Psychology & Sexuality

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpse20

Critical femininities: a ‘new’ approach to gender

theory

Rhea Ashley Hoskin & Karen L. Blair

To cite this article: Rhea Ashley Hoskin & Karen L. Blair (2022) Critical femininities:
a ‘new’ approach to gender theory, Psychology & Sexuality, 13:1, 1-8, DOI:
10.1080/19419899.2021.1905052

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1905052

Published online: 25 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6300

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpse20
PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY
2022, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 1–8
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1905052

Critical femininities: a ‘new’ approach to gender theory

a
Rhea Ashley Hoskin and Karen L. Blairb
a
Departments of Sociology & Legal Studies, Sexuality Marriage & Family, University of Waterloo, Canada;
b
Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Critical femininities examines femininity through a nuanced, multidimen­ Received 8 December 2020
sional framework, moving beyond femininity as a patriarchal tool, to Accepted 12 March 2021
instead consider the historical, ideological, and intersectional underpin­ KEYWORDS
nings of femininity, particularly those that contribute to femmephobia. Critical Femininities; Critical
While Critical Femininities is often deemed an emergent area of scholar­ Femininity Studies; Femme
ship, this framing is both paradoxical and, conceivably, inaccurate. Rather Theory; Femininity;
than being a nascent field, interdisciplinary scholars have contributed to femmephobia
Critical Femininities for over 60 years, whether or not they labeled their
research as such. Arguably, Critical Femininities is a field whose emer­
gence can be traced back to the second wave of feminism or even earlier.
However, while Dahl (2012) notes that the question of “what is femininity”
is as old as de Beauvoir’s (1949) Second Sex, there is a continued lack of
scholarly endeavours not only in terms of how the question of femininity
has been addressed, but also in terms of how this question is integrated
within research. In this article we theorize why Critical Femininities has
remained in a continuous state of emerging without recognition for its
contributions as a field. We argue that the field’s stalled emergence can be
explained by the tendency to view femininity as unidimensional, anti–
intellectual, and infantile. Moreover, we see this stalled emergence as a
product of the masculine epistemological centre that informs the very
fabrics of society. In response, we aim to facilitate the continued growth of
the field, and to make visible the taken–for–granted presence of mascu­
linity that remains pervasive within gender theory and epistemological
frameworks.

Introduction

“Why, when we embrace (or at least engage with) critical masculinity studies as a crucial part of our knowledge
formation, do we so rarely imagine the possibility of critical femininity studies?” (Dahl, 2012, p. 57)

Critical theory integrates scholarly approaches from a variety of social scientific and humanities
backgrounds, with roots tracing back to sociology, philosophy, and literary criticism. Critical theories
are described as those seeking to ‘liberate human beings from the circumstances that’ maintain
oppression (Horkheimer, 1982, p. 244). Rather than simply documenting or explaining social phe­
nomenon, critical theory develops the tools to critique and unpack systems that maintain the status
quo. A central approach to critical theory is questioning how norms, power, and ideology have
become calcified in their contemporary manifestation; for only then can oppressive power structures
be transformed. Consequently, a critical theory framework attends to the ideological, social, and
historical underpinnings that contribute to hegemonic norms, and identifies ideology as a primary

CONTACT Rhea Ashley Hoskin rahoskin@uwaterloo.ca Departments of Sociology & Legal Studies; Sexuality Marriage &
Family, University of Waterloo, Canada.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. A. HOSKIN AND K. L. BLAIR

means of remedying social inequalities (Freire, 2007). Critical frameworks also operate as methodol­
ogies that involve scrutinising normative ideologies that define and stigmatise particular bodies
(Schalk, 2017). Often, this is achieved by identifying, describing, and analysing the ‘subsumed or
hidden origins of social and political culture, discourses and institutions,’ which function to expose
the ‘contingency of ideas or circumstances often presumed to be natural or unchangeable’ (Hall,
2019, n.p.). For example, previous critical frameworks have attended to intersections of race and
disability, examining how racism is informed by cultural perceptions and historical constructions of
race (Delgardo & Stefancic, Delgado & Stefancic, 2013), or how disability is a socially and politically
produced phenomenon (Burghardt, 2011; Hall, 2019). Building on these traditions of critical theory,
emerging areas have focused on femininity.
While Critical Femininities is often deemed an emergent area of scholarship, this framing is both
paradoxical and, conceivably, inaccurate. Rather than being a nascent field, interdisciplinary scholars
have contributed to Critical Femininities for over 60 years, whether or not they labelled their research as
such. Arguably, Critical Femininities is a field whose emergence can be traced back to the second wave
of feminism or even earlier. However, while Dahl (2012) notes that the question of ‘what is femininity’ is
as old as de Beauvoir’s (1949) Second Sex, there is a continued lack of scholarly endeavours not only in
terms of how the question of femininity has been addressed, but also in terms of how this question is
integrated within research. Additionally, while contemporary Critical Femininities scholars call attention
to the broad strokes with which second-wave feminists painted femininity (e.g., Friedan, 1963; see
Hoskin, 2017b), much of the work to emerge from this canon1 marked a shift in the way we think about
femininity and was, thus, foundational to the field of Critical Femininities. After all, what is a critical
theory if not one that seeks to liberate humanity? And, in the case of second-wave feminist theory, this
liberation meant attending to the ways in which femininity had been used as a tool of patriarchal
oppression – one that had become synonymous with womanhood, and from which many women
could not escape. For example, paradigm-shifting contributions like Betty Friedan’s (1963) The Feminine
Mystique argued that through the regulatory powers of patriarchal femininity, women were domes­
ticated and kept in the home longing for ‘more’ (i.e., careers).
Yet, as argued by theorists like bell hooks (2015), works like Friedan’s overlooked how this
phenomenon was predominantly experienced by white, upper-middle class, married, heterosexual,
cisgender women; thus, embedding whiteness, cissexism, and heterosexism within the construction
of femininity itself. Women of colour, for example, were historically excluded from the sphere of
white domesticity. Rather than being kept at home to raise the children, throughout history, women
of colour have worked outside the home rearing the children of privileged white women. Thus,
although Friedan’s work is often touted for shaping much of second-wave feminist politics, the
broad strokes with which femininity was painted is an exemplar of how the construct of femininity
overlooked the complex intersectional axes that inform feminine embodiments. By framing femi­
ninity as a source of oppression, without attending to how it may be informed by race, class, or
sexuality, The Feminine Mystique exemplifies the importance of wedding Critical Femininities to
intersectionality.2 Without an intersectional perspective, the field of gender theory continues to
move a singular, myopic rendition of femininity forward. Critical femininities, thus, pushes scholars to
think about femininity through a nuanced, multidimensional and intersectional framework, moving
beyond femininity as a patriarchal tool, and even past the more contemporary critiques of femininity
via neoliberal frameworks (see Dahl & Sunden, 2018; Gill & Arthurs, 2006), to instead consider the
historical, ideological, and intersectional underpinnings of femininity.
Critical Femininities also moves past the analysis of femininity as an extension or experience of
womanhood. For example, while the construct of woman has been dissected as a simple, unifying
category, insufficient attention has been paid to femininity as a category (Dahl, 2012). Illustrating this
scholarly gap, Dahl and Sunden’s 2018 review of the European Journal of Women’s Studies, found that
woman ‘appears in titles of about 300 articles’ whereas femininity ‘only appears in about a dozen
articles’ (p. 269). Outside of femininity’s role as the process through which an individual assigned
female at birth is socialised into womanhood (de Beauvoir, 1949), there is a lack of scholarship
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 3

devoted to gender (i.e., femininity), much of which focuses instead on women (i.e. gender/sex) or on
sex (i.e., female; see Van Anders, 2015). In other words, as noted by Dahl (2012), the epistemic shift
from ‘sex’ to gender ‘has not resulted in new ways of theorizing femininity on a comprehensive level’
(p. 59). Instead, femininity has been maintained as a unidimensional, discrete construct (Blair &
Hoskin, 2015; Hoskin, 2017a; Hoskin et al., 2020). Within this construction, femininity tends to be
stereotyped, reductive, and taken-for-granted as being synonymous with womanhood and experi­
enced as pressure to conform to patriarchal norms (Dahl, 2012; Dahl & Sunden, 2018). Critical
femininities scholarship, thus, expands beyond the reductive approaches that ‘always and only [tie
femininity] to [the] oppression, subordination, sexualization and objectification’ of women (Dahl &
Sunden, 2018, p. 270). Grounding this framework in the tradition of critical theory, Critical
Femininities must instead remain committed to the lives implicated in the ‘discursive institutions
which undergird viable practices of exclusion’ and representation (Burghardt, 2011, p. 13). Thus, as
critical femininities scholars, we must ask: Whose lives are implicated by the intersectional, cultural
and political norms that shape patriarchal femininity3? And, what is the process through which these
lives are implicated?

Critical femininities: stalled in a state of emergence

How can an area remain in a continuous state of becoming and emerging, without recognition for its
contributions as a field? Why, despite the epistemic shift brought forth by second-wave thinkers, and
the ongoing contributions of interdisciplinary scholars, has Critical Femininities as a field of inquiry
not yet received the same degree of attention or recognition as the field of Masculinities? Some, like
Middleton (2019), would argue that this oversight is a result of how femininity is seen as ‘socially
regressive or anti-intellectual’ (p. 84). Supporting Middleton’s claims, others argue that the tendency
to eschew femininity is a product of centring masculine epistemologies (Hoskin, 2021; Schwartz,
2018). Within western dichotomous ways-of-knowing, masculinity is coded as rational and stoic; the
combination of which make up notions of objectivity (Bordo, 1993; Oliver, 1994). Conversely,
femininity is coded as the antithesis of objectivity: irrational and emotional. Thus, as postulated by
femme scholars, the omission of femininity from epistemological frameworks reflects the sterilisation
of scholarship that functions to preserve masculinist notions of objectivity, and that not only serves
to maintain masculine ascendency, but also contributes to the systemic devaluation of certain kinds
of knowledge (Hoskin, 2021; Mishali, 2014; Schwartz, 2018).
Conversely, or perhaps additionally, the continued state of emergence may be a product of how
femininity is infantilized (Hoskin, 2017b). Even in feminist theory, scholars like Sontag (2004) describe
femininity as a ‘characteristic of the weak [and] the vulnerable’ (p. 244) and feminine behaviour as
‘childish, immature’ and ‘weak’ (p. 281). In a similar vein, Friedan (2004) describes femininity as
preventing women from ‘achieving the maturity of which they are capable’ and keeping them in
a ‘state of sexual larvae’ (p.71–72). While the ubiquitous theorisation of femininity as infantile and
weak upholds femmephobia, it is also structured around normative whiteness, such that Black
femininity is often perceived as anything but infantile or weak (Micheline, 2019). Moreover, it is
arguable that such a characterisation of femininity may have contributed to the perception of Critical
Femininities as never having fully emerged or matured into a focused area of scholarship.
Others, like Titchkosky (2000), have argued that particular assumptions and values ‘lie behind the
social act of conceiving’ a field as new (p. 197). In terms of gender theory, these assumptions and values
revolve around the insidious masculine epistemological centre that not only functions to privilege and
position masculinity as gender neutral, but also informs the very fabric of society from language to ways
of understanding the world and each other. Largely, and not unlike normative frameworks (e.g.,
normative whiteness), the inherent masculinity of gender theory remains unmarked. Given that
a central tenet of critical theory is to critique and unpack that which maintains the status quo, Critical
Femininities must therefore name the systems that maintain masculine ascendency. Put succinctly, the
status quo within gender hegemony, under patriarchy, and in gender theory is masculinity ascendency. In
4 R. A. HOSKIN AND K. L. BLAIR

this way the irony of discussing masculinity via Critical Femininities functions to dislodge and illuminate
masculinity as the taken-for-granted norm. Thus, rather than signalling nascency, the newness of Critical
Femininities is symbolic of challenging mainstream approaches to the study of gender.
At the same time, the importance of femininity as an intersectional axis worthy of consideration is
not lost on many gender theorists. Many scholars have commented on femininity’s displacement
within gender hegemony4 (Paechter, 2018; Schippers, 2007) or how masculinity always takes pre­
cedence within gender theory (Schwartz, 2018). In 2007, Schippers called for additional research that
centres femininity within gender hegemony. In 2012, Dahl posed the question of ‘why, when we
embrace (or at least engage with) critical masculinity studies as a crucial part of our knowledge
formation, do we so rarely imagine the possibility of critical femininity studies?’ (p. 57). Nearly
a decade later, Hoskin (2019, 2020), Schwartz (2018), Paecher (2018) and countless others continue
to speak of the need for the field of Critical Femininities. This special issue is a response to gender
theorists’ decades long call for additional theorisations of femininity that bare the same nuance and
multiplicity taken within the study of masculinity, and that considers the ideological underpinnings
of femininity and feminine discourse.

Critical femininities via femme theory

Ample theoretical work has examined femininity as disempowering or as a sexist tool of the patriarchy,
while far ‘less attention has been paid to the queer possibilities of femininity’ (McCann, 2018, p. 287).
Among those who have turned their attention towards queer femininities, femme’s ‘multiple genres of
femininity’ (Dahl, 2012, p. 58) are often noted for their potential to rethink femininity (Brushwood Rose
& Camilleri, 2002; McCann, 2018; Volcano & Dahl, 2008; Scott, 2020). Consequently, many Critical
Femininities scholars have turned to Femme Theory and femme scholarship more broadly as a key
framework for achieving the goals set forth in the field (Dahl, 2012; Hoskin, 2021; McCann, 2018;
Schwartz, 2018). Femme Theory has been defined as a framework of analysis that centres ‘femme in the
examination of femininity more broadly’ (Hoskin & Taylor, 2019, p. 282). Femme Theory positions
femme as the nucleus for understanding femininity differently, developing new ways of defining
femininity, and novel approaches to understanding gender and power (Hoskin, 2019, 2020). This is
achieved by theorising the commonalities across femme identities as deviations from patriarchal norms
of femininity, and using the insight generated from these ‘feminine failures’ to understand femininity as
an intersectional axis.5 Such a framework makes salient how femininities are simultaneously devalued
and regulated (Hoskin, 2017a, 2021). In short, Femme Theory offers a two-pronged approach to the
study of femininity, simultaneously examining the nuance of femininities while also considering
femininity within hegemonic and binary structures (Hoskin, 2020).
Femme scholars argue that the way femininity ‘is predominantly understood is only part of the
story’ (Hoskin, 2021, p. 12); or what feminist philosophers call a partial perspective (Haraway, 1988). In
response, Femme Theory paints a more complete picture of femininity, cognisant of intersections of
race (Keeling, 2007; Lewis, 2012; Story, 2017), disability (Erickson, 2007), sexuality, body size (Taylor,
2018), class (Skeggs, 1997), and ageing (Hoskin & Taylor, 2019; Walker, 2012). By expanding dominant
feminine epistemologies, Femme Theory offers a way for scholars to radically shift the way we conceive
of gender and the heterosexual matrix by rethinking some of the taken-for-granted assumptions made
about femininity: that it signals sexual availability to men, that it is performed by cisgender hetero­
sexual women who are assigned female at birth, that it is markedly white (Keeling, 2007; Lewis, 2012;
Story, 2017; Tinsley, 2015) or that it stands as Other to masculinity’s perceived neutrality (Hoskin, 2020).
In this way, femme offers a ‘way out’ of the rules governing femininity – a lens that allows researchers to
identify their own assumptions about femininity and feminine people (Hoskin, 2021, p. 4). Such
a perspective offers a novel approach to understanding femininity beyond the typical construction
of femininity as a unilaterally defined tool of patriarchal oppression (Scott, 2020).
Critical Femininities via Femme Theory allows for alternative readings of femininity that are both
intersectional and liberating (Harris & Crocker, 1997; Taylor, 2018). In centring femme as a framework of
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 5

analysis, Critical Femininities asks how the study and theorisation of gender can be reconfigured such
that femininity is not perpetually maintained as the ‘abject antithesis of our very intellectual existence [. . .]
beyond a simple story of subordination, sexualization, objectification, and superficial narcissism’ (Dahl,
2012, p. 61). For example, Femme Theory challenges the common assumption that femininity is in itself
a source of disempowerment or inherently subordinate. Instead, Femme Theory grounds femme sub­
jectivities as a means of highlighting how femininity is made subordinate through the societal tendency
to see femininity as inferior. By challenging this notion, femmes and Femme Theory introduce the
concept of femmephobia: the devaluation and regulation of femininity across intersecting identities,
separate from sexism/misogyny (Hoskin, 2017a, 2019; 2020). Femmephobia offers a means of addressing
the overarching ways that femininity is devalued and regulated, and inherently references the connec­
tions between experiences, rather than speaking to anti-femininity in isolation. Femme theory allows for
an analysis ‘between’ femininities (Dahl, 2012; Dahl & Sunden, 2018), but also provides a framework to
address masculine ascendency and gender hegemony more broadly. Thus, Femme Theory’s two-
pronged theoretical contribution of simultaneously looking within and across the gender binary makes
this framework of analysis paramount to the field of Critical Femininities.

Conclusion
Similar to the ways in which gender theorists have commented on the displacement of femininity
within gender theory or gender hegemony, femme scholars have commented on the exclusion of
femmes from LGBTQ+ and feminist histories (Blair & Hoskin, 2015; Blair & Hoskin, 2016) as well as
how femmes have been overlooked as a rich resource for understanding gender (Harris & Crocker,
1997; Lewis, 2012). In response, femme theorists urge femmes to write themselves into these spaces.
Likewise, Critical Femininities seeks to reconcile the marginalisation of ‘fem(me)ininities in gender
and sexuality studies;’ a process that is achieved, in part, by turning femme literature and scholarship
(Taylor, 2018, p. 4). The goal of this special issue is to bolster femme and critical femininities as theory
so that both can be used as central analytical tools through which to understand gender hegemony.
Following Lewis (2012), Hoskin (2019), Schwartz (2018), Davies (2020) and others, this issue con­
tributes to the writing of femme and femininities into places where it has been overlooked. Critical
Femininities is a response to these scholarly gaps that brings theoretical tools to aid in decentring
masculinity within gender theory and to shift this normative paradigm. Thus, given masculinity’s
centrality within gender theory, Critical Femininities and the deliberate examination of femininity
holds the possibility of developing new approaches to analyses of gender (Gill & Arthurs, 2006).
Moreover, echoing critiques from femme scholars, critical theory itself has also been criticised for its
focus on ‘active’ and ‘masculinised’ agents of change, which can function to perpetuate the
naturalisation of masculinity and simultaneous denigration of femininity (i.e. femmephobia; Davies
& Hoskin, 2021; Shelton, 2017). Thus, the development of Critical Femininities via femme theory not
only offers novel approaches to gender theory, but also holds the potential to ameliorate many of
the tensions of previous critical frameworks.
In line with other critical scholarship, it was our goal to create a special issue that will bolster the field
of critical femininities as one that challenges the social, historical, and ideological systems that structure
and produce norms of patriarchal femininity; particularly those that contribute to anti-femininity and
femmephobia. This issue brings together articles that examine how norms surrounding femininity can
be toxic (McCann, 2020), act as an impediment for dating (Taylor, 2020), and can mediate the effects of
transprejudice (Türkoğlu & Sayılan, 2021). Contributors to the issue also explore ways of reimagining
femininity by grappling with questions such as: How can we conceptualise feminine power (Barton &
Huebner, 2020)? In what ways can vulnerability act as a powerful mode of resistance (Schwartz, 2020)?
And, importantly, how can we understand femininity as powerful without succumbing to masculinist
frameworks (Scott, 2021)? Finally, articles in this issue demonstrate the use Critical Femininities as
a framework of analysis, specifically how it can provide a new approach to topics such as breastfeeding
stigma (Whiley et al., 2020), Incel ideology (Menzie, 2020), or t(w)een sexual behaviour (García-Gómez,
6 R. A. HOSKIN AND K. L. BLAIR

2019). Taken together, these articles facilitate the continued growth of a field that cultivates insight
from a feminine frame of reference as a means of rendering visible the taken-for-granted presence of
masculinity that remains pervasive within gender theory.
To some, Psychology & Sexuality may seem like an odd choice for a special issue on Critical
femininities. While the broad aims of Psychology & Sexuality are to advance the understanding of
LGBTQ+ issues in psychology and allied disciplines, the journal has established its reputation for
facilitating conversations across ostensibly dissident fields of inquiry (e.g., science and queer theory)
and has become an outlet for critical and discursive scholarly works. Psychology & Sexuality is
a progressive, radical journal that is best ‘known for drawing from work traditionally seen as outside
the remit of psychology’6 as a means of informing current debates within the field. By bringing
additional critical theory to psychological research, we aim to spark debates within the broader
psychosocial research world surrounding the treatment of femininity, particularly in relation to
LGBTQ+ issues. It is our hope that this issue inspires researchers within and outside of psychology
to identify their own masculine-leaning theoretical and epistemological frameworks and begin to
question how this might inform their work. Finally, we hope that the paradoxical nature of Critical
Femininities becomes rectified through its recognition as a worthy scholarly endeavour.

Notes
1. It should be noted, however, that much of this work might position itself outside of, apart from, or prior to
Critical Femininities while simultaneously, and paradoxically, constituting the canon itself.
2. Importantly, many of these criticisms and theoretical frameworks are born from Black feminist criticisms, thus
making Black feminist theory integral to the development of Critical Femininities.
3. Patriarchal femininity refers to the norms and powers that regulate femininity (Hoskin 2017a). See McCann
(2020) for an overview.
4. Gender hegemony refers to the relationship between masculinity and femininity that is characterised by
complementarity and masculine ascendency (Connell, 1987).
5. Femininity as an intersectional axis can take the form of embodiment, oppression, expression, privilege, among
others.
6. See Psychology & Sexuality’s Aims & Scope.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; AMTD Waterloo Global Talent program.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Rhea Ashley Hoskin is an Ontario Women’s Health Scholar and an AMTD Global Talent postdoctoral fellow at the
University of Waterloo. Rhea’s work focuses on femininities, femme theory, femme identities, critical femininities and
femmephobia. In particular, her work applies femme theory to understand psychosocial and cultural phenomenon,
various forms of oppression, perceptions of femininity and sources of prejudice rooted in the devaluating or regulation
of femininity.
Dr. Karen L. Blair is the director of the KLB Research Lab and the Trent University Social Relations, Attitudes and Diversity
Lab. Dr. Blair’s work focuses on LGBTQ Psychology, relationships and health, prejudice, femmephobia, hate crimes and
Holocaust education.

ORCID
Rhea Ashley Hoskin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9065-980X
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 7

References
Barton, B., & Huebner, L. (2020). Feminine power: a new articulation. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.
1080/19419899.2020.1771408
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2015). Experiences of femme identity: Coming out, invisibility and femmephobia. Psychology &
Sexuality, 6(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2014.921860
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2016). Contemporary understandings of femme identities and related experiences of
discrimination. Psychology & Sexuality, 7(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2015.1053824
Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture and the body. University of California Press.
Brushwood Rose, C., & Camilleri, A. (2002). Brazen femme: Queering femininity. Arsenal Pulp.
Burghardt, M. (2011). The human bottom of non-human things: On critical theory and its contributions to critical
disability studies. Critical Disability Discourse/Discours critiques dans le champ du handicap (CDD/DCCH), 3(art. 2), 1–16.
https://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/31560/31234
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Polity.
Dahl, U. (2012). Turning like a femme: Figuring critical femininity studies. Nora - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender
Research, 20(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2011.650708
Dahl, U., & Sunden, J. (2018). Femininity in european journal of women’s studies. European Journal of Women’s Studies,
25(3), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818774742
Davies, A., & Hoskin, R. A. (2021). Using femme theory to foster a feminine-inclusive early childhood education practice.
Equity as praxis in early childhood education and care in Ontario. In Z. Abawi, A. Eizadirad, & R. Berman (Eds.), Equity as
praxis in early childhood education and care (pp. 107–124). Canadian Scholars Press.
Davies, A. W. J. (2020). “Authentically” effeminate? bialystok’s theorization of authenticity, gay male femmephobia, and
personal identity. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth, 12(1), 104–123. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/cjfy/
index.php/cjfy/article/view/29493
de Beauvoir, S. (1949). The second sex. Random House.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2013). Critical race theory: the cutting edge (3 ed ed.). Temple University Press.
Erickson, L. (2007). Revealing femmegimp: A sex-positive reflection on sites of shame as sites of resistance for people
with disabilities. Atlantis, 31(2), 42–52. https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/679/669
Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continnuum.
Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. W.W. Norton & Company.
Friedan, B. (2004). The Crisis in woman’s identity. In A. Prince & S. Silva-Wayne (Eds.), Feminisms and womanisms:
A women’s studies reader (pp. 67–75). Women’s Press.
García-Gómez, A. (2019). T(w)een sexting and sexual behaviour:(d) evaluating the feminine other. Psychology & Sexuality,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1699154
Gill, R., & Arthurs, J. (2006). New Femininities? Feminist Media Studies, 6(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680770600989855
Hall, M. C. (2019). Critical Disability Theory. In N. Edward & Zalta (Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter
2019 edition) Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/disability-critical/
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.
Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/3178066
Harris, L., & Crocker, E. (1997). Femme: Feminists lesbians and bad girls. Routledge.
hooks, bell. (2015). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Routledge.
Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory. Seabury Press.
Hoskin, R. A. (2017a). Femme theory: refocusing the intersectional lens. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social
Justice, 38(1), 95–109. https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/4771/95-109%20PDF
Hoskin, R. A. (2017b). Femme interventions and the proper feminist subject: Critical approaches to decolonizing
contemporary western feminist pedagogies. Cogent Open Access Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.
1080/23311886.2016.1276819
Hoskin, R. A. (2019). Femmephobia: The role of anti-femininity and gender policing in LGBTQ+ people’s experiences of
discrimination. Sex Roles, 81(11–12), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01021-3
Hoskin, R. A. (2020). “Femininity? It’s the aesthetic of subordination”: Examining femmephobia, the gender binary, and
experiences of oppression among sexual and gender minorities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2319–2339.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01641-x
Hoskin, R. A. (2021). Can femme be theory? Exploring the epistemological and methodological possibilities of femme.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 25(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2019.1702288
Hoskin, R. A., Holmberg, D., Jenson, K., & Blair, K. L. (2020). Holy anorexia: Views of femininity as a potential mediator in
the association between religiosity and disordered eating. Women’s Studies International Forum, 79, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wsif.2020.102345
Hoskin, R. A., & Taylor, A. (2019). Femme resistance: The fem(me)inine art of failure. Psychology & Sexuality, 10(4),
281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1615538
8 R. A. HOSKIN AND K. L. BLAIR

Keeling, K. (2007). The witch’s flight: The cinematic, the black femme and the image of common sense. Duke University
Press.
Lewis, S. F. (2012). Everything I know about being femme I learned from sula or toward a black femme-inist criticism.
Trans-Scripts, 2, 100–125. https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/f/1861/files/2014/10/2012_02_09.pdf
McCann, H. (2018). Beyond the visible: Rethinking femininity through the femme assemblage. European Journal of
Women’s Studies, 25(3), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818767479
McCann, H. (2020). Is there anything “toxic” about femininity? The rigid femininities that keep us locked in. Psychology &
Sexuality, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1785534
Menzie, L. (2020). Stacys, Beckys, and Chads: The construction of femininity and hegemonic masculinity within incel
rhetoric. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1806915
Micheline, J. A. (2019). “Ritualizing my humanity.”. In K. West & J. Elliott (Eds.), Becoming dangerous: Witchy femmes, queer
conjurers, and magical rebels(pp. 253–262). Weiser Books.
Middleton, M. (2019). Feminine exhibition design. Exhibition fall, 82–91.
Mishali, Y. (2014). Feminine trouble: The removal of femininity from feminist/lesbian/queer esthetics, imagery, and
conceptualization. Women’s Studies International Forum, 44, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.09.003
Oliver, K. (1994). Womanizing Nietzsche: Philosophy’s relation to the feminine. 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
Schalk, S. (2017). Critical disability studies as methodology. Lateral, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.25158/L6.1.13
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
Schwartz, A. (2018). Locating femme theory online. First Monday, 23(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i7.9266
Schwartz, A. (2020). Radical vulnerability: Selfies as a Femme-inine mode of resistance. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1810745
Scott, J. B. (2020). What do glitter, pointe shoes, & plastic drumsticks have in common? Using femme theory to consider
the reclamation of disciplinary beauty/body practices. The Journal of Lesbian Studies, 25(1), 36–52.
Scott, J. B. (2021). Negotiating relationships with powerfulness: Using femme theory to resist masculinist pressures on
feminist femininities. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1878470
Shelton, J. (2017). The pedagogy of the student: Reclaiming agency in receptive subject-positions. Journal of Curriculum
Theorizing, 32(1), 91–103. https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/681
Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable. Sage.
Sontag, S. (2004). The double standard of aging. In A. Prince & S. Silva-Wayne (Eds.), Feminisms and womanisms:
A women’s studies reader (pp. 269–282). Women’s Press.
Story, K. A. (2017). Fear of a black femme: the existential conundrum of embodying a black femme identity while being
a professor of black, queer, and feminist studies. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 21(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10894160.2016.1165043
Taylor, A. (2018). Flabulously’ femme: Queer fat femme women’s identities and experiences. Journal of Lesbian Studies,
22(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2018.1449503
Taylor, A. (2020). “But where are the dates?” Dating as a central site of fat femme marginalisation in queer communities.
Psychology & Sexuality, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1822429
Tinsley, O. M. (2015). Femmes of color, femmes de couleur: Theorizing black queer femininity through chauvet’s la danse
sur le volcan. Yale French Studies, 128, 131–145. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24643715
Titchkosky, T. (2000). Disability studies: The old and the new. Canadian Journal Of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de
sociologie, 25(2), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/3341823
Türkoğlu, B., & Sayılan, G. (2021). How is masculinity ideology related to transprejudice in Turkey: The mediatory effect of
femmephobia. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1870541
Van Anders, S. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configura­
tions theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8
Volcano, D. L., & Dahl, U. (2008). Femmes of power: Exploding queer femininities. Serpent’s Tail.
Walker, L. (2012). The future of femme: Notes on ageing, femininity, and gender theory. Sexualities, 15(7), 795–814.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460711417482
Whiley, L. A., Stutterheim, S., & Grandy, G. (2020). Breastfeeding, ‘tainted’love, and femmephobia: Containing the
‘dirty’performances of embodied femininity. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.
1757501