Femme heory: Refocusing the Intersectional Lens
Rhea Ashley Hoskin is a CGS-SSHRC doctoral student
in the Department of Sociology at Queen’s University. heorizing femme identities and systemic forms of
feminine devaluation, her work focuses on perceived
femininity and its impact on the experiences of marginalization and oppression among sexual and gender
minorities. Within this framework, Rhea applies feminist and femme theory to the study of femme identities,
femmephobia, social prejudices, and the links between
gender, gender expression, health, and itness.
Abstract
his paper seeks to develop a theory of subversive femininities or femme theory. It argues for the inclusion of
femmephobia in intersectional analyses and provides
the theoretical groundwork necessary for feminist
theorists and researchers to incorporate an analysis of
femmephobia into their studies of oppression.
Résumé
Cet article cherche à élaborer une théorie des féminités
subversives ou « femme theory ». Il plaide en faveur de
l’inclusion de la phobie « femme » dans les analyses intersectionnelles et fournit les bases théoriques nécessaires
pour que les théoriciennes et les chercheuses féministes
incorporent une analyse de la phobie « femme » dans
leurs études de l’oppression.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
Despite the advancements of mainstream feminist politics, the feminized remains subordinated.
While traditional sexism is largely met with social
disapproval, the devaluation of femininity receives
social approval or remains undetected. Little academic attention has been paid to the “naturalized”
subordination of femininity, which contributes to
a striking pervasiveness of feminine devaluation or
femmephobia. Due to its ability to masquerade as
other forms of oppression, and the cultural tendency
toward its naturalization, feminine devaluation remains obscure. This elusiveness has allowed femmephobia to evade being labelled a form of oppression
within dominant feminist theories, including intersectionality.
Intersectionality is argued to be one of the
most “important theoretical contribution(s)” made by
women’s studies and related ields (McCall 2005, 1771).
Born out of Black feminism and Critical Race heory,
intersectional analysis is a methodology employed to
demonstrate how discourses of resistance can themselves function as “sites that produce and legitimize
marginalization” (Carbado et al. 2013, 303-304). he
term “intersectionality” was introduced to critique “single-axis frameworks,” the argument being that women’s
social movement and advocacy elided the vulnerabilities of women of colour. he concept has since expanded 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” (Carbado et al. 2013, 306). he goal of intersectional analysis is
to go beyond the mere comprehension of social relations
of power to “bring the oten 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.
95
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
Femininity in Feminism
In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir declared, “one
is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” (Beauvoir
1989, 267). Beauvoir marked a fracture between sex/
gender and, more speciically, the distinction between
“female” and femininity. hese fractures set in motion
the grounds for Western feminist critiques of biological determinism and essentialism. In drawing this distinction and uncoupling “womanhood” from femininity, feminism began to distance itself from femininity,
which they had come to understand as the oppressor.
Femininity became synonymous with female subordination, with male right of access, and with disciplinary
practices enforced under patriarchal rule. In other
words, femininity became the scapegoat of patriarchal
oppression (Serano 2007). Germaine Greer (1970) described feminine people as “feminine parasites,” as
subhuman and incomplete (22; Stern 1997, 189). Kate
Millet (1977) theorized femininity as a form of “interior
colonization” and to be lacking both dignity and self-respect (25). he feminist history of anti-feminine rhetoric can still be evidenced in current Western feminist
theories and pedagogies (Hoskin 2017b).
While there has been a great deal of focus on
the deconstruction of femininity, there has yet to be a
signiicant scholarly analysis of how the devaluation of
femininity intersects with interlocking systems of oppression or the theoretical potentialities of fem(me)
inine intersections. Yet, the number of individuals who
have commented on feminine devaluation, femme, and
queer femininities through non-academic media speaks
to the signiicance of these issues (e.g., http://bfemme.
tumblr.com; http://fuckyeahqueerfemme.tumblr.com/
about; http://tangledupinlace.tumblr. com). Further, although feminist scholarship has distinguished sex from
gender, there is a failure to address the intersection of
gender (masculinity and femininity) as unique from intersections of sex. While French theorists, like Simone
de Beauvoir and Luce Irigaray, laid the foundations for
such an inquiry, most intersectional interrogations of
“gender” are conlations of sex categories and overlook
the intricacies of how femininity and masculinity interact within systems of domination.
he homogenization of feminine intersections
or multiplicities gives “power to one of the most fundamental mechanisms of sexism” (Mishali 2014, 58).
Arguably, the monolithic understanding of feminin-
Literature Review: he Elephant in the Room
For over three decades, psychosocial and feminist research has overlooked the thematic undertones
of feminine devaluation and femmephobia. Take, for
instance, the diferent consequences of gender deviance
for those designated or coercively assigned male at birth
(DMAB/CAMAB/AMAB) compared to those designated or coercively assigned female at birth (DFAB/
CAFAM/AFAB). Developmental psychology has concluded that boys face more repercussions than girls for
gender role violations (Kilianski 2003, 38). As children,
feminine boys are at a greater risk than masculine girls
for being “ridiculed or bullied” and experiencing peer
rejection from group activities (Taywaditep 2001, 6).
Boys are more likely to experience isolation and they
receive fewer positive reactions and signiicantly more
criticism from peers and teachers for expressing femininely compared to girls who express masculinely
(Fagot 1977, 902; Harry 1983, 352). In Beverly J. Fagot’s
(1977) study, girls did not receive negative feedback by
from their peers for gender transgressions and were less
alienated as a result of their gender expressions (Harry
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
ity has also contributed to the current environments
in which femininity is a) devalued and policed and b)
remains undetected as an intersecting source of oppression. his article irst examines the psychosocial
and feminist literature overlooking feminine devaluation and demonstrates the undercurrent of feminine
intersections connecting these experiences. hen, by
conceptualizing femme and patriarchal femininity, the
necessary groundwork is laid to understand the pervasiveness of feminine devaluation and the application
of femmephobia within intersectional analyses. Until
a multifocal understanding of femininity and femme is
developed, researchers cannot understand how deviations from hegemonic norms of femininity function as
a source of oppression. As will be explored, the homogenization of femininity, and the subsequent erasure of
femme, contributes to the failed recognition of femmephobia as an oppressor. By using a scholarly lens to interrogate feminine devaluation, this paper argues for
the inclusion of femmephobia in intersectional analyses and provides the theoretical groundwork necessary
for feminist theorists and researchers to incorporate an
analysis of femmephobia into their studies of oppression.
96
1983, 355). Fathers were found to place more importance on their boys acting “like boys” than their girls
acting “like girls” (351), which may explain why feminine boys are also at a greater risk for having a distant
relationship with their father, suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety (Taywaditep 2001).
Trans youth on the feminine spectrum face
cissexism at an earlier age and report more instances
of being physically victimized than those on the masculine spectrum (Grossman et al. 2006). Similarly,
trans women are at a higher risk for “verbal, physical
and sexual harassment” (Jauk 2013, 808). As a result,
childhood gender non-conformity among people
DMAB has a greater association with later suicidality
than for those DFAB (Harry 1983, 350). Moreover,
parents of trans feminine youth were more likely to
think that their child needed counselling (Grossman
et al. 2006).
he experiences of feminine devaluation and
policing are not limited to those DMAB, but extend
across sexual and gender identities. Sociological theories and empirical studies have noted a privileging of
masculinity in both gay male and lesbian communities
(Serano 2013; Blair and Hoskin 2015, 2016; Taywaditep
2001). A broad cultural example is the privileging of
tomboys and the subjugation of “sissy-boys” (Taywaditep 2001). his broader cultural phenomenon of
masculine privileging exists in lesbian communities as
well. For example, in a study on sexual and romantic
attraction, both gay men and lesbians considered masculinity to be the most valued and attractive: gay men
tended to value gender conformity or “masculinity”
and lesbians tended to value gender nonconformity or
masculinity (Taywaditep 2001; Miller 2015). Further
exemplifying the privileging of masculinity within LGB
communities, Rhea Ashley Hoskin and Karen L. Blair
(2016) found that gay men were willing to date trans
men, but not trans women, and lesbian women were
also willing to date trans men, but not trans women.
In other words, while participants demonstrated sexual luidity between their stated sexual identity category
and their stated objects of desire, this luidity rarely included trans women.
Femme theorists have written extensively on
masculine privileging within lesbian communities,
which led many femme individuals to feel “inauthentic” as lesbians or feminists (Mishali 2014; Hoskin
2013, 2017a; Blair and Hoskin 2015, 2016; Levitt, Gerrish, and Hiestand 2003; VanNewkirk 2006). Karen L.
Blair and Rhea Ashley Hoskin (2015, 2016) discuss
femme-identiied individuals’ experiences of exclusion
and discrimination within the LGBTQ community as
a result of their feminine expression. Participants described a unique processes of identity development
in which they felt their femininity to be unaccepted
by their community. As a result, many participants
described feeling this aspect of their identity to be
“closeted” at one point in their identity development.
hese experiences contribute to feelings of isolation,
subsequently impacting the mental well-being of
femme-identiied people (Mishali 2014, 61). Furthermore, there is a growing body of research that demonstrates how feminine gender presentation in terms of
appearance “may be related to risk of adult sexual assault” while those who present more androgynously or
masculinely report fewer cases of sexual victimization
(Lehavot, Molina, and Simoni 2012, 278).
Several empirical studies have demonstrated a
prejudice within gay male culture against those who
are perceived as feminine. Sociological studies have
shown the undesirability of, hostility toward, or even
contempt of femininity among gay men (Fields et al.
2012; Sanchez and Vilain 2012; Taywaditep 2001; Miller 2015; Fagot 1977) as well as greater fear, hostility,
and discomfort toward feminine gay men in society
more broadly (Glick et al. 2007; Jewell and Morrison
2012). Research on the underground community in
1910s and 1920s New York found that middle-class
gay men were “dissatisied with the woman-like gender status” of gay men and adopted the label “queer” as
a means of distinguishing themselves from feminine
gay men (Taywaditep 2001, 7). his group of queer
men further distanced themselves from feminine gay
men by reserving derogatory terms, such as “fairies,
faggots, and Queens,” for efeminate men “whom they
despised” (7).
Not only are feminine gay men at a greater risk
of in-group discrimination, such as romantic rejection
from their community (Taywaditep 2001, 11), they
are also at greater risk of being subject to anti-gay attitudes in society at large than are masculine gay men
(Glick et al. 2007, 55). Feminine gay men sufer from
lower psychological well-being, higher anxiety, lower
self-esteem, and have a higher risk of clinical depres-
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
97
sion when compared to masculine gay men (Taywaditep 2001; Weinrich et al. 1995). In a revealing study,
Sanjay Aggarwal and Rene Gerrets (2014) explored gay
men’s elevated psychological distress. Despite high levels of LGBTQ equality, gay men in this study were three
times more likely to report a mood or anxiety disorder
and ten times more likely to report suicidal ideation.
In part, this study attributes the psychological health
discrepancies between same-sex and mixed-sex oriented men to the privileging of masculinity, evidenced
in both LGBTQ communities and dominant culture.
While the results of this study exemplify femmephobia, it remains unnamed as a point of theoretical intersection within the work. By employing femme theory,
researchers can begin to better understand the origins
of health discrepancies, such as those cited above, and
to better understand dominant cultural responses to
male femininity.
Lisa Jewell and Melanie Morrison’s (2012) article “Making Sense of Homonegativity” showcases the
dominant cultural responses to male femininity. he
results from their analysis indicate that participants’
homonegativity was “characterized by feelings of discomfort when confronted with homosexuality and perceptions that gay men are efeminate” (351). Both male
and female participants described a gay relationship
as consisting of a “masculine” and a “feminine” partner and said that they were “particularly bothered by
the partner who acts feminine” (359). As with much of
the current research looking at homonegativity, Jewell
and Morrison did not examine the cultural devaluation
of femininity as a fundamental component underlying
homonegative responses.
Jewell and Morrison’s (2012) indings can be analysed in terms of Julia Serano’s (2007) “efemania,” a
term she uses to describe the stigmatization of “male”
expressions of femininity or men’s entrances into the
“feminine realm.” Serano explains this phenomenon
as the result of the hegemonic hierarchical positioning
of masculinity above femininity, whereby the policing
of femininity becomes permissible. Serano (2013) also
discusses the concept of trans-misogyny (50) illuminates prejudices speciically targeting trans women—a
concept which brings insight into the work of Viviane
Namaste.
Namaste (2005) has written about the prominence of trans sex workers among those accounted
for by the Transgender Day of Remembrance, adding that, of the total murders, nearly 100 percent were
male-to-female. Although the site frames the murders
as “anti transgender hatred and prejudice,” Namaste
understands these crimes as compounded by a form
of “gendered” violence, a crucial aspect that is erased
when framed exclusively as targeting trans people (9293). In a profound way, Namaste’s work illustrates the
intersections of femininity and Serano’s (2013) theory
of trans-misogyny. However, the underlying theme of
feminine devaluation as it applies across genders and
sexualities remains absent. Arguably, the violence Namaste speaks to could be understood as a form of policing bodies that deviate from patriarchal models of
femininity (Hoskin 2013).
An overview of the literature inds a variety
of critical terms developed to describe the subordination and policing of femininity including anti-femininity (Kilianski 2003; Eguchi 2011; Miller 2015);
trans-misogyny (Serano 2007, 2013); efemimania
(Serano 2007); homonegativity (Jewell and Morrison
2012); femi-negativity (Bishop et al. 2014); sissyphobia (Eguchi 2011); anti-efeminacy (Sanchez and Vilain
2012); femiphobia (Bailey 1996); slut-shaming/bashing
(Tanenbaum 2015), misogynoir (Bailey 2014), and so
on. To date, empirical work has demonstrated the links
between antifemininity, homophobia, and misogyny
(Taywaditep 2001; Kilianski 2003). hese co-occurrences suggest an underlying causal mechanism such
as a general aversion to femininity (Kilianski 2003).
Yet, while such issues surfaced within academia over
30 years ago, there remains a gap in psychosocial and
feminist literature as this underlying causal mechanism
of feminine devaluation continues to inform social oppression but has remained unidentiied. As evidenced
above, there are multiple sources of oppression rooted
in the devaluation and policing of femininity, each targeting a diferent social group. Each is rooted in the
negative associations with femininity, but there has yet
to be feminist or psychosocial research examining the
overarching connections among these oppressors.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
(Re)Conceptualizing Femme
In order to understand femmephobia as a mode
or vector of oppression, one must also establish the
norms against which those who deviate are policed. To
do this, I will operationalize the femme subject by using
98
the femme lesbian as a theoretical point of departure
from which to expand and explore deviations from patriarchal models of femininity.
Patriarchal femininity is the hegemonic femininity, propped up by essentialism (or essentialized
femininity) and typically forced onto those DFAB. It is
the subject of much feminist literature, which deconstructs or critiques femininity. Patriarchal femininity
necessitates the alignment of sex, gender, and sexuality and the adherence to racial and able-bodied norms.
Not only is it imperative that these “female” bodies be
thin and able-bodied, to be “truly feminine,” they must
also be “white” (Deliovsky 2008, 56). his construction
of femininity must also be ofered up to a heterosexual
male gaze and be obedient to hegemonic heteropatriarchy (Mishali 2014, 59). Under patriarchal rule, femininity is only “acceptable” (not to be confused with valued)
in one mode: white, heterosexually available, DFAB,
able-bodied, passive, self-sacriicing, thin, young, lacking self-actualization, and simultaneously negotiating
Madonna/Whore constructs. In this model, femininity is reserved exclusively for those designated female at
birth.
Traditionally, femme has been understood as a
feminine cisgender lesbian who is attracted to a masculine or “butch” lesbian (Kennedy and Davis 1993;
Levitt, Gerrish, and Hiestand 2003; Nestle 1987; Munt
1997). In their ight for agency, by living, building,
ighting, fucking, and loving within a queer community and context, femme lesbians were able to carve out
space for feminine identity expressions that veer from
patriarchal norms. Femme lesbians were the sexual deviants sexologists could not explain away (Hirschmann
2013, 144), who built queer gender communities with
their butches while ighting for feminine valuation
within those spaces. heir ights provided the crucial
groundwork for theorizing feminine intersections and
devaluation.
In contrast to patriarchal models of femininity, the femme lesbian “fails” to maintain the sanctity of
patriarchal femininity in her self-actualized expression
of femininity, the object(s) of her sexual desires, and
her resistance to male right of access to the feminine.
However, femme has become a term that covers many
identities. Research conducted by Blair and Hoskin
(2015) demonstrates that this understanding is an inaccurate depiction of the lived experiences of femmes. Ac-
cording to their study, femme self-identiication spans
across sexual and gender identities and demonstrates
the many intersections of femininity. Similarly, many
femme theorists have articulated femme identities beyond cisgender lesbians (Dahl 2011; Brushwood Rose
and Camilleri 2002; Volcano and Dahl 2008; Coyote
and Sharman 2011; Harris and Crocker 1997). What,
then, does it mean to be femme? How do the multiple
invocations of being femme connect to one another?
Femme is a form of divergent femininity that
strays from the monolithic and patriarchally sanctioned femininity. Femme follows the same logic and
application as queer in that both queer and femme are
deviations from the celebrated norm. Consequently,
both queer and femme provide critiques of normalcy
and compulsory identities. Neither queer nor femme
is reducible to singular applications: both can be used
as nouns, adjectives, identities, embodiments, expressions, political invocations, or as a theoretical framework. Using a ‘failed’ model of patriarchal femininity,
such ideals are carried down the line of normative feminine standards. here are many ways the invocation of
femme identity may veer from the feminine cisgender
lesbian model: sassy queer men; unapologetically sexual
straight women; trans women; crip bodied femmes who
refuse to be desexualized or degendered; and femmes of
colour who refuse to approximate white beauty norms,
to name a few. Each of these modes of intersecting feminine embodiment challenge one or more of the architecture of patriarchal femininity and can therefore be
understood as femme.
Ergo, femme identity (and femmephobia) is applicable to diversely positioned bodies and describes
a range of experiences across various intersections of
diference. To this end, femme is femininity dislocated
from—and not necessitated by—a female body or a female identity. Femme challenges the “normative correlations between gender [sex] and sexuality” by “remapping and renegotiating the terms in which femininity is
articulated” (Mishali 2014, 66). Femmephobia, on the
other hand, operates to dichotomize and normatively
police bodies whose use of femininity blurs boundaries
of sex, gender, and sexuality and to shame bodies that
make use of feminine signiiers. Femme is femininity
reworked, (re)claimed as one’s own and made in one’s
own image (Brushwood Rose and Camilleri 2002; Serano 2013)—a type of “disruptive” (Erickson 2007, 44),
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
99
rogue femininity (Coyote and Sharman 2011, 205). By
rejecting the masculine right of access to femininity, the
femme subject collapses systems of meaning and signiiers of heterosexual hegemony. In this way, femmes
give “feminine signiiers new meaning” (Levitt, Gerrish, and Hiestand 2003, 99). Femme is the abnormal
occupation of feminine normality (Erickson 2007, 44),
meaning femininity embodied by those to whom recognition as feminine is culturally denied or who do not
comply with norms of “proper womanhood.” In other
words, femmes are those whose feminine expressions
are culturally “unauthorized,” and who refuse to and/or
do not approximate the ideal norm of what patriarchal
femininity constitutes.
While many articulations of femme identity exist, what they share is a commitment to “reclaiming” and
exposing the intricate intersections of femininity (Serano 2013, 48). Consequently, femme enactments are in
constant dialogue with the negative assumptions projected onto femininity, challenging and disentangling
the naturalized associations of patriarchal femininity.
When femmes reclaim agency through the deliberate
choice to present femininely, they are denied the cultural ideal of womanhood as one who forgoes agency and
relinquishes the power of self-determination. Patriarchal femininity is understood as an “obstacle to subjecthood” (Dahl 2014, 607) and an expression of femininity
done for another. Agential embodiment and self-actualized expressions of femininity represent a direct afront
to patriarchal femininity, which necessitates sellessness and a denial of self-expression. One of the ways in
which femme difers from patriarchal femininity (also
known as hegemonic or essentialized femininity) is on
“the ground of context and subjectivity” (Mishali 2014,
59). While patriarchal femininity promotes the paciication of the feminine subject, femme intersections
necessitate an active subjectivity: femininity becomes a
source of power and strength, rather than subordination (Nnawulezi, Robin, and Sewell 2015; Levitt, Gerrish, and Hiestand 2003). In other words, patriarchal
femininity and femmephobia operate by attempting to
turn an active (femme) subject into a passive object.
One foundational aspect of patriarchal femininity is essentialized femininity: the idea that femininity is the result of one’s sex as assigned at birth and
determined by one’s anatomy alone. In other words,
patriarchal femininity is supported by a biological de-
terminist view of gender. his essentialist notion is one
of the footholds of patriarchal femininity. However, for
femme theorists, femininity is deliberate (Mishali 2014;
Nnawulezi, Robin, and Sewell 2015), chosen, and not
born out of a culturally imposed assignment of sex/gender binaries such as essentialist femininity. Femininely expressing folks who refuse to be shamed for their
bodies, their minds, and their hearts exemplify femme.
Femme is a “failed femininity”: namely the failure or refusal to approximate the patriarchal feminine norm of
white, cisgender, able-bodied virtuosity.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
Femmephobia and Femme-Negativity
Femmephobia (also known as femme-negativity) difers from misogyny or sexism in its focus on gender and femininity as opposed to the latter’s focus on
sex and femaleness. Feminist theory has distinguished
sex from gender, but there has yet to be a comparable
distinction of sexism/misogyny from the manifestations of feminine devaluation as an intersection of oppression within systems of domination. Femmephobia,
or femininity as an axis within the interlocking systems
of oppression, has largely been overlooked within the
literature and unidentiied within empirical research,
despite indings that support its presence. Arguably,
“misogynist conceptualizations of the female body
have created insidious cultural norms wherein associations with traits deemed feminine come to be seen in
a derogatory light” (Staford 2010, 81). Indeed, a historicization of femmephobia will trace its foothold to
the legacy of misogyny and sexism. However, sources of oppression are social viruses, which continue to
shit and mutate. hrough the incorporation of an increasingly ine-tuned intersectional lens, we can begin
to tease apart the many layers of social oppression and
develop a nuanced understanding of feminine intersections. Intersectionality is not a inite goal; it is an ever-shiting project—a theoretical framework necessary
to tackle the viral nature of social oppressors.
heorizing Femmephobia
Femmephobia is typically understood as prejudice(s) toward femme-identiied persons. In alignment
with the conceptualization of femme, the concept of
femmephobia must be broadened to relect the multitudes of diferent forms of femmeness. In other words,
femmephobia and femme as a critical intervention or
100
theoretical framework should be accountable to the
various femmes and femme enactments, irrespective
of whether an individual identiies femininely, androgynously, gender variantly, or rejects gender identiication altogether. herefore, I argue that femmephobia
is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed
against someone who is perceived to identify, embody,
or express femininely and toward people and objects
gendered femininely. More speciically, the individual is
targeted for their perceived deviation from patriarchal
femininity. By arguing femmephobia as a phenomenon
found across a range of intersectional identities, I do not
aim to homogenize and unify experiences, but rather to
demonstrate the reach of femmephobic oppression and
move toward its inclusion within intersectional analyses.
here are, for instance, countless victims reported in the news as having been targets of homophobia.
But homophobia alone does not explain the speciic targeting at stake. hese experiences are underscored by
(“failed”) femininity and require an analysis of femmephobia. Take, for example, the Florida man, Ronnie
Paris Jr., who killed his three-year-old son for being
too “sot” (Rondeaux 2005, n.p.). Similarly, 15-year-old
Raymond Buys was tortured and murdered by members
of the “Echo Wild Game Training Camp” who promised
to turn “efeminate boys into manly men” (Davis 2013,
n.p.). More recently, a sixteen-year-old high school
student in Oakland set ire to eighteen-year-old Luke
Fleichman’s skirt while they were riding the AC transit
bus (Bender, Harris, and Debolt 2013). Like the others,
Fleichman became a target due to their perceived femininity. his violent targeting of femininity in those who
do not uphold patriarchal sanctions stands in stark contrast to the more lexible range of culturally sanctioned
masculine expressions of female identiied persons.
Crimes such as these, which operate on the basis of (perceived) gender expression, may be rooted in
femmephobia. Operating within an androcentric patriarchy, those maintaining signiiers of the subordinate
gender of femininity, become targets. Moreover, expressions, signiiers, or embodiments of femininity are
culturally understood as a justiication for degradation.
I argue that, when culturally unsanctioned bodies are
read through this lens, femmephobia complicates and
compounds the efects of various intersections of identity and multiple oppressors. Femmephobia is a cultural
Typology of Femmephobia
Like any source of oppression, femmephobia has
come to take on various forms. here are four primary
ways femmephobia manifests: ascribed femmephobia;
perceived femmephobia; femme-mystiication; and
pious femmephobia. Internalized femmephobia can
manifest in any category and can result in self-imposed
limits on what is expected of oneself, how one expects
to be treated by others, and the resultant acceptance of
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
phenomenon that devalues and polices femininity, as
well as perceived expressions of femininity, across intersections of diference.
hese acts of violence can be understood, in
part, as a revolt against unsanctioned forms of femininity—femininity on and by bodies that do not uphold a
patriarchal model of womanhood. Within hegemonic
gender systems, there exists a rigid distinction between
femininity and masculinity. Failed masculinity descends
into femininity, as evidenced by the words efeminate
and emasculate. he notion of “failed masculinity,” for
which there is no equivalent feminine concept, can be
historically linked to female bodies being constructed
as inadequate versions of male bodies (Staford 2010).
“Manhood” or “masculinity” is itself deined through
the repudiation of femininity and the ability to distance itself from feminine traits (Norton 1997; Kilianski 2003). Masculinity risks “slippage” into the feminine
whereas femininity itself “denotes slippage” (Stern 1997,
193). In other words, masculinity is elevated above femininity within the gender hierarchy and femininity is
inherently “failed.” In this way, the maintenance of masculinity cannot be addressed without the incorporation
of femmephobia.
Femmephobia functions to (re)claim “misused”
femininity, as expressed by those who veer from culturally authorized versions of patriarchal femininity, with
the outcome of maintaining the sanctity of a white ideal
womanhood (with femininity as its signiier). Femmephobia uses forms of policing to retract femininity for
the purpose of retaining cultural signiiers of white female-bodied submission and heterosexual availability.
By deining particular expressions or intersections of
femininity as unsanctioned, femmephobia limits gender expression to that which is authorized. As a result,
femmephobia homogenizes femininities and maintains
the ideology of a monolithic femininity.
101
mistreatment on the basis of feminine devaluation. he
internalization of femmephobia results from the deliberate conditioning and erosion of the individual by the
surrounding femmephobic society until one has adopted and naturalized feminine devaluation.
impairments cause them to fail to meet standard ideals
of ” patriarchal femininity (141). Similar to the ableist
equation of disability as weak and therefore feminine,
the associated signiiers of femininity are adopted in order to maintain the status quo (re: disability as inferior)
or to infer subordination.
Social media has been bombarded with images
of a “feminized” Vladimir Putin, Rob Ford, Kim Jongun, and Donald Trump. One of the images is a parody of Putin on the cover of Time Magazine in makeup
(Hackett 2013). Similarly, images of Trump, Ford, and
Jong-un in drag and/or makeup have been circulating
on social media sites. hese images draw on the symbolic inferiority assigned to feminine signiiers as a way
of humiliating and belittling those in power.
Ascribed Femmephobia
Ascribed femmephobia manifests structurally
and ideologically, drawing on the cultural associations
of feminine subordination as a tool to “demote” the
target. hese associations are informed by the historical legacy of misogynist conceptions of female bodies
as inadequate or failed versions of male bodies. Manifestations of the cultural indoctrination of feminine
subordination are well documented in social research,
as evidenced in the ways that masculinity is evaluated
more positively and with greater symbolic value than
femininity (Hooberman 1979; Miller 2015).
Ascribed femmephobia is embedded into daily
lives through language, ideology, discourse, and processes of gendering. As mentioned above, the words
“emasculate” and “efeminate” connote a hierarchical
placing of masculinity above femininity, whereby masculinity descends into the realm of femininity with
implications for one’s power, dignity, sense of self, and
social standing. Notably, there is no equivalent masculinized concept. Much of ascribed femmephobia is
linguistically embedded. It is a process of gendering,
which denotes inferiority by making use of the subordinated status of femininity. For example, derogatory
terms such as “pansy,” “sissy, fairy, queen, and faggot”
not only suggest the equation of men’s sexual desire for
other men with feminine qualities, but it also relies on
the socially inherent subordination embedded within
these feminized terms (Taywaditep 2001; Eguchi 2011;
Schatzberg et al. 1975).
Practices of feminization are used in a myriad
of ways: to insult, humiliate, disempower, or even justify violence and subordination. hese practices demonstrate how feminine signiiers are understood as innately inferior and those who adorn them are conceptually
demoted. he function of feminization is illustrated by
perceptions of disability: the disabled body is perceived
as “weak and helpless” (Hirschmann 2013, 141). By this
logic, the disabled woman could be identiied as hyperfeminine; however, they are perceived as unfeminine
because of their “perverted femininity insofar as their
Femme Mystiication
Femme mystiication confounds femme by dehumanizing feminized bodies and rendering the feminine subject a cultural dupe. It is a type of gender
policing that operates by separating femininity from
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
Perceived Femmephobia
While ascribed femmephobia employs cultural
associations to subordinate the target, perceived femmephobia targets a subject as a result of their perceived
femininity. Perceived femmephobia displays overt contempt and devaluation strictly on the basis of perceived
femininity, femme identity, or what is femininely gendered. As with other types of femmephobia, perceived
femmephobia frequently acts as a type of gender policing and arises overtly as a result of one’s perceived femininity. In contrast to the ideology and semantics underlying ascribed femmephobia, perceived femmephobia
is manifest in the overt ridicule and trivialization of,
or condescension toward, feminine enactments and is
oten used as justiication for violence, harassment, or
exclusion. Ascribed femmephobia is an ideological condition where we are socialized to associate femininity as
subordinate. Perceived femmephobia is oten the result
of these internalized ideologies and results in overtly violent, oppressive, and exclusionary consequences. For
example, masculine gay men expressing “disgust” with
the “efeminacy” of other gay men or dating proiles
that explicitly state “no femmes need apply” exemplify
perceived femmephobia (Taywaditep 2001, 12; Eguchi
2011, 48; Miller 2015).
102
be victimised” (Ringrose and Renold 2012, 333). his
“famous line” exempliies pious femmephobia: shaming
the feminine person or enactment through positioning
the femmephobic ofender as morally superior or intellectually enlightened, which is thought to therefore justify the “consequences” of transgressions against patriarchal feminine norms. According to Jessica Ringrose
and Emma Renold (2012), much of victim blaming discourse is embedded in the “cultural belief that women
are the bearers of morality” (334). By perpetuating the
cultural enforcements of female morality, victim blaming maintains patriarchal norms of femininity as virtuous.
A historical tracing of the word slut demonstrates the workings of pious femmephobia, making
clear the connection between “sex, women, service,
class, dirt and pollution” and solidifying feminine deviations from patriarchal norms as a source of pollution (Attwood 2007, 234). When used by other women
against women, the term slut functions as an “exorcism
of the unclean” with the aim to establish the user’s virtue
and status (234-235). Patriarchal femininity requires
subjects to walk a “very narrow tightrope” between Madonna/Whore constructs: on the one hand, ensuring
their sexual attractiveness and, on the other, “without
the taint of sexuality” (238). In its “move away from a
traditional—feminine, romantic—sexuality,” the “slut”
is a femme embodiment (238) and, through the rewriting of slut as a signiier of shame (Ringrose and Renold
2012, 336), political invocations of “slut” or SlutWalk
can be understood as a femme project. SlutWalk is a
sex-positive movement working to “reclaim” and “disrupt negative associations of femininity with sexuality”
(Tanenbaum 2015, 5). Although critiqued for its failure
to attend to intersectional diferences of race, SlutWalk
challenges the assumed masculine right of access over
femininity that is embedded within discourses of “asking for it.” In this way, “slut-shaming” is exemplary of
pious femmephobia, arising out of the self-professed
moral superiority of the perpetrator. Other examples
include, but are not limited to, understandings of hyPious Femmephobia
per-femininity as “without dignity” or “self-respect,”
In 2011, a Canadian police oicer named Mi- inviting of sexual assault (or “asking for it”), victim
chael Sanguinetti conducted a ‘personal safety’ work- blaming, and makeovers that include the gentriication
shop at York University at which he told the participants: of “appropriate” feminine expressions.
“I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this—however,
While society may not condone sexual viowomen should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to lence, there are many ways in which society contrib-
humanness—by eroticizing, exoticizing, and objectifying. his process of mystiication attempts to naturalize
femininity (by presenting femininity as innately tied to
speciic identities and bodies) while simultaneously upholding its ascribed artiiciality. Femme mystiication
refuses to understand femme as a chosen identity and,
in this refusal, denies feminine agency. In a similar vein
to trans-mystiication, which Serano (2007) describes
as emphasizing the “artiiciality of transsexuality [which
creates a] false impression that…assigned genders are
natural [while] identiied and lived genders are not”
(187), femme mystiication operates to emphasize feminine artiiciality, thereby creating the reciprocal efect
of masculine naturalization. For example, a participant
in Blair and Hoskin’s (2015) study described femme as
being “dehumanized” in queer communities and regarded as “either fuckable decorations or not there at
all” (240). Similarly, Shinsuke Eguchi (2011) notes that,
while gay male culture belittles feminine men, they will
nonetheless engage in sexual relations with those who
they ridicule.
Another outcome of femme mystiication is
the cultural tendency to conlate androgyny or gender-neutrality and masculinity. Masculinity lays claim
to normativity and denies “its status as stylization,”
which solidiies its naturalized standing. his naturalization has allowed masculinity to stand in as a “gender free,” “gender neutral,” or “androgynous” mode of
gender expression while solidifying the artiicialization
of femininity. Femininity is “put on” whereas masculinity is seen as a natural state of genderlessness. hrough
the construction of femininity as artiicial, femininely
identiied people are reducible to objects or regarded
as subhuman. It is this revoking of agency that makes
possible the reinstatement of femininity as a patriarchal
tool because it works to erase particular feminine embodiments and intersections by upholding masculine as
natural and feminine as a construct. Perceivably feminine people are thus mystiied, objectiied, and dehumanized.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
103
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
utes to sexual victimization, including the naturalization of femmephobia. For example, failed femininity (or femmephobia) informs rape culture for both
DMAB and DFAB survivors. Deviations from patriarchal femininity are attributed to sexual victimization
among those DMAB and DFAB. Men and women alike
are accused of “inviting” harassment by way of their
perceived femininity (Staford 2010, 89) and feminine
attire is routinely described as being “dressed to be
killed” (Mishali 2014, 58). Speciically, feminine gay
men are charged with provoking “onerous criticism” as
a result of their gender expression (Taywaditep 2001,
8). Furthermore, while female survivors are blamed
for failing to maintain “ladylike standards,” male survivors are “feminized,” blamed for being “unmanly,”
or the suggestion is made that their “weakness” somehow provoked the attack (Davies, Gilston, and Rogers
2012, 2810). Femmephobia is at work when deviations
from patriarchal femininity and subsequent failed
femininity are considered causal variables of sexual
victimization. Even notions of the “good” and “bad”
victim are informed by femmephobia and deviations
from patriarchal norms such that legal understandings
of “sexual violence against women…are more dependent upon a woman’s ability to meet the requirements
of hegemonic femininity” (Pietsch 2010, 136). In this
way, rape and systems of (in)justice function as another type of gender policing of feminine expression.
Furthermore, rape myths exemplify the ways in which
perceived femininity is implicated in the claim to a
masculine right of access to feminine bodies. In these
examples, any sex can be blamed for inviting criticism
or violence as a result of their perceived misuse of femininity.
While there are many factors involved, and
many overlapping subtypes of femmephobia, pious
femmephobia is particularly rampant in social media.
Take, for instance, Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons,
Megan Meier, or Rachel Ehmke. Meier and Ehmke took
their own life at the age of 13 as a result of the social
policing of what could be argued were transgressions
against patriarchal femininity: Meier was bullied for being fat and called a slut; Ehmke was called a prostitute
and a slut (Hodge 2012). Canadian teenager Todd took
her life at the age of 15 as a result of an older man persuading her to show her breasts and the subsequent harassment and slut-shaming by her peers (Hodge 2012).
Conclusion
As demonstrated in this article, femmephobia is
embedded in many aspects of social reality: from language to the foundations of western culture such as the
associations projected onto femininity. Far too oten,
these associations and the meaning we ascribe socially
are let unexamined, giving way to the naturalization of
femmephobia. Feminists need to begin challenging the
“dominant cultural construction of what it means to be
feminine” or risk continuing the repression and denial of feminine subjectivity (Staford 2010, 88). If feminists fail to attend to the feminine multiplicities that
challenge dominant cultural constructions, they risk
reconstituting femininity as an “object of hetero-male/
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
Parsons, a 15-year-old girl, committed suicide ater a
gang rape during which one of her rapists took a picture,
which was circulated among her peers who continued
to harass her. Prior to her death, Parsons experienced
severe slut-bashing, slut-shaming, and victim-blaming
(Brodsky 2013).
Pious femmephobia works to create an unequal
power relation between the victim and the perpetrator,
which circulates around the internalization and naturalization of oppression, whereby society, the victim,
and/or the perpetrator come to expect such oppression
In other words, “if you’re a ‘slut’ you’re expected to feel
dirty, guilty, inferior, damaged, and not worthy of respect or love” (Hodge 2012, n.p.). hese tragedies have
several commonalities: each of them constituted a perceived transgression against patriarchal femininity in a
culture of rape. To merely label such phenomena bullying, sexism, or misogyny is to overlook a speciic type
of gender policing that directly targets femininity and,
speciically, any perceived deviations from patriarchal
femininity.
To further this analysis, it is arguable that the
feminine subject was targeted for the perceived ‘immoral’ use of femininity, rather than sexuality. By failing to attend to the role that femininity plays in these
experiences of violence, social theorists cannot address
the root cause of oppression at stake: femmephobia. In
this way, the incorporation of femininity within intersectional analysis pushes the boundaries of an intersectional lens and provides a holistic look at social phenomenon, compatible with the current state of social
issues.
104
masculine desire” and further contributing to the objectiication of feminine people (88). Unfortunately, as
it currently stands, femmephobia remains diicult to
detect in its naturalized state, which passes too oten
as justiiable grounds on which to devalue or oppress
an Other. he pervasiveness of femmephobia can also
lead to diiculties identifying it because it is typically compounded by other social inluences and has yet
to be disentangled from intersecting systems of domination. Intersecting modes of oppression, such as racism, transphobia, fatphobia, colonialism, homophobia,
ableism, and classism, operate alongside femmephobia.
As Gloria Yamato (1990) explains, sources of oppression do not function in isolation, but rather are “dependent on one another for foundation” (22). While
Yamato made this argument nearly thirty years ago,
the claim to interlocking oppression is well backed by
current psychosocial research and continues to hold
true. Take, for instance, the co-occurrence of homonegativity and misogyny (Kilianski 2003); the tendency
to hold white women as the “Benchmark Woman” (i.e.
normative whiteness embedded in femininity) (Deliovsky 2008; Hoskin 2017b); or the ways in which “masculinity is also intrinsically linked with race” such that
racial stigma against gay Asian men is inseparable from
perceived femininity (Miller 2015, 643; Eguchi 2011).
All forms of oppression are facets of the same
system, working to mutually reinforce and uphold one
another. In the support of a speciic facet, one lends a
hand to the validation of the entire matrix of oppression. To ight against one facet, it is necessary to push
the boundaries of intersectionality and to interrogate
interlocking systems of oppression in their entirety.
No single source of oppression operates in an isolated
category; they are overlapping and subject to change.
he interlocking nature of oppression, therefore, underscores the necessity to view femmephobia within a
holistic intersectional framework of multiple sources of
oppression.
he cultural devaluation of femininity, not simply in terms of misogyny and sexism, but also as committed against those perceived to embody femininity,
is a key component that is overlooked when theorizing
oppression. heoretical endeavours aimed at dismantling systems of domination have underestimated the
pervasiveness of femmephobia and overlooked the intersections of femininity more broadly. Indeed, much
of feminist thought has focused on challenging femininity itself, rather than patriarchal femininity (Serano
2013, 68). One must begin employing an intersectional lens to tackle the “real” problem of femininity: “the
fact that femininity is seen as inferior to masculinity”
in straight settings, queer and feminist circles, and by
society at large (67). Although femme is both an identity and an enactment, it is also a critical analytic, which
requires bringing the multiplicity of femininities into
focus. Until an intersectional lens that is inclusive of
femmephobia and cognizant of feminine intersections
is adopted, the subordinate state of femininity will remain naturalized. he terrain of intersectionality has
yet to integrate gender (more speciically, femininity)
as an axis within systems of domination. his failure
has allowed femmephobia to remain undetected as a
contributing oppressor. As such, the incorporation
of feminine intersections and femmephobia push the
current boundaries of intersectional theory towards a
holistic and nuanced understanding of the mutating
systems of domination.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
References
Aggarwal, Sanjay, and Rene Gerrets. 2014. “Exploring a
Dutch Paradox: An Ethnographic Investigation of Gay
Men’s Mental Health.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 16
(2): 105-119.
Attwood, Feona. 2007. “Sluts and Riot Grrrls: Female
Identity and Sexual Agency.” Journal of Gender Studies
16 (3): 233-247.
Bailey, J. Michael. 1996. “Gender Identity.” In he Lives
of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals: Children to Adults, edited by Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Kenneth M. Cohen,
71-93. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Bailey, M. 2014. “More on the Origins of Misogynoir.”
April 27. http://moyazb.tumblr.com/post/84048113369/
more-on-the-origin-of-misogynoir.
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1989 [1952]. he Second Sex.
Translated by H. M. Parshley. New York, NY: Vintage
Books/Random House.
105
Bender, Kristin J., Harry Harris, and David Debolt.
2013. “16-Year-Old Boy Suspected of Setting Man on
Fire on Oakland Bus.” Oakland Tribute, June 11. http://
www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_24457005/16yearold--boy-suspected-of-setting.
Bishop, C. J., Mark Kiss, Todd G. Morrison, Damien
M. Rushe, and Jacqueline Specht. 2014. “he Association between Gay Men’s Stereotypic Beliefs about Drag
Queens and their Endorsement of Hypermasculinity.”
Journal of Homosexuality 61 (4): 554-567.
Blair, Karen L., and Rhea Ashley Hoskin. 2015. “Experiences of Femme Identity: Coming Out, Invisibility and
Femmephobia.” Psychology and Sexuality 6 (3): 229-244.
Myth Acceptance, Female Rape Myth Acceptance, Victim Blame, Homophobia, Gender Roles, and Ambivalent Sexism.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27 (14):
2807-2823.
Davis, Rebecca. 2013. “Raymond Buys: 15 Years Old,
Dead for Not Being Manly.” Daily Maverick, April 29.
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-04-29raymond-buys-15-years-old-dead-for-not-being-manly/#.Vc88LXhL4So.
Deliovsky, Kathy. 2008. “Normative White Femininity:
Race, Gender and the Politics of Beauty.” Atlantis 33 (1):
49-59.
Eguchi, Shinsuke. 2011. “Negotiating Sissyphobia: A
____. 2016. “Contemporary Understandings of Femme
Critical/Interpretive Analysis of One “Femme” Gay
Identities and Related Experiences of Discrimination.”
Asian Body in the Heteronormative World.” Journal of
Psychology and Sexuality 7 (2): 101-115.
Men’s Studies 19 (1): 37-56.
Brodsky, Alexandra. 2013. “Rehtaeh Parsons is Dead.”
Erickson, Loree. 2007. “Revealing Femmegimp: A
Feministing, July 14. http://feministing.com/2013/04/10/
Sex-Positive Relection on Sites of Shame as Sites of
rehteah-parsons-is-dead/.
Resistance for People with Disabilities.” Atlantis 31 (2):
42-52.
Brushwood Rose, Chloë, and Anne Camilleri. 2002.
Brazen Femme: Queering Femininity. Vancouver, BC:
Fagot, Beverly J. 1977. “Consequences of Moderate
Arsenal Pulp.
Cross-Gender Behaviour in Preschool Children.” Child
Carbado, Devon W., Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Development 48 (3): 902-907.
Vickie M. Mays, and Barbara Tomlinson. 2013. “Intersectionality: Mapping the Movements of a heory.” Du Fields, Errol L., Laura M. Bogart, Katherine C.
Smith, David J. Malebranche, Jonathan Ellen, and
Bois Review 10 (2): 303-312.
Mark A. Schuster. 2012. “HIV Risk and Perceptions
Coyote, Ivan E., and Zena Sharman. 2011. Persistence: of Masculinity among Young Black Men Who Have
All Ways Butch and Femme. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Sex with Men.” Journal of Adolescent Health 50: 296303.
Pulp.
Dahl, Ulrika. 2011. “Femme on Femme: Relections on
Collaborative Methods and Queer Femme-inist Ethnography.” QueerScope: Journal of Queer Studies 5 (1):
1-22. http://journal.i/sqs/article/view/50871/0.
Glick, Peter, Candice Gangl, Samantha Gibb, Susan
Klimpner, and Emily Weinberg. 2007. “Defensive Reactions to Masculinity hreat: More Negative Afect
toward Efeminate (but not Masculine) Gay Men.” Sex
Roles 57: 55-59.
____. 2014. “White Globes, Feminist Fists: Race, Nation and the Feeling of ‘Vintage’ in Femme Movements.” Greer, Germaine. 1970. he Female Eunuch. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gender, Place and Culture 21 (5): 604-621.
Davies, Michelle, Jennifer Gilston, and Paul Rogers.
2012. “Examining the Relationship between Male Rape
Grossman, Arnold H., Anthony R. D’Augeli, Nicholas
P. Salter, and Steven M. Hubbard. 2006. “Comparing
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
106
Gender Expression, Gender Nonconformity, and Par- Rujuta Mandelia and Moiyattu Banya. San Diego, CA:
ents’ Responses to Female-to-Male and Male-to-Female Cognella.
Transgender Youth.” Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 1 (1): 41-59.
____. 2017b. “Femme Interventions and the Proper
Feminist Subject: Critical Approaches to Decolonizing
Hackett, Michael. 2013. “Vladamir Putin, Proper- Contemporary Western Feminist Pedagogies.” Cogent
ly Made-Up.” Borderless News and Views, August 10. Social Sciences 3:1-17.
http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2013/08/ask-mrsvera-shouldnt-we-boycott-the-winter-olympics-in-so- Hoskin, Rhea Ashley, and Karen L. Blair. 2016. “(Un)
chi-russia/.
Willingness to Date Gender Diverse Individuals.” Paper
presented at the Sexuality Studies Association, ConHan, Chong-suk. 2008. “No Fats, Femmes, or Asians: gress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, University
he Utility of Critical Race heory in Examining the of Calgary, Calgary, AB, May 29.
Role of Gay Stock Stories in the Marginalization of Gay
Asian Men.” Contemporary Justice Review 11 (1): 11-22. Hoskin, Rhea Ashley, Kay E. Jenson, and Karen L. Blair.
2017. “Is Our Feminism Bullshit? he Importance of InHarris, Laura, and Elizabeth Crocker. 1997. Femme: tersectionality in Adopting a Feminist Identity.” Cogent
Feminists, Lesbians and Bad Girls. New York, NY: Rout- Social Sciences 3: 1-19.
ledge.
Jauk, Daniela. 2013. “Gender Violence Revisited: LesHarry, Joseph. 1983. “Parasuicide, Gender and Gender sons from Violent Victimization of Transgender IdentiDeviance.” Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 24 ied Individuals.” Sexualities 17 (7): 807-825.
(4): 350-361.
Jewell, Lisa Margaret, and Melanie Ann Morrison.
Hirschmann, Nancy J. 2013. “Queer/Fear: Disability, 2012. “Making Sense of Homonegativity: Heterosexual
Sexuality, and he Other.” Journal of Medical Human- Men and Women’s Understanding of heir Own Prejuities 34: 139-147.
dice and Discrimination toward Gay Men.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 9 (4): 351-370.
Hodge, Jarrah. 2012. “Systemic Sexism and the Death
of Amanda Todd.” Rabble.ca: News for the Rest of Us, Kennedy, Elizabeth Lapovsky, and Madeline D. Davis.
July 14. http://rabble.ca/news/2012/10/systemic- 1993. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: he History of
sexism-key-understanding-what-happened-aman- a Lesbian Community. New York, NY: Routledge/Penda-todd.
guin.
Hooberman, Robert E. 1979. “Psychological Androgyny, Feminine Gender Identity and Self-Esteem in Homosexual and Heterosexual Males.” he Journal of Sex
Research 15 (4): 306-315.
Kilianski, Stephen E. 2003. “Explaining Heterosexual Men’s Attitudes toward Women and Gay Men: he
heory of Exclusively Masculine Identity.” Psychology of
Men & Masculinity 4 (1): 37-56.
Hoskin, Rhea Ashley. 2013. “Femme heory: Feminin- Lehavot, Keren, Yamile Molina, and Jane M. Simoni.
ity’s Challenge to Western Feminist Pedagogies.” Mas- 2012. “Childhood Trauma, Adult Sexual Assault, and
ter’s hesis, Queen’s University.
Adult Gender Expression among Lesbian and Bisexual
Women.” Sex Roles 67: 272-284.
____. 2017a [In Press]. “Passing and Failing: Autoethnography of a Queer Crip Femme of Jewish Descent.” Levitt, Heidi M., Elizabeth A. Gerrish, and Katherine R.
In Gender in Transnational Societies: Feminist Scholar- Hiestand. 2003. “he Misunderstood Gender: A Model
ship and Personal Narratives: An Anthology, edited by of Modern Femme Identity.” Sex Roles 48 (3): 99-113.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
107
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
McCall, Leslie. 2005. “he Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30
(3): 1771-1800.
24 (3): 333-343.
Rondeaux, Candace. 2005. “Mom Testiies Dad Beat
heir 3-Year-Old Son.” Tampa Bay Times, July 13.
Miller, Brandon. 2015. “Dude, Where’s Your Face?” http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/13/Hillsborough/
Self-Presentation, Self-Description, and Partner Prefer- Mom_testiies_dad_bea.shtml.
ence on Social Networking Application for Men Who
Have Sex with Men: A Content Analysis.” Sexuality & Sanchez, Francisco J., and Eric Vilain. 2012.
Culture 19 (4): 637-658. doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9283- “‘Straight-Acting Gays’: The Relationship Between
4.
Masculine Consciousness, Anti-Effeminacy, and
Negative Gay Identity.” Archives of Sexual Behaviour
Millett, Kate. 1977. Sexual Politics. New York, NY: Dou- 41: 111-119.
bleday.
Schatzberg, Alan F., Michael P. Westfall, Anthony B.
Mishali, Yael. 2014. “Feminine Trouble: he Removal Blumetti, and C. Lee Birk. 1975. “Efeminacy. I. A
of Femininity from Feminist/Lesbian/Queer Esthetics, Quantitative Rating Scale.” Archives of Sexual Behavior
Imagery, and Conceptualization.” Women’s Studies In- 4 (1): 31-41.
ternational Forum 44: 55-68.
Serano, Julia. 2007. Whipping Girl: A Transsexual WomMunt, Sally R., and Cherry Smith. 1997. Butch/Femme: an on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. EmInside Lesbian Gender. London, UK: Cassell.
eryville, CA: Seal Press.
Namaste, Viviane. 2005. Sex Change. Social Change: ____. 2013. “Chapter 6: Reclaiming Femininity.” ExRelections on Identity, Institutions and Imperialism. To- cluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More
ronto, ON: Women’s Press.
Inclusive, by Julia Serano, 48-69. Berkeley, CA: Seal
Press.
Nestle, Joan. 1987. A Restricted Country. Ithaca, NY:
Firebrand Books.
Staford, Anika. 2010. “Uncompromising Positions: Reiterations of Misogyny Embedded in Lesbian Feminist
Nnawulezi, Nikiru A., Shani Robin, and Abigail A. Communities’ Framing of Lesbian Femme Identities.”
Sewell. 2015. “Femme-inism: In Daily Pursuit of Per- Atlantis 35 (1): 81-91.
sonal Liberation.” Feminism & Psychology 25 (1): 67-72.
Stern, Katherine. 1997. “What is Femme? he PhenomNorton, Jody. 1997. “Brain Says You’re a Girl, But I enology of the Powder Room.” Women: A Cultural Rehink You’re a Sissy Boy: Cultural Origins of Transpho- view 8 (2): 183-196.
bia.” International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 2 (2): 139-164.
Synovitz, Linda B., and Jean Byrne. 1998. “Antecedents
of Sexual Victimization: Factors Discriminating VicPietsch, Nicole. 2010. “I’m Not hat Kind of Girl: White tims from Nonvictims.” College Health 46: 151-158.
Femininity, the Other, and the Legal/Social Sanctioning
of Sexual Violence Against Racialized Women.” Cana- Tanenbaum, Leora. 2015. I Am Not A Slut: Slut-Shaming
dian Woman Studies 28 (1): 136-140.
in the Age of the Internet. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Ringrose, Jessica, and Emma Renold. 2012.
“Slut-shaming, Girl Power and ‘Sexualisation’: Taywaditep, Kittiwut Jod. 2001. “Marginalization
Thinking Through the Politics of International Among the Marginalized: Gay Men’s Anti-Efeminacy
SlutWalks with Teen Girls.” Gender and Education Attitudes.” Journal of Homosexuality 42 (1): 1-28.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
108
www.msvu.ca/atlantis
VanNewkirk, Robbin. 2006. “‘Gee, I Didn’t Get hat
Vibe from You’: Articulating My Own Version of a
Femme Lesbian Existence.” Journal of Lesbian Studies
10 (1/2): 73-85.
Volcano, Del LaGrace, and Ulrika Dahl. 2008. Femmes
of Power: Exploding Queer Femininities. London, UK:
Serpent’s Tail.
Weinrich, James D., J. Hampton Atkinson, Jr., J. Allen McCutchan, Igore Grant, and the HNRC Group.
1995. “Is Gender Dysphoria Dysphoric? Elevated Depression and Anxiety in Gender Dysphoric and Nondysphoric Homosexual and Bisexual Men in an HIV
Sample.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 24 (1): 55-72.
Yamato, Gloria. 1990. “Something About the Subject
Makes It Hard to Name.” In Making Face Making Soul/
Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by
Feminists of Colour, edited by Gloria Anzaldúa, 20-24.
San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Foundation.
Atlantis 38.1, 2017
109
www.msvu.ca/atlantis