The discursive gendering of marital intimacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research on intimacy and gender is criticized for its assumptions regarding gender. Five main approaches to intimacy and gender are identified in the scholarly literature: 'woman are superior', ' men do', 'separate but equal', 'intimacy and power', and 'sameness'. These approaches may be conceptualized as interpretive repertoires: " ...culturally familiar and habitual line[s] of argument comprised of recognizable themes, common places and tropes..." (Wetherell, 1998, p.400). In this study a feminist discursive approach was taken to examine the way in which participants themselves treat gender in their talk about intimacy. Twenty married individuals volunteered for open-ended interviews to discuss intimacy in their relationship. Their accounts displayed their cultural knowledge about intimacy and gender. Participants both took up and resisted the repertoires of intimacy and gender. This was done in a variety of ways, for example, via the discursive devices of extreme case formulation, of systematic vagueness, of personal examples, of reported speech, of listing, of self-repair and of stake inoculation, as well as through modal-like linguistic elements, and epideictic and defensive rhetoric. Additionally, resistance was also accomplished by using laughter, use of the past tense, and by belittling the repertoire(s). Both taking up and resisting function to make claims about identity. Hence, this study is not about how gender determines what people say about intimacy nor is about how they enact intimacy. Rather, this study focuses on how gender is used, or resisted, as a resource for participants when talking about intimacy. The discursive approach taken in this study can improve our understanding of both the ways in which discursive practices position women and men in relation to intimacy and the ways in which such gendered subjectivities can be taken up and resisted.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".