**this is not the beginning of the essay, it's simply some definitions** To have a better understanding of this essay it's important to know what performativity is. Judith Butler's definition of performativity states that "the act that one does, the act that one performs is, in a sense, an act that's been going on before one arrived on the scene". In relation to gender, performativity "is an act which has been rehearsed, much as a script survives the particular actors who make use of it, but which requires individual actors in order to be actualized and reproduced as reality once again". By applying this concept to my essay I argue that like gender, masculinity and femininity do not "exist". They are traits that no one inherently possesses. The concept of femininity being natural within women and masculinity being natural within men is flawed because both are performative. They are largely perceived through one's mannerisms and the way they present themselves. This is opposed to femininity and masculinity being interpreted by one's biological gender. Arguing that femininity and masculinity are not performative essentially suggests there is a sex-linked basis to the traits; that the traits are innate to women and men respectively. Much like gender identity, masculinity and femininity in fact have nothing to do with biology. It has more to do with how someone looks and behaves. The concepts of masculinity and femininity are social constructs.
It's additionally important to understand what a signifier is. According to Butler, signifiers are signs and symbols that represent 'something'. Signifiers can be words, an object, a person, an action, and so on. Signifiers can be literal (e.g., a curly tail = pig, whiskers = cat) or symbolic (e.g., a heart, ♡, symbolizes love). "A signifier can never fully represent the ideal or entire concept" (Evoy). For example, in the case of my essay topic, confidence, aggression and strength are signifiers that allude to masculinity, but they do not provide a full representation of what masculinity is.
Due to the whitewashing of history and research, hyper-femininity among black women is rarely discussed. In this paper, I will argue that the theme of hyper-femininity among black women originates from slavery and normative white standards of beauty and femininity. I will explain how the internalization of racist white ideologies sustains the masculinization of black women. I will also touch on the performative aspect of femininity and how it’s used to combat the oppressive stigma of masculinity.
Masculinization is defined as the action of labelling a person as masculine because their appearance or mannerisms do not align with feminine standards.
“The history of the masculinization of black women can be traced back to slavery, [where] little effort was made to differentiate between female and male slaves” (Takinami, 94). The establishment of black women as analogous to black men permitted the expectation of equal productivity which benefited slave owners. Black women were expected to perform at equal levels as black men despite differences in physical capacity. Failure to comply resulted in punishments where black women faced equal treatment as black men to further reinforce that they are one and the same. As a result they “were not deserving of the same protections and respectabilities granted to “true women” ” (a.k.a., white women) (Takinami, 80). It was believed that black women ‘shared more similarities’ with black men than white women, nurturing the belief that they are innately masculine. This allowed slave owners to profit from the enslavement of both black women and black men.
While standards of physical stature vary through generations, “the dominant white male European standards that control the images and belief systems surrounding beauty and femininity have not” (Patton et al.). Black women have not been able to align with the “beauty, sexual morality, femininity, and womanhood” (Slatton) associated with white women. Traditional femininity is seen in women that are innocent, chaste, gentle, submissive and overall ‘weaker’ than men. These traits greatly contrast the ones displayed in the caricatures portraying ‘what black women are really like’. The jezebel, mammy, and sapphire administer traditionally masculine traits to black women. Black women are portrayed as angry, aggressive, hypersexual, immoral, loud, overbearing, sassy, and so on. Alternatively, white women have consistently been portrayed as innocent, gentle, submissive and lacking the sexual deviance that is supposedly intrinsic in black women. Because of this there is an internalized instinct to protect and respect; an instinct that is consequently only available to those with fairer skin tones.
The effect of caricatures on black women manifests in an association with certain masculine personality traits and physical characteristics; they portray black women as having masculine traits and features. The effect is seen in black women being called aggressive or scary when they stand up for themselves. When there is a reported altercation between women, black women are typically depicted as the aggressor whether or not they are the instigator. They are not provided the space to express discontent or defend themselves without it being perceived as an attack. When they express themselves in a big or loud way they are told to calm down because it has been internalized that these mannerisms from a black women are intimidating or aggressive. As a result, an overly feminine personality allows black women to be perceived as non-threatening and more approachable.
The intentional masculinization of black women essentially resulted in the naturalization of masculinity on the bodies on black women. Conversely, the traits, naturalized on the bodies white women, became signifiers of femininity. There is an inability to understand that these traits have actually been normalized as opposed to being natural in certain groups. This is because the traits have been so heavily normalized that they have become naturalized among their respective parties. As a result, society continues to view masculinity and femininity as inherent (natural) when it is simply normalized. The inability to distinguish naturalization from normalization in addition to the racist ideologies embedded within society has contributed to a lingering internalization that black women are inherently masculine. Because of these deep-rooted internalizations, a hyper-feminine persona and/or appearance is often adopted to deflect masculine perception.
Black women are the perceived as the physical opposite of white women who, based on historical standards, are the epitome of femininity. Femininity being rooted in whiteness “effectively locks black women outside of the definition of beauty, and thus outside of the confines of hegemonic femininity” (Slatton). Black women will never fit into standards of femininity and beauty because the standards were created to exclude them. This is evident in the overarching theme of light hair, light eyes, fair skin and softer features in traditional femininity. Black women’s features are deemed masculine when juxtaposed to white women whose features are deemed dainty and feminine. This results in black women who are unable to feel feminine or attractive without makeup or other external alterations. It can be linked to an internalization that their features are inherently masculine. In order to subscribe to traditional femininity black women face pressure to alter their appearance to fit daintier’ standards.
Hyper-femininity is defined as the use of make-up, hair, nails, clothing, and so on to exaggerate physical characteristics and behaviours, with the goal of being perceived as more feminine.
Society has defined the very existence of black women as unfeminine (Patton et al.). They are intentionally excluded from participating in normative femininity and beauty since traditional standards are heavily inclined towards white women. Since physical appearance plays a large role in the interpretation of masculinity and femininity, one has to adopt the signifiers associated with traditional femininity to be perceived as feminine. Because of this black women often resort to hyper-femininity as a way to physically prove to the world that they are ‘true women’. For example, they can reinforce their femininity by exaggerating smaller facial features through makeup. Makeup is something that is strongly associated with women and femininity, so by wearing makeup black women can establish an alignment with hegemonic femininity.
Black women can adapt their persona by adopting characteristics that distance themselves from masculine stereotypes. By presenting themselves as soft-spoken, and ‘calm’, black women align themselves with traditional femininity. Hyper-femininity can serve as an example of performativity among black women. The performance utilizes signifiers associated with femininity and beauty. Because femininity is performative, one can manipulate how distinct it is; it can be subtle or exaggerated. It is something that all women perform, but with black women the performance often has to be exaggerated to overcome the preconceived notion that they are inherently masculine. A hyper-feminine appearance allows them to attempt to reclaim the delicate femininity that is often exclusive to white women.
Blackness is something that continues to be labelled as masculine so things like dresses, makeup, long hair, and nails act as “an external adornment that [shout] femininity” (Patton et al.). For example, long hair is something often culturally correlated with femininity. Long hair is typically a signifier of femininity; short hair is typically a signifier of masculinity. Black women who are uncomfortable with their natural hair may wear wigs, weave and extensions to reinforce a feminine appearance. Their hair tends to be kinky, curly and appear short, typically because of shrinkage, making it difficult to embrace natural hair. This because of an internalized belief “that short hair might detract from their femininity” (Hillman, 165). Women who do wear their hair naturally may rely on accessories, makeup, or clothing to preserve a feminine appearance.
While black women were enslaved, white women were selected as the representation of beauty. Unfortunately, even today, society does not tend appreciate or desire black women without glamorization. This means that there is an elevated expectation for their appearance. This contributes to a reliance on material things to perpetuate femininity, not only for society, but often for personal validation. For example, a reliance on clothing that accentuates or creates an illusion of a womanly figure; a full face of makeup, hair and nails done because society perceives them as feminine signifiers. It is a constant battle to be seen as feminine and fashion can be a tool for dispelling correlations between race and masculinity.
To conclude my argument, the history of defeminizing black women originates from enslavement and stereotypes that force black women to rely on an exaggerated form of femininity. The juxtaposition of black features against white features is based on the standards where whiteness is the default for beauty and femininity. As a result, black women often have to exceed white normative standards to be perceived as beautiful and feminine.
*There are definitely more nuances contributing to the masculinization of black women that could be touched on in addition to points that can be further elaborated, but I feel as though this is enough without being too overwhelming :):)*
**may need to check spam folder for subscription link**
Lua's World 