,I

askedifthatwouldbethesameresponseifawomanhadaweakhandshake,

therewasamoment’spausebeforeAlison(EM)said,“No,it’sdifferent.It’sokay

forawomantobeweak,theyexpectit.I’vegotastrongone,andmenarealways

saying,‘Wow,you’vegotagoodhandshakethere’asifitisasurprise.”Despite

initiallydenyingtheinfluenceofgenderontheirworkingexperiences,itwas

evidentthatonsomelevelthewomenwere‘doinggender’andwillbediscussed

ingreaterdetailinnextchapter.Doinggender,asdiscussedinChapter2,refersto

thewayinwhichgenderis‘done’,orratherperformed,throughourdaily

interactions(West&Zimmerman1987).Meaningisdrawnfromthese

interactions,andexpressingcommonnotionsoftraditionalmasculinity,inthis

caseshakinghands,walkingandsitting,thewomencreatesubjectpositionsfor

themselvesinwhichtheyareabletoexpresspowerandcontrol.

Inthemothersgroup,Cece(MG)toldus:“IknowthisgirlandIoftenthinkofher

asmoreboyishbecausehermovementsareoftenverylarge[gesturesoutwards

withherarms]”.Again,theuseofmorespacebysomeoneisdeemedbyothersto

beamasculinetraitinlinewiththeliterature(Young2005).Simplybymaking

190

largegestures,thegirlinthequotehasbeenperceivedasmasculinebyCece

(MG),andthusnotfeminine.Thiscanbeseenintherecentinternetinterestin

menoccupyinganunnecessaryamountofspaceontrains,alsoknownas

‘manspreading’.Anentirewebsitehasbeensetupdedicatedtothisphenomenon

(MenTakingUpTooMuchSpaceontheTrain2015),andtherehavebeen

multiplenewsreportsonthematter(Fitzsimmons2014;Johnson2016;Tovey

2015).Theattentionthatmanspreadinghasreceivedindicatesapublic

awarenessofhowgenderedbodiesoccupyspace.However,thereweresome

womenthatdisagreedwiththeideathattakingupspacealwaysconstituted

aspectsofmasculinity.Severalwomeninsistedthatthattheysatinsuchways,

buttheydidn’tseethemselvesasbutchormasculine,“I’llsitinthechairandIjust

relax,gotmylegsout,allcomfortable,butI’mnotbutch”(Dorothy-EM).But

whileDorothy(EM)didn’tseeherselfthisway,itwasclearthroughthe

discussionsthatothersdidperceiveherassuch.

Unliketheexecutivemanagementgroup,thewomeninthefootballgroupopenly

discussedtheneedto‘domasculinity’,althoughtheydidn’talwaysagreeifthis

wasactuallymasculinityorsomethingelse.Inordertobesuccessfulwhen

playingfooty,thewomenneededtodrawontraditionalmasculinetraitssuchas

beingstrong,aggressive,andcompetitive(Charlebois2011;Francis2010).They

foundvariouswaysofmakingsenseofthis,butmostlyitwasthroughreading

thesequalitiesasextensionsoffemininity.Fiona(RD)fromtherollerderby

groupfeltthatwomencouldbemasculine“intermsofcompetitionandstuff,but

theyprobablystillneedtolookgoodwhilethey’redoingit”.JustaswithEzzell’s

(2009)notionof‘heterosexy-fit’,Fiona(RD)wasawareofthepressuresto

191

enhancesexualappealwhenengagingincompetitivesport.Thiscameupalotin

bothofthesegroups,butwasseenasmorehighlyvaluedbythewomeninthe

rollerderby,whereasthefootballgrouptendedtopokefunatthosewhodressed

uptoomuch.

Thediscussionsinthecircusgroupalsotouchedontheinteractionbetween

strength,masculinityandfemininity.Ruby(CG)said:“Youcanbestrongandbe

feminine.Ithinkwejustdefinewhatfemininitymeanstous.”ButMary(CG)

disagreedwithher,“WhenIthinkoffeminineIthinkofthatextremegirl,butI

thinksomeonecanbemorein-between,moremasculine.”Mary(CG)continued

toexplainthisfurthersuggestingthatshefeltthatthefurthershemovedaway

fromthedominant“mainstream”femininityideals,themasculineshewas

becoming.Byconstructingherselfinoppositiontohegemonicfemininity,she

becamemoremasculine.Therelationalitybetweenfeminineandmasculineas

oppositesstemsfromtheinabilityforgenderexpressionstobeseparatedout

fromgender,andatitscore,thepowerofthebinarydiscourseofgendered

bodies.Lily(CG)expressedsimilarsentimentstoMary(CG)sayingshedidn’t

“needtobecalledfeminine”asshewas“okaybeingseenasmasculine”.Again,to

notbefemininewastobeequatedwithmasculine.However,thisformof

masculinitythatwomenwererelegatedtoisnotthesamespacethatmenoccupy.

Halberstam(1998)arguesthatwhenmasculinityexistswithinqueerorfemale

bodies,itlosesitspoweranddominance,becomingaformofsubordinate

masculinity.Thiswasevidentinthestoriesthewomenshared;despitetheir

suggestionthattheywereabletoembodyaspectsofmasculinityattimes,there

192

wasadifferenceinwhatthismasculinitylookedlikecomparedtotheirmale

counterparts.Thewayinwhichmasculinitywasreadwhenperformedbya

femalebodycameupinwhenBelinda(FG)toldusaboutherteenageyears:“I

wascalledahalfgirlbecauseIcanplaybasketballandtheysaidthatgirlscan’t

playbasketballsoImustbeahalfgirl.”Herathleticskills,herinterestinamostly

masculinesport,andher“aggressiveness”(asshedescribedit)didnotwieldher

thesamerespectandpoweronthecourt.Instead,shewasseenasnota‘realgirl’.

SuchanexperienceisreminiscentofthestoriesfromFroshetal.’s(2002)

researchonyoungboys’discussionaboutgirls.

Intheirresearch,Froshetal.(2002)foundthatboysoftenridiculedgirlswho

wantedtoplayfootball.Inoneparticularcase,agirlwholikedtoplayfootball,

wearclothesandmakecommentstoboysastheywalkedpastwasseen“as‘rude’

ratherthanjokey,itwouldseem,preciselybecauseofhergender”(Froshetal.

2002,p.105).AswithBelinda(FG),thegirl’sbehaviourwasinterpreted

differentlythanhermalecounterparts,andindoingso,thepositive

characteristicsnormallyattachedtomasculinetraitsaretransformedintoa

subordinateposition.Stigmabecomesattachedtodisplaysofmasculinity,

creatingpariahfemininities.Womenwhoexhibitparticularbehavioursthatdo

notalignwiththeasymmetryofthegenderorderarelabelledinfeminisedways.

Mary(CG),Dorothy(EM),andEmma(RD)allsharedexperiencesofbeingcalleda

“bitch”forbeingtooassertive.Thefeminisedlabellingstigmatisedthewomen,

establishingthemassociallyundesirableasameansto‘contain’them.Becauseof

thewayinwhichtheyaresoseverelystigmatised,pariahfemininitiesdonot

providemuchofathreattohegemonicrelations.

193

Thistypeofexperiencewasseeninastorysharedbyoneofthewomeninthe

executivemanagementgroup.Earlyoninourgroup,Alison(EM)gently

interruptedadiscussionaboutwhatfemininitymeanttopointoutthedifference

formenbeingseenasfeminine.

Alison(EM):Ifyouareusing[femininity]toapplytomen,itisperceived

asaweaknessormoreofaderogatoryterm.Itattackstheirmasculinity,

itsrarelyusedasacompliment.

Taylor(EM):Andthesamegoesforwomen.Iftheyarecalledmasculine,

thatisnotacompliment.

Sonia(EM):IgettoldIlookfeminine,butthatIseemlikeaman.Andthat’s

‘causeIhaveopinions,Idon’thavetact,andIamverydirectandtothe

point.AndbecauseofthatIgettoldI’mlikeaman.

Dorothy(EM):Ah!Ireallydislikethat.

Manyofthewomeninthisgrouphadbeencomparedtomenintheirworkinglife,

butitwasclearthatthiswasnotintendedasapositivething.Whenthey

embodiedthetraditionallymalecharacteristicsdiscussedinChapter2suchas

beingassertive,notoverlyemotional,confidentoropinionated(Charlebois2011;

Francis2010;Messerschmidt2010),theresultwasnotthesameasitwouldhave

beenforamaleinthesamesituation.Everywomaninthisgroupseemedtohave

astoryofbeingreceivednegativelywhenexhibitingmasculinetraits.Their

‘masculinity’wasoftenmockedorviewedasinferior.Thishighlightshowthe

powerofmasculinityremainsintertwinedwithmalebodies.

194

Afurthercomplexityforwomeninbeingviewedasmasculine,wasthatof

sexuality.Butler(1990)seessexualityasprecedingsex/gender,andthatcanbe

seeninthewaythattheparticipantsspokepeople’sassumptionsabouttheir

sexuality.Inordertomakesenseofwomen’snon-dominantgenderexpressions,

peopleoftenframedothersasnotheterosexual.Mary(CG)explainedthat,“itis

assumedthatifyouaremasculinethenyouaregay”,butshewascarefultopoint

outthatthiswasoflittleconcerntoher.Thereweremanysimilarstorieswhere

sexualitycameintoquestionduetonotdisplayingcleardominantfemininity.

Thesimpleassumptionthatifone’sgenderexpressiondoesnotmatchtheir

gender,thentheymustnotbeheterosexualcanbeunderstoodthroughButler’s

(1990)heterosexualmatrix.Ifthegenderexpressiondoesnotalignwithwhatis

expectedfortheassumedsex/gender,thematrixisviolatedandthepersonis

perceivedasnotheterosexual.Thelackofterminologytodescribeone’sgender

expressionsasonlyeithermasculineorfemininewasaproblem.Whenitcameto

discussinglesbiansorgaymales,itwasmucheasierandacceptabletouseterms

suchasfemininetodescribeaman,ormasculinetodescribeawoman.Butwhen

thepersonwasheterosexual,thesewordsdidn’tfit.Theinfluenceof

heterosexualityonone’sgenderexpressionwasacutelyevident.

OftenwhenIaskedifwomencouldbemasculine,theconversationturnedto

discussionsaboutsexuality.Separatingoutthetwowashardforsomeofthe

participants,whileforothersitwaseasy,buttheyfeltsocietycouldn’tdothe

same.

195

I’vegotafriendthatgetsaroundinanAkubra[hat],I’veneverseenherin

adressoraskirt,she’safarmgirl,andIamsurethatwhenshecomesto

thecity,everyoneassumesthatsheisgay…it’sjustthewayshelooks.She

hasshorthair,you’dneverseeherinapairofheelsorskirtordress.But

she’scompletelyheterosexual.(Taylor-EM)

AnAkubraisabrandofhatthathaswidebrimsandistypicallywornbyfarmers

orthosewholiveinruralAustralia.Wearingsuchahat,alongsideanabsenceof

otherfemininemarkerssuchasdressesindicatesthenthepresenceof

masculinity.Therewasastronglinkbetweenmasculinityinwomenand

sexuality,butitseemedthatattimes,theparticularattributesofmasculinitythat

wereembodiedmadeaverydifferentimpact.ThiswasevidentinWendy’s(EM)

accountofhersister,whohad“changedfrombeingquiteagirly-girl”whenin

school,butasanengineershewas“alwaysinmaledominatedenvironments,in

heruniclassesandnowatwork”.Wendy(EM)explainedthatinorderforher

sisterto“fitinwiththeguys”,shebeganexhibiting“alotofmaleattributes,

burpingandfartingandthatsortofstuff”.Shealsoexplainedthatshesawheras

more‘masculine’becausesheplayedsoccer.Thiswasseenasamasculinesport

toplayandimpacteduponherviewofhersister’sgenderexpression,impacting

theperceptionofherasfeminine.Asdiscussedearlier,suchbehaviourswere

consideredtobeunfeminine.Whatwasinterestingtonoteherethough,wasthat

Wendy(EM)continuedtoexplainthatwhilehersisterwas“masculine,shestill

lovesdressingupandgoesshoppingallthetime”.ItbecameclearthatWendy

(EM)wasimplyingthatdespitethemasculineaspects,hersisterwasstill

heterosexualandthiswasevidentinherengagementwithtypicallyfeminine

196

behaviours.Her‘masculinity’wassimplyatoolto“fitinwiththeguystomake

workeasier”.

Timeaftertime,thewomenemphasisedthelinkbetweensexualityandgender

expression.Louise(RD)respondedtoacommentaboutwomenbeingmasculine

with:“Yes,butyou’reprobablyalesbianthen”.Therewaslittledoubtthoughfor

thewomeninthefocusgroupsthatthelinkbetweenfemininityand

heterosexualitywasquitestrong,andaswiththediscussionsonandrogyny,the

poweroftheheterosexualmatrixwasevidentintheseconversations.The

slippagebetweenaperson’sgenderexpressionsandtheirsexualitydemonstrates

notonlythis,butalsoButler’s(1990;1993)notionofintelligiblegenders.In

ordertomakesenseofa‘body’,theremustbepresentintelligiblegender

markers.Thesemarkersarediscursiveproductsandprovideuswithawayto

workoutifsomeoneisamanorawoman.Whenthesemarkersarenotclear,as

isthecasewithciswomenwhoseemmasculine,theirgenderisnotintelligible,

disruptinghowweunderstandthemwithintheheterosexualmatrix,andthus

relegatingthemoutsideofit.Suchviolationstakeplaceonthephysicaland

malleabledimensionsoffemininity.

Attimestopicssuchasbaggyclothing,orlaughingloudlycameupin

conversationandthewomenwouldrefertoitsomethingas‘notveryfeminine’.

Thesetypesofactsorpeoplethatwereunderstoodas‘unfeminine’usually

involvedengagingintypicallymasculinebehaviours,attitudesormannerisms

suchasbeingaggressiveorburpingloudly.AsSchippers(2007)andSasson-Levy

(2003)discuss,thesebehavioursareunderstooddifferentlytomenexhibitingthe

197

samethings.Intheend,everygrouptendedtosimplyusetheterm‘unfeminine’

todescribewomen,ortraits,thatwereoutsideofthedominant,idealfeminine

woman.Bynotbeingabletodefinenon-dominantgenderexpressionsthrough

anyothermeansthantoreferbacktofemininityspeaksvolumesabouthow

restrictiveandenablinglanguageinthisareacanbe.Ifoneexhibitsbehavioursor

traitsthatarenottraditionallyfeminine,theywerenotlabelledassomeother

termnorweretheynotseenasandrogynousormasculineinthetraditional

sense.Rathertheywere‘notfeminine’.Attimes,someoftheparticipants

attemptedtoarticulatethesenon-dominantformsofgenderexpressionwithout

drawingonfemininity,butinthesecasestheyofteneitherfoundthemselves

confusedastheyspoke,pausingforlongperiodsbeforegivingup.Despitethe

womenoftensearchingforotherwaystodescribewomen’sgenderexpression,in

theendtherewerejustvaryingdegreesof‘feminine’and‘unfeminine’.Theseare

discussednext.

“Otherkindsoffeminine”

Theprevioussectionshaveshownthedifficultyformyparticipantsinfindingthe

‘right’wordstodescribewomenwhodisplaynon-dominantgenderexpression.

Neitherandrogynynormasculinitydescribedtheirexperiencesor

understandingsadequately.Despitemanywomennot‘feeling’feminine,thelack

oflanguagetodescribethisexperienceresultedinwomenstillneedingtodraw

on‘feminine’and‘femininity’toarticulatehowtheyunderstoodthemselves.This

sectionwillexploresomeofthecomplexitiesthatarosefromthis,andin

198

particularlookatsomeofthevarioussubjectpositionsthatthewomenwereable

torelateto,includingthatofthe‘tomboy’and‘butch’.Subjectpositionsare

discursivelyproduced,providinguswithawaytounderstandnotonlyourselves,

butalsoothers(Davies&Harré1990)anditwasthroughourdiscussionsthatthe

womenwereabletoarticulatespacesinwhichtheyfelttheycouldlocatetheir

genderexpressions.Noneofthesecategorieswereclearcut,therewasdebate

anddisagreementwithineachfocusgroup,andtherewereattimesverydifferent

understandingsfromonegrouptoanother.

Onethingthatdidhelptodelveintothedifferenceinvariousgenderexpressions

forwomen,weretheconceptmaps.Manyofthewomeninthefocusgroups

referredbacktothem,orevenpickedthemupandshowedthemtotheothers

whentryingtoexplainwheretheysawparticularbehavioursor‘types’ofwomen

weresituatedinrelationtothedominantformsidentifiedinChapter5.When

askediftherewerewordstodescribetheirgenderexpressionsotherthan

feminine,Ruby’s(CG)responsesummedupmanyofthewomen’scomments

well:

There’sfeminine,it’shere,inthemiddle[gesturingtothemiddleofan

imaginarycirclewithherlefthandandcirclingarounditwithherright].

Butthentherearetheseotherkindsoffeminine,theygofromoneextreme

toanother,butchandslutandstuff,andtheyareallover,aroundit,some

thesamekindaarea,someoppositesides.

Othersalsofeltsimilarly,explainingthatfemininitywasaboutbelonging,andif

youweren’tfeminineyouwere“excluded,ontheoutside”(Lily-CG).Butthe

womeninthegroupdidnotseethisasabadthing,asKaren(CG)explained:“The

199

lessfeminineyouare,themoreinterestingyouare.”AswithKaren(CG),many

womensawfeminineasnegative,howevertherewaslittlealternativeforthemto

makesenseoftheirowngenderexpressions.

Forsomeofthefootyplayers,playingfootballwasseenasbutchormasculine,

whileotherssawitasneither,Joey(FG):“I’mnotfeminineormasculinewhenI’m

playingsports.I’masportsperson.”Butformostpeopleinthegroup,itwasfelt

thatfootycouldbeandwasfeminine.Joey(FG)saidtoBelinda(FG):“Whenyou

[gesturingtoBelinda(FG)]playfooty,it’sfeminine.Yougetexcitedlikeagirl

whenyougetagoal.”AlsospeakingtoBelinda(FG),Lou(FG)said,“Andthefact

thatyouavoidedthemud.Idon’tthinkyouevergotmuddy.”Asdiscussedin

Chapter5,beingorstayingcleanwasanimportantpartofmaintaining

femininity.Togetmuddywastoletgoofyourappearance.Iprobedfurtherasto

howgenderexpressionmanifestedwhentheyplayedfootball:

Me:Whatisfeminineonthefootyfield?Barb(FG):Thereisnone.Kylie(FG):Yeah,youcanbecompassionate.Joey(FG):Butareyousayingboyscan’tbecompassionate?Kylie(FG):No,Ijustthinkthatit’safemininetrait.Ez(FG):That’sthedifferencebetweenwomen’sfootyandmen’sfooty,andthat’swhatmakeswomen’sfootyfeminine.Belinda(FG):We’llapologise.Donna(FG):Imagineaguyonthefieldsaying,‘Oh,sorrymate’.

200

Thislastcommentspeakstothebothfemininity,masculinityandgender

expressionmoregenerally.Football,atypicallymasculinesport,canbecome

femininenotsimplybecausetheplayerisfemale-bodied,butbecauseofthe

mannerinwhichsheperformatively‘does’it.Therewerealsorelational

propertiestotheunderstandingofwomen’sfooty:

Therehastobeanaspectoffemininityinwomen’ssport,otherwiseit

wouldbeexactlythesameasmen’s.Andit’snot…Wearen’tmen,sowe

obviouslyhavesomesortoffemininity,it’sjustontheouterspectrumofit.

It’sadifferentlevelofit.(Ez-FG)

Ez(FG)feltthatfemininitywasinherenttofemale-bodiedwomen,andany

expressionofgenderwasframedinthatway.Whileattimesonecouldhave

masculinetraits,underneathitthewomanherself,wasstillfeminine.Thisis

exploredfurtherthroughdiscussionsonthenotionsofthetomboyandthe

heterosexualbutch.

TheTomboy

Duringourconversations,theideaofthe‘tomboy’cameupagainandagain.Many

ofthewomenhadeitherbeencalledorhadconsideredthemselvestobea

tomboyatonepointoranother.Forthesewomen,thetermtomboywasusedto

refertoagirlwhoenjoyeddoing‘boythings’includingplayingsports,getting

dirtyandbeingrough.Shewasalsoseentoprefertowearpantsandshortsover

dressesandskirts.Thisunderstandingwassimilartotheacademicliterature.

Tomboys,asdiscussedinChapter2,areunderstoodtobe“girlswhoclaimsome

201

ofthepositivequalitiesassociatedwiththemasculine”(Thorne1993,p.111).

Paechter(2010,p.226)extendsuponthisdefinitiontosuggestthatatomboyis

someonewhoisfemale-bodiedbut‘doesboy’andthosethatare‘abittomboy’

arefemale-bodiedbut“performingaformofgirlwhichincludessome‘boy

things’”.Both‘tomboy’and‘bitofatomboy’wereusedbythewomeninmy

research,oftenwithreferencetotheconceptmapstheyhadfilledoutatthestart

ofthefocusgroups.

Donna(FG),whohadwrittentomboyontheouteredgeofherconceptmap(see

Figure8below),toldme:“Well,I’vebeencalledatomboymywholelife.”

Figure8:Donna–FootballGroup

Placingtheword‘tomboy’towardstheouterrimoftheconceptmapindicates

thatthislabelisassociatedwithlessdominantwomen’sgenderexpressions.This

202

wasnotanuncommonassociation;everyfootygroupmemberalsohadbeen

calledatomboyatsomepointasachild,evenKylie(FG),“withtwohundredpairs

ofshoes”.Shesawthisasduetothefactshe“likedtoplaysoccerontheovalwith

theboysandnotcupcakeswiththegirls.”Playingsportswasclearlyasignificant

factorinbeingconsideredatomboy,includingskateboarding,“the‘Skater-chick’

iskindalikeatomboytoo”(Lou-FG).Skateboardingprovidesaspacefor

alternative,non-dominantfemininitiestodevelopandbeexpressed(Kellyetal.

2005;Pomerantzetal.2004)soitisnotsurprisingforthewomeninthefocus

groupstoviewskatingasengagingintomboybehaviour.Lou(FG)sawthistype

of“alternativegirlhood”(Kellyetal.2005)astomboyismandspokefondlyofit.

Therewasasensethatthe‘skater-chicks’gottodomore“fun”stuff.Giventhat

tomboyismisseentobeanexpressionofthemorepositivequalitiesofbeing

male,thisisnotsurprising.Carr(1998,p.537)alsofoundthatthewomeninher

researchviewedthe‘boystuff’as“morefun”.

Likethewomenintheothergroups,manyofthecircuswomenspokepositively

oftheexperience,smiling,Ruby(CG)toldus,“IhadaperiodoftimewhereI

wantedtobeaboy,Iwasabittomboy-ish.”Tomboy-ishseemedtobethe

equivalentofPaechter’s(2010)ideaofa‘bittomboy’.Ruby’s(CG)experience

alignswiththefindingsofBurnetal.(1996)whosuggestthattomboyismisa

formof‘masculine’identification.Butthisexplanationdidn’taccountfor

everyone’sexperiences.BeingatomboywasnotseensopositivelybyLily(CG)

whosaid,“Ididn’tlikebeingcalledatomboy,Istilldon’t.Iwasone,butIdidn’t

likebeingcalledit.”Shewasn’tabletoarticulatespecificallywhatitwasabout

beingcalledatomboythatbotheredhersomuch.ForMary(CG),beingatomboy

203

wasamixedexperience:“…ifafemalesaidittoyouitwaslikeawayofsaying,

‘you’renotlikeme’butifaboysaidit,itwaslike,‘you’reoneofus’.”Georgie(MG)

alsofeltthisway,“Itwaskindofawesometobecalledatomboycausethatmeans

theboyslikemeasafriend.”Renold(2006)arguesthatthesubjectposition

‘tomboy’bothconsolidatesgenderhierarchieswhilealsosubvertinggenderand

sexualnorms.Withherresearchwithyoungchildren,shefoundthattheywere

simultaneously‘doinggender’while‘doingsexuality’.Thisisalsoevidentinmy

participants’recollectionsoftheirchildhoods.ForMary(CG)andGeorgie(MG),

theirexperiencesofbeingtomboysmeanttheybecame‘oneoftheboys’,butit

alsoenabledthemtobepositionedas‘friend’ratherthanpotentialgirlfriendas

wasthecaseinRenold’s(2006)research.

WhenIaskedthewomeninthefocusgroupswhatbecameoftomboyswhenthey

grewup,theresponsescreatedalotofamusementinthecircusandmothers

groups,withvariouswomenineachgroupsuggestingtheybecame‘tommen’

amidlaughter.Zoe(MG)thensuggestedthateitherpeoplegrewoutofitorthatit

wasexpresseddifferently:“You’restillatomboyinhere[gesturestoher

heart/chestarea],youmightplaysportalotandgetdirty,butthenyouputona

dress.”Becomingawomanmeantappealingtomaledesireanddressingin

sociallydeemed‘attractive’ways,bywearingadressshebecamefeminineagain.

Someofthewomenfeltthattomboycouldbeaprecursortobeingbutch,but

therewereseveralkeydifferences.Joey(FG)articulatedthiswell:

[Tomboy]isalmostanendearingterm,whereasbutchkindahasthat

negativeconnotationtoit.[pause]AndIreckontomboy’salmostakiddy

term,like,Ireckonassoonasyougettolike16,17,you’renolongercute.

204

It’snot,ohlook,she’splayingaroundwiththeboys,it’slike,oh,she’sa

butch.

Thesecommentsareinlinewiththefindingsfromseveralstudiesthathave

lookedintotomboyism(Burnetal.1996;Carr2007;Halberstam1998)where

socialpressuresareseentoinfluencewomentobecomemorefeminine.Onceyou

reachanagewhereyoubecomeseenasasexualbeing,theacceptabilityofmale

interestsandbehaviourdisappearsandismetwithdisapproval(Halberstam

1998).Therestrictiveaspectsoffemininitybecomemorepronouncedaspuberty

approaches.Kylie(FG)agreedwithJoey(FG):“Idon’tthinkthereisagrown-up

wordfortomboythatisaboutbeingabitmasculineandfeminine,thatisn’trude.”

Theonlywordthatcameclosewas‘butch’.Whilethetomboyiscute,isit

assumedshewillgrowoutofittobecomeaproperwoman,butifshedoesn’tand

shemaintainshermore‘masculine’traits,sherisksbeinglabelled‘butch’.

HeterosexualButch

Whiletheword‘tomboy’hadmostlypositiveconnotationsassociatedwithitand

didnotimplyanythingaboutsexualityforthewomeninthisresearch,the‘grown

up’versionasthewomenoftenreferredtoitas,‘butch,wasmuchtheopposite.

Butchcameupalotwhentalkingaboutwomenwhowere‘unfeminine’.Asthe

followingevidences,theword‘masculine’dividedpeople,sparkingdebatesover

whatthewordmeantandwhetherornotastraightwomancouldbeconsidered

butch.Whilemanyoftheparticipantsrelatedtotheterm,itwasultimately

205

deemednottobeatremendouslyusefultermasitsmeaningvariedwhenapplied

toheterosexualwomen.

Manyofthewomeninthefocusgroupssawthemselvesas“abitbutch,but

feminine”(Karen-CG)andothersstronglyidentifiedwiththeterm,“Whatelse

wouldyoucallmebutbutch?”(Donna-FG).Cece(MG)womenfeltthattheterm

meantbeing“abitoffeminineandmasculine”whileGeorgie(MG)sawitasa

formoffemininity.Eitherway,butchwasoneofthemostcommontopicsinthe

focusgroups,comingupnaturallythroughoutthesessionstorefertowomen

whowereperceivedtobe‘unfeminine’.

Indiscussingwhattheterm‘butch’meant,Sonia(EM)feltthatthekeydefining

characteristicwas“thelook”.Throughdiscussionsitwasidentifiedthatthere

weretwotypesofbutchwomen,the‘heterosexualbutch’andthe‘lesbianbutch’.

Theydifferedintheirappearance.Butchstraightwomenweredescribedas

womenwhoworejeans,boots,andbaseballcapsorAkubrahats.Clothingand

dressstylearemalleableaspectsoffemininity,andassuch,thewayinwhichone

transgressesinthisrespectwillimpactonhowtheyareinterpreted.Butch

straightwomenwereseentospendlittletimeontheirappearance,althoughthis

didnotmeantheyweredishevelled,ratherthey“dressplainly”(Pixie-EM).

Dressingplainlywasonlyaminortransgression,andthereforenotamajorthreat

toone’sperceivedheterosexuality.Thiscanalsobeseeninanentryonaconcept

mapfromtheexecutivemanagementgroup(seeFigure9onthefollowingpage)

wheretowardstheouteredgeofthemaptheparticipanthaswritten:“work

boots&jeansonwomen”.

206

Figure9:Anonymous-ExecutiveManagementGroup

Thisstyleofdresswasseenastypicallybutch,butstillwithintheoftenwithinthe

heterosexualrealm.Ascanbeseenfromtheconceptmapabove,workbootsand

jeanswerepositionedwithintheouterring,indicatingamoreminor

transgressionofthemalleableaspectsoffemininity.Thelesbianbutchwoman,

ontheotherhand,wasseentowearclothingthatwasmoreclearlymale:

buttonedupshirts,men’st-shirts,ties,andslacks.

Theunderstandingsofbutchstraightwomenalsoincorporatedthephysical

dimensionsaswell.Alison(EM)said:“She’sbuilt,ontheheavyside,butreally

strong,doesasmuchmanualworkasherhusband,shedrivestrucks,farm

equipment.Idon’tknowwhenshewouldhavelasthadhernailsdone,worna

skirt,hadherhairdone.”Therewasafairamountofagreementregardingthe

207

butch‘look’,buttherewasnotasmuchconsensusastowhetheroneneedsto

havethe‘look’tobeconsideredbutch.Halberstam(1998)suggeststhatgenderis

predominatelyabouthowoneisrecognizedbyothers,andinthissense,those

whofelttheycoulddetermineaperson’sgenderidentityasbutchthroughhow

theyreadthem,adheredtothisnotion.However,formanyothers,beingbutch

wasjustasmuch,ifnotmore,abouthowyoufeltregardlessofhowyoulookedor

howyouwereread.Inthiscase,itwastherestrictiveaspectsoffemininitythat

weremostdefining.

Kim(MG)andGeorgie(MG)feltthatbutchdidn’tfallintothecategoryof

femininity.Georgie(MG)inparticularfeltthewordbutchhada“reallynegative

connotation”andexplainedthatwhenshewasinhighschoolcallingsomeone

butchmeant“you’reuglyandtoughinnotreallyagirlway”.Zoe(MG)alsofeltit

wasusedbymentosay,“you’renotinteresting,in,like,asexualway”.Forherit

alsohadasimilarmeaninginhighschoolandwasusedbyguystoputdownagirl

ifshewasn’tinterestedinhermalepeers.Lou(FG)hadsimilarfeelingsaboutthe

term,“Ifyouarecalledbutch,it’snothingpositive.”Thiswasacommon

sentiment,thatbutchwasawordladenwiththepowertocallyourgenderand

sexualityintoquestion.Duringthisdiscussion,Donna(FG)askedthegroup,“I

knowbutchisprettyharsh,butwhatelsewouldyoucallit?Lookatme,whatelse

wouldyoucallmebutbutch?”Thenegativityinthislabelwasinstantlyapparent

withseveralmembersofthegroupjumpingtoherdefence:“Whydoyouneeda

label?”(Joey-FG)and“Can’tyoujustbeyourself?”(Kylie-FG).

208

Karen(CG)toldusthatherfatherthinkssheis“reallybutch”becauseshehas

definedmusclesandcan“holdaplank”(atypeofexercisewhereyouholdapush

uppositionforaslongaspossible).Hecamefromatraditionalbackgroundand

didn’tapproveofherdoingcircuswork;hefeareditwasmakingherless

‘feminine’.Theimplicationwasthatifshewasnotfeminine,andwasindeed

butch,shewouldthenbealesbianaswell.Thebutchidentitycanbeseenasan

exampleof“sex/gender/sexualconflation”(Carr2005,p.121).Karen(CG)wasa

woman,buthergenderexpressiondidnotadherewithherfather’sexpectations,

andthusshewasdeemedbutchandhersexualitybecamequestionable.

Theslippagebetweengenderandsexualitywasevidentthroughoutthe

discussionsonbeingbutch.Donna(FG)felttherewasastronglinkbetween

butchandbeingalesbian,“Ithinkitisprettymuchcallingyougay,straightup.”

ThiswasaninterestingcommentforDonna(FG)tomakeassheverystrongly

identifiedwiththewordbutchbutdefinedherselfasheterosexual.Whileshe

herselfdidnotseebutchasbeingassociatedwithsexuality,itwasclearthatshe

felttherestofsocietydid.Inthemothersgroup,Georgie(MG)expresseda

similarsentiment,“Peoplethinkifyou’rebutch,you’realesbian.”LikeDonna

(FG),shealsoindicatedthatshedidnotfeelthiswayherself,butthatthe

“mainstream”did.ThiswasalsodiscussedinthecircusgroupwhereMary(CG)

said,“There’sanimplicationthatifawomanisbutch,shemustbegay.”These

ideassupportthefindingsfromvariousresearcherswhohaveemphasisedthe

connectionbetweenbeingbutchandtheimplicationsforsexuality(Carr2005;

Ezzell2009).

209

Amongstthosewhoagreedthataheterosexualwomancouldbeconsidered

‘butch’,therewasstillasignificantvariationinhowitwasunderstood.Forsome

itreferredsimplytoappearances(malleablefemininity),orbodytypesandthe

waytheyoccupiedspace(physicalfemininity).Forothers,itwasabouttheir

interestsandactivities,orjustpersonalitycharacteristicssuchasaggressiveness

(restrictivefemininity).Theelementsofclassifyingaperson’sgenderexpression

asbutchalignedwiththoseofclassifyingapersonasfeminine.However,butch

waspresentedasmuchmoreofachoiceattimes.Onehastoactivelydecidetogo

againstthesocietalexpectationsoffemininitytobebutch,whereasbeing

femininewasexpectedofyou.Thiscontradictorypositionwashardtoreconcile

formany.Beingbutchwaseasybecauseyoudidn’thaveto‘do’femininity,butit

washardbecauseyouhadtogoagainsteverythingyouweretoldtodo.Despite

this,thesubjectpositionofthestraightbutchwasquiteappealingtomanyofthe

women;themainrestrictionseemedtobeintermsofattractingmales.AsCece

(MG)putit,ifyou’rebutch,you’re“ugly,tough,justnotsexuallyappealing”.

Implicitinthiscommentisthenotionthatyouarenotsexuallyappealingto

males.Somefeltthattobeconsideredbutch,awomanfitintoallofthefactors

justmentioned,whileforothers,anyoneoftheseaspectscouldcauseapersonto

bedeemed‘butch’.Inthesecases,thewomenfeltthatanyviolationofthe

‘feminine’wassignificantenoughtomakethem‘not-feminine’andthusplaced

theminacategoryof‘butch’.Thishighlightsthefragilityofgenderandgender

expression.

Beingbutchforheterosexualwomenwasseenasfluid,somethingthataperson

couldshiftinandoutof.Apersonwasnotconsideredinherentlybutch,but

210

rathercouldeither‘appear’or‘behave’butchinoneinstance,butthenjustas

easily“putonadressandmake-upandbeagirly-girl”(Alison-EM).Formostof

thewomen,butchwasseennotsomuchasanidentity,butratherasjustanother

wayofbeingawoman,althoughthiswasnotthecaseforallofthewomen

(discussedbelow).Ascisfemales,whooftenhavenotneededtoconsidertheir

sexualityinasmuchdetailasthosewhoidentifyonthequeerspectrum,they

wereawareoftheconsequencesinbeingbutch,buttheysawthisaseasyto

combatiftheyconformedtotheexpectedsocietalnormsbydressing‘feminine’.

Forthecircuswomen,thetermbutchdidn’tfullyworktodescribeamore

masculineheterosexualwomanasitdidinsomeoftheothergroups.WhenI

askedhowtheywoulddescribethistypeofpersontosomeonetheysaidthey

woulddefineherbytraitsandlistedoff:shehasshorthair,sheiskindastrong,

andshewearsmen’sclothes.UponreflectionKaren(CG)said,“Hmm,butweare

allsortofdescribingmasculine-ishthingsthough.”Thisleftthewomeninsilence

beforeLily(CG)said:

Whenyou’redescribingamasculinegirl,it’slikeyou’reareallywhite

personandyourdescribingsomeoneinawaythatyoudon’twanttobe

seenasracist.Itfeelslikethesamething,iffeelslikeyouarereallytip-

toingaroundit,sayingallsortsofotherthingsaroundit‘causeyoudon’t

wanttosaythatthing,cause,isthatwordright?(Lily-CG)

Thewomenresistedusingthelabelofbutchbecauseoftheinherentnegativityin

itforheterosexualwomen.Throughthepoweroftheheterosexualmatrix(Butler

1990)andheteronormativity(Warner1991)youareassumedtobeheterosexual

untilitisconfirmedthatyouaren’t.Andthus,duetotheslippagebetweengender

211

expression,genderandsexuality,tocallsomeonebutchis,inessence,tocallthem

alesbian.

Pixie(EM)feltthatshewasnotmasculine,butrathershefeltshewasabutch

straightwoman.Whilebutchwasseenasaformoffemininitybymanyofthe

womeninthisandothergroupsthatcouldeasilybeslippedintoandoutof,it

seemedtobeamoredistinctformthatwasallencompassingforPixie(EM).It

wasmoreofanidentityascomparedtotheformofbutchdescribedbyAlison

(EM)above.ForPixie(EM),tobebutchwasaconsciousdecision–notinthatone

chosetohavethosetraitsorqualities,butrathertheychoseiftheyallowedthem

tobeexpressedandgoagainstthesocialexpectationsofthem.Pixie(EM)

describedherexperiencesofthisthroughherinterests,whichincludedher

tractor,enjoyingsoftwareengineering,andgettingherpilotslicense.However,

thiscommentsparkedoneofthemanydebatesregarding‘whatwasbutch’.Leah

(EM)disagreedwiththeclassificationofPixie’s(EM)interestssaying,“Idon’t

considerthatbutchthough.”Thisremarksparkedalmosteveryoneinthegroup

totalkatonce;Icouldmakeoutseveralwordsofagreementaswellasquitea

fewno’s.Thediscussioncontinued:

Caroline(EM):Ifsomeonewastobebutch,itcouldjustbeinthatinstant,itdoesn’tnecessarilymeanitisallthetime,itcanbejustabehaviour.

Pixie(EM):So,whatdoyoumeanbybutch?Isitbecauseofwhatyoudo?Orhowconductyourself?Isitjustabehaviour?

Wendy(EM):Ithinkit’salook.

Pat(EM):Andmannerisms.

212

Melissa(EM):It’sthewayyouact.Suzanne(EM):It’snotnecessarilyinterests,thoughisit?Pixie(EM):Butthat’sthethingformethough.Alotofwhatpeopleweresayingwasthattheseinterestsequatetosomeonewhoislikethat[butch].So,whatisbutch?

Again,everyonespokeovereachotherwithdifferentsuggestions,clothing,gait,

thewayyoutalk,andappearance.Thedebatesonthistopiccontinuedseveral

timesduringthefocusgroup,andnoconsensuswasformedastowhatbutch

meantifyouwereheterosexual.

Interestingly,theEMgrouphadasurprisinglargenumberofwomen(6outof14)

whogrewuponfarms.Thesewomenhadparticularsetofviewsotherson

whetherornotwomencouldbecalledmasculineorbutch(someofwhichare

mentionedabovesuchasthecommentsbyPixie-EM).Forthem,livingonafarm

entailedmanyactivitiesthatsomemayconsidermasculine.Manualwork

requiredwomentobestrongandtough.Theydrovetractors,usedtools,got

dirty,andworeclothingthatwastypicallyseenasmoremasculine.However,

noneofthisseemedtoimpactontheirunderstandingsofthemselvesasfeminine.

Thesewomenoftensawthemselvesastomboyswhengrowinguporcalled

themselvesbutch,butthisformofbutchwasnotassociatedwithsexuality,rather

itwasdescriptiveofmasculineinterestsandtraitsandwasadeepseeded

identitythatincorporatedtoughnessandpracticalitywithinterests.Itwasnot

connectedtoanyparticular‘look’otherthanwearingwhatwaspracticalforthe

workathand.Unliketheotherparticipants’understandingsofbutchasaformof

‘other’tofeminine,thesewomendidn’tseewhattheyweredoinginoppositionto

213

thefeminine,butratherasanextensionofthefeminine.Paechter(2006,p.10)

explainsthat“Withoutfemininity,masculinitymakesnosense;withoutthe

rejectionoffemininity,butchissimplyanotherwayof‘doingwoman’”andinthis

sense,itlosesits“transgressiveandoppositionalquality”.Theformofbutchthat

thewomenfromfarmingbackgroundsdescribedwasnotunderstoodbythem,or

describedinanywaytobe‘transgressive’.

Theterm‘butch’isfullofcomplexities,fromitsconflationwithsexualitytoits

ambiguousmeaningforheterosexualwomen,andassuchwasnotadequateto

describetheexperiencesofthewomeninthefocusgroups.Whenthetermbutch

wasself-appliedbythewomen,thesexualitycomponentwasremoved,andin

essencebeingbutchbecamemoreaboutthingssuchasbeingabletocarryheavy

boxes,drinkasmuchastheboys,wearaplaint-shirtandjeans,orbe

argumentative.Thereappearedtobelittleconsciousthoughtoreffortputinto

beingbutchinthisway.Itwasseenasfluid,somethingthatapersoncouldshift

inandoutof.Theydidn’tconsiderthemselvestohaveabutchidentity,butrather

couldeither‘appear’or‘behave’butchinoneinstance,butthenjustaseasily“put

onadressandmake-upandbeagirly-girl”.Theysawthemselvesas“abitbutch,

butfeminine”.Butifitdoesnotrejectfemininity,the‘heterosexualbutch’

remainsaformofdoingwomanwithoutanyoppositionalqualitiesandisnota

‘transgressive’genderidentityasiscentraltothelesbianbutchidentity.

214

Unfeminine

Whiletheterm‘unfeminine’isoftenpresentwithintheacademicliterature,itis

primarilyuseddescriptivelywithoutanyclarificationorexplanationandnoreal

definitionofitsmeaninginrelationtogenderexpressionexists.However,within

thisresearch,thefrequencyoftheuseofword‘unfeminine’forallofwomeninall

ofthefocusgroupssuggestsitisatermthathassignificantdiscursivemeaning

andpower.Theuseofthiswordhighlightstheinabilityforwomentoview

women’sgenderexpressionsasanythingbutaformoffemininity.Itwasoften

usedtodescribeanyviolationoftheaspectsofhegemonicfemininitydiscussedin

thepreviouschapterthatcausedaperson’sgendertobelessintelligible.This

sectionwillexploreunderstandingsof‘unfeminine’tounpackfurtherhowthis

wordisusedbythewomeninthisresearch,andexplorehowitissituated

amongsttheothertermsusedtodescribewomen’sgenderexpression.

Therewereafewwomeninvariousgroupswhofeltstronglythatallwomen

werefeminine,theyjustvaryinthemannerinwhichtheyexpressit.Regardless

ofthetraitbeingexpressed,itwasstilldeemedfeminineasitwasbeing

performedbyafemalebody.Otherswerevocalinsayingthatwomencould

embodybothfemininityandmasculinityatdifferenttimesdependingonthe

situation,andstillotherssaidthatyoucouldembodythembothatthesametime.

Manyofthosewhofeltawomancouldbemasculinewouldlatersuggest

otherwise,otherschangedtheirmindsmidwaythroughourdiscussions,andstill

otherssimplyneverreallyfeltsurehowtheyfeltaboutsomeoftheseissues.

Thesedifferenceshighlightthecomplexitiesandcontradictionsofgender

215

expressionexperiencedbythesewomen.Whatwasfairlyconsistentthough,

regardlessofabovedifferences,wastheuseoftheterm‘unfeminine’.

Afterseveralofthewomeninthefootballgroupusedtheterm‘unfeminine’,I

askedthemwhatthatwordmeanttothem.Joey(FG)pausedforseveralseconds

andappearedtobethinkingquiteintentlybeforesaying:“Unfeminineischewing

withyourmouthopen.”Thissimplestatementencapsulatedmuchofthe

discussionofwhatunfemininewastothem.Whileamanmayeatwithhismouth

openasbeseenasrude,thesamebehaviourperformedbyawomancarrieswith

itafurthersetofissues,complicatedbytheheterosexualmatrix.Behaviourssuch

aseatingwithyourmouthopen,onesthatwere“unbecoming”or“notlady-like”

disruptedafeminineperformance.Bydoingso,eventheirsexualitywouldcome

intoquestion,suchisthefragilityofgenderperformances.Withthepressuresof

heteronormativity,eventheactofeatingneedstobemonitoredinorderto

ensurethatmaleswillstillfindyouattractive.Toeatwithone’smouthopen

defiesthedelicatenessandcontrolexpectedofawoman(Allan2009;Greer

1970).

Unfemininewasalsodescribedas:“Ugly,tough,justnotsexuallyappealing”(Cece

-MG).Mary(CG)feltmuchthesame,“Idon’tthinkyoucanbeattractiveifyou

aren’tfeminine”.Thelinkbetweenbeingfeminineandone’sattractivenesswas

inescapable.However,itwasnottheequivalentformales:“Guysdon’tneedtobe

allhotandstufftobemasculine.Infact,ifthey’retoohot,they’renotas

masculine”(Joey-FG).Clearlytherewereadifferentsetofrulesformenand

216

womenwherephysicalattractivenesswasseenessentialtofemininity,butnot

formasculinity.

Themajorityoftheliteratureonfemininity,regardlessofwhichmodelisutilised

tounderstandthepowerdynamicsbothbetweenmasculinitiesandfemininities,

orwithinfemininities,highlightstheimportanceofwomen‘appealing’tomen,

boththroughappearanceandbehaviour(Adams&Bettis2003;Allan2009;

Ambjörnsson2004;Charlebois2011;Grindstaff&West2010;Halberstam1998;

Schippers2007).Thiswasevidentthroughoutthefocusgroups.When

attractivenesswasnotapriorityforawoman,shewasthenseenasunfeminine.

Orif,asdescribedabove,thereweretherewereslighttransgressions,awoman’s

femininitytemporarilybecomesunfemininity.Asawoman’sperceivedphysical

attractivenessdecreased,theybecamelessofa‘woman’andthiswasparticularly

pronouncedifthewomanwasseenashavingmasculinephysicalcharacteristics.

Thiswasalsoevidentwhenthewomendescribedunfemininewomenashaving

“musculararmsandlegs”(Ez-FG)ora“strongbody”(Laura-MG).Kylie(FG)

expandedonthephysicaldescriptionofunfeminineandprovidedanexplanation:

Unfeminineisstrong,physical,theprotector,Iguessthatcomesfeminine

beingneedyandvulnerableandstuff.There’ssomegirlsoutonthefooty

fieldthatare,like,myprotector.Andthatmakesthemmasculine.

Herewecanseetherelationalityoffemininityandmasculinity.Tobeunfeminine

wastobemasculine,tochallengethepowerrelationsanddominanceinherent

withinthegenderorderthroughbeingphysicallytoughandprotective.Thiswas

oftenthecase.Womenwouldusemasculinityasareferencepointfornotonly

217

whatwasfeminine(i.e.theoppositeandthuscomplimentary),butalsofor

demonstratinghowwhenone’sappearance,demeanourorintereststrespassed

intoperceivedmasculinespaces,thewomenweredescribedasunfeminine,

carryingwithitanegativityandsocialpenaltydiscouragingsuchbehaviours.

Thisextendedbeyondsimplymoretypicallymasculinecharacteristicsas

describedinChapter2,butalsotoanythingthatfellwithintheunfeminine

category.Unfemininityinasensealsobecomesrelationallyunderstoodin

contrasttothefeminine.

Swearing,burping,“fartingproudlyinpublic”(Belinda-FG)andbeinggenerally

loud,alsofellintothiscategory.Thesecharacteristicsseemedtobemoreabout

whatfemininewomenshouldn’tdo,ratherthanwhatnon-dominantformsof

women’sgenderconsistof.Youdidn’tneedtoburpandfarttobeunfeminine,but

ifyoudidthesethings,youautomaticallylostyourfemininity.

Figure10:Belinda-FootballGroup

218

InFigure10onthepreviouspage,Belinda(FG)positionedburpingandfarting

towardstheouteredges,awayfromthenotionofwhatistraditionallyfeminine.

Again,weseeherenotonlytherelationalitybetweenthefeminineandthe

unfemininebutalsotheimportanceplacedonthenotionofcontroloverone’s

bodyanditsfunctionsforwomen.Whileitmaybeunpleasantwhenmenengage

insuchbehaviours,itwasseenasmoreacceptable.Butwhenitcametowomen,

theresponsewasdescribedasdisgustandmortification,disruptingtheexpected

genderedperformance.

Whendescribingwhatunfemininewomenlooklike,theywereportrayedas

wearingsportyclothing,shortsandshirts,butlessfitted.IntheEMgroup,oneof

theparticipantswrote“workbootsandjeans”ontheedgeofhergender

expressionmap,indicatingthatsuchattirewasdeemedfarfromfeminine.This

alsocameupduringourdiscussions,withmanyofthewomenagreeingthatwork

bootswere‘butch’.Ez(FG)alsodescribedunfemininewomenaswearing“things

thatloseyourshape”.Thepointofclothingwastoemphasizethehipsand

breasts,toreinforceone’sappealtomalesasdiscussedinChapter5.However,in

themothersgroup,Cece(MG)pointedoutthat,“evenifyouhadaloose-fitting

dressonthatshowednoshape,itwouldstillbefemininebecauseit’snot

masculine”.Thedressisadistinctlyfemalepieceofclothingandbecomesso

throughitsrelationalitytothemasculine.Deleuze(1992)arguesthatbodiesare

constitutedrelationallyandcannotbeunderstoodwithoutknowingfirstwhat

theyarerelationalto.Throughclothing,womenareabletoconstructthemselves

aswhatmenarenot.

219

Therewereotherbehavioursthatthewomenmentionedasunfemininethat

begantooverlapwiththeirdescriptionsofmasculineandbutchwomen.Attimes

thesewordswereusedinterchangeably,atotherswomendisagreedasto

whetherornottheymeantthesamething.Thecontradictionsnotonlybetween

thewomen’sunderstandingsofnon-dominantwomen’sgenderexpressions,but

alsowithinthesamepersonaswellhighlightedthecomplexitiesofmakingsense

ofthetopicswediscussed.Throughthesediscussions,itbecameacutelyapparent

thattherewasnolanguagetodescribeaccuratelywhatthewomensawas

unfeminine,otherthansimply‘unfeminine’.

Despitetheinfluenceofsuchstrongsocialnormsastowhatisfeminine,there

wasattimesasensethatbeingunfemininemeantbeingwhoeveryouwanttobe.

Therewasfreedominit;muchthesamewaythatbeingatomboywasseenas

beingabletodoallthe“funstuff”(Lou-FG),beingunfemininewasoftenabout

expressingorengaginginthepositivefeaturesofbeingmale.MuchlikeCarr’s

(1998)research,womensawthemasculineactivitiesandtraitsasmore

interestingandenjoyable.Theimageoftheunfemininewomanwasthatsociety

pressuredidnotinfluenceherchoices,“Theydon’tcaretoimpressanyone”

(Belinda-FG)and“Theyarejustthemselves,theywalk,theysit,theydress,they

doeverythingjusthowtheywantto”(Donna-FG).Awomanwhodefiesthe

influenceofbroadersocietyandchosesto‘dotheirownthing’wasseenasa

positiveandfreeingmanifestationofthe‘unfeminine’woman.However,this

sentimentcontradictedmanyoftheotherfactorsdescribedbythewomenas

beingunfeminine,includingthepressuresandconsequencesofnothavingthe

rightappearance,demeanourorinterests.Thenegativeconnotationsfor

220

engagingin‘deviant’genderexpressionsoftenresultinsignificantsocial

penalties,suchasthosediscussedearlierregardingpariahfemininities.The“fun

stuff”mayconjureupfeelingsoffreedom,butatthesametimethesocial

repercussionsplaceduponwomenwhoembodysuchfemininitiesoftentakethe

formofseverestigma,labellingsuchwomenas‘crazy’.Similarly,thosewhoare

seentobequitesexuallyactivearestigmatisedas‘sluts’,andwomenwho‘do

theirownthing’,labelledaslesbiansfornotconformingtomaledesires.The

allureofbeingabletojustexpressyourselfregardlessofthegenderrestrictions

wasexpressedbymanyofthewomen.Whilewomeneitherenjoyedthebenefits

ofbeingunfemininethemselvesorsawthepositivesinitwhenotherswere,they

alsofelttremendouspressuretoadheretomore‘normal’ordominantformsof

femininityasdescribedinChapter5.Thesocialpricewasrestrictive,andoften

painful.

Bodieswerealsoasiteforfemininitytobelacking,orratherunfemininitytobe

present.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,withinthephysicaldimensionof

femininity,acceptablegenderexpressionforwomeninvolvedoccupyingaslittle

spaceaspossibleandbeinggraceful.Whenitcametodiscussingthebodyin

relationtothe‘unfeminine’woman,manyofthesesameattributeswerebrought

upbytheparticipants.Thethemethatwaspresentthroughthesediscussions

wasthatifonedidnotmaintainconstantcontrolovertheirbody,bothinregards

tohowitmoved,butalsoinregardstohowitwaspresented,thenthegendered

performancewasperceivedasunfeminine.

221

Inseveralofthegroups,thetopicoftattooscameup.Therewasadistinctstyleof

femininetattoos,small,delicate,colourful,withflowersoranimals.However,

havinglotsorlargetattooswasseenasparticularlymasculine,especiallyifone

had“asleeve”(Belinda–FG)(havinganentirearmcoveredintattoos).Although

thosewhobroughtuptattooswerenotabletoarticulateexactlywhythiswas

unfeminine(thisquestionwasoftenmetwithcommentssuchas“theyjustare”

(Karen-CG),theysimplyknewthattohavetheminthewrongplacesortoo

many,was“off-putting”(Ez–FG).Researchhasfoundthatthepresenceoftattoos

forbothmenandwomenisassociatedwithearliersexualactivity(Guéguen

2012;Koch,Roberts,Armstrong&Owen2007)aswellasriskybehaviour,

includingdrugandalcoholabuse(Burger&Finkle2002;Guéguen2012).

Women’ssexualencountersareheavilycontrolledthroughthestigmatizingof

womenwhosleepwithmultiplepartnersas‘sluts’or‘easy’assexualpromiscuity

isunderstoodtobeamasculinecharacteristic(Schippers2007).Accordingly,

tattooshavebecomesignifiersforthesetypesofbehaviourstheninturnresults

inheavilytattooedwomenbeingseenassymbolicallyintrudingonmasculine

terrain,andthusdeviant.Hegemonicgenderrelationsrelyonmales’dominance

andsuperiorityoverwomen,anyembodimentofmalecharacteristicsis

sanctioned(Schippers2007).Thereisalsoanexpectationthatwomenwill

modifytheirbodiesforthepleasureofmales,butstillmaintainasoftness

(Atkinson2002).Ifawomandoesgetatattoo,itisexpectedtobemoredelicate

andoutofsight,keepinguptheappearanceofanunblemishedbody(Sanders

1988).Thus,whenawomangetsalargetattoo,orafullsleeveasmentionedby

thewomeninthefootballgroup,thisdisruptsnotionsoffemininityandthe

relationalityofmasculinitytofemininity.

222

Therewasasimilarsentimentinrelationtobodyhair.Thefirstthingthatcame

tomindwhenEz(FG)wasthinkingofwhatunfemininemeanttoherwas,“Girls

thatdon’tshavetheirarmpits.”Donna(FG)alsofeltthisway,“Everyonejust

expectsagirltoshaveherarmpitsandshaveherlegs,andifshedoesn’tthenit

justdoesn’tlookright.”Belinda(FG)ontheotherhandhadaslightlydifferent

view,“Oh,no,girlsshouldwax,notshave!”Regardlessofthemethodofhair

removal,itwasclearthatnotmaintainingahairfreebodywasseennegatively

andwasassociatedwithbeingunfemininewithinthisgroup.Thehypocrisyof

bodyhairremovalforwomenascomparedtomenwaspointedout:“Itseems

unhygienicifyoudon’tdoit.Butguysaren’t[unhygienic]”(Joey-FG).Thiswas

metwithmurmursofagreement.Thesecommentssupporttheargumentsput

forthbyToerien,WilkinsonandChoi(2005)whosuggestthatbodyhairremoval

hasbecomepartofthetaken-for-grantedworkneededtocreateone’sfemininity

as‘acceptable’.Severalofthewomeninthecircusgroupchosenottoengagein

bodyhairremovalpracticesandwerewellawareofthesocialrepercussions:

“Hairypits,you’reobviouslyalesbianfeminazi”(Karen-CG).Toerienetal.

(2005,p.405)suggestexplainhowpracticessuchasbodyhairremovalreinforce

thenotionthatwomen’sbodiesare“unacceptableifleftunaltered”,afactthe

circuswomenwerewellawareof.Darwin’s(2017)arguesthatwomen’sbody

hairposesathreattopatriarchalgenderrelationsandassuchisviewedasform

ofpariahfemininity.

Walkingwasalsoseenasasignifierofgenderexpression.Unfemininewomen

carriedthemselvesdifferently,“It’stheirposture,theywalkwiththeirshoulders

big”(Ez-FG).Theotherwomeninthefootygroupagreeandincludedstomping,

223

beingheavyfootedandwalkingwith‘swag’asalsofallingintothecategoryof

unfeminine.Caroline(EM)explained:“WhenIaminjeansIstridefaster”.Jeans

madeiteasierforhernotonlytowalk,butalsotofeelmorepowerful.Skirtsor

dressesoftenwenthandinhandwithheels,whichasdiscussedlater,slowed

downaperson’swalkandoftengaveasenseoffragility.Caroline(EM)feltthat

wearingjeansmadeherfeel“butchormasculineorsomething”.Tracy(EM)also

noticedthatherwalkwassituational.“I’llchangemywalkdependingonwhatI

amwearing.IfIamgoingintoanaggressivemeeting,Iwillconsciouslylengthen

mystrideandwalkintherestrongandconfident…Itchangeshowtheylookatme

asawoman.”Thisagainreflectsthefluidandperformativenatureofgender

expression.Whenwantingtoprojectastrongerimage,thewomentookonmore

masculinewaysofdoingthings,suchaswalking.Butonceaparticular

performancewasdone,theywereabletogobackintodifferentwaysofdoing

things.Forsomethiswasaveryconsciousact,butforothers,particularlythose

whodidn’tseethemselvesasembodyingnon-dominantgenderexpressions,

therewasnotmuchofanawarenessofthesetypesofbehaviourswithin

themselves.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,severalofthewomeninthe

footballgroupmentionedsittingwiththeirlegsclosedpurelyoutofhabit.These

womenallsawthemselvesasmostlyfeminine,theytendedtobedressedinthe

morefeminineattireandwerealsothewomenwhoexpressedmoreenjoyment

ingetting‘dressedup’.

Inrelationtosittinginunfeminineways,Joey(FG)describedthisas:“legsopen,

showingwheretheirjewelssleep”(referringtogenitalia),whileKylie(FG)

explainedthisassitting“wherethebodygoesnaturallywithoutmakingan

224

effort”.Tobefeminineistobecontrolled,sobylettinggoofthecontroloveryour

body,youbecameunfeminine.Thiscontrolnotonlyappliestohowoneholds

theirbody,butwhattheydowithitparticularlyinrelationtosex.

Afurtherrestrictionthewomenfeltwasinherenttofemininitywasthetypesof

leisureactivitiestheyengagedin.Un-femininewomen,“playsportswherethey

getdirty.Oranythingphysical,anythingthatcausesbruising”(Lily-CG),

“anythingwithlotsofadrenaline”(Ruby-CG)or“whereyoumightsweat”Karen

(CG).Cricket,extremesports,rockingclimbing,cricketandfootballwereallseen

asunfeminine.Alloftheseactivitieshadelementsofriskinvolvedinthem.

Hangingoutwithlotsofmalesandnotenjoyingshoppingwereallalsodiscussed.

Kylie(FG):Womenthatdon’tlikeshoppingareweird.

Belinda(FG):Yeah,Ithinkifagirldoesn’tlikeclothesshoppingit’sveryunfeminine.

Donna(FG):Idon’tlikeclothesshopping.

Belinda(FG):Sorry.

Donna(FG):Nah,it’sokay.It’sjustIgotoonestoreandI’msize16anotherI’m22.Ican’tfindstuffthatfitsme.

Belinda(FG):Metoo,Ihavetobuykidsclothessometimes.

Joey(FG):Yeah,kid’sdepartmentisawesome.Belinda(FG):Nah,theshapesarewrong.

Joey(FG):Oh,nah,boy’skids.Apparently,I’maboy-kid.Girl-kidnoway,notgoingnearthatshit.

Ez(FG):Thereyougo,putthatdown,unfeminineisaboy-kid!

225

Donna(FG):Buyingboysclothesisdifferent.Buyingboysclothesisnodrama.

Thisexchangehighlightsanumberofinterestingissues.WhenKylie(FG)and

Belinda(FG)bothsaythatshoppingisafeminineactivity,Donna(FG),whoisa

self-definedbutchwoman,illustratesherperceivedlackoffemininitybynot

enjoyingthispastime.Theneedtoapologisetoherforindirectlycallingher

‘unfeminine’highlightsthevalueplacedonbeingfeminine.Tobelabelledas

‘unfeminine’isaninsult.Itisalsointerestingtonotethedifferencesin

experiencesofbuyingkidsclothing.ForBelinda(FG)thelackofshapeisoff-

putting.AsdiscussedinChapter5,clothingthataccentuatecurvesarean

importantpartofdressingfeminine.ButforJoey(FG)andDonna(FG),whodon’t

valuebeingfeminineinthesamewayasBelinda(FG),maleclothesarean

acceptablealternative.Thiswasclearintheirchoiceoftrainingclothesonthe

night.AsdescribedinChapter5,Belinda(FG)woretypicallyfeminineclothes,

fittedandlightcolours.Donna(FG),ontheotherhand,worewhatappearedtobe

possiblymen’sclothing,alargeoversizedhoodieandshorts.

Joey(FG),whoexpressedfellingbothfeminineandmasculineattimes,wasin

skinswithafootyjumperoverthetop.Skinsareskintightperformance

enhancingathleticwearwhich,interestingly,Kylie(FG)pointedout,wereoften

notavailableinwomen’sstylesorsizesatstoresexceptinjuniorsizes.Thisties

inwiththenotionofthetomboyandacceptablebehaviourforyoungwomenas

discussedearlierinthischapter.Despitewearingmen’sclothing,Joey(FG)said

havingfootybootsthatmatchedheruniformwasimportant,andtoldme“that

makesmeabitmoregirly”.Kylie(FG)agreed,“That’sdefinitelyafemininething!”

226

Other‘femininethings’discussedinrelationtofootyclothing,werethechoiceof

colours.Jenna(FG)toldusthatshehadchosentobuyatopthatwasless

comfortablethanothersshehadtriedonbecauseofthelikedcolourmore.Again,

Kylie(FG)pointedout,“That’safemininething!”Theneedtoreinforceaspectsof

femininitywhileengaginginamasculineactivitycameuponmanyoccasions.

Therewasasensefrommostofthegroupthatwhileitwasokaytobeunfeminine

issomerespects(playingfooty),thisneededtobecombatedbydoingthingssuch

ascoordinatingtrainingoutfitsandboots,andmakingsureyourhairwasokay.

Thesetypesofbehaviourshelptoreinforcetheirfemininity,andthus

heterosexualityandalignwithEzzell’s(2009)notionofheterosexy-fit.Butas

withallofthegroupsIspokewith,acertainamountofbeing‘unfeminine’or

displayingnon-dominantgenderexpressionswasacceptablewhenitwasonly

temporarilyengagedwith.

Theword‘unfeminine’wasusedbythewomeninthisresearchtocapturea

varietyoftransgressionsoffemininity.Butratherseetheseasmasculineorsome

othertypeofcategory,theywerereadasaformoffemininity,albeitarelational

onethatwasdefinedbywhatfeminineisnot.Thebehaviours,activitiesand

mannerismsthatfellintoundertheunfemininelabelwerealmostalwaysthings

which,whendonebymales,werereadasnormalmasculinebehaviour.Bya

femalebodypreformingthem,theyweretransformedfromnormaltodeviant,

andthewomenbecameunintelligible.Thepowerofbinaryconstructionsof

genderwereinescapable.

227

HierarchyofFemininities

Whiletherewasnotalwaysclearconsensusonterminologythatspoketothe

women’sexperiencesbeyondthe‘unfeminine’,analysisoftheconceptmaps

enabledfurtherunpackingofthisonabroaderscale.Theconceptmapsarea

visualrepresentationofthewomen’sunderstandingsofhowsocietyviewsand

groupsdifferenttypesofwomen,includingthosewhoarenotheterosexual.

Whilethisstudyisprimarilyinterestedintheheterosexualexperiencesofgender

expression,societalexpectationsofgenderexpressionsareintertwinedwithin

theseunderstandings.Althoughnotallofthewomeninthestudyagreedupon

whatbutchmeantforheterosexualwomen,theimpactofbeingexternally

labelledbutchhassocialpower.Furthermore,despitethelackofcohesivelabels

fortheirexperiences,thewomenwerestillabletoarticulatetheirexperiencesin

avarietyofwaysthatoftenoverlappedinmeaning.

Inordertoestablishatypologyofun-femininities,thissectionwilldrawheavily

onthewordsandexpressionsusedbytheparticipantsontheconceptmaps.This

allowsforavisualmethodoforganisingdifferingformsofwomen’sgender

expressions.Thetopicsmentionedthroughthissectionarealsodiscussed

throughoutthecurrentandpreviouschapters,butparticularthemesthatwere

revealedthroughtheconceptmapswillbehighlighted.Aswasestablished

throughtheliteraturereviewchapters,genderexpressionresearchhasbeen

lackingwithrespecttothehierarchyoffemininities.Thelessintelligiblethe

genderexpression,thefurtheritislocatedfromidealfemininity,butnotall

unintelligiblefemininitiesarethesame.Thefindingsfrommyresearchindicate

228

thattherearedifferentwaysthatwomenexpresstheirgenderthatattractmore

stigmathanothers.Thevariousformsofnon-dominantwomen’sgender

expressionsidentifiedearlierwillbediscussedinconjunctionwiththefindings

fromChapter5toprovideanunderstandingofthewaysinwhichsomeformsof

femininityareprivilegedaboveothers.

Aswasdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,themostcommonwordsusedbythe

womentodescribehegemonicfemininitywerethatoftheBarbieandtheMother.

Thesetropeswereroutinelyplacedinthecentreoftheirmapsandthewomen

themasencompassingtheright‘amount’ofeachofthedimensionsoffemininity

outlined(physical,malleableandrestrictive).Inthesecondlevel/ringofthe

conceptmaps,themostfrequentlyusedtermsincluded:dramaqueens,divas,

andattentionseekers.Theseformsoffemininityentailaspectsthataredecidedly

feminine,howeverwereseentobeextremeformsoffemininitywherethe

exaggerationoffemininequalitiesdeviatefromtheideal.AscanbeseeninFigure

11onthenextpage,‘diva’iswritteninthesecondringofthemap.

229

Figure11:Ez-FootballGroup

Whiledivasareoftenperceivedasfeminine,thedemandingnaturethatis

associatedwithsuchbehavioursdeviatesfromtheselflessnessinherentto

hegemonicfemininity.Thedivamaynotchallengemen’spossessionofmasculine

characteristics,howevertheydopresentaformoffemininitythatisnot

completelysupportiveofhegemonicgenderrelations.Bynotpresentingan

other-orienteddemeanour,they‘violate’therestrictivedimensionoffemininity.

Forthesereasons,Iarguethatdramaqueens,divasandattentionseekerscanbe

understoodasaformofpariahfemininity.However,becausethedivaembodies

manyfemininecharacteristics,thesocialpenaltyandstigmaislimitedasitdoes

notposeasignificantthreattotheoverallgenderorder.Anothercommonterm

thatappearedinthesecondring,wasthatof‘bitch’.InChapter5,Lily(CG)

describedtheBarbieasabitofabitchduetohercompetitionwithotherwomen

formen’sattention.Thisexamplehighlightshowawomanwhomaybefeminine

230

inthephysicalandmalleabledimensionscanshiftawayfromidealfemininityby

enactingmasculinequalitiessuchascompetition.

Themostfrequenttermsplacedonthethirdlevel/ringbywomenthroughoutall

fivefocusgroupsincludedcanbegroupedintothefollowingcategories:slut,

activist,andathlete.Schippers(2007)arguesthatthe‘slut’isseenassubordinate

tohegemonicfemininitybecauseofthewayinwhichsexualpromiscuityisseen

tobeamalecharacteristic.Sexualnon-compliancethereforeattractsheavy

stigma,positioningtheslutbelownotonlyhegemonicfemininity,butalsobelow

thedivas(seeFigure12below).

Figure12:Sonia-ExecutiveManagementGroup

Intheabovemap,theparticipanthaslistedslutandwhoreonthethirdringout,

indicatingthatthesetypesofwomenwereunderstoodbyhertobelessfeminine

thantheotherlabelsshehadused.Thereislessculturalacceptanceofthese

231

typesoffemininitiesthanofthosethatarelocatedinthelevelabove.Women

whohavemultiplesexualpartnerscanbelabelledaslutasawayofstigmatising

theirbehaviour(Schippers2007).Aswiththedivaandthebitch,theslutis

positionedawayfromfemininitybecauseofthewayinwhichitviolatesthe

restrictivedimensionoffemininity.However,thewordslutcanalsobein

referencetoone’sappearanceandhavelittletodowithsexualencounters.In

thesecases,theuseofthewordslutisasanctionusedtohighlightthatawoman

isdressedinawaythatisnotfeminine(i.e.lotsofexposedskin,tightfitting

clothing)andnotconformingtothemalleabledimensionsoffemininity

(Schippers2007).

Thewomenalsocategorisedtermsandexpressionssuchas‘outspoken’,‘activist’

and‘feminist’onthethirdlevelofthemaps.InFigure13(onthefollowingpage),

themapissparse,andthepositioningofthetermstheparticipanthasusedare

insightfulintowhatthemainformsofwomen’sgenderexpressionaretoher.By

placingfeministawayfromthecentre,theparticipanthasimpliedthatwomen

whoembodythesetraitsarelessfemininethanmothersorworkingmothers,but

areclosertoidealfemininitythandykesorballbreakers.

232

Figure13:Anonymous-ExecutiveManagementGroup

Asimilarpatternwasfoundinseveralothermaps,includedtheonebelow(see

Figure14–note:thismapwasusedinFigure5,howeveritisalsorelevanthere).

Figure14:Ruby-CircusGroup

233

Again,feministislocatedinthethirdring.Thefeministdiscoursespresentinthis

researchreflectthefindingsinSchippers(2007),Budgeon’s(2014),andDarwin’s

(2017)work.Womenactivistsandfeministswereseenas:“aggressiveand

demanding;qualitieswhichthreatenheterosexualnormsofattractionandthe

lossofapprovalbymenandthereforeunderminehierarchicalgender

complementarity”(Schippers2007,p.327).Feministsarealsostillseenas

womenwhodonotshavetheirbodyhair.Suchatransgressionupsetsthe

malleableaspectoffemininity.Forthesereasons,bothslutsandfeministsare

positionedinsimilarlevelsofthefemininitieshierarchy.

Themostfrequentlyusedphrasesonthethirdlevelamongstallofthegroups,

wereathleticandsporty(seeFigure15),althoughmanywomensimplyincluded

particularsportsindifferentlocationthroughoutthemaps.

Figure15:Anonymous-ExecutiveManagementGroup

234

Whilethewomendidnotalwaysspecifyaparticularsportontheirmaps,there

wereothersthatdid,suchasintheabovemap(seeFigure15).Withinthesporty

femininitytype,softballwasseenasmorefemininethanfooty.Ofallofthesports

listedonthemaps,footballwasthemostcommon,anditwasalwayspositioned

ineitherthethirdorfourthringofthemaps.Ashasbeennotedearlier,research

onaggressivesportssuchasfootball,rugbyandsoccerhasdemonstratedthereis

significantstigmaexperiencedbywomenwhoengageinsuchactivities

(Caudwell2003;Cox&Pringle2011;Ezzell2009;Gill2007;Scratonetal.1999).

Engaginginphysicallyviolentsportsoftenresultsinwomen’ssexualitycoming

intoquestionasdisplaysofsuchmasculinequalitiesareunintelligibleinwomen.

However,softballisseenasalessaggressivesportthanfootball(Ross&Shinew

2008),andthereforeitisnotsurprisingthattheparticipantplacedthesetwo

sportsawayfromeachother.

Theoutermostringoftheconceptmapshadstrongthemesthatrelatedto

sexualityandtoughness.Wordsplacedinthisareaincluded:roughian,tough,

tradie,muscles,tomboy,lesbian,dykeandbutch(seeFigure16onthenextpage).

235

Figure16:Anonymous-FootballGroup

Giventhediscussionearlierinthischapter,itisunsurprisingthatlabels

associatedwithnotbeingheterosexualwouldbeplacedontheoutermostedge.

Butchwomenviolatenotonlythephysicaldimensionbycarryingthemselvesin

moremasculineway,buttheirappearancealsodoesnotalignwithdominant

femininity,disruptingthemalleabledimension.Furthermore,aswasdiscussed

earlierinthechapter,butchwomenarenotseentobehaveintypicallyfeminine

waysorhaveintereststhatarenormallyassociatedwithwomen

Thetradieisalsoaformoffemininitythatembodiesstrongmasculine

characteristicsonallthreedimensions:useofthebody,attire,andchoiceof

activities/interests.Itisthroughcomplementarybutasymmetricalgender

expressionsthathegemonyismaintained.Traditionallymasculinetraitsin

womenareunintelligible,callingintoquestionone’sgenderandsexuality(Butler

236

1990).Assuch,theseformsoffemininitiesareheavilystigmatisedaspariah

femininitiesonmultiplelevels,resultinginthembeingpositionedthefurthest

awayfromdominantfemininity.InChapter7,Iwillexploretheimpactof

heterosexualityongenderexpressioninmoredetail.

Whilenotallofthetermsandlabelsusedbythewomenontheirmapsspoketo

theirownexperiences,theydidprovideinsightintohowtheysawdifferenttypes

offemininitiesinrelationtoeachother,demonstratingsomeculturalnormsand

patterns.Whengiveninstructionstofillouttheconceptmaps,Ididnotaskthem

toonlylistheterosexualformsoffemininitiesasIwantedtocapturethebroad

viewofallwomen’sgenderexpressions.Whathasresultedisamapof

femininitiesthatallowsustoseenotonlywhatconstituteshegemonic

femininitiesandpariahfemininities,butalsotoseethehierarchypresentwithin

pariahfemininities.Notallsubordinateformsoffemininityareequally

stigmatised(Darwin2017),andthisisthecasewiththecurrentfindings.Atthe

topofthehierarchyaretheidealhegemonicfemininetropesoftheBarbieand

theMother.Femininewomenwhowereoverlyconcernedwiththemselves,for

examplethe‘divas’,aresituatedjustbelowhegemonicfemininityduetotheir

lackofbeingother-oriented.However,thetypicallyfemininetraits,suchas

appealingtothemalegaze,arestilloftenfoundinthisformoffemininityand

thustheyonlypartiallypariahfemininities.Belowthedivasarethemore

identifiablepariahfemininitiesoftheslut,thefeminist,andtheathlete.These

formsoffemininitypresentactivechallengestomalecharacteristicssuchas

sexualpromiscuity,assertiveness,strengthandcompetition.Thestories

throughoutthesectionsprecedingthisdiscussedtheexperiencesofthesesubject

237

positionsformyparticipants.Thewomenspokeoftheoftenharshsocial

penaltiesforembodyingtheseformsofpariahfemininities.Thesefindings

supportSchippers(2007)modelofhegemonicfemininitiesandpariah

femininities,butalsoextenduponitbyprovidingamoredetailedbreakdownof

thedifferentformsfemininitiesthatmakeuppariahhierarchy.Ontheoutermost

ringwerewomen’sgenderexpressionsthatdidnotalignwithheterosexuality

andviolatedallthreedimensionsoffemininity.Thesearethemoststigmatised

andunfeminineformsandincludedcategoriessuchaslesbians,andwomenwho

werestrong,bothinbodyandmanner.

Itisinterestingtonotethatonlyafewwomenplacedwordsoutsidetheborders

ofthemaps.Igaveinstructionstothewomenstatingthattheycoulddothisand

providedanexampletoeachgroupofhowthismightworkusingamalegender

expressionsmap.Wordsplacedoutsideofthefinalringwereexplainedasthose

thatmaydescribeawomanorthingsawomanmaydo,butthatarenot

consideredtobefeminine.However,therewereonlyfivewomenwhodidthis.

Thetermsandphrasesincluded:choosesnottohavechildren,androgynous,

dykeandtomboy,lesbianandfemmelesbian/queer.Thisfindingsupportsthe

argumentmadethroughoutthischapterthatwomen’sgenderexpressions,even

thosethatinvolvetraditionallymasculinecharacteristics,arestillunderstoodasa

formoffemininity.

238

Conclusion:InescapableFemininities

InChapter5,themostculturallycelebratedformsofgenderexpressionswere

discussed.ThedominanttropesoftheBarbieandtheMotherwerethe

foundationforthemaindimensionsofhegemonicfemininity,thatofthephysical,

themalleableandtherestrictive.Thesedimensionswerealsousedtomakesense

ofnon-dominantformsoffemininity,althoughinlesscoherentways.Ratherthan

identifyingclearsubjectpositionsthatcouldbesituatedalongsidehegemonic

femininity,allformsofwomen’sgenderexpressionwereunderstoodasformsof

femininity.Whentransgressingoneormoredimensionoffemininity,various

possiblesubordinatefemininitieswereformed.Thiswasdiscussedinrelationto

thesubjectpositionsofandrogyny,femalemasculinity,thetomboy,andthe

heterosexualbutch.Despitethelargebodiesofworkthathaveexplorednotions

offemalemasculinityandwomenasmasculine(Francis2010;Halberstam1998;

Nguyen2008;Pascoe2012),thesenotionsdidnotapplytothewomeninthis

research,nordidandrogyny.Tomboyismwassomethingwomenwereexpected

togrowoutof,butthetermbutchwastoointertwinedwithsexualitytoapplyto

heterosexualwomen.Thesetermsdidnotprovideviablealternativesforthe

womenastherewasalackofconsensusontheirmeaningsorapplicabilityto

theirownexperiences.Furthermore,therewasalackoflinguisticalternatives

beyondthis.Thepervasiveunderstandingofgenderasdimorphicrestrictsthe

creationofdiscoursesthatwouldallowforfluidconstructionsofgender

expressions.Theeverydaylanguageavailabletothewomenwasconfinedto

binaries,wheremenweremasculineandwomenwerefeminine,preventingthem

fromunderstandinggenderexpressioninanyotherway.Assuch,allgender

239

expressionswerereadasfemininityandunfemininebecameanumbrellaterm

thatwasusedtodescribeanyfemalegenderexpressionsthatviolatedthe

delicatedimensionsoffemininity.Theformsofunfemininitywerethenexamined

throughanalysisoftheconceptmapstoestablishahierarchyofwomen’sgender

expressionsthatallowedforanewmoredetailedtypologyofpariahfemininities.

Thepressuresofbeingawomanwereevidentinthestoriesthewomenshared;

therelianceonusingthewordfeminineormasculineaspointsofcomparisonor

departurefortheirexperiencesdemonstratedhowrestrictedtheyfelttheir

genderexpressionswere.Aswasdiscussed,severalofthewomenwanted

desperatelytoescapebeingcategorisedbytheirgenderandtheexpectedgender

expressionsthataccompanyit.Someofthemethodsthewomenusedtodothis

arediscussedinfurtherdetailinChapter7.Thedifficultlyfoundintalkingabout

theissuesofgenderexpressionweresummedupnicelybyLaura(MG)whenshe

said,“itfeelslikeitshouldbesimple[toexplain],butIdon’tknowhowtoexplain

it,explainthecomplexities…Therearesomanylayers”.Someoftheselayerswill

bediscussedinthenextchapterwhenexploringthecontingentandrelational

aspectsofwomen’sgenderexpressions.

240

Chapter7

ContingentandRelationalGenderExpressions

InChapter5,thewomenIspokewithexpressedviewsondominantfemininity

thatreflectedresearchonhegemonicfemininity.Inthepreviouschapter,itwas

arguedthatbinaryunderstandingsofgenderexpressionwerepervasiveand

difficulttobreakawayfrom.Varioussubjectpositionsandwaysofbeinga

womanwerediscussed,however,therewaslittleconsensusaroundtermsthat

wereusefulfordescribingthewomen’sownexperiences.Despitethelackof

everydaylanguagetoexpressnon-dominantfemininities,thewomenhad

sophisticatedunderstandingsofwhattheywere,whattheymeant,howthey

wereenactedandwhattheconsequenceswereforenactingthem.Bygrouping

theseideasintocategoriesbasedontheconceptmaps,ahierarchyofwomen’s

genderexpressionswasproposedinChapter6.Thishierarchyenablesaclearer

pictureofhowwomen’sgenderexpressionsnotonlydifferfromoneanother,but

alsothewaysinwhichsomebecomemore,orless,culturallyacceptablethan

others.Thetypesofcategoriesthatwereidentifiedincludedsubjectpositions

suchasmother,diva,athleteandtradie.Notably,thesevariouswaysofbeinga

womancanallbeexperiencedbyoneperson,creatingconflictingsubject

positions.Femininitydoesnotconsistofacoherentsetofexperiences,butrather

itmanifeststhroughpracticesfromavarietyofsubjectpositionsthat“maywell

contradicteachotherinaparticularsituation”(Leahy1994,p.49).

241

Thischapterexploresthecontradictoryandcontextualnatureofgender

expressionsandlooksatthewaysinwhichthewomeninthisstudyreconciled

theseexperiencesby‘playing’withgenderinindividualways.Often

understandingsofone’sownfemininityandgenderexpressionwerealsolinked

totheparticularcommunitiesofpracticethewomenwerepartof.Therewasa

senseofagencypresentthoughmanyofthediscussionsthatwasoften

contradictedlaterthroughthepersonalstoriesthatwereshared.While

femininityisarestrictedcategory,thewomenfoundwaystocreatespaceto

movewithinit.Thesestorieshighlighttheenablingbutalsopowerfully

restrictivestructuralcomplexitiesoffemininityandwomen’sgenderexpression.

Someoftheserestrictionscanbeunderstoodasaresultofthesocialpenalty

experiencedforembodyingunintelligiblegendertraitsandconsequentlybeing

treatedaspariahfemininities.Thiswasalsoaspacethatenabledasemi-

alternativefemininitytodevelopandchallengetheintragenderorder,butthis

waslimitedinitsscope.

Inthepreviouschapter,thelinguisticrestrictionspreventedthewomenfrom

articulatingacoherenttermorsetoftermstodescribenon-dominant

heterosexualwomen’sgenderidentities.Instead,allfemininitiesthat

transgressedhegemonicidealswerereadasunfeminine.Unfemininewasnot

alwaysausefulwayforthewomentounderstandthemselvesasitcoverssucha

broadrangeofgenderexpressions.Assuch,thewomensoughtoutwaysto

reconcilethisbyframingtheirownwaysofdoingfemininitythatemphasiseda

senseofagency,onanindividualandcommunityofpracticelevel.Thiswasnot

withoutitsproblems.Thecontradictorysubjectpositionsoftenresultedinthe

242

womenfeelingbothempoweredandoppressedforthesameactions,similarto

Budgeon’s(2014)ideasaroundnewfemininitiesdiscussedinChapter3.The

experiencesofthewomenwereonlyfurthercomplicatedbytheirheterosexuality

andrelationships.

SimilartothreelayeredmodelsdevelopedbygendertheoristRisman(2004)and

Lorber(1994),Budgeon(2014)suggeststhattherearethreekeydimensionsthat

enablethoroughinvestigationandanalysisofgender:examiningtheproduction

ofthegenderedself,culturalexpectationsthatinfluenceeverydayinteractions,

andstructuralandinstitutionaldomains.Infollowingthisanalysis,thischapter

willfirstdiscussthewaysinwhichthewomenviewedtheirownsenseofgender

expression,throughthemoreindividualisedunderstandingsoftheirown

personalgenderexpressionsandthenbylookingattheinfluenceoftheir

communitiesofpractice.Thiswillbefollowedbyadiscussionofhowvarious

contextshighlighttheinfluenceofgenderstructuresandculturalexpectationsin

creatingcontradictoryexperiencesduetotheinherentrelationalityofgender

expression.

AgencyandIndividualFemininity:ThisisHowIdoFemininity

Centraltothenotionofchoiceingenderexpressionisthatgenderisnotstaticor

fixed(Beasley2005).Whilethiswasapparentinthediscussionswiththewomen

inthefocusgroups,therewassignificantcomplexitytothisfluiditythatwasoften

dependentonparticularcontextsbeyondtheircommunitiesofpractice.Thiswas

243

animportantandempoweringpartofhowwomenmadesenseoftheirown

experiences.Thesenseoffluiditywithgenderexpressionenabledthewomento

createtheirownwaysofdoing‘femininity’bytakingupdifferentsubject

positionsdependingoncircumstances.Oneofthemostprominentaspectsofthis

personalisedfemininitywasthatwomenfelttheycouldslipinandoutofsubject

positionswhenitsuitedthem.Bydressinginorbehavinginparticularways,the

womensuddenly‘felt’morefemininethroughengaginginaparticular

performance.Thisnotionofinternalfeelingsoffemininityversushowoneisread

wasalsotouchedonintheprevioussection,butwillbeexploredingreaterdetail

hereasitwasacommonthemebothinthecontradictionswomenexpressed

aroundagencyandsocialpressures,andintheimportanceofthecontextsoneis

inwhenmakingsenseoffemininity.Thiswillalsobeexaminedthroughthe

postfeministnotionof‘choice(McRobbie2007)’.

WhenIaskedparticipantsifwomencouldbesomethingotherthanfeminine,

Caroline(EM)respondedbyasking,“Doyoumeanwhatsocietythinksis

feminine,orwhatIthinkisfeminine?Theyaren’tthesamething.”Thisquote

encapsulatesthesentimentIwasmetwithinnearlyeveryfocusgroup,thatthere

wasadifferencebetweentheirown,personalunderstandingsoffemininityand

thatofthesocietaldiscourse.Thesediscussionsoftenendedupwiththewomen

explainingwhattheysawasfeminineforthemspecifically,suggestingthatthis

differedfrommoregeneralnotionsoffemininity.Withintheircommunitiesof

practice,thewomendiscursivelycreatedtheirowngroupnorms.These

conversationsalsoledtoexaminingotherformsofgenderexpressioninaddition

totheirown.Alternativestodominantfemininitywereoftenunderstoodtobe

244

notsomuchaboutspecificnon-dominantordeviantgenderexpressions,but

ratherabouthowtheirowngenderexpressionswerenotliketheidealised

understandings.Thesepersonalaccountsoffemininityprovidedvaluableinsight

intothevariabilityofunderstandingsoffemininity,bothdominantandnot,and

alternativewomen’sgenderexpressions.Theactuallivedexperiencesdiffered

significantlyfromtheperceivedidealisedsocietalnormsofgenderexpression,

oftenattimescausingconflictandinternalcontradiction.Therewerealso

noteworthybutsomewhatnuanceddifferencesinhowthewomenmadesenseof

theirowngenderexpressionswithinthefocusgroups,aswellasdifferences

betweenthefocusgroups.Thismanifestedintheiremphasisandexpressionasto

what‘shouldbe’orwhat‘they’sawasfeminine(asopposedtowhatsociety

viewsfemininityas).Indoingthis,theirownstoriesoffemininityandnon-

dominantgenderexpressionwerepresentedpositively.Theseareaswillbe

discussedinthefollowingsections.

Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,embodyingcharacteristicsthatthe

participantssawasmasculineresultedinawomanbeingdeemed‘unfeminine’

andwithitcamestigma.Thediscrepancybetweenidealandindividualcaused

somewomentofeelincreasedpressureattimes,butformanyitwasaspaceto

beplayedwith,wheretheycouldcreatetheirownwaysofdoingfemininity.In

ordertoreconciletheirownmoremasculinecharacteristicsandtraits,the

womenconstructednotionsofindividualgenderexpressiontheyviewedastheir

ownwayof‘doing’femininity.Ruby(CG)said,“Howyoulook,howyoudress,

make-up,allthatoutsidestuff,isabouthowyoudefineyourselffromthat

perspective,butforme…I’vedevelopedmyownresponsetothat.”Shewas

245

consciousofwherethepressuresto‘lookfeminine’camefrom;shehadcritiqued

thelackofprogressinwomen’sroleswithinthehome,andsawthebeauty

industryasasourceofmanipulation.Andyet,shechosetodressupandbepart

ofthis“societalidealfemininity”.Shemadeitclearthatshedidn’talwaysfeelthe

needtodothis,butontheoddoccasion,shefoundpleasureindressingupin

moreemphasisedfeminineways.Themannerinwhichshespokeevokedasense

ofagencyandchoiceabouthowandwhenthisoccurred,thatshediditnot

becauseofanexpectationthatsheshouldbutbecauseshewantedto.This

understandingsuggestssheviewedengaginginfemininityasaperformance,

whiletheotherlessovertaspectsoffemininity,suchasnotinterruptingwhen

othersarespeaking(asdiscussedinChapter5)weremorereflectiveofthe

performativeaspectsofgenderidentity.Whenagencywasdrawnontomake

senseofthewomen’sexpressionsoffemininity,itwasalmostalwaysdoneinthis

way,seeingitasaperformancetheyconsciouslychoosetoengageinasopposed

torepetitiveactsthathavebecomereflexivelyinternalised.Thisreflectsarecent

trendinfeminismtowardsemphasising‘choice’whichhasalsocomewith

critiques(McRobbie2007;Thwaites2017).Discoursesaround‘choice’present

femininityasawaytotakecontrolandreinventyourself,howevermanyargue

thatinfactthisismerelyadecoyforare-regulationofwomenandtheirbodies

(Baker2008;McRobbie2007).

WhenIaskedthewomenhowtheirownideasoffemininedifferedfromwhat

theythoughttobesociety’sexpectations,itwasoftenconnectedtoexpressing

aspectsofeithermasculinityornon-traditionalfemininities.Ruby(CG)

articulatedwhatmade‘her’femininitydifferent:“BecauseIdon’tdoitallthe

246

time,Ichooseit…Icanflipbetweenmasculinityandfemininity.”Karen(CG)

agreedwiththissentiment,“Icanlooklikethis[referringtoherfeminine

physique],butstillliftaheavybox”.Similarly,Alison(EM)toldus,“Igrewupona

farm,Iwearboots,getdirty,driveatractor,butIliketogetmynailsdone.

Womenareadaptable,wecanbeboth[masculineandfeminine].”Andagain,

whendiscussingfemininityandplayingfootball,Ez(FG)said,“Thetypeof

feminineyouareoutthere[pointingtothefootyoval]isdifferenttothetypeof

feminineyouareonaSaturdaynight.”ThiswassimilarforEmma(RD),butinher

case,itwastodowithrollerderby.Sheexplainedthatasarollerderbyplayer,

therewasapersonasheputonduringbouts.Thisenabledhertofurther

emphasiseapartofherselfshedidn’tnecessarilymaketheefforttoinher

everydaylife:

Iwearmyhair,forbouts[matches]inplaits,it’spartofmycharacter,it’s

partofwhoIamwhenIambeingthatperson.Therestofthetime,my

hairisjusthoweveritis.Itmightbeinbunthatday‘causethatishowIleft

itaftertheshower.(Emma-RD)

Emma(RD)knowswhatisrequiredto‘perform’feminine.Shecanchooseto

displayherselfinthesewayswhenitsuitsher,thusherfemininityissomething

shecontrolsandnotsomethingthatisforceduponher.

Karen(CG)remarkedhowharditwastonotgetcaughtupinthepressuresto

presentone’sselfinparticularfeminineways,towhichRuby(CG)agreed:

Itishard,butit’snotthatimportanttome.Itdoesn’tdefinemylife,Ilike

dresses,Ilikedressingup,andthat’spartofmyidentity.Butit’snotjust

aboutfemininity,it’sfeelinggood,dressinguphowIlike.OvertheyearsI

247

haveworkedoutwhatthatisforme,notforsociety,andthat’swhatI

dressupto.Ichoosetodothat.

WhileRuby(CG)acknowledgesthather‘dressingup’isinlinewhichmuchofthe

societalidealsoffemininity,shefeltshehadasayinitandlikeEmma(RD),itwas

onherterms.Bydoingso,shemadeitherown.Francombe(2014)foundsimilar

responsesinherresearchonbodyimageandyoungwomen.Shearguesthat

whilegirlsactivelyquestionmanyofthepracticesthatgointoconstructingtheir

bodiesinaccordancewiththediscoursesofwhatis“appropriate”(Francombe

2014,p.594)forwomen,theyalsostillaspiretotheidealfemalebody.

Inthecircusgroup,Karen(CG)explainedthatforherfemininitycouldbe“…the

outwardlook,fromsociety.Butforme,itisinward,itissomethingyoufeel

yourself”.Karen(CG)alsoexpressedthis:“I’dsayI’mfeminine,butI’mnot

society’sideaoffemininebecauseIdon’talwaysputtheeffortin.”Therewere

manypeoplewhofeltthatbeingfemininerequirealotofeffort:“I’dliketobe

morefeminine,butIcan’tbebothered,itissomuchwork.ButIamokaywith

howIam.”(Lily-CG)and“IwishIcaredenoughtodothat[hairandmakeup]”

(Ez-FG).Butdespitethislackof‘effort’thewomenstillfeltfeminine,theysimply

didn’tseethemselvesastoofeminineorthestereotypicalfemininewoman

describedinChapter5.

IntheEMgroup,Suzanne(EM)toldme:“Ifeelfeminine,butnotagirly-girl”.This

wasechoedbyCaroline(EM)whoadded,“I’mnotagirlygirleither,Idon’twear

frillythingsormake-up.I’majeansandbootsperson.That’smykindofthing.But

thatdoesn’tmeanIdon’tfeelfeminine.Idoinmyownway.”Whenaskedwhat

248

thattypeoffemininewas,itbecamehardertoarticulate,ashappenedwithmany

ofthewomen.Thispersonalformoffemininitywasrelationallyunderstoodby

whatwasnotfemininitybutdidnotcarrywithitthestigmaoftheunfeminineas

itrevolvedaroundthenotionofchoice,bothinhowitwasexpressedandwhen

toexpressit.Joey(FG),fromthefootygroupalsocommunicatedthisidea:

Howeverwechoosetoexpressourfemininityis,like,it’sgoodthatpeople

canexpressitindifferentways.Evenlikeyou[gesturingtoDonna(FG)],

chuckingonadress,likeifthat’showyouchosetoexpressyourself,like,

nobodyissaying‘youhavetowearadress’.Yes,there’speerpressurebut

standingathomeorwhere,youstillgo,‘yeah,I’mgoingtowearthis’.And

whetheryoukindofsubconsciouslydoitornot,thatisyougoing,‘Iwant

toexpressthispartthatdoesn’tgettogetoutallthatoften’,andIthink

thatissomethingtobeproudabout.Wecanexpressithowwewant.It’s

justwhatwedo.

Asenseofagencyispresentthroughoutthisquote;Joey(FG)sawherfemininity

asachoicethatwasempowering.Andyet,asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,

sheoftenmadecommentsthattoldaratherdifferentstory.Shespokeofthe

doublestandardforwomenneedingtobe“hot”andnotmen,ofthepressuresfor

womentoremovebodyhairasitisseenasunhygieniconthembutnotonmen

andtherestrictionsonhowwomensitandholdtheirbodies.WhileJoey(FG)saw

thatmuchofherexpressingfemininitywasachoice,sheatthesametime

expressedrestrictionsonherbehaviourssimplybecauseshewasawoman.This

wasacommonthemewiththewomeninthisresearch,thestrugglebetweena

senseofagencytoexpresstheirfemininityanywaytheylike,andthesocial

249

pressurestheyfelttoadheretoparticularnormsaboutwhatitwastobe

feminine.Thisstrugglehighlightstheillusionarynatureof‘choice’forwomen.

Louise(RD),isarollerderbyreferee.Whilerollerderbyisplayedbyonlywomen,

refereesarealmostalwaysmale.Shehadapositiveviewonherexpressionofher

femininity.She,likeJoey(FG)andmanyoftheothers,sawengaginginthe

feminisationofherbodyasachoice.Sheexplainedtousherattitudetowards

femininitywhenrefereeing:

WhenIdorollerderby,becausethereisthepre-beliefthatitisalesbian

sport…Iliketolookfeminine,butstillyetstillbeinapositionofpower.I

willstilldomyhairinaparticularway,stilldomymakeup,becauseif

therearephotostakenIdon’twanttobeseenasoneoftheboys.Iwant

peopletorecognisethatIamoneofthegirls.Iamveryreluctantlynot

cuttingmyhairatthemomentbecauseIdon’tbeoneoftheboys.Hairand

makeuparehowIexpressmyfemininityonthetrack.(Louise-RD)

Thesecommentschallengethenotionofchoice.Inorderforhertonotbelabelled

asalesbianandtomaintainherfemininity,sheneededtoengageinfeminine

bodypractices.Andyetsheframedtheseexperiencesasachoice,somethingshe

wasfreetooptinandoutof.However,thesocialpenaltieswerecleartoher:if

shedidnotpresentherselfinparticularways,shewouldnotbefeminineto

others.Feelingfeminineandpresentingfeminineweretwodifferent,butoften

intertwinedideas.Shewantedtobereadasheterosexualwhichresultedisa

senseofconflict.

250

Ontheotherhand,Emma(RD)said,“MakeupisnotsomethingIdotobe

feminine.IfeelfeminineandstrongwhenIfixthingsaroundthehouse.”For

Emma(RD),beingfemininewasassociatedwithasenseofstrength,adaptability

andtheabilitytodowhatwasneededinanygivensituation.Asasinglemother,

doinghandyworkaroundthehousewaspartofherunderstandingofwhatbeing

femininewasforherpersonally,butnotonasocietallevel.Thisideaofmultiple

waysof‘doing’femininityreinforcedasenseofagencyinawaythatrejected

socialnormsaroundwhatwasfeminine.Severalwomenexpressedthatthey

wereawareofthesocietalpressures,butitdidn’talwaysweighheavilyonthem

enoughtocauseguiltormotivateachangeinbehaviour.Nordiditnecessarily

shapehowtheychosetointernalisetheirownsenseoffemininity.Rather,‘doing

femininity’wasaboutdoingitforthemselves,ontheirownterms.Assuch,

femininitywasnotseenascentraltoone’sidentitybutrathersomethingthey

couldoptinoroutof.Thedifferencebetweenthesepersonalexperiencesof

femininityandtheaccountsoffemininityingeneralstemmedfromthenotion

thatthewomenwhoembodiedthe‘feminineideal’wereunconsciouslycaughtup

inappearanceandthepleasingofotherswhilethewomenIspokewithfeltthey

definedtheirfemininityforthemselves.Thisisatestamenttohowpowerfulthe

neoliberaldiscourseof‘choice’hasbecome.

However,whatbecameevidentuponreviewingthefocusgroupdatawasthat

therewerealmostalwayscontradictionspresentinthewomen’saccounts.At

variousstagesofthefocusgroups,almosteveryparticipantsharedastoryofboth

howtheydidtheirownversionoffemininityorhadindividualunderstandingsof

theirgenderexpressionelicitingadiscoursewithinthegroupsofagency,choice,

251

freedom–allpresentedwithapositiveempoweredsenseofcontroloverone’s

genderexpression.Andyettheyeachtoldstoriesofpressuretobeaparticular

wayandtheconsequencestheyexperiencedfornotadheringtothenormsof

dominantfemininity.Butthisallappearedtooccuronanunconsciouslevel,they

werenotawareofthesecontradictorystatementsinmostcases.

Donna(FG)consideredherselftobe“notreallyfeminine,butmorebutch”.She

explainedthisfurther:“WhenIgooutontheweekendandgetdresseduptogo

outfordinner,Idon’tputonadress,Iputonniceshirtandapairofpantsor

something.Maybesomefoundation.That’sit,that’smebeinggirly.”Kylie(FG)

responded,“Well,Iguessit’sintheeyeofthebeholderthen.Youputtingonabit

offoundationisyoubeingfemininethen.Forme,it’sdoingthe‘straightandcurl’.”

Kylie(FG)madethepointthatmanyotherseludedto,thateachwomaninthe

grouphadtheirownideaofwhatitwastobefeminineforthemselves,implying

thatindividualnotionsoffemininityweresignificantlydifferentfromthesocietal

understandingsoffemininity.However,mostofthethingsthatmadeaperson

‘feel’femininestemmedfromoneoranotheraspectofthenormsofdominant

femininity.Whiletherewasadifferentwayeachwomansawherselfas‘doing’

femininity,itwasstilldependantontheculturalunderstandings.

Acommonthemeamongstthewomeninthefocusgroupswastheresistanceto

categorisepeople,orthemselves,undertheheadingofanyparticulargender

expression,whetherthatbefeminine,masculineorother.Oftenwomensaid

thingssuchas:“Youcanstillbeyouwithoutfittingintooneofthosecategories.”

(Ez-FG).WhenIaskedthem,whatdoyoucallpeoplewhodon’tfitintoyouridea

252

ofwhatisfeminine,Mary(CG)respondedwith“aperson”.Similarly,Joey(FG)

said,“I’mnotfeminineormasculinewhenI’mplayingsports.I’masports

person.”Thislackoflanguagetocapturetheirexperienceswaspresentinall

discussions.Therewasnowordforthenon-dominantformsofgender

expressionotherthanbasicdescriptorsasJoey(FG)used,orthefall-backtermof

‘unfeminine’;andtherewasnowordtodescribebeingsimultaneouslyfeminine

andunfeminine.Theconceptof‘newfemininities’suggeststhatcurrentwaysof

beingwomanlyinvolveelementsofbothtraditionalfemininityandofmasculinity

(Budgeon2014).However,thelivedexperienceofthiswasfarmorecomplex

thansimplyembodyingaspectsoffemininityalongsidediscoursesof

empowerment.Budgeon(2014,p.331)hasexplainedthat:

…genderevidentlyremainsafundamentallybinarystructurewhich

facilitatesthemanagementofthosecontradictionsinamannerthat

preservesgenderhierarchy,maintainscomplementarity(albeitinmulti-

facetedways),organizesunderstandingsofgenderdifferenceandorients

socialaction.

MyfindingssupportBudgeon(2014)andprovidefurtherevidencethatwhilethe

genderorderandmasculinityhavethecapacitytobealtered,discoursesofnew

empoweredfemininitiesneedtobeapproachedwithcaution.Thecomplexityof

thelivedexperiencessuggeststhatwhenindividualfemininitiesdonoteasilyfit

intothealreadyestablishedfemininitycategories,womenarestillreadas

unintelligible.Despitethis,therewasasensethatthewomencouldmoveacross

theseboundaries,in-betweenthefeminineandunfeminine,constantly

negotiatingthedominantnormsandcreatingtheirownsubjectpositions.The

subjectpositionsthewomenoccupiedalreadyexistoutsideofthemselves,such

253

asthatoftheworker,mother,andpartner.Theresultofthisbecameevident

whendiscussingtheirliveswithinthesecontexts,exposingthestructural

pressuresandcontradictoryexperiencesoftheirgenderexpressionnotedin

Budgeon’s(2014)quoteabove.Thiswillbediscussedaftertheexploringthe

agencyfoundwithinthecommunitiesofpractice.

AgencyandFemininityinCommunitiesofPractice:ThisisHowWedo

Femininity

Itbecameclearbythethirdfocusgroupthatthereweredistinctdifferences

betweenthegroupsintheemphasesplacedbothonwhatwereseenasboth

dominantandnon-dominantwomen’sgenderexpressions.Someofthesewere

discussedinChapter5,buttheywillbeelaboratedoninthefollowingsectionsin

ordertohighlightthewayinwhichviewsongenderexpressionsnotonlyvary

butalsoaredependentonparticularcontexts.Thewomenunderstoodtheir

contextuallyshiftingexperiencesofgenderexpressionthroughasenseofagency

wheretheywereabletoengagewithparticularsubjectpositionsthatwere

reflectiveoftheirownvalues,bothonagroup,communityofpracticelevel,and

onamorepersonal,individuallevel.Thefollowingsectionwillexplorehowthe

differentcommunitiesofpracticeconstructednotionsoffemininitythatwere

oftenincontrasttothebroadermoredominantformsoffemininityasdiscussed

inChapter5,butthatdevelopedthroughtheperformativityrequiredwithintheir

particularcontexts.Howevernotallofthegroupshadsimilarviewsonhowmuch

254

agencytherewasintheirgenderexpressionsaswillbediscussedinthefollowing

sections.

Whilearollingfocusgroupschedulewasusedforthisresearch,thesamecore

topicsandquestionswerecoveredineachfocusgroupanditwasmostlyminor

alterationstothewordingofquestionsthatwaschanged.AsIwentfromone

grouptoanother,Inoticedthateachputaparticular‘spin’or‘flavour’onhow

eachgroupofwomenviewedfemininity.Idealfemininetypeswereforthemost

partextremelysimilar,buttheareasoffemininitythatwereemphasized

positivelybyeachgroupdifferedslightly.Theidealtypeswereanoutward

projection,anddidnotspeaktothewomen’sownexperiences.Theindividual

notionsoffemininitywereinwardunderstandingsofwhatfemininitymeanto

them,theirownexperiencesandtheirownlives,anditwasthisaspectthat

broughtoutthedifferentemphases.Bycreatingtheirownlocaliseddiscourses

aroundwhatconstitutedfemininity,thegroupsseemedtofeelasenseofagency

inhowthesespacesprovidedtheopportunitytoexpressdifferentsubject

positionsinsupportiveenvironments.Wheninthesespaces,thewomenengaged

inperformativeactstheycametounderstandaspartoftheirgenderidentity,

althoughitquiteoftendifferedfromthedominantunderstandingsdiscussedin

Chapter5.Ratherthanseethemselvesasresemblinganyformofhegemonic

femininity,theyinsteadfeltthattheycouldoptintotheroleofbeingfeminine

withoutactuallytakingonallthedimensionsoffemininityasanidentity.The

abilitytoslipinandoutofthesesubjectpositions,togofrombeingthegirly-girl

tothetoughfootballplayer,thewifeormothertothemanager,enabledthe

womentocreatespaceswheretheycouldredefinefemininityintheirownterms.

255

Therewereconstraints,andtheagencytheyfeltinwasoftenunderscoredby

largerstructuralinfluences.Thecommunitiesofpracticeoftenprovidedaspace

toescapethesetoacertaindegree,thuscreatingasenseofagency.Thefocuson

particularaspectsoffemininityforeachgroupseemedtoberelativelystable

conceptsandrepresentedwhat‘their’versionoffemininitylookedlike,

influencingtheareastheytendedtodiscussmostpositivelyaboutfemininity.

Eachgroupisexaminedhereinturn:thefootballgroup,therollerderbygroup,

thecircusgroup,theexecutivemanagementgroup,andthemothersgroup.

TheFootballGroup

Forthefootywomen,beingabletoswapbetweentoughandstrongtoprettyand

girlywashighlyregarded.ForKylie(FG),therewerepartsofherlifethathada

strongfeminineemphasis,suchaswhenshewentoutwithherfriends,getting

dressedup,orgoingtowork.Inthesesituations,shefeltfeminine.Butshe

explained:“Football’smynon-feminine”.Whenshewenttotrainingoragame,

shewasabletocompartmentalisemuchofwhatshesawas‘feminine’and

emphasiseher‘non-feminine’.Thisincludedgettingdirty,aggressiveandtough.

However,shedidalsoincorporateaspectsoffemininityintotheseactivities

throughherattire(fittedfeminineclothing,hairandjewellery).Thisgender

enactmentalignswithEzzell’s(2009)conceptof‘heterosexy-fit’,where

femininityandsexualityareemphasisedwhenengaginginsportsperceivedas

moremasculineinordertomaintainsexualappeal.ButKylie(FG)didnotseeit

thisway,shefeltinsteadthatbydressinginparticularways,ithelpedhertofeel

256

confidentonthefield–itwasherchoicetodothis,andshegotpleasurefromit.

Theabilitytocombinedifferentaspectsofhergenderidentity,thatofthe

feminineandtheunfeminine,atonetimecreateditsownsubjectpositionanda

senseofagencythatshecoulddofeminineinherownway.Butthiscanbealso

understoodthroughcritiquesofthechoicediscoursethatsuggestinfact,such

languagemerelyprovidesameansthroughwhichhegemonicrelationsare

maintained(McRobbie2007).

Donna(FG)summedupthefeelingofthegroupwellwhenshedescribed

feminineas“notdoingsportystuff”.Thisresponsewasnotsurprisinggiventhe

womenengagedinatypicallymasculinesport.Inlinewithmuchoftheresearch

onwomenandsports,femininity(andheterosexuality)oftencomesintoquestion

whenparticipatinginmaledominatedsports(Butler&Charles2012;Ezzell

2009;Obel1996;Shea2001).ThisalignswithButler’s(1990)notionof

‘intelligiblegenders’,wheregenderandheterosexualityaresostrongly

interconnectedthatanydeviationfromtheexpectedgenderexpressionsforthe

assumedgender,inthiscasefemininity,castdoubtonaperson’sheterosexuality.

Thiscausedsignificanttensionforthewomeninthisgroup,whofelttheywere

constantlyhavingtheirsexualityquestioned.Despitethis,theystillfeltthat

footballwasfeminineinparticularways.InChapter6,Idiscussedanexchange

betweenseveralofthefootyplayerswhoexplainedthatbybeingcompassionate

whentheyplayedfootballtheymadeitfeminine.Itwasthroughthe‘doing’of

footballinaparticularway,withcompassion,thathelpedthemtounderstand

whattheydidasfeminineandthusredefininggenderrelationswithinthatspace,

muchthewaygendermanoeuvringsuggests.Gendermanoeuvring,asdiscussed

257

inChapter2,shiftsthemeaningofgenderinlocalcontextallowingalternative

genderrelationstodevelop(Schippers2007).Butthismanoeuvringisrestricted

tothefield,andonlyamongstthewomen.Alternativefemininitiesarenotableto

develop,andthusthesubjectpositionoffootyplayerremainsapariahfemininity,

rifewithstigma.Pariahfemininities‘contaminate’thehierarchalgenderrelations

bychallengingmalepoweranddominance(Schippers2007).Pariahfemininities

aregenerallyheavilystigmatized,butascanbeseenthroughthewomen’s

stories,thewomeninthepresentresearchusedaformofgendermanoeuvringto

createanalternativespacewheretheirgenderexpressionwasacceptedby

incorporatingtoughnessintotheirunderstandingsofwhatitwastobefeminine.

Gendermanoeuvringenablesthemeaningsofgendertobealteredwithinlocal

settingsallowingalternativegenderrelationstoarise(Bäckström2013;Finley

2010;Schippers2002,2007).Thesealternativefemininitiesallowforwomento

bothconfrontandrejecthegemonicgenderrelations,butdosowithoutstigma.

However,thisalternativefemininitydevelopedwithinawomen’sonlyspace,

creatinganalternativethatonlywentsofarastodisrupttheintragender

hegemonybutnottheintergenderorder.

Thisreimaginingofthefemininewithinthisspacewasappealingformanyofthe

women,andasignificantfactorinthemplayingthesport.Severalofthewomen

expressedsimilarsentiments,explainingthatplayingfootballgavethemthe

opportunitytoexpressthemorecompetitiveandaggressivesidesofthemselves,

buttheystillmaintainedaspectsoffemininity.Muchofthediscussionwiththe

womeninthisgroupcamebacktostrengthandtoughness.Thesecharacteristics

werehighlyvaluedwithinthisgroupbutratherthanseetheirengagementwith

258

thisactivityasmasculine,theysimplysawthisoneaspectofthemselvesasnotso

feminine.However,asnotedabove,bydisruptingthefragiledimensionsof

hegemonicfemininity,thewomenriskedbecomingunfeminineandsocially

stigmatised.Thewomenwantedtoviewthemselvesasfeminine,buttheideaof

actually‘beingfeminine’carriedwithitastrongconnotationofweaknessand

vanity,qualitiesthatdidnotalignwiththeneedsoffootballplayers.Inorderto

reconcilethesecontradictorysubjectpositions,oftoughyetfeminine,thewomen

foundtheirownwaysofexpressingtheirgenderthroughgendermanoeuvring.

Thisenabledthemtofeelthattheycouldstepinandoutofbeingtoughinaway

thatdidn’timpactontheiroverallfemininity.Beingtoughonthefootyfieldwas

differentthanbeingtoughinotheraspectsofyourlife;thereitwasacceptable.As

Joey(FG)said,“Wipingbloodoffmyjumper,it’snotfeminine,butIlikeit.”Sucha

statementhighlightsthedegreetowhichtheplayersmovedawayfromtheideal

femininitydiscussedinChapter5.But,asnotedabove,thiswaslimited.

Belinda(FG)toldusthatshewouldnotallowherhusbandtowatchherplay.She

wasconcernedthatifhesawherbeingaggressive,“spittingonthefield,sweaty

andredintheface”,thathewouldnolongerfindherattractive.Thefootyplayer

subjectpositionenabledfreedomforthewomentoexpressnon-traditional

women’sgenderexpressions–butonlywithintheirspecificwomen’sdominated

space.Giventhis,itisnotsurprisingthatthesubjectpositionofathletewas

situatedasfarfromthedominantformsoffemininitybythisgroup.Asthe

womenengagedwiththesecontradictoryexperiences,theywerewellawareof

thesocietalviewsonathleticwomen.Almosteveryparticipantplacedtheword

“princess”towardsthecentreoftheirconceptmaps(seeFigures17and18

259

below),indicatingthattheyviewedthis‘type’ofwomanasadominantformof

women’sgenderexpression.

Figure17:Joey-FootballGroup

Figure18:Anonymous-FootballGroup

260

AscanbeseeninFigure18,theword“footballer”waswrittentowardstheouter

rings,awayfromthenotionofwhatwasfeminine.Footballplayerswerewritten

downinthispositionformostofthewomeninthisgroup,aswellasformanyin

othergroupsaswell.Sportsentailedalevelofaggressionthatattimeswasseen

asviolent;itwasnotuncommonforthemtoshove,pushandinjurethemselves

orothers.Schippers(2007)describesfemininitiesthatexhibitphysicallyviolent

behaviours(amongstotherthings),aspariahfemininities.

Finley(2010)suggeststhatattimesestablishingnewnormsforgender

expressionswithinlocalisedcontextscanhelptoremovethestigmaofpariah

femininitieswithinthatspace.Bydoingso,genderrelationsmorebroadlyhave

thepossibilityofbeingchallenged.However,thiswasnotthecasewiththe

womeninthisresearchastherewaslittlechallengetogenderrelationsina

broadersense.Rather,thewomensawtheirtimeattrainingandonthefieldas

separatefromtheireverydaylives.Therewasminimalinteractionwithothers

beyondtheirteammatesandcompetitors.

Inmuchoftheresearchthathasutilisedtheconceptofgendermanoeuvring,the

socialsettingshaveincludedbothmenandwomen.Inthecaseofthewomen

footyplayers,theonlyothermalespresentweretheoccasionalpartnerandtheir

coach.Assuch,therewaslittleopportunitytochallengegendernormsonany

levelotherthanwithinfemininitiesthemselves.Sportscanprovideanarenafor

womentocontestphysicalcapacitiesandtheexperiencesofengagingsportsare

influencedbythepromotionofwomen’sparticipationwithinthem(Bäckström

2013;Scratonetal.1999).However,untilveryrecentlytherehasbeenlittle

261

incorporationofwomen’sfootyintothemainstreamandassuch,thechallenges

forwomenwhoparticipatearelimitedandthecontestofgendernormsdoesn’t

tendtoleavethefield.Despitethis,thereisashiftinthegenderrelationswithin

women’sgenderexpressions.Recalltheexampleof‘Princess’fromChapter5

whoworemakeuponthefieldwhenplaying.Inaneverydaycontext,thiswould

beconsideredatypicallyhyper-femininethingtodo(Allan2009;Connell1995;

Holland&Harpin2013;Paechter2010;Renold&Allan2006),howeverwhen

playingfootythisnormallydominantformoffemininitybecomessubordinateto

thefemininitycreatedinthiscommunityofpracticewhichvaluesstrengthover

appearance.

TheRollerDerbyGroup

Thewomenintherollerderbygrouphadsomewhatsimilarexperiencesof

gendermanoeuvringtothefootballgroup,buttherewasmuchmoreofafocuson

appearanceandsexualitythaninthefootballgroup.Rollerderbyhasbeenan

areaofinterestforresearchers,withmuchoftheworkviewingitasasitefor

genderresistanceandagency(Cohen2008;Finley2010).Twoofthewomen,

Louise(RD)andEmma(RD)feltthattheysawrollerderbyasanopportunityto

‘own’theirsexuality.Theirfocusonthesexualitywasalsonotsurprisinggiven

thatrollerderbyisoftenasiteforsexualizedfemininity(Cohen2008;Finley

2010).Cohen(2008)explainsthatthesexualitythatispresentinrollerderby

wasnotseenbythosewhoparticipateasaformofpassivesexuality,butrathera

formofself-expressionthatwascontrolledbythewomenandservesasan

262

avenuetorebelagainsttraditionalheterosexualfemininity.Thisrebelliousnotion

canalsobeseeninFinley’s(2010)work,whereshedescribeshowwomenuse

‘gendermanoeuvring’torecreateanalternativeformoffemininity.Thiswas

evidentinthewaythewomenspokeoftheirexperiencesontherollerderby

trackandwithinthatcommunity.Emphasisingone’ssexualityisoften

interpretedasasignofbeingslut,aformofapariahfemininitythatisstigmatised

fordisruptingthenormalgenderrelations(Finley2010).Butwithinrollerderby,

appearinginwaysthatmaybedeemedelsewhereasslutty(i.e.shortshorts,crop

tops,tightclothingaccentuatingcurves)isacceptable.Thenormalstigmadoes

notapplyandinthisway,thehierarchyoffemininitiesarechallengedandthe

womenwithinthiscontextwereabletoexpressapartofthemselves,iftheyso

choose,withoutsocialpenalty.Femininityisredefinedwithinthelocalised

contextandcreatedasenseofagencyfortheparticipants.

Therollerderbygroupmadeseveralcommentsregardingfemininityas‘an

expressionofyourindividuality’oragency,being‘comfortablewithyourself’and

‘knowingwhoyouare’.Emma(RD)said,“Femininityformeisowningthespace

ofbeingawoman.Youcanwearkickassleatherbootswithheelsorbeagentle

wallflower,aslongasyouownit.”Thesenotionsfitinlinewithresearchby

Cohen(2008,p.28)who,basedonhertimebothplayingandresearchingroller

derby,arguesitis“aspaceforindividualexpression”.Thiswasapparent

throughoutthisgroup’sdiscussionsandalsohadanairofagencyaboutit.The

womencouldmakeaconsciousdecisiontoemphasisetheirsexualityornot.

Eitherway,therewasanacceptance.

263

TheCircusGroup

Thefocusofthecircuswomen’sgroupcentredonthedifferencesbetween

society’sviewsandtheirownviewsonwhatwasfeminine.Thewomenfeltthere

wasasignificantdisjuncturebetweenwhattheythoughtandvaluedasfeminine

andwhattheyconsideredtherestofsocietytounderstoodasfeminine.

Discussionsaboutthechangesingendernormsandexpectationsoffemininity

andpossiblealternativefemininitiesalsocameupfrequently,aswellasthe

interplaybetween‘choice’andsocietalpressures.Thesewomenappearedvery

comfortablearguingamongstthemselves,enablingvariousviewstobebrought

forthandexploredindetail.

Likemostoftheothergroups,thecircuswomenhadtheirownviewoffemininity

thattouchedonthenotionofstrength,“There’ssociety’sexpectationsofwhatis

feminine,andthenthereiswhatwethinkisfeminineandwelikeitasbeing

strongwomen.Youcanbeastrongwomanandstillbefeminine”(Karen-CG).

Thisthemeof‘strength’cameuptimeandtimeagainduringmyconversations

withthecircuswomenandreferredtophysicalmusclestrengthasopposedto

toughness(FG)oremotionalstrength(EM),asisdiscussedinthefollowing

section.Theydiscussedatlengththeroleofthebodyingenderexpressionand

morespecificallytheroleofmusclesinfemininity.Severalofthemacknowledged

thatwhilemanydon’tviewmusclesandstrengthascentraltobeingfeminine,

thattheydid.“Ithinkmusclesarefeminineandtheyshowthatyouareastrong

woman”.ThisfindingissimilartowhatObel(1996)foundinrelationtowomen

bodybuilderswhoredefinedtheirunderstandingsoffemininitytoalignwiththeir

264

ownbodies.Lily(CG)elaboratedonthis:“IfsomeonetoldmeatcircusthatI

lookedmasculine,thatmymusclesweremasculine,I’dtakethatasacompliment.

Ilikethat.”Everyoneinthegroupnoddedandagreed.Shecontinued,turningto

herrightandspeakingtoKaren(CG),“Youhavemuchbiggermusclesthanme

andyoudresswaymorefeminine.Itkicksass!”Thiscombinationofmuscular

strengthandabilitytoexpressfemininityconcurrentlywashighlyvalued

amongstthesewomen.WhenIaskedthesewomeniftheythoughtwomencould

beconsideredmasculine,Ruby(CG)replied,“Ithinkwehavedescribedourown

typeoffemininity,everyoneherehastheirownwayofthinkingaboutit,butfor

us,it’sokayifitseemsmasculine”.Again,weseesignsofgendermanoeuvring

wherethemuscularpariahfemininitycontestsgendernormsasitisvalued

withinthisparticularcontext.Butaswiththefootygroup,therewasalmostno

interactionwithmalesasitwasanexclusivelywomenonlyspace,thusconfining

thechallengestoonlywithinfemininities.However,withinthisframework,the

pariahfemininityofthebuiltandtonedwomanwasabletobetransitionedintoa

positionofpowerwithinthehierarchyoffemininities,losingitsstigmaand

becomingasourceofstrength.

TheExecutiveManagementGroup

Liketheothergroups,manyofthewomenintheexecutivemanagementgroup

wereveryresistantto‘generalise’ormake‘judgements’.Itwasnotsurprisingto

seethewomeninthisgroupfocusonbeingdiplomaticintheirdiscussionsgiven

theircareerexperiencesandthattheyallworkedforthesamelargeorganisation.

265

However,itwasinterestingtoseethelevelofresistancetodefiningwhatwas

‘feminine’.ThiswasparticularlyevidentwhenDorothy(EM)askedwhytheword

femininehadtobea“genderthing”.Itwasnotjustthequestion,butthemanner

inwhichitwasasked.Herarmswerecrossedoverherchest,herrightlegfolded

ontoherleftknee,leaningbackinherchair.Afterwehadbeentalkingforawhile,

shefinallyleanedforwardandbegantoputherguarddown.Herbehaviourwas

indicativeofmanyinthisgroupwhodidn’tseeminterestedinansweringthe

questionsIasked,butratherchallengingthembyaskingquestionsback.Women

inpositionsofmanagementorinmaledominatedworkingenvironmentshave

beenfoundtorejecttheexistenceofgenderinequalityasacopingstrategy

(Marshall1993;Miller2004).Denialofsuchinequalitiesenablesthewomento

feelconnectedandmorestronglyaffiliatedwiththeworkersandworkplace

(Marshall1993).Thisappearedtobethecasewiththisgroupinitially,but

towardstheendofthesession,almostallofthewomenwerewillingandeagerto

sharestoriesabouttheirexperienceswithgenderintheworkplace.EvenafterI

hadwrappedup,morethanhalfofthewomenstayedondiscussingtheissues

further.Notsurprisingly,thefocusoftheirdiscussionswasonworkrelated

issues.Ontheirconceptmaps,manyofthewomenputprofessionalstodescribe

‘types’ofwomen(seeFigures19and20onthenextpage).

‘

266

Figure19:Taylor-ExecutiveManagementGroup

Figure20:Alison-ExecutiveManagementGroup

267

Ascanbeseenontheabovemaps,thetypesofjobsthatthewomenwrote

towardsthecentreinvolvedmorecaringroles,whereasrolessuchastheirown

wherepositionedfurtherout.Aswiththefootballgroup,thewomenfocusedon

issuesthatwererelatedtotheircommunitiesofpractice,evenpriortoany

discussions.

Theexecutivemanagementgroup’sunderstandingsoffeminineweresimilarto

thatoftheothergroupsinmanyways,butalsoencompassedamuchbroader

view.Theirfocustendedtobeonfemininityasencompassingemotionalstrength

andbeing“thickskinned".Giventhatwomenwhoareemployedinmasculine

fieldsofworkoftenfeelthattheyneedtodisplaytypicallymasculinetraitssuch

asauthorityandtoughness(Demaiter&Adams2009;Ezzell2009),theirfocuson

thesecharacteristicsisunderstandable.Researchhasalsoshownthatwomen

oftenfeeltheneedtoadapttheirbehaviourtoworkandactlikemen(Pierce

1995).Atthesametime,womenfeelpressuretobefeminineintheworkplace

(Roth2004).Byunderstandingfemininityasencompassingsomeofthemore

masculinecharacteristics,itenableswomentosimultaneously‘feel’feminineand

workwithinthemasculineidealsoftheworkplace.

However,unlikethepreviousgroupswheregendermanoeuvringwasabletobe

usedforthewomentocreatealternativefemininitiesthatsuccessfullychallenged

thenotionsofdominantfemininityandgenderrelationsbetweendifferent

femininities,thewomenintheexecutivemanagementgroupdidnothavethese

typesofexperiencesintheircommunitiesofpractice–theworkplace.The

assertivewomaninapositionofauthority,oftenlabelledas‘bitch’(Finley2010;

268

Schippers2007),wasnotabletobetranscendedanddidnotenableachallenge

togenderrelations.Twowomenwrote“ballbreaker”ontheouteredgeoftheir

conceptmaps,andthisideacameupwithinthediscussionsaswell.The

structuralbarriersforthewomeninthisgroup,whiledeniedinitially,seemedto

impactupontheirlivesandexperiencemorethanthoseofthefootball,roller

derbyandcircusgroups.Thiswasalsothecaseforthewomeninthemothers

group.Theexperienceofworkingenvironments,genderandstructuralbarriers

willbeexploredfurtherdetaillaterinthischapter.

TheMothersGroup

Similartotheexecutivemanagementgroup,therewerestrongstructural

influencesfeltbythemothersgroup.However,therewerestillsomeareasthat

thewomenfeltempoweredandabletoreconstructaspectsoftheirfemininity

andgenderexpression.Themothersgroupspokemostlyaboutnurturingand

beingotheroriented,butalsoaboutcommunityandsoftnessasbeingacrucial

componenttofemininity.Georgie(MG)explainedthatbeingfemininemeant

being“sensitivetootherpeople’semotions,andyourown”.Relationshipsalso

featuredhighlyamongstthemothersgroup.Therewasasensethatnotonly

heterosexualitywasimportant,butthatbeingpartneredwasaswell:

Peoplejustexpectwomentobeconstantlylookingforapartner.Iknow

womenwhoarechoosingtobeontheirown,theymighthavesexual

partnersandstuff,buttheywanttobeontheirownandpeoplewillthink

269

thereissomethingwrongwiththem.It’slikethereissomethingwrong

withthemasawomanbecausetheydon’twanttobedependenton

anotherperson.(Zoe-MG)

Thefocusontheimportanceofrelationshipsisnotsurprisinggiventheaverage

ageofthewomenwithinthemothersgroupwas36;thesocialpressuresplaces

onwomenspecificallywithinthisagebrackettocoupleoffandsettledownare

significant.Theexpectationforwomenofthisageisforheterosexualcoupling

withoffspringsoontofollow,somethingthewomenmadenoteofonanumberof

occasions.Gillespie(2003,p.123)describesdiscoursessuchastheseabout

motherhoodasthe“ultimatefulfilmentforwomenandthecornerstoneof

feminineidentity”.AsGeorgie(MG)pointedout,“We’veonlygotalittlewindow

togetpregnantin,mencandoitanytime.”Theneedtohurryup,settledownand

reproduceiscommonlyfeltamongwomenintheirthirties.Relationshipsarealso

animportantfactorwhenparentingandthusitisnotsurprisingthatthemothers

groupspokeabouttheseissues.Theseideasareexploredfurtherinlatersections

ofthischapterinrelationtoimpactofsocietalgenderstructures.

Despiteexpressingmorepressurethanmanyoftheothergroupstodefine

femininityinmoretraditionallydominantterms(asdiscussedinChapter5),the

womenstillfoundwaysinwhichtheydefinedtheirexperiencesoffemininityas

differenttothegeneralisedtropeoftheMother,butthisoftenresultedinthe

womencontradictingthemselves.Thiswasparticularlyevidentinthediscussions

ofhavingtheirpartnershighlyinvolvedintheparentingortheirdecisionstogo

outandhaveabeeratthepub,sanschildren.Whileinitiallythiswaspresented

agencywiththewomenbeingabletochallengeandresistthestereotypesof

270

mothers,theconversationwouldoftenthenturntohowtheirexperienceswere

inherentlydifferentforthemsimplybecausetheyweremothersandnotfathers.

Whenaskedwhatfemininemeanttothem,themothersgroupalsospokeof

emotionsandnurturingaswellastouchingonbeautyandsuperficialitybriefly,

againfocussingonmoretraditionalaspectsofdominantfemininity.ForCece

(MG),thetermfeminineconjuredupnotionsofcommunity,andconnectingand

relatingtootherpeople.Cece(MG)viewedthetermfeminineasindicativeof

strengthwhileGeorgie(MG)feltthattobefemininewastobepassive,a

characteristicthatisseenasacentralcomponenttofemininity(Messerschmidt

2010).Whilethetwowomendiscussedtheseopposingviews,Cece(MG)linked

femininestronglywithmotherhoodandhaddifficultyseparatingthemoutfrom

oneanother.Thisisnotanuncommonconnection.Russo(1976)andGillespie

(2003)havewrittenaboutthepoweroftheconstructionofmotherhoodand

femininity.Ideasaround‘beingawoman’werecentraltothemothersgroup

discussions,withgenderandgenderexpressiondifficulttoseparate.Itwas

perhapsforthisreasonthatthewomeninthisgrouptendedtoexpressless

agencyinhowtheyexperiencedtheirfemininity.

Thedifferencesinwhateachgroupfocusedtheirdiscussiononhighlightsthe

contextualnatureinunderstandingfemininityandtheinfluencecommunitiesof

practicehaveonthetypesofdiscoursesthatemerge.Thecommunitiesof

practicealsoprovidedarenasforthewomentoengageinvarioussubject

positions,someofwhichstayedwithinthosecontexts,suchaswiththefootyand

rollerderbywomen,whileforothersthesesubjectpositionscarriedoverinto

271

otherpartsoftheirlives,aswiththecircus,mothersandexecutivemanagement

groups.However,withinthesecommunitiesofpractice,thenormsthathadbeen

createdwerefurthersegmentedbyindividualexpressionsandunderstandingsof

gender.Thesewillbediscussedinthefollowingsections.

Structure,ContradictionandRelationality

TheidealfemininitiesdiscussedinChapter5wereseenbythewomeninthe

focusgroupsasall-encompassingsuperficialperformances,withwomenduped

orpressuredintothembysociety.Therewasasensethatsuperficialwomen

lackedagencyandthatstructuralinfluenceshadasignificantimpactonhowthe

womenunderstoodthemselves.Thewomendidnotwanttoviewtheirown

experiencesthroughthislensaswasevidentintheexecutivemanagement

group’sresistancetoacknowledgegenderasimpactingtheirworkplace

experiences.However,thestoriesthewomenbegantosharecontradictedthese

claims.Unliketheirperceptionofthegeneralisedidealfemininetypesofthe

BarbieandtheMother,theabilitytopickandchoosehowandwhentheywould

expresstheirgenderallowedthemtofindtheirownwaysofbeingawoman,

creatingasenseofagency.But,aswillbediscussed,thereweretimeswhenthis

senseofagencybecamemurkyinparticularcontexts,andtherestrictions

inherentinadimorphicgenderorderbecameapparent.

Therewereseveralaspectsofthewomen’slivesthatseemedtohighlightthe

structuralpressuresandrelationalityofwomen’sgenderexpressionincluding

272

motherhood,heterosexualrelationshipsandtheworkplace.WithinAustralia,

womenareviewedasmothersandwivesfirstandworkerssecond(Baird&

Cutcher2005).BairdandCutcher(2005)arguethatthisnotionstemsfrom

policyinitiativesearlyinthe20thcenturythatlaidoutminimumwagesfor

workerswherewomenearnedsignificantlyless.Thisestablishedwomenas

dependantontheirhusbandsandcementedtheirplaceinthehome(Baird&

Cutcher2005).ThismodelbecamethedominantviewoffamilyinAustralia,

shapingtherolesofmothersandmotherhoodideologystillpresentinsociety

todaydespitetheincreaseofwomen’sparticipationinpaidwork(Baird&

Cutcher2005).Throughthislens,motherhoodisunderstoodrelationallywith

fatherhood,andwiveswithhusbands(Baird&Cutcher2005).Thesubject

positionofmotherandwifewereexperiencedincontradictorywaysbythe

womeninthefocusgroups;attimeswithasenseofpride,othersasenseof

resentment.Butthetraitsofthesesubjectpositionsbledintotheirrolesas

workersaswell,furtherilluminatingtheexpectationsofgenderexpressioninall

aspectsofthewomen’slives.

“Ifyoudon’thaveachild,you’renotreallyawoman”:MotherhoodasFemininity

Motherhoodormotheringwasunderstoodasanessentialpartoffemininityfor

thewomeninallofthefocusgroupsandappearedonmanyoftheconceptmaps

nearthecentreoffemalegenderexpressions.Beingchildlesswasasunfeminine

asyoucouldget:“Ifyouchoosenottohavechildren,youarefailingasawoman”

(Mary-CG).Zoe(MG)expandedonthisidea:

273

Iputontheoutsideofmycircle[gesturingtowardsherconceptmap-see

Figure21below],thethingthatIthinkpeoplethinkismostunfeminineis

choosingnottohavechildren.Ifyoucan’thavechildren,that’sokay.Butif

youmakeanactivechoicenottohavethem,peoplethinkthereis

somethingwrongwithyou.I’vemetwomenwhodon’twanttohavekids,

andmyinstantreactionis:unfeminine,whoa.Idon’tmeantobe

judgemental.

Figure21:Zoe-Mothersgroup

Inthemapabove,Zoe(MG)hasplaced‘choosesnottohavechildren’outsideof

theboundariesofwomen’sgenderexpression,indicatingthatsuchanact

deviatesfromanynormsoffemininity.Researchhasfoundthatpeopleoften

perceivedvoluntarilychildlesswomenaschoosingtheircareersoverchild

rearingandindoingso,tryingtobelikemen(Hird&Abshoff2000)andassuch,

sufferingfromapsychopathologicaldisturbance(Reading&Amatea1986).Itis

274

notsurprisingthenthatwhilenurturingandcaretakingwereseenasqualities

thatanyonecouldhave,itwasemphasisedasbeingvitallyimportantonlyfor

womentoembody.Ifmenwerenurturing,itwasa‘bonus’butifwomenweren’t,

theywerenotseenas‘real’women.Someexplainedthatitwaseasierforwomen

tobe‘naturally’goodatcaretakingforinfantsandchildrenastheyhadmore

contactbothprior(duringpregnancy)andafterababywasborn.Zoe(MG)

explainedduringthegroup’sdiscussionoftheseideasthat“pregnancygivesyou

aheadstartonthebonding,butgenderdoesn’tmatteroncetheyareborn,it’s

aboutwhospendtimewiththem[thechild]”.Thisbondingwasassumedtohelp

bringoutthenurturingpartofwomen,andsinceitismostlywomenwhoarethe

primarycarersforchildrenduetotheneedtobreastfeedandphysicallyrecover

frombirth.Thewomeninthemothersgroupagreedthatitwasbecauseofthis

thattheythenbecomemoreexperiencedincaretaking.

AsdiscussedinChapter2,Ortner(1972)arguesthatwomen’sgenderrolesare

seenasclosertonatureduetotheproductionofmilkforinfants.Thisresultsin

thefemalebodybeingseenas‘natural’andthusestablishesanapparent‘natural’

bondtoformbetweenchildandmotherthroughthefeedingrole(Ortner1972).

Thedifferencesinthedivisionofparentalrolesisbasedonbiological

assumptionsandtherelationalconstructionofparenthoodasawhole(Bradley

2007;Lindsey2011;Hird&Abshoff2000;Ortner1972).Consequently,women

areviewedasmoresuitedtochildrearing.

Aswithotherissuesthroughoutthefocusgroups,thestructuralinfluenceof

genderwasdeniedasbeingthekeyfactorinthewomen’sexperiencesinitially.

275

However,asthewomenspokeforlongerabouttheissuesandmoreandmore

personstorieswereshared,adifferentandcontradictorypictureemerged–one

thatwaslacedwithfrustrationatimposedgenderedexpectationsofwhatwere

acceptablewomen’sgenderexpressions,withaparticularfocusonmotherhood.

Complementaryroleswerefelttobereinforcedbychildcare.Asmentionedin

Chapter5,Laura(MG)saidthat“Whenthehusbandsstayhomewiththekidsand

it’scalledbabysitting,butwhenwedoit,it’snothing,it’snormal.”Asthe

discussionsprogressed,thesenseofagencyandequalitywasnolongerpresentin

theiraccountsofparenting.Researchsuggeststhereisstillasignificantlackof

equalityinAustraliawhenitcomestoparentalduties(AustralianInstituteof

FamilyStudies2015;Craig2007).Tess(MG)acknowledgedthisinthewaythat

herandherpartnerhadsmallbutsignificantdifferencesinhowtheyparentand

managedomesticduties:

Idon’tfeellikeIamabetterparent.ButIfeellikeforme,it’sthat

traditionalthing,doingwhatyourmumdid.Jerrywillprobablyrelaxona

dayhedoesn’thavethekids,butI’lldothedishesandthingslikethat.Men

grewupnotneedingtodothosethings.Weworkthesameamountof

hours,sotechnicallywecoulddohalfandhalf,butdon’t,probablybecause

ofthat.It’ssoingrained,soitbecamekindofnatural.

MotherhoodandfemininechoreshavebecomepartofTess’s(MG)lifesomuch

thatshenowperceivesitasnatural.Theperformativityinvolvedinlookingafter

achildandbeinginaheterosexualrelationshiphasresultedinhergender

identitybecomingfirmlyestablishedandacceptingofsuchrolesasnormal.

Goffman(1976)howeverdoesn’tviewpresentationsofgenderasnatural.He

276

arguesthatthroughcontinualdisplaysinoureverydayinteractionswecometo

thinkofthemasnatural,buttheyareinfactsimplyaproductofinequality.Such

genderdisplaysreproduceagenderhierarchyandinequalitythatisessentially

anillusion(Goffman1976).WhenTess’s(MG)partnerhastimetohimself,heis

abletospendthattimedoingwhathechooses–hehasagency.ButwhenTess

(MG)hastimeoff,althoughshepurportstohaveagency,shefindsherselftaking

partinexpectedandgenderedduties,unconsciouslyandperformatively

reinforcinghergenderidentitythroughrepetitivefeminineactssuchascleaning

orcheckinguponhoweveryoneisgoing.

Theotherwomeninthemothersgroupalsosharedtheirexperiencesoftheir

partnerslookingafterthechildren.Zoe(MG)said,“WhenBenstayshomewith

thekids,it’snotliketheyaremissingoutonsomething.It’sjustdifferentcare.”

Laura(MG)agreed:

Yeah,whenDavidishomeit’sdifferenttoo.Heismorelikelytofocuson

activities,iftheygetupsethewillchangetheactivitythey’redoing.

WhereasIammorelikelytoseeiftheyneedacuddle,aretheyhungry,are

theytired.

Themothersgroupwomentoldmethattheirpartnerstendedtoengagemorein

playrelatedactivitiesratherthandomesticlabour.Therewasageneralsenseof

agreementregardingthiswithZoe(MG)adding:

Yeah,Ithinkthatmothersingeneralaremoreemotionallyintune.Fathers

aremorelike,‘let’sdothingsbutifyoustartcryingI’llprobablyjusttryto

distractyouratherthantryandfigureoutwhat’swrong’.

277

Emotionworkfeaturedprominentlyinthewomen’sdiscussions.Therehasbeen

significantresearchexaminingemotionwork,whichisacrucialbutoften

disregardedaspectofunseenlabourwithinthehome(Frith&Kitzinger1998;

Hochschild1983;Seery&Crowley2000).Emotionworkreferstothe

managementoffeelings,providingsupportandencouragementtootherfamily

membersaswellasbuildingandmaintainingrelationships(Frith&Kitzinger

1998;Hochschild1983).Inastudyexploringemotionworkanddivisionof

householdlabour,RebeccaErickson(2005)foundthatgenderconstructionand

ideologypredictedtheperformanceofemotionwork,indicatingakeydifference

andinequalityinmen’sandwomen’sconstructionofselfandtheirroles.The

notionofwomenasresponsiblefortheemotionalwellbeingofothersstemsfrom

theviewmentionedearlierofwomenascaretakers.Aswomenareseentobe

moresuitedtochildrearing,theyalsothenhaveanaturalabilitytotakecareof

othersmorebroadly.

Inthefootygroup,thediscussionofmotherhoodanditsimpactonfemininity

dividedthetwomotherspresent.Belinda(FG)said,“Ifeellessfemininenow

‘causeIhavelesstimetodomyhairandstuff.”TowhichLou(FG)responded,“I

probablyfeelmore‘causeIhavethattitle‘mum’andthat’sjustareallyfeminine

title.”Theseweretheonlytwomotherspresentinthegroup,butbothhavevery

differentexperiencesofbeingamum.

Zoe(MG)feltthatthereweredifferentexpectationsplacedonherbeingaparent

thatherpartnerdidn’texperience:

278

Ifyou’reatapub,you’rehavingameal,you’vegotabeer,youcanjust

senseit.Noteveryone,butsomepeoplearejustshamingyou.Whereasif

youweretherewithoutababy,it’sjustlike,ohshe’shavingabeer…My

partner,hedoesn’t[experienceit].Itreallybothersme.

Georgie(MG)saidthatshefeltmuchthesame,“Ifeelashamed,Icanfeelthat

external‘gaze’onme.”CarolGilligan(1993)arguedthatwomenbecomeother-

orientedduetotakingonparentalresponsibilityandcaringroles.Throughthis

process,womencometounderstandactingintheirowninterestsas‘wrong’.

Georgie’s(MG)commentsreflectthepressureofthesesocietalexpectations.She

alsotoldusaboutseveralbandsthathadnamessuchas‘Mumdrinks’that,asshe

putit,“justsoundawkwardandwrong.It’slikeaplayonwhat’s,like,okay.”Cece

(MG)saiditwas“contradictory”.Theideaofamother,whoshouldbeathome

andfocussedonothersoverherself,outenjoyingadrink,somehowseemed

almostshocking.ThissentimentwasalsoincludedinLou’s(FG)conceptmap:

Figure22:Lou-FootballGroup

279

AscanbeseeninFigure22,Lou(FG)wrote‘drinksbeer’towardstheoutedgeof

hermap,suggestingsheviewedthisasanunfeminineactivity.Drinkinghaslong

beenviewedasagenderedconsumptionpractice(Rolfe,Orford&Dalton2009)

andwomen’sdrinkingasparticularlytabooandunfeminine(Plant1997).

Georgie(MG)relatedthistypeofexperiencetoanarticleshehadreadrecently

aboutcelebritiesKimKardashianandKanyeWestwhohadbothgoneontour,

butonlyKimhadbeencriticisedasbeingabadparent.Iaskedhowthewomen

feltthistypeofissuerelatedtogenderexpression,Kim(MG)said,“Ithinkthat’s

oneofthebiggestthingsyoucando,notbeagoodmother”.Bynot‘beingthere’

foryourchild,youwereabadmother,andthusunfeminine.Emotionworkwas

distinctlyfeminineandcrucialtohowthewomenbothevaluatedthemselvesas

mothers,andhencewomen,aswellasasourceforconstantjudgement.While

fatherswereallowedtotaketimeoutandbeselfish,motherswerenot.Young

(2002)notesthatunpaidcaringandhouseworktendstobedonebywomenand

thatthisresultsinlesstimeandenergytospendonthemselvesorengagingin

othertypesofactivities.

Furthermore,the‘mothermandate’suggeststhatmothersshouldbesensitive

andawareoftheneedsofothers,engageincaretakingactivitiesandbe

motheringinallaspectsoftheirlives(Gilligan1993;Reger2001;Russo1976).

Mothersareexpectedtobeself-sacrificingandemotionallydevotedtomothering

(Arendell2000),andalwaysonhandtoprovidesuitablestimulationand

attention,andgetpleasurefromdoingso(Hays1996).Theseideassuggestthat

motherhoodismoreastateofbeingratherthanaparticularskillset(Maher

2004).

280

Someargue,however,thattheskillsgainedthroughmaternalpracticesare

importantindelineatingmotherhoodideologies(Arendell2000).Such

parenthoodideologyformationstendtobeovertlyhegemonicinconstruction,

normalizingthegenderdivisionsofmothersandfathers(DiQuinzio1993).

Althoughtherehavebeensignificantchangesforwomenoverthepastcentury,

thepatriarchalmythofmotherhoodasbiologicallyinherentandcaregivingas

naturalpersists(Abbey&O’ReillycitedinAustin&Carpenter2008;Craig2007;

Oakley2005;Ortner1972).Thisbiologicalnarrativeofmotherhoodsuggeststhat

nurturingandmotheringareinstinctiveandthatwomenarefulfilledbyengaging

insuchactivities(Austin&Carpenter2008).Mothersareassumedtobeselfless,

alwaysavailable,nurturing,emotional,andself-sacrificing(Brown,Lumley,Small

&Asterbury1994).Suchnarrativesimplymotherhooddoesandshouldentail

thesequalitiesandcreatesaculturallydominantwayofthinkingaboutwomen

(Austin&Carpenter2008).Mythssuchasthesearecommonplaceandovertime

haveassumedthestatusofpowerfulculturalnarrativeswiththeabilityto

restrictandinfluencethewayswomenmakemeaningoftheirownexperiences,

informingtheculturalideologiesthatevolve(Austin&Carpenter2008).

Thissectionopenedwithadiscussionoftheimportanceofbeingamotherinthe

women’sunderstandingsofwhatitwastobefeminine.Thispressurenotonly

influencedhowthewomenunderstoodthemselves,butitwasalsodirectlylinked

toideasofheterosexualityandthetransitionfromgirltowoman(Gilligan1993).

Karen(CG)articulatedthis:“Youaretreatedlikeyouhaven’treallyreached

adulthoodifyoudon’thaveachild,you’renotreallyawoman”.However,having

achildwasn’tenough,youalsoneededtodoit‘properly’asRuby(CG)explained,

281

“Ihaveafriendwhowantstohaveachildonherown,butthat’sagainstwhatall

ofsocietyviewaswhatisfeminine.”Karen(CG)respondedtothisstorywith

frustration,“Butifshehadahusbandandhefuckedoff,thenthat’sokay,shedid

ittherightwaybutsheisgoingtogetlabelledtotallydifferentbecauseofthat.”

Thisideawasalsonotedontheconceptmapofoneoftheparticipantsinthe

mothersgroup(seefigure23below).

Figure23:Georgie-MothersGroup

Theheteronormativeexpectationsareparticularlypronouncedwhenitcomesto

raisingchildren.Karen(CG)added:“Thepointistomakebabiesandpeoplethink

womencan’tdothatontheirown”.Therelationalityoffemininityisapparentin

thesediscussions;womenareunderstoodinrelationtomen,theyare

complementaryandopposite,creatingacompletewhole.Tonotengageinthis

rolewastobeunfeminineandunderpinningthiswasthenotionof

282

heterosexuality.Thesubjectpositionof‘mother’imposedexpectationsonthe

women,whethertheywantedittoornot.

“I’mnotfeminine-unlessI’mdatingsomeone”:HeterosexualRelationships,Dating,

andGenderExpression

Aswithmotherhood,relationshipscarriedwiththemasetofsubjectpositions

thatrestrictedparticipants’senseofagency.Thisbeganwiththeprocessof

attractingmenanddating,andculminatedintherolesof‘wife’.Asmentionedin

Chapter5,femininitywasintertwinedwithnotionsofsubmissivenessandthe

‘goodwife’.Whenthewomentalkedabouttheirheterosexualrelationships,

femininityplayedavitalroleinhowtheyunderstoodthemselves.Womeninallof

thegroupsagreedthatfeminineisattractivetomenandbeing‘unfeminine’

makesdatingharder.Manytoldmethattheywouldplayuptheirfemininityto

‘gettheguy’andthenonceyouareinarelationship“youthinkyoudon’tneedto

worryaboutitasmuchanymore,butthenyourealiseyouarefallinginto

[feminine]roles”(Fiona-RD).Oftenthiswasdescribedassomethingthatjust

happenedandnotasadirectresultofpressurefromtheirboyfriend.Thewomen

hadinternalisedwhatwasexpectedofthemaswomen–tobeappealingtomales.

Thiswasnotanovertexpressionfromamalepartner,butratheralearned

processingrainedthroughheteronormativeexpectations,reinforcingthe

relationalityofgenderexpressions.Asdiscussedintheliterature,relationality

suggeststhatthecategoryofwoman,andthusfemininity,isconstructedin

relationtomalesandmasculinity,andmarkedbydifference(Froshetal.2002;

283

Woodward1997),whileheteronormativityreferstotheexpectationsand

constraintsplaceduponpeoplethroughsocietytoadheretoheterosexuality

(Berlant&Warner1998;Chambers2007).Inherentwithinheteronormativityis

alsothenotionofpatriarchyandinequalitywhereheterosexualmenenjoythe

mostprivilege.

Describingthedatingprocess,Karen(CG)said,“It’sthemthat’sgottaleadthe

way,they’vegottafeelmoremasculine”.SimonandGagnon(1973)discussthe

rolesmenandwomenplaywithinsexualencountersusingtheanalogyof

‘scripts’,buttheiranalysisapplieshereaswell.Theysuggestthatsexualityis

woventhroughoutoureverydaylivesandthroughsexualscriptsweareableto

assesswhoshouldbedoingwhat.Thesescriptsreinforceheteronormativity

throughlayingoutwhatthemaleandfemalepartsare.Mary(CG)elaboratedon

Karen’s(CG)commentandthetypesofexpectationsshefeltwereplacedupon

her:“[Whendating]there’sanexpectationthatyouwillmakemoreofaneffortto

fitintosociety’sideasofwhatfemininityis,nomatterswhatyourviewsare.”This

manifestedinmanydifferentwaysforthewomen,includingdiningetiquette:

Iwentonadatewithaguy,andwewentoutforburgers.Youknowhow

messyburgersare,andsoIameatingmyburgerwithmyhands,justlike

hewas,andsomelettuce,andIthinkabitofpickle,gotonmyjeans.And

hewasjustlike,I’llpretendIdidn’tseethat.AndIthought,amInota

human?What,asafemale,Iamsupposedtobeabletoeatthesameburger

asyoubutdoanicer,prettiermoreprecisejobofit?(Lily-CG)

Lily(CG)wasclearlyannoyedbythisdoublestandard,andneedlesstosaythere

wasnoseconddate.ThisannoyancewasalsofeltbyKaren(CG)whengoingout

284

withmen,“Youhavetouseaknifeandforkforthings,showrestraint.It’scrap.”

Butformanywomen,thissenseof‘necessary’femininitywentbeyondmanners

toincludewhattheysaidandhowtheysaidit:“Youcan’tbeasoutspoken”

(Karen-CG)and“youdon’twanttobeintimidating”(Zoe-MG).Theseideastie

intothenotionsofdominantfemininitydescribedinChapter5whichsuggests

thattobefeminineoneshouldspeak‘gentler’thanmen(Mills2005;Sung2012).

Theperformativefemininityinthedatingscenariowasonethatwasverymuch

aboutgettingmaleapproval:

EvenifIpersonallyfindthatstuff[femininity]reallydistastefulandIdon’t

reallygiveafuckaboutit,Istillfeelpressure,morefrommyselfmorethan

anything,totryandbesomekindofwomanbecauseifIdon’tI’mnever

goingtobeattractivetomen.(Mary-CG)

Inordertobeattractive,oneneededtotryandlikenherselftotheBarbieidealas

muchaspossible:lookgood,bepassiveandsoft,emphasiseherfemininity.

Emma(RD)toldusthatshedoesn’twearmakeupinhereverydaylife,butwhen

shegetsreadyforadatesheoftenthinkstoherself,“MaybeIshouldwear

makeup…”Thissenseof‘whatIshoulddotoseemfeminine’seemedstrongest

whenwomenweredating.Bywearingmakeupandemphasisingfemininity,

womenareconstructingthemselvesrelationallytomales–theyarewhatmen

arenot.Theseassumedcomplementarysubjectpositionsarereinforcedthrough

heteronormativitythroughoutsociety,creatingasenseofrestrictionforwomen

andthepossibilitiesforexpressingtheirgender.

285

Oncearelationshipbecameestablished,itonlyservedtofurtherreinforce

femininity,bothinrelationtogenderandparentingroles,houseworkandcaring,

andlessaboutappeasingmalesexualdesires.Thesewillnowbediscussed.

“Iusedtomowmylawn”:Relationships,GenderRoles,andtheHome

Whilenotallofthewomenwereinrelationshipsatthetimeofthefocusgroups,

allbutonehadhadbeeninaseriouslongtermrelationship.Relationshipswerea

furthersitewherestructuralpressuresandinfluencesbecamepronounced.The

women’sstoriesalsohighlightedtherelationalitythatexistsinunderstanding

womeninrelationtomenandfemininitytomasculinitywithinheterosexual

contexts.

Whendescribingthemselvesinarelationship,manyofthefootywomen

expressedtheybecamemorefeminine:“I’mwaygirlierathomewhenSteveis

there”(Kylie-FG)and“Ibecomeneedy”(Ez-FG).Beingneedywasseenasa

distinctlyfemininetraitidentifiedbythewomenandbecameexacerbatedby

beinginarelationship.Jenna(FG)toldmethat,“IfI’matfootyandBradcomesto

watchthenIliketoshowthatIcantackleanddoalltheboy-ystuff,butifIamat

home,I’mmoreofagirly-girl.”Thepresenceofaheterosexualrelationship

alteredJenna’s(FG)genderexpressionillustratingthepowerof

heteronormativity,sexualscripsandrelationality.Thesenseofagencyexpressed

bythewomeninregardstotheirabilitytoperformvarioussubjectpositions,

suchasthefeminineorunfeminine,wasunderminedintheirrelationshipsand

286

becamemoreabouttheperformativityofgenderidentityandtherelationalityof

femininetomasculine.

Thewomenspokeabouttheirrelationshipsatgreatlength.Manyofthewomen,

particularlyintheFGgroup,saidthatthingsweredifferentnowandtherewere

morechoicesforwomeninsocietythanforpastgenerations.Theyimpliedthat

therewasmoregenderequalityandthatwomenhadagencyinhowthey

interactedwithinthehome.Suchcommentsalignwithpostfeministdiscourses

around‘choice’(Budgeon2014;McRobbie2007).However,momentsafterKylie

(FG)saidthat“societyhaschanged”andJoey(FG)hadtoldme“makingdecisions

isn’tafeminineormasculinething”,thewomenunconsciouslycontradicted

themselves.Kylie(FG)explained,“AthomeI’mlike,‘cuddleme!’,butthesecond

weareinagroup,I’mtheboss.”Kylie(FG)wasillustratinghowshewasmore

“feminineathome,butmasculinewhen…withpeople”.AndJoey(FG):“Weliketo

maketheboysthinkwearelettingthemmakethedecisions,butreallywearethe

onesdoingit.”Thisneedtohavemenfeelliketheywereincontrolindicatedthe

importanceofdecisionmakingformasculinitybuttheyfeltthat,infact,itwas

themthathadmuchofthepowerwithintherelationshipwheninsocialsettings.

Andyet,athome,whenengaginginmoreintimatesettings,thegenderrelations

mimickedthosewithinbroadersocietywheremenwereexpectedtobetheones

incontrolandwomenweredependentuponthem.Thesediscussionssupport

argumentssuchasYoung’s(2002)thatdespitechangesoccurringinmany

societies,thegenderednatureinherentinthedivisionoflabourhasalteredlittle.

287

Anothercontradictionthewomenbegantoexposewasinrelationtogenderroles

withinthehome.Thefollowingexchangedemonstratestheexpectationsthatstill

remaininheterosexualrelationships:

Kylie(FG):Steveisassumedtotakeovermyfather’srole,whereIamassumedtotakeoverhismother’srole.Shedoeseverythingaroundthehouse.NowayIwanttodothat!

Lou(FG):Whenwemovedintogether,itwasjustassumedthatIwoulddotheinsidestuffandhewoulddotheoutsidestuff.AndIendedupdoingit.

Ez(FG):Yeah,that’sactuallyprobablythesameforme.

Despitemanyofthesuggestionsthat‘societyhaschanged’,thestoriesthese

womensharedsuggestedthatformany,theyhave,infact,not.Thisisnot

surprisinggiventhecurrentresearchongenderrolesinthehome(Australian

InstituteofFamilyStudies2015).Dutiesaroundthehomeweresegregated,

wherefoodpreparationandcleaningwasthewoman’sdomain,whileoutdoorsy

andmechanicalstuffwastheman’s.Lou(FG)toldusthat,“Charliedoesn’tcook

becauseIlikemyfoodwarm,”implyingthathewasnotanadequatecook.Kylie

(FG)hadadifferentexperiencewithherin-laws,“ThefirsttimeImethismum

anddad,Ithoughttheywereodd.Steve’sdadcookedeverynight.”Lou(FG)

pointedoutthatthiswasprobablystrangeasitwasa“rolereversal”.Mostofthe

womenwithinthegroupcookedandcleanedmorethantheirmalepartners,

consistentwiththeresearchonthegendereddivisionoflabour(Australian

InstituteofFamilyStudies2015;Craig2007).However,therewereseveral

womenineachofthevariousgroupswhosepartnerscookedandhelpedaround

thehouse.Itwasinterestingtonotethateachtimeawomanwouldsharethis

typeofanecdote,theotherwomenexpressedsurpriseandfriendlyjealousywith

288

comments.Joey(FG)sharedthatwhenshewasunwell,herpartnerwouldoften

tellhertositdown,thathecoulddothehousework.Sheviewedthisashimbeing

protectiveofher.ThiswasreinforcedthroughEz’s(FG)comment,“Justyouwait,

that’swhathappenswhenyouarepregnanttoo.That’swhyI’mgonnahavesix

morekids!”Whenpregnant,thesenseofprotectionincreasedandwomenwere

seentobeevenmorefrailandvulnerable.Butsuchcaringdidnotseemtostem

fromasenseofequality,butratheritwasseenasprotective,reinforcingnotions

ofwomenasneedingtobetakencareofbytheirmalepartners(Young2003).

Belinda(FG)toldusaboutherrelationship,“Wedoeverythingshared.Darenwill

cookdinnerandgiveLucyabath.”Thiswasfollowedby:“Iwanttomarry

Darren!”(Jenna-FG)or“Noway.That’snotfair!”(Ez-FG).However,despite

DarrenbeingahelpfulpartnertoBelinda(FG),therewasasenseoflossthat

occurredintakingonthissharedpartnershipaswhilesomeoftherolesbecame

moreblurredongenderlines,othersbecamemorepronounced.

Belinda(FG):BeforeImetDarren,Iusedtochecktheoilonmycar,Iusedtofillupthepetrol,Iusedtowashit–

Lou(FG):Iusedtomowmylawn–

Belinda(FG):Yeah,Iusedtomowmylawntoo!Lou(FG):Shitwhathappened?

Here,Belinda(FG)andLou(FG)acknowledgedtheshiftsthathadtakenplace

withinthemselves.Thetransitionawayfrom‘masculine’choresrepresenteda

shiftwithinthemselves.Despitethewomeninthisgrouptellingmethatgender

expressionswerenotpartoftheiridentitybutratheraseriesoffluidsubject

289

positionstheycouldoptinandoutof,commentslikethissuggeststhatengaging

inmoremasculineandfeminineactivitiesdidinfluencethewayinwhichthey

viewedthemselves.Itwasalsointerestingtonotehowunconsciousthisprocess

was.

Speakingaboutherexperiencesinrelationships,Emma(RD)said,“IfeellikeI

becomemorefeminine,Itakeonacomplimentaryrolewithoutrealisingit,

suddenlylookatmyselfandrealisethatIamdoingthevacuuming,heisdoingthe

rubbish.”Thiswasn’tanuncommonoccurrencewithmanywomenintheother

groupsalsoexpressingsimilarexperienceswheretheyfeltmorecomfortable

beingtheonestotakeontheseresponsibilitiesaroundthehouse.Lou(FG)from

thefootballgroupsaid,“Iwouldn’tletmyhusbandnearthewashingmachine,no

way,hewouldjustbreakit.He’ssuchabloke,hedoesn’tevenknowthe

differencebetweenlightsanddarks.”Louise(RD)wasalsoconsciousofthe

genderednatureofchoresforherself,

Iputsomeinfoonadatingsiterecentlyanditsaid,‘Iwantayintomy

yang’andthenbasicallyitsays,‘IwantaguytodotheoutsidejobswhileI

dotheinsidejobs’.Iwanttodothatstuff,Iwanttodothecleaning,

cooking,washing.Iguessthat’sthefemininesideofmecomingout.

Thisfemininesidenotonlyencompassedthedivisionofhousework,butalsois

understoodasthe‘opposite’ofthemasculine.Andwhileattimesthis

relationalitywasembraced,theimpactofsuchconstructionswasoftenfelt

negatively:

290

Myhusbandjustdoesn’tthinkaboutit.Youknow,it’llbehismother’s

birthdayandI’llaskhim,‘Yougetacard?’Andhe’llsay,‘Oh,shit,nah.’So,

ofcourse,Ihavetogetone.(Dorothy-EM)

Asdiscussedearlier,themaintainingofrelationshipsinfamiliesisaformof

emotionworkthatispredominantlyundertakenbywomen(Frith&Kitzinger

1998;Hochschild1983).Dorothy(EM)seemedannoyedathavingtopurchasea

card,buteventheactofaskingaboutitisaformofemotionallabour.Therewere

manyothersimilarstoriestothis,wherewomentookontheresponsibilityto

maintainconnectionswithextendedfamily,butalsotobethereforthe

immediatefamilymemberswhentheyneededemotionalsupport.

Theseclearlygenderedrolesweremetwithmixedreactions,attimespresented

positively,evenwithamusement,butatothertimestheywereexpressedasa

sourceofsadness,resentmentandfrustration.

“WhyamIsupposedtocare?”:GenderintheWorkplace

Almostallofthewomenwereengagedinpaidwork.Theiroccupationsvariedin

eachgroup;therewereschoolteachers,socialworkers,atruckdriver,anurse,

andofcoursemanagers.Itwasinthestoriesofbeingatworkthatthe

contradictionsbetweenagencyandstructurebegantoemergemostexplicitly.

Fromaccountsofbeingaskedtogetcupsofteaandcolleaguesnotswearingin

frontofthem,tothecomplexityofemotionworkandthebalanceinexpressing

theirownemotions,theexperiencesillustratedtheinfluenceofalready

291

establishedsubjectpositionofthefemaleworker.Young(2002)suggeststhat

thisisduetodomesticdivisionsoflabourunderpinningthewayinwhichpaid

workisstructured.

Aswithotheraspectsoftheirlives,emotionworkcameupinthediscussions

regardingwomen’sexperiencesofpaidwork.Forsomeitwassomethingplaced

uponthem,othersfeltwasanundervaluedpartoftheirroles,andinsomecases

seenasaweakness.

Asamanager,Igetinstantlymoreteammemberscomingtomewith

personalissuesratherthangoingtomymaleequivalent.AndoftentimeI

get,‘Ifounditeasiertocommunicatewithyou’–notbecauseIwasmore

feminineoranyofthat,it’stheperceptionofbeingabletocommunicateto

awomanandmaybethatIwillbemoreempathetic.(Zoe-MG)

Thistypeofemotionworkseemedtobeundertakenbywomenacrossvarious

professionsandwasunderstoodaspartofbeingfeminine.Manyofthewomen

whospokeabouttheirexperiencesofundertakingsocialworkfeltthatitwasnot

somethingtheychoosetodo;itwassubtlyimposedupontheminsuchawaythat

theydidnotalwaysnoticeitwasoccurring.

However,whenempathywasappliedtoclientsasopposedtocolleagues,itwasa

differentstory.Ruby(CG),whowasemployedasasocialworkerpreviously,as

withmanyoftheotherwomensawempathyasanimportantpartofwomen’s

workbutfeltotherssawitmoreasaweakness,“…it’snotaboutempathy,it’sjust

aboutgettingtheworkdone.Ifweareempathetic,wearen’tseenas

professional.”Ruby’s(CG)perceptionwasthatifhercolleaguesviewedheras

292

empathetic,shewouldn’tbeabletoalsobeseenasrationalinherdecisions.

Rationalityisoftenassociatedwithmasculinity(Ross-Smith&Kornberger2004)

andisvaluedintheworkplace(Demaiter&Adams2009).Expressingemotions

underminesappearancesofrationalityandyet,thewomeninmyfocusgroups

oftenfoundthatmaleswouldexpectalevelofempathyfromthem.Speakingof

hertimeasamanager,Tracy(EM)said:

I’mpositiveIgetmorepersonalstoriestoldtome,abouttheirwife’s

medicalconditionsandstuff,becausetheydidn’treaditonmyfacewhere

itsaid‘Idon’treallycare’,butIlisten,‘causeIamagoodmanager.And

theysay,well,Ican’ttelltheblokesaboutthis.Buttheydohonestlythink

thatyouwanttoknowallthelittledetailsoftheirwife’smostrecent

surgery.WhyamIsupposedtocare?‘Causetoamalemanagerthey

would’vejustsaid,‘Heymate,missusissick’.

ItwasassumedthatTracy(EM)wouldbemoreinterestedandapproachablein

mattersofapersonalnaturebecauseoftheassumptionsattachedtoherbeinga

woman.Butthestoriesofnegativereactionstoexpressingemotionsinawork

environmentwerecommoninourdiscussions.Mary(CG),fromthecircusgroup

sharedherexperiencesintheworkplace:“Womentendtogetshutdownreally

quicklywhentheyare[emotional],itbecomesaboutyouasaworkerandnotthe

issue.Thatdoesn’thappentomen.”Karen(CG)agreed,sharingherexperiences

ofbeingtoldshewastooemotionallyinvolvedifsheshowedanytypeofconcerns

forherclients.Ifhermalepeersdiscussedsimilarissuesinwhatshecalled,

“moredirectmeans”,theyweretakenseriouslyandactedupon.Thisalignswith

researchthatsuggestwhenwomenshowstrongemotionssuchasanger,theyare

293

oftentakenlessseriouslywhilemengainmoreinfluence(Salerno&Peter-

Hagene2015).

Inordertocombatthetypesofrestrictionsandexpectationsthewomen

encounteredintheworkplace,thewomenfoundwaysofcombiningaspectsof

femininityandmasculinity.Inalengthydiscussionregarding“stupid”thingsmale

colleagueshadsaidtothem,oraboutthem,atworkCaroline(EM)toldusshehad

overheardsomemensayingthattheywereupsetthattheycouldn’tswear,as“a

womanwouldbepresent”.Shewasnottheonlyonewhohadexperiencedthis

typeofbehaviour.Suzanne(EM)respondedwith,“Well,itdoesn’tstopus!”

AswasdiscussedinChapter6,theimportanceofafirmhandshakewasseenby

thewomentoberelatedtopowermoresothangender,howeverAlison(EM)

pointedoutthatforwomentohaveweakhandshakesisexpected.Havingafirm

handshakewasforthesewomenvitalintheirattemptstocreateasubject

positionforthemselveswithintheworkplacethatwastakenseriously.Dorothy

(EM)alsotoldusthatshedeliberatelywalkedwith“swagger”andsatininsucha

wayas“totakeupspace”.Shedidthisconsciouslyto“claim”herspace.The

awarenessoftheseactionsisinstarkcontrasttothedescriptionsgivenbythe

womenunconsciouslycrosstheirlegsorsit‘small’inChapter6.Caroline(EM)

agreedwiththeseexperiencesandsaiditwas,“adeliberateattempttoreclaim

powerinapowerstrugglethatmenwerenotevenawareof”.Butdespitethese

consciouschoicesaroundclothing,gait,andemotionalcontrol,theexistenceof

externalexpectationshamperedtheirattemptstodoso.Thiswasmostevidentin

howtheirdemeanourwasreadbyothers.

294

Theterm‘bitch’wasdiscussedinChapter5inrelationtowomenwhowere

competitivewitheachother,butitalsocameupinrelationtowomen’sworking

experiencesonanumberofoccasionsasnotedearlierinthischapter.Dorothy

(EM)sharedastoryaboutherfirstroleasamanager.Afterseveralweeksinthe

newrole,amaleemployeecametoseeherinheroffice,“HetoldmethatIwas

actuallyquitenice.Hesaid,‘Ithoughtyou’dbemoreofabitch’.Hesaiditasa

compliment.”Thenotionof‘beingnice’wasseenbythewomenasexpectedof

thembutnottheirmalecounterparts.However,whenwomenexhibit

characteristicssuchasassertivenesstheychallengeandcontaminatethe

relationshipbetweenmasculinityandfemininityandcreatepariahfemininities

(Schippers2007).Itdoesnotmatterthatbybeingassertivewomenaresimply

‘doing’whatmenoftendo,asthe“socialinstitutionofgenderinsistsonlythat

whattheydoisperceivedasdifferent”(Lorber1994,p.26,italicsinoriginal).The

womenarethenlabelledinwaysthatcreatestigma,suchasbeingabitch,soasto

sociallypunishwomenandmaintainsomesemblanceofcontrolwithinthe

genderorder.

Worklifewasinevitablygenderedforthewomen;theirgenderexpression

alwaysbeingreadthroughafemininelens.Theidealsofmotherhoodandthe

caringrolebledintotheworkplace,underpinnedbynotionsofheterosexuality–

theyfeltpressuretobe‘Barbie’sMum’,theidealwoman,attentiveandattractive

andultimatelyfeminine.

295

Conclusion:LimitedAgency

Asnotedatthestartofthischapter,femininityisnota“unified”experiencebut

ratheracontradictoryarrayofvarioussubjectpositionsthatwomenengagewith

(Leahy1994,p.49).Whileinitiallypositionedasnotproblematic,thewomen

soonfoundthemselvessharingstorieslacedwithfrustrationandangeratthe

inherentrestrictionsoffemininity.Thisfemininitywasconstructedrelationally

tomasculinity,andtheyfoundthatwhentheyembodiedmasculinetraits,they

wereunabletoescapethebinarygenderstructures,alwaysbeingviewedassome

formoffeminine.Despitethis,thewomenfoundwaysofreconcilingthese

experiences,findingspaceswheretheycouldengageingendermanoeuvringand

createtheirownformsofgenderexpressionsandfemininities.Andwhilethe

reachofthesespaceswaslimited,whenintheselocations,thewomen

experiencedgreaterfreedominhowtheyexpressedtheirgender,withfewsocial

repercussions.Itwasherethatthewomenseemedtoreallyexpresstheiragency.

Thesefreedomsdidnot,however,translateoverintootherpartsoftheirlives.

Theexpectationsofthewomenatwork,athome,inothersocialenvironmentsor

everydayinteractions,wereeverpresent.Thepowerofhegemonicfemininity

restrictedthecreationofanytruealternativefemininities,leavingthewomenina

constantnegotiationbetweenresistingandadheringtothedominanttropesof

theBarbieandtheMother.Therelationalitybetweenfemininityandmasculinity,

andhegemonicandnon-dominantfemininitiescoupledwithalackoflinguistic

alternativesleaveslittleroomforwomentochallengethegenderorder.

296

Chapter8

Resistance

Intheintroduction,Isharedmypersonalexperiencesofplayingwithgenderasa

youngwoman.Whiletheseexperiencesmayhavebeenacatalystforthis

research,thefindingshaveextendedwellbeyondmyinitialcuriosities.Both

NancyFinley(2010),MimiSchippers(2007)andothers(Hockey,Meah&

Robinson2007;Robinson2015)havecalledformoreresearchintomultiple

femininitiesinordertobetterunderstandhowthegenderorderismaintained.At

present,thereisstilllittleliteraturethathasexaminedfemininities,andevenless

thathashadafocusonheterosexualgenderexpressions.Asmoreandmorenon-

dominantformsoffemininityarerepresentedingreaternumbersinthemedia

andbecomevisibleinoureverydaylives,theneedforacomprehensive

frameworkformakingsenseoftheseincreases.Withintheglobalgenderorder,

femininityremainssubordinatetomasculinity.Addressingthisasymmetry

requiresaninterrogationofthewaysinwhichgenderexpressionsare

constructedandmaintained.Thisthesisprovidesinsightintoapieceofthat

puzzle.

ThroughtheliteraturereviewinChapter2,keydebatesaroundtheconstruction

ofsex,genderandsexualitywerediscussed.DrawingontheworkofButler

(1990)andothers,genderispresentedasnotaresultofone’ssexcategory,but

insteadsomethingthatcomesintobeingthroughrepetitiveeverydaygendered

acts.Centraltothisisalsotheunderstandingthatheterosexualityinfluenceshow

297

wecometounderstandbothsexandgender.Thesediscussionswerefurther

exploredthroughcloserexaminationofwomen’sgenderexpressionsinChapter

3.Inparticular,twokeytheoreticalframeworks,thatofConnell’s(1987)

emphasizedfemininitiesandSchippers(2007)hegemonicfemininity,are

outlined.Iarguedthathegemonicfemininityenablesamoreusefulwaythrough

whichtounderstandandanalysewomen’sgenderexpressions.Whiletherehave

beenanumberofstudieswithrelationtowomen’sgenderexpressionsand

femininity,therehasbeenalackofacohesiveframeworkintheseworks.

Furthermore,therehasbeenverylittleworkexaminingheterosexuality

specifically,orwithinanAustraliancontext.Inresponsetothis,thisresearch

wasinterestedinnotonlyunderstandingheterosexualhegemonicfemininities,

butalsothosethatdeviatefromwhatisviewedasintelligiblyfemininewithinan

Australiancontext.

Thisprojectwasessentiallyastudyonunintelligiblegender.Mygoalwastoshed

somelightontotheexperiencesofwomenwhoembodygenderexpressionsthat

arenotlegiblyfeminine.Inordertodothis,Isoughttoanswerthefollowing

questions:Howisfemininityunderstoodbyheterosexualciswomen?Whatdo

dominantandnon-dominantformsofgenderexpressionsforheterosexualcis

womenlooklikeandwhatdifferentiatesthevariousformsfromoneanother?

Whataretheexperiencesofheterosexualciswomenwhoembodynon-dominant

genderexpressionsandfemininities?Inansweringthesequestions,Ihaveargued

thatfemininitymanifeststhroughthreekeydimensions,thatofthephysical

(body),malleable(appearance),andtherestrictive(demeanour).Throughthese

dimensions,women’sgenderexpressionsbecomepositionedwithinahierarchy

298

wherehegemonicfemininitiesreceivethemoststatusandpower.These

intelligiblegenderexpressionsarewhatwomencomparethemselvesagainst.

However,whilewomendoembodylessintelligiblefemininities,oureveryday

languageisnotadequateinfullycapturingtheseexpressionsofgender.Thisdoes

notmeanthatwomendonotunderstandtheseexperiencesortheir

consequences,infact,thewomeninthisstudywereacutelyawareoftheseissues.

Drawingonthediscussionsandconceptmapscreatedbymyparticipants,I

proposedaframeworkforconceptualisingmultiplefemininities.Withinthis

hierarchy,violationsofthethreedimensionsoffemininityresultsinaloweringof

statusandanincreaseofstigma.Theoverarchingstructuralpowerof

heteronormativityplacedsignificantpressuresonthewomentoadheretothe

expectedgendernorms.However,withinthislimitinghierarchy,womenwere

abletofindwaysthroughgendermanoeuvringtofindsourcesofagency.While

thebinarywasinescapable,womenstillfoundwaystoplaywithgender.

InChapter5:HegemonicFemininities,thewaysinwhichthewomenmadesense

offemininitywerediscussed.Ideasaroundwhatfemininityconstitutedwere

similaracrossallofthefocusgroupsandthroughdiscussions,threemain

dimensionsoffemininityemerged:thephysical(body),malleable(appearance),

andrestrictive(demeanour).Thesegroupingweremadebasedonthethematic

analysisoftheparticipants’discussions.Withineachdimensionthereareaspects

thatenableorfacilitatetheachievementofidealfemininity.Thephysical

dimensionencapsulatednotjusttheshapeofawoman’sbody,butalsothewayin

whichsheheldandmovedit.Theanalysisofthebodywasnotundertakenasa

299

reificationofthetwo-sexmodel,butrathertounderstandthesocialpracticeswe

engageinthatcreatetheillusionofgenderedbodilydifferences.Theseincluded

beingdelicateanddeliberateinmovements,takingupaslittlespaceaspossible,

andhavingaphysiquethatisshapelyandsoft.Throughthesecharacteristics,

one’sgenderbecameintelligible.Therepetitionofthesepractices,andthe

maintenanceofthebodyintheseways,enablethebodytobeunderstoodas

female.Thisformofintelligiblewomenisconstructedrelationallyaswhata

man’sbodyisnot.

Therewereaspectsoffemininitythatwereseentobemoremalleablethanthe

physicalcharacteristics.Thesefocussedonthewayinwhichwomenadorned

themselves,includingclothing,shoes,makeupandaccessories.By‘adding’the

rightcomponents,abodycouldmovetowardsamorefemininewayofbeing.The

thirdaspectofdominantfemininity,isthatoftherestrictive,encompassing

behaviouranddemeanour.Whenwomenshowinterestincertainactivities,

laughtooloud,orspeakincertainways,theirfemininityiscalledintoquestion.

Theseexperienceswerepresentedasrestrictiveinthattheywerefocussedon

ideasaroundwhatwomen‘shouldn’tdo’.Hegemonicfemininityrequiresallthree

dimensionsoffemininitytobeadheredto.Whenthisoccurs,awoman’sgender

expressionsaremadelegibleandsheisunderstoodasfeminine.Thismanifests

intotwomaintropes,theBarbie,andtheMother,bothofwhichholdhegemonic

status.Whilebothoftheseidealswereconstructedasrelationaltomasculinity,

theyalsodifferedslightlyfromoneanotherwiththeBarbieprimarilybeing

appearanceoriented,andtheMother,other-oriented.However,thewomeninmy

300

researchdidnotgenerallyviewtheseformsoffemininitypositivelyandtheir

ownexperiencesdifferedgreatlyfromtheseidealtypes.

InChapter6:Non-DominantGenderExpressionsandPariahFemininities,

discussionsofnon-dominantgenderexpressionsrevealedacomplexarrayof

experiencesthatthewomendidnotalwayshavelanguagetoadequatelycapture,

particularlywithrelationtotheexpressionoftraditionally‘masculine’

characteristics.‘Androgyny’wasseenasfashionstatement,‘masculinity’was

readdifferentlywhenperformedbywomen’sbodies,‘tomboy’didn’tapplyafter

puberty,and‘butch’wastoointertwinedwithqueersexualitytoapplyto

heterosexualwomen.Duetoalackoflinguisticalternatives,transgressionsofany

ofthethreedimensionsoffemininitywerebestunderstoodas‘unfeminine’.

However,withintherealmoftheunfeminine,thereremainedvariation.Further

researchintothesevariations,includingtheintersectionalitybetweenlocation

(ruralandurban),class,andethnicity,willenableamorethorough

understandingofthewaysinwhichunfemininitymanifests.

Ahierarchyoffemininitieswasproposedwherehegemonicfemininitieswere

seentohavethemostpowerandstatus,whilethoseformsofwomen’sgender

expressionthatwerelessintelligibleweresituatedinvarioussubordinate

positions.Womenwhoweretooself-interested,suchasthediva,wereseenasa

softformofpariahfemininityfornotadheringtotheexpectednormoffemininity

ofbeingself-sacrificing.Whiletheywereseennegatively,becauseofthe

adherencetothemajorityoftheaspectsoffemininitytheystilldisplayedlegible

femininityandassuch,thesocialpenaltywasonlyminor.Feminists,athletesand

301

womenwithmultiplesexualpartnerswerealsopariahfemininities,howeverthe

stigmaattachedwasmuchgreater.Thesewomenwereseentobeupsettingthe

balanceofmorethanonedimensionoffemininityandtheirgenderexpressions

lesscomprehensible.Themostheavilysanctionedgroupsofwomenincluded

thosewhowereoverlymuscular,engagedinaggressivesports,ornotinterested

inappealingtomaledesires.Theviolationsforwomeninthiscategorytookplace

onmultipledimensionsoffemininityandtheirgenderwastheleastintelligible.

DiscussionsinChapter7:ContingentandRelationalGenderExpressionsexplored

thecontradictoryandcontextualnatureofgenderexpressions.

Despitethelimitationsofeverydaylanguageforthewomentolabeltheirnon-

dominantgenderexpressions,participantswereabletotalkabouttheir

experiencesinsophisticatedandinsightfulways.Onanindividuallevel,the

womenfoundwaysofcreatingtheirownformsoffemininity,wherethecore

valueswereshifted.Byengagingingendermanoeuvringintheircommunitiesof

practice,womenwerealsoabletotransformtheirpariahfemininitiesinto

alternativefemininities,eliminatingthestigmathatwouldnormallybeattached

toparticularbehaviours.However,thiswasoftenlimited,eitherinthatonly

intergenderrelationswithinaverysmalllocationwerechallenged,orinother

cases,onlytheintragenderrelations.Theagencyexperiencedinthesesituations

didnottranslateoverintootherpartsoftheirlives.ThesecondhalfofChapter7

describedthewaysinwhichstructuralinfluencesimpactedtheirlives.Theareas

wherethiswasmostevidentwereinrelationtoheterosexualrelations,from

datingandrelationshipstocohabitationandchildrearing.Thepowerofthe

heterosexualmatrixwasfeltthroughouttheseexperiencesandtheexpectations

302

placeduponthewomentoconformtomorehegemonicformsoffemininitywere

pronounced.Thepowerofbinarygenderexpressionscreatedpressurethatwas

inescapable.

InlinewithButler(1990)andSchippers(2007),Iarguethatthosewhohave

intelligiblegendershavemorepowerthanthosewhosewhodonot.Havinga

frameworkfromwhichtoconceptualiseandresearchwomen’sgender

expressionsiscrucialformountingachallengetothegenderorder.Withouta

clearunderstandingofhowthesubordinationofwomenismaintained,bothby

menandotherwomen,successfulresistanceisunlikely.Thisthesishas

contributedtotheunderstandingoftheseissuesbyprovidinganaccountofthe

livedexperiencesofheterosexualcisfemininityandnon-dominantgender

expressionsforAustralianwomen.Throughthis,anoutlinefortheorisingthe

constructionoffemininitywasdiscussedandaframeworkwaspresentedfor

conceptualisinghowwomenbecomesubordinatedwithinthefemininities

hierarchy.

Women’sgenderexpressionsareunderstoodrelationally.Thisoccurswith

respecttointergenderrelations,wherefemininityisunderstoodaswhat

masculinityisnot.Relationalitycanalsobeseenwithinfemininities,where

unfemininityisunderstoodoppositionallytofemininity.Thepowerofthebinary

wasallencompassing.Themoreheterosexualisedawoman’slifebecame,the

morepowerheterosexualnormshadontheirgenderexpressions.Thissupports

Butler(1990),Hockeyetal.’s(2007)andVanEvery’s(1996)contentionsthat

genderoperatesthroughtheinstitutionofheterosexuality.

303

WhilemyresearchonlyspeakstosomeexperiencesforAustralianwomen,the

findingsprovideinsightintothewaysinwhichfemininityisconstructedandhow

particularformsbecomeprivilegedoverothers.Futureresearchexploringother

sitesofgendermanoeuvringwillhelptoseewhatotherwayswomenare

resistinghegemonicgenderrelationsandprovideinsightintohowmultiple

femininitiesinteractandbecomeprivileged.Additionally,furtherexplorationof

thehierarchiesofwomen’sgenderexpressionsinvariouscontexts,bothwithin

andoutsideofAustralia,wouldprovideformoredetailedunderstandingsofthe

variationsandsimilaritiesthatunderpinandchallengethegenderorder.

IntheclosingparagraphsofMimiSchippers(2002,p.189)book,Rockin’Outside

oftheBox,sheasksthereader:

Whatarethe[expectationsandrequirements]forfemininity?Howdo

thoseexpectationsgetproducedandsustained?Andmostimportantly,

howcanyoufuckwiththem?

Myresearchhashelpedtoanswerthefirsttwoquestions,andasforthethird-

herrecommendationistogooutandseekspacestomanoeuvre.Whilethisalone

willnotdismantlethesocialinequalitybetweenmenandwomen,itisonesmall

steptowardsit.So,gooutandcutyourhairshort,laughtooloudly,getbloodon

yourjumper,andmowyourlawnagain.

304

References

Adams,N1999,‘Fightingtobesomebody:Thediscursivepracticesofadolescent

girlsfighting’,EducationalStudies,vol.30,pp.115-39.

Adams,N&BettisPJ2003,‘Commandingtheroominshortskirts:Cheerleading

attheintersectionofmasculinityandfemininity’,Gender&Society,vol.17,

no.1,pp.73-91.

Allan,A2009,‘Theimportanceofbeinga‘lady’:hyper-femininityand

heterosexualityintheprivate,single-sexprimaryschool’,Genderand

Education,vol.21,pp.145-158.

Ambjörnsson,F2004,Inaclassbythemselves.Genderandsexualityamonghigh

schoolgirls,Ordfront,Stockholm.

Arendell,T2000,‘Conceivingandinvestigatingmotherhood:Thedecade’s

scholarship’,JournalofMarriageandtheFamily,vol.62,pp.1192-1207.

Armstrong,EA,Hamilton,LT,ArmstrongEM&LotusSeeley,J2014,‘“Goodgirls”:

Gender,socialclass,andslutdiscourseoncampus’,SocialPsychology

Quarterly,vol.77,no.2,pp.100-122.

Atkinson,M2002,‘Prettyinink:Conformity,resistance,andnegotiationin

women’stattooing’,SexRoles,vol.47,pp.219–235.

Austin,H&Carpenter,L2008,‘Troubled,troublesome,troublingmothers:The

dilemmaofdifferenceinwomen’spersonalmotherhoodnarratives’,

NarrativeInquiry,vol.18,no.2,pp.378-392.

AustralianBureauofStatistics(ABS)2006,PersonalSafetySurvey,Australia,cat.

no4906.0,viewed28January2017,

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4906.0.

305

AustralianBureauofStatistics(ABS)2016,AverageWeeklyEarnings,Australia,

cat.no.6302.0,viewed28January2017,

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0

AustralianInstituteofFamilyStudies2015,TheLongitudinalStudyofAustralian

ChildrenAnnualStatisticalReport2014,AIFS,Melbourne,Australia.

Bäckström,Å2013,‘GenderManoeuvringinSwedishSkateboarding:

NegotiationsofFemininitiesandtheHierarchicalGenderStructure’,Young,

vol.21,no.1,pp.29-53.

Bailey,C2007,AGuidetoQualitativeFieldResearch,2nded.,SAGE/PineForge

Press,ThousandOaks,CA.

Baird,M&Cutcher,L2005,‘“Oneforthefather,oneforthemotherandonefor

thecountry”:Anexaminationoftheconstructionofmotherhoodthroughthe

prismofpaidmaternityleave’,Hecate,vol.31,no.2,pp.103-113.

Baker,J2008,‘Theideologyofchoice.Overstatingprogressandhidinginjustice

inthelivesofyoungwomen:FindingsfromastudyinNorthQueensland,

Australia’,Women’sStudiesInternationalForum,vol.31,pp.53-64.

Bartky,SL1990,Femininityanddomination:Studiesinthephenomenologyof

oppression,Routledge,Oxon,UK.

Beasley,C2005,Gender&sexuality:Criticaltheories,criticalthinkers,SAGE,

ThousandOaks,CA.

Bem,S1974,‘Themeasurementofpsychologicalandrogyny’,Journalof

ConsultingandClinicalPsychology,vol.42,no.2,pp.155-162.

Berlant,L1997,‘Thesubjectoftruefeeling:Pain,privacyandpolitics’inS

Ahmed,JKilby,CLury,MMcNeil&BSkeggs(eds),Transformations:Thinking

throughfeminism,Routledge,London,pp.33-48.

306

Berlant,L&Warner,M1998,‘Sexinpublic’,CriticalInquiry,vol.24,no.2,pp.

547-566.

Beutel,AM,Borden,BA&BurgeSW2015,‘Femininity,masculinityandfeminist

identity:Variationbyrace-ethnicity’,ConferencePaper–American

SociologicalAssociation.

Blaikie,A,Hepworth,M,Holmes,M,Howson,A,&Inglis,D2003,'TheSociologyof

theBody:Genesis,DevelopmentandFutures',inABlaikie,MHepworth,M

Holmes,AHowson,DInglis,&SSartain(eds),TheBody:CriticalConceptsin

Sociology,RoutledgeLondon,UK,pp.1-23.

Blinde,EM&Taub,DE1992,‘Womenathletesasfalselyaccuseddeviants:

Managingthelesbianstigma’,SociologicalQuarterly,vol.33,no.4,pp.521-

533.

Bloor,M,Frankland,J,ThomasM&RobsonK2001,Focusgroupsinsocial

research,SAGE,London.

Bordo,S2003,Unbearableweight:Feminism,westernculture,andthebody,

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,CA.

Bradley,H2007,Gender,PolityPress,Cambridge,MA.

Broad,KL2001,‘Thegenderedunapologetic:Queerresistanceinwomen’ssport’,

SociologyofSportJournal,vol.18,no.2,pp.181-204.

Brown,LM2003,Girlfighting:Betrayalandrejectionamonggirls,NewYork

UniversityPress,NewYork,NY.

Brown,J,Lumley,S,Small,J&Asterbury,R1994,Missingvoices:Theexperiences

ofmotherhood,OxfordUniversityPress,Melbourne,Australia.

Bryman,A2008,Socialresearchmethods,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,United

Kingdom.

307

Budgeon,S2014,‘Thedynamicsofgenderhegemony:Femininities,masculinities

andsocialchange’,Sociology,vol.48,no.2,pp.317-334.

Burger,TD,&Finkel,D2002,‘Relationshipsbetweenbodymodificationsand

veryhigh-riskbehaviorsinacollegepopulation’,CollegeStudentJournal,vol.

36,pp.203-213.

Burn,SM,O’Neil,K,&Nederend,S1996,‘Childhoodtomboyismandadult

androgyny’,SexRoles,vol.34,no.5-6,pp.419–428.

Butler,D&Charles,N2012,‘Exaggeratedfemininityandtorturedmasculinity:

embodyinggenderinthehorseracingindustry’,TheSociologicalReview,

vol.60,no.4,pp.676-695.

Butler,J1988,‘Performativeactsandgenderconstitution:Anessayin

phenomenologyandfeministtheory’,TheatreJournal,vol.40,no.4,pp.519-

531.

Butler,J1990,Gendertrouble:Feminismandthesubversionofidentity,Routledge,

NewYork,NY.

Butler,J1993a,Bodiesthatmatter:Onthediscursivelimitsofsex,Routlege,New

York,NY.

Butler,J1993b,‘Imitationandgenderinsubordination’inHAbelove,MABarale,

&DMHalperin(eds),Thelesbianandgaystudiesreader,Routledge,New

York,NY,pp.307-320.

Butler,J2004,Undoinggender,Routledge,NewYork,NY.

Cahn,SK1993,Fromthe“musclemoll'tothe“butch”ballplayer:mannishness,

lesbianism,andhomophobiainU.S.women'ssport,FeministStudies,vol.19,

no.2,pp.343−368.

308

Cahn,SK1994,Comingonstrong:Genderandsexualityinthetwentieth-century

women’ssport,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Carlson,A,2010,‘Genderandsex:Whatarethey?SallyHaslanger’sdebunking

socialconstructivism’,Distinktion:ScandinavianJournalofSocialTheory,vol.

11,no.1.pp.61-72.

Carr,CL1998,‘Tomboyresistanceandconformity:Agencyinsocialpsychological

gendertheory’,Gender&Society,vol.12,no.5,pp.525–553.

Carr,CL2004,‘Wherehaveallthetomboysgone?:Teenstalesofagencyand

compulsoryfemininity’,AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanSociological

Association2004,SanFrancisco,CA,pp.1-26.

Carr,CL2005,‘Tomboyismorlesbianism?Beyondsex/gender/sexuality

conflation’,SexRoles,vol.53,no.½,pp.119-131.

Carr,CL2007,‘Wherehaveallthetomboysgone?Women’saccountsofgenderin

adolescence’,SexRoles,vol.56,no.7-8,pp.439–448.

Caudwell,J2003,‘Sportinggender:Women’sfootballingbodiesassites/sightsfor

the(re)articulationofsex,gender,anddesire’,SociologyofSportJournal,vol.

20,no.4,pp.371-386.

Chambers,S2007,‘Anincaluculableeffect:Subversionsofheteronormativity,

PoliticalStudies,vol.55,no.3,pp.656-679.

Charlebois,J2011,Genderandtheconstructionofdominant,hegemonicand

oppositionalfemininities,Rowman&LittlefieldPublishing,Lanham,MD.

Charlebois,J2012,‘Thediscursiveconstructionof‘bounded

masculinity/unboundedfemininity’,JournalofGenderStudies,vol.21,no.2,

pp.201-214.

Charlebois,J2014,Japanesefemininity,Routledge,NewYork,NY.

309

Chase,LF2006,‘(Un)disciplinedbodies:AFoucauldiananalysisofwomen’s

rugby’,SociologyofSportJournal,vol.23,pp.229-347.

Chodorow,N1978,Thereproductionofmothering,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,

LosAngeles,CA.

Chodorow,N,1994,Femininities,masculinities,sexualities:Freudandbeyond,

UniversityPressofKentucky,Lexington,KY.

Cokburn,C&Clarke,G2002,‘“Everybody’slookingatyou!”:Girlsnegotiatingthe

“femininitydeficit”theyincurinphysicaleducation’,Women’sStudies

InternationalForum,vol.25,no.6,pp.651-665.

Coleman,R2008,‘Thebecomingofbodies:Girls,mediaeffectsandbodyimage’,

FeministMedia,vol.8,no.2,pp.163-178.

Coffey,J2012,Exploringbodyworkpractices:Bodies,affectandbecoming,PhD,

UniversityofMelbourne.

Coffey,J2013,‘’BodyPressure’:Negotiatinggenderthroughbodyworkpractices’,

YouthStudiesAustralia,vol.32,no.2,pp.39-48.

Cohen,J2008,‘Sportingselforsellingsex:Allgirlrollerderbyinthe21stcentury’,

WomeninSportandPhysicalActivityJournal,vol.17,no.2,pp.24-33.

Cole,E&Zucker,A2007,‘Blackandwhitewomen’sperspectivesonfemininity’,

CulturalDiversityandEthnicMinorityPsychology,vol.13,no.1,pp.1-9.

Connell,RW&Messerschmidt,J2005,‘Hegemonicmasculinity:Rethinkingthe

concept’,Gender&Society,vol.19,no.6,pp.829-859.

Connell,RW1987,Genderandpower:Society,thepersonandsexualpolitics,Polity

Press,Cambridge,UK.

Connell,RW1995,Masculinities:Knowledge,powerandsocialchange,Polity

Press,Cambridge,UK.

310

Connell,RW2002,Gender,PolityPress,Malden,MA.

Connell,RW,Hearn,J&Kimmel,M2005,Handbookofstudiesofmenand

masculinities,SAGE,ThousandOaks,CA.

Craig,L2007,Contemporarymotherhood:Theimpactofchildrenonadulttime,

Ashgate,Aldershot.

Crowder,D1998,‘Lesbiansandthe(re/de)constructionofthefemalebody’inD

Atkins(ed.),Lookingqueer:Bodyimageandidentityinlesbian,bisexual,gay

andtransgendercommunities,HaworthPress,NewYork,NY.

Currie,D1997,‘Decodingfemininity:Advertisementsandtheirteenagereaders’,

Gender&Society,vol.11,no.4,pp.453-477.

Currie,D,Kelly,D&Pomerantz,S2006,’Thegeeksshallinherittheearth’:Girls’

agency,subjectivityandempowerment’,JournalofYouthStudies,vol.9,no.4,

pp.419-436.

Cutler,A&Scott,D1990,‘Speakersexandperceivedappointmentoftalk’,

AppliedPsycholinguistics,vol.11,pp.253-272.

Daniels,D2009,Polygenderedandponytailed:Thedilemmaoffemininityandthe

femaleathlete,CanadianScholars’Press,Toronto,Canada.

Darwin,H2017,‘Thepariahfemininityhierarchy:Comparingwhitewomen’s

bodyhairandfatstigmasintheUnitedStates’,Gender,Place&Culture,vol.

24,no.1,pp.135-146.

Davies,B&Harré,R1990,‘Positioning:Thediscursiveproductionofselves’,

JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehaviour,vol.20,no.1,pp.43–63.

Davis,G2016,Contestingintersex:Thedubiousdiagnosis,NewYorkUniversity

Press,NewYork,NY.

311

Davis-Delano,LR,Pollock,A&EllsworthVose,J2009,‘Apologeticbehaviour

amongfemaleathletes’,InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport,vol.

44,no.2,pp.131-150.

deBeauvoir,S,1953,Thesecondsex,VintagePress,NewYork,NY.

Delphy,C1984,Closetohome:Amaterialistanalysisofwomen’soppression,

Hutchison,London,UK.

Delphy,C1993,‘Rethinkingsexandgender’,Women’sStudiesInternational

Forum,vol.16,no.1,pp.1-9.

Deleuze,G1992,'Ethology:Spinozaandus'inJCrary&S.Kwinter(eds),

Incorporations,Zone,NewYork.

Demaiter,E&Adams,T2009,‘“Ireallydidn’thaveanyproblemswiththemale-

femalethinguntil…”:Successfulwomen’sexperiencesinITorganisations’,

CanadianJournalofSociology,vol.34,no.1,pp.31-53.

Dilley,R,Hockey,J,Robinson&Sherlock,A2015,‘Occasionsandnon-occasions:

Identity,femininityandhigh-heeledshoes’,EuropeanJournalofWomen’s

Studies,vol.22,no.2,pp.143-158.

DiQuinzio,P1993,‘Exclusionandessentialisminfeministtheory:Theproblemof

mothering’,Hypatia,vol.8,no.3,pp.1-20.

Douglas,E2014,‘Freakshowfemininities:IntersectionalspectaclesinAngela

Carter’s‘NightsattheCircus’’,Women’sStudies,vol.43,no.1,pp.1-24.

Dunlevy,S2016,‘Childlesswomenareunfittorule?Rubbish’,TheDaily

Telegraph,12July,viewed10January2017,

<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/childless-women-are-

unfit-to-rule-rubbish/news-story/32c4f01d802c08b2d206c2ee9b76e80e>.

312

Durkheim,E(1893)1964,Thedivisionoflaborinsociety,FreePress,NewYork,

NY.

Eckert,P1989,Jocksandburnouts,TeachersCollegePress,NewYork,NY.

Eckert,P&McConnell-Ginet,S1992,‘Thinkpracticallyandlooklocally:Language

andgenderascommunity-basedpractice’,AnnualReviewofAnthropology,

vol.21,pp.461-90.

Elm,MS2009,‘Exploringandnegotiatingfemininity:Youngwomen'screationof

styleinaSwedishInternetcommunity’,Young,vol.17,no.3,pp.241-261.

Esposito,J2011,‘Hillgirls,consumptionpractices,power,andcitystyle:Raced

andclassedproductionoffemininitiesinhighereducationsetting’,Gender

andEducation,vol.23,no.1,pp.87-104.

Erickson,R2005,‘Whyemotionworkmatters:Sex,genderandthedivisionof

householdlabor’,JournalofMarriageandFamily,vol.67,pp.337-351.

Ezzell,M2009,‘“Barbiedolls”onthepitch:Identitywork,defensiveothering,and

inequalityinwomen’srugby’,SocialProblems,vol.56,no.1,pp.111-131.

Fahey,J2014,“Privilegedgirls:Theplaceoffemininityandfemininityinplace”,

Globalisation,SocietiesandEducation,vol.12,no.2,pp.228-243.

Fairchild,E&Gregg,EA2014‘Femininityonthefield:Womenathletes'

appearancepreferencesduringcompetitionandthefeminine/athletic

paradox’,AmericanSociologicalAssociationConference,SanFrancisco,CA.

Fausto-Sterling,A1993,‘Thefivesexes:Whymaleandfemalearenotenough’,

Sciences,vol.33,pp.20-24.

Fausto-Sterling,A2000,‘Thefivesexes:Revisited’,Sciences,vol.40,no.4,pp.18-

23.

Feinberg,L1993,Stonebutchblues:Anovel,FirebrandBooks,Ithica,NY.

313

Ferguson,A1974,‘Androgynyasanidealforhumandevelopment’,inFElliston&

JEnglish(eds),Feminismandphilosophy,RowmanandLittlefield,Totowa,NJ,

pp.45-69.

Finlay,L2002,‘Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity

in research practice’, Qualitative Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 209-230.

Finley,N2010,‘Skatingfemininity:Gendermanoeuvringinwomen’sroller

derby’,JournalofContemporaryEthnography,vol.39,no.4,pp.359-387.

Firestone,S1971,Thedialecticofsex:Thecaseforfeministrevolution,Cape,

London,UK.

Fitzsimmons,E2014,‘Ascourgeisspreading.M.T.A.’scure?Dude,closeyour

legs.’,TheNewYorkTimes,20December,viewed20January2016,

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/MTA-targets-

manspreading-on-new-york-city-subways.html.

Fonow,MM&Cook,JA2005,‘Feministmethodology:Newapplicationsinthe

academyandpublicpolicy’,Signs,vol.30,no.4,pp.2211-2236.

Foucault,M1979,Thehistoryofsexualityvolume1:Anintroduction,AllenLane,

London,UK.

Fox,M2013,‘ThetwosidesofPink’,Redbook,11February,viewed20January

2017,<http://www.redbookmag.com/life/friends-

family/interviews/a14837/pink-interview-on-marriage-baby-and-music/>.

Francis,B2010,‘Re/theorisinggender:Femalemasculinityandmalefemininity

intheclassroom’,GenderandEducation,vol.22,no.5,pp.477-490.

Francombe,J2014,‘Learningtoleisure:Femininityandpracticesofthebody’,

LeisureStudies,vol.33,no.6,pp.580-597.

314

Frith,H&Kitzinger,C1998,‘Emotionworkasaparticipantresource:Afeminist

analysisofyoungwomen’stalk-in-interaction’,Sociology,vol.32,no.2,pp.

299-320.

Frith,H&Kitzinger,C2001,‘Reformulatingsexualscripttheory:Developinga

discursivepsychologyofsexualnegotiation’,TheoryandPsychology,vol.11,

pp.209-232.

Frosh,S,Phoenix,A&Pattman,R2002,YoungMasculinities,PalgraveMacmillan,

Basingstoke,UK.

Gagnon,J&Simon,W1973,Sexualconduct,Aldine,Chicago,Ill.

Gagnon,J1977,Humansexuality,Scott,Foresman&Company,Glenview,Ill.

Gallagher,M2014,‘Mediaandtherepresentationofgender’inCCarter,LSteiner

&LMcLaughlin(eds),TheRoutledgecompaniontomedia&gender,Taylor

andFrancis,NewYork,NY,pp.23-31.

Garfinkel,H1967,Studiesinethnomethodology,PrenticeHall,EnglewoodCliffs,

NJ.

Gatens,M1992,‘Power,bodiesanddifference’,inMBarrettandAPhillips,

DestablizingTheory:ContemporaryFeministDebates,StanfordUniversity

Press,pp.120-37.

Gatens,M1994,'TheDangersofawoman-centeredphilosophy'inThePolity

ReaderinGenderStudies,PolityPress,Oxford.

Gill,F2007,‘’Violent’femininity:Womenrugbyplayersandgendernegotiation’,

Women'sStudiesInternationalForum,vol.30,no.5,pp.416–426.

Gill,R&Scharff,C2011,NewFemininities:Postfeminism,Neoliberalismand

Subjectivity,PalgraveMacmillan,Basingstoke,UK.

Gillespie,R2003,‘Childfreeandfeminine:Understandingthegenderidentityof

315

voluntarilychildlesswomen’,Gender&Society,vol.17,no.1,pp.122-136.

Gilligan,C1993,Inadifferentvoice:Psychologicaltheoryandwomen’s

development,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.

Glenn,P2003,Laughterininteraction,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,

MA.

Goffman,E1976,GenderAdvertisements,Macmillan,London,UK.

Gonick,M2004,‘Oldplotsandnewidentities:Ambivalentfemininitiesinlate

modernity’,Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,vol.25,no.

2,pp.189-209.

Gould,M&Kern-Daniels,R1977,‘Towardasociologicaltheoryofgenderand

sex’,AmericanSociologist,vol.12,pp.182–189.

Grbich,C2009,Qualitativedataanalysis:Anintroduction,SAGE,ThousandOaks,

CA.

Greer,G1970,Thefemaleeunuch,MacGibbon&Kee,London,UK.

Grindstaff,L&West,E2006,‘Cheerleadingandthegenderedpoliticsofsport’,

SocialProblems,vol.53,pp.500-518.

Grindstaff,L&West,E2010‘Handsonhips,smilesonlips!Gender,race,andthe

performanceofspiritincheerleading’,Text&PerformanceQuarterly,vol.30,

no.2,pp.143-162.

Griffin,P1998,Strongwomen,deepclosets:Lesbiansandhomophobiainsport,

HumanKineticsPublishers,Champaign.

Grogan,S2000,‘Women’sbodyimage’,inJUssher(ed.),Women’sHealthReader,

PBSBooks,London,pp.665-673.

316

Grogan,S,Evans,R,Wright,S&Hunter,G2004,‘Femininityandmuscularity:

Accountsofsevenwomenbodybuilders’,JournalofGenderStudies,vol.13,

no.1,pp.49-61.

Grosz,E1994,Volatilebodies:Towardsacorporealfeminism,Allen&Unwin,St.

Leonards.

Guéguen,N2012,‘Tattoos,piercings,andsexualactivity’,SocialBehaviourand

Personality,vol.40,no.9,pp.1543-1548.

Haines,RJ,Johnson,JL,Carter,CI,&Arora,K2009,‘”Icouldn’tsay,I’mnotagirl”-

Adolescentstalkaboutgenderandmarijuanause’,SocialScience&Medicine,

vol.68,no.11,pp.2029-2036.

Halberstam,J1998,Femalemasculinity,DukeUniversityPress,Durham,NC.

Halsey,M&Young,A2006,‘“Ourdesiresareungovernable”’:Writinggraffitiin

urbanspace,TheoreticalCriminology,vol.10,no.3,pp.275-306.

Hanson,M1995,Go!Fight!Win!CheeringinAmericanculture,BowlingGreen

StateUniversityPopularPress,Ohio.

Harris,A2004,Futuregirl:Youngwomeninthetwenty-firstcentury,Routledge,

NewYork,NY.

Hart,L1998,‘Livingunderthesignofthecross:Somespeculationsonfemme

femininity’inSMundt(ed.),Butch/femme:Insidelesbiangender,Cassell,

London,UK,pp.214-225.

Hays,S1996,Theculturalcontradictionsofmotherhood,YaleUniversityPress,

NewHaven,CT.

Haywood,C&MacanGhaill,M2003,Menandmasculinities:Theory,researchand

socialpractice,OpenUniversityPress,Buckingham.

Herbert,M1998,Camouflageisn’tonlyforcombat,NewYorkUniversityPress,

317

NewYork,NY.

Hird,M2000,‘Gender’snature:Intersectionality,transsexualismandthe

‘sex’/’gender’binary’,FeministTheory,vol.1,no.3,pp.347-364.

Hird,M2004,Sex,gender,andscience,PalgraveMacmillan,NewYork,NY.

Hird,M&Abshoff,K2000,‘Womenwithoutchildren:Acontradictioninterms?’,

JournalofComparativeFamilyStudies,vol.31,no.3,pp.347-366.

Holland,S&Harpin,J2013,‘Whoisthe‘girly-girl’?Tomboys,hyper-femininity

andgender’,JournalofGenderStudies,pp.1-17.

Holmes,J&Meyerhoff,M1999,‘Thecommunityofpractice:Theoriesand

methodologiesinlanguageandgenderresearch’,LanguageinSociety,vol.28,

pp.173-185.

Holmes,J&Schnurr,S2006,‘“Doingfemininity”atwork:Morethanjust

relationalpractices’,JournalofSociolinguistics,vol.10,no.1,pp.31-51.

Holmes,M2007,Whatisgender?:Sociologicalapproaches,SAGE,LosAngeles,CA.

Hood-Williams,J1996,‘Goodbyetosexandgender’,TheSociologicalReview,vol.

44,no.1,pp.1–16.

Hochschild,AR1983,Themanagedheart,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,

CA.

Hockey,J,Meah,A&Robinson,V2007,Mundaneheterosexualities:Fromtheoryto

practice,PalgraveMacmillan,Basingstoke,UK.

Huey,L&Berndt,E2008,‘‘You’vegottalearnhowtoplaythegame’:Homeless

women'suseofgenderperformanceasatoolforpreventingvictimization’,

TheSociologicalReview,vol.56,pp.177–194.

Hyde,JS&Jaffee,SR2000,‘Becomingaheterosexualadult:Theexperiencesof

youngwomen’,JournalofSocialIssues,vol.56,pp.283-296.

318

Inness,S1999,Toughgirls:Womenwarriorsandwonderwomeninpopular

culture,UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia,PA.

Jackson,C2006a,‘’Wild’girls?Anexplorationof‘ladette’culturesinsecondary

schools’,GenderandEducation,vol.18,no.4,pp.339-360.

Jackson,S2005,‘Sexuality,HeterosexualityandGenderHierarchy:GettingOur

PrioritiesStraight’,inCIngraham(ed.)Thinkingstraight.ThePower,the

promise,andtheparadoxofheterosexuality,Routledge,NewYork,NY,pp.15–

38.

Jackson,S2006b,‘Gender,sexualityandheterosexuality’,FeministTheory,vol.7,

no.1,pp.105-121.

Jackson,S&Scott,S2010,‘Rehabilitatinginteractionismforafeministsociology

ofsexuality’,Sociology,vol.44,no.5,pp.811-826.

Jagose,A1996,Theorisingsame-sexdesire,MelbourneUniversityPress,

Melbourne,Australia.

Jaji,R2015‘Normative,agitated,andrebelliousfemininitiesamongEastand

CentralAfricanrefugeewomen’,Gender,Place&Culture,vol.22,no.4,pp.

494-509.

Jeffreys,S2005,Beautyandmisogyny:HarmfulculturalpracticesintheWest,

Routledge,London,UK.

Johnson,AG2005,Genderknot:Unravellingourpatriarchallegacy,Temple

UniversityPress,Philadelphia,PA.

Johnson,E2016,‘Onebody,oneseat:Seattle’scampaignagainstthe

‘manspreading’scourge’,Reuters,16January,viewed20January2016,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-transportation-manspreading-

idUSKBN0KQ01120150117

319

Kelly,D,Pomerantz,S&Currie,D2005,‘Skatergirlhoodandemphasized

femininity:‘Youcan’tlandanollieproperlyinheels’’,GenderandEducation,

vol.17,no.3,pp.229-248.

Kelly,L,Burton,S,&Regan,L1994,‘Researchingwomen’slivesorstudying

women’soppression?Reflectionsonwhatconstitutesfeministresearch’,inM

Maynard&JPurvis(eds),Researchingwomen’slivesfromafeminist

perspective,TaylorandFrancis,London,UK,pp.22–48.

Kelly,J2011,‘MarkLathamsaysJuliaGillardhasnoempathybecauseshe’s

childless’,TheAustralian,4April,viewed10January2017,

<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mark-latham-says-julia-

gillard-has-no-empathy-because-shes-childless/news-

story/c4a00144d22113cdf7b6cd8a723f2016>.

Kessler,S1998,Lessonsfromtheintersexed,RutgersUniversityPress,New

Brunswick,NJ.

Kessler,S&McKenna,W1978,Gender:Anethnomethodologicalapproach,John

WileyandSons,NewYork,NY.

Kim,J,Sorsoli,C,Collins,K,Zylbergold,B,Schooler,D&Tolman,D2007,‘From

sextosexuality:Exposingtheheterosexualscriptonprimetimenetwork

television’,JournalofSexResearch,vol.44,no.2,pp.145-157.

Koch,JR,Roberts,AE,Armstrong,ML,&Owen,DC2007,‘Frequenciesand

relationsofbodypiercingandsexualactivityincollegestudents’,

PsychologicalReports,vol.101,pp.159-162.

Kokko,S2009,‘Learningpracticesoffemininitythroughgenderedcraft

educationinFinland’,GenderandEducation,vol.21,no.6,pp.721-734.

320

Kozlowski,L&Cutting,J1977,‘Recognizingthesexofawalkerfromadynamic

point-lightdisplay’,Perception&Psychophysics,vol.21,no.6,pp.575-580.

Krane,V,Choi,P,Bard,SM,Aimar,CM&KauerKJ2004,‘Livingtheparadox:

Femaleathletesnegotiatefemininityandmuscularity’,SexRoles,vol.50,pp.

315-320.

Lazar,M2007,Feministcriticaldiscourseanalysis:Gender,powerandideologyin

discourse,PalgraveMacmillan,London,UK.

Leahy,T1994,‘Takingupaposition:Discoursesoffemininityandadolescencein

thecontextofman/girlrelationships’,GenderandSociety,vol.8,pp.48–72.

Levitt,HM&Hiestand,KR2004,‘Aquestforauthenticity:Contemporarybutch

gender’,SexRoles,vol.50,no.9/10,pp.605-621.

Liamputtong,P&Ezzy,D2013,Qualitativeresearchmethods,OxfordUniversity

Press,SouthMelbourne,Australia.

Lindsey,LL2011,Genderroles:Asociologicalperspective,5thedn,

Pearson/PrenticeHall,UpperSaddleRiver,NJ.

Lorber,J1994,Paradoxesofgender,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT.

Lorenzi-Cioldi.F1996,‘Psychologicalandrogyny:Aconceptinsearchoflesser

substance.Towardstheunderstandingofthetransformationofasocial

representation’,JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehaviour,vol.26,no.2,137-

155.

Lowe,M1998,Womenofsteel:Femalebodybuildersandthestruggleforself-

definition,NewYorkUniversityPress,NewYork,NY.

Lundstrom,C2006,‘“Okay,butwearenotwhoresyouknow”:Latinagirls

navigatingtheboundariesofgenderandethnicityinSweden’,NordicJournal

ofYouthResearch,vol.14,no.3,pp.203-18.

321

Maher,J2004,‘Skills,notattributes:Rethinkingmotheringaswork’,Journalfor

theAssociationforResearchonMothering,vol.6,no.2,pp.7-16.

Marshall,J1993,‘Patternsofculturalawareness:Copingstrategiesforwomen

managers’,inBCLong&SEKahn(eds),Women,work,andcoping,McGill-

Queen’sUniversityPress,Montreal.

McRobbie,A2007,‘Notesonpostfeminismandpopularculture:BridgetJones

andthenewgenderregime’inYTasker&DNegra(eds),Interrogating

postfeminism:Genderandthepoliticsofpopularculture,pp.27-39.

MenTakingUpTooMuchSpaceontheTrain2015,Mentakinguptoomuchspace

onthetrain,viewed20February2016,

http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/

Merck,M&Sandford,S2010,Furtheradventuresofthedialecticofsex:Critical

essaysonShulamithFirestone,PalgraveMacmillan,NewYork,NY.

Messerschmidt,J2000,Ninelives:Adolescentmasculinities,thebody,andviolence,

Westview,Boulder,CO.

Messerschmidt,J2004,Fleshandblood:Adolescentgenderdiversityandviolence,

RowanandLittlefield,Oxford,UK.

Messerschmidt,J2010,Hegemonicmasculinitiesandcamouflagedpolitics,

Paradigm,Boulder,CO.

Miller,AD2006,‘Doingbisexuality:Thisiswhatabisexuallookslike?’,Annual

MeetingoftheAmericanSociologicalAssociation2006,Montreal,Canada.

Miller,GE2004,‘Frontiermasculinityintheoilindustry:Theexperienceof

womenengineers’,Gender,WorkandOrganization,vol.11,no.1,pp.47-73.

Mills,S2005,‘Genderandimpoliteness’,JournalofPolitenessResearch,vol.1,pp.

263-280.

322

Moi,T2001,Whatisawomanandotheressays,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,

UK.

Muehlenhard,CL&Peterson,ZD2011,‘Distinguishingbetweensexandgender:

History,currentconceptualizations,andimplications’,SexRoles,vol.64,no.

11-12,pp.791-803.

Mullaney,JL2007,‘”Unityadmirablebutnotnecessarilyheeded'':Goingrates

andgenderboundariesinthestraightedgehardcoremusicscene’,Gender&

Society,vol.21,no.3,pp.384-408.

Myers,K&Raymond,L2010,‘Elementaryschoolgirlsandheteronormativity’,

Gender&Society,vol.24,no.2,pp.167-188.

NakanoGlenn,E1994,‘Socialconstructionsofmothering:Athematicoverview’

inENakanoGlenn,GChang&LRennie(eds),Mothering,ideology,experience

andagency,Routledge,London,UK,pp.1-29.

Nanda,S2000,Genderdiversity:Acrossculturalperspective,WavelandPress,

ProspectHeights,Illinois.

Nash,M2011,‘”Youdon’ttrainforamarathonsittingonthecouch”:

Performancesofpregnancy‘fitness’and‘good’motherhoodinMelbourne,

Australia’,Women’sStudiesInternationalForum,vol.34,no.1,pp.50-65.

Nash,M2014,Reframingreproduction:Conceivinggenderedexperiences,Palgrave

Macmillan,Basingstoke,UK.

Nguyen,A2008,‘Patriarchy,powerandfemalemasculinity’,Journalof

Homosexuality,vol.55,no.4,pp.665-683.

Oakley,A1972,Sex,genderandsociety,SunBooks,SouthMelbourne,Australia.

Oakley,A2005,TheAnneOakleyreader:Gender,womenandsocialscience,Policy

Press,Bristol,UK.

323

Obel,C1996,‘Collapsinggenderincompetitivebodybuilding:Researching

contradictionsandambiguityinsport’,InternationalReviewfortheSociology

ofSport,vol.31,no.2,pp.185-202.

Ortner,SB1972,‘Isfemaletomaleasnatureistoculture?’,FeministStudies,vol.

1,no.2,pp.5-31.

Packard,J2009,‘Runningoff-tacklethroughthelastbastion:Women,resistance,

andprofessionalfootball’,SociologicalSpectrum,vol.29,pp.321-345.

Paechter,C2006,‘Masculinefemininities/femininemasculinities:Power

identitiesandgender,GenderandEducation,vol.18,no.3,pp.253-263.

Paechter,C2007,Beingboys,beinggirls:Learningmasculinitiesandfemininities,

OpenUniversityPress,Maidenhead,UK.

Paechter,C2010,‘Tomboysandgirly-girls:Embodiedfemininitiesinprimary

schools’,Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,vol.31,no.2,

pp.221-235.

Parsons,T1954,Essaysinsociologicaltheory,FreePress,Glencoe,Illinois.

Parsons,T&Bales,R1955,Family,socializationandinteractionprocess,TheFree

Press,NewYork,NY.

Patton,M1990,QualitativeEvaluationandResearchMethods,2ndedn,SAGE,

London,UK.

Pascoe,CJ2006,‘”Girlscanbemasculinetoo”:Thinkingabouttheoriesof

masculinity’,AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanSociologicalAssociation2006,

Montreal,Canada.

Pascoe,CJ2012,Dudeyou’reafag:MasculinityandSexualityinHighSchool,

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,CA.

324

Peletz,M2009,Gender pluralism: Southeast Asia since early modern times,

Routledge, New York, NY.

Pierce,J1995,Gendertrials:Emotionallivesincontemporarylawfirms,University

ofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,CA.

Plant,M1997,Womenandalcohol:Contemporaryandhistoricalperspectives,Free

AssociationBooks,London,UK.

Plummer,K1975,Sexualstigma:Aninteractionistaccount,Routledge,London,

UK.

Plummer,K1981,Themakingofthemodernhomosexual,Hutchinson,London,

UK,

PlummerK2003,‘Queers,bodiesandpostmodernsexualities:Anoteon

revisitingthesexualinsymbolicinteractionism’,QuarterlySociology,vol.26,

no.4,pp.515-530.

Pomerantz,S,Currie,D&Kelly,D2004,‘Sk8ergirls:Skateboarders,girlhoodand

feminisminmotion’,Women’sStudiesInternationalForum,vol.27,pp.547–

557.

Provine,R1996,‘Laughter’,AmericanScientist,vol.84,no.1,pp.38-45.

Pyke,K&Johnson,D2003,‘Racializedfemininities:“Doing”genderacross

culturalworlds’,Gender&Society,vol.17,no.1,pp.33-53.

RahmanM&Jackson,S2010,Genderandsexuality:Sociologicalapproaches,

Polity,Cambridge,UK.

Ramazanoglu,C&Holland,J2002,Feministmethodology:Challengesandchoices,

SAGE,ThousandOaks,CA.

325

Reading,J&Amatea,E1986,‘Roledevianceorrolediversification:Reassessing

thepsychosocialfactorsaffectingtheparenthoodchoiceofcareer-oriented

women’,JournalofMarriage&Family,vol.48,no.2,pp.225-260.

Reay,D2001,‘‘Spicegirls’,‘nicegirls’,‘girlies’and‘tomboys’:genderdiscourse,

girls’culturesandfemininitiesintheprimaryclassroom’,Genderand

Education,vol.13,no.2,pp.153-166.

Reger,J2001,‘Motherhoodandtheconstructionoffeministidentities:Variations

inawomen'smovementorganization’,SociologicalInquiry,vol.71,no.1,pp.

85-110.

Reinharz,S1992,Feministmethodsinsocialresearch,OxfordUniversityPress,

NewYork,NY.

Renold,E2000,‘Comingout’:Gender(hetero)sexualityandtheprimaryschool,

GenderandEducation,vol.12,pp.309-326.

Renold,E2005,Girls,boysandjuniorsexualities:Exploringchildren’sgenderand

sexualrelationshipsintheprimaryschool,Routledge,London,UK.

Renold,E2006,‘“Theywon’tletusplay…unlessyou’regoingoutwithoneof

them”:Girls,boysandButler’s‘heterosexualmatrix’intheprimaryyears’,

BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation,vol.27,no.4,pp.489-509.

Renold,E&Allan,A2006,‘Brightandbeautiful:Highachievinggirls,ambivalent

femininities,andthefeminizationofsuccessintheprimaryschool’,

Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,vol.27,no.4,pp.457-

473.

Reynolds,S&Press,J1995,Thesexrevolts:Gender,rebellionandrock‘n’roll,

Serpent’sTailPress,London,UK.

Rich,A1980,‘Compulsoryheterosexualityandlesbianexistence’,Signs:Journalof

326

WomeninCultureandSociety,vol.5,no.4,pp.631-660.

Richardson,D1996,‘Heterosexualityandsocialtheory’inDRichardson(ed.),

Theorisingheterosexuality,OpenUniversityPress,Buckingham,UK,pp.1-20.

Richardson,D2007,‘Patternedfluidities:(Re)imaginingtherelationshipbetween

genderandsexuality’,Sociology,vol.41,no.3,pp.457-474.

Ringrose,J2007,‘Successfulgirls?Complicatingpost-feminist,neoliberal

discoursesofeducationalachievementandgenderequality’,Genderand

Education,vol.19,pp.471-489.

Risman,BJ2004,‘Genderasasocialstructure:Theorywrestlingwith

activism’,GenderandSociety,vol.18,no.4,pp.429-450.

Robinson,V2015,‘Reconceptualisingthemundaneandtheextraordinary:Alens

throughwhichtoexploretransformationwithinthewomen’severyday

footwearpractices’,Sociology,vol.49,no.5,pp.903-918.

Rolfe,A,Orford,J&Dalton,S2009,‘Women,alcoholandfemininity:Adiscourse

analysisofwomenheavydrinkers’accounts’,JournalofHealthyPsychology,

vol.14,no.2,326-335.

Roscoe,W1998,Changingones:ThirdandfourthgendersinNativeNorthAmerica,

StMartin’sPress,NewYork,NY.

Rosdahl,J2014,‘Themythoffemininityinthesportofbodysculpting’,Social

Alternatives,vol.33,no.2,pp.36-42.

Ross,SR&Shinew,KJ2008,‘Perspectivesofwomencollegeathletesinsportand

gender’,SexRoles,vol.58,no.1/2,pp.40-57.

Ross-Smith,A&Kornberger,M2004,‘Genderedrationality?Agenealogical

explorationofthephilosophicalandsociologicalconceptionsofrationality,

327

masculinityandorganization’,Gender,Work&Organization,vol.11,no.3,pp.

280-305.

Rossi,W1989,Thesexlifeofthefootandshoe,Wordsworth,Hertfordshire,UK.

Roth,LM2004,‘Engenderinginequality:ProcessesofsexsegregationonWall

Street’,SociologicalForum,vol.19,no.2,pp.203–228.

Rubin,G1984,‘Thinkingsex:Notesforaradicaltheoryofthepoliticsof

sexuality’,inCSVance(ed.),PleasureandDanger:ExploringFemaleSexuality,

Routledge,London,UK,pp.267-319.

Russo,N1976,‘Themotherhoodmandate’,JournalofSocialIssues,vol.32,pp.

143-153.

Salerno,JM&Peter-Hagene,LC2015,‘Oneangrywoman:Angerexpression

increasesinfluenceformen,butdecreasesinfluenceforwomen,during

groupdeliberation’,LawandHumanBehavior,vol.39,no.6,pp.581-592.

Sanders,CR1988,‘Marksofmischief:Becomingandbeingtattooed’,Journalof

ContemporaryEthnography,vol.16,pp.395–432.

Sasson-Levy,O2003,‘Feminismandmilitarygenderpractices:Israeliwomen

soldiersin‘masculine’roles’,SociologicalInquiry,vol.73,no.3,pp.440-465.

Schippers,M2002,Rockin’outofthebox:Gendermaneuveringinalternativehard

rock,RutgersUniversityPress,NewBrunswick,NJ.

Schippers,M2007,‘Recoveringthefeminineother:Masculinity,femininityand

genderhegemony’,TheoryandSociety,vol.36,no.1,pp.167-195.

Schulze,L1990,Fabrications,costumesandthefemalebody,Routledge,London,

UK.

328

Scraton,S,Fasting,K,Pfister,G&Bunual,A1999,‘It’sstillaman’sgame?The

experienceoftoplevelwomenfootballersinEngland,Germany,Norwayand

Spain,InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport,vol.34,pp.99-111.

Sedgwick,EK1990,EpistemologyoftheCloset,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,

Berkeley,CA.

Seery,B&Crowley,MS2000,‘Women’semotionworkinthefamily’,Journalof

FamilyIssues,vol.21,no.1,pp.100-127.

Seidman,S2010,TheSocialconstructionofsexuality,2ndedn,W.W.Norton,New

York,NY.

Shea,C2001,‘Theparadoxofpumpingiron:Femalebodybuildingasresistance

andcompliance’,WomenandLanguage,vol.XXIV,no.2,pp.42-46.

Shoemaker,D2004,Queers,monster,dragqueensandwhiteness:Femininitiesin

women’sstagedperformances,PhD,TheUniversityofTexas.

Singer,J1976,Androgyny:towardanewtheoryofsexuality,AnchorPress,Garden

City,NY.

Skeggs,B1997,FormationsofClass&Gender:BecomingRespectable,SAGE,

London,UK.

Smith,D1988,‘Femininityasdiscourse’,inLGRoman&LKChristian-Smithin

(eds),Becomingfeminine:Thepoliticsofpopularculture,FalmerPress,

London,UK,pp.37-60.

Smith,E,Jones,T,Ward,R,Dixon,J,&HillerL2014,‘Frombluestorainbows:

Mentalhealthandwellbeingofgenderdiverseandtransgenderyoungpeople

inAustralia’,TheAustralianResearchCentreinSex,Health,andSociety,

Melbourne,Australia.

329

Smith-Lovin,L&Brody,C1989,‘Interruptionsingroupdiscussions:Theeffects

ofgenderandgroupcomposition’,AmericanSociologicalReview,vol.54,pp.

424-435.

Sprague,J&Kobrynowicz,D2006,‘Afeministepistemology’,inJSaltzman

Chafetz(ed.),HandbookoftheSociologyofGender,Springer,NewYork,NY,

pp.25-43.

Srivastava,P&Hopwood,N2009,‘Apracticaliterativeframeworkforqualitative

dataanalysis’,InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,vol.8,no.1,pp.

76-84.

Stanley,L1984,‘Should‘sex’reallybe‘gender’or‘gender’reallybe‘sex’’?,inS

Jackson&SScott(eds),Gender:Asociologicalreader,Routledge,NewYork,

NY,p.31-41..

Steele,T2005,Sex,self,andsociety:Thesocialcontextofsexuality,

Thomson/Wadsworth,Belmont,CA.

Stewart,DShamdasani,P&Rook,D2007,Focusgroups:Theoryandpractice,2nd

edn,SAGE,ThousandOaks,CA.

Sung,C2012,‘Exploringtheinterplayofgender,discourseand(im)politeness’,

JournalofGenderStudies,vol.21,no.3,pp.285-300.

Tanenbaum,L2000,Slut!Growingupfemalewithabadreputation,Perennial,

NewYork,NY.

Thorne,B1993,Genderplay,RutgersUniversityPress,NewBrunswick,NJ.

Toerien,M,Wilkinson,S&Choi,P2005,‘Bodyhairremoval:The‘mundane’

productionofnormativefemininity’,SexRoles,vol.52,no.5/6,pp.399-406.

Tovey,J2015,‘ManspreadingputsNewYork’scommutersinajam’,TheSydney

MorningHerald,12June,viewedon20January2016,

330

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/manspreading-puts-new-yorks-

commuters-in-a-jam-20150610-ghl5y3.html

VanEvery,J1996,‘Heterosexualityanddomesticlife’inDRichardson(ed.),

Theorizingheterosexuality:Tellingitstraight,OpenUniversityPress,

Buckingham,UK,pp.39-54.

Ward,L1995,‘Talkingaboutsex:Commonthemesaboutsexualityinprime-time

televisionprogramschildrenandadolescentsviewmost’,JournalofYouth

andAdolescence,vol.24,pp.595-615.

Warner,M1991,‘Introduction:Fearofaqueerplanet’,SocialText,vol.29,no.4,

pp.3-17.

Wearing,B1996,Gender:Thepleasureandpainofdifference,LongmanAustralia,

Melbourne,Australia.

Weeks,J2010,Sexuality,3rdedn,Routledge,NewYork,NY.

Weiss,RS1994,Learningfromstrangers:Theartandmethodofqualitative

interviewstudies,TheFreePress,NewYork,NY.

Wesely,JK2001,‘Negotiatinggender:Bodybuildingandthenatural/unnatural

continuum’,SociologyofSportJournal,vol.18,pp.162-180.

West,C&Zimmerman,DH1987,‘Doinggender’,GenderandSociety,vol.1,no.2,

pp.125-151.

Wheatley,E1994,‘Subculturalsubversions:Comparingdiscoursesonsexualityin

men’sandwomen’srugbysongs’inSBirrel&CLCole(eds),Women,sport,

andculture,HumanKinetics,Campaign,IL,pp.193-211.

Wheeldon,J2009,‘Framingexperience:Conceptmaps,mindmaps,anddata

collectioninqualitativeresearch’,InternationalJournalofQualitative

Methods,vol.8,no.3,pp.68-83.

331

Wheeldon,J&Åhlberg,MK2012,Visualizingsocialscienceresearch:Maps,

methods,&meaning,SAGEPublicationsLtd,ThousandOaks,CA.

Whitehead,H1994,‘TheBowandtheburdenstrap:Anewlookat

institutionalizedhomosexualityinNativeNorthAmerica’,inSBOrtner&H

Whitehead(eds),Sexualmeanings:Theculturalconstructionofgenderand

sexuality,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK,pp.80-115.

Whitehead,SM2002,Menandmasculinities,PolityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Wilkins,AC2004,‘“Sofullofmyselfasachick”:Gothwomen,sexual

independence,andgenderegalitarianism’,Gender&Society,vol.18,pp.328-

49.

Wittig,M1981,‘Oneisnotbornawoman’,FeministIssues,vol.1,no.2,pp.47-54.

Wodak,R2013,‘Criticaldiscourseanalysis:Challengesandperspectives’inR

Wodak(ed),Criticaldiscourseanalysis,pp.xix-xliii.

Woodhill,BM&Samuels,C2004,‘Desirableandundesirableandrogyny:A

prescriptionforthetwenty-firstcentury’,JournalofGenderStudies,col.13,

no.1,pp.15-29.

Woodward,K1997,Identityanddifference,SAGE,ThousandOaks,CA.

Young,IM1997,Intersectingvoices:Dilemmasofgender,politicalphilosophyand

policy,PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ.

Young,IM2002,‘Livedbodyvsgender:Reflectionsonsocialstructureand

subjectivity’,Ratio,vol.15,no.4,pp.410-428.

Young,IM2003,‘Thelogicofmasculinistprotection:Reflectionsonthecurrent

securitystate’,JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety,vol.29,no.1,pp.1-

25.

332

Young,IM2005,Onfemalebodyexperience:“Throwinglikeagirl”andother

essays,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY.

333

Appendix A

Consent Information Statement

Swinburne University of Technology

Project Title: “You can play with the ball, but don’t get dirty”: A hierarchy of heterosexual female gender expressions Principal Investigator(s): Kythera Watson-Bonnice and Dr. Paula Geldens

My name is Kythera Watson-Bonnice and I am a PhD student at the Swinburne

University of Technology. I would like to invite you to participate in a research study I

am conducting. This research is supervised by Dr Paula Geldens.

This study is about different forms of gender expression. I am interested in exploring how young women understand the various ways women can express their gender

and/or femininity, from more socially accepted forms to those that may be seen by some as less traditional and even more masculine. Participants need to self identify

as heterosexual and female. If you choose to participate, you would be part of a focus group that would explore a number of themes, including what it means to be female and express your gender, what dominant or traditional gender expressions look like,

and how people feel about women who do not embody these types of gender expressions. Notions of femininity and masculinity will also be discussed.

Participating in the research will provide you with the chance to discuss your

thoughts and feelings about what femininity means to you.

The focus group will have approximately 6-8 participants who participate in

Skateboarding. It will last approximately between 60 to 90 minutes and will be

conducted in at a venue in a central public location. If you agree to participate in this

study, the interview will be audio recorded and transcribed by myself for analysis.

You may be contacted after the initial interview to clarify or follow up where

necessary. It is important that you know that your responses will be treated as

confidential, which means that in all publications you will not be identifiable (a

pseudonym will be used in place of your name and any identifying material will not be included). All data collected for this study will be retained by myself and Dr Paula

Geldens for the requisite period of 5 years before being destroyed.

334

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are free to refuse to

take part, or to withdraw your participation at any stage during the interview. Before

proceeding with the interview, you will be asked to sign a consent form to ensure

that you have been advised of your rights as a voluntary participant. If there are any

particular questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, you will not be

required to answer them. We do not feel that there are any risks associated with

your participation in this study, in fact, we believe that this might be a valuable

opportunity for you to reflect upon your understandings of gender expression for

women.

If you are interested in participating, please contact me at telephone number below:

Kythera Watson-Bonnice (student researcher): 0466 393 039 or kwatsonbonnice@swin.edu.au

or Dr Paula Geldens (supervisor): 9214 4677.

Please retain this sheet for your information. This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact:

Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122.

Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or resethics@swin.edu.au

335

Appendix B

Informed Consent Form

Swinburne University of Technology

Project Title: “You can play with the ball, but don’t get dirty”: A hierarchy of heterosexual female gender expressions Principal Investigator(s): Kythera Watson-Bonnice and Paula Geldens

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project information statement and this consent form and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. Please circle your response to the following:

§ I agree to be interviewed by the researcher

YES NO

§ I agree to allow the interview to be recorded by electronic devices (including audio and video)

YES NO

§ I agree to make myself available for further information regarding the interview if required

YES NO

3. I acknowledge that:

(a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation;

(b) the project is for the purpose of research and not for profit;

(c) my anonymity is preserved and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise.

By signing this document I agree to participate in this project. Name of Participant: ……………………………………………………… Signature & Date: ……………………………………………………………

3 3 6

A p p e n di x C

D e m o gr a p hi c Q u e sti o n n air e

S wi n b ur n e U ni v er sit y of T e c h n ol o g y

Pr oj e ct Titl e: “ Y o u c a n pl a y wit h t h e b all, b ut d o n’t g et dirt y ”: A hi er ar c h y of h et er o s e x u al f e m al e g e n d er e x pr e s si o n s Pri n ci p al I n v e sti g at or( s): K yt h er a W at s o n -B o n ni c e a n d Dr. P a ul a G el d e n s N a m e: Pr ef err e d P s e u d o n y m: A g e: R a c e / Et h ni cit y: D o y o u h a v e a n y c hil dr e n ? If y e s, pl e a s e li st t h eir a g e s: R el ati o n s hi p St at u s: C urr e nt T o w n / S u b ur b: O c c u p ati o n: E d u c ati o n ( p l e a s e c h e c k b o x):

Di d n ot c o m pl et e Y e ar 1 2

C o m pl et e d Y e ar 1 2

Di pl o m a or C ertifi c at e

C o m pl et e d U n d er gr a d u at e D e gr e e

C o m pl et e d P o st gr a d u at e D e gr e e

Ot h er:

337

Appendix D

Blank Concept Map

The above map was presented to the participants at the start of the focus groups.

They individually labelled and situate various forms of women and gender

expressions on the map, with those located towards the centre representing terms or

expressions that they associated the most with dominant female gender expressions.

338

Appendix E:

Interview Schedule

Focus Group

Name Tags Issued

Welcome and paperwork

Concept Maps:

I would now like to ask you all to write down on the blank maps provided different

words, phrases or thoughts about different types of female gender expression. Please

write those that you consider to be the most dominant forms towards the centre,

and those that are less dominant towards the outside, or on the outside of the

circles.

Questions:

1. What do you think it means for a female to be ‘feminine’?

1.1. What do ‘feminine’ women look like? Say? Wear? Act?

1.2. What kinds of things do they do? (i.e. activities)

2. Are there different types of ‘feminine’ women?

2.1. If so, what are they?

2.2. How do they differ from one another?

2.3. How do you feel about women who are ‘feminine’?

339

3. Do women have to be ‘feminine’, or can they be something else?

3.1. If something else, how would you describe that?

3.2. Can women be ‘masculine’?

3.3. If so, is that still a form ‘femininity’? (i.e. butch, tomboy)

3.4. What role does sexuality play in these understandings?

4. What makes a female seem ‘unfeminine’?

4.1. What do they look like? Say? Wear? Act?

4.2. What kinds of things do they do? (i.e. activities)

5. Are there different types of ‘unfeminine’ women?

5.1. If so, what are they?

5.2. How do they differ from one another?

5.3. How do you feel about women who are ‘unfeminine’?

6. What is the difference between ‘feminine’ and ‘unfeminine’ women?

7. Where do you think notions of acceptable and unacceptable types of gender

expression come from?

8. Is there anything else anyone would like to say before we finish?

Thank participants

340

Appendix F:

Participant Demographics

Participant Demographics Executive Management Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level 43 Anglo 1 2 De Facto Malvern Communications Undergrad 32 Caucasian - - Married South Yarra Accountant Undergrad

41 White 3 15, 20, 22 Married Canterbury HR Manager Undergrad

42 Australian - Anglo - - Married South

Melbourne Injury Manager Postgrad

43 Australian - Anglo - - Single Hoppers

Crossing Operations Manager Diploma

48 Australian - Anglo 2 23, 24 Married Sunshine Buyer Diploma

45 Australian - Anglo 2 13 Married Windsor Lawyer Postgrad

40 Australian - Anglo - - Divorced Elwood Manager Undergrad

60 Anglo 2 28, 30 Married Diamond Creek Manager Undergrad

36 Aboriginal - - Divorced Clifton Hill Manager Postgrad

44 - 2 15, 18 Seperated South Morang Manager Diploma

53 Australian - Anglo 2 22, 24 Married Balwyn Manager Undergrad

47 New Zealand - - De Facto Docklands Manager Postgrad

42 Australian - Anglo - - Single Fitzroy Nth Manager Diploma

Circus Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level

46 Australian - Anglo - - Single Altona Nth Community Ed Diploma

25 Australian - Anglo - - Single Frankston Nursing Student No Y12

30 Australian - Anglo - - Single Northcote Research Ass. Postgrad

44 Australian - Anglo - - Single Keilor East Social Worker Y12

Roller Derby Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level

40 Australian - Anglo 2 7, 12 Single Northcote Event Manager Diploma

20 Australian - Anglo - - Relationship Armadale Student Undergrad

39 Australian - Anglo - - Single Frankston Nil No Y12

341

Mothers Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level 41 - 2 4, 7 Married Castlemaine Social Worker/Mum Undergrad

41 Australian - Anglo 1 4 De Facto Castlemaine Publisher Undergrad

45 Australian - Anglo 2 4, 8 Married Cambells Creek Designer Undergrad

45 Australian - Anglo 2 4, 8 De Facto Chewton At home mother Postgrad

32 Dutch 1 1.5 Complicated Cambells Creek Jeweller Postgrad

22 Australian - Anglo 1 1.5 Engaged Castlemaine Student Diploma

Football Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level 28 Anglo - - Married Kealba Public Servant Undergrad

25 Italian - - Married Plumpton Teacher Undergrad

18 Australian - Anglo - - Relationship Werribee Nil Y12

23 Australian - Anglo - - Single Keilor Student Y12

25 Australian - Anglo - - Relationship Laverton Truck Driver No Y12

24 Australian - Anglo - - Single Geelong West Student/Lifeguard Undergrad

21 Australian - Anglo - - Single Keilor Downs Student Undergrad

38 Australian - Anglo 2 2, .5 Engaged Cairntea Mum/retail Undergrad

32 - 2 1.5, 3 Married Caroline Springs Sales Undergrad

Participant Demographics Executive Management Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level 43 Anglo 1 2 De Facto Malvern Communications Undergrad

32 Caucasian - - Married South Yarra Accountant Undergrad

41 White 3 15, 20, 22 Married Canterbury HR Manager Undergrad

42 Australian - Anglo - - Married South

Melbourne Injury Manager Postgrad

43 Australian - Anglo - - Single Hoppers

Crossing Operations Manager Diploma

48 Australian - Anglo 2 23, 24 Married Sunshine Buyer Diploma

45 Australian - Anglo 2 13 Married Windsor Lawyer Postgrad

40 Australian - Anglo - - Divorced Elwood Manager Undergrad

60 Anglo 2 28, 30 Married Diamond Creek Manager Undergrad

342

36 Aboriginal - - Divorced Clifton Hill Manager Postgrad 44 - 2 15, 18 Separated South Morang Manager Diploma

53 Australian - Anglo 2 22, 24 Married Balwyn Manager Undergrad

47 New Zealand - - De Facto Docklands Manager Postgrad

42 Australian - Anglo - - Single Fitzroy Nth Manager Diploma

Circus Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level

46 Australian - Anglo - - Single Altona Nth Community Ed Diploma

25 Australian - Anglo - - Single Frankston Nursing Student No Y12

30 Australian - Anglo - - Single Northcote Research Ass. Postgrad

44 Australian - Anglo - - Single Keilor East Social Worker Y12

Roller Derby Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level

40 Australian - Anglo 2 7, 12 Single Northcote Event Manager Diploma

20 Australian - Anglo - - Relationship Armadale Student Undergrad

39 Australian - Anglo - - Single Frankston Nil No Y12

Mothers Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level 41 - 2 4, 7 Married Castlemaine Social Worker/Mum Undergrad

41 Australian - Anglo 1 4 De Facto Castlemaine Publisher Undergrad

45 Australian - Anglo 2 4, 8 Married Cambells Creek Designer Undergrad

45 Australian - Anglo 2 4, 8 De Facto Chewton At home mother Postgrad

32 Dutch 1 1.5 Complicated Cambells Creek Jeweller Postgrad

22 Australian - Anglo 1 1.5 Engaged Castlemaine Student Diploma

Football Group

Age Race/Ethnicity Children Child Age Relationship Town Occupation Education

Level 28 Anglo - - Married Kealba Public Servant Undergrad 25 Italian - - Married Plumpton Teacher Undergrad

18 Australian - Anglo - - Relationship Werribee Nil Y12

23 Australian - Anglo - - Single Keilor Student Y12

25 Australian - Anglo - - Relationship Laverton Truck Driver No Y12

343

24 Australian - Anglo - - Single Geelong West Student/Lifeguard Undergrad

21 Australian - Anglo - - Single Keilor Downs Student Undergrad

38 Australian - Anglo 2 2, .5 Engaged Cairntea Mum/retail Undergrad

32 - 2 1.5, 3 Married Caroline Springs Sales Undergrad

344

Appendix G:

Ethics Approval

Dear Dr Geldens, SUHREC Project 2011/233 The In-Between Spaces: Exploration of Non-Traditional Forms of Femininities Proposed Duration From: 12/09/2011 Proposed Duration To: 12/09/2013 Ethical review of the above project protocol was undertaken on behalf of Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by a SUHREC Subcommittee (SHESC1) at a meeting held 23 September 2011, the outcome of which as follows. The project has been approved subject to the following addressed to the Chair (or delegate's) satisfaction: 1. A8: (i) Please respond with regard to Chief Investigator, (ii) Please clarify if Student Researcher has qualitative research training; 2. B(d): Researcher needs to address the subsidiary question under this criteria regarding confidentiality; 3. Section E: need to tick check box at top of page to indicate that this section is not relevant to study; 4. Appendix B, Consent Information Statement 1: (i) Please revise Researcher Titles to identify specific roles, for instance, “Chief Investigator, Dr Paula Geldens, Student Investigator, Ms Kythera Watson-Bonnice”, (ii) Please proofread document – see for example, second paragraph, first sentence, (iii) Please revise last sentence in second paragraph as follows: after “be retained” add “in a secure location”; 5. Appendix C, Recruitment Poster: (i) Please revise Researcher Titles as in 4(i) above, (ii)Please delete Complaints Clause – not required here; 6. Appendix D, Consent Information Statement 2: Please revise Researcher Titles as in 4(i) above; 7. Appendix E, Informed Consent Form: 3(c): replace “anonymity” with

345

“confidentiality” - anonymity cannot be guaranteed; To enable further ethical review/finalise clearance, please would you respond to the above items point by point (by direct email reply if preferred). Re your responses: - please DO NOT submit a full revised ethics clearance application unless specifically required - queried, missing, additional or revised text from the ethics application can be incorporated into your responses (within the body of the email if appropriate and to save disk space) - attach proposed or revised consent/publicity/other instruments in light of the above (if available, converting these documents to pdf before submission will disk space) If accepted by the SUHREC or Subcommittee delegate(s), your responses/attachments will be added to previous documentation submitted for review, superseding or supplementing the existing material/protocol on record. Please also note that human research activity (including active participant recruitment) cannot commence before proper ethics clearance is given in writing. Please contact me if you have any queries about the ethical review process undertaken. The SUHREC project number should be quoted in communication. Yours sincerely Kaye Goldenberg Administrative Officer (Research Ethics) Swinburne University of Technology

346

Dear Paula and Kythera SUHREC Project 2011/233 The In-Between Spaces: Exploration of Femininities, Masculine and Gender Expression in Female-Bodied Heterosexual Women (formerly “The In-Between Spaces: Exploration of Non-Traditional Forms of Femininities”) Dr Paula Geldens, Ms Kythera Watson-Bonnice; FLSS Approved Duration Extended to 30/03/2014 [Modification July 2013] I refer to your progress report and email of 2 July 2013 in which you requested reactivation and extension to your project. The documentation, including focus group questions, was reviewed by the SHESC1 delegate. There being no other changes to the research protocol approved to date, the project may continue in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions previously communicated and reprinted below. Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance, citing the SUHREC project number. Copies of clearance emails should be retained as part of project record-keeping. As before, best wishes for the project. Kind regards, Sally Fried Secretary, SHESC1 Swinburne University of Technology

347

Dear Kythera Subject: Change of thesis title I am writing to advise you that your application to change the title of your thesis was approved in accordance with the provision of the Research Training Statement of Practice. The approved title is, as requested: "You can play with the ball, but don't get dirty": A hierarchy of heterosexual female gender expressions. Yours sincerely Graduate Studies Swinburne Research Swinburne University of Technology