Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/314160166
Femininity
CITATION READS
1 5,445
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Clare M. Mehta on 04 August 2020.
Definition:
“Femininity is defined in various dictionaries in either a circular manner as the quality of being
feminine or indirectly as qualities associated with the female sex”(Darity, 2008).
“Femininity is commonly understood to refer to a collection of qualities or attributes associated
with women in distinction from men, whose own qualities are signified by the antonym
masculinity” (Aragon, 2004)
Introduction
The term femininity is generally used to refer to a set of socialized psychological traits,
qualities, and attributes most closely associated with those whose birth assigned gender category
is female. Feminine traits and attributes include passivity, submissiveness, gentleness, warmth,
presence of maternal instinct. These feminine traits have been described as communal traits, or a
helping and caring for others. Defined in this way, femininity seems to be a straight forward
concept, however, it is far more complicated – and potentially problematic – than it first appears.
Although femininity (and its antonym, masculinity) are often linked to birth assigned
gender categories, it is important to note that they are distinct from one another. As such,
feminine (and masculine) traits, qualities, and attributes are exhibited to different extents by both
men and women regardless of whether they were assigned as female or male at birth
It was this understanding of femininity as separate from birth assigned gender that lead to
the development of scales to measure femininity and masculinity in both women and men. Early
models of gender, such as Terman and Miles’ 1936 Attitude-Interest Analysis Test
conceptualized femininity and masculinity as opposing ends of a bipolar scale (Martin & Finn,
2010). Bipolar measurements of gender meant that a person could be feminine or masculine, but
could not be both simultaneously (Constantinople, 1973). In the 1970s gender researchers and
theorists, including Ann Constantinople (1973) and Sandra Bem (1974) began to question the
utility and validity of bipolar gender models, suggesting that these scales failed to account for the
possibility that a person could score high on both femininity and masculinity. As such, both Bem
dimensions. Measuring femininity and masculinity in this way, Bem argued, would allow for
people to be psychologically androgynous, identifying with both feminine and masculine traits.
With this in mind, Bem created one of the most widely used measures of femininity and
masculinity today, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, a measure that enabled the assessment of
While many definitions of femininity link femininity to gender identity, we believe that
femininity/masculinity and gender identity are distinct constructs. This is illustrated by Wood
and Eagly’s (2015) work on gender identity that suggests that there are two distinctive traditions
of research on gender. The first tradition of research focuses on gender as feminine and
masculine traits, qualities, and attributes. This tradition incorporates research on gender typed
personality traits, as well as research on gender and gender typed interests and gendered
components of “Big Five” personality inventories. This tradition is the tradition from which
conceptualizations such as femininity are drawn. The second tradition of research on gender
proposed by Wood and Eagly is gender identity based on self-categorization. This refers to the
extent to which a person identifies with and feels a psychological connection to their gender, and
feels that their gender is a positive and significant component of their identity (Kulis et al., 2002;
Michealieu, 1997; Tobin et al., 2010; Wade, 2008). This multifaceted approach to gender makes
it clear that having (or not having) a psychological connection to a gender – that is feeling a
strong sense of gender identity with one gender, multiple genders or no genders – is separate
from endorsing the psychological traits, qualities and attributes that are associated with
femininity. This has been supported by research investigating associations between femininity,
gender identity and sex segregation in friendships (see Mehta & Strough, 2009 for an example).
In the preceding paragraphs we have made the argument that femininity is not
biologically based, nor is it connected to gender identity. How then, should we understand
biologically determined and that the meaning of the term femininity is shaped by culture, time,
and geopolitical space. In her work on femininity and masculinity Bem highlighted the socially
constructed nature of femininity. Specifically, Bem posited that gendered traits, qualities and
attributes are a result of social learning, and proposed gender schema theory to outline how this
learning takes place. Gender schema theory posits that children learn through observation which
traits and attributes are appropriate for their birth assigned gender, and consequently adopt these
traits as their own (Bem, 1981). As such, while birth assigned categories of male and female are
separate from femininity and masculinity, the process of sex typing in western culture creates
femininity and masculinity from the birth assigned categories of female and male (Bem, 1981).
Consequently, the roles and behaviors that are assigned to men and women are a reflection of the
practices and attitudes of the culture that assigns them at a particular point in time (Butler, 2004).
This may explain why, although femininity is not related to gender assigned at birth, research
frequently finds that men are more masculine than women, and that women are more feminine
than men (Leszczynski & Strough, 2008; Pickard & Strough, 2003).
When considering femininity and its socialization, it is important to note that in western
culture, femininity is valued to a lesser extent than masculinity. This is because femininity is a
status characteristic, an individual characteristic around which access to influence, prestige and
power are unequally distributed (Gaughan, 2006; Ridgeway, Johnson & Diekema, 1993).
Hegemonic masculinity, a societally ingrained value system that promotes men’s dominance and
superiority over women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) promotes anti-femininity (Bosson &
Michniewicz, 2013; Smiler, 2004). Consequently, in order to be masculine, boys and men in the
U.S. are taught to avoid femininity in their traits, qualities, attributes, appearance, and interests
(Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013; Davis, 2002; Pleck, 1981). If they do not, boys and men risk
ridicule and isolation from their peers who may questions their failure to fit into the socially
accepted “norm” for their gender (Pleck, 1981; Watzlawik, 2009). Bosson and Michniewicz
suggest that boys begin to distance themselves from femininity at an early age, and that this
distancing results in beliefs that men are predominantly masculine and women are predominantly
feminine (Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013). This distancing from femininity in childhood
in many U.S. high schools (Pascoe, 2005). Girls and women, similarly to men may also distance
themselves from femininity, although to a lesser extent. Specifically, in our work, we have
theorized that girls and women, who have less power and authority based on their gender, would
are less attached to femininity. Research that suggests women’s endorsement of masculine traits
is increasing over time (Strough et al., 2007; Twenge, 1999) may partially support this theory. It
is important to note that while men and masculine traits are valued over women and feminine
traits, which do not consider nurturing and communication as power and necessary to a culture,
third was feminists have reclaimed aspects of femininity as powerful, arguing that these
Another issue that highlights the complexity of femininity as a construct relates to the
stability of femininity. Social contextual approaches to gender, which have roots in Bem’s early
work on androgyny (Keener & Mehta, in press), propose that femininity (and masculinity)
should not be viewed as a stable trait, but rather as something that is negotiated through a series
of ongoing interactions. The social contextual approach posits that femininity is dynamic and
context dependent, and that femininity reflects the demands of the immediate context rather than
personality traits, qualities, and attributes (Deaux & Major, 1987; Deaux & Major, 1998; Leaper
2000; Maccoby, 1990). As such, femininity may be better considered as a variable state rather
than as stable trait (Mehta, 2015). Considering femininity in this way is consistent with
femininity, there is sufficient evidence across a range of age periods to suggest that gender-typed
behaviors are flexible and are elicited by contextual demands. Research investigating variability
in femininity and masculinity in children has found that during this stage of the lifespan,
femininity varies based on the gender of peers in a child’s social context. For example, Maccoby
(1990) found that when girls played with other girls they displayed very little passivity, an
attribute linked to femininity (Bem, 1974; Spence & Buckner, 1995). However, when girls
played with boys, they displayed more passivity, standing by while boys dominated the toys
(Maccoby, 1990). This research suggests, that even in childhood, components of femininity may
femininity. Specifically, both adolescent (Leszczynski & Strough, 2008) and emerging adult
college students (Pickard & Strough, 2003) reported increased endorsement of feminine traits
after playing a game of Jenga® with a female partner in comparison to after playing with a male
partner. Building on this work, contextual variation in femininity has been assessed using
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA). In EMA studies, participants are signaled at random
points throughout the day and are prompted to complete a short survey. In this way, variables of
interest, such as femininity, can be measured over a period of time (days, weeks, or months) in
an individuals daily context. Using a shortened version of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, Mehta
and Dementieva (2016) used EMA to assess how femininity varied by peer context over a 2-
week period in a sample of college students. Consistent with social contextual theory, showed
femininity varied based on the sex of peers in college students’ social contexts. Specifically, men
reported greater femininity when they were with women, and lesser femininity when they were
with men. (Mehta & Dementieva, 2016). This social contextual approach understanding
femininity complements research and theory that posit that femininity is performance (Butler,
2004; Walkerdine, 1989) and something that we “do” rather than something that we have
(Keener & Strough; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Taken together, these studies illustrate that
femininity as a combination of stable traits qualities, and attributes may be too simplistic.
Conclusion
culture, historical period, and other contextual factors. While many gender researchers view the
separation of femininity from birth assigned gender as consistent with moving beyond a gender
binary, it is important to consider whether referring to certain sets of socialized psychological
traits, qualities, and attributes as “feminine” and others as “masculine” ties us to a gender binary
and beliefs of innate gender differences. As more and more research highlights similarities
between men and women in terms of not only traits, qualities, and attributes (Hyde, 2005), but
also brain structures (Joel et al., 2015), the gender binary and related concepts, such as
femininity and masculinity, become irrelevant and thus less fruitful topics of study for
Cross References:
Masculinity
Compassion
Androgyny
Communion
Bem, Sandra
Bem Sex-Role Inventory
Submissiveness
Gender roles
Gender schemas
Feminine psychology
References
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological
Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup
identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 105, 425-442. doi:10.1037/a0033126
Davis, T. L. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men's
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of
295X.94.3.369
Gaughan, M. (2006). The gender structure of adolescent peer influence on drinking. Journal of
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60, 581-592.
Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., & ... Assaf, Y. (2015). Sex
beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of
doi:10.1073/pnas.1509654112
Keener, E. (2015). The complexity of gender: It is all that and more….In sum, it is complicated.
Keener, E., & Mehta, C.M. (in press). Sandra Bem: Revolutionary and generative feminist
psychologist. Sex Roles.
Keener, E. & Strough, J. (2016). Having and doing gender: Young adults’ expression of gender
when resolving conflicts with friends and romantic partners. Sex Roles. doi:
10.1007/s11199-016-0644-8
Kulis, S., Marsiglia, F., & Hecht, M. L. (2002). Gender labels and gender identity as predictors
of drug use among ethnically diverse middle school students. Youth & Society, 33, 442-
475. doi:10.1177/0044118X02033003005
Leaper, C. (2000). Gender, affiliation, assertion, and the interactive context of parent–
1649.36.3.381
Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of masculinity and
9507.2007.00443.x
Psychologist
Martin, H., & Finn, S. E. (2010). Masculinity and femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Minneapolis,
Mehta, C. M. (2015). Gender in context: Considering variability in Wood and Eagly’s traditions of
Mehta, C.M. & Dementieva, Y. (2016). The contextual specificity of gender: Femininity and
masculinity in college students’ same- and other-gender peer contexts Sex Roles.
Sex Roles.
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts
Michealieu, Q. (1997). Female identity, reports of parenting, and adolescent women’s self
323-341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00837.x
Pascoe, C. J. (2005). 'Dude, you're a fag': Adolescent masculinity and the fag discourse.
Sexualities, 8, 329-346.
Pickard, J., & Strough, J. (2003). The Effects of same-sex and other-sex contexts on
Pleck, J.H. (1981). The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ridgeway, C., Johnson, C., & Diekema, D. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance
Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and
doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity: Defining the undefinable. In
P.J. Kalbfleisch, & J. Cody Gender, power, and communication in human relationships
Strough, J., Leszczynski, J., Neely, T. L., Flinn, J. A., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence
to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles,
Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. E., & Perry, D. G. (2010). The
622. doi:10.1037/a0018936
Twenge, J. M. (1999). Mapping gender: The multifactorial approach and the organization of
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00377.x
Wade, J. C. (2008). Masculinity ideology, male reference group identity dependence, and
African American men's health-related attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Men &
Watzlawik, M. (2009). When a man thinks he has female traits constructing femininity and
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1,125-151.
doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73,
461-473. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2