Femme Theory: Refocusing the Intersectional Lens

Femme Theory: Refocusing the Intersectional Lens Despite the advancements of mainstream fem- Rhea Ashley Hoskin is a CGS-SSHRC doctoral student inist politics, the feminized remains subordinated. in the Department of Sociology at Queen’s Universi- While traditional sexism is largely met with social ty. Theorizing femme identities and systemic forms of disapproval, the devaluation of femininity receives feminine devaluation, her work focuses on perceived social approval or remains undetected. Little aca- femininity and its impact on the experiences of mar- demic attention has been paid to the “naturalized” ginalization and oppression among sexual and gender subordination of femininity, which contributes to minorities. Within this framework, Rhea applies femi- a striking pervasiveness of feminine devaluation or nist and femme theory to the study of femme identities, femmephobia. Due to its ability to masquerade as femmephobia, social prejudices, and the links between other forms of oppression, and the cultural tendency gender, gender expression, health, and fitness. toward its naturalization, feminine devaluation remains obscure. This elusiveness has allowed femme- Abstract phobia to evade being labelled a form of oppression This paper seeks to develop a theory of subversive fem- within dominant feminist theories, including inter- ininities or femme theory. It argues for the inclusion of sectionality. femmephobia in intersectional analyses and provides Intersectionality is argued to be one of the the theoretical groundwork necessary for feminist most “important theoretical contribution(s)” made by theorists and researchers to incorporate an analysis of women’s studies and related fields (McCall 2005, 1771). femmephobia into their studies of oppression. Born out of Black feminism and Critical Race Theory, intersectional analysis is a methodology employed to Résumé demonstrate how discourses of resistance can them- Cet article cherche à élaborer une théorie des féminités selves function as “sites that produce and legitimize subversives ou « femme theory ». Il plaide en faveur de marginalization” (Carbado et al. 2013, 303-304). The l’inclusion de la phobie « femme » dans les analyses inter- term “intersectionality” was introduced to critique “sin- sectionnelles et fournit les bases théoriques nécessaires gle-axis frameworks,” the argument being that women’s pour que les théoriciennes et les chercheuses féministes social movement and advocacy elided the vulnerabili- incorporent une analyse de la phobie « femme » dans ties of women of colour. The concept has since expand- leurs études de l’oppression. ed from its nascent “two-pronged” analysis to a more multifaceted analytical approach (Hoskin et al. 2017). Consequently, intersectionality continuously brings researchers to unexplored places, reframing social issues in a way that makes “new solutions imaginable” (Carba- do et al. 2013, 306). The goal of intersectional analysis is to go beyond the mere comprehension of social relations of power to “bring the often hidden dynamics forward in order to transform them” (312). Following intersectionality’s trajectory, the introduction of femmephobia within intersectional analysis brings forward new ways to conceptualize social phenomena as well as new solutions. Atlantis 38.1, 2017 95 www.msvu.ca/atlantis Femininity in Feminism ity has also contributed to the current environments In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir declared, “one in which femininity is a) devalued and policed and b) is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” (Beauvoir remains undetected as an intersecting source of op- 1989, 267). Beauvoir marked a fracture between sex/ pression. This article first examines the psychosocial gender and, more specifically, the distinction between and feminist literature overlooking feminine devalu- “female” and femininity. These fractures set in motion ation and demonstrates the undercurrent of feminine the grounds for Western feminist critiques of biologi- intersections connecting these experiences. Then, by cal determinism and essentialism. In drawing this dis- conceptualizing femme and patriarchal femininity, the tinction and uncoupling “womanhood” from feminin- necessary groundwork is laid to understand the perva- ity, feminism began to distance itself from femininity, siveness of feminine devaluation and the application which they had come to understand as the oppressor. of femmephobia within intersectional analyses. Until Femininity became synonymous with female subordi- a multifocal understanding of femininity and femme is nation, with male right of access, and with disciplinary developed, researchers cannot understand how devia- practices enforced under patriarchal rule. In other tions from hegemonic norms of femininity function as words, femininity became the scapegoat of patriarchal a source of oppression. As will be explored, the homog- oppression (Serano 2007). Germaine Greer (1970) de- enization of femininity, and the subsequent erasure of scribed feminine people as “feminine parasites,” as femme, contributes to the failed recognition of femme- subhuman and incomplete (22; Stern 1997, 189). Kate phobia as an oppressor. By using a scholarly lens to in- Millet (1977) theorized femininity as a form of “interior terrogate feminine devaluation, this paper argues for colonization” and to be lacking both dignity and self-re- the inclusion of femmephobia in intersectional analy- spect (25). The feminist history of anti-feminine rhet- ses and provides the theoretical groundwork necessary oric can still be evidenced in current Western feminist for feminist theorists and researchers to incorporate an theories and pedagogies (Hoskin 2017b). analysis of femmephobia into their studies of oppres- While there has been a great deal of focus on sion. the deconstruction of femininity, there has yet to be a significant scholarly analysis of how the devaluation of Literature Review: The Elephant in the Room femininity intersects with interlocking systems of op- For over three decades, psychosocial and fem- pression or the theoretical potentialities of fem(me) inist research has overlooked the thematic undertones inine intersections. Yet, the number of individuals who of feminine devaluation and femmephobia. Take, for have commented on feminine devaluation, femme, and instance, the different consequences of gender deviance queer femininities through non-academic media speaks for those designated or coercively assigned male at birth to the significance of these issues (e.g., http://bffemme. (DMAB/CAMAB/AMAB) compared to those desig- tumblr.com; http://fuckyeahqueerfemme.tumblr.com/ nated or coercively assigned female at birth (DFAB/ about; http://tangledupinlace.tumblr. com). Further, al- CAFAM/AFAB). Developmental psychology has con- though feminist scholarship has distinguished sex from cluded that boys face more repercussions than girls for gender, there is a failure to address the intersection of gender role violations (Kilianski 2003, 38). As children, gender (masculinity and femininity) as unique from in- feminine boys are at a greater risk than masculine girls tersections of sex. While French theorists, like Simone for being “ridiculed or bullied” and experiencing peer de Beauvoir and Luce Irigaray, laid the foundations for rejection from group activities (Taywaditep 2001, 6). such an inquiry, most intersectional interrogations of Boys are more likely to experience isolation and they “gender” are conflations of sex categories and overlook receive fewer positive reactions and significantly more the intricacies of how femininity and masculinity inter- criticism from peers and teachers for expressing fem- act within systems of domination. ininely compared to girls who express masculinely The homogenization of feminine intersections (Fagot 1977, 902; Harry 1983, 352). In Beverly J. Fagot’s or multiplicities gives “power to one of the most fun- (1977) study, girls did not receive negative feedback by damental mechanisms of sexism” (Mishali 2014, 58). from their peers for gender transgressions and were less Arguably, the monolithic understanding of feminin- alienated as a result of their gender expressions (Harry Atlantis 38.1, 2017 96 www.msvu.ca/atlantis 1983, 355). Fathers were found to place more impor- 2013, 2017a; Blair and Hoskin 2015, 2016; Levitt, Ger- tance on their boys acting “like boys” than their girls rish, and Hiestand 2003; VanNewkirk 2006). Karen L. acting “like girls” (351), which may explain why femi- Blair and Rhea Ashley Hoskin (2015, 2016) discuss nine boys are also at a greater risk for having a distant femme-identified individuals’ experiences of exclusion relationship with their father, suicidal ideation, depres- and discrimination within the LGBTQ community as sion, and anxiety (Taywaditep 2001). a result of their feminine expression. Participants de- Trans youth on the feminine spectrum face scribed a unique processes of identity development cissexism at an earlier age and report more instances in which they felt their femininity to be unaccepted of being physically victimized than those on the mas- by their community. As a result, many participants culine spectrum (Grossman et al. 2006). Similarly, described feeling this aspect of their identity to be trans women are at a higher risk for “verbal, physical “closeted” at one point in their identity development. and sexual harassment” (Jauk 2013, 808). As a result, These experiences contribute to feelings of isolation, childhood gender non-conformity among people subsequently

Load more