Bottling Gender:ACCOMPLISHING GENDER THROUGH CRAFT BEER CONSUMPTION

Nathaniel G. Chapmana, Megan Nanneyb, J. Slade Lellockb, Julie Mikles-Schlutermana

aArkansas Tech University, bVirginia Tech

AbstractAccording to recent industry reports, sales of craft beer have doubled over the last six years, and are set to triple by 2017 (Klonoski 2013). In addition to increasing popularity, there have been significant changes in the consumption patterns of craft beer. While beer has maintained a position as the most popular alcoholic beverage among men age 21-34, a recent Gallup poll (2012) indicates that craft beer has surpassed wine as the most popular beverage for women of the same age group (Klonoski 2013). In light of this trend, there has been little research done to explore gender dynamics in craft beer consumption and the craft beer industry. This paper seeks to understand the increasing popularity of craft beer among women by: 1) exploring beer as a gendered object, 2) illuminating the experiences of women in the craft beer culture and industry, and 3) examining how gender is done, redone, and undone in craft beer spaces. Drawing from a discursive content analysis of an online beer community, we seek to consider the gendered nature of beer and how gender is both reconfigured and upheld, allowing for the possibility for new consumption patterns.

Keywords: craft beer, gender, consumption, gender roles, gender-blindness, gender relations

Word Count: 8,809

1

Bottling Gender:

ACCOMPLISHING GENDER THROUGH CRAFT BEER CONSUMPTION

Introduction

Research on alcohol-related behaviors consistently finds persistent gender gaps in the frequency

and amount of alcohol men and womeni consume (Atkinson, Kirton, and Sumnall 2012; Watson

2014). While men are more likely than women to drink at all, to drink more heavily, and to

“binge drink,” these gender gaps in alcohol consumption differ largely by type of alcohol--men

are more likely to drink hard liquor and beer, while women traditionally are more likely to

consume wine and mixed beverages. Alcohol consumption, in turn, has been associated with

gendered behaviors and spheres. Certain types of drinks, drinking behaviors, and drinking spaces

are associated with manliness and masculinity, while others are associated with womanliness and

femininity (Darwin forthcoming). Historically, beer has been considered to be masculine.

Beer can be classified along many dimensions, but a particularly important one is the

distinction between domestic and craft. The Brewer’s Association distinguishes between the two

types based on three criteria. In order for a brewery to be considered craft it must be small

(production cannot exceed six million barrels of beer per year), independent (no more than 25

percent of the brewery may be owned by someone, or firm, that is not in the craft industry), and

traditional (a brewery should utilize both traditional and innovative brewing techniques)

(Brewer’s Association 2013). Typically, domestic beer is characterized by light flavors (pilsner

and lager style beers) and the use of non-traditional brewing ingredients such as corn or rice

(e.g., Budweiser, Bud Light, Coors, and Pabst Blue Ribbon). In contrast, craft beer encompasses

a wide array of styles and flavors. Flavors can range from light and sweet (e.g., witbier,

2

hefeweizen) to dark and roasty (e.g., porter, imperial stout, brown ale), and everything in

between (e.g., IPA, lambic, wild ales, barrel-aged stouts). With over four thousand breweries

operating in the US today there are more and more beers coming to market every day.

According to Klonoski (2013) recent industry reports show that craft beer sales have

doubled over the last six years, and are set to triple by 2017. In addition to increasing popularity,

there have been significant changes in the consumption patterns of craft beer. While beer has

remained the most popular alcoholic beverage among men ages 21-34, a recent Gallup (2012)

poll indicates that craft beer has surpassed wine as the most popular beverage for women of the

same age group (Klonoski 2013). Additionally, the 2014 Great American Beer Festival estimates

that nearly 37 percent of all craft beer drinkers are women (Darwin forthcoming).

While many theories exist as to why this notable shift has occurred for women including

more gender-equitable or gender-targeted marketing and advertisements, increased labor

participation, equality and independence from feminism, liberal attitudes about consumption

from capitalism, and craft beers artisanal flavor profiles that are akin to wine and cocktails

(Clarke 2012; Klonoski 2013; Snider 2016; Atkinson et al. 2012; Bogren 2011). However, few

studies have examined the meanings and social contexts of femininity and masculinity as a result

of this shift. Given women’s increased consumption of craft beer compared to other alcoholic

beverages, and given beer’s association with masculinity, the question we must address is not

about understanding the importance of gender patterns in alcohol consumption, but rather the

ways in which the accomplishment of gender itself is negotiated through cultural practices of

alcohol consumption.

The purpose of our research is to understand the increasing popularity of craft beer

among women by: 1) exploring beer as a gendered object, 2) illuminating the experiences of

3

women in the craft beer culture and industry, and 3) examining how gender is done, redone, and

undone in craft beer spaces. The focus of the present study is to explore the gendered nature of

beer itself and the gender dynamics within the craft beer industry. Previous research has

suggested women have been targeted by the craft beer industry as an “untapped” market, and as

such, craft beer is advertised to appeal to certain women (Bogren 2011).  Little research,

however, has examined the gendered nature of beer, how women negotiate gender in masculine-

dominated spaces, and men’s responses to masculinity’s reconfiguration. Drawing from a

discursive content analysis of online beer community forums, we seek to consider the new ways

in which womanhood is accomplished in a masculine sphere and the ways in which manhood is

redone in response, allowing for the possibility for new consumption patterns.  

Literature Review

Doing gender, redoing gender, undoing gender

Unlike previous research that considers consumption differences between men and women as a

natural result of inherent gender traits, we consider gender as an accomplishment of personal

identities, performative actions, and interpersonal interactions. Rather than gender being

something that a person inherently “is,” gender is something we “accomplish” through an

“individual’s repeated ‘doing (of) gender’ that (re)creates gender, meaning that gender is not the

precursor of action but the after-effect” (Atkinson et al. 2012, 367; West and Zimmerman 1987,

2009; Kelen 2010; Bogren 2011, 2013). In other words, there is no naturalness to one’s gender-

one’s femininity or masculinity- but rather, gender is socially constructed and re-constructed

through these everyday acts. Drawing upon social constructivist, postmodern, queer,

4

ethnomethodological, and gender theories, multiple ways of understanding how gender is done

are put into conversation with one another below, albeit often through points of contention.

West and Zimmerman (1987, 127) move gender from a natural, ascribed status to an

achieved status: “not a set of traits, nor a variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings”

including everyday actions and personal interactions. Gender, in this sense, is a form of

communication that translates a person’s designated sex category through their gendered

activities- their clothing, their mannerisms, etc. West and Zimmerman uphold the idea that

gender is never not existing-- there is no genderless world. Rather, the actions that people take,

even to consciously subvert gender norms and roles, actively redo what gender means. In other

words, gender is a constant reiteration of itself.

Yet, some researchers such as Risman (2009), Deustch (2007), Kelen (2010), Butler

(1990, 2004) and Bogren (2011, 2013) argue that if gender can be done--if it can be constructed--

there must be a way in which gender can be undone or not done at all (deconstructed).

Addressing this issue, Kelen (2010) summarizes two ways in which gender undoing is discussed

in the literature. First, she discusses the ethnomethodological opposite to doing gender: gender is

not present if it is not made relevant in a conversation. Claiming that gender is an

accomplishment, this presumes that gender is an end goal and that the human can pre-exist

without gender if one refuses to do gender. Yet, as Bogren (2011) highlights, this raises the

question of whether gender really is undone or if it is just not present. Many researchers refute

this concept, including West and Zimmerman (2009), arguing that even in gender-neutral or

“gender-blind” spaces, gender and gendered inequalities can be reproduced. While not discussed

at length in the literature, this redoing of gender in seemingly neutral or blind (or even

genderless) spaces may be akin to colorblind-racism (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Benokraitis and Feagin

5

1987; Scott 1988; Anderson and Johnson 2003). Rather than gender not existing in these spaces,

in a post-gender society, gender and gender inequalities are individualized and create a false

sense of equality by arguing that everyone has a fair chance to succeed in society because gender

does not matter.  Thus, the onus of succeeding--and the blame when one fails-- in a seemingly

“gender-neutral” or “genderless” context is placed on the individual while perpetuating gender

inequality by ignoring the larger social structure and power behind gender’s social construction.

Secondly, Kelan (2010) highlights that gender can be undone in the sense that the gender

binary--the classification of sex and gender into two distinct, opposite, and disconnected forms

of masculine and feminine--is undone. Kelan (2010) builds upon Butler (1990, 2004) by arguing

that we need to undo gender not so that there is no gender, but undo the normalization and

naturalization of gendered categories so that other possibilities of gender and sex arrangements

may become possible. Unlike ethnomethodologists, who discuss the daily face-to-face

interactions in which gender is accomplished, Butler argues how the very viability, legitimacy,

and conception of a human subject is created through the repeated stylization of the body that

constructs gender and the regulatory frames that produce and naturalize these “realities.” Gender,

in this sense, is not a performance, but should been seen as performative, where gender is

constructed and made real (rather than accomplished) through, and consequently depends upon,

repeated stylized acts. She explains, “Gender is the apparatus by which the production and

normalization of masculine and feminine take place along with the interstitial forms of hormonal,

chromosomal, psychic, and performative that gender assumes” (Butler 2004, 42). In other words,

the very categories, identities, and very biology of “man” and “woman” (as well as masculine

and feminine) are constituted and perpetually made real.

Craft beer and gender production

6

Because gendered identities and lives are consistently performed, (re)structured, and made real

through our interactions, consumption practices are one possible avenue to examine the ways in

which gender gaps occur as well as how gender is accomplished. Consumption activities, such as

consumption of alcohol, serve as a way to distinguish oneself from other--men from women--by

drawing upon ideals of what a “real man” or a “real woman” drinks (Bourdieu 1984; Goffman

1976; Atkinson et al. 2012; Peralta 2007; Thurnell-Read 2013; Leyshon 2005). For example,

Peralta (2007) and Thurnell-Read (2013, 2.4) show that drinking is the

‘doing’ of masculinity through competition in the quantity and pace of alcohol

consumption and, notably, the management of physical symptoms as ‘holding’ your

drink. The idealised male drinking body is therefore one that freely consumes alcohol, in

doing so, demonstrates restraint and control in relation to the potential detrimental effects

of drunkenness on bodily composure.

Meanwhile, even the type of beverage consumed serves to accomplish gender. Darwin

(forthcoming), for example, highlights how flavor profiles and alcohol type are associated with

gender roles: masculinity is associated with dark and/or domestic beers as well as whisky and

bourbon while femininity is associated with more artisanal, fruity (and sugary) drinks such as

sour and fruit beers, mixed cocktails, and wine. In this instance, then, consumption patterns are

not just a result of the gendered identities of the consumers, but rather, consumption patterns

explain ways in which gendered categories are constantly renegotiated. As such, this paper

considers alcohol-related practices of men and women to be “intimately bound up with a broader

set of culturally embedded understandings of what it is to be a man or woman and how

masculinity and femininity should be ‘performed’ and accomplished” (Atkinson et al. 2012,

7

337). What you drink, in other words, is a gendered a way of becoming a man or a woman--to do

masculinity and femininity (see also Oudshoorn, Saetnan, and Lie 2002; Kirkham 1996).

Yet, while beer has a longstanding association with masculinity, as women begin to enter into

this masculinized space with craft beer, how is masculinity and femininity redone in light of

these new consumption behaviors?

Previous research by Bogren (2011, 2013), Atkinson et al. (2012), and Darwin

(forthcoming), among others, have discussed the ever-changing notions of femininity and

masculinity in alcohol consumption, largely as a result of changing media images. According to

Giddens (1991), the media does not simply mirror the reality of alcohol-consumption culture, but

the media also plays a role in (re)producing and potentially altering the social norms around

gender (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan and Signorielli 1986; Baillie 1996; Atkinson et al. 2012). For

example, Atkinson et al. (2012) found that alcohol-related advertisements in women’s magazines

primarily featured champagne or sparkling wine to depict womanhood as one with glamour,

sophistication, social elitism, and delicacy akin to celebrity. As women enact this idealized

femininity, drinking serves as a source of social, economic, and cultural capital that is associated

with higher society. Men’s magazines, in comparison, solely featured beer in masculinized

spaces such as pubs or sporting events, compared to any other form of alcohol, thus attributing

drinking beer to achieving normative masculinities. Such masculinity in the context of drinking

beer presented itself as the predominant form of “manhood” a man could achieve- a hegemonic

masculinity. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005, 832) explain that there are multiple forms of

masculinity that are integrated with power relations: “Hegemonic masculinity was understood as

the pattern of practice (i.e., things done, not just a set of role expectations or an identity) that

allowed men's dominance over women [and other subordinated masculinities] to continue.”

8

Thus, the man who can accomplish the highest form of masculinity by drinking beer and

embodying these ideal traits reaffirms one’s manhood over another.

Yet with the emergence, rise, and increasing preference of craft beer in the alcohol

market by men and women, the question shifts from how is gender done to ask how

masculinity(ies) and femininity(ies) are undone/redone. Bogren (2011, 2013), for example, uses

this framework to examine how gender roles and behaviors surrounding drinking, especially for

women, in Swedish newspapers has changed overtime. She finds that the media stories on

alcohol consumption construct multiple gender roles beyond the dichotomous “feminine woman”

and “masculine man” including good parenthood and responsible motherhood, the “party girl,”

and the career woman. With new possibilities for women, especially, to enter “masculine”

drinking spaces and adopt more “masculinized” roles, Bogren idealizes the ways in which

masculinity can be produced and adopted by both male and female bodies (see Halberstam 1998;

Kelan 2010).

Despite these new possibilities for women to enter the masculine realm of beer, however,

Bogren (2011, 2013) and Darwin (forthcoming) also find resistance to femininity’s undoing as

well as shifts in masculinity. Bridges and Pascoe (2014) explain that while hegemonic

masculinity, and generally what it means to be masculine, has transformed over time, the value

and power of masculinity remains intact. Described as hybrid masculinity, the authors explain

that as men draw on “bits and pieces” of feminized or marginalized masculine identities and

reintegrate them into their own gender identities, the manner in which masculinity borrows from

other genders does not actually fundamentally alter gender and sexual inequality. For example,

Bogren (2011, 161) notes that regardless of gender’s undoing through images of girls who drink

like men, the media also reproduces traditional and binary gender roles: “The explicit criticism

9

of young women, articulated in alarmist terms, warns readers that young women engage in

improper, if not immoral, behavior and encourages readers to inform young women that gender

equality does not mean that they may drink ‘like men.’” Similarly, Darwin (forthcoming) finds a

gendered hierarchy in craft beer preferences that assigns masculinity to the beer types that are

regarded as more culturally legitimate such as darker beers and higher ABVs and assigns

femininity to the beers that are widely regarded inferior such as fruit beers or sours. In other

words, while women can drink craft beer, they do not drink “real craft beer” or they are not

“legitimate” beer drinkers compared to men. In both of these cases, the authors find that

regardless of women’s entrance and adoption of these more masculinized roles and the greater

flexibility for men to appreciate more artisanal and complex tastes, thus undoing the meaning of

masculinity and femininity beyond binary gender categories, a hierarchy of gender roles is still

enforced.

The present study

While previous literature has laid a solid foundation for explaining gender gaps and the

accomplishment of gender in alcohol-consumption, what is missing from these narratives is the

voices of the actual consumers themselves. To date, only Darwin (forthcoming) has critically

examined preferences of craft beer drinkers, yet she does not specifically examine the ways in

which femininity and masculinity are undone/redone. As such, in this paper, we seek to examine

craft beer drinkers’ narratives surrounding accomplishing and re-negotiating gender through craft

beer consumption. We ask: (1) In what ways are craft beer and craft beer spaces gendered; (2)

What are the experiences of and responses to women who consume craft beer; and (3) In what

ways are femininity and masculinity done, undone, and redone through women’s presence in the

craft beer culture?

10

Methods

Research site and data collection

To answer these questions, we searched for discussion threads and comments pertaining

specifically to gender and craft beer consumption in the online beer community known as

“beerit” (http://reddit.com/r/beer) between March and April 2016. beerit was selected primarily

due to the sheer size of the community, but also its notably active user base. At the time of

writing, the beerit community, which was originally founded in 2008, had over 177,000

subscribers. While a few other online, beer-focused communities have higher numbers of

members (e.g., http://www.beeradvocate.com had 589,803 at the time of writing), we were not

able to find nearly as many discussions centered exclusively on gender in general and women in

particular as they relate to craft beer consumption.

In 2015, a beerit user conducted a survey on the demographics of the community and

reported the findings to the user base. In order to provide some context for our study, we

reproduce the findings of this survey here with the user’s permission. According to the survey

which includes responses from 883 individuals, beerit is predominantly white (96 percent), men

(90 percent), and younger adult (77 percent in the 21-34 year old range). According to

reddit.com’s “Audience and Demographics” page, the audience for the site in general was 53

percent men and 46 percent women. While it is often difficult to confirm the identity of

informants in pseudo anonymous settings, such as Internet-based forums, we took the user’s

word at face value when they disclosed their gender identity. For instance, many commenters

would preface their responses with phrases such as, “As a woman,…”.

11

Given our particular interest in the relationships between gender and craft beer

consumption, we generated thousands of hits for discussion threads and comments by searching

keywords such as “gender”, “sex”, “female”, “male”, “women”, “men”, etc. These comment

threads were initially archived in their entirety. We then filtered these results by only selecting

those of which were directly related to the topic of women’s attitudes, practices, and experiences

as craft beer consumers. In sum, we collected 27 full comment threads and analyzed over 1,300

comments and sub-comments. These comment threads ranged in year from 2010 to 2016.

Despite the public nature of beerit, we removed usernames from the analysis to protect

anonymity.

Data analysis

Using a line-by-line approach, we selected comment excerpts that pertained specifically to

gender and craft beer consumption. The comments that make up our data varied greatly in length

from a single sentence to several complete paragraphs. While our aim is not to produce a

grounded theory, our coding procedure followed grounded theory methods guidelines described

by Corbin and Strauss (1990). We drew on grounded theory methods given the exploratory

nature of our inquiry. Other advantages of a grounded theory methods approach include, “the

ability to conceptualize,” and its ability to “provide data depth and richness” (Hussein, Hirst,

Salyers, and Osuji 2014). Our data analysis process was iterative and nature, but generally fit

with the following procedures. First, we read through the corpus of comments several times and

performed open coding. This process entailed systematically labeling words, phrases, and

sentences within each excerpt that represented meaningful expressions in order to get a sense of

what was “happening” in our data. Drawing on the constant comparative method (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967; Corbin and Strauss, 1990; Charmaz, 2014), we used axial coding to assign these

12

codes into emergent thematic clusters to create categories and subcategories by reorganizing and

refining our coding scheme throughout the analysis. Throughout this process, we wrote both

analytic and self-reflexive memos which were included in our analysis. By examining emergent

patterns and relationships between our codes and categories we were able to identify several

recurring themes across our data. Below, we begin with a discussion of beer as a gendered object

and conclude with patterns of doing, redoing, and undoing gender.

Results/Analysis

Beer as gendered object

In order to more fully illustrate the processes of doing, redoing, and undoing gender; we first

examine beer as a gendered object. Evidence of the gendered nature of beer is identified in

patterns of 1) masculine and feminine styles of beer, 2) sexism in both the production and

consumption of craft beer, and 3) notions that beer should be/is genderless. Central to the notion

of beer as gendered object are discussions of masculine and feminine styles of beer. In these

threads we find assumptions that women and men innately prefer different styles of beer, and

that these styles are distinctly different. Women are perceived to prefer lighter and sweeter

styles, while men are perceived to prefer darker and more aggressive styles. By gendering beer

itself in this way, it constructs a set of normative expectations for craft drinkers, one that is

distinctly masculine or feminine. In addition to perceptions of preference based on gender, beer

itself is perceived to be more or less feminine based on certain attributes. Beers that are more

fruit forward (i.e. “fruity” beers, fruit flavored beers, lambics, and wheat beers), lighter in flavor

and color, and sweeter beers are often perceived to be feminine styles of beer.  

13

Additionally, by gendering beer in this way, it leads consumers to believe that certain

styles of beer are superior to others strictly based on the perceived gender of the beer itself

(Darwin forthcoming). One man craft drinker shared this experience, “I have tried introducing

my female friends to stronger/better/more interesting beers, and while they might occasionally be

pleasantly surprised, they’re still sticking to their light, fruity beers.” Masculine beer is perceived

to be more robust in flavor, darker in color, “stronger” (i.e. has a higher ABV than domestic

beer), more aggressive, and therefore, superior to lighter styles of beer. In the data, masculine

styles of beer were often referred to as “real” beer, as if to suggest that feminine styles were not

only less-than, but not even categorically the same product. One commenter suggests to another

that if his girlfriend only likes sweet beer “it may be possible that she will never like real beer.”

This further perpetuates the gendered hierarchy in craft beer.

The notion of beer as gendered object is further perpetuated through the marketing of

beer. There seems to be a conflict between marketing to women, the perception of women

drinkers, and women’s actual preferences. Our data suggest that women’s choices of beer are

significantly constrained due in part to sexist discourse, marketing, and social boundary work. In

reference to marketing of “pink”ii beer one commenter says, “Quite simple … it’s not aimed at

women.  It’s aimed at chicks … who probably buy right into it. Don’t be offended – people are

allowed to be different.” Other commenters agreed that “pink beer” was not marketed to women

that preferred craft beer, “Meh, I don’t see any reason to get all upset about it.  It’s clear that it

isn’t meant for women that actually like good beer, but for women that like drinking trendy, pink

things and were normally drinking Select 55.”

Throughout the analysis we encountered a number of comments that suggested that

marketing “pink” beer in fact seemed to deter women from drinking craft beer rather than it

14

encouraging them. One commenter felt very strongly about marketing pink beer to women, “I

think the marketing is atrocious. I can’t comment on the actual beer since I have never had

it. However, the marketing is so off-putting I’m not so sure I even want to try it.” Another

echoed this sentiment saying, “I feel like I see this empowerment-through-pink thing pretty

often. Fuck pink. I hate pink. I don’t see it as empowering.” While producers create and market

craft beer based on gendered stereotypes and use the color pink--as well as other feminized

profiles such as high heels or “feminine flavors”-- to represent these stereotypes, many women

perceive this as not only an inaccurate portrayal of their interests, but also as a negative

stereotype. One commenter even flat out stated, “Chick beer is an offensive representation of

what women want.” Most women seem to want an equitable beer that is marketed as beer, not as

a beer for women, “I know I hate the pink, not everything girl related need[s] to be pink!” By

adding the tagline or qualifier that pink beer is for women, then this beer automatically becomes

devalued, or less than, real beer for real beer drinkers. This furthers the idea that beer should be

genderless, or at the very least, not based on stereotypes.

Generally, we found that while certain styles of beer were associated with certain

genders, many craft beer drinkers feel that beer should be “genderless.” One of the limitations of

our data is that we selected threads that discussed craft beer specifically. Therefore, we cannot

assume that all women beer consumers share this sentiment, however, we believe that this view

is shared more broadly among craft beer drinkers than domestic beer drinkers. Our data show

that a number of craft beer drinkers, both men and women (when self-identified in the thread),

feel that beer should be genderless. This is expressed by two commenters in a thread who

claimed, “ … how about, thou shalt drink whatever the fuck thou wants,” and “I don’t think a

beer is male or female. If you like it, drink it,” As these two commenters highlight in almost a

15

contradictory manner than the ideas presented above, regardless of ideas of beer as a masculine

object or certain types of beers qualifying as “real” beers (and therefore producing “real” beer

drinkers), many people articulate a gender-neutral or gender-blind ideology when it comes to

beer and gender. That is to say, no particular style of beer should be gendered, as well as the fact

that drinking beer should not be gendered. To these craft drinkers, gender should not be a factor

that is relevant or otherwise present when it comes to consumption behaviors or craft beer

spaces. These drinkers have adopted a gender-blind perspective that, on the surface, appears to

undo gender in these spaces.

Yet, as Benokraitis and Feagin (1987), Scott (1988), Anderson and Johnson (2003), and

Kelan (2010) highlight, this does not necessarily mean that gender is undone to the point in

which it no longer exists (beer is not genderless). Rather, there is evidence that this gender-blind

ideology perpetuates sexism by reducing differences to an individual trait or characteristic while

ignoring larger structures that contribute to gendered inequality and give preference to

hegemonic masculinity within beer. For example, many do not understand and degrade any

attempts to promote women brewers; one commenter joked: “Why does it matter that women

[brewers] make it? As long as it tastes nice? Although I suppose we can expect it to go well with

sandwiches now.” On the one hand, we see the possibility for gender integration and equality, or

perhaps even a gender-neutral environment in which people, regardless of their gender, can

participate in craft beer culture. Yet, within the same breath, these seemingly negotiated gender

roles and behaviors are once again reclaimed through normative expectations of what a

(masculine) man and a (feminine) woman should or should not do. In this sense, women can

drink--or even make--craft beer, and that is not worthy of attention as long as the gender

16

hierarchy remains intact. So, what does women’s consumption of craft beer ultimately have to

say about how gender is done? Can beer’s ties to masculinity be undone/redone?

Doing, redoing, and undoing gender

As women’s participation in craft beer culture steadily increases, the meanings, behaviors, and

expectations around beer as a masculine gendered object continue to be negotiated, and the ways

in which gender is actively constructed is not straightforward. Below, we discuss evidence of

ways in which women’s presence strives to undo and redo beer’s essentialized masculinity all

while these new gender dynamics face resistance to change through men’s gatekeeping that

perpetuates normative power hierarchies.

Gender is undone (and possibly redone) when individuals disrupt and challenge the

naturalization of the gender dichotomy (Butler 2009; Kelan 2010). This does not necessarily

mean that gender is undone in the sense that gender no longer exists (à la Deutsch 2007 and

Risman 2009), but rather, the ways in which gender is treated as innate, fixed, natural, binary,

and potentially even regulatory are undone at the seams so that gender becomes a possibility in

which one can explore, do, and be. In these discussion threads we find evidence of women

undoing/redoing womanhood and femininity through their continued refusal to be devalued as

craft beer drinkers. First, when women display frustration with the notion of “pink” beer or

feminine styles of beer, we argue they are undoing gender. One woman writes, “I love

condescending gestures disguised as some kind of empowerment!” While another woman says,

“I understand that pink can be edgy, flirty, feminine, fun, blah blah blah, but fuck it. It clashes

with my red hair and I don’t want it on my beer.” While these marketing tactics may bring some

women into the craft beer movement, most women already immersed in the culture reject the

stereotypical feminine notions that, because they are women, they must like pink beer (and its

17

associated feminine traits). To be a "real" craft beer drinker, one does not (and arguably should

not) have to embrace traditional notions of masculinity. And, to be "real" women, one does not

have to embrace traditional notions of femininity.

We also find women undoing gender by demonstrating themselves to be knowledgeable

and experienced beer drinkers. Women in these threads share many instances about not being

taken seriously by their peer (man) beer drinkers or being overlooked as someone who knows

something about beer. In response to these experiences, women express a need to prove

themselves as legitimate beer drinkers (for further discussion of cultural capital, see Darwin

forthcoming). For example, a self-identified woman commented, “I’m an Untappdiii nerd, so I’ve

been tempted to pull out my phone and show them the 300+ beers I’ve checked into as a way of

proving myself. Either that, or just start wearing brewery shirts around all the time.” Others

speak of correcting liquor store attendants and bartenders about “a beer fact that was blatantly

wrong.” One woman even illustrates her experience saying, “Depending on the tone/attitude of

that bartender, I could really enjoy countering a couple of those incorrect descriptions with a well

phrased, polite, pointed correction. And then a smile.” Through these actions of asserting

oneself, we see women enacting nontraditional-feminine traits to legitimize their own presence

and qualifications. Through this un-pairing of womanhood=femininity, what it means to be a

woman drinker (including their preferences and roles) is no longer naturally separate from that of

a man drinker. That is not to say that their gender does not matter, but the naturalness between

how a woman or a man participate and experience craft beer is no longer assumed. Almost by

claiming, “Hey! I know more than you…” women are staking a claim in their rightful seat at the

metaphorical (and even literal) bar.

18

While these perceptions are noted in the data, we also find evidence of men undoing and

redoing what it means to be masculine/a man within the craft beer industry. For example, many

men noted liking sweeter and lighter flavor beers that are marked with a more feminine gender.

One commenter admits to having “a sweet tooth” for such beers as ciders, lambics, and chocolate

stouts. Yet, as Bridges and Pascoe (2014, 246) argue, while the ideas behind what it means to be

masculine may be becoming more fluid through “selective incorporation of elements of identity

typically associated with various marginalized and subordinated masculinities and – at times –

femininities into privileged men’s gender performances and identities,” gender inequalities

between men and women are not eliminated. Rather, hybrid masculinities “work in ways that not

only reproduce contemporary systems of gendered, raced, and sexual inequalities but also

obscure this process as it is happening” (247). In this instance of craft beer, then, while the

meaning of masculinity may be adapting to allow for men to drink more feminized, fruity beers,

the hierarchy and dominance of masculinity (and its association with manliness) is not changed.

Men feel like they can enjoy their feminized beer, but must still enact behaviors--must still do

their gender--so that they remain a “true” masculine man: “I always make sure she [wife] orders

first, because it is a little emasculating to order a delicious, refreshing, summertime wheat beer

and have her order a fucking Triple IPA.” In this case, masculinity’s redoing/undoing only

furthers normative gender expectations.

Another response to the changing gender dynamics within the craft beer industry includes

the strict gatekeeping by men in the culture that determines women’s admittance (allowance)

under the auspices of hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity includes patterns of

exhibiting power and control over women and other versions of masculinity, which we argue

includes beer drinking and knowledge of beer. In this analysis there are extensive discussions

19

about men “encouraging” women to drink beer and how to “introduce” women to beer. One man

comments, “Beer is by no means a man’s game. I think it is our job as male brewers and

enthusiasts to get all of the women we know (perhaps, starting with our girlfriends or wives)

excited about the beverages we love so much!” While beer may not be only a “man’s game,”

within this gatekeeping, men have a rightful and seemingly natural ownership over beer. Not

only do we find that men feel a need, want, and almost an “obligation” to introduce and

encourage women to drink beer, but they also have given thought as to “how” to do this that

reflects normative gendered expectations. One thread begins with the question, “My girlfriend

doesn’t like beer in general. What do I do to bring her in?” Fifty-two comments follow that, in

general, suggest a process of introducing her to a variety of sweet beers and then build up to

hoppier, stronger flavored beers. One reader suggests:

Get her some of that Framboise Lambic, or something like that. Now that she knows that

beer can be a pretty wide gamut of tastes/aromas, move on from there. Maybe move to

Abita’s strawberry lager. I’d move from the fruitiest of fruit-laden beers, and then move

into something more mainstream. Hefeweizen might be a good bet. Anyway it’s worth a

shot.

What we find repeatedly is men establishing that beer drinking and knowledge of beer is a

masculine domain, controlled by men, and as such they are the gatekeepers. Sometimes, this

domain is even restricted by men. One beerit user writes, “Let her not drink beer. More beer for

you. I would be pretty pissed if my wife continually drank the last beer in the fridge.” Another

discussant argued, “Don’t get her into beer drinking at all!!!! She’ll drink all of your beer and

then get fat.” Whether or not women can access the craft beer industry, in both cases, is at the

mercy of men.

20

A second response we find of men to the changing gender dynamics is the sexualization

and objectification of women beer drinkers and brewers. This is a way for men to perform, or do,

their masculinized (and heterosexualized) dominance. One particular way of performing

hegemonic masculinity is through the sexualization and objectification of women and other

forms of masculinity in order to demonstrate power and control (for more, see Rich, 1980; Ward

and Schneider 2009; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). In one discussion about Abby Titcomb,

a woman brewer, there are many comments about her appearance, rather than her beer. She is

described as “hot and sexy,” “adorable,” and “absurdly sexy.” Her name (Titcomb) is sexualized

and references are made to having sex with her: “Had to Google her because of all the sex I want

to have with her.” Women who drink beer are also sexualized. One commenter writes, “I know

loads of women who just like ‘beer,’ they’d laugh their tits off at this,” while another says, “I just

wanna say that it’s very sexy to hear women talk about real beer on here.” The marginalization

of women in the context of craft beer consumption delegitimizes them as authoritative

consumers and upholds a gender system of masculine dominance. While women may enter the

beer culture, they are still there as women, and masculinity, in these cases, is redone to

concretize its rightful and natural ownership of beer, what it means to be a man, and

subsequently women. Women don’t like “real” beer; they are there to please men.

Finally, while we found a detachment (undoing) of femininity to womanhood, in some

cases, we find the exact opposite: women’s embracing of feminine presentation and roles. While

at first glance this may appear to be a lack of foresight or critical thinking as to gender inequality

in the craft beer culture, it may be possible that women’s femininity and full participation in the

culture may redo/undo femininity through its reclamation of strength and value. In other words,

rather than perpetuating the devaluing of femininity by rejecting feminine roles, presentation,

21

and identity--and rather than upholding masculinity by enacting more masculine traits and values

such as avoiding “pink beer”--perhaps women should and can be both feminine and drink “real”

craft beer by upholding femininity as a valuable trait. One self-identified woman craft drinker,

for example, claims, “My personal style is ultra-feminine, and I’ve never encountered any kind

of shenanigans when ordering, drinking or brewing beer. I tend to favor west coast IPAs, barrel-

aged brews, and sours, and it’s gotten to the point that my beer guy will take advice from me.”

Another beerit user commented,

Until recently, it seems to me that there was a bit of a stigma attached to women drinking

beer (or stigma women perceived, even if it wasn’t real). Essentially, that drinking beer is

not feminine, just as drinking an apple martini is not masculine. So, many women may

not be used to beer because of this stigma and, thus, don’t have much of a taste for beer

beyond a simple pilsner like Stella.

Through this recoupling of femininity and womanhood, gender roles may remain intact, but they

also may be redone/undone so that the gender hierarchy that men hold over women (and over

other masculinities/femininities) loses its power. In other words, this may establish more

inclusive conditions while resisting models of assimilation (Butler 2004, 4).

Discussion and Conclusion

Drawing upon the opinions and experiences of both women and men in the craft beer culture, we

illuminate underlying notions of sexism and gender hierarchies in the craft beer culture. Similar

to other gendered contexts (see Cairns, Johnston and Baumann 2010; Pilgeram 2007; Olive,

McCuaig, and Phillips 2015 for examples), beer drinkers see their consumption behaviors

intrinsically connected to their gender identity, just as gender remains central to their sense of

22

self. Our research allows us to examine the ways in which an individual’s beer consumption is

not a result of one’s gender, but rather actively communicates, renegotiates, and accomplishes

gender itself. In other words, beer becomes a gendered object through the social norms, rules,

and expectations surrounding who can drink craft beer, as well as how, when, and where. Yet, as

we see in our findings, as more and more women begin to prefer beer over other drinks, the

presumed natural binary between beer as masculine (i.e. for men) and other “pink” drinks as

feminine (i.e. for women) is challenged, reinforced, and altogether redone/undone.

We highlight three themes in our research that emerge in craft beer drinker’s discussions

surrounding women and beer, including (1) beer as a gendered object, (2) women’s experiences

and emergence in the craft beer culture, and (3) experiences within and policing the boundaries

of craft beer spaces. As women’s consumption of craft beer, presence in craft beer spaces, and

participation in craft beer culture increases, the meaning of masculinity and femininity

consequently changes--beer is no longer associated with just masculinity. Rather, craft beer, as a

gendered object, is only possible through the interactions of its consumers as active participants

in the social construction of gender (Oudshoorn et al. 2002; Kirkham 1996). By gendering beer

in this way, its consumers construct and enact a set of normative expectations that are distinctly

masculine and feminine.

Despite these constructions of gender, we also highlight possibilities for and enactment of

resistance and change. Through the undoing/redoing gender framework, we note multiple

possibilities in which gender roles and expectations are renegotiated by craft beer drinkers to

establish women as “real” beer drinkers including liking different styles of beer, participating in

craft beer culture as knowledge experts, correcting false facts and accusations, and even rejection

of targeted marketing schemes. Yet, we also see reaffirmations of prevailing gender norms and

23

hierarchies through hypersexualization, devaluing of femininity, and gatekeeping, thus

perpetuating, in some forms, masculinity’s dominance and power within these spaces. The

gender of who makes and/or drinks a beer supposedly may not matter, but as gender dynamics

change, we see the ways in which gender roles and norms that largely perpetuate men’s rightful

and natural ownership are created and enforced within the community.

It is important to note that these data provide only one snapshot into the ever-changing

gender dynamics within craft beer. As the styles of beer continue to become more daring and

innovative, more breweries open, marketing develops, communities form, and the qualifications

for craft beer change, the meanings behind masculinity and femininity--man and woman--will

continue to develop. Further research should include closer examinations into the intersections of

other forms of identities such as class, race, and age within the craft beer community to examine

how these gender dynamics are further complicated by social location. Additionally, while we

focus on craft beer consumers in this research, more research is needed on the production side of

craft beer--including the marketing decisions, female brewers and female-owned breweries (such

as New Belgium), and beer groups and events for women (such as Beer Birds in Canada, Hops

for Honeys in Alabama, Barley’s Angels, Pink Boots Society, and Ales4Females, a female-only

event at Left Hand Brewing). Further, due to our methodological approach, our research is

somewhat limited in that it only focuses on attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of people

within craft beer. A potentially fruitful avenue of research may compare the views expressed

within niche craft beer communities to more mainstream discourse on gender and craft beer

consumption. Finally, more research should examine the possibilities for pink beer (such as High

Heel Brewery): can pink beer be one possible solution for gender inequalities and/or does it just

perpetuate archaic stereotypes?

24

As we argue in this paper, looking at craft beer consumption not as a result of gender

differences, but rather influential and a cause for the accomplishment of gender itself highlights

the possibilities for ways in which gender dynamics change over time. If craft beer culture allows

for both reproduction and resistance of masculinity and femininity, we can argue that craft beer

culture is open and fluid to changing gender roles, experiences, and expectations for both

consumers and producers. This constant push and pull between who can and cannot--should and

should not--drink craft beer also highlights the points of tension surrounding the value of

masculinity and femininity within the gender hierarchy. Only through these tensions can the

gender binary become negotiated, contested, and redone to increase all people’s participation in

craft beer to the fullest.

25

Acknowledgements

Nathaniel G. Chapman (corresponding author) is an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Arkansas Tech University. His research focuses on craft beer and the production of culture in the United States. He has co-edited a volume on the socio-cultural dynamics of the craft beer industry and attendant culture. He is also co-editing a special issue of The Journal of Popular Music Studies that will explore racial dynamics within Electronic Dance Music (EDM). Currently, he is conducting research on gender and consumption in the craft beer industry, and the construction of authenticity in craft brewing.

Megan Nanney (she/her/hers pronouns) is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology with a concentration in Women’s and Gender Studies at Virginia Tech. She graduated from Smith College in 2013 with a dual B.A. in Sociology and The Study of Women and Gender and completed her Sociology M.S. in 2015 at Virginia Tech. Megan’s current research focuses on trans inclusive admissions policies at women’s colleges and draws from critical trans, queer, and feminist perspectives in regards to the (re)construction of the feminine. She currently serves as the Managing Editor of Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. In her spare time, she enjoys serving as the editor-in-chief for VT’s LGBTQ Magazine, The Interloper.

J. Slade Lellock is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Sociology at Virginia Tech. His research interests include culture, digital sociology, consumption, taste, and qualitative methodologies. His work generally focuses on the symbolic and expressive realms of culture such as music, art, film, and dress as well as social and symbolic boundaries. Given his interest in the cultural dimensions of digital social life, he has conducted ethnographic fieldwork in multiple online communities.

Dr. Julie Mikles-Schluterman received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of TN, Knoxville in 2007 and began teaching at Arkansas Tech University (ATU). She is an associate professor of Sociology and Assistant Director of the University Honors Program. Her teaching and research areas focus on research methods, sociology of the family and sociology of gender. She has been involved in numerous service programs at ATU, winning the Faculty Award of Excellence for Service in 2015.  In particular, her focus has been with raising awareness about gender issues. Since 2011 she has hosted the Red Flag Campaign on to the ATU campus each spring educating students about dating violence and sexual assault.

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

26

Notes

27

References

Anderson, Stacey J., and Joel T. Johnson. 2003. “The Who and When of ‘Gender-Blind’

Attitudes: Predictors of Gender-Role Egalitarianism in Two Different Domains.” Sex

Roles 49(9):527-532.

Atkinson, A.M., A.W. Kirton, and H.R. Sumnall. 2012. “The Gendering of Alcohol in Consumer

Magazines: An Analysis of Male and Female Targeted Publications.” Journal of Gender

Studies 21(4):365-386.

Baillie, Richard K. 1998. “Determining the Effects of Media Portrayals of Alcohol Going

Beyond Short Term Influence.” Alcohol & Alcoholism 31(3):235-242.

Benokraitis, Nijole, and Joe R. Feagin. 1986. Modern Sexism: Blatant, Subtle, and Covert

Discrimination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bogren, Alexandra. 2011. “Gender and Alcohol: The Swedish Press Debate.” Journal of Gender

Studies 20(2):155-169.

Bogren, Alexandra. 2013. “Symbolic Gender Boundaries in News Discourse on Psychotropics

Use and Drinking: An Analysis of the Swedish Press Debate 2000-2009.” Nordic Journal

of Feminist and Gender Research 21(1):57-73.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism Without Racists. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:

Routledge.

Brewer’s Association. 2013. “Craft Brewer Defined.” The Brewer’s Association. Accessed 1

July 2016.

https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/craft-brewer-defined/.

28

Bridges, Tristan, and C.J. Pascoe. 2014. “Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology

of Men and Masculinities.” Sociology Compass 8(3):246-258.

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.

Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.

Cairns, Kate, Josee Johnston, and Shyon Baumann. 2010. “Caring about Food: Doing Gender in

the Foodie Kitchen.” Gender & Society 24(5): 591-615.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Clarke, Jim. 2012. “Who is the New Beer Consumer?” Beverage Media. Accessed 15 June 2016.

http://www.beveragemedia.com/index.php/2012/05/who-is-the-new-beer-consumer-

brewers-ready-to-say-ihola-and-more-to-expand-reach/

Connell, R.W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the

Concept.” Gender & Society 19(6):829–859.

Darwin, Helana. Forthcoming. "You Are What You Drink: Gender Stereotypes and Craft Beer

Preferences within the Craft Beer Scene of New York City." In Untapped: Exploring the

Cultural Dimensions of Craft Beer, edited by Nathaniel G. Chapman, J. Slade Lellock,

and Cameron D. Lippard. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.

Deustch, Francine M. 2007. “Undoing Gender.” Gender & Society 21(1):106-127.

Gerbner, George, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli. 1986. “Living with

Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process.” In Perspectives on Media Effects,

edited by Jennings Bryand and Dolf Zillman, 17-40. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

29

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Inquiry. Chicago: Aldin.

Goffman, Erving. 1976. “Gender Advertisements.” Studies in the Anthropology of Visual

Communication 3(2):69-154.

Halberstam, Judith/Jack. 1998. Female Masculinity. London: Duke University Press.

Hussein, Mohamed El, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji. 2014. "Using Grounded

Theory as a Method of Inquiry: Advantages and Disadvantages." The Qualitative Report

9(13):1-15

Kelen, Elisabeth K. 2010. “Gender Logic and (Un)doing Gender at Work.” Gender, Work &

Organization 17(2):174-194.

Kirkham, Pat, ed. 1996. The Gendered Object. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Klonoski, Brian. 2013. “More and More Ladies Enjoying Beer, Especially Craft Brews.” Ryot.

Accessed 1 July 2016.

http://dev1.ryot.org/more-and-more-ladies-enjoying-beer-especially-craft-brews/100209

Leyshon, Michael. 2005. ‘“No Place for a Girl’: Rural youth, pubs and the performance of

masculinity.” In Critical Studies in Rural Gender Issues, edited by Jo Little and Carol

Morris, 104-122. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Olive, Rebecca, Louise McCuaig, and Murray G. Phillips. 2015. “Women’s Recreational

Surfing: A Patronising Experience.” Sport, Education and Society 20(2): 285-276.

Oudshoorn, Nelly, Ann Rudinow Saetnan, and Merete Lie. 2002. “On Gender and Things:

Reflections on an Exhibition of Gendered Artifacts.” Women’s Studies International

Forum 25(4): 471-483.

30

Peralta, Robert L. 2007. “College Alcohol Use and the Embodiment of Hegemonic Masculinity

Among European College Men.” Sex Roles 56(11):741–756.

Pilgeram, Ryanne. 2007. ‘“Ass-Kicking’ Women: Doing and Undoing Gender in a US Livestock

Auction.” Gender, Work and Organization 14(6): 572-595.

Rich, Adrienne. 1980. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 5(4):631-

660.

Risman, Barbara J. 2009. “From Doing to Undoing: Gender As We Know It.” Gender & Society

23(1):81-84.

Scott, Joan W. 1988. “Deconstructing Equality Versus Difference: Or, The Uses of

Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism.” Feminist Studies 14(1):32-50.

Snider, Mike. 2016. “Women to Get Their Own Beer; Will They Want it?” USA Today.

Accessed 22 May 2016.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/05/21/women-get-but-they-want-their-own-

beer/83857942/

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded

Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Thurnell-Reed, Thomas. 2013. “‘Yobs’ and ‘Snobs’: Embodying Drink and the Problematic

Male Drinking Body.” Sociological Research Online 18(2)3. Accessed 1 July 2016.

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/18/2/3.html

Ward, Jane, and Beth Schneider. 2009. “The Reaches of Heteronormativity: An Introduction.”

Gender & Society 23(4):433-439.

Watson, Bart. 2014. “The Demographics of Craft Beer Lovers.” The Brewer’s Association.

Boulder CO. Accessed 21 July 2014.

31

https://www.brewersassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Demographics-of-craft

beer.pdf

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 1(2):125-

151.

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 2009. “Accounting for Doing Gender.” Gender &

Society 23(1):112-122.

32

i Throughout the text, we deliberately choose to utilize gendered language of “man” and “woman” so as

to not conflate sex with gender identity in order to keep open the possibilities for gender identity and

trans lives. Only in instances of direct quotes utilize sex markers of “male” and “female.”

ii “Pink” beer is a brand name of light beer marketed to women, but is also a generic term used to

describe “feminine” alcoholic beverages.

iii Untappd, whose slogan is “Drink Socially,” is a widely-used social networking platform that allows

users to catalog, rate, and review beers, breweries, and bottle shops.