1. Ryther 1
Feminist Anthropology:
The Theory that Birthed a New Generation in Postmodern Anthropology
Carly Ryther
ANTY 500 Dr. Sattler
University of Montana

2. Ryther 2
Introduction
“I am a Feminist.” This sentence will most likely garner you a long paused
silence or a strange look from your conversing group. I have experienced this
reaction first and second hand. Why does the word “feminist” or “feminism” have a
negative connotation in society? Most people with out any anthropological course
experience relate feminism to man hating, bra burning, patchouli smelling, hippy
women. The idea that feminist theory at all condones the degradation of one sex or
gender over the other is this social myth that perpetuates because of ignorance.
The actual truth about feminist theory is that is as wide ranging in subject matter as
many other anthropological theories. The history behind the inception, change, and
growth of feminist theory shows how malleable it is to our changing cultures. My
intention in writing this paper is to examine the overlying themes, history of
feminism, the emergence of feminist anthropology, and the flaws that are present in
the theories it has inspired in order to elucidate how feminist anthropology is valid
and applicable a theory as well as how it is a classic example of theory in
anthropology.
Feminism: A History
Feminist Anthropology can be summed up into around three waves. The first
wave was from 1850 to 1920 and is sometimes referred to as suffrage feminism. Up
to this point ethnographies and almost all research in general had been done
principally by men for men and were informed by the belief that biological sex
determined an individual’s roles in society. (Lewin, 2009) This male bias is
something students of anthropology are very aware of because the majority of male

3. Ryther 3
anthropologist ethnographic work before and during that first wave of feminism is
evident throughout their undergraduate education. What first wave feminists
wanted to do was to include women’s voices in ethnography, giving a female
perspective on experience and events. This opened up a completely new
perspective, since male ethnographers generally only had access to other males, and
therefore, could only observe them or could only get their accounts of what women
were like or what they were supposed to be like. (Geller&Stocket, 2007) This is
something I like to think of as third person feminism. At the time there were very
few university educated women, let alone women anthropologists, so this third
person feminine perspective was the best way to begin analyzing the women’s
world.
One of the women who were fundamental to this movement was Elsie Clews
Parsons. She began her career with a Ph.D. in Sociology from Columbia in 1899, a
few years later; she was miraculously converted to anthropology. Parsons was very
much a social activist. She used her ethnographic skills to inspire others to think in
new ways about their own personal experiences. To further stimulate social reform,
she thought it was very important that anthropology be taught as part of all liberal
education. (Lewin, 2009) Her boundary pushing notions of feminism and of the
causes of sociocultural norms are still discussed today. Through out her journeys
with male anthropological colleagues to the southwest U.S., she sought to break free
of the constraints placed on men and women who worked together.
She never held a formal professorial position teaching anthropology, but her impact

4. Ryther 4
was far reaching. She established the Southwest Society, which helped support
anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict. (Garth&Wies, 2012)
In British anthropology, Phyllis Kayberry was an innovator of
anthropological research on women in political or social contexts. (Geller&Stockett,
2007) She earned her Ph.D. at the London School of Economics, where she worked
with Bronislaw Malinowski, the father of social anthropology. Her work looked at
both men and women and their relationships, with a special emphasis on religion.
She developed a systematic study of gender relationships in her book Women of the
Grassfields, which was greatly significant following the decolonization in Africa post
WWII. (Lewin, 2009) The book focuses on women’s work and rural development,
which found that existing economic models for development have totally ignored
the contributions of women’s labor. This is something we still see in today’s world
with the examples of the all women cacao pickers in Africa, the sex workers in
Cambodia, or the women ex-steelworkers in Pittsburgh, PA. (Jones, 2005) (Hudgins,
2005)
The second wave feminism was the period of 1920 to 1980. These feminists
separated sex and gender as descriptive categories; previously they had been used
interchangeably. “Sex is defined as determined by biology and in turn effecting
biology. Gender is seen as culturally defined. The category of "woman" could unite
all females, as it was considered the most significant role and therefore the
strongest categorical identification.” (DiLeonardo, 1991)

5. Ryther 5
Anthropologists tended to write as if all women had the same experiences and
problems. Also, concepts were frequently set up as oppositions (e.g. sex/culture,
men/women, work/home); this may have been convenient for comparison, but it
didn’t allow for much intersection.
You cannot talk about women in anthropology or feminist anthropology and
not discuss Margaret Mead because she was a key contributor to this second wave
feminism writing style. It was her work in a diversity of cultures that enabled her
work to help tear down the prejudices that were based on concepts of what is
"natural” into knowledge of the importance of culture in a person’s development.
(Classen, 1992) As one of the most prominent Boasians, she made major
contributions with her work, which examined the influence of culture on human
social development in separating biological and cultural factors that the power to
influence the development of personality and behavior. Margaret Mead’s influence
and writings were able to spread beyond anthropology becauseit was well received
among general audiences. (McClaurin, 2001) This aspect of the second wave of
feminism is something that feminist anthropology today should be striving for.
Combining a popular work with the mention of feminist theory may allow other
non-anthropological person’s to rethink their idea of what is feminism.
There were also two authors from outside of anthropology that influenced
feminist anthropology at this time. The first was Simone de Beauvoir, a French
existentialist philosopher, whose 1952 book, Second Sex, argues that men have
defined women and that if they attempt to break with this definition they risk

6. Ryther 6
alienating themselves. This idea is something we still encounter.
Many people say that women have the power to alter how society views
them and the only reason that hasn’t happened is because women can’t help but
perpetuate the idea that they are defined by men in a patriarchal society.
(Letkehaus&Roscoe, 2013) The second author was Betty Friedan, a psychologist and
cofounder of the National Organization for Women, whose 1963 book The Feminine
Mystique, examined gender roles inside families and inquired whether fulfillment
for modern women could be found in traditional normative roles.
During the second half of the second wave of feminism, frequently referred to
as the "Anthropology of Women," Eleanor Leacock's ethnohistorical studies of the
Innu were influential. She focused on social and gender relations while reexamining
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ works. She also challenged Julian Steward’s, a
famous cultural ecologist, work on hunting and trapping using a method called
"anthropology on the ground." (Garth&Wies, 2012) She talked to English speaking
informants to find out what, when, and where they hunted, and then she mapped
out the pattern herself. This is the one of the first overt displays of a woman in
anthropology going head to head with a male peer and going out into the field to
prove her findings.
In the early 1970s women like Lucy Slocum argued that anthropological
studies had Androcentric and Eurocentric biases.

7. Ryther 7
This idea influenced archaeologists, biological anthropologists, and primatologists
who questioned the “man-the-hunter” hypothesis, and whose work has challenged
the simplistic assignment of jobs and roles on the basis of biological differences in
skeletal material (Classen, 1992). Then, in 1974, Michelle Rosaldo and Louise
Lamphere edited a boundary breaking work, Woman, Culture, and Society. “Rosaldo
argued that because women frequently participate in behaviors that limit them, one
must perform an analysis of the larger system in order to understand gender
inequality (Lewin, 2009).
In 1975, Gayle Rubin insisted that gender be brought to the anthropological
table. She introduced the "sex/gender system", which separates biology from
behavior.(Geller&Stockett, 2007) This system started a discussion, the impetus of
which has been a part of anthropology over the last 30 odd years. It was also at this
time that women’s studies in anthropology became formalized as what we know
today as feminist anthropology. In 1974’s Is Male is to Females as Nature is to
Culture?, Sherry Ortner examined women’s subservience to men cross time and
culture. She argued that women have always been symbolically associated with
nature and nature is subservient to men so, women are subservient to men.
Marxists feminists’ work also built on Friedrich Engels’ thesis that women’s
subservience is the result of their lack of access to the productive sphere. (Lewin,
2009) In the contemporary British anthropology, Shirley Ardner worked on the idea
of women’s status as a "muted group." Others like, Janet Bujura and Pat Caplan,
were part of the London Women’s Anthropology group, which studied female

8. Ryther 8
solidarity and the popularity of Marxist theory brought about research with women,
production, and reproduction. (Garth&Wies, 2013)
The most current, or third, wave feminism extends from around 1980 to the
present day. Anthropologists in the earlier years had been relying on the idea of
biological determinism, which suggests that sex was a straightforward cause and
effect relationship based in physiological variances. These questions have not been
simplified to a cause and effect relationship since the 1980s. A proposed reversal of
the earlier separation of biology and culture became a necessity by indicating that
sex is also a social category like gender, because people do have societal
expectations that are based solely on the physical body. (Classen, 1992)
Additionally, more detailed work with physiology and endocrinology made it
progressively difficult to characterize biological and cultural factors. The
dichotomies emphasized by second wave feminists were a problem, because at
times it was hard to separate the category of woman from man or from other factors
like, class. The third wave of feminism was also influenced by Edward Said’s
Orientalism, and by the postmodern discourse in general, which encouraged an
assessment of the politics of representation. (Lewin, 2009) Being categorized as
woman no longer surpasses other roles and distinctions. Race, class, ethnicity,
religion, socioeconomic standings, etc. are accepted as important characteristics
that diversify the category of women. It was acknowledged that all women, much to
misogynists’ surprise, do not have the same universal experiences. Feminism
innovated work in representation, recognizing that theories are influenced by

9. Ryther 9
cultural, political, social, and historical situations that encourage questions
regarding anthropologists’ relationships with their informants. (Garth&Wies, 2013)
Feminism in the 1980s and 1990s was centered on production and work,
reproduction and sexuality, and gender and the state (Lewin, 2009) In the 1990s
women’s studies would be changed to gender studies and men began to look at
"man" in a fashion similar to the feminist evaluation of "woman", reflecting a more
holistic perspective.
Feminist Theory’s Central Tenets
There are four dominant lines of thinking that have influenced feminist
anthropology over the past 30 years. “Practice theory appropriates from Marx’s
suggestion that all social activity comes down to praxis. Feminist practice is about
real people doing real things; culture is therefore deliberate. It is about how people
behave, not about a quality they possess.“ (McClaurin, 1991) The system that praxis
analyzes encompasses constraints and equality. It is a backlash of Emile Durkheim’s
ideas of the profane and the sacred, which assumed women did not have any
symbolic position. It questioned how systems could be reproduced despite their
contradictions, instability, and inequalities and it argues against the need to
breaking everything into dichotomies. Durkheim’s inert system was replaced by a
dynamic of resistance and struggle (Lewin, 2009).
Sherry Ortner, a prominent figure in the third wave, argued that gender is
determined by the reflection that women create nature, (i.e. offspring), and men

10. Ryther 10
create culture. She suggests that women were considered dangerous, one upon a
time, and had rules; now they are thought to be in danger, so they still have other
rules to follow (i.e. virginity). One of Ortner’s main points is that women may be
excluded from certain positions, but so are most men who do not rank high enough
in society. (McClaurin, 1991)
In the late 1980s the theory of positionality developed as a reaction against
cultural feminism. Cultural feminism is an essentialist view that suggests there is a
female essence and that female values should be validated. Basically, it meant that
women should be barefoot and breastfeeding at home and not mingling in the social
and productive spheres with men. On the other hand French post-structuralists
have critiqued cultural feminism because it ignores the obvious powers of
oppression under which those values were created. (Lewin, 2009) This resulted in
"negative feminism" in the sense that they are tearing concepts down instead of
building them up. The theory of positionality argued that those kinds of strategies
may make the category of gender invisible again.
The third theory is performance theory, which is an addition of anti-
structuralism of the 1970s. It "defines gender as the effect of discourse, and sex as
the effect of gender. The theory is characterized by a concern with the productive
force rather than the meaning of discourse and by it’s privileging of ambiguity and
indeterminacy" (McClaurin, 1991). De Certeau, Bourdieu, and Sahlins, whose theory
of cultural history implies that “change occurs because of competing interests and
different advantages at any one time in history”(McClaurin, 1991), were major

11. Ryther 11
influencers of the advocates of performance theory.
The final influence of feminist anthropology is queer theory, which is defined
as “the opposition to the concept of "normalcy," challenging the normativity of
heterosexuality, and highlighting the effects of socialization on sexual identity.”
(Connell, 2010) Queer theory endeavors to cut across traditions in gender studies.
Queer theory has been strongly influenced by Foucault and constructionalist theory.
Some other important ethnographic researchers of the third wave include
Anna Tsing, who focused on marginality in Indonesia and Nancy Scheper-Hughes,
who researched and wrote the life histories of Brazilian women. Lila Abu-Lughod’s
book Writing Women’s Worlds, tried to deconstruct the ethnographic treatment of
culture. One of her central themes is that culture is boundless. Abu-Lughod showed
us that Bedouin women find more pros than cons in a gender-separated society. Her
work has also helped to clear the great misinterpretations that many western
feminists had regarding Hindu and Muslim women.
Feminists in the Middle East and in India have done a great deal of work on
issues surrounding the veil and seclusion, the phenomenon of bride burning, and
most recently self-immolation. Like most of the world, the Middle East is diversified
by variations in ethnicity, religion, politics, and socioeconomic standing. “There have
been similarly significant discussions influenced by the post colonial realization, but
with the realization that western feminists’ concepts of oppression, subjugation, and
exploitation may not always be appropriate in other contexts.”(Garth&Wies, 2013)

12. Ryther 12
Scheper-Hughes, Tsing, and Abu-Lughod are part of a group of feminist
ethnographic writers who have been immense contributors ins in suggesting that
there is no universal definition for “woman” or “man” across time and culture.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Feminist Anthropology
One of the most important of strengths feminist anthropology has is in how
ethnographic works are presented. With the use of feminist theory and gendered
writing in today’s anthropological field we better able to portray perceptions from
different sexes and genders. In recent history there has been a growing interest in
the LGBTQ community. In Doing, Undoing, and Redoing Gender? (Connell2010),
Catherine Connell used feminist theory to interview transpeople about their
experiences in the work place and its implications for inequality at work. Another
example of using feminist anthropology in gendering work places is Gender Work in
a Feminized Profession: The Case of Veterinary Medicine (Irvine&Vermilya, 2010),
which illustrates the stereotypes of men and women in certain professions and how
it is still apparent today.
In Gender and Industrialization: Ex-steelworkers Discuss Women’s Work (Jones,
2005), there is an interesting dilemma of women working in a post-industrial
society. With the economy as it is the majority of women are working or trying to
find work to support their families. When approached to discuss women’s roles in
working, almost all the women said they were raised to value women who didn’t
work and instead, looked after the home and children.

13. Ryther 13
It is important to write about people who struggle with wanting to do something but
struggle with the societal norms that tell them it isn’t part of their gender roles. I
believe an important role feminist anthropology has to play with the younger
generation and the generations to come is helping them realize they can pursue
what they want to pursue and be who they want to be without being beleaguered by
the societal norms that bound their parents. Feminist anthropology not only raises
awareness for women who are oppressed by normative values, it also demands
attention and representation for men and all genders.
Another strength feminist theory has is its ability to educate people on the
oppressive powers that are hindering both sexes and all genders. In Dreaded
"Otherness": Heteronormative Patrolling in Women's Body Hair Rebellions (Fahs,
2011), an entire women studies class was asked to not shave any part of their bodies
for a month. What the female student reported was that they received agitated
responses and some homophobia. The ideals society has set for the for how
heterosexual women should look is practically hairless so, when partners or friends
noticed the lapse in adhering to the societal norms they became irritated or thought
the woman was a lesbian.
The body is an incredibly tool all individuals can use for their identity and
agency. Both men and women have society drawn perceptions of themselves and
each other. The way people are slaves to a media society means the images are
inescapable. The introduction of feminist anthropology and anthropology of the
body may allow for individuals to loosen their binding norms and celebrate body
variances instead of condemning them.

14. Ryther 14
It is not a psychologically healthy perception that the body must adhere to certain
rules, when no individual is made exactly the same.
There are definite weaknesses to feminist anthropology. A major weakness,
that no doubt many biological, physical, and forensic anthropologist as well as
archaeologist would readily point out, is the lack of scientific theory or
methodology. I would point out to their ire that feminist anthropology is part of the
postmodern anthropological period, which is known for its reliance on humanities
or sciences so, you can’t really throw rocks at feminist anthropology without also
doing so to the postmodern era. I acknowledge the importance of science in certain
arenas of anthropology and archaeology; they are at times necessary and helpful to
research. The theories surrounding feminist anthropology have most to do with
praxis, positionality, performance, and queer theories, all of which do not have a
large quantitative methods background. The use of feminist theory in biological,
physical, forensic anthropologies and archaeology can be limited by the lack of
quantitative data.
Another perceived weakness is the fragmented nature of feminist
anthropology. There have been many critiques concerning how disjointed the field
seems. (Geller&Stockett, 2007) In the beginning when it was only men writing about
women’s experiences it was easy to categorize an ethnographic work as feminist
anthropology. Over the succeeding years and the second and third waves of
feminism, the field so an immense expansion from just men writing about women,
to women writing about women, to men and women writing about their sexes, and
to men and women writing about their genders.

15. Ryther 15
With that expansion in subject feminist anthropology was also critiqued on not
giving enough attention to non-western notions of “men” and “women”. The
enormity of the field and its subsequent “patchiness” in content has been
detrimental to feminist anthropology’s popularity in anthropology. For those
anthropologists who don’t have strong post-modern inclinations to begin with, it is
easy for them to assume that feminist anthropology is not the most useful theory.
A weakness that ties in with the vastness and disjointedness of feminist
anthropology is how proponents for varied aspects in feminist anthropology can
pick away at each other. It has been pointed out that theories’ own worst enemy are
the anthropologists using it for their own machinations. Instead of supporting or
saying nothing of another proponent’s use of feminist theory, feminist
anthropologists will critique each other almost viciously. This tearing down of each
other’s work is pretty self-destructive and the rest of the anthropological
community won’t take the theory as seriously when feminist anthropologists are
writing critiques rather than innovative feminist ethnographic theory. I know for a
fact that there are many theories in anthropology that experience the same self-
destructive issue so, this is more a weakness of anthropological theory communities
than just one in particular.
A weakness that accompanies the picking at other uses of theory is how
feminist anthropology can be divided. In an almost high school like fashion, once
the feminist theory expanded, cliques with in the theory emerged. There are four
clear types of feminists with in the theory. Liberal feminists have focused their
attention upon "equality of opportunity" between males and females. They have

16. Ryther 16
largely ignored the study of social structural factors that other feminists see as a
basic cause of inequality in capitalist societies. Liberal feminists have been criticized
for their failure to understand that in any society that is fundamentally unequal in
its economic and social structure "equality of opportunity" is a fairly meaningless
concept. In a society divided along class lines and driven by economic exploitation,
women, like working class men, are at a fundamental economic disadvantage.
(Lewin, 2009)
Radical feminists suggest there is no real evidence that women constitute a
"sex class", apart from a common biology, women may have no real shared interests
as a class apart from men. The main importance attached to patriarchy degrades the
importance of concepts like social class and ethnicity. For Marxist Feminists,
patriarchy stems from the way in which women are generally exploited
economically. To view women as a "sex class" whose basic interest involves
liberation from men would leave problem of economic exploitation unresolved.
Radical Feminism tends to overlook the fact that the general position of women in
society has changed over time and this can only be explained in terms of wider
economic and political changes in society. (McClaurin, 1991) Socialist Feminists do
not see women as a "sex class", nor do they see all men as "the class enemy". Not all
male / female relationships are characterized by oppression and exploitation.
Marxist Feminists tend to be criticized for placing too much emphasis upon
class relations in the economic sphere (e.g. women considered as part of the
working class) and not paying enough attention to female experiences outside the
labor market (e.g. domestic sphere). Socialist Feminism is criticized for being

17. Ryther 17
neither revolutionary nor radical enough to create lasting solutions to the problem
of female economic and social exploitation. (McClaurin, 1991) The reason why there
are so many criticisms of feminist anthropology is because it is hard to be a
discontent consumer. If the four corners of feminist theory could compromise at all
then maybe there could be continuous innovating research but, it is not in the
nature of anthropologists to be that yielding of their work.
Relationship with Other Anthropological Theories
Since feminist anthropology is a product of the postmodern anthropological
world it is safe to assume that most postmodern theories can relate to one another.
There are two postmodern ideas that I believe have the most interconnection with
feminist theory. Globalization has a huge impact on feminist anthropology. The
effects industrialization and westernization has in non-western or third world
countries are impressive. The increasing globalization of society leaves many
cultures chaffing against each other, neither one completely at ease with what the
other is influencing. This chaffing definitely affects gender roles and identity. There
are different roles for men and women in society and when another culture’s values
are placed over the native culture’s then there is bound to be confusion and tension.
Globalization also is hugely linked to colonialism and post-colonial society.
The impacts of colonialism are still felt today in all the countries that were occupied.
This occupation left many cultures reeling because of the enforced change to a
normative standard that was not their own. It has affected feminist anthropology in
that there are many rules placed on men and women in those societies that are still

18. Ryther 18
in effect today. For those societies who were occupied some have regressed to very
strict adherences to old traditions.
Countries like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. have very strict rules
that enforce the values of the religion of majority, Islam. I know from my readings
that before the occupation of these countries the rules for men, women, and families
were not as enforced. For example, the niqqab, burqa, and hijab were not a hot topic
because without interference women were able to choose their attire based on their
own identity. With the interruption of their culture, it is a natural desire to go back
to how things were before and enforce it for the protection of their already damaged
culture.
Marx, Bourdieu, and Foucault majorly influenced feminist theory. The ideas
of power, class, identity, and structural violence were what shaped how modern
feminist anthropology is perceived. All of these notions work together in describing
feminist anthropologies ideals, what it stands for and against. Feminist
anthropology values the power of equality, no race, gender, or class should stand
above any others. It is against the power society has to negatively impact
individuals identity by imposing societal values and norms. Feminist anthropology
most notably pursues the abolition from structural violence. It is in almost every
piece of feminist writing that the norms formed by societies idea of what is “right”
or “natural” concerning individuals, sex, gender, politics, economy, religion, race, etc.
is a danger to people because those who do not follow those specific ideals are
ostracized from society. (McClaurin, 1991)
This leads to poverty, disease, and the general degradation of mankind.

19. Ryther 19
Feminist theory can also relate to interpretive or symbolic theories. With the
juxtaposition of sex and gender so evident in everyday life, symbolic anthropology is
a useful tool in thinking critically about men and women and their roles in society.
In Victor Turner’s The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (1969) he
observed the Ndembu people of Africa and their ritual processes that relied heavily
on the symbolic and practical roles of women and men. With the very complex
process accompanying rituals it could be easy to just see the symbolism in the act
but, he was able to further show how the symbolism was another layer on top of the
gender roles in a society cake.
Conclusion
When picking feminist anthropology as the topic of this paper I was a little
hesitant. It would be easier to do something on evolution or cultural materialism,
anything but the intricate mess that is feminist anthropology. It is easy to pick a
part a theory instead of finding the beneficial practicality of it. The research that I
found regarding the contributions to anthropology was relatively sparse compared
to some other theories. It is in my opinion that the true feminist theory
contributions to anthropology have yet to come. It seems like the field of feminist
anthropology has grown so quickly and so widely that is has an untold number of
benefits that are just in the process of being discovered and utilized to educate, like
same sex marriage or just homosexuality in the non-western world.
Some important aspects of feminist anthropology that have already

20. Ryther 20
happened are the closing gap between the sexes. It seems like an eternity away for
me to think about the societal restrictions of pre-1960s women. The idea that there
are actual in-depth resources examining the idea of manhood and womanhood is
exciting. The transition from boy to man or girl to woman is not a universal concept.
Lutkehaus and Roscoe’s Gender Rituals: Female Initiation in Melanesia (2013) and
David Gilmore’s Manhood in the Making: Concepts of Cultural Masculinity (1990) are
examples of how varied each man and woman’s experience is in society. Feminist
anthropology certainly has examined initiation rights for both sexes; some are hotly
debated in introductory anthropology courses around the world. Female
circumcision in Africa and some Arab countries is a topic that speaks to feminist
anthropology, symbolic anthropology, anthropology of the body, and globalization.
This subject has probably the great collaboration of theories.
In conclusion feminist anthropology probably has some of the same
strengths and weaknesses as many other anthropological theories. It is able to
collaborate and draw from other theoretical principals and yet the proponents of
feminist theory have a difficult time collaborating with each other. This theory has
had major successes for gender equality and raising the awareness of how politics,
economy, religion, gender, ethnicity can become a danger to people when society
construes them in a way that benefits only the majority. In the future, if feminist
anthropologists can quit arguing for a minute, it is possible for bigger contributions
to be made. There is still so much to do with breaking the glass ceiling not just for
women, but also for men and all genders. It is important not to lose sight of what
the history of feminism has shown us.

21. Ryther 21
Works Cited
Lewin, Ellen ed.
2009 Feminist anthropology: A reader. (1st ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
McClaurin, Irma ed.
2001 Black feminist anthropology: Theory, politics, practice, and poetics.
(2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Claasen, Cheryl ed.
1992 Exploring gender through archaeology: Selected papers from the 1991
Boone conference. (1st ed.). Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Di Leonardo, Melissa ed.
1991 Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: Feminism in the postmodern era.
(1st ed.). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Geller, Pamela, & Stockett, Miranda ed.
2007 Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future. (2nd ed.).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lutkehaus, Nancy, & Roscoe, Paul ed.
2013 Gender rituals: Female initiation in Melanesia. (1st ed.).
London, England, UK: Routledge.
Gilmore, David
1990 Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. (1st ed.).
New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Connell, Catherine
2010 Gender and Society. Doing, Undoing, Redoing Gender?
Learning from the Workplace Experiences of Transpeople
Vol. 24, No. 1 (February 2010), pp. 31-55
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

22. Ryther 22
Irvine, Leslie, and Vermilya, Jenny
2010 Gender and Society. Gender Work in a Feminized Profession: The Case
of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 24, No. 1 (February 2010), pp. 56-82
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Fahs, Breanne
2011 Gender and Society Dreaded "Otherness": Heteronormative Patrolling in
Women's Body Hair Rebellions Vol. 25, No. 4 (August 2011)
pp. 451-472 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Garth, H., & Wies, J.
2012 Introduction: Tidemarks and legacies of feminist anthropology. Voices:
A Publication of the Association of Feminist Anthropology, 12(1), 1-4.
Hudgins, A.
2005 NGO policy, sex workers, and structural violence: Looking beyond the
brothel village. Voices: A publication of the Association of Feminist
Anthropology, 7(1), 9-13.
Jones, K.
2005 Gender and industrialization: Ex-steel workers discuss women's work
In Pittsburgh, pa. Voices: A publication of the Association of Feminist
Anthropology, 7(1), 20-25.