http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/index.asp Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, Issue 8, December 2014 http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/december2016/index.asp ISSUE 10 IGDS Gold: Advancing Caribbean Feminist Scholarship Editors: Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu December 2016 Editorial 1–10 Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu Peer Reviewed Essays 11–44 “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!”: Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness Sue-Ann Barratt 45–68 “What is this t’ing t’en about Caribbean Feminisms?”: Feminism in the Anglophone Caribbean, circa 1980-2000 Ellie McDonald 69–94 Other Ways of Seeing and Knowing: Historical Re-Vision in The Salt Roads Debra Providence 95–116 Women and Change in Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution Aleah Ranjitsingh i Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, Issue 8, December 2014 http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/december2016/index.asp Gender Dialogues 117–128 Young, black, female and carefree: Reading “Party Done Lisa Allen- Agostini 129–138 An Investigation into the State’s Response to the Trafficking of Women and Girls in Jamaica Tameka Hill 139–150 Sitting on Artifacts of Gender Angelica Rodriguez Bencosme 151–164 The Internet is Cool, Scholarship is Cold and Beyoncé is a Feminist: Reflections on the Popular Action Assignment in Introduction to Women’s Studies Amilcar Sanatan Research in Action 165–186 Carnival Theatre: An Empowerment and Transformation Model for Long-term and Lifer Inmates at Trinidad’s Maximum Security Men’s Prison, Arouca Ellen O’Malley-Camps Poetry 187–190 Susannah/ Lucille and Dolores Lisa Allen-Agostini 191–196 The Soroptimists and The Misogynist Nicholas Gilbert Book Review 196–201 Review of Islam and the Americas, edited by Aisha Khan Patricia Mohammed Postgraduate Research Degrees 202–207 Postgraduate Research Degrees awarded by the IGDS Biographies 208-213 Biographies of contributors ii Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, Issue 8, December 2014 http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/december2016/index.asp Contributors Lisa Allen-Agostini Writer and editor MPhil in Interdisciplinary Gender Studies Institute for Gender and Development Studies The University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus Sue-Ann Barratt Assistant Lecturer Institute for Gender and Development Studies The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus Dalea Bean Lecturer and Graduate Coordinator Institute for Gender and Development Studies Regional Coordinating Office The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus Nicholas R. Gilbert, AbioyeMunashe Prison Welfare Officer Ministry of National Security Tutor, Open Campus The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus Tameka Hill Communications and Gender and Development Specialist Ellie McDonald Campaigner in London, UK Patricia Mohammed Scholar, writer and filmmaker Professor of Gender and Cultural Studies Campus Coordinator/Chair, School for Graduate Studies and Research The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus Ellen O’Malley Camps Counsellor and Mediator, Social activist Debra Providence Educator, St. Vincent and the Grenadines iii Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, Issue 8, December 2014 http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/december2016/index.asp Aleah N. Ranjitsingh PhD Candidate, Interdisciplinary Gender Studies The Institute for Gender and Development Studies The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Angélica Rodríguez Bencosme Furniture designer PhD Candidate Institute for Gender and Development Studies St Augustine Campus, Trinidad and Tobago Amilcar Sanatan Interdisciplinary artist and writer Research Assistant MPhil. candidate Institute for Gender and Development Studies The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus. Raquel LM Sukhu PhD candidate at IGDS, St Augustine. Project Coordinator and Research Assistant Institute for Gender and Development Studies The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus. iv Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu: Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising Editorial Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising Editors Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu Dalea Bean Lecturer/Graduate Coordinator, Institute for Gender and Development Studies Regional Coordinating Unit, The UWI, Mona Campus. and Raquel Sukhu Project Manager, Work/Life Balance Research Project | PhD Candidate Institute for Gender and Development Studies, St Augustine Unit The University of the West Indies 1 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 Keywords: Caribbean Feminism, Academia, Feminist Praxis, IGDS, Feminist Scholarship How to cite Bean, Dalea and Raquel Sukhu. 2016. "Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising." Caribbean Review of Gender Studies issue 10: 1–10. 2 Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu: Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising The Institute for Gender and Development Studies (IGDS) is an autonomous interdisciplinary entity of The University of the West Indies, which aims, through its programme of teaching, research, outreach and activism, to question historically accepted theories and explanations about society, sexuality and human behaviour, as well as to critically examine the origins of power differences between and among men, women and transgender persons and the range of factors which account for these differences. In its 23 years of existence, the IGDS has developed an integrated, interdisciplinary programme of feminist studies within the University, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. This includes facilitating the incorporation of gender analysis in all disciplines. The Institute has also produced and disseminated knowledge, based on the generation and analysis of research data on gender-related issues in the Caribbean and has established and maintained linkages with national, regional and international institutions concerned with gender and development. It has also provided advisory services, influenced policy directions and assisted with capacity-building in these institutions. Located on all three campuses of the University, and with established links with the Open Campus, the impact of the work of the Institute is wide-ranging and far-reaching as it enjoys long established relationships and collaborations with local, regional and international development agencies. While the Centre for Gender and Development Studies (CGDS) was officially institutionalised at The UWI in 1993, consciousness-raising, teaching and research guided by feminist and gender and development theories, principles and methodologies were being undertaken from as early as the 1970s with the establishment of the Women and Development Unit (WAND) in Barbados, through the Women in the Caribbean Project (WICP) and the formation of Women and Development Studies Groups (WDS). Since 1993, the Regional Coordinating Office, Mona Campus Unit (both in Jamaica), St Augustine Unit (Trinidad and Tobago) and Nita Barrow Unit (Barbados) have offered academic courses and programmes that respond to emerging gender and development issues in the Caribbean. In addition to traditional degrees, the units have also been involved with offering 3 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 short courses, summer institutes and various training fora. In 2008 the CGDS achieved another milestone by being upgraded to an Institute, with the ability to grant its own undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. Since then, the IGDS has graduated scores of candidates from the BSc Gender and Development (Mona Unit) MSc and MPhil programmes, and no less than eight PhDs, many with High Commendation. Professors of the IGDS and faculty, visiting scholars and research fellows are world-renowned and widely respected practitioners of Gender and Development Studies. The Institute has benefitted from the genius of Lucille Mathurin Mair, Elsa Leo-Rhynie, Rhoda Reddock, Verene Shepherd, Patricia Mohammed, Sir Hilary Beckles, Barbara Bailey, Eudine Barriteau, Joycelyn Massiah and countless other scholar-activists. Perhaps the most impressive legacy of these stalwarts is their collective mission to ensure that the future of the IGDS and Caribbean gender studies remains a beacon in the region. To this end, much effort has been spent on honing the skills of a new generation of intellectuals. Indeed, the IGDS has excelled in producing graduates who have revolutionised the landscape of gender policy and praxis regionally and internationally, and it is to this great achievement that this issue is dedicated. This tenth issue of the Caribbean Review of Gender Studies aptly highlights student research, some of which may not have otherwise been read outside of the university, and also provides a niche for current students and recent graduates to begin publishing their work in scholarly publications. The majority of pieces in this issue represent the research of current students and graduates of the IGDS units across the three campus units that offer a graduate programme. The issue exemplifies the rich tapestry of scholarly work and diverse research interests investigated though traditional and non-traditional modalities by students of the IGDS. It also includes work by postgraduate students who have been influenced by the work and tradition of Caribbean feminist theorising. The issue includes four peer reviewed papers, three gender dialogues, a photo essay, poetry, research in action and book review. The variety of entries not only 4 Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu: Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising speaks to the diversity in the output of the IGDS, but also to the range of issues still relevant to Caribbean gender and development studies. While grounded in the solid foundation of Caribbean feminist tradition, the entries challenge existing epistemologies, tease out critical ideas relating to gender identity, construct innovative dimensions for investigating 21st century challenges and force us to reckon with the future of gender studies as an ever-evolving space of discursive criticism. Sue-Ann Barratt utilises multi-level Feminist Post-Structural Discourse Analysis (FPDA) to demonstrate the ways in which a sample of young Trinidadian female university students trouble their feminine identifications, and how they experience their gender identity as a place of ambivalence. The young women’s rejection of hyperfemininity is analysed in relation to the beauty-versus- brains binary, and their understanding of the girlie girl feminine identity. Through meticulous interrogation of the women’s discourse she reveals the ways in which these women are able to “temper the disempowering effect of hyperfemininity” by claiming a “measure of masculinity as part of their atypical feminine identity” to achieve a greater sense of agency and resist the sense of powerlessness produced by gender polarisation and patriarchal power relations. In juxtaposition to Barratt’s focus on the re-imagining of the young Caribbean woman’s construction of the feminine identity, Ellie McDonald’s research on Caribbean feminist movements and the experiences of four Anglophone Caribbean activists draws on oral history interviews of stalwarts in the movement. One of the particularly enriching aspects of the research is the diverse positionalities of her interviewees – Peggy Antrobus, activist and scholar, who served as Director, Women’s Bureau in Jamaica and a member of the Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) network; Andaiye, grassroots activist who is co-founder and organizer of Red Thread in Guyana; Alissa Trotz, also from Guyana and a member of Red Thread, Assistant Professor in Women and Gender Studies, and Director of the undergraduate Caribbean Studies Program at New College, University of Toronto; and Patricia Mohammed, 5 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 scholar and activist who disseminated the work of Caribbean activists and academics through her role as the Regional Course Director of Women and Development Studies, and is currently Professor of Gender and Cultural Studies and Campus Co-ordinator, School for Graduate Studies and Research at The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad. Acknowledging that the women selected for the research do not represent the entirety of the feminist movement and face of activism for the region, McDonald skilfully weaves their insights and experiences with their larger bodies of work to create a lens through which the reader sees and situates their perspectives on and involvement in Caribbean feminism as it has developed through the last half century. Drawing on her doctoral dissertation, Debra Providence reads Nalo Hopkinson’s The Salt Roads through a rhizo-nomadic lens and demonstrates the way in which this transforms the deity Erzulie into a source of knowledge that “gives the reader privileged access to the consciousness of a historically marginalized [Caribbean] woman” connecting Jeanne Duval, mistress of French poet Charles Baudelaire, with women from other historical eras – St Mary of Egypt the Dusky Saint and Mer, a slave on St Domingue just prior to the Makandal uprising. She appraises Hopkinson’s use of science fictional elements, combining them with Haitian spirituality, as an effective means through which these women are radically re- visioned. She highlights thus the way in which Hopkinson as a Caribbean female author counters the way in which Eurocentric scholarship, and official historical records have marginalised and obscured Caribbean subjects, and in particular, Caribbean women. In the final piece in this section, Aleah Ranjitsingh gives us a glimpse into her doctoral research which she conducted in Venezuela, looking at the ways in which then President Hugo Chávez employed feminism as a tool and integral element in his model of socialist government; and in so doing, broadens the scope of this issue outside the Anglophone Caribbean region. Her qualitative study launches from Chávez’s own words: “True socialism is feminist” while occupying “an androcentric and heteronormative world.” She demonstrates 6 Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu: Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising the ways in which the state facilitated gains for women, particularly for poorer women, through mechanisms such as constitutional reform coming out of his recognition of the importance, and elevation of the distinction and complementarity of women and gender equality. The Gender Dialogues are situated in a space to explore conversations on critical issues of import to the authors. While generally at the conceptualisation stage, the Dialogues offer a glimpse into the musings of a new generation of budding scholars grappling with conventional and unorthodox forms of expression while still maintaining the rigour associated with the CRGS. Lisa Allen- Agostini proffers a re-examination of young black women’s sexual agency and conceptions of black female criminality in the music video for the soca song “Party Done” by Angela Hunte and Machel Montano. Allen-Agostini situates her work in black feminist tradition, which contends with the intersectionality of modern expressions of culture with ideals of femininity. Using film analysis techniques, she deconstructs the video’s underlying narrative: black working class women as capable of being “carefree”. Tameka Hill, who has twinned her academic interests with activism against human trafficking in Jamaica, offers a piece on the state of human trafficking with particular focus on the evolution of the Jamaican Government’s response to this critical issue. With the realisation that deafening silence can stymie efforts against this criminal activity, Hill aims to not only bring clarity to the issue, but also encourages continued conversation to facilitate a deeper understanding of the power and gender dynamics at play in this modern day slavery that disproportionately affects women worldwide. The issue also includes an insightful and thought provoking photo essay by Angélica Rodríguez Bencosme. She carefully crafts a narrative punctuated by images, which invites the reader to consider the influence domestic furniture and common household items on those who reside in the space and those who 7 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 visit. Focussing on the Dominican Republic, Rodríquez Bencosme shares her sentiments relating to cultural norms and gender power relations in the home as expressed through furniture use (and even misuse) as well as placement. The nuanced approach facilitates a consideration of the notions of the author, while creating the space for one to draw personal conclusions about the images and the ways in which inanimate objects can reflect our own gendered understandings. Amilcar Sanatan’s unique perspective as socialist feminist man, IGDS graduate student and activist involved in the depatriarchal struggle for gender justice is evident in his piece which juxtaposes Caribbean feminism with younger Caribbean women and men. Using his experience in the classroom, particularly with the course Introduction to Women’s Studies offered in the St Augustine Unit of the IGDS, Sanatan captures the essence of this issue by interrogating the limits and potential of the student experience with modern day feminism in all its evolving forms. Sanatan’s fascinating submission argues for a greater emphasis on a critique of neoliberal discourse by Caribbean feminist theorising in order to productively engage the trajectories of Caribbean youth. The potential of gendered cultural activist research is aptly explored in Ellen O’Malley-Camps’ interpretation on her Research in Action at Trinidad’s Maximum Security Men’s Prison. The paper explores the usefulness of Carnival Theatre as an empowerment and transformative process for long-term male inmates in Trinidad’s Maximum Security Prison. The ground-breaking research includes techniques of carnival and theatre as well as the insights of restorative justice, mediation and transpersonal psychology and may unlock key understandings related to the empowerment of vulnerable Caribbean masculinities. The applicability of these techniques is not only presented as a method to evaluate notions of justice, power and identity, but offers a critique of, and alternative to, the Restorative Justice Policy which the author presents as inadequate for the particular needs of long-term and lifer inmates. 8 Dalea Bean and Raquel Sukhu: Signs of the Future of Feminist Praxis and Practise: IGDS Graduate Students and the Evolution of Caribbean Gender Theorising The issue closes with poetry by Lisa Allen-Agostini and Nicholas Gilbert and a book review by IGDS Professor Patricia Mohammed. The pieces of poetry reveal the potential of a literary exploration of the intersection of race, gender identity, sexuality, empowerment and the limitations of traditional understandings of masculinities and femininities. It is hoped that you, the reader, will not only enjoy the pieces included in this issue, but also be challenged to reimagine the loci of feminist theorising and gender activism in the region. While building on the solid foundation of numerous foremothers and fathers of the IGDS and wider network of feminist scholar/activists, these and other students and graduates of the IGDS are charting their own course and meanings of a feminism and gender de/ construction. The message of this issue is clear and encouraging: Caribbean feminist theorising is alive and well and the future of gender activism is in good hands. 9 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 10 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!”: Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness Sue Ann Barratt Instructor III Institute for Gender and Development Studies, St Augustine Unit The University of the West Indies 11 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 Abstract “I Am Not A Girlie Girl”, an emphatic rejection of one feminine prototype conceptualised by a group of 29 female emerging adults (18-25) participating in my larger PhD investigation into the relevance of perceptions of gender identity to experiences of interpersonal communication conflict. Using feminist post structuralist discourse analysis, these young women’s talk was examined, in depth, in an effort to understand their perceptions of femininity. They identified seven feminine identities evident in Trinidad society but it is the “girlie girl” which became a prototype for rejection. This prototype, these Trinidadian young women defined as a form of extreme femininity, preoccupied with the production and maintenance of physical appearance and beauty and inherently stupid or ignorant. Their conversation during focus groups revealed an expressed negative attitude, overt rejection and emphatic and emotive negation of the “girlie girl” with careful rationalisation of a more acceptable idiosyncratic, neutral or masculine typical gender identity for self. For these tertiary level students, the physically beautiful “girlie girl” has power but that which makes her powerful also makes her powerless. The beautiful woman is ideal and prestigious but is also considered a threat to be controlled. The “girlie girl” is denied self-actualisation and accomplishment because while she is expected to be beautiful, once she is deemed to be such she is made passive, weak and dependent. As one respondent concluded “women can’t have it all you can’t be pretty and you can’t be smart… something have to be wrong with you”. Keywords: femininity, Girlie Girl, gender identity, Trinidad and Tobago, feminist post structuralist feminist discourse analysis, emerging adults How to cite Barratt, Sue Ann. 2016. ""I Am Not A Girlie Girl!”: Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness." Caribbean Review of Gender Studies issue 10: 11–42. 12 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness Introduction “Women can’t have it all”, a sentiment expressed by a group of young women who emphatically reject the girlie girl feminine identity or, in general terms, hyperfemininity. These 18–25 year-old emerging adult1 women, enrolled at The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus at the time, gathered to discuss their perceptions of gender identity as part of a set of focus group discussions on the relevance of perceptions of gender identity to experiences of interpersonal communication conflict. These young women were not at the time negotiating the ongoing work/life/family balance conundrum2 which usually invokes the question, can women have it all? Instead they were grappling with a binary that has consistently mediated femininity – beauty versus brains. These young Trinidadians assert the position that the pretty, hyperfeminine woman occupies a contentious space, at once idealised and granted privilege because of her appearance while, for the same reason, being denied self- actualisation and accomplishment. For them, a woman who is both intelligent and committed to maintaining beauty presents an anomaly; as one put it, “something [has] to be wrong with you”. Therefore they attempt to circumvent this through emphatic rejection or negation of the girlie girl feminine identity, tempered acceptance of girlie girl habits as part of their own femininity, or conditional claims to masculine-marked behaviour. Thus this paper describes how, through conversation, these women trouble their feminine identifications. It demonstrates how they experience gender identity as a place of ambivalence as they contend with the inescapable influence of hyperfemininity and wanting “to have it all”. Representation of their perceptions is facilitated through multi-level – micro, meso and macro3 – Feminist Post- Structuralist Discourse Analysis (FPDA). Therefore the young women’s positioning of self and other is viewed as constantly renegotiated during the process of interaction and their talk is interpreted through a self-reflexive deconstructive process that focuses on uncovering the multiple gendered knowledges/ discourses, ideologies, subjective positions, identities and relationships 13 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 negotiated (Baxter 2003; Sunderland 2006; Cameron 2001; Van Dijk 1997). Questioned is how normative discourses and other competing yet interwoven discourses complicate perceptions of self and other and discussed are the relevant linguistic features, speech activities and patterns of verbal interaction which facilitated the detection of these discourses. This analysis follows a brief overview of the concepts and discourses which serve as the lens through which the young women’s assertions are read. Hyperfemininity and the Beauty versus Brains Binary According to Paecther (2010) the girlie girl is “a particular embodiment of hyper- femininity” (4) or, in Reay’s (2001) words, it is an “emphasised femininity” which features a heavy involvement in the gender work that inscribes hyperfemininity and subjects it to discourses of denigration such as the perception of “girlies” as “stupid and dumb”. Hyperfemininity is an exaggerated adherence to a stereotypic feminine gender role which makes especially salient sexual appeal and heterosexual relationships (Matschiner and Murnen 1999; McKelvie and Gold 1994; Maybach and Gold 1994), and is often constructed as feminine typical. To be feminine typical is to be gender typical, which, as a discourse, emerged from developmental psychology and accounts for ideas and practices that inform an individual’s perception of self as similar or compatible to members of their claimed sex/gender category (Bussey 2011). Therefore the individual is able to assess whether or not they fit in with others of their sex/ gender in-group, whether they enjoy doing and excel at the same things done by their in-group members, and ultimately whether their gender performance represents a valid prototype of their in-group (Newman and Newman 2009). The prototype of relevance is femininity4. However, in the case of hyperfemininity as it is invoked by the girlie girl feminine identity, a very specific prototype is made salient. Its embodiment and behaviour are defined similarly in the 14 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness literature (Holland and Harpin 2015; Kester 2015; Thompson 2012; Paechter 2010; Geneve et al. 2008; Wagner 2007; Reay 2001) as it is by the young Trinidadian women in this study, that is, as preoccupied with the production and maintenance of physical appearance, stupid or unaware, and unable, at times, to communicate effectively with males. This definition invokes the beauty versus brains binary which constructs hyperfemininity as oppositional. For example, Murnen and Seabrook (2012) explain that “while achieving a sexy body might gain women a sense of control and some attention from others, it will lead to little real respect or power…although women are supposed to focus on appearance, they are ridiculed for doing so” (439). Others explain the relationship similarly, such as Gonsalves (2012) in her study of discourses of gender and competence in physics, Barnard et al. (2012) in their study of engineering and gender in higher education, and Toor (2009) in her examination of teacher attitudes to the relationship between intelligence and looks. The beauty versus brains binary is reproduced and reinforced in popular culture and as a result is often the focus of evaluations within media. For example, The Economist suggests that attractive women should not include a photo with a job application because the “dumb blonde hypothesis5” is often applied to them with people assuming their stupidity (2012). Ciapponi (2014) testifies to this in a narrative written for The Huffington Post expressing the sentiment “I was pretty; therefore my main talent in life seemed to be sexually exciting strange men…I may as well write ‘please tell me I’m smart’ on my forehead”. Elite Daily, in its examination of the relationship status of smart women, cites Dr. Eileen Pollack’s assertion that there is a cultural paradigm that maintains that “you can’t be smart and sexy” (2014). Psychology Today explains the “more attractive = less intelligent” intuition, which runs counter to the halo effect (attractive people are perceived as more sincere and intelligent) and imposes an attractiveness penalty on women especially, makes them feel that they are not taken as seriously as they should because of their attractiveness (Raghunathan, 2011). The BBC Future online magazine discusses this penalty further stating that while beauty may pay in most circumstances “implicit sexist prejudices can work 15 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 against attractive women making them less likely to be hired for high-level jobs that require authority” (Robson 2015). This dichotomy which contrasts beauty and brains is grounded in gender polarisation as a structure that organises social life around gender/sex difference and foregrounds the patriarchal power relations and inequalities which mediate this organisation (McIlvenny 2002; Bing and Bergvall 1998). It is through the concept of gender polarisation that the expected powerlessness for women and girls becomes visible, making salient the limits placed on opportunities and access to many spheres of social life and revealing the reliance on the discourse of biological determinism to justify such limits (Bing and Bergvall 1998). It is this powerlessness that the young Trinidadian women resist in their talk. The Women: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl” The explanations and illustrations6 shared by this selection of four women from two focus groups work together to demonstrate how consistently the girlie girl feminine identity troubles and leaves them in a state of ambivalence. They at once accept girlie girl characteristics as outward markers which signal their legitimacy as feminine but reject these characteristics as typical signs of powerlessness and objectification. Their internal characteristics and some external behaviour are decidedly masculine, as far as they are concerned, and distinguish them from hyperfemininity which they see as typical. Denise7: “I do not take that long…I drink manly drinks” In Fragment One below Denise defines the girlie girl as marked by her dedication to maintaining her physical appearance. In lines 4 to 10, 15 and 16, Denise characterises the girlie girl using an example of the ritual undertaken by her group of friends in preparation for a night out. Denise perceives the girlie girl 16 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness as one who “takes forever to get ready” (line 4), “puts on a million different types of cream” (line 15) and has to “do her hair” (line 16). Fundamental is her construction of the girlie girl feminine identity as extreme. This reflects Holland and Harpin’s (2015) conclusion that the girlie girl is “contrived to be a marker of the worst excesses of hegemonic ‘femininity’” (293). In the context of the young women’s discussion, hyperfemininity becomes hegemonic because it is perceived as feminine typical. Denise’s construction of the girlie girl as extreme lies in her use of hyperbole in both lines 4 and 15 – she “takes forever” and “puts on a million” – to describe the behaviour which marks her friend as a girlie girl. The use of hyperbole by a speaker indicates an intentional or unintentional exaggeration of the quality of its referent or a positive or negative evaluation of that referent and it intensifies interest in what is being said, grabs the listener’s attention and makes the speaker’s argument more convincing (Claridge 2011; Mora and Macarro 2004). 17 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 Fragment One Denise: Well (.) °yeah my friends are real° girlie girls= 1 Sue Ann: =What’s a girlie girl? 2 Denise: Ughhhhhhhh (.) alright like the same one who takes- who left me (.) °the bitch° 3 (group laughs loudly)) she takes forever to get ready like oh my God 4 Cindy: [Yes I kno::::::w] 5 Denise: when we have to go out we tell her yeah we coming for you eight when we’re 6 really coming for her like ten just- and then (.) we’d call her at eight and you 7 know we’d be like ok are you ready you coming down and she’d be like ↑oh 8 Go::::d I now coming out the showe::::r↑ ((said in high pitched wining voice)) 9 well yeah we knew that >we’ll be there in 15 minutes eh hurry up< this time 10 we re- like I no::::w I lying down watching TV cause I know we really going for 11 ten but she’s the wo::::rse so (.) what was the question? ((group laughs)) 12 Sue Ann: The question is what’s a girlie girl?= 13 Gina: =What’s a girlie girl?= 14 Denise: =Oh right so she takes really lo::::ng cause she has to put on a million 15 different types of cream and a ho- like do her hai::::r and I like yeah ((pauses 16 and looks around pointedly, thumps desk decisively but gently)) I do not take 17 that long= 18 Several: =Yes yeah 19 Denise: to get ready at all 20 18 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness Denise’s explicit negation complemented by her non-verbal gestures and her use of interjections convey, more powerfully, her rejection of the girlie girl. But the second part of the phrase “that long” (line 18) introduces a counteracting idea. Indeed, Denise’s stress on the demonstrative determiner “that” conveys her rejection of the length of time taken by the girlie girl because, according to Swan (1995), speakers use “that” in this way to show dislike or rejection. And her non-verbal language in lines 16 and 17 of Fragment One above complements this rejection. Her pause and slow surveillance of the group gives them time to grasp her prior description of the girlie girl. Then her quick sharp striking of the table, an emphasising gesture according to Sharma and Mohan (2011), alerts the group to her response and affirms the decisiveness of the statement that follows. At the same time Denise’s phrase “that long” also functions like an indefinite quantifier indirectly indicating the length of time she actually takes (Downing and Locke 2006). With this emphasis – she stresses “that” – she does not exclude herself entirely from the girlie girl practice. Denise may not take as long as her girlie girl friend to get ready but she constructs herself as spending some time engaging in the grooming behaviour done by the girlie girl. Indirectly, Denise attributes girlie girl behaviour to self. Whether this is intentional or not is unclear but this short phrase tempers Denise’s rejection of girlie girl behaviour. Her indirect attribution of some degree of girlie girl behaviour to herself does not completely overturn her negative attitude to this feminine identity. Denise’s use of the interjections “ugh” (line 3) and “oh my God” (line 5) reinforce her negative attitude. Interjections function as an index of the speaker’s emotional state, indicating intensity of feeling and attitude toward the referent (Aijmer 2004). “Ugh” is an expression of disgust, the sound imitating the noise of retching (Stange 2009). The breathiness added to Denise’s utterance of “ugh” intensifies the retching sound and emphasises her emotive display of disgust. “Oh my God” is an exclamation which conveys annoyance or surprise and is used as mild swearing by speakers (Swan 1995; Aijmer 2004). In the context of Denise’s narrative its use as an expression of annoyance is more relevant. 19 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 Throughout Fragment One above Denise’s peers support her assertions. Cindy engages in collaborative overlap in line 5, confirming that the girlie girl “takes forever” – “yes I know”, she agrees that this knowledge is shared. Then everyone agrees with Denise’s rejection of the girlie girl and the length of time she takes to get ready; “yes yeah” they all reply in line 18. Denise’s talk also conveys not only her negative attitude and evaluation of the girlie girl but, importantly, it conveys how Denise would like the other members of the focus group to interpret the nature of the girlie girl as well as her perception of that nature. I read these meta-messages from her repair8 in line 3 and her seemingly clarifying question in line 12. In line 3, after her emotive display “ugh”, Denise pauses and then inserts the discourse marker “alright” which can signal a change of subject (Swan 1995), but in this case it signals her yielding to the change I initiated (Downing and Locke 2006). Having sent this signal, Denise then proceeds to describe the girlie girl by using a friend she mentioned in previous conversation as a prototype – “like the same one”. It is the rephrasing that follows that is significant. Denise begins to clarify which friend she is referring to, “the same one who takes”, but then stops abruptly and says “who left me”. She then labels this friend using the impolite, “the bitch9”, which draws loud laughter from the group. Her rephrasing here changes the focus from a description of the girlie girl, which would have answered my question directly, to a reintroduction of the offensive behaviour – her friend left her waiting at a night club to spend more time with a strange man – which she said caused an incident of conflict between her and her friend. Denise’s redesign of her message in line 3 of Fragment One suggests a change of focus with the function of a contextualisation convention, which, especially in its place at the beginning of Denise’s description of the girlie girl, works as a signal that orients the group to the complexity of the attitude and identity in play in the conversation (Gumperz 1982; Auer 2002). Denise primes the group to interpret the girlie girl as even more unacceptable because of how the gender- 20 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness marked insult “bitch” is layered onto Denise’s subsequent characterisation and evaluation of the girlie girl. Denise in Fragment Two below also constructs herself as feminine atypical and masculine. Denise constructs herself as masculine in terms of her physical appearance, the role she performs in her peer group and her preference for certain alcoholic drinks. In terms of appearance, Denise perceives herself as masculine because she is tall – “the “giant lady” – in comparison to her diminutive friends who are “cute”, “little”, and “fru fru10” (line 1). Denise also perceives herself as masculine because she takes on “the protector” role, preventing unsuitable men – “grimy fellas” (line 4), “yucky people” (line 16) – from pursuing her girlie girl friends. 21 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 Fragment Two Denise: Hhhhhh ok so we go out and they are like- they cute they little and they 1 and thing ((group laughs)) all of that fru fru thing right (.) I’m the giant lady 2 when we go out so I wear heels too so they are like little and then these kinda 3 grimy fellas 4 Sue Ann: [shhhew] 5 Cindy: [grimy?] 6 Denise: does wanna come on them and then I’s just be like ((folds arms, leans back and 7 looks stern)) and then they go- they watch me an’ then they like just like £turn 8 and walk off£ so yea::h they actually told me that the other night like horse 9 you’s real cock block I was like I’m protecting you all and they are like well (.) 10 >is ok< and then we have another friend who’s with us a lot, a guy, a::nd I’s like 11 well ↑????? don’t do anything↑ he’s like you all are big women if all you want 12 to go and palance yourself go an pala- an I’s like but no::::: you supposed to 13 protect them from these (.)= 14 Cindy: =Goons 15 Denise: yucky people ((group snickers)) that wanna come over and be all on them and 16 just like protect them a lot= 17 Sue Ann: =Yeah yeah 18 Denise: and I drink “manly” ((makes quotes with fingers)) drinks cause I like Scotch= 19 Sue Ann: [What’s a manly drink?] 20 Gina: =What’s a manly drink? 21 Denise: like I like Scotch and they like Vodka 22 Lauren: [Hard liquor] 23 22 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness It is evident that Denise perceives her hyperfeminine friends in line with one traditional and stereotypical perception of femininity, i.e. a woman who cannot protect herself from men. In her role as protector, her friends accuse her of intercepting their establishment of relations with men – “horse11 you’s real cock block” (line 10, Fragment Two). Thus, as “cock blocker” she can be said to function similarly to the traditional chaperone who is, stereotypically, an older female; or her actions may be interpreted as those of a male competing for the attentions of a female which is more in keeping with the modern slang meaning of “cock block”, which in Trinidad is used in the context of a bar, night club or party to refer to a man who stands in the way of another man’s sexual advances on a woman. Savannah: “I’m not the type…I’m pretty hardcore on the inside” Savannah, in Fragment Three below, also shifts between rejection and acceptance of the girlie girl feminine identity, conveying a sense of ‘I am but I’m not’. In lines 1, 2, 6, 10, and 12 Savannah distinguishes herself from the girlie girl through the use of negation. The first part of each phrase contains a complete or contracted negative verb form – “I’m not the type” (repeated twice in lines 1 & 2), “I do not like” (line 6), “I don’t like” (line 10), “I don’t need” (repeated three times in lines 10 & 12). These encode Savannah’s negation and convey her perception of herself as distinct from that which characterises the girlie girl – “the nails” and “the hairstyles” (line 2), “primping and prepping” (line 6), “shopping” (lines 7 & 10), needing “nice things” and “fancy things” (lines 10 & 12), “threading in the latest fashion” (line 14). Her complete phrase in each of these lines functions as a negative declarative which has the force of rejection (Downing and Locke 2006). 23 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 Fragment Three Savannah: in terms of femininity I would say (0.2) hmm (.) well I’m not the type 1 to do up the nails (.) I’m not the type to have the hairstyles even 2 though people say my hairstyle change every time they see me but is 3 just that I (.) I can’t have something for too long (.) I like change 4 Sue Ann: Right 5 Savannah: But I’m not into primping and prepping myself as a typical girl (.) I do 6 not like shopping 7 Sue Ann: Oh dear ((group laughs)) 8 Madison: [Hear hear] 9 Savannah: I don’t (.) I don’t like shopping and I don’t need the nice things I don’t 10 Madison: [I need 11 Savannah: need the fancy things or whatever whatever I don’t need to be 12 Madison: the nice things I just don’t want to shop for them] 13 Savannah: threading in the latest fashion and all of those I just want to be 14 comfortable and I’m comfortable with the simplest stuff 15 Savannah does not articulate any particular feminine identity as representative of self. In fact she seems to still be thinking about this as she stalls in line 5 of the fragment, “in terms of femininity I would say, hmm, well”, her tentativeness evident in her use of the vocal filler “hmm”, hedge “well” and long pause as she takes time to decide what she “would say” about her femininity. When she describes herself she constructs her preferences as idiosyncratic and gender neutral – “I can’t have something for too long”, “I like change”, “I just want to be comfortable” – the “just” in the last phrase indicates that nothing more than personal taste constitutes her. She does not use the word “type” as she did when characterising the girlie girl and thus does not invoke the relevance of a particular prototypical or stereotypical social identity. 24 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness But even as she does not articulate the substance of her femininity, Savannah makes it clear that she is not the girlie girl since she neither “likes” nor “needs” the things associated with girlie girls. Her rejection of the girlie girl appears just as emphatic though not as emotive as Denise’s rejection because the repeated pattern of her phrases, e.g. “I’m not the type” or “I don’t need”, in each of the above lines and the repetition of the negative verb forms, e.g. “I do not, I don’t”, intensifies the import of her negative statements. At the same time, like Denise, Savannah’s exclusion of girlie girl femininity from her gender identity is not quite complete. In lines 3 and 4 of Fragment Three above she acknowledges how she may embody one stereotypical marker of girlie girl femininity. Savannah says “though people say my hairstyle change every time they see me”, which indicates that even though she is “not the type to have the hairstyles” her hairstyle choices are significant enough to be noticed and possibly cast her as the type. “Though” in Savannah’s statement is a conjunction which conveys concession or emphasises contrast (Downing and Locke 2006; Swan 1995). Therefore, here Savannah’s language indicates that she concedes that the girlie girl feminine identity is relevant to her own identity, at least as far as it is perceived by others. In addition, her use of the distributive determiner “every” quantifies the number of times her hairstyle changes and, in its usage here, conveys the notion of generality or totality (Swan 1995; Downing and Locke 2006). What this does in the statement is to generalise hairstyle change as part of her performance of self thus making her “the type” to “have the hairstyles”. Savannah’s citation of how she may be perceived by others acknowledges the relevance of girlie girl femininity to her gender identity but does not constitute her acceptance of this femininity. Indeed, Savannah attempts to overturn the apparent relevance of the girlie girl to self by asserting a counteracting construction. She says “but” (a conjunction which introduces a contradictory idea) “is just that” or it is only a matter of personal taste – she “can’t have something for too long”, she “likes change”. However, her rejection of the girlie girl remains incomplete because her citation of how others may perceive her 25 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 sends a meta-message that her performance of self is not entirely unmarked by girlie girl characteristics, however stereotypical these may be. Incidentally, Madison’s talk in Fragment Two above also reflects some contradiction as she shifts between acceptance of one stereotypically girlie girl feature “liking nice things” and rejection of the equally stereotypical girlie girl practice – “shopping12” which tends to facilitate the acquisition of “nice things”. Madison’s talk draws attention to the instability of the stereotypical characterisation of femininity. Madison can quite comfortably admit that she is “the type” to like nice things but she emphatically agrees with Savannah’s dislike for shopping, cheering “hear hear”. In Fragment Four below, Savannah mirrors Denise’s speech act observed earlier by also constructing herself as masculine while reminding the group that she is still quite feminine. In this fragment Savannah explains an earlier assertion that she was more masculine than feminine. She claims – “I like” – what she perceives and believes the other group members perceive as normative masculine behaviour – “that hardcore what you know normally associated with guys” (line 1). The discourse marker “you know” conveys her assumption of shared knowledge and the adverb “normally” denotes “hardcore” – “playing video games” – as typical masculine behaviour. Fragment Four Savannah: I like all that (.) that hardcore what you know normally associated with guys 1 (.) I will play video games °£and whup their ass£° ((group laughs)) so::::::: I 2 guess that’s what’s masculine about me am I’m not afraid (.) to (.) romp (.) 3 with a guy (.) ((shrugs)) I’m just not (.) I mean (.) I look I look quite feminine 4 like (.) you know (.) but I I I’m pretty hardcore on the on the inside 5 26 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness Savannah also adds to her characterisation of self as masculine by citing her ability to compete with males and be triumphant – “and whup their ass” (line 2) – as well as her disregard for feminine containment when interacting with males – “I’m not afraid” (line 3). In line 3 of Fragment Four Savannah states that “she’s not afraid to romp with a guy”, she is “just not” (line 4). Here Savannah attempts to qualify her assertion that “she is not afraid…” but she does not introduce any new information, rather she adds emphasis through repetition of an ellipsis of her original statement. Her use of “just” quantifies her lack of fear as absolute, she is nothing more than fearless. Her shrug indicates her inability to determine any alternative explanation as relevant. What is important is that Savannah’s insistence that she is “not afraid to romp with guys” conveys the idea that she is brave enough to breach a prohibition cast against women and girls, i.e. “romping with guys” is not gender appropriate. Not being afraid to “romp”, not being afraid to engage in aggressive play with guys can only be extraordinary because she holds this attitude as a member of the female/feminine in-group and not a member of the male/masculine in-group. Though there has been much criticism of the idea, male bonding through aggression, e.g. coordinated fighting and hunting, hostility and displays of masculine strength, remains a stereotypical representation of exclusively male/masculine behaviour (Kimmel and Aronson 2004). Savannah’s dual construction of self is also clear in lines 4 and 5 of Fragment Four above where she sets up an inside/outside contrast, admitting to an embodied femininity – “I look quite feminine” – but claiming a masculinity that is internal – “I’m pretty hardcore on the inside”. Also through the use of the discourse marker “I mean” at the beginning of her phrase, Savannah indicates that she is clarifying the actual meaning she wants the group to interpret (Swan 1995, 156) – that she still recognises the stereotypical markers of feminine on self. Uncertainty is also a feature of Savannah’s talk and this indicates her ambivalence about her gender identity. From lines 1 to 5 Savannah pauses 27 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 frequently, she uses tentative language such as “I guess” (line 2), she hesitates (for example her lengthening of “so” in line 2) and her speech is not fluent because she appears to stammer – repeating “that” (line 1) “I look” (line 4) and “I” (line 5) – and hedges “you know” and “like” (lines 1 & 4). Farah: “I have my ‘dumb blonde’ moments but I don’t think I’m a girlie girl” Farah in Fragment Five below expresses a different type of rejection of the girlie girl. Unlike Denise and Savannah, Farah has claimed the girlie girl feminine identity as representative of her feminine identity. I encourage her to take the floor in line 1 because she is the only respondent who makes such a claim. But even as Farah claims to be a girlie girl she rejects that part of the girlie girl identity that all female participants are particularly wary of, the girlie girl’s supposed stupidity. Fragment Five Sue Ann: So let’s hear from the girlie girl or the self acclaimed- 1 Farah: I have many dumb blonde moments ((group laughs)) but I don’t I don’t- 2 Madison: [You see] 3 Farah: no pause (.) but I don’t think that’s because I’m a girlie girl I just think is 4 because I’m silly and I’m a clown and if you say something sometimes I 5 will just like be silly and not on purpose but sometimes (.) li::ke (.) u:::::h 6 what? (.) and it will come across as dumb blonde but is just I just think I 7 am clownish an’ silly 8 28 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness In earlier conversation the speakers used the nominalisation “the dumb blonde” to define the girlie girl prototype. Denotatively, “the dumb blonde” is a stereotype which constructs an exclusive ethnic in-group. According to Kuhn and Radstone (1990) “dumb blondes” are white women with blonde hair who are characterised by “overt ‘natural’ sexuality (of which they may or may not be aware) with a profound ignorance and innocence manifest in an inability to understand even the most elementary facts of everyday life” (47). They are historically stereotyped as attractive flirts, less intelligent and competent, dim- witted, and “reduced to another stereotypic subtype of female: the attractive, if lobotomised, nymphomaniac” because she might “otherwise pose a powerful sexual or emotional threat” (Greenwood and Isbell 2002, 342; Thomas 2003; Beddow et al. 2011). That these respondents find “the dumb blonde” stereotype relevant to them as non-white, non-North American/European females is not just the effect of the ubiquity of this stereotype but because of the way the “dumb blonde” character has been dehumanised and has been used to describe abstract ideas such as the universal subordination of Western women or a feminine syndrome with the main symptom being inherent stupidity (Barrat 1986; Hatfield and Sprecher 1986). Farah and her colleagues invoke the “dumb blonde” as a concept which connotes a generalised and subordinate femininity and ignore the ethnic/racial/national identities associated with the “dumb blonde”. Farah rejects in Fragment Five above the stability of stupidity or “profound ignorance” as a marker of her feminine identity. Farah insists that her “many dumb blonde moments” are distinct from her gender identity – “I don’t think that’s because I’m a girlie girl” (line 4). Though Farah constructs her “dumb blonde moments” as frequent, she stresses “many”, she also constructs it as fleeting or not sustained as part of her everyday performance of self. The noun “moments” in this phrase indicates that while she appears as a “dumb blonde” often this is only apparent at particular instances in time. Farah prefers to construct her “dumb blonde moments” as play – “I just think is because I’m silly 29 http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ UWI IGDS CRGS Issue 10 ISSN 1995-1108 and I’m a clown” (lines 4 and 5), a notion she reinforces in line 7 – “is just I just think I am clownish an’ silly”. Her repeated insertion of “just” in these statements that explain the cause of her behaviour fulfils the function of a focusing adverb which conveys a restriction of the scope of the referent (Downing and Locke 2006). It also diminishes the import of her statements. Farah also constructs her “dumb blonde” behaviour as unintentional or just play rather than a case of ignorance. As she explains it, her tendency to need clarification – “like uh what?” – is “not on purpose” (line 6), it is trivial – “I will just like be silly” (line 6). Like her peers, Farah is committed to her rejection. Her repetition of the restrictive “just” emphasises how irrelevant the “dumb blonde” stereotype is to her girlie girl feminine identity. In addition, Farah silences Madison’s confirmation of her admission of the relevance of the “dumb blonde” as she tells Madison “no pause” in line 4, cutting Madison’s collaborative overlap and preventing the conversation from following the direction indicated by Madison’s comment. Farah retains control of the floor to assert her particular position, i.e. while she is a girlie girl she is not the persistently “profoundly ignorant” “dumb blonde”. Sandy: “So I wouldn’t say I’m completely girlie girlie…sometimes I act like a fella13”. Sandy, in Fragment Six below, is able to blur the boundaries of hyperfemininity and achieve a greater sense of agency for herself. Before giving any details of her perception of herself, Sandy declares “I can’t really define which category I fall into” (line 1), then shifts between constructing her gender identity as feminine typical (citing how her femininity is embodied) and constructing herself as feminine atypical (citing her lack of dedication to cultivating an attractive appearance and her tendency to engage in male heterosexual mating behaviour). 30 Sue Ann Barratt: “I Am Not A Girlie Girl!": Young Women’s Negotiation of Feminine Powerlessness Fragment Six Sandy: I can’t really define (.) which category I fall un- into