La actual guerra del taxi: El paro más grande del sector

According to Connell, ‘all forms of femininity in this society are constructed in the context of the overall subordination of women to men. For this reason, there is no femininity that holds among women the position held by hegemonic masculinity among men’ (Connell, 1987:

187). Thus, it could be argued that there are no femininities that are hegemonic (Connell, 1987) because ‘being in a hegemonic position is also about being in a position of power; it is about being able to construct the world for oneself and others so that one’s power is unchallenged and taken (more or less) for granted as part of the order of things’ (Paechter, 2006b: 256). According to Paechter (2006) femininity never holds this form of power as it is constructed relationally, in relation to the hegemon group in a dualistic relation. ‘A dualistic relation is one in which the subordinate term is negated, rather than the two sides being in equal balance’ (Paechter, 2006b: 256). This means that ‘femininities are not constructed in the ways masculinities are; they do not confer cultural power, nor are they able to guarantee patriarchy. They are, instead, constructed as a variety of negations of the masculine...’

(Paechter, 2006b: 256). In parallel with this, social power is accumulated in the hands of men, leaving no scope for women to establish ‘institutionalised power relationships over other women’ (Connell, 1987: 187). Similarly, the social construction of femininity is not

62

characterised by a hegemonic form around dominance over the other sex (Connell, 1987) and it does not negate or subordinate other forms of femininity in the way hegemonic masculinity repudiates other forms of masculinity.

Although femininity cannot be hegemonic, multiple femininities exist in societies (Connell, 1987). ‘One form is defined around compliance with this subordination and is oriented to accommodating the interests and desires of men’ which she called ‘emphasised femininity’

(Connell, 1987: 184-5). ‘Others are defined centrally by strategies of resistance and forms of non-compliance. Others again are defined by complex strategic combinations of compliance, resistance and co-operation’ (Connell, 1987: 184-5). Although multiple femininities exist in societies Connell places emphasis on the relationship among masculinities and she does not elaborate any further.

Similarly to hegemonic masculinity, emphasised femininity is culturally and socially constructed. Although it ‘is very public...its content is specifically linked with the private realm of the home and the bedroom’ (Connell, 1987: 187). ‘Emphasised femininity it is promoted and idealised in mass media and ‘most of this promotion, it might be noted, is organised, financed and supervised by men’ (Connell, 1987: 188). Scholars have postulated that emphasised femininity is constituted through the negation or the absence of what is considered as masculine characteristics (Kessler &McKenna, 1978, Blaise, 2005a, b, Paechter, 2010). More specifically, ‘what is feminine is entirely what is repudiated by masculinity’ (Paechter, 2012: 236). Femininity is constructed sexually, ‘to accommodating the interests and desires of men’ (Connell, 1987: 83) especially, ‘men’s desire for titillation’

(Connell, 1987: 187). Through the negation of any masculine attributes, emphasised femininity is legitimated by the hegemon (hegemonic masculinity). As such, emphasised femininity epitomises women’s sociability, lack of technical competence and compliance

63

whereas matrimony and motherhood, fertility and sexual accommodation are idealised (Connell, 1987).

‘Central to the maintenance of emphasised femininity is practice that prevents other models of femininity gaining cultural articulation’ (Connell, 1987: 188). As discussed, a significant element of emphasised femininity is its identification with hegemonic heterosexuality, which describes the heterosexual orientation of women as ‘natural’ and serves the purpose of supporting women’s nutrient role in the family and their marginalisation from the labour market. This cultivates and perpetuates women’s subordination in the society and assures the preponderance of the hegemon group/hegemonic masculinity in the social system.

The concept of emphasised femininity can function as a mechanism which describes the subordination of femininity in the society, in the sense that its purpose is to ensure that

‘females’ (as subordinated group) remain subordinated to the hegemon group/hegemonic masculinity. In addition, it epitomises the relationship between masculinity and femininity, demanded by gender hegemony, as it refers to all these attributes that women and girls should enact in order to be considered feminine in a specific cultural, socio-economic and political system. It could be argued then that emphasised femininity is contingent and its form is specific to any situation or social group, which presupposes that its characteristics can be open to challenge or change over time. The specific content that it acquires in any given socio-cultural milieu is discursively constructed for it is located in discourses and it is constituted and reconstituted through discourses. Hence, by taking up the emphasised femininity discourses children construct their gender identity and perform this normative form of femininity, which empowers men’s exclusive embodiment of hegemonic masculinity characteristics.

64

The performance of emphasised femininity begins from the very early years of gender development. Within the family girls will be encouraged to take up emphasised femininity discourses and later, during formal schooling, these discourses will be reinforced. Especially,

‘how children’s bodies are used and positioned within school and other spaces, and how they are treated and understood by adults and children, are important factors in the development of their identities’ (Paechter &Clark, 2007: 319). Thus, girls from a very young age are discouraged from participating in non-gender-appropriate activities by their parents and later by their teachers and the curriculum. Their gender identity is regulated through disciplinary practices within the domestic sphere, education system and other institutions that manage individuals’ performance of gender (Butler, 1990, 2004).

As discussed, emphasised femininity is constructed in relation to the dominant discourses that subsist in the social systems/societies. Its discursive content perpetuates docility, dependence, sensitivity and pathologises qualities that do not conform to these ideals (Ringrose

&Walkerdine, 2006). By assigning these attributes, the hegemon asserts its own power over the subordinated groups and ensures its dominant/hegemonic social position. The concept of emphasised femininity, however, does not negate the power of the individual to challenge certain discourses, for girls often distance themselves from emphasised femininity in an attempt to ‘reject the disempowerment that comes with it’ (Paechter, 2006b: 257). A typical example are young girls who develop a tomboy identity (Reay, 2001, Renold 2005) through which they will claim power. Although their decision comes at cost, the consequences for non-compliance with the ideals of emphasised femininity are lesser than they are for boys who don’t comply with hegemonic masculinity. Specifically, boys who don’t comply with hegemonic masculinity are identified as ‘girly’ or effeminate. This is corroborated by the empirical data gathered at two schools in Hellas, for it was observed that boys were in constant ‘fight’ for maintaining their masculine identity by avoiding any activities that were

65

considered as feminine. However, girls were not as afraid as boys of participating in football matches. This is because girls by distancing themselves from emphasised femininity they empower themselves. Although their participation was often discouraged or even mocked by the boys, it did not seem to threaten their feminine identity.

In my research, I was interested in exploring how girls negotiate emphasised femininity discourses. Girls’ strategies in navigating gendered norms pertaining to standards regarding feminine performance of gender are considered in chapters 5, 6 and 7. Girls’ accounts of gender were analysed in relation to the discursive representations of femininity in the anthology textbooks, their playground play practices and teachers’ classroom practices. The concept of emphasised femininity offered valuable insights into how the school contributes to the construction of gendered subjects by encouraging the ‘dichotomy of rationality/pathology’. This dichotomy ‘underpins the production of self-regulating subjects in schools’ where ‘girls and women teachers are positioned through a constellation of discourses, including discourses of femininity, passivity and irrationality’ (Youdell, 2005:

252).

2.6 Critiques to Connell’s Theory of Masculinities and ‘Syndesmosis’ of Post-Structuralism