West And Zimmerman Doing Gender

Gender studies concept

This article may lack focus or may be about more than than ane topic. In detail, information technology is only partly about the classic journal article of the aforementioned name. Please help amend this commodity, peradventure by splitting the article and/or by introducing a disambiguation page, or discuss this issue on the talk page. (June 2016)

In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the thought that gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a psychologically ingrained social construct that actively surfaces in everyday human interaction. This term was used by Candace West and Don Zimmerman in their commodity "Doing Gender", published in 1987 in Gender and Society. According to this paper, an individual'due south operation of gender is intended to construct gendered behavior every bit naturally occurring. This façade furthers a system through which individuals are judged in terms of their failure or success to meet gendered societal expectations, called the accountability construction. The concept of doing gender was later expanded by authors such as West and Fenstermaker in the book Doing Gender, Doing Difference.

Concept [edit]

The concept of "doing" gender came from conversations of gender from folklore and gender studies. The specific term "doing gender" was used in West and Zimmerman's article by the same title, originally written in 1977 just non published until 1987.^[1] W and Zimmerman illustrate that gender is performed in interactions, and that behaviors are assessed based on socially accepted conceptions of gender. Rather than focusing on how gender is ingrained in the individual or perpetuated by institutions, W and Zimmerman emphasize the interactional level as a site where gender is invoked and reinforced. They begin by differentiating sex from sex category and gender. In this piece, sex is the socially agreed upon criteria for being male or female person, usually based on an private's ballocks at birth or chromosomal typing before birth. Sex category is the assumed biological category, regardless of the individual'south gender identification. This is "established and sustained past the socially required identificatory displays that proclaim one's membership in one or the other category".^[i] ^: 127 Gender, in this context, is the degree to which an actor is masculine or feminine, in calorie-free of societal expectations about what is appropriate for ane's sex category.^[2]

Doing gender according to W and Zimmerman "is to advance a new understanding of gender as a routine accomplishment embedded in every day interaction".^[1] Substantially, West and Zimmerman argued that gender is something that humans created. As humans, we have categorized and defined many aspects of life. If someone was not in favor of their gender role or did something that was not accounted "correct" for that gender this person would be committing an act of social deviance.

West and Zimmerman proposed that the two main aspects of "doing gender" are gender operation and accountability.^[two] Hollander'south 2013 piece of work focuses on accountability, where she argues that it has 3 parts: "orientation", "assessment", and "enforcement".^[three] Hollander describes orientation as cocky-accountability to biological sex activity. Cess is explained as the process of measuring an individual's way of doing gender in comparison to their sexual activity. Hollander states that assessment holds people answerable to themselves and others. The 3rd part is enforcement, which is when someone is actively held accountable to societal norms.^[three]

Gender is described equally 'omnirelevant,' equally it is apparent and relevant in virtually every interaction. In their commodity, W and Zimmerman use examples such as bathrooms, sports, coupling, conversations, professions, and the division of labor to illustrate the ways in which gender is prevalent in many taken for granted activities. This clarification of gender's interactive nature is supported by Joshua and Kristin Smith (2016) where they explore what factors bear on the process of "doing gender".^[4] W and Zimmerman employ the example of a professional woman in a male-dominated field, through which information technology becomes credible that the adult female volition have to make decisions as to whether or not she should engage in "unfeminine" behavior that would otherwise be an integral part of her identity.^[2]

Some other component of this theory is gendered cess of behavior. In the above example, the woman is engaging in behavior that will be assessed as either masculine or feminine past her co-workers. According to W and Zimmerman, this woman volition be evaluated based on how her actions compare to accountability standards of the sex activity category she belongs to. Deviations from these expectations exercise not take an immediate issue on the accountability structure itself. Instead, failures to meet these standards are attributed to the individual rather than to the rigidity of recognized categories. With this theory, West and Zimmerman stress the importance of social interaction in maintaining the gender structure. Because individuals "do" and assess gender in interaction, gender is visible in a wide multifariousness of activities such as conversation.^[2]

Westbrook and Schilt (2014) support West and Zimmerman'south (1987) suggestion that determining gender relies upon cues provided through "doing gender".^[5] A 2016 article by J. Smith and 1000. Smith references the role of accountability and states that the act of "doing gender" is verified co-ordinate to established standards for a specific circumstance.^[four] Determining gender is regarded as a subjective behaviour based on an individual'due south personal views and experiences, according to the aforementioned sources.^[four] ^[5]

Foundations [edit]

The thought that gender is something that individuals actively 'do' was largely inspired by the social psychological approach taken by Erving Goffman (1976) in Gender Display.(p. 129) Goffman theorizes that humans make the assumption that each has an "essential nature," which can be interpreted past reading "natural signs given off or expressed past them" (p. 75). One of the most basic natures that can exist assumed from interpreting these signs is 1'due south masculinity or femininity. Not simply is gender ofttimes determined by others relatively easily, merely this determination oftentimes establishes the ways in which individuals collaborate with one another. Goffman asserts that, considering we habitually function within such scripts, they are taken to be farther evidence of essential natures. He coins the term "gender display" every bit a manner to conceptualize the means in which individuals act in a gender appropriate manner. Yet, these performances are optional and vulnerable to disturbance, as inappropriate gender display tin can simply equally hands be invoked equally socially accustomed ones. Goffman asserts that there is a "scheduling" of gender displays around activities, so that the activities themselves are non interrupted by gender displays. For instance, colleagues may collaborate in a gendered mode during their luncheon hour, rather than while they are working together on a projection. West and Zimmerman take consequence with this piece of Goffman's perspective, claiming that this masks the ways in which gender displays permeate most all social situations in that individuals cannot avoid being interpreted as masculine or feminine.^[two]

In the media [edit]

Media has a powerful influence over many aspects of mod life. The way gender is expressed and perceived by audiences varies from culture to culture. The linguistic communication within a culture every bit "the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis [states], notes how language influences our perceptions and thus shapes our reality."^[6] As linguistic communication evolves within a culture and new language is added, the gender identities are influenced and categories change. The influence of language and the significance it has oft communicated over media and the gender categories people use to identify gender roles in, may change or add new categories. There are other areas that gender roles and differences stalk from, "some researchers suggest that gender differences result from a diversity of factors including socialization and biology…gender roles are frequently manifested through communication and culture (Goffman, 1976; Lauzen et al., 2008; Wanta & Legett, 1989; Williams & All-time, 1990; Wood, 2009)."^[7]

Gender is something that is always out there whether we are mindful of it or not: "Gender identity and gender roles are a significant part of everyday life."^[7] On tiptop of this, gender roles help us make sense of our environment, they influence relationships and our own views. Since the social attribute of life is such an essential role and needs to be fulfilled, we are exposed to gender roles frequently and sometimes unconsciously, absorbing it if it fits with the category that society has influenced us to perceive it as.^[7] "In gimmicky media and civilization, women'southward and men'due south social desirability and gender ofttimes been defined in terms of their bodies. For women this has often involved comparing themselves to and even replicating the 'thin ideal'."^[7] These views like the 'thin ideal' are reinforced through media with advertising, actors, and Photoshop touchups. On the other end, men have been shown images of being extremely fit and muscular, unremarkably in a pose that expresses power, and the cultures values of what 'masculinity' is for a civilisation. "Gender-based definitions of success frequently revolve around presenting or developing their bodies as stiff, youthful, active and physically ascendant."^[7] These roles are promoted by society, with visual displays and traits assigned to specific gender roles.^[7] "Goffman (1976) accounts for these traits in his research of magazine and newspaper photography, finding women to be pictured in more submissive positions while men are depicted in more than elevated positions."^[vii] These depictions of gender are growing in certain trending shows and movies. Lauzen and colleagues (2008) examined gender roles in television, "they found male characters on prime number time television were more likely to inhabit work roles, including blue collar, white collar, and extracurricular activities, while women were portrayed in more interpersonal roles involving romance, friendship, and family."^[7] The mode gender roles are portrayed in Idiot box tin can spill into everyday life. Some other area that 'doing gender' is being expressed is in video games: "Female person characters are represented as highly sexualized while male person characters possess exaggerated forcefulness, are hyper masculine, aggressive, and, with the exception of showing hostility, lack emotion."^[7] The way gender roles are represented in video games adds some other influence that order has to have in and this can make people think that these fictional depictions can be obtained. This then creates perspectives used to categorize gender roles and every bit nosotros see others 'doing gender' we want to believe that we should be looking like these characters in games or actors in advertisements and T.V. "A number of studies, for example, have demonstrated all-encompassing 'gender-swapping' in 'avatar' creation for online gaming and in text based CMC."^[7] The increase in video games and in especially online environments let people to step into other gender roles, by 'doing gender' that may exist different in how they present themselves in existent life. These online environments allow users to shape their roles in gender.

Social media and dating [edit]

The rise of social media networks allows people to communicate globally and manage how others perceive them and how they choose to express their gender.^[seven] The increase of digital content in today's technology has influences over gender roles, "Digital formats…stand for heady possibilities for individuals who can explore the freedom of presenting a physical self that might differ from the ane they nowadays or perform in everyday life or form socially-defines expectations."^[vii] People volition put themselves into a office to await as though they fit in and to avoid embarrassment in case they violate a social norm.^[vii]

Responses and critiques [edit]

Judith Butler has written extensively on this topic, using the term "gender performativity".^[eight] She explains the same idea of doing gender by explaining gender equally a set of performative actions that people learn and attempt to recreate through actions and presentation.^[9]

The concept of doing gender has been critiqued past scholars who affirm that it does non take human agency and acts of resistance into business relationship.^[x]

In order to illustrate the possibility of change, several works have been published in which researchers merits to document an 'undoing' or 'redoing' of gender. Francine M. Deutsch, in "Undoing Gender" (2007), examines how the concept of doing gender has been employed in research. Deutsch uses examples of studies that use West and Zimmerman'southward work to illustrate how normative gender ideals are apparent in a diverseness of contexts. This, she argues, contributes to the invisibility of gender transgression and does not piece of work towards West and Zimmerman'southward goal of eliminating gender inequity. In social club to facilitate the undoing of gender, Deutsch suggests that "The written report of the interactional level could expand beyond simply documenting the persistence of inequality to examine (ane) when and how social interactions become less gendered, non just differently gendered; (2) the atmospheric condition nether which gender is irrelevant in social interactions; (three) whether all gendered interactions reinforce inequality; (iv) how the structural (institutional) and interactional levels might work together to produce change; and (5) interaction as the site of change" (p. 114). By focusing on these areas, Deutsch asserts, information technology is easier to find practical solutions to issues crusade by gender inequity.^[11]

Catherine Connell (2010) presented the idea of "redoing gender" as well as "doing transgender" in her piece of work, "Doing, Undoing or Redoing Gender?: Learning from the Workplace Experiences of Transpeople". Connell posits that transpeople may redo gender by altering normative ideas of gender in their interactions, but may simultaneously participate in the doing of gender in other means. Connell coins the term "doing transgender" in gild to provide a way to examine how transpeople must make sense of the disconnect between sex, gender and sex category, which they may obscure or actively express in interactions.^[12]

In January 2009, the academic journal Gender and Society published a West and Zimmerman Symposium, in honor of the concept of doing gender. Nine short articles were composed for the symposium, including a piece by West and Zimmerman. Several authors argued that the doing gender framework did not allow for agency, intent or consciousness. Other authors argued that biology needed to exist focused on when considering doing gender, in social club to understand what role the body plays in gender assessment.^[1] ^[13] ^[10] ^[xiv] ^[xv] ^[sixteen] ^[17] ^[18] ^[19]

W and Zimmerman responded with an article titled "Accounting for Doing Gender", in which they restated their original argument, with an accent on accountability. In this, they argued, the doing gender framework does non hide bureau, only contextualizes it. Because individuals' gender will exist interpreted based on the accountability structure, the effectiveness of their resistance may not serve to "undo" gender. The authors contend that gender may exist "redone" but never "undone", as accountability structures may change but gender will not disappear.^[1]

The 'doing gender' framework, developed by West and Zimmerman, is highly influential in housework inquiry.^[20] ^[21] ^[22]

A 2009 commodity by Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook expands upon West and Zimmerman's (1987) initial framework for "doing gender" by emphasizing how it is impacted past heteronormativity.^[23] They found that heterosexual norms were disrupted when biological sex and "doing gender" differed, due to the perception of a natural way to be male or female. The statement that arose based on these findings was that biological sex instructs people on how they should do gender.^[23] Sonny Nordmarken (2019) supports this argument by suggesting that people learn to express themselves based on the social expectation that gender and biological sex must friction match.^[24] He also discusses how people are taught to utilize physical appearance, such as secondary sexual activity traits, to determine other people's gender.^[24] Schilt and Westbrook (2009) suggest that the binary sex organization and hierarchical gender system lead to the process of "doing inequality"^[23] through "doing gender", with masculinity and heterosexuality existence anointed equally the desired, therefore privileged identities. They also explain that diverse fourth dimension periods and regions of the world take different standards and norms according to how the sexual practice and gender systems accept been enacted at that place.^[23]

Helana Darwin (2017) extends the "doing gender" framework to include challenges faced by nonbinary individuals within the binary gender arrangement.^[25] The writer references West and Zimmerman'south (1987)^[2] and Hollander's (2013)^[3] focus on accountability. She states that their proposed systems of accountability are used to justify the statement that "doing gender" is compulsory, however, Darwin contends that they fail to consider the impact of social change. Additionally, she critiques the focus on the gender binary in the original framework and other responses. The writer furthers Connell's (2010)^[12] framework past focusing on nonbinary gender identities rather than binary transgender identities. Darwin suggests that using the term "transgender" to encompass both binary and nonbinary transgender people fails to account for their dissimilar experiences in guild, particularly in regards to the gender binary. She argues that binary transnormativity prevents accurate gender expression for nonbinary individuals. Through her research, Darwin concluded that there are a multitude of ways one may "do nonbinary gender",^[25] largely due to the many different nonbinary gender identities. She discovered that some nonbinary individuals intentionally utilize conflicting binary gender signals to fluctuate between these binary categories. Much of Darwin'due south studies focused on genderqueer individuals, who she deemed disruptive to the accountability component of the "doing gender" framework. She argued that genderqueer people refute the conventionalities that anybody holds themselves accountable to the gender binary.^[25]

Nordmarken (2019) proposes the idea that social interactions are not just significant in "doing gender", simply too in "undoing gender".^[24] In drawing upon Due west and Zimmerman (2009)^[1] and Barbara Risman (2009),^[15] he acknowledged their argument that for gender to truly exist undone would be for it to accept no meaning. Both articles suggest that reproductive expectations associated with biological sexual practice would remain intertwined with gender identity. Due to this, they discuss the idea of "redoing gender" instead.^[1] ^[xv] Nordmarken critiques these works for failing to consider "doing gender" outside of a hegemonic framework, which excludes populations who do not hold themselves answerable to binary ideals. The writer explored "doing gender" through a "queer trans paradigmatic"^[24] lens where he observed people being immune to inform others of their identity, rather than having others making assumptions based on body-related cues. In particular, he reported the bear upon of pronouns on "doing gender". He suggested that using pronouns de-emphasize people's accountability to gender-related social standards, lessening the importance of gender norms and assumptions. He references the replacement of the body by pronouns for doing and interpreting gender equally the queering of "doing gender". Nordmarken's focus on pronouns has added another layer of accountability to the "doing gender" framework where individuals are held accountable for proper pronoun usage. This direct opposes accountability to societal norms, providing a more collaborative, fluid approach to the "doing gender" framework.^[24]

Doing difference [edit]

Doing difference is a concept^[i] that grew out of the authors' before thought of "doing gender", presented at the American Sociological Association in 1977 by Candace West and Don Zimmerman and published in Gender and Gild in 1987.^[2] In 1995, Candace West and Sarah Fenstermaker identified gender, race, and class as the 3 fundamental ways of categorizing social difference.^[26] They sought to extend the idea of gender as an ongoing interactional process into the realms of race and class past asserting that the intersection of these 3 categories could not be thought of in strictly a mathematical or hierarchical sense.^[26] That is, equating these concepts to variables in a statistical model tasked with predicting life success in guild volition issue in an inadequate understanding of systemic inequalities based on race, class, and gender.

The authors likewise highlight how simply placing communities facing immense social disadvantages, such as poor black women, at the bottom of an abstruse listing of vulnerable populations in the Us offers little information about how the interaction of race, class, and gender constrains and directs diverse aspects of their lives. Their assay of these cadre differences from an ethnomethodological standpoint shifts the focus away from individual characteristics. Instead, they are understood processually every bit "emergent properties of social situations"^[26] which simultaneously produce systematically different outcomes for social groups and the rationale for such disparities.

The authors affirm that the reason race and class were non adequately considered in earlier works is considering the feminist movement has historically been the province of white middle grade women in the developed earth who were non sufficiently affected or attuned to the nature of these corollary oppressions. Furthermore, few women exterior this privileged lot were able to proceeds access to institutions of higher pedagogy, which might accept permitted them to engage in the academic soapbox and activity well-nigh such shortcomings. Even if they had, the gatekeepers within the academy and at leading journals fabricated this unlikely procedure even more difficult. Perhaps overt racism and classism (and sexism) is less apparent today in these institutions, but the tendency remains for those in positions of power to view the world in a style that discounts the experience of marginalized groups.

The fundamental theme of "difference" in this article intends to illustrate how the concepts of race and gender have been falsely conceived equally biologically jump predictors of behavior and aptitude among those who of a certain skin color or sex.^[26] The commonalities within these somewhat capricious categories often exaggerated and the behavior of the near dominant grouping within the category (eastward.g. rich white men or women) becomes idealized as the only advisable way to fulfill one social role. This conceptualization is then employed every bit a means of excluding and stigmatizing those who do not or cannot live up to these standards. This process of "doing difference" is realized in abiding interpersonal interactions that reaffirm and reproduce social structure. Experiencing the world through the interaction of these "essentialized" characteristics and specially through dominant group'south frame of reference (ability interests) produces a pattern of idea and behavior that reproduces these social inequalities. This theme has been further addressed by Karen Pyke and Denise Johnson (2003) where they integrated the concept of "doing gender" with the written report of race.^[27] They explicate that beingness part of racially or ethnically marginalized communities can lead to conflicting gender expectations from society and their own cultural values. The authors land that white society manufactures and normalizes racialized gender stereotypes for non-white populations. They reference how the ambitious images associated with Black women pb to the belief that they are not feminine enough, whereas the submissive representation of Asian women results in their hyperfeminization.^[27] The authors suggest that white dominance is reinforced using these derogatory representations of racialized individuals to manipulate them into "doing gender" in a way that emulates the arcadian, white standards. Pyke and Johnson (2003) conducted a study with one section focused on how Asian American women do gender differently depending on their setting.^[27] These respondents viewed white femininity as the standard, with many citing mainstream guidelines which oftentimes glorify white femininity compared to Asian femininity. The authors also discovered how the hypermasculine representation of Asian men allow white men to exist viewed as less oppressive. Pyke and Johnson (2003) focused on the influence internalized oppression has on how racially and ethnically marginalized populations "practise gender".^[27]

West and Fenstermaker (1995) country that social science inquiry has rendered dubious whatever merits that race can merely exist conflated with color; gender with genitalia; class with paycheques.^[26] The authors acknowledge that class appears less prone to ideas about natural social differentiation, but contend that within backer societies, it is often assumed that i'due south economic state of affairs acts as a straight indication of 1's capacity to accomplish, further engraining sexist and racist assumptions. Given the general ascertainment that powerful groups brandish heavy reliance on these ideas of natural subordination, many liberationist thinkers have concluded that this essentialism would be a prime rhetorical vehicle to subvert. Thus, the deconstruction of role theory and functionalism inside sociology was a central theme from the 1960s onward. This notwithstanding left a somewhat gaping theoretical vacuum, ane that continues to exist felt by people struggling with the challenge of fundamentally altering their social cosmology.

Social constructionism has assumed the major explanatory role in these discussions by positing that the meanings of these supposedly ascribed statuses are in fact situationally dependent on the sort of social context in which nosotros employ them. That is, race, class, and gender aren't but objective scientific facts, just dynamic processes of culturally constructing cues for moral behavior (for which 1 can be held personally answerable) in a particular circumstance. It is these constantly occurring processes, not a divinely decreed grand programme, which reproduces social structure. Individuals "do difference" when they acknowledge (knowingly or unknowingly) how their categorization renders them socially answerable to acting in a detail way in a state of affairs. However, when individuals recalibrate "doing difference" to produce alternative ways to anticipate interaction patterns, it amounts to social change.^[26]

Run into also [edit]

Judith Butler
Gender performativity
Social structure of gender

References [edit]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h West, Candace; Zimmerman, Don H. (February 2009). "Accounting for doing gender". Gender & Society. 23 (1): 112–122. CiteSeerX10.1.1.455.3546. doi:ten.1177/0891243208326529. S2CID 146342542.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^east ^f ^yard West, Candace; Zimmerman, Don H. (June 1987). "Doing gender". Gender & Society. i (two): 125–151. doi:x.1177/0891243287001002002. JSTOR 189945. S2CID 220519301. Pdf.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hollander, Jocelyn A. (2013). ""I Demand More of People: Accountability, Interaction, and Gender Change"". Gender and Society. 27 (1): v–29. doi:x.1177/0891243212464301. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 23486615. S2CID 145382164.
^ ^a ^b ^c Smith, Joshua S.; Smith, Kristin E. (2016). "What it Means to Do Gender Differently: Understanding Identity, Perceptions and Accomplishments in a Gendered World". Humboldt Journal of Social Relations. 38: 62–78. ISSN 0160-4341.
^ ^a ^b Westbrook, Laurel; Schilt, Kristen (2014). "Doing Gender, Determining Gender: Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System". Gender and Club. 28 (1): 32–57. doi:10.1177/0891243213503203. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 43669855. S2CID 146382206.
^ McGrath, Karen (2014). "Educational activity sex, gender, transsexual, and transgender concepts". Communication Teacher. 28 (2): 96–101. doi:10.1080/17404622.2013.865764. S2CID 144018473.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^fifty ^{one thousand} Rose, Jessica; Mackey-Kallis, Susan; Shyles, Len; Barry, Kelly; Biagini, Danielle; Hart, Colleen; Jack, Lauren (2012). "Face information technology: the bear on of gender on social media images". Communication Quarterly. 60 (five): 588–607. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.725005. S2CID 54211699.
^ Judith Butler (June 2011). Your Behavior Creates Your Gender (Video). Big Think. Retrieved 4 May 2016.
^ Butler, Judith (1990). "Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory". In Example, Sue-Ellen (ed.). Performing feminisms: feminist critical theory and theatre. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 278. ISBN9780801839696.
^ ^a ^b Vidal-Ortiz, Salvador (Feb 2009). "The figure of the transwoman of color through the lens of "doing gender"". Gender & Society. 23 (i): 99–103. doi:x.1177/0891243208326461. S2CID 143693702.
^ Deutsch, Francine One thousand. (February 2007). "Undoing gender". Gender & Society. 21 (ane): 106–127. doi:10.1177/0891243206293577. S2CID 220442752. Pdf.
^ ^a ^b Connell, Catherine (February 2010). "Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople". Gender & Guild. 24 (1): 31–55. doi:10.1177/0891243209356429. S2CID 145275500.
^ Jurik, Nancy C.; Siemsen, Cynthia (February 2009). ""Doing gender" equally canon or agenda: a symposium on Due west and Zimmerman". Gender & Lodge. 23 (1): 72–75. doi:10.1177/0891243208326677. S2CID 144468830.
^ Smith, Dorothy E. (February 2009). "Categories are not enough". Gender & Society. 23 (ane): 76–lxxx. doi:10.1177/0891243208327081. S2CID 144473680.
^ ^a ^b ^c Risman, Barbara J. (February 2009). "From doing to undoing: gender equally we know it". Gender & Gild. 23 (1): 81–84. doi:10.1177/0891243208326874. S2CID 144997602.
^ Messerschmidt, James W. (February 2009). ""Doing Gender": the impact and hereafter of a salient sociological concept". Gender & Order. 23 (i): 85–88. doi:10.1177/0891243208326253. S2CID 144971443.
^ Jones, Nikki (February 2009). ""I was aggressive for the streets, pretty for the pictures": gender, difference, and the inner-city girl". Gender & Society. 23 (1): 89–93. doi:10.1177/0891243208326676. S2CID 144121901.
^ Kitzinger, Celia (February 2009). "Doing gender: a chat analytic perspective". Gender & Society. 23 (1): 94–98. doi:10.1177/0891243208326730. S2CID 143104943.
^ Connell, Raewyn (February 2009). "Accountable carry: "Doing gender" in transsexual and political hindsight". Gender & Order. 23 (1): 104–111. doi:ten.1177/0891243208327175. S2CID 144915358.
^ Brines, J. (1994). Economical dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Periodical of folklore, 100(3), 652-688.
^ Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economical dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the abode: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family unit, 62(two), 322-335.
^ Kolpashnikova, K. (2018). American househusbands: New time use evidence of gender brandish, 2003–2016. Social Indicators Inquiry, 140(iii), 1259-1277.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Schilt, Kristen; Westbrook, Laurel (2009). "Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: "Gender Normals," Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality". Gender and Society. 23 (4): 440–464. doi:10.1177/0891243209340034. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 20676798. S2CID 145354177.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Nordmarken, Sonny (2019). "Queering Gendering: Trans Epistemologies and the Disruption and Production of Gender Achievement Practices". Feminist Studies. 45 (ane): 36–66. doi:10.15767/feministstudies.45.i.0036. ISSN 0046-3663. JSTOR 10.15767/feministstudies.45.1.0036. S2CID 182522215.
^ ^a ^b ^c Darwin, Helana (2017). "Doing Gender Across the Binary: A Virtual Ethnography". Symbolic Interaction. 40 (iii): 317–334. doi:10.1002/symb.316. ISSN 0195-6086. JSTOR 90011687.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^east ^f West, Candace; Fenstermaker, Sarah (1995). "Doing Difference". Gender and Guild. 9 (1): eight–37. doi:10.1177/089124395009001002. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 189596. S2CID 220476362.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Pyke, Karen D.; Johnson, Denise 50. (2003). "Asian American Women and Racialized Femininities: "Doing" Gender beyond Cultural Worlds". Gender and Lodge. 17 (1): 33–53. doi:10.1177/0891243202238977. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 3081813. S2CID 33823557.