See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314160166

Femininity

Chapter · January 2017

CITATION READS
1 5,445

2 authors:

Clare M. Mehta Victoria Henry

All content following this page was uploaded by Clare M. Mehta on 04 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Clare M. Mehta & Victoria Henry

Definition:
“Femininity is defined in various dictionaries in either a circular manner as the quality of being
feminine or indirectly as qualities associated with the female sex”(Darity, 2008).
“Femininity is commonly understood to refer to a collection of qualities or attributes associated
with women in distinction from men, whose own qualities are signified by the antonym
masculinity” (Aragon, 2004)

Synonyms: femaleness, womanhood, womanishness, womanliness

Introduction

The term femininity is generally used to refer to a set of socialized psychological traits,

qualities, and attributes most closely associated with those whose birth assigned gender category

is female. Feminine traits and attributes include passivity, submissiveness, gentleness, warmth,

helpfulness, compassion, understanding, dependency, emotional expressiveness, and the

presence of maternal instinct. These feminine traits have been described as communal traits, or a

relational orientation. Consequently, an important component of femininity is connecting with,

helping and caring for others. Defined in this way, femininity seems to be a straight forward

concept, however, it is far more complicated – and potentially problematic – than it first appears.

The complexity of femininity is explored in more detail below.

Although femininity (and its antonym, masculinity) are often linked to birth assigned

gender categories, it is important to note that they are distinct from one another. As such,

feminine (and masculine) traits, qualities, and attributes are exhibited to different extents by both

men and women regardless of whether they were assigned as female or male at birth

(Leszczynski & Strough, 2008; Pickard & Strough, 2003).

It was this understanding of femininity as separate from birth assigned gender that lead to

the development of scales to measure femininity and masculinity in both women and men. Early
models of gender, such as Terman and Miles’ 1936 Attitude-Interest Analysis Test

conceptualized femininity and masculinity as opposing ends of a bipolar scale (Martin & Finn,

2010). Bipolar measurements of gender meant that a person could be feminine or masculine, but

could not be both simultaneously (Constantinople, 1973). In the 1970s gender researchers and

theorists, including Ann Constantinople (1973) and Sandra Bem (1974) began to question the

utility and validity of bipolar gender models, suggesting that these scales failed to account for the

possibility that a person could score high on both femininity and masculinity. As such, both Bem

and Constantinople proposed that femininity and masculinity be measured as separate

dimensions. Measuring femininity and masculinity in this way, Bem argued, would allow for

people to be psychologically androgynous, identifying with both feminine and masculine traits.

With this in mind, Bem created one of the most widely used measures of femininity and

masculinity today, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, a measure that enabled the assessment of

femininity and masculinity as separate dimensions.

While many definitions of femininity link femininity to gender identity, we believe that

femininity/masculinity and gender identity are distinct constructs. This is illustrated by Wood

and Eagly’s (2015) work on gender identity that suggests that there are two distinctive traditions

of research on gender. The first tradition of research focuses on gender as feminine and

masculine traits, qualities, and attributes. This tradition incorporates research on gender typed

personality traits, as well as research on gender and gender typed interests and gendered

components of “Big Five” personality inventories. This tradition is the tradition from which

conceptualizations such as femininity are drawn. The second tradition of research on gender

proposed by Wood and Eagly is gender identity based on self-categorization. This refers to the

extent to which a person identifies with and feels a psychological connection to their gender, and
feels that their gender is a positive and significant component of their identity (Kulis et al., 2002;

Michealieu, 1997; Tobin et al., 2010; Wade, 2008). This multifaceted approach to gender makes

it clear that having (or not having) a psychological connection to a gender – that is feeling a

strong sense of gender identity with one gender, multiple genders or no genders – is separate

from endorsing the psychological traits, qualities and attributes that are associated with

femininity. This has been supported by research investigating associations between femininity,

gender identity and sex segregation in friendships (see Mehta & Strough, 2009 for an example).

In the preceding paragraphs we have made the argument that femininity is not

biologically based, nor is it connected to gender identity. How then, should we understand

femininity as a construct? We assert that femininity is socially constructed rather than

biologically determined and that the meaning of the term femininity is shaped by culture, time,

and geopolitical space. In her work on femininity and masculinity Bem highlighted the socially

constructed nature of femininity. Specifically, Bem posited that gendered traits, qualities and

attributes are a result of social learning, and proposed gender schema theory to outline how this

learning takes place. Gender schema theory posits that children learn through observation which

traits and attributes are appropriate for their birth assigned gender, and consequently adopt these

traits as their own (Bem, 1981). As such, while birth assigned categories of male and female are

separate from femininity and masculinity, the process of sex typing in western culture creates

femininity and masculinity from the birth assigned categories of female and male (Bem, 1981).

Consequently, the roles and behaviors that are assigned to men and women are a reflection of the

practices and attitudes of the culture that assigns them at a particular point in time (Butler, 2004).

This may explain why, although femininity is not related to gender assigned at birth, research
frequently finds that men are more masculine than women, and that women are more feminine

than men (Leszczynski & Strough, 2008; Pickard & Strough, 2003).

When considering femininity and its socialization, it is important to note that in western

culture, femininity is valued to a lesser extent than masculinity. This is because femininity is a

status characteristic, an individual characteristic around which access to influence, prestige and

power are unequally distributed (Gaughan, 2006; Ridgeway, Johnson & Diekema, 1993).

Hegemonic masculinity, a societally ingrained value system that promotes men’s dominance and

superiority over women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) promotes anti-femininity (Bosson &

Michniewicz, 2013; Smiler, 2004). Consequently, in order to be masculine, boys and men in the

U.S. are taught to avoid femininity in their traits, qualities, attributes, appearance, and interests

(Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013; Davis, 2002; Pleck, 1981). If they do not, boys and men risk

ridicule and isolation from their peers who may questions their failure to fit into the socially

accepted “norm” for their gender (Pleck, 1981; Watzlawik, 2009). Bosson and Michniewicz

suggest that boys begin to distance themselves from femininity at an early age, and that this

distancing results in beliefs that men are predominantly masculine and women are predominantly

feminine (Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013). This distancing from femininity in childhood

continues into adolescence where it is hypothesized to increase as a result of homophobia present

in many U.S. high schools (Pascoe, 2005). Girls and women, similarly to men may also distance

themselves from femininity, although to a lesser extent. Specifically, in our work, we have

theorized that girls and women, who have less power and authority based on their gender, would

are less attached to femininity. Research that suggests women’s endorsement of masculine traits

is increasing over time (Strough et al., 2007; Twenge, 1999) may partially support this theory. It

is important to note that while men and masculine traits are valued over women and feminine
traits, which do not consider nurturing and communication as power and necessary to a culture,

third was feminists have reclaimed aspects of femininity as powerful, arguing that these

characteristics are necessary to ensure societal success.

Another issue that highlights the complexity of femininity as a construct relates to the

stability of femininity. Social contextual approaches to gender, which have roots in Bem’s early

work on androgyny (Keener & Mehta, in press), propose that femininity (and masculinity)

should not be viewed as a stable trait, but rather as something that is negotiated through a series

of ongoing interactions. The social contextual approach posits that femininity is dynamic and

context dependent, and that femininity reflects the demands of the immediate context rather than

personality traits, qualities, and attributes (Deaux & Major, 1987; Deaux & Major, 1998; Leaper

2000; Maccoby, 1990). As such, femininity may be better considered as a variable state rather

than as stable trait (Mehta, 2015). Considering femininity in this way is consistent with

socialization theories of gender noted above.

Although few studies have taken a social contextual approach to understanding

femininity, there is sufficient evidence across a range of age periods to suggest that gender-typed

behaviors are flexible and are elicited by contextual demands. Research investigating variability

in femininity and masculinity in children has found that during this stage of the lifespan,

femininity varies based on the gender of peers in a child’s social context. For example, Maccoby

(1990) found that when girls played with other girls they displayed very little passivity, an

attribute linked to femininity (Bem, 1974; Spence & Buckner, 1995). However, when girls

played with boys, they displayed more passivity, standing by while boys dominated the toys

(Maccoby, 1990). This research suggests, that even in childhood, components of femininity may

be exacerbated or reduced depending on the context.

femininity. Specifically, both adolescent (Leszczynski & Strough, 2008) and emerging adult

college students (Pickard & Strough, 2003) reported increased endorsement of feminine traits

after playing a game of Jenga® with a female partner in comparison to after playing with a male

partner. Building on this work, contextual variation in femininity has been assessed using

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA). In EMA studies, participants are signaled at random

points throughout the day and are prompted to complete a short survey. In this way, variables of

interest, such as femininity, can be measured over a period of time (days, weeks, or months) in

an individuals daily context. Using a shortened version of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, Mehta

and Dementieva (2016) used EMA to assess how femininity varied by peer context over a 2-

week period in a sample of college students. Consistent with social contextual theory, showed

femininity varied based on the sex of peers in college students’ social contexts. Specifically, men

reported greater femininity when they were with women, and lesser femininity when they were

with men. (Mehta & Dementieva, 2016). This social contextual approach understanding

femininity complements research and theory that posit that femininity is performance (Butler,

2004; Walkerdine, 1989) and something that we “do” rather than something that we have

(Keener & Strough; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Taken together, these studies illustrate that

femininity varies according to the social context and consequently, conceptualizations of

femininity as a combination of stable traits qualities, and attributes may be too simplistic.

Conclusion

In sum, femininity is a complex construct, that is socially constructed and influenced by

culture, historical period, and other contextual factors. While many gender researchers view the

separation of femininity from birth assigned gender as consistent with moving beyond a gender
binary, it is important to consider whether referring to certain sets of socialized psychological

traits, qualities, and attributes as “feminine” and others as “masculine” ties us to a gender binary

and beliefs of innate gender differences. As more and more research highlights similarities

between men and women in terms of not only traits, qualities, and attributes (Hyde, 2005), but

also brain structures (Joel et al., 2015), the gender binary and related concepts, such as

femininity and masculinity, become irrelevant and thus less fruitful topics of study for

psychological researchers (Keener, 2015; Mehta & Keener, in press).

Cross References:
Masculinity
Compassion
Androgyny
Communion
Bem, Sandra
Bem Sex-Role Inventory
Submissiveness
Gender roles
Gender schemas
Feminine psychology

References

Aragon, A. P. (2004). Femininity. In S. Loue & M. Sajatovic (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Wwomen's

Health. (pp. 484-486). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological

Review, 88, 354–364. doi: 0033-295X/81/8804-0354$00.75

Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup

identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and
 Social Psychology, 105, 425-442. doi:10.1037/a0033126

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the

concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829-859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639

Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological

Bulletin, 80, 389-407. doi:10.1037/h0035334

Darity, W. A. (2008). Femininity. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Detroit,

Mich: Macmillan Reference USA.

Davis, T. L. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men's

identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 508-521.

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of

gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389. 10.1037/0033-

295X.94.3.369

Gaughan, M. (2006). The gender structure of adolescent peer influence on drinking. Journal of

Health & Social Behavior, 47, 47-61.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60, 581-592.

Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., & ... Assaf, Y. (2015). Sex

beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of

Sciences Of The United States Of America, 112(50), 15468-15473.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1509654112

Keener, E. (2015). The complexity of gender: It is all that and more….In sum, it is complicated.

Sex Roles, doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0542-5

Keener, E., & Mehta, C.M. (in press). Sandra Bem: Revolutionary and generative feminist
 psychologist. Sex Roles.

Keener, E. & Strough, J. (2016). Having and doing gender: Young adults’ expression of gender

when resolving conflicts with friends and romantic partners. Sex Roles. doi:

10.1007/s11199-016-0644-8

Kulis, S., Marsiglia, F., & Hecht, M. L. (2002). Gender labels and gender identity as predictors

of drug use among ethnically diverse middle school students. Youth & Society, 33, 442-

475. doi:10.1177/0044118X02033003005

Leaper, C. (2000). Gender, affiliation, assertion, and the interactive context of parent–

child play. Developmental Psychology, 36, 381-393. doi: 10.1037/0012-

1649.36.3.381

Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of masculinity and

femininity in early adolescence. Social Development, 17, 719-736. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9507.2007.00443.x

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American

Psychologist

Martin, H., & Finn, S. E. (2010). Masculinity and femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Mehta, C. M. (2015). Gender in context: Considering variability in Wood and Eagly’s traditions of

gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 490-496. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0535-4

Mehta, C.M. & Dementieva, Y. (2016). The contextual specificity of gender: Femininity and

masculinity in college students’ same- and other-gender peer contexts Sex Roles.

Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0632-z

Sex Roles.

Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts

across the life span. Developmental Review, 29, 201-220. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001

Michealieu, Q. (1997). Female identity, reports of parenting, and adolescent women’s self

esteem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

323-341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00837.x

Pascoe, C. J. (2005). 'Dude, you're a fag': Adolescent masculinity and the fag discourse.

Sexualities, 8, 329-346.

Pickard, J., & Strough, J. (2003). The Effects of same-sex and other-sex contexts on

masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 48, 421-432. doi: 10.1037/t00748-000

Pleck, J.H. (1981). The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ridgeway, C., Johnson, C., & Diekema, D. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance

in male and female groups. Social Forces, 72, 1051-1077.

Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and

measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50(1-2), 15-26.

doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c

Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity: Defining the undefinable. In

P.J. Kalbfleisch, & J. Cody Gender, power, and communication in human relationships

(pp. 105-138). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum associates Inc.

Strough, J., Leszczynski, J., Neely, T. L., Flinn, J. A., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence

to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles,

57(5-6), 385-396. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9282-5

York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. E., & Perry, D. G. (2010). The

intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601-

622. doi:10.1037/a0018936

Twenge, J. M. (1999). Mapping gender: The multifactorial approach and the organization of

gender-related attributes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 485-502.

doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00377.x

Wade, J. C. (2008). Masculinity ideology, male reference group identity dependence, and

African American men's health-related attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Men &

Masculinity, 9, 5-16. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.9.1.5

Watzlawik, M. (2009). When a man thinks he has female traits constructing femininity and

masculinity: Methodological potentials and limitations. Integrative Psychological &

Behavioral Science, 43, 126-137. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9085-4

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1,125-151.

doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73,

461-473. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2

View publication stats