Phallic Girls?: Girls’ Negotiation of Phallogocentric Power

Chapter
Part of the Explorations of Educational Purpose book series (EXEP, volume 21)

Abstract

This chapter critically responds to Judith Halberstam’s concern that studies of masculinities are confined to boys and boyhood and Angela McRobbie’s despair that the “phallic girl” with her licensed mimicry of masculinism disavows any resistance to regulatory gender/sexual regimes. Inspired by Judith Butler’s notion of performativity and her desire to trouble and undo gender/sex/sexuality binarisms, this chapter queers the field of masculinity/boyhood studies and addresses postfeminist concerns about the lack of a politics of resistance by foregrounding the seduction of contemporary tomboyism for young tweenage girls in their negotiation of an increasingly (hetero)sexualized girlhood (Mitchell & Reid-Walsh, Seven going on seventeen: Tween studies in the culture of girlhood. New York: Peter Lang, 2005). A central aim of the chapter is to problematize the binary logic of sexual difference that has informed past and current, even queer theorizations of tomboyism by queer(y)ing the ways in which girls’ ditching of or deviation from normative femininity is often theorized as performing masculinity. We argue, following Butler, that interpreting tomboyism as mimesis in this way misses how girls can manipulate norms, exceed them, and rework them and thus “expose the realities to which we thought we were confined as open to transformation” (Butler, Undoing gender. London: Routledge, 2004, p. 217). The chapter concludes by asking what would it mean (theoretically, methodologically, and empirically) to create gender taxonomies that are flexible enough to recognize a more capacious femininity that can embrace subversion and resistance without ejecting such queer performances into the realm of masculinity and thus reproducing dominant discourses of masculinity as “power” and femininity as “lack.”

Keywords

Sexual Harassment Sexual Identity Subject Position Hegemonic Masculinity Compulsory Sexualization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aaopola, S., Gonick, M., & Harris, A. (2004). Young femininity. Buckingham, England: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  2. Albury, K., & Lumby, C. (2010). ‘Too Much? Too Young?: The sexualisation of children debate in Australia’. Media International Australia, 135, 141–152.Google Scholar
  3. Ali, S. (2003). To be a ‘girl’: Culture and class in schools. Gender and Education , 15(30), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allan, A. (2009). The importance of being a ‘lady’: Hyper-femininity and heterosexuality in the private, single-sex primary school. Gender and Education , 21(2), 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen-Mills, T. (2006, October 15). Free at last: Alpha teenage girls on top. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article600902.ece
  6. Archer, L., Halsall, A., & Hollingworth, S. (2007). Inner-city femininities and education: “Race,” class, gender and schooling in young women’s lives. Gender and Education , 19(5), 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, J. (2009). Great expectations and post-feminist accountability: Young women living up to the ‘successful girls’ discourse. Gender and Education, 21(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  8. BBC News Online. (2003, September 16). Girls top of the class worldwide. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3110594.stm
  9. Blaise, M. (2005). Playing it straight. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braidotti, R. (2003). Becoming woman: Or sexual difference revisited. Theory, Culture and Society , 20(3), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Cixous, H. (2000). The laugh of the Medusa. In B. Brummet (Ed.), Reading rhetorical theory (pp. 879–893). New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, R., & Ringrose, J. (forthcoming 2012). Deleuze and research methodologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Conlin, M. (2003, May 26). The new gender gap: From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex. Business Week. Retrieved August 26, 2011, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm
  17. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2007a). Confident, capable and creative: Supporting boys’ achievements. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  20. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2007b). Gender and achievement: The evidence from pupils in England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  21. Driscoll, C. (2002). Girls: Feminine adolescence in popular culture and cultural theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Duncan, N. (2004). It’s important to be nice, but it’s nicer to be important: Girls, popularity and sexual competition. Sex Education, 4(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Egan, D., & Hawkes, G. (2008). Endangered girls and incendiary objects: Unpacking the discourse on sexualization. Sexuality and Culture, 12, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (Eds.). (1998). Failing boys?: Issues in gender and achievement. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Epstein, D., Kehily, M., Mac an Ghaill, M., & Redman, P. (2001). Boys and girls come out to play: Making masculinities and femininities in school playgrounds. Men and Masculinities , 4(2), 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster, V. (2000). Is female educational ‘success’ destabilizing the male learner-citizen? In M. Arnot & J. A. Dillabough (Eds.), Challenging democracy: International perspectives on gender, education and citizenship (pp. 203–215). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  27. Freud, S. (1924/1991). The dissolution of the Oedipus complex. In A. Richards & A. Dickson (Eds.), On sexuality, the Penguin Freud library (Vol. VII, pp. 313–322). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  28. Gill, R. (2007). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies , 10(2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gonick, M. (2003). Between femininities: Ambivalence, identity and the education of girls. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gonick, M. (2004). Old plots and new identities: Ambivalent femininities in late modernity. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 25(2), 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffin, C. (2004). Good girls, bad girls: Anglocentricism and diversity in the constitution of contemporary girlhood. In A. Harris (Ed.), All about the girl: Culture, power and identity (pp. (29–45). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  32. Griffin, C. (2005). Impossible spaces?: Femininity as an empty category. Paper presented at the ESRC Research Seminar Series: New Femininities, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  33. Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, J. (2000). It hurts to be a girl. Gender & Society, 14, 630–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris, A. (Ed.). (2004a). All about the girl: Culture, power and identity. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, A. (2004b). Future girl. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Hey, V. (1997). The company she keeps. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hickey-Moody, A., & Malins, P. (2006). Deleuzian encounters: Studies in contemporary social issues. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  39. Hickey-Moody, A. C., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2009). The sexed subject in-between Deleuze and Butler. In C. Nigianni & M. Storr (Eds.), Deleuze and queer theory (pp. 37–53). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Irigaray, L. (1997). The sex which is not one. In R. R. Warhol & D. P. Herndl (Eds.), Feminisms (pp. 363–369). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jackson, C., Paechter, C., & Renold, E. (Eds.). (2010). Girls in education 3–16: Continuing concerns, New Agendas. Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jiwani, Y., Steenbergen, C., & Mitchell, C. (2006). Girlhood: Redefining the limits. New York: Black Rose Books.Google Scholar
  43. Kaplan, C. (1987). Deterritorializations: The rewriting of home and exile in Western feminist discourse. Cultural Critique , 6(Spring Issue), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kehily, M. J. (2002). Sexuality and schooling: Shifting agendas in social learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kehily, M. J., Epstein, D., Mac an Ghaill, M., & Redman, P. (2002). Private girls, public worlds: Producing femininities in the primary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 23(3), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kindlon, D. (2006). Alpha girls: Understanding the new American girl and how she is changing the world. New York: Rodale Books.Google Scholar
  47. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lacan, J. (1977/2002). Écrits: A selection. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  49. McLeod, J. (2002). Working out intimacy: Young people and friendship in an age of reflexivity. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 23(2), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McRobbie, A. (2004). Notes on postfeminism and popular culture: Bridget Jones and the new gender regime. In A. Harris (Ed.), All about the girl: Culture, power and identity (pp. 3–14). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  51. McRobbie, A. (2007). Top girls? Cultural Studies , 21(4–5), 718–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McRobbie, A. (2008). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. McRobbie, A., & Garber, J. (1976). Girls and subcultures. In S. Hall & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Resistance through rituals. Youth subcultures in postwar Britain. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  54. Mellor, D. (2007). Playground romance: An ethnography of children’s investments in romantic love. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  55. Mitchell, C., & Reid-Walsh, J. (Eds.). (2005). Seven going on seventeen: Tween studies in the culture of girlhood. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Paechter, C., & Clark, S. (2007). Who are tomboys and how do we recognize them? Women’s Studies International Forum , 30(4), 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reay, D. (2001). ‘Spice girls,’ ‘nice girls,’ ‘girlies,’ and ‘tomboys’: Gender discourses, girls’ cultures and femininities in the primary classroom. Gender and Education , 13(2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Renold, E. (2002). Presumed innocence: (Hetero)sexual, homophobic and heterosexist harassment amongst primary school girls and boys. Childhood , 9(4), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Renold, E. (2005). Girls, boys and junior sexualities. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  60. Renold, E. (2006). ‘They won’t let us play…unless you’re going out with one of them’: Girls, boys and Butler’s ‘heterosexual matrix’ in the primary years. British Journal of the Sociology of Education , 27(4), 489–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Renold, E. (2008). Queering masculinity: Re-theorising contemporary tomboyism in the schizoid space of innocent/heterosexualized young femininities. Girlhood Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 1(2), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Renold, E., & Allan, A. (2006). Bright and beautiful: High-achieving girls, ambivalent femininities and the feminisation of success. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 27(4), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Renold, E., & Ringrose, J. (2008). Regulation and rupture: Mapping tween and teenage girls’ resistance to the heterosexual matrix. Feminist Theory , 9(3), 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Renold, E., & Ringrose, J. (in press, 2011). Schizoid subjectivities: Re-theorising teen-girls’ sexual cultures in an era of sexualisation. Journal of Sociology, 47(4).Google Scholar
  65. Ringrose, J. (2006). A new universal mean girl: Examining the discursive construction and social regulation of a new feminine pathology. Feminism and Psychology , 16(4), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ringrose, J. (2007). Successful girls?: Complicating post-feminist, neoliberal discourses of educational achievement and gender equality. Gender and Education , 19(4), 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ringrose, J. (2008a). ‘Every time she bends over she pulls up her thong’: Teen girls negotiating discourses of competitive, heterosexualized aggression. Girlhood Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 1(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ringrose, J. (2008b). ‘Just be friends’: Exploring the limitations of educational bully discourses and practices for understanding teen girls’ heterosexualized friendships and conflicts. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 29(5), 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ringrose, J. (in press). Post-Feminist Education? Girls and the sexual politics of schooling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Ringrose, J., & Walkerdine, V. (2007). Exploring some contemporary dilemmas of femininity and girlhood in the West. In C. A. Mitchell & J. Reid-Walsh (Eds.), Girl culture: An encylopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  71. Riviere, J. (1929/1986). Womanliness as masquerade. In V. Burgin & J. Donald (Eds.), Formations of fantasy (pp. 35–44). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  72. Rozenberg, G., & Bennett, R. (2006, October 27). Girls beat boys at school, now they get higher pay. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article615102.ece
  73. Russell, R., & Tyler, M. (2002). Thank heaven for little girls: ‘Girl heaven’ and the commercial context of feminine childhood. Sociology , 36(3), 619–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. St. Pierre, E. (2000). Nomadic inquiry in the smooth spaces of the field: A preface. In E. St. Pierre & W. Pillow (Eds.), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education (pp. 258–284). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Taft, J. K. (2004). Girl power politics: Pop-culture barriers and organizational resistance. In A. Harris (Ed.), All about the girl: Culture, power and identity (pp. 69–79). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  77. Tamboukou, M. (2004). Nomadic trails in the unfolding of the self. Spaces of Identity, 4(2). Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://https://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/soi/article/view/8009/7165
  78. Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  79. Walkerdine, V. (1998). Counting girls out (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  80. Walkerdine, V. (2007). Children, gender, video games: Towards a relational approach to multimedia. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walkerdine, V., Lucey, H., & Melody, J. (2001). Growing up girl: Psycho-social explorations of gender and class. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  82. Youdell, D. (2006). Impossible bodies, impossible selves. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityWalesUK
  2. 2.Institute of Education, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations