Femme Theory: A Lens of Feminine Diversity
Written by Kenneth Haggett
Thubnail and Banner Photo by Norbu GYACHUNG on Unsplash
Across the Women, Gender, and Queer Studies disciplines, a wide variety of theories are used to examine how gender manifests and operates in daily life. One of these, femme theory, is used by feminist and queer scholars to examine and analyze how femininity is taken up or restructured by femininely-embodied folks—whether cis women, trans women, or genderqueer folks. Femme theory emerged after the second wave of feminism, during the 1980s and 1990s. Through autobiographical/personal narratives of femme identity, femme theorists began to question conventional notions of femininity—even those within queer social settings. Specifically, the term “femme” began to be applied outside of the lesbian community, where it originated.
A history of “femme”
As an identity marker, “femme” emerged in the 1940s amongst the lesbian community, with “butch” as its counterpart. The butch/femme dichotomy differentiated masculine lesbian women from feminine lesbian women, respectively, who were often socially and culturally expected to be attracted to each other. Though this dynamic replicated heteronormative dichotomies of gender, lesbian women expressed butch and femme identity differently than men and women would perform masculinity and femininity. For example, as Levitt and Collins explain, butch lesbians were not expected to be breadwinners; femme lesbians were more assertive and direct.
After the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, lesbian women increasingly adopted androgynous gender expression. Accordingly, by the 1980s, butch/femme identity became more flexible as gendered categories, with femme identity evolving from its application solely to lesbian women. “Femme” became taken up by a multiplicity of queer folks—a queering of femininity. Jessie Taieun Yoon shares that “femme is [now] an identity not exclusively adopted by lesbian women but has been expanded to include ‘non-binary and/or gender nonconforming people who don’t strictly identify as women but are on the feminine end of spectrum’.” As the feminist movement progressed, “femme” identity grew from its application within lesbian circles to become a marker of identity taken up by queer folks across various gendered and sexual identities. Through this agentic, self-determining conceptualization of femme identity, femme expression and embodiment transgresses white, cisheteronormative, and patriarchal notions of femininity.
What is “femme”? And how is it different from femininity?
Though seemingly interchangeable, “femme” and “femininity” are very different ways to refer to feminine expression. Conventional “femininity” typically refers to a set of gendered characteristics aligned with conventional standards of white, cisheteronormative, patriarchal femininity. For instance, emphasized femininity is equated with passivity and softness, submissiveness or objectification for the male gaze and, traditionally, is associated with domesticity and tasks such as child-rearing and housekeeping. Moreover, femininity has conventionally been tethered to the “female” body, resulting in discrimination against non-AFAB, queer, femme folks.
On the other hand, “femme” is a term used by queer folks who exist on a spectrum of feminine expression to subvert these patriarchal conventions of femininity. Indeed, by interrogating these conventions, femme theorists have redefined femme identity as a source of liberation and empowerment. Hoskin, for example, defines femme identity as “feminine expressions [which] are culturally ‘unauthorized,’ and [that] refuse … and/or do not approximate the ideal norm of what patriarchal femininity constitutes” (p. 100). Similarly, Yoon defines “femme” as “a specific genre of femininity that many queer, trans, and gender-nonconforming people attune themselves to … one which does not necessarily translate to lesbian, woman, or female” (p. 81). Through femme theory, then, “femme” has come to encompass a wide array of feminine gender expression across multiple identity categories of queer people.
Femme expression as vulnerability
A favourite concept of mine in femme theory is Dahl’s notion of femme expression as vulnerability. As noted, conventional standards of gender frame vulnerability as a form of submissive weakness—susceptible to criticism, attack, and violence simply through embodied existence. However, Dahl challenges this by framing vulnerability as an “openness”—a method to share and receive the different ways people embody and express femme identity. Indeed, in her research, Dahl theorizes vulnerability as a “receptivity” to the world, which ultimately depends on a safe space with other femmes. By being vulnerable, femme bodies can discover, receive, and absorb various forms of being “femme,” while cultivating community, a sense of belonging, and identity.
In my experience as a dancer, expressing femininity in a shared space with other queer femme bodies is an act of vulnerability. Using this concept of femme theory in my research, I’ve explored what femininity means to me in relation to other queer and femme bodies, as well as the importance of community spaces in shaping our sense of self. Femme theory has therefore been helpful to consider how femme gender expression is not a form of weakness, but rather a position of open and vulnerable receptivity to how other bodies move in the world and, in turn, shape us as gendered bodies.
What is femmephobia?
In our patriarchal, heteronormative culture, femme-identifying individuals often face resistance due to their embodiment of empowerment in the face of normative femininity, emerging as femmephobia. Within femme theory, occurrences and experiences of femmephobia are a crucial point of interest. Hoskin defines femmephobia as “a cultural phenomenon that devalues and polices femininity, as well as perceived expressions of femininity, across intersections of difference” (p. 24), which is ultimately rooted in misogyny and sexism. Femininity that does not align with patriarchal standards of white womanhood is “unsanctioned” and thus incites violence, repression, and regulation.
Hoskin, in particular, uses femme theory to discuss the varying forms of femmephobia, which include: (a) ascribed femmephobia, an ideological position of femininity as an ‘insult;’ (b) perceived femmephobia, which are acts of violence, oppression, or exclusion based on femininity; (c) femme mystification, which dehumanizes femininity by “eroticizing, exoticizing, and objectifying;” and (d) pious femmephobia, which shames the femme individual by “positioning [them] as morally superior or intellectually enlightened … [for their] transgressions against patriarchal feminine norms.” Femme theory, in this context, allows researchers to analyze how patriarchy as a social and cultural structure impacts the daily lives of feminine and/or femme folks. Particularly, femme theory’s focus on femmephobia shows how it is a regulatory tool used to contain femininity within a particular “box.”
Conclusion
Femme theory is a helpful subdivision of queer theory that allows researchers to examine the external structures of gender in a patriarchal society, as well as one’s own internal sense of femme gender identity. Femme theory’s focus on concepts and issues such as vulnerability and femmephobia, respectively, allows researchers to connect the structural or political to the personal. This set of theories is integral to queer studies as a whole, allowing femme identity to grow and resist the constraints imposed upon femininity by patriarchal society.