Recovering the Feminine Other: Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Hegemony

Author(s): Mimi Schippers

Source: Theory and Society , Feb., 2007, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 85-102
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4501776

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and
Society

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102
DOI 10.1007/s 11186-007-9022-4

Recovering the feminine other: masculinity, femininity,

and gender hegemony

Mimi Schippers

Received: 18 September 2006 /Accepted: 8 January 2007 / Published online: 15 February 2007
? Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract R. W. Connell's path-breaking notion of multiple masculinities (Connell, 1995) and

hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987, 1995) have been taken up as central constructs in the
sociology of gender. Although there has been a great deal of empirical research and theory
published that has built upon and utilized Connell's concepts, an adequate conceptualization
of hegemonic femininity and multiple femininities has not yet been developed. To redress
this, the author presents a theoretical framework that builds upon the insights of Connell and
others, offers a definition of hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity that allows for
multiple configurations within each, and that can be used empirically across settings and
groups. The author also outlines how hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity are
implicated in and intersect with other systems of inequality such as class, race, and ethnicity.

R. W. Connell's path-breaking conceptualizations of multiple masculinities (Connell, 1995,

2000) and hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987, 1995, 2000) have been taken up as central
to gender theory and scholarship. (For an extensive overview of theory and research on
masculinities, see Kimmel, Hearn, & Connell, 2005; for a summary of critiques of the
concept hegemonic masculinity, see Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Although researchers
have made widespread use of these concepts, femininity is still decidedly under-theorized
(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Martin, 1998; Pyke & Johnson, 2003). While there have
been important attempts to theorize female masculinities (e.g., Halberstam, 1998;
Messerschmidt, 2003) and hegemonic and subordinate femininities (e.g., Pyke & Johnson,
2003), a compelling and empirically useful conceptualization of hegemonic femininity and
multiple, hierarchical femininities as central to male dominant gender relations has not yet
been developed. In their most recent reformulation of the concept hegemonic masculinity,
Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) call for more theory and research on femininities.

The concept of "emphasized femininity" focused on compliance to patriarchy, and this

is still highly relevant in contemporary mass culture. Yet gender hierarchies are also

M. Schippers (F)
Department of Sociology, Women's Studies Program, Tulane University,
Newcomb Hall 220, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

I Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

impacted by new configurations

younger women-which are incre
that research on hegemonic masc
the practices of women and t
masculinities. (p. 848)

In this article, my goal is to reco

theory of gender hegemony. My u
feminine and femininity have bee
the feminine other conceptually
understanding of gender hegemo
discuss conceptual and empirical
femininity. Finally, building on
conceptual framework for how
femininities and that places men's
configurations of femininity, an
settings. In my discussion of the
upon, not only the original conce
masculinity research, but also
Messerschmidt (2005).

A brief description of Connell's

According to Connell (1995), gende

arena", which includes "bodily stru
practice at all levels of social organ
institutions (p. 71). As a central fe
"... simultaneously a place in gende
engage that place in gender, and
personality and culture" (p. 71). F
having three components. First, it
can move into through practice.
understood to be "masculine". Thir
but also by women, they have wi
effects-occupying the masculine
experience their bodies, their sens
these are individual effects, it is im
reducible to individual expression
"gender projects" in the lives of in
kinds of people. Instead of possessi
produce masculinity by engaging
identifiable set of practices that
enacted collectively by groups, c
enactment over time and space, t
of resources, the distribution of po
means the social arena of desire an
and values (Connell, 2000). In sum
set of practices, and the effects

SSpringer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 87

individuals, relationships, instit

(Connell, 2000).
Importantly, and this is one of
hegemony operates not just thr
masculinity, but also through the
Connell (1995) defines hegemonic
which embodies the currently a
patriarchy, which guarantees (or i
the subordination of women" (p.
some men over time and space, le
According to Connell, there are n
forms of femininity in this s
subordination F of women to men.
women the position held by hege
what Connell refers to as emphasi

One form [of femininity] is defin

oriented to accommodating th
'emphasized femininity'. Others
forms of non-compliance. Others
of compliance, resistance and co

Here, Connell suggests that there

relationships among masculinities
Although emphasized femininity
only mechanism for ensuring men
of hegemonic masculinity over oth
important for gender hegemony.
ways that realize the patriarcha
frontline troops of patriarchy..
masculinity ensures male dominan
don't have to be "on the front lin
overlooked but important contrib
characteristics are hegemonic, bu
what most men do will not necess
gender hegemony. We need theor
istics and men's practices that per
return to later.

Perhaps most important for Con

men. Gay men embody what Conn
against hegemonic masculinity as t
"Other". Connell writes,

Hegemony relates to cultural dom

framework there are specific g
between groups of men. The m
American society is the dominan
homosexual men.... Oppression po
gender hierarchy among men. (p

SSpringer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

Connell suggests that subordina

However, as others have suggested
distinguish femininity from subo
practices of women and masculin
Martin, 1998), another point I retu
In Connell's theory, subordinatio
masculinity, but it is not the on
hegemony, subordination, and co
marginalization to characterize th
intersect with gender. Marginalize
ethnic groups. This relationship
hegemonic masculinity is confla
conferred authority in a way m
original conceptualization, it is diff
groups of men. We are once again
than a configuration of practice
hegemony tied tis so inextricably
to Connell, male dominance falls
whose members are not white and

Applying the theoretical framew

Pyke and Johnson's (2003) work

one effort to apply Connell's fr
hegemonic femininity and subord
of subordination and domination b
controlling images of Asian wom
suggest that, given this relation, it
women as hegemonic femininity
femininity.

... white women are constructe

assertive, and successful-charact
are the same ruling traits assoc
exaggerated, feminine form, u
femininity. That is, the supremac
hegemonic masculinity. We are no
are equivalent structures. The
superstructure of domination, h
among women. However, the t
femininity constructed to serve
legitimacy. (pp. 50-51)

While this study increases our u

implicated in inequalities among
femininities, I want to suggest th
gender hegemony and subordinati
to identify the relationships betw
is, if white femininity is hegemon

Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 89

we have little conceptual room

groups, and more importantly, w
male dominance and which do no
Second, though Pyke and Johns
masculinity, there is no conceptu
the relationship between white f
not difficult to understand how
independent, assertive, and su
interests, it is difficult to underst
suggest that those valued char
successful) are not culturally ins
that the inequality between wh
not gender hegemony. Surely th
an outcome of the intersection
However, their work does not of
femininities is implicated in g
framework for multiple feminin
between white women and Asi
explain the role of femininities
benefit men as a group.
Finally, I want to suggest that
to distinguish between differe
context of a male dominant ge
subordination in relation to m
femininities are subordinate to
women in the gender order an
empower racial and ethnic mino
white women (Hill Collins, 1990).
deemed normal, ideal, or desir
femininity.
In summary, the goal here is to reclaim and re-work Connell's theory of masculinities
and gender hegemony in a way that 1) offers a conceptualization that does not reduce
masculinities to the behavior of boys and men or femininity to the behavior of girls and
women, 2) provides a definition of femininity that situates it, along with masculinity, in
gender hegemony and allows for multiple configurations, and 3) is empirically useful for
identifying how masculinity and femininity ensure men's dominance over women as a
group locally, regionally, and globally (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), and how they
legitimate and perp'etuate race, class, ethnic, and sexual inequality.

An alternative model

To use Connell's insights to begin building an alternative theoretical model for masculinity
femininity, and their role in gender hegemony, femininity must be placed back into th
theory without losing Connell's invaluable conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity
Judith Butler's theoretical framework for the heterosexual matrix provides a good place t
start. According to Butler (1990), gender is the socially constructed binary that define
"men" and "women" as two distinct classes of people. The discursive construction of
gender assumes that there are certain bodies, behaviors, personality traits, and desires tha

1 Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 90 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

neatly match up to one or the

categories "man" and "woman"
symbolic meanings for gender d
socialization), significance (e.g.,
quality characteristics of each ca
women are physically vulnerabl
My focus in this article is on th
Embedded within the system o
positions and their relationship t
should and are assumed to poss
(2005), it is in the idealized quali
find the hegemonic significance
Connell and others who the
masculinity is always defined t
places the relationship of differe
Butler, heterosexual desire, as a d
masculine and feminine in a bin
societies, heterosexual desire is de
does the hegemonic work of fusi
opposites. Thus, it is assumed tha
differences and women have a n
content of masculinity and femini
the ontological essence of gende
between masculinity and femin
erotic desire for the feminine o
masculine desire is feminine. He
others have argued (Anderson,
2003; Kimmel et al., 2005), but
between and complementarity of
Difference and complementa
Hegemonic features of culture ar
classes, legitimate their ascendan
along with social relations of rul
and complementarity in Wester
relations, along with other feat
masculine sexuality as physically
women embracing and express
different cultural settings, cont
reduce it to penetrating and bein
one of intrusion, "taking", dom
hegemonic constructions of se
"naturalness" of the complement

1 The specific content of the relations

attachment to difference and penetr
However, my more general assertion th
establish a symbolic relationship betwe
legitimates men's dominance over wom

L Springer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 91

femininity. Placed together in rel

femininity provide the hegemonic
"naturally" and inevitably a relat
We can take this focus of relation
relationship between women and m
the vast empirical literature on m
strength, the ability to use interper
characteristics guarantee men's l
symbolically paired with a comple
complement these characteristics
femininity includes physical vul
compliance. Even if few women an
to each other, the symbolic relatio
tarities provides a rationale for s
masculinity and femininity in gen
for the relationship between wom
social relations ensuring the ascen
In the on-going process of recurr
masculinity and femininity becom
dividuals, but also, and perhaps mor
social structure, and social organiza
as complementary and hierarchic
social organization from the self, to
of domination. As individuals, gro
rationale for what to do and how
different institutional settings, no
between genders become a taken-f
and social structure. That is, gen
2004) but, importantly, so is gend
For example, in her research in
about wives' infidelity is commo
village, men are expected to pro
promise sexual exclusivity. Peop
these norms, but interestingly, it
jokes. This loss of status for men
cuckold) allows women to use th
power and, Fonesca argues, cause
and employment. While Fonesca
cheating wives, and this might be

2 I want to draw the important distincti

the lived, embodied experience and rela
MacKinnon (1989) and others have, t
domination. The relationship betwee
penetrative and dominating and the li
question. As Lynne Segal (1994) suggests,
fact be an ideological move to mask the
sex. That is, the erotic content of the re
function of masking women's sexual pow

4 Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

and joking, without an equal fr

suggests that the gossip itself m
focus on the relationship betwe
discourse rather than on the sp
symbolic construction of the m
and jokes are not simply stories
about what is a good and desir
constructing the cuckold as rid
themselves expose and marginal
threaten the hegemonic marital
static set of characteristics embo
and the "wily woman", as constr
the economic and sexual exchan
legitimating rationale for men's c
economic dependence on men. T
also offer space for women to
dynamics in their relationships w
It is through social practice tha
femininity organizes material re
femininity as Connell suggests; so
child raising, sexual activity, dev
television programming, and inv
and femininities, as part of a vas
Masculinities and femininities pr
behavior by individuals but also f
and therein lies their hegemoni
defining as contextually and cultur
and should be (masculinity and
those meanings come to shape, in
Connell's book, Masculinities, P

I can accept that man and woma

masculinity is practice. But I ha
an effect. When a man dresses "
How can we know? I think we
and/or ideologies to which peopl
masculinity. Are we not otherwi
to woman? (p. 473)

In the conceptualization offere

practice, or a resulting structu
"woman" and "man", while the
individuals is gendered embodim
between masculinity and femi
Zimmerman, 1987), and the exten
between masculinity and feminin
conceptual and empirical path o
masculinity and femininity and
engage in practices or embody ch
to embody features of feminin

Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 93

relationship to each other are an

interpret and judge, not just the
relations, policy, rules, and instit
Connell and Messerschmidt (20
to masculinity, masculinity shou

Discursive perspectives emphas

hegemonic masculinity was for
gender. Although any specifica
formulation of cultural ideals,
Gender relations also are constit
labor, violence, sexuality, d
unreflective routinized actions

By suggesting that a theoretical

ignores the ways in which gender
Connell and Messerschmidt are c
presented here, masculinity and
however, they are conceptualiz
collapse all gender relations in
conceptualizing masculinity and
social practice negates or ignor
dominate women as a group. Ma
provide a rationale, or as Garlic
social practice that, over time
legitimate male dominant inter
unequal distribution of resour
masculinity and femininity are
legitimate and organize what men
If, when, and how femininity
empirical questions and could b
instead of focusing either on ma
and men, this model encoura
complementary, and hierarchi
produced and deployed as a rati
or institutional structure that re
the lines of gender, but along th
Finally, Connell and Messerschm
the symbolic can lead to the sa
masculinity as roles. Critics of
behavior and norms, as ignorin
accounting for power (Conne
masculinity and femininity ar
suggesting, to nor is it necessary
or a fixed set of behaviors that
practices defined as womanly a
network of cross-cutting, someti
and contestation of the quality
dynamic, social processes and in
informal and formal sanctions,

SSpringer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 94 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

development and implementati

proliferation, global economic
operates through "a multiplicity
strategies" (p. 100). Masculinit
contested, and transformed thro
and productive of power relation
in the conceptual focus on the h
rather than the specific characte
production, proliferation, and co
and their relationship to each ot

Gender hegemony and multiple

Now that we have established that

of femininity and masculinity tha
think about multiple configuratio
gender hegemony. As Connell s
must be first defined in its dif
conceptualization of hegemonic
articulates
a complementary and
of hegemonic masculinity, with
femininity, serves us quite well.
establish and legitimate a hierar
that, by doing so, guarantee the
Given the centrality of the rel
definition, we now have concept
consists of the characteristic
hierarchical and complementary
so, guarantee the dominant posit
Although the relationship betwee
ofascendancy for the masculine
femininity over other feminin
domination. Connell (1987) write
and emphasizing compliance, nur
a state to establish hegemony ov
possible if femininity and masc
different picture emerges by pla
thecenter of gender hegemony.
between femininity and mascu
configurations of masculinities a
emerges are gender qualities that
in their difference from and inf
instead against the idealized relat
by the cuckold and the wily wom
If hegemonic gender relations de
nine object, physical strength, and
women and define and legitimat
these characteristics must remai

' Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 95

to these characteristics, other conf

deviant and stigmatized. This is ne
swift and severe social sanction f
Practices and characteristics that
include having sexual desire for
inaccessible, and being aggressive.
constitute a refusal to complement
therefore are threatening to male
contradict or deviate from practic
of hegemonic masculine characterist
the relationship between masculini
It is precisely because women of
masculinity, and because this cha
and femininity, that these charac
sanctioned. Hegemonic femininity
femininities. I propose calling th
subordinate femininities because th
the relationship between masculi
characteristics is assumed to conta
an individual becomes a kind of
bitch. Not only do the characteri
enact them, these women are con
life more generally. Examples of
adolescent violence and gender (M
working-class white girl, success
preppy girls at school. After Tina
her friends said she "dressed lik
friend, she was expelled from the
and recruited into the "badass g
sexualized, heterosexual feminin
coincidently, the badass girls we
school hierarchy reflects not ju
femininity (embodied by the pre
pariah femininities (embodied by
sexual agency and ability and w
deserving of sanction and soci
dominance into something contain
Although pariah femininities are
enacted by women-desire for th
physically violent ("badass" girl),
"cock-teaser" and slut), they are
when enacted by women; they ar
not masculine; she is a bitch - b
feminine. Through popular media

3 This is where Halberstam's (1998) w

Halberstam reveals not only how wome
that these oppositional cultures are the
performance of hegemonic masculinity

l Springer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

constructed as the feminine ob

become something completely di
maintain their place squarely in
the hands of men. The symboli
feature of gender hegemony and,
on women who embody them. T
hegemony, one way to identify
would be to identify locally defi
when embodied by women in the
Just as hegemonic masculinity
femininity must cohere with
hegemonic, feminine character
desire, being physically weak, o
social sanction, much like wome
like pariah femininities, possessi
contaminating. Men having and a
naturalized, complementary des
compliant men dislodge physica
And so we have the "fag," the
hegemonic femininity. And lik
exhibit hegemonic femininity
generally.
We cannot, however, call these pariah masculinities. Men's homosexual desire and
being weak and ineffectual are not symbolically constructed as problematic masculine
characteristics; they are constructed as decidedly feminine. Because femininity is always
and already inferior and undesirable when compared to masculinity, it can sustain features
of stigmatization and contamination. In contrast, masculinity must always remain superior;
it must never be conflated with something undesirable. It is cultural insurance for male
dominance that anybody who enacts or embodies hegemonic characteristics that do not
align with their gender category is stigmatized as problematic and feminine. Masculinity
maintains its position of superiority in relation to femininity and men maintain legitimate
possession of those superior characteristics regardless of who is embodying femininity or
masculinity. This means that there are no masculine characteristics that are stigmatized as
contaminating or as subordinate. There are neither pariah masculinities nor subordinate
masculinities. Thus, what were identified by Connell as subordinate masculinities, are, in
this model, simply hegemonic femininity embodied or enacted by men. Halberstam (1998)
and Messerschmidt (2003) identify specific forms of female masculinity by looking at how
women embody masculinity. Building on Halberstam and Messerschmidt, I propose that
there are specific forms of male femininity. However, they are not simply femininity
embodied by men, as Halberstam's and Messerschmidt's work would suggest. I argue that
we limit male femininities to the characteristics and practices that are culturally ascribed to
women, do the cultural work of situating the feminine in a complementary, hierarchical
relationship with the masculine, and are embodied by men. Because male femininities
threaten the hegemonic relationship between masculinity and femininity, they are both
feminizing and stigmatizing to the men who embody them. Just as we can identify
hegemonic masculinity by looking at the practices that are most stigmatized and feminized
when embodied by women, we can identify contextually specific hegemonic femininities
by identifying locally defined male femininities - the specific practices and characteristics
that are stigmatizing and feminizing when embodied by men. The benefits of not reducing

SSpringer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 97

homosexuality to a subordinate
construction of masculinity and
consistently demonstrates that g
embodiment of a gay identity in r
relation to effeminate gay men
inrelation to "twink" (Hennen, 2
2001; Lambevski, 1999; Underw
masculine to the extent that they
Being effeminate, a twink, a bo
constructed as men embodying f
As defined here, there are featu
forming and legitimating a hiera
neither particularly feminizing
study of changing gender meani
men often participate in childca
Gutmann explains, for lower-c
participation in childcare, which
fatherhood and its centrality for
still draw a distinct line between
support and mothers do all of t
classes, caring for children and m
there is little stigma attached to
context of working-class Mexico
among the higher classes, illus
attached a feminizing stigma to
feature of hegemonic masculini
fathering as a component of m
relationship between women a
masculinity among men in the u
Limiting hegemonic feminini
practices that articulate a comp
and men offers conceptual and e
that do not perpetuate male do
valuable. For example, Lena E
northern pine forest region of l
were characteristics considered
were not defined in hierarchic
consisted of a strong work ethic,
complementary characteristics v
the theoretical model provided h
this culture despite a gender div
qualities valued as masculine and
Further, as I have argued elsewh
femininity opens up the possibil
femininity and masculinity, par
replaced with, what I call altern
that study, I identified how m
masculinity and femininity as de
rock culture. Instead of valuing t

SSpringer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 98 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

the male rock musician in relat

publicly and consistently repu
mainstream rock through thei
proliferation of an alternative set
to musicians, men and women i
masculinities that provide a ratio
this case, alternative femininit
practices in women and men that
and subordination between women and men.
As the examples above suggest, what actual characteristics and practices are idealized as
masculine and feminine is ultimately an empirical question and will vary by context, group,
and society. The importance of context cannot be overstated here. Because of cultural,
economic, political, and social variation across groups and societies, what specific features
of masculinity and femininity ensure men's dominance over women as a group will vary
depending on context (Dellinger, 2004). While there might be overarching features of
hegemonic masculinity and femininity that cross-cut contexts, groups, and perhaps
societies, what those are is an empirical question. In fact, when looking at empirical
explorations of masculinity in a Western context, we find that even heterosexual desire can
sometimes take a back seat to other, more salient masculine characteristics within a
particular context. For instance, Eric Anderson (2002) found that openly gay athletes were
not stigmatized for their homosexuality as long as their athletic abilities provided, what he
calls, masculinity insurance (p. 865), meaning the men were superior athletes and
embodying this feature of masculinity overshadowed their gay identities. In the context
of sport then, perhaps superior athletic ability is an equally central feature of hegemonic
masculinity along with heterosexual desire (Messner, 1992). Interestingly, this masculinity
insurance was effective in preventing the contaminating effects of homosexual desire only
if the gay athletes did not publicly express any homosexual desire around their teammates.
Further, when sexuality did emerge as salient, the gay athletes reported having to
sometimes express desire for women sometimes, to prove to their teammates that they were
just "normal guys".
Finally, I suggest that we move away from defining variation in gendered practice across
different races, classes, and settings as different masculinities and femininities, and instead
understand this variation as hegemonic masculinity and femininity refracted through race
and class difference. There is no reason to suggest that within the logic of gender difference,
masculine and feminine qualities are not available to and required of women and men of
color and to working and poor, white women and men. What appear to be different
configurations of femininity and masculinity is instead group and cultural variation in the
embodiment of hegemonic femininity and masculinity. Though the culturally specific forms
of masculinity and femininity might vary, in their relationship to culturally specified
characteristics of hegemonic masculinity within the setting or group, they reify hierarchical
gender difference and legitimate male dominance. This opens space for empirically
identifying hegemonic femininity in white, middle-class culture and non-white, non-
middle-class culture. For instance, to build on the work of Pyke and Johnson (2003), we
might ask what are the characteristics and practices valued in white, middle-class women
that hetero-sexualize their relationship to white, middle-class men? What idealized features
of femininity construct them as weak or ineffectual in relation to white, middle-class men?
And what are the characteristics that do the same in Asian-American cultures and
communities? We could also explore culturally and community specific forms of pariah
femininities and male femininities.

SSpringer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 99

But what of the relationship bet

Johnson? If gender identity is
substance of human subjectivity,
and class groups from being "real
social, political, and economic su
and Johnson, minority racial/eth
undeserving "others" or as prob
Johnson show, stereotypes of o
groups or nations are often supp
race and class hegemony. Howe
social organization, not embodied
and men, provide the rationale f
higher in social status than others
As gender meanings cross-cut
support race and class hegemo
differences among women and
class are constructed as differe
Julie Bettie's research on class a
differences in the girls' embodim
that differences in the girls' race
structural inequalities along the
peers and adults read all of the g
class. However, the "preps" or m
interpreted as the only legitim
contrast, Las Chicas, working-cl
and administrators as hyper-s
because of their performance of
Bettie found that Las Chicas' ra
girls themselves, was less about
ethnic location in school hiera
identities and are intelligible as
preferences, and desires idealiz
Despite these race and class diffe
Bettie identifies, heterosexuality
their embodiment of femininit
within their ethnicity and clas
outcome of the symbolic constr
Chicas performance of feminin
good student. As Bettie astutely
administrators, and the preps is
race and class difference, not ge
between boys and girls, one can
reflects and reproduces the he
analyzing hegemonic femininit
femininity is implicated in ma
conceptualize and empirically a
men of subordinated class and
construction of those practice
members of some groups from

SSpringer
This content downloaded from
193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 100 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

and class privilege are legitimate

masculinity and femininity is re
subordinate groups. Gender hege
gender practices of subordinate ra
in order to reify and legitimate t
However, the function of these hi
and gender hierarchy, though the
function of the stigmatization and
the basis of race and class differen
race and class inequality.

Conclusion: implications for res

With the new model, any empirica

in gender hegemony must focus
in localized settings and in broad
understood as manly in the setting
those practices and characteristics,
to masculinity? Answering these
identify hegemonic masculinity and
and femininity that are not hegem
women or in men that do not naturalize and endorse a hierarchical bond between the
masculine and feminine and men and women. Other questions can also lead to better
understanding of hegemonic femininity and hegemonic masculinity in particular settings.
1) What characteristics or practices of women are defined as feminine, contaminating, or
disruptive? That is, what are the pariah femininities circulating? 2) What characteristics or
practices of men are defined as feminine, contaminating, or disruptive? What are the male
femininities? Answering these questions, however, is just the beginning of understanding
gender inequality as it operates in local settings. The consequences of embodying these
ideals and putting them into social practice in terms of the distribution of power, resources,
and value are the true measures of gender inequality. Masculinity and femininity are
configurations of meaning and not practice, but it is only by identifying how putting these
ideals into practice results in unequal power relations and distribution of resources that we
can truly know if they constitute hegemonic femininity and hegemonic masculinity. This
suggests that simply asking people what the ideal characteristics are for women and for men
and then deciding how the characteristics line up as complementary and hierarchical will
not be enough. We would have to see which features of femininity and masculinity are put
into practice, deployed as a rationale for practice, and institutionalized to establish and
naturalize hierarchical and complementary social relationships between women and men
and those who do not fit either category.4 Our focus would not be identifying and

4 Here I am referring to transgender. Judith Butler (2004) suggests that the heterosexual matrix or binary
construction of hetero-difference to define "man" and 'woman' makes transgender un-intelligible and
therefore, transgressive. It is essential to recognize that gender hegemony does not simply ensure men's
dominance over women, but also men's dominance over people who are neither men nor women and
women's dominance over people who are neither men nor women. Gender inequality is not simply the
unequal distribution of resources, power, and value between women and men, but also between those who
embody intelligible gender and those who do not. And gender hegemony, as conceptualized here, explains
how masculinity and femininity ensure and legitimate those relations of domination as well.

4 Springer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102 101

describing the behavior of wom

resources among women, men, an
of meaning legitimate and ensu
femininities as conceptualized h
hegemony in local, regional, and
and global ways to challenge gen

References

Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment.
Gender and Society, 16(6), 860-877.
Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity.
Connell, R. W. (1992). A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of
gender. American Sociological Review, 57(6), 735-751.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W. (2000). The men and the boys. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender
and Society, 19, 829-859.
Dellinger, K. (2004). Masculinities in 'safe' and 'embattled' organizations: Accounting for pornographic and
feminist magazines. Gender and Society, 18(5), 545-566.
Dowsett, G. W. (1993). I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours: Gay men, masculinity research, men's
studies, and sex. Theory and Society, 22(5), 697-709.
Eskilsson, L. (2003). Masculinity and the North. In S. Ervo & T. Johansson (Eds.), Among men: Moulding
masculinities, volume 1 (pp. 115-126). Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate.
Fejes, F. (2000). Making a gay masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(1), 113-116.
Fonesca, C. (2003). Philanderes, cuckolds, and wily women: Reexamining gender relations in a Brazilian
working-class neighborhood. In M. C. Gutmann (Ed.), Changing men and masculinities in latin America
(pp. 61-83). Durham: Duke University Press.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality volume I: An introduction. New York: Vintage.
Garlick, S. (2003). What is a man? Heterosexuality and the technology of masculinity. Men and
Masculinities, 6(2), 156-172.
Gutmann, M. C. (1996). The meanings of macho: Being a man in Mexico City. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham: Duke.
Hennen, P. (2005). Bear bodies, bear masculinity: Recuperation, resistance, or retreat? Gender and Society,
19(1), 25-43.
Hill Collins, P. (1990). Blackfeminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment.
New York: HarperCollins.
Kimmel, M., Hearn J., & Connell, R. W. (2005). Handbook on studies on men & masculinities. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Kippax, S., & Smith, G. (2001). Anal intercourse and power in sex between men. Sexualities, 4(4), 413-434.
Lambevski, S. A. (1999). Suck my nation-masculinity, ethnicity and the politics of (Homo)sex. Sexualities, 2(4),
397-419.
Lorber, J. (1998). Men's gender politics. Gender and Society, 12(4), 469-477.
Lorber, J. (2000). Using gender to undo gender: A feminist degendering movement. Feminist Theory, 1, 7
MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Martin, P. Y. (1998). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Reflections on Connell's Masculin
Gender and Society, 12(4), 472-474.
Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as social institution. Social Forces, 82(4), 1249-1273.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2003). Flesh and blood: Adolescent gender diversity and violence. New Y
Rowman & Littlefield.
Messner, M. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon.
Pyke, K. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2003). Asian American women and racialized femininities: 'Doing' gender
across cultural worlds. Gender and Society, 17(1), 33-53.

4) Springer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 102 Theor Soc (2007) 36:85-102

Schippers, M. (2002). Rockin' out of the

NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Segal, L. (1994). Straight sex: Rethinking
Smith, G., Kippax, S., & Chapple, M.
Homosexuality, 35(1), 53-73.
Underwood, S. G. (2003). Gay men an
Harrington..
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.

Mimi Schippers Is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies at Tulane University. The general
focus of her research is the embodiment and interactional production of gender and sexuality in everyday life
and culture. She is particularly interested in theorizing the links between embodiment, identities, meanings,
and interaction and broader relations of inequality. She is currently writing a book in which she compares
gay, lesbian, and straight bars in Chicago and Paris to identify culturally specific ways in which public
settings are hetero-sexualized through embodiment, interaction, and the control of space. Her current research
includes an ethnography of a street corner in New Orleans where the highly eroticized, straight bars of
Bourbon Street end and the gay bars begin. She is author of Rockin' Out of the Box: Gender Maneuvering in
Alternative Hard Rock. Rutgers University Press, 2002.

4 Springer

This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Thu, 20 May 2021 11:56:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms