Containing pariah femininities: Lesbians in the sorority rush process

Abstract

Mimi Schippers (2007) theorizes that hegemonic femininity operates in relation to and support of hegemonic masculinity. According to Schippers, hegemonic femininity is maintained by the containment of pariah femininities, gender non-conforming femininities that may contaminate the relationship between hegemonic masculinity and femininity. We extend Schippers’ theory by analyzing the containment practices that are used to manage pariah femininities by examining the containment of lesbians in the sorority life of a liberal arts college in the USA. Using interviews and focus groups with sorority members, we demonstrate the way sorority members engage in subtle containment practices such as silencing to prevent lesbians from joining their sorority.

Keywords

Femininity homophobia lesbian sorority women

RW Connell (1995: 77) defines hegemonic masculinity as ‘a configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees… the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.’ In her groundbreaking theoretical work on hegemonic femininity and multiple femininities, Mimi Schippers (2007) argues that there are multiple, hierarchical femininities that are constituted in subordinate relation to hegemonic masculinity (see also Pyke and Johnson, 2003). Schippers theorizes that pariah femininities, or undesirable and contaminating femininities, are contained to prevent their contamination of hegemonic femininity and its relation to hegemonic masculinity.

In this article, we analyze the containment of pariah femininities during sorority rush. Sororities, as female-only organizations that operate in relation to hegemonic masculinity, are a rich social location for the analysis of hegemonic femininity. The limited literature on hegemonic femininities suggests that it is not a parallel of hegemonic masculinity but rather operates in relation and subordination to hegemonic masculinity. We elaborate on Schippers’ argument by theorizing about how the containment practices used to subordinate pariah femininities operate in more nuanced ways than complete social exclusion. We examine the ways that members of sororities on a liberal arts college campus in the Southern USA enact containment practices of lesbians that maintain the idealized relationship between feminine sororities and masculine fraternities. These practices are more nuanced than complete exclusion and include containment within another sorority, closeting, and silencing lesbians. We also extend her understanding of how pariah femininities may contaminate social life by arguing that sorority members are afraid of the women embodying pariah femininities contaminating the whole group and other women within it.

We first give an overview of the literature on hegemonic femininity and containment practices of ‘inferior’ femininities and masculinities. Then, we provide background on sorority life and review existing literature on lesbians within sororities. Finally, we present findings from data collection and analyses that demonstrate three specific containment practices used to contain lesbians within sorority life: exclusion, closeting, and designating a sorority for pariah femininities.

Hegemonic and pariah femininities

Mimi Schippers (2007: 94) defines hegemonic femininity as ‘the characteristics defined as womanly that establish and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic masculinity and that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.’ Thus, hegemonic femininity contains within it the power relations between men and women. However, Schippers also suggests that there are subtle differences in the way hierarchies are maintained within masculinity and femininity. The existing literature on hegemonic masculinity focuses on the subordination and marginalization of inferior masculinities (Anderson, 2005; Kimmel et al., 2005; Messner, 2002). However, Schippers (2007: 95) theorizes that within femininity, non-hegemonic forms of femininity are contained, because these pariah femininities ‘constitute a refusal to embody the relationship between masculinity and femininity demanded by gender hegemony’ and are thus ‘contaminating to the relationship between masculinity and femininity’ and to ‘social life more generally.’ Thus, women who are labeled as sluts, aggressive, bitchy, or otherwise are excluded from social spheres where they may disrupt the interdependence of hegemonic masculinity and femininity. We extend Schippers’ theory and suggest these women are excluded because they may also damage or contaminate the hegemonic femininity of other women.

The foundation of hegemonic femininity in heterosexuality and the long history of conflation between gender deviance and homosexuality make lesbianism a potential pariah femininity. Indeed, lesbianism may be a ‘double threat’ to hegemonic femininity, as it may challenge hegemonic femininity through, in some instances, masculine women or through providing an alternative to heterosexual desire. Labeling someone lesbian, gay or derogatory versions of these identities can be used to stigmatize and manage individuals who are not maintaining the appropriate hegemonic femininity or masculinity (Pascoe, 2007). For example, within women’s sports, studies document how women struggle to manage the ‘lesbian stigma’ (Blinde and Taub, 1992; Festle, 1996; Griffin, 1998). This ‘lesbian stigma’ also demonstrates the complexities of contamination by non-hegemonic femininities. With the lesbian stigma in women’s sports, the presence of visible or suspected lesbians pollutes other women within all-female institutions and renders their gender and sexual orientation suspect (Blinde and Taub, 1992). Many women athletes perform a ‘female apologetic’ in which they emphasize their femininity and heterosexuality in order to manage this stigma and avoid the ‘lesbian stigma’ from spreading onto them (Festle, 1996). In her germinal work on college women and homophobia, Laura Hamilton (2007) found that heterosexual college women at a Midwestern research university excluded lesbians from their social circles due to the valuation of heterosexuality within the college erotic market and the fear that lesbian inclusion would decrease the desirability of heterosexual college women. Thus, hegemonic femininities may be sustained through the containment of pariah femininities like lesbians.

Understanding these containment practices is an important (yet undertheorized) component of understanding hegemonic femininity. Earlier scholars such as Judith Butler (1990: 178) have observed that ‘we regularly punish those who fail to do their gender right.’ But these ‘tactics used to police gender and sexual transgressions are themselves gendered’ (Schilt and Westbrook, 2009: 446). Although bodily aggression like physical assault and harassment is frequently studied as a way of subordinating inferior masculinities (Messner, 2002; Pascoe, 2007), social exclusion may be a more common type of containment for pariah femininities, regardless of the sex of the aggressor, as individuals are pushed and contained outside of a social group. Scholars have found that women expressed homophobia as a type of social distancing; women exclude lesbians from their social circles (Hamilton, 2007) or make visible lesbianism taboo (Literte and Hodge, 2012), which may or may not be accompanied by anti-lesbian attitudes. This social distancing was constrained by pressure on women to be ‘nice.’ This containment may not involve full exclusion of pariah femininities from a group but rather be discursive containment or hiding pariah femininities within a group. In discursive containment, the presence of pariah femininities may be silenced, hidden, or obscured within the organization. In this article, we expand the limited existing work on these containment practices to include discursive and closeting strategies for containment, along with the creation of pariah femininity groups to safely contain potentially-contaminating women.

Studying sororities

All-female institutions like sororities play an important and often overlooked role in contemporary college life in the USA. Sorority rush becomes a gate-keeping mechanism into sorority life,¹ dividing the initiated from the unworthy, as potential sorority members rush and attend events hosted by a sorority in hopes of ‘bidding’ on that sorority and being accepted as pledges. Pledges earn their membership through a trial period within the organization, which may or may not involve hazing, after which they become active members (or ‘actives’). The form that rushing takes depends on the size of the school, centrality of Greek organizations to campus life, campus administrative controls over rushing and pledging, whether or not the sorority is an affiliate of a national organization, and the region of the country.

Sororities are an ideal site to study the maintenance of hegemonic femininity and containment of pariah femininities. Not only are sororities significant women-only organizations but the conceptions of femininity supported by sorority life may extend beyond campus life due to the high social class of women involved in sorority life. Sororities are a gender strategy (Hochschild, 1989) in that ‘by joining a sorority, women engage, individually and collectively, in constructing themselves as women’ (Handler, 1995: 237). These sororities are ultimately complicit to male domination, and most white sororities are centered around heterosexual coupling and traditional gender roles (Berkowitz and Padavic, 1999; Handler, 1995; Rice and Coates, 1995). This focus on heterosexual matchmaking may foster homophobic environments. In one study, over 70% of the interviewed LGB Greek members reported derogatory, homophobic, or heterosexist environments within their sorority or fraternity (Case et al., 2005). Yet estimates are that 3–4% of sorority chapter members are lesbians and bisexual women, raising questions about how sororities manage these members (Case et al., 2005: 22).

This study used a southern Liberal Arts College (here known just as SLAC for reasons of anonymity) as a site for research; at SLAC almost one-third of students participate in Greek life on campus. SLAC sorority life mirrors sororities at other liberal arts colleges in the USA, where Greek life is closely managed by residential life staff, active members do not live in sorority houses, and hazing is strictly forbidden. However, there are limitations to the representativeness of this study. One major difference is that at SLAC, most sororities are local sororities and unaffiliated with nationally organized Greek organizations. However, the institutional structure of these sororities—rush as a gate-keeping mechanism, sororities as a long-lasting horizontal bond, and the relationships between fraternities and sororities—creates many commonalities between SLAC sororities and those at larger schools. The containment practices described within sororities may also be common in other smaller organizations run by women such as sports teams and school clubs.

The research for this article was conducted in the fall of 2008 and 2009, using a combination of semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 28 sorority women as research participants. The team of researchers included Stone, a university professor, and Gorga, an undergraduate student. The project initially began as an undergraduate research project conducted by Gorga and additional undergraduate researchers, and subsequent interviews were conducted by Stone and Gorga. There were many advantages to using well-trained undergraduates to conduct interviews with sorority members, including more detailed descriptions of sorority party life and attitudes towards lesbians. These interviews included semi-structured interviews that lasted between 45 minutes and an hour with eight sorority actives who were pledge and rush chairs in six different sororities on campus. These chairs coordinated all sorority activities around pledging and rushing. In addition, we conducted a more focused analysis of three sororities: the Omegas, who are most similar demographically and structurally to national sororities; the Kappas, considered to be a friendly and accepting sorority on campus; and the Deltas, a sorority described by many campus members as ‘the lesbian sorority.’ Collectively all three sororities account for 48% of all sorority members on campus and 10% of the larger female student body. This research project began as an undergraduate research project in which three undergraduates, including Gorga, conducted eight individual interviews with the Omegas. Pressed to finish the project before the university implementation of widespread changes in the sorority rush process, Stone and Gorga conducted two focus groups with the Kappas and Deltas to provide comparative information on rush and pledging practices of both sororities. This included studying a total of 20 women from these three sororities. Both interviews and focus groups included questions about the nature of rush, characteristics of the sorority, how sorority members were selected, whether there was a history of lesbian sorority members, and how lesbian rushees were handled during rush. Although we included questions about bisexuality within the sororities, sorority members focused disproportionately on lesbianism. Although we wanted to interview lesbian sorority members in current sororities, the few lesbian sorority members on campus were unavailable for interviews. Stone and Gorga coded transcripts separately using NVivo and then compared codes, along with writing and comparing memos on themes that emerged in the transcripts. Codes were then compared across sororities and between women to deepen the analysis.

Containment practices

The most explicit containment of lesbianism as a pariah femininity would be if sorority actives identified lesbians during the rush period and had an explicit policy for excluding lesbians from their sorority. In our interviews we found no cases of lesbians being forbidden from pledging a sorority, sorority actives being openly discriminatory, or lesbians who faced explicit and direct homophobia during the rush period. Women’s homophobia, however, is rarely direct and explicit (Hamilton, 2007). When we examined beneath the surface response of most sorority actives, we found a series of containment practices that contained and managed lesbianism within sororities. These containment practices were organized around the maintenance of hegemonic femininity within the sorority and the reputation of that sorority with fraternities. These containment practices included discouraging lesbians from rushing through discursive strategies about diversity and ‘good fit.’ The second containment practice was the silent or closeted lesbians who were managed within existing sorority rituals. The third containment practice was the creation of a separate sorority to contain pariah femininities.

‘She doesn’t fit here’: Lesbians and ‘good fit’

On the one hand, sorority actives stressed the diverse, open and accepting nature of their sorority. On the other hand, sorority actives repeatedly noted that a ‘good fit’ for their sorority was the most important element in rushing new members. Discourse around diversity can easily cloak inequalities within a group or organization (Ward, 2008), and ‘good fit’ can easily create a homogenizing effect on a group. Within these discursive strategies about valuing diversity and comfort with lesbians was a construction of lesbians as contradictory to hegemonic femininity by creating a masculine, aggressive, and uncomfortable presence that contaminated the sorority and potentially harmed that sorority’s reputation among fraternities.

Sorority actives appropriated the language of diversity projects to describe their sorority. Students at liberal arts colleges may be more exposed to both diverse individuals and diversity projects (Umbach and Kuh, 2006), along with being under scrutiny by college administration for their organizational practices. All rush chairs mentioned that the reason their club was different from all other sororities on campus was their diversity. However, this diversity discursively created a list of allowable differences within the sorority that would not contaminate the sorority. Both rush chairs and sorority actives were more likely to mention attitudes towards and frequency of partying more than any other kind of diversity within the group. For example, a Kappa senior described how ‘our club’s very diverse, like we said. We have girls who definitely like to go out and party, have fun, and then we have girls who don’t like to do that. And that’s fine.’ This sorority active goes on to describe diversity as including different attitudes and judgments towards partying. Other types of diversity included types of music they like, ways they dress, racial and ethnic minorities, different majors, extracurricular activities, and nation of origin. Only one group, the Deltas, described acceptance of women who are disabled, overweight, and/or lesbian as an important part of that diversity. Thus, discourse about diversity creates a list of allowable differences that can be accommodated within the sorority without contaminating or otherwise altering the sorority.

These discursive strategies about diversity thinly cloaked the real decision-making process for selection into a sorority, the ‘good fit’ or similarities between the rushee and the existing sorority actives. When sorority actives answered questions about how they decided who belonged in their sorority, they overwhelmingly mentioned good fit or ‘flow’ between themselves and the potential pledges. While none of the actives reported to have ever chosen a pledge based on appearance, several reported that they could know ‘instantly’ whether someone would fit in their sorority. One Kappa sophomore suggested that ‘I immediately know, like maybe five minutes into the conversation. Flow is flow.’ Part of this instant judgment was seeing themselves in someone else, relying on social homogamy instead of diversity. One Kappa active said that a good fit is when ‘you’ll see a lot of yourself in someone’ or want to make them your little sister. Other sorority actives mentioned that new rushees reminded them of their friends from home or other sorority sisters.

In the descriptions of this ‘good fit,’ sorority actives often constructed lesbianism as masculine, aggressive, and disruptive of the ‘flow.’ They used what Hamilton (2007: 160) referred to as ‘the language of taste.’ Hamilton’s interviewees used the ‘language of taste… rather than highlighting lesbians’ sexual preference as problematic, members cited differences in interests, personal styles, or social chemistry.’ When sorority actives mentioned lesbian rushees, they often suggested that such rushees would not ‘flow’ into the group, largely because of assumed masculinity. One Omega active described the issue with lesbians:

I think if a rushee came to me and she was wearing cargo shorts and a graphic tee and a necklace from Hot Topic and guys’ shoes without the funny laces that you get from Hot Topic that have stars on them or something like that, I would probably expect her to not really relate to me very well … but I first of all would be wondering why she’d be interested in the Omegas, and I’d also be wondering how would that exhibition of masculinity relate to the sorority?

For this sorority active, she would not be able to relate to the rushee in question because of (in this case) the subtle differences in clothing, and this inability to relate was assumed to be reciprocal. However, it was not just the masculine presentation of the lesbian that was problematic. All sorority actives described women within their sorority who were not gender normative (e.g. tomboys, liked wearing pants a lot, very ‘sporty’) and frequently described themselves as not feminine. When asked, sorority actives did not consider tomboy or less feminine heterosexual members of the sorority to be a threat to sorority life. However, most sorority actives interviewed automatically assumed that a lesbian rushee would be inappropriately masculine and disruptive. To be a lesbian was to make your femininity immediately suspect, according to these actives, a phenomenon which resonates with Schippers’ (2007) notion of pariah femininities and work by other scholars on femininity in sororities (Literte and Hodge, 2012). Many interviewees said that lesbians were allowed in sororities but that this experience was inherently ‘uncomfortable.’ At times, sorority actives stressed that they themselves would not be uncomfortable but that other parties, such as more conservative sorority sisters, fraternity men and other women on campus, would be dramatically uncomfortable. A Kappa rush chair suggested that it might be ‘weird’ to have a lesbian in the group during the pledging process since the pledge would be ‘spending all this time with all these girls together, and it’s the same thing as what they say about football teams where they’re all changing in the locker rooms together.’ Overall, she thought having a lesbian would be okay since it was a liberal school and a liberal sorority but wondered ‘if they would fit in with the rest of the girls.’

Lesbians were also at times considered incompatible with sorority rituals and bonding, which centered around a naturalized femininity and heterosexuality. Several actives suggested that a lesbian might feel uncomfortable if the members of her pledge class or sorority were discussing heterosexual sex or relationships. One member said ‘considering how much we talk about guys, maybe she wouldn’t want to join.’ One sorority active noted that ‘she’d have to understand that this is a group of women, which means that every once in a while we’re going to have to sit around and talk about makeup and clothing… Because that’s just something we do.’

In this description, femininity is naturalized as part of the sisterhood, as ‘just something we do’ naturally as ‘a group of women.’ And the category of ‘women’ is positioned as a proxy for normal, natural femininity, a positioning that constitutes the work of producing hegemonic femininity. For a few sorority actives it was the discomfort about lesbian involvement in same-sex eroticism that is part of sisterhood. One rush chair noted that in her pledge class they ‘made suggestive comments to each other all in fun, or we’ll hit each other’s butts or my pledge class, we grab each other’s boobs.’ In Laura Hamilton’s (2007) work, she describes these ritualized sexual encounters between women as motivated by the desire to get sexual attention from men; yet many of these interactions described by actives did not take place in the presence of men but were rather a type of ritualized, sexualized comraderie. However, women in our study had the same aversion to lesbian involvement in this ‘parodic lesbianism’ as in Hamilton’s study. One active explained that in these ritualized exchanges the actives involved ‘just assumed that we’re all straight and there’s nothing sexual about it… if someone were a lesbian, we couldn’t do that.’ The sorority active went on to explain that if the lesbian was touched in the ritual ‘we wouldn’t know how they took it’ and if the lesbian was touching others ‘it would feel like a guy doing it, like someone who’s potentially sexually attracted to me.’ Having a lesbian present for many actives made a ritual that they considered to be non-sexual sexualized, and a few women mentioned that it felt like having a man involved in an all-female ritual. Indeed, one sorority active declared that a lesbian was a kind of man due to her attraction to women and that her inclusion in a sorority ‘violates’ the premise of an all-female institution. This parodic lesbianism may function as a subtle kind of distancing and containment of the lesbian Other. In her work on fag discourse among adolescent boys, CJ Pascoe (2007: 60) suggests that ‘imitative performances’ served to reinforce adolescent boys’ own heterosexuality and masculinity. Jane Ward’s (2008) work on straight ‘dudes’ who have sex with men suggests that even same-sex sexual practices may be used to bolster heterosexual connections between men. In a contradictory manner, this parodic lesbianism may foster a heterosexual and feminine selfhood for participating women, or in this case a sense of group cohesion around heterosexuality.

Although no sorority active said their sorority would openly discriminate against a lesbian rushee, most actives hinted that the rushee in question would be treated differently. A few sorority actives thought it would be preferable if a lesbian rushee was transparent about her sexuality from the beginning, but they were clear that this transparency would come with a cost.

One Omega junior best described this potential different treatment:

I think they would try to look for more flaws about her to cover up the fact that she’s a lesbian and like trying to rush her like a normal girl. With a normal girl, you would sort of dismiss some things; you would look past some of her flaws if she seems cool and everything. But if she’s a lesbian … you might try to pinpoint every single thing that isn’t perfect about her, and try to use that like as a cover-up behind your resentment.

This Omega active maps out a more subtle style of discrimination in the approach towards a lesbian rushee. Like a few other actives, she describes subtle biases against lesbians, who are not like ‘normal girls’ (who are presumably both heterosexual and feminine) and thus would get special treatment during rush. This Omega suggests that the reason for this subtle treatment may be subconscious resentment, resentment that may center on the intrusion of pariah femininities that could contaminate her group. Other actives said they personally would not be opposed to a lesbian in their sorority, but they frequently discussed how uncomfortable their fellow sorority sisters and new sorority pledges would be. Sorority actives mentioned that there are women in their sorority who are conservative or religious and who would have a problem with the lesbian’s ‘life choices.’ This deflection may be one way that women’s homophobia is relational, subtle and contextual.

Schippers suggests that exclusion is the most common kind of containment, as pariah femininities contaminate the relationship between hegemonic masculinity and femininity. Direct exclusion was uncommon within these sororities; however, sorority actives used discourses about diversity to cloak decision-making about sorority rushees that privileges hegemonic femininity and social homogamy. Lesbians, regardless of their actual femininity, were considered unsuitable for sororities due to their inherent masculinity, which made them less relatable and more disruptive of sorority rituals.

The closet, the silence: Managing lesbianism within the sorority

Most lesbians in sororities at SLAC were not out during the rush process but rather came out later or remained closeted during their time in the sorority. In a national snowball sample of lesbian, gay and bisexual Greek members, only 22% of lesbian and bisexual sorority members were out to themselves or others at the time of joining a sorority (Case et al., 2005). Many scholars have mentioned the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy for gay and lesbian Greek members (Case et al., 2005; Literte and Hodget, 2012). Lisa Handler (1995: 239) has documented the effectiveness of silence and secrecy within sororities more generally as a way to ‘preserve the boundaries between themselves and other women, both Greek and non-Greek,’ but also notes that silence around lesbianism ‘is less consciously institutionalized and yet just as successful in maintaining boundaries.’ This secrecy may be magnified in historically black sororities, where the influence of family, religious, and community norms about homosexuality make the discussion of lesbianism taboo within sorority life (Literte and Hodge, 2012). Silence operates as a containment practice by both creating situations in which silence must be upheld and regulating when this silence could be broken. Silence maintained this relationship between hegemonic masculinity and femininity, leaving it unchallenged.

One form of this silencing was closeting or other ways of rendering lesbianism less visible. This silencing was reflected in sorority actives’ stories of coming out within their sororities and discussion of lesbian pride. Some sorority actives differentiated between vocal or out lesbians and ‘quieter’ lesbians. These sorority actives consistently mentioned that the inclusion of lesbians was most difficult within sororities when the sexual orientation was open and prideful, echoing similar findings by CJ Pascoe (2007) on the greater acceptance of non-political lesbians. One sorority active noted that it would be better if ‘she kept it more to herself… I could see a lot of the girls feeling awkward if she was like “I’m going to this protest” or like “I made out with my girlfriend yesterday.”’ In this case, the political and sexual aspects of lesbianism make lesbianism visible, but to keep lesbianism silent and ‘more to herself’ was to retain a façade of comfortable, assumed heterosexuality within the sorority, echoing similar findings by Literte and Hodge (2012). A few sorority actives equated lesbians being out and vocal within the organization as being ‘aggressive.’ One Omega suggested that ‘if she’s very aggressive about that, she’d be aggressive about other things, and we might not necessarily want that.’ Although many sorority actives wanted to know if a sorority active was a lesbian, they did not want to talk about it openly or constantly. It was better if it was relatively invisible. For example, most rush chairs stated that their sorority had a policy that women could bring female dates to sorority date parties. However, they said that if a woman actually did that, not only would there be gossip, but a few sorority actives stated that they would not want to see a lesbian active ‘making out’ with her date.

Almost all sorority actives differentiated between an out and open lesbian rushee and a lesbian that came out during the pledge or active period. Being an open lesbian could make a woman a bad ‘fit’ for the sorority, but women who came out as actives were far more acceptable. Although ‘chapters seemed generally unwilling to pledge or initiate a student thought to be lesbian or gay, chapter members demonstrated greater tolerance if the homosexual orientation of a brother/sister became known after initiation’ because ‘brotherhood and sisterhood tend to prevail over fear and prejudice’ (Case et al., 2005: 26–27). Delayed coming out may be a way of making sure the sorority active has accumulated enough ‘femininity insurance,’ similar to Anderson’s gay athletes who ‘had the chance to prove themselves before coming out, that they had essentially possessed enough of what I call masculinity insurance to be able to withstand the social sanctions of coming out publicly’ (Anderson, 2002: 865). There were moments in which this silence could be safely broken, particularly if it was safely contained within sorority rituals about telling secrets. Only one sorority active suggested that it would be a bonding experience if a woman came out while pledging whereas if a woman came out at rush ‘we would probably see you in a new light.’

It was much more common for a sorority to have a lesbian member come out after joining the sorority than to rush or pledge a lesbian. Once someone was within the sisterhood, according to one Omega, it was easy to ‘treat them the same’ as before they came out. But there was also a culture of silence around discussing these out lesbians within the sorority. One sorority active described a situation recently in her sorority where two members had a supposed sexual relationship and rumors of this relationship were spreading around campus. Both women were still valued members of the sorority, but it was a situation that was not openly discussed or acknowledged within the sorority. This sorority sister described the situation as ‘the giant elephant in the room.’ And indeed other sorority sisters described out lesbian sorority members as a situation where ‘we just wouldn’t talk about it.’

One way of containing lesbianism was managing the discursive space in which lesbianism could be discussed. This management came up in interviewee comments that lesbians should keep silent about their sexuality, that sorority actives would be silent and not talk about lesbianism within the group, and that it would be a taboo topic of discussion within the sorority. By containing lesbianism within sorority rituals, which were enacted long after sorority actives had gained enough femininity insurance within the sorority, talk about lesbianism was managed with clear boundaries. By diminishing the discursive space and keeping silent about actual lesbianism within the group, it prevented lesbianism from visibly challenging the relationship between hegemonic masculinity and femininity.

The lesbian sorority

One of the containment practices used within sorority rush was to push potential pledges to one sorority on campus that was branded ‘the lesbian sorority,’ the Deltas. This containment practice reinforced hegemonic femininity within sororities in contradictory ways. It created a space for lesbians within Greek life, kept lesbians out of many sororities, and created a cautionary tale for lesbian-inclusive sororities. The Deltas served as a place to include multiple pariah femininities, which alienated them from the relationship between masculine fraternities and feminine sororities.

The reputation of Deltas on campus was that they were the sorority that was most accepting of queer, bisexual and lesbian women. According to the Delta president, ‘We have had girls who’ve been lesbian or bi in the club, and so we get a reputation. Somehow that becomes that ALL of us are lesbian or bi. This is the “lesbian sorority.”’ This notion that the specter of lesbian sexuality may diffuse to all members of a group is fitting with the use of the ‘lesbian stigma’ within sports. There are some ways that the Deltas embraced this reputation for being lesbian-friendly; they were the only sorority to consistently mention open-mindedness towards lesbianism and bisexuality as an important trait for a potential pledge. According to one Delta active, ‘If someone is not open to people of other sexual orientations you would not find that person in Delta.’ Because there was an open and visible couple within the sorority, some Deltas considered the experience of those valued members (and future pledges) when selecting pledges. One Delta expressed concern that ‘we have two girls this year that are actually a couple… and I just wouldn’t want someone that wouldn’t be okay with that,’ although she was also concerned that lesbian inclusion would create drama within the group and be distracting.

The Deltas were not the only sorority who had out and visible lesbian or bisexual members and couples; however, the sorority was easily marked as the lesbian sorority because of its inclusion of multiple pariah femininities. Most Deltas mentioned that this reputation was strange, as several other sororities had dating couples within the group in the past yet escaped having a reputation as a lesbian sorority. One rush chair from another sorority discussed two lesbian active members who had recently graduated, emphasizing that the lesbian couple did not affect her sorority’s reputation, because fraternity guys thought the couple was ‘super hot.’ The input of fraternity members may matter greatly in constructing this reputation; indeed, fraternity men may find lesbians who embody stereotypical femininity less threatening thanks to the erotic value that men place on lesbianism (Louderback and Whitley, 1997). ‘Super hot’ lesbians may not challenge the relationship between femininity and masculinity that is a critical part of hegemonic femininity in Greek life.

We argue that the Deltas were easily marked on campus as the lesbian sorority owing to the sorority’s function as a containment location for pariah femininities on the SLAC campus. The Deltas included women who were typically rejected from other sororities, such as women who were fat, unattractive or disabled. According to one Delta rush chair, ‘I mean there are some girls in our [sorority] that I can probably guarantee you no other sorority would ever even thought of taking, just because of appearances and stuff.’ Other Deltas told stories of actives who were disabled who had been passed over by other sororities and accepted into the Deltas. The containment of multiple pariah femininities into one sorority may not happen on larger campuses with national sororities. However, on liberal arts college campuses, where sororities are more strictly regulated by the college administration, we posit that there may be more pressure for sororities to be accepting and diverse, and to find a place in the sorority system for each girl who wants to rush. This containment leaves the other sororities both free of concerns that lesbians have been excluded and free of potential contamination.

This use of the Deltas to contain pariah femininities placed them in an ambivalent location in the binary, hierarchical relationship between masculinity and femininity in Greek life. The Deltas described a reputation that they were partiers, ‘all fat and bitches,’ and prone to ‘raping or stealing straight women from their boyfriends.’ This relationship was disruptive to the existing relationship between masculinity and femininity in Greek life, particularly the reputation of stealing women from fraternity men. And parts of their reputation, such as being fat or bitches, confirmed their function on campus in the containment of multiple pariah femininities. One of the common summaries of sorority reputations was a rhyme, one variation of which was ‘Fuck an Upsilon, Date a Kappa, Marry an Omega,’ a rhyme through which men on campus communicated to the first year women which sororities were desirable, which were ‘good girls,’ and which were not. The Deltas’ consistent exclusion places them as outside the sexual system of fraternity men and sorority women, marking them as unfuckable, undateable and unmarriageable.

The other major part of their reputation, being heavy partiers, was complicated. On one hand, many Delta actives considered their reputation as partiers as a positive part of their reputation on campus and potentially balancing their lesbian stigma. Their partying reputation made them popular for mixers with fraternities. According to the Delta president, ‘It’s funny that when it comes down to it, a lot of the frats really like partying with us… if only that partying part of our reputation would just get out more.’ The Deltas did indeed have the lowest Grade Point Average of all the sororities and considered the desire to party to be an important quality for new pledges. They were recognized on campus as the heaviest drinkers. This reputation for partying was exemplified in the SLAC shot glass –a tall glass with notches denoting the amount of alcohol each sorority and fraternity can handle. The Deltas’ notch is well above all other Greek organizations, sororities and fraternities alike.

However, the Deltas’ location as a sorority that could out-party even fraternity men contributed to their location outside the relationship between femininity and masculinity in Greek life. In the College Prowler, a gossip and rumor book, for SLAC it notes that the Deltas ‘can outdrink any frat or sorority on campus, though their waist line often pays the price.’² Actives from other sororities also mentioned this reputation of the Deltas as being more ‘aggressive,’ an unacceptable masculine trait for sorority women. There were consequences during rush for the Deltas for their marginal location in the Greek system. The biggest consequence mentioned by the Deltas during interviews and focus groups was problems getting first-year students to rush the sorority. The last pledge class for the Deltas was almost entirely sophomores, unusual on a campus in which students typically rush their freshman year. Deltas consistently said that this problem in rushing was due to the Deltas’ reputation.

At SLAC, the Deltas served as both a containment mechanism and a cautionary tale. Men, particularly fraternity men, were central to concerns about how lesbian inclusion would affect sorority reputation. Whether or not fraternity men believed a sorority’s members were hot or fun to party with was a significant component of a sorority’s reputation. Several other sorority actives expressed concern that if their sorority was too lesbian friendly they would have the same reputation as the Deltas, which echoes research done on how sorority members are concerned with having too many lesbian members (Literte and Hodge, 2012). One Omega sorority active noted that if their sorority had a visible lesbian member, the sorority’s ‘reputation would change, because look at the Deltas. They had, like, one lesbian and now they’re known as “the lesbians.” It’s not fair.’ Similar to the way the word ‘fag’ in name-calling is used to regulate gender conformity among men (Pascoe, 2007), the ‘lesbian stigma’ is a mechanism to regulate gender conformity in female institutions, such as women’s sports teams (Blinde and Taub, 1992).

This particular containment practice serves to simultaneously include pariah femininities in a sorority system that is supposed to embrace diversity and safely contain these femininities away from other sororities, preventing the contamination of other sororities. This particular containment practice for sororities may not operate on larger campuses or with national sororities. At SLAC it may be a response to regulation by campus administrators to be inclusive and non-discriminatory. However, it may happen among other single-sex organizations. For example, sports teams, certain teams may be targeted as the lesbian team.

Containment practices and pariah femininities

The containment practices to manage lesbianism as a pariah femininity included subtle exclusion of lesbians from sororities. Although the marginalization of subordinate masculinities can occur through verbal and physical abuse (see Messner, 2002), pariah femininities were more likely to be contained through the ‘language of taste,’ discrimination that was cloaked in a discourse about the importance of diversity. By using ‘good fit’ to select pledges, members desired social homogamy, and this reproduction of similar members sheds light on their wishes to keep the sorority as it is in its homogenous state. The second containment practice was using silence, closeting and containment within sorority rituals. This containment practice has been documented in women’s sports teams, where lesbian athletes are encouraged (and at times mandated) to have ‘deep closets’ (Griffin, 1998). Silencing and hiding lesbianism leaves the relationship between hegemonic femininity and masculinity unchallenged. The third containment practice was designating one group to hold all pariah femininities. By designating one sorority as the ‘lesbian sorority’ and a container for multiple pariah femininities, other sororities remained untarnished. The existence of a pariah sorority made it possible for women of all types to join a sorority at SLAC, while allowing other more feminine sorority women to exclude and usher undesirable women away from their organizations in subtle yet purposeful ways.

These containment practices are critical for understanding how hegemonic femininity operates in relation to pariah femininities. Consistently throughout this study, sorority actives expressed concern that lesbians would disrupt sorority life through an assumed masculinity that supposedly manifests in aggressiveness and predatory behavior. The consequences of including a lesbian in their sorority included the disruption of rituals and same-sex touching within sorority life, particularly sorority rituals such as parodic lesbianism which reinforce women’s sense of heterosexuality and femininity. Lesbians could also potentially contaminate the sorority in question; if their presence was too visible or coupled with other pariah femininities within the sorority, the sorority could become like the Deltas, a ‘lesbian sorority’ removed from the relationship between masculine fraternities and feminine sororities on campus. This research extends Mimi Schippers’ work to suggest that some containment practices may be motivated by concern that pariah femininities will contaminate the hegemonic femininity of other women in a group.

This research also contributes to the broader study of women and homophobia. We concur with Hamilton (2007: 146) when she argues that ‘women’s homophobia remains obscured when conceptualizing homophobia as a singular phenomenon.’ The larger literature on women’s sexuality suggests that women, especially young women, are more free to sexually experiment, less constrained by homophobia in their intimacy with female friends, and more sexually fluid (see Diamond, 2008). However, this research suggests that women’s homophobia may be more subtle and indirect than men’s homophobia.

These findings may have limited applications to national sororities on large campuses, where sorority actives have to navigate the regulation of national governing bodies. Greek organizations on liberal arts colleges are instead regulated heavily by campus administration, which may account for the use of discourses of diversity within sorority rhetoric. However, these containment practices may exist within other women’s groups, such as sports teams and social cliques.

Footnotes

Funding

We are very grateful to Trinity University Academic Affairs for funding the research for this article.

Acknowledgements

This research could not have been completed without research assistance by Jacki Welsh and Adriene Hassoldt, feedback from Carla Pfeffer.

Notes

Amy L Stone is Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. Her book, Gay Rights at the Ballot Box, is the first historical study of anti-gay ballot measures and their impact on the LGBT movement.

Allison Gorga is a PhD student at the University of Iowa.

References

Anderson

(2002) Openly gay athletes. Gender & Society 1(6): 860–877.

Anderson

(2005) In the Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Berkowitz

Padavic

(1999) Getting a man or getting ahead. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 27(4): 530–557.

Blinde

Taub

(1992) Women athletes as falsely accused deviants: Managing the lesbian stigma. Sociological Quarterly 33(4): 521–533.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.

Case

Hesp

Eberly

(2005) An exploratory study of the experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual fraternity and sorority members revisited. Oracle 1(1): 15–31.

Connell

(1995) Masculinities, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Diamond

(2008) Sexual Fluidity:Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Festle

(1996) Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports, New York: Columbia University Press.

10.

Griffin

(1998) Strong Women, Deep Closets: Lesbians and Homophobia in Sport, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

11.

Hamilton

(2007) Trading on heterosexuality: College women’s gender strategies and homophobia. Gender & Society 21(2): 145–172.

12.

Handler

(1995) In the fraternal sisterhood. Gender & Society 9(2): 236–255.

13.

Hochschild

(1989) The Second Shift, New York: Viking.

14.

Kimmel

Hearn

Connell

(2005) Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Literte

Hodge

(2012) Sisterhood and sexuality: Attitudes about homosexuality among members of historically black sororities. Journal of African American Studies 16(4): 674–699.

16.

Louderback

Whitley

BE (1997) Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The Journal of Sex Research 34(2): 175–182.

17.

Messner

(2002) Taking the Field, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

18.

Pascoe

(2007) Dude You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School, Berkeley: University of California Press.

19.

Pyke

Johnson

(2003) Asian American women and racialized femininities. Gender & Society 17(1): 33–53.

20.

Rice

Coates

(1995) Gender role attitudes in the southern United States. Gender & Society 9(6): 744–756.

21.

Schilt

Westbrook

(2009) Doing gender, doing heteronormativity. Gender & Society 23(4): 440–464.

22.

Schippers

(2007) Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society 36(1): 85–102.

23.

Umbach

Kuh

(2006) Student experiences with diversity at liberal arts colleges: Another claim for distinctiveness. The Journal of Higher Education 77(1): 169–192.

24.

Ward

(2008) Respectably Queer: Diversity Culture in LGBT Activist Organizations, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.