Abstract
Emphasized femininity plays a key role in maintaining gender inequality. Yet, classic conceptualizations of emphasized femininity render it static and inflexible, and obscure women’s agency in reconfiguring their gender performances to fit different contexts. Based on interviews with college women in the United States, we demonstrate that when faced with hookup cultures’ expectations of casualness and emotional detachment, women move between two styles of emotion work to either “do” or “redo” emphasized femininity, stretching its boundaries without disturbing the gender hierarchy. In interactions with undesirable men, women do emphasized femininity by displaying emotional sensitivity, while in interactions with desirable men, women redo emphasized femininity by deploying “hegemonic casualness”—performances of emotional disinterest that provide women greater control over social impressions and allow them to construct empowered social images, but ultimately legitimate men’s privileges to pursue women. Our findings highlight women’s creativity and agency in navigating gender inequality and demonstrate an underrecognized flexibility within emphasized femininity. We discuss implications for gender theory, conversations around post-feminism, and campaigns that seek to promote gender equality in sexual relations on college campuses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
Data are not publicly available per the requirements of the IRB.
References
Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412445802
Armstrong, E. A., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Paying for the Party. Harvard University Press.
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73(7–8), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2019). Agency is everywhere, but agency is not enough: A conceptual analysis of young women’s sexual agency. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4–5), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1578330
Becker, S., & Tinkler, J. E. (2021). “This is my girl”: How men’s desires obscure women’s sexual aggression experiences in public drinking settings. Social Currents, 8(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496520950807
Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus (Vol. 1). NYU Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Psychology Press.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Cascio, M. A., Lee, E., Vaudrin, N., & Freedman, D. A. (2019). A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods, 31(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X19838237
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publishing.
Collins, P. H. (2009). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. John Wiley & Sons.
Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople. Gender & Society, 24(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209356429
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publishing.
Currier, D. M. (2013). Strategic ambiguity: Protecting emphasized femininity and hegemonic masculinity in the hookup culture. Gender & Society, 27(5), 704–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213493960
Dalessandro, C., James-Hawkins, L., & Sennott, C. (2019). Strategic Silence: College Men and Hegemonic Masculinity in Contraceptive Decision Making. Gender & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219850061
Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2018). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377
Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing Gender. Gender & Society, 21(1), 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293577
England, P., Shafer, E. F., & Fogarty, A. C. (2008). Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today’s college campuses. The Gendered Society Reader, 3, 531–593.
Ezzell, M. B. (2009). “ Barbie Dolls” on the Pitch: Identity Work, Defensive Othering, and Inequality in Women’s Rugby. Social Problems, 56(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.1.111
Farhall, K., Kiraly, M., & Tyler, M. (2015). ’We love make-up, romance, high heels and men, of course’: The contradictions of pop feminism. In Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism. Melbourne: Connor Court Publishing (pp. 95–104). Connor Court Publishing.
Finley, N. J. (2010). Skating Femininity: Gender maneuvering in women’s roller derby. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(4), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241610364230
Gill, R. (2007). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407075898
Gill, R. (2008). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist times. Subjectivity, 25(1), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.28
Gilmartin, S. K. (2006). Changes in college women’s attitudes toward sexual intimacy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00501.x
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart London.
Grindstaff, L., & West, E. (2006). Cheerleading and the gendered politics of sport. Social Problems, 53(4), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2006.53.4.500
Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23(5), 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209345829
Hamilton, L., Armstrong, E. A., Seeley, J. L., & Armstrong, E. M. (2019). Hegemonic Femininities and Intersectional Domination. Sociological Theory, 37(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275119888248
Harris, A., & Dobson, A. S. (2015). Theorizing agency in post-girlpower times. Continuum, 29(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2015.1022955
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Univ of California Press.
Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
Kelly, B. K., & Sennott, C. (2022). Event Centered Interviewing: Integrating Qualitative Interviews with Experience Sampling Technologies. Unpublished manuscript.
Krane, V., Choi, P. Y., Baird, S. M., Aimar, C. M., & Kauer, K. J. (2004). Living the paradox: Female athletes negotiate femininity and muscularity. Sex Roles, 50(5), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000018888.48437.4f
Lamont, E. (2014). Negotiating courtship: Reconciling egalitarian ideals with traditional gender norms. Gender & Society, 28(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503899
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021004004
Mahmood, S. (2001). Feminist theory, embodiment, and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival. Cultural Anthropology, 16(2), 202–236. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2001.16.2.202
Martin, J. L., & George, M. (2006). Theories of sexual stratification: Toward an analytics of the sexual field and a theory of sexual capital. Sociological Theory, 24(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2006.00284.x
McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. Sage.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2009). “Doing gender” The impact and future of a salient sociological concept. Gender & Society, 23(1), 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208326253
Moore, E. (2015). Forms of Femininity at the End of a Customary Marriage. Gender & Society, 29(6), 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215599646
Padgett, J., & Wade, L. (2018). Hookup culture and higher education. In Handbook of Contemporary Feminism (pp. 162–176). Routledge.
Paechter, C. (2018). Rethinking the possibilities for hegemonic femininity: Exploring a Gramscian framework. Women’s Studies International Forum, 68, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2018.03.005
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349
Risman, B. J. (2009). From doing to undoing: Gender as we know it. Gender & Society, 23(1), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208326874
Ross, S. R., & Shinew, K. J. (2008). Perspectives of women college athletes on sport and gender. Sex Roles, 58(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9275-4
Schippers, M. (2002). Rockin’out of the box: Gender maneuvering in alternative hard rock. Rutgers University Press.
Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9022-4
Sennott, C., & Angotti, N. (2016). Reconsidering gendered sexualities in a generalized AIDS epidemic. Gender & Society, 30(6), 935–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216672805
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. SAGE Publishing.
Wade, L. (2019). Doing casual sex: A sexual fields approach to the emotional force of hookup culture. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz054
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2002). Doing gender. In S. Fenstermaker & C. West, Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power, and institutional change. Routledge.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society, 23(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208326529
Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society, 28(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203
White, E. F. (2010). Dark Continent Of Our Bodies: Black Feminism & Politics Of Respectability. Temple University Press.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Spencer Headworth for comments on an earlier draft, and Stephanie Wilson, Abigail Nawrocki, Youngeun Nam, Nicole Blackburn, Carly Ringlespaugh, and OreOluwa Otegbade for assistance with data collection and transcription.
Funding
This project received funding from the Department of Sociology and the College of Liberal Arts at Purdue University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the paper, the analysis, and the writing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
This research was approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board (Study # 1712019994; Approval Date: 01-16-2018; Expiration Date: 12–07-2023.).
Informed Consent
In conforming to the IRB protocol, all subjects provided signed informed consent prior to participation in the study. Subjects were provided a copy of the consent form.
Research Involving Human Participants
This research involved human subjects. The human subjects research was approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board. All authors completed training on the ethical conduct of human subjects research, as required by the IRB.
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
All authors have no relevant financial or non-financial conflicts of interest to report.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kincaid, R., Sennott, C. & Kelly, B.C. Doing and Redoing Emphasized Femininity: How Women Use Emotion Work to Manage Competing Expectations in College Hookup Culture. Sex Roles 86, 305–319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01275-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01275-4