“It Doesn’t Feel Like You Can Win”: Young Women's Talk About Heterosexual Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have long explored the expectations of women to maintain intimate relationships and the gendered discourses governing those expectations. Despite the dating landscape changes, having intimate relationships remains important for young women. Amid these changes and the impacts of #MeToo/#TimesUp, investigating the discourses at play within women's talk about intimate relationships produces a current snapshot that contrasts with past literature. Young, heterosexual women of diverse racial, educational/work, and relationship backgrounds aged 18–24 years ( N = 28) attended one of five online videoconferencing focus groups. Using an eclectic theoretical approach informed by feminist post-structuralism and discursive psychology, we analyzed women's talk about doing relationships. Mobilizing a discourse of intimate relationship necessity/importance, young women (a) were positioned as “the silenc(ed/ing) woman,” demonstrating a shared understanding of the necessity of silence when doing intimate relationships; and/or (b) actively took up “the communicative woman,” which they conceptualized as the hallmark of a healthy relationship. Tensions between these subject positions were evident (e.g., needing to be “cool”). Also, women described no-win situations in relationships despite attempts to contend with these contradictions and limitations. These findings may contribute to educational materials and youth programming delivered in high school or college.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".