Food, Culture & Society

An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

ISSN: 1552-8014 (Print) 1751-7443 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rffc20

Bottling gender: accomplishing gender through

craft beer consumption

Nathaniel G. Chapman, Megan Nanney, J. Slade Lellock & Julie Mikles-

Schluterman

To cite this article: Nathaniel G. Chapman, Megan Nanney, J. Slade Lellock & Julie Mikles-
Schluterman (2018) Bottling gender: accomplishing gender through craft beer consumption, Food,
Culture & Society, 21:3, 296-313, DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2018.1451038

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2018.1451038

Published online: 04 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 54

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rffc20
Food, Culture & Society, 2018
VOL. 21, NO. 3, 296–313
https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2018.1451038

Bottling gender: accomplishing gender through craft beer

consumption
Nathaniel G. Chapmana, Megan Nanneyb, J. Slade Lellockb and
Julie Mikles-Schlutermana
a
Behavioral Sciences Department, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR, USA; bDepartment of Sociology,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
While beer has maintained a position as the most popular alcoholic Craft beer; gender;
beverage among men age 21–34, a recent Gallup poll indicates that consumption; gender roles;
craft beer has surpassed wine as the most popular beverage for gender-blindness; gender
women in the same age group in USA. In light of this trend, there relations
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, it seeks to consider the gendered nature of beer and how
gender is both reconfigured and upheld, allowing for the possibility
for new consumption patterns.

Introduction
Research on alcohol-related behaviors has consistently found persistent gender gaps in
the frequency and amount of alcohol men and women consume (Wilsnack, Wilsnack, and
Kantor 2014; Wilsnack et al. 2009). 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 (Kerr et al.
2004). 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 femi-
ninity (Darwin 2017).
While beer has remained the most popular alcoholic beverage among men aged 21–34,
a recent poll indicates that craft beer has surpassed wine as the most popular beverage
for women in the same age group in USA (Klonoski 2013). Additionally, the 2014 Great
American Beer Festival estimates that nearly 37 percent of all craft beer drinkers in the USA

CONTACT  Nathaniel G. Chapman  nchapman1@atu.edu

© 2018 Association for the Study of Food and Society
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   297

are women (Darwin 2017). While many theories exist as to why women are increasingly
drinking alcohol, there have been fewer that have engaged more gender-equitable or gen-
der-targeted marketing and advertisements, increased labor participation, equality and inde-
pendence from feminism, liberal attitudes toward consumption from capitalism (Atkinson,
Kirton, and Sumnall 2012; Bogren 2011). This notable shift in craft beer consumption for
women, especially, is additionally noted by the increase in available artisanal flavor profiles
that are akin to wine and cocktails (Clarke 2012; Klonoski 2013; Snider 2016). However,
few studies have examined the changing meanings and social contexts of femininity and
masculinity as a result of this shift. Given women’s increased consumption of craft beer
compared with other alcoholic beverages, and given beer’s association with masculinity, the
question we must address is not about understanding the importance of gender differences
in beer consumption, but rather the ways in which gender itself is accomplished through
cultural practices of craft beer consumption.
Drawing on West and Zimmerman’s (1987, 2009; see also Hollander 2013) concept of
(re)doing gender, we are interested in the ways that gender’s meaning and roles are changed
and reconstructed through interactions between men and women who drink craft beer. The
purpose of this study is to more fully understand the increasing popularity and changing
gender dynamics in craft beer consumption. We address this by examining three themes
that emerge among the interactions of craft beer online forum users: (1) beer as a gendered
object, (2) the experiences of women in the craft beer culture and industry, and (3) doing,
redoing, and undoing gender in craft beer spaces by constructing and policing boundaries of
who belongs within these spaces. 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 craft beer, how women negotiate gender in masculine-dominated spaces, and men’s
responses to masculinity’s reconfiguration. In order to examine the gendered dynamics
of craft beer consumption, we analyzed discussions regarding gender within an online
beer community. Specifically, we employ a discursive content analysis of the online beer
community “beerit” to better understand the 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. 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?

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—in that women are naturally or biologically
inclined to drink a certain type of alcohol in contrast to men—we consider gender to be an
accomplishment of personal identities, performative actions, and interpersonal interactions.
In other words, rather than gender being something that a person inherently “is,” gender,
drawing from West and Zimmerman (1987, 127, 2009; see also Hollander 2013; Kelan 2010;
Butler 2004), is “the activity of managing situated conduct in light of normative conceptions
298   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

of attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category. Gender activities emerge from
and bolster the claims to membership in a sex category.” From this perspective, people are
born with (or rather, assigned to) a biological sex, which may or may not align with a sex
category identity of man or woman. In order for a person’s sex category to be recognized
by others—to be read and treated as a man or a woman—a person performs his/her gen-
der to communicate his/her sex category membership. Through repeated enactment and
social enforcement (see below), doing gender creates and naturalizes differences between
men and women.
As doing gender renders the social differences between men and women as normal and
natural, this constructs a binary sex/gender/sexuality system (Schilt and Westbrook 2009;
see also Butler 2004; Rich 1980) whereby men’s sex category and gender performance align
and menare naturally attracted (and consequently attractive to) their opposite: women. As
Schilt and Westbrook (2009) highlight, this binary sex/gender/sexuality schema patterns
power relationships between men and women by defining what are socially determined
to be “naturally” appropriate roles for men and women (see also West and Zimmerman
1987). This requires, as Schilt and Westbrook (2009), West and Zimmerman (1987), and
others (Butler 2004; Rich 1980) note, an interplay between doing gender and doing (hetero)
sexuality, thus constructing not only normative genders, but also normative sexualities. As
heterosexuality requires a binary sex system, because it depends on the naturalized attraction
between opposite genders, the hierarchical gender system privileges heterosexual mascu-
linity and a devaluation of femininity and homosexuality. Consequently, the institutional
arrangements and norms of society such as marriage, work, and violence can be understood
as reflective of this process; men are not only distinctly different from women, but they
actively do dominance over women while women do deference (West and Zimmerman
1987). In other words, if we do gender successfully, we also successfully reinforce and
legitimize hierarchical heteronormative inequalities.
As gender is performed, however, as Hollander (2013) explains, this does not mean that
any gender performance is considered socially acceptable. Rather, the ways in which we per-
form our gender are socially managed and regulated through the interaction between others
and through self-regulation. Gender is done at the risk of assessment by others, by which
people are held accountable to normative social expectations of who belongs to certain sex
categories and the social hierarchies between these categories. Consequently, accountability
within the doing gender framework works through a three-part interactional process: (1)
people orient their own consciousness and actions, as well as others’, to fit within gendered
expectations; (2) people assess others and themselves in relation to produced accounts of
what their sex category elicits, thus monitoring gendered behaviors; and (3) people are held
accountable through the enforcement of interactional consequences for gender conformity
or nonconformity (Hollander 2013). Through this process, it is the ongoing interactional
assessment and enforcement between individuals, rather than a singular identity, that creates
and maintains gender. As a result of this perpetual cycle of accountability and self-regu-
lation, West and Zimmerman (1987) argue that so long as placement in a sex category is
both relevant and enforced, doing gender is unavoidable.
Yet, some researchers such as Risman (2009), Deustch (2007), and Kelan (2010), among
others, critique the lack of possibilities for social change within the doing gender framework,
claiming that if gender can be done there must be a way in which gender can be undone or
not done at all (deconstructed). Addressing this issue, Kelan (2010) summarizes two ways
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   299

in which gender undoing is discussed in the literature. First, she discusses the ethnometh-
odological 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. Second, 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 (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.
Despite the call for a postgender or genderless world, this implies an abandonment
whereby individuals are no longer held accountable to sex categories. Rather than a fixed set
of gender specifications or criteria, which allows critics of the doing gender framework to
conceptualize gender’s undoing, West and Zimmerman (2009) clarify that gender is never
a static or reified entity, but in fact is constantly redone through its constant reiteration and
enactment:
For us, this is a shift in accountability: Gender is not undone so much as redone…. The nor-
mative system involved in gender accountability (including the patriarchal system) cannot be
regarded as ‘free floating’ and changes in it involve both changes in persons’ orientation to
these norms and changes in social relations that reflexively support changes in orientation.
(2009, 118)
Accounting for change towards gender equality, the authors emphasize that gender’s oppres-
siveness is not established just through gender differences between men and women, but also
by the naturalization and consequences of such differences. Consequently, conceptualizing
gender’s redoing allows us to consider the ways in which gender’s accountability shifts and
men’s hegemony is weakened. As masculinity and femininity are not fixed properties of
men and women, the meanings and expectations for being men and women differ and can
be redone both historically and across interactional context (Schilt and Westbrook 2009).
In other words, gender is never not done, but can be redone.

Craft beer and gender production

Consumption activities, such as the consumption of alcohol, serve as a way to distinguish
oneself from others—men from women—by drawing upon ideals of what a “real man” or a
“real woman” drinks (Atkinson, Kirton, and Sumnall 2012; Bourdieu 1984; Goffman 1976;
Leyshon 2005; Peralta 2007; Thurnell-Reed 2013). Noting that gender differences are not
natural, but rather are naturalized through the consistent performance of gender at the risk
of assessment, the different ways in which men and women consume alcohol, including
quantity, type, and flavor, and even bodily comportment, accomplish gender. For example,
Thurnell-Read (2013, 2.4; see also Peralta 2007) shows 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.
300   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Meanwhile, even the type of beverage consumed serves to accomplish gender. Darwin
(2017), 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, con-
sumption patterns explain ways in which gendered categories are constantly renegotiated.
As such, this paper considers alcohol-related practices of men and women to be “inti-
mately 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, Kirton, and Sumnall 2012, 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 Kirkham 1996; Oudshoorn, Saetnan, and Lie 2002). Yet, while beer has a longstanding
association with masculinity, as women begin to enter into this masculinized space with
craft beer, how are masculinity and femininity redone in light of these new consumption
behaviors?
Previous research by Bogren (2011, 2013), Atkinson, Kirton, and Sumnall (2012), and
Darwin (2017), 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 do not simply mirror the reality of alcohol-consumption cul-
ture, but the media also play a role in (re)producing and potentially altering the social norms
around gender (Gerbner et al. 1986; Baillie 1998; ; Atkinson, Kirton, and Sumnall 2012). For
example, Atkinson, Kirton, and Sumnall (2012) found that alcohol-related advertisements in
women’s magazines primarily featured champagne or sparkling wine to depict womanhood
as in harmony 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 with 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.” Thus, the man who can
accomplish the highest form of masculinity by drinking beer and embodying these ideal
traits reaffirms his manhood over another.
Yet with the emergence and rise of, and increasing preference for, craft beer in the alcohol
market by men and women, the question shifts from how gender is done to ask how mascu-
linity(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 over time. 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
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   301

“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 craft beer,
however, Bogren (2011, 2013) and Darwin (2017) also find resistance to femininity’s undo-
ing as well as shifts in masculinity. For example, Bogren notes that regardless of gender’s
undoing through images of girls who drink like men, the media also reproduce traditional
and binary gender roles:
The explicit criticism 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.’ (2011, 161)
Similarly, Darwin (2017) 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 alcohol-by-volume (ABV) varieties and assigns femininity to the beers that
are widely regarded inferior such as fruit beers or sours. Darwin (2017) argues that both
men and women are held accountable in doing gender appropriately, often through heter-
onormative aspirations concerning the opposite sex. Because feminine beers are considered
culturally illegitimate or “not real” beers, men who transgressed gender norms and drank
feminine beers bore the brunt of condemnation through critiques of their failed hetero-
sexuality and masculinity. Women transgressors who drank masculine beers, on the other
hand, were often affirmed by other women, and were often found to be sexually exotic and
more attractive to men (and in one case a self-identified lesbian). In other words, drinking
masculine beers did not threaten a woman’s doing of femininity, but drinking illegitimate
or feminine beers was devalued and marked men as “failures.” In both of these cases, the
authors find that regardless of women’s entrance to and adoption of these more masculinized
roles and the greater flexibility for men to appreciate more artisanal and complex tastes, thus
redoing the meaning of (heterosexual) 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.1 To date, only Darwin (2017) 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 con-
sume craft beer; and (3) In what ways are femininity and masculinity done, undone, and
redone through women’s presence in the craft beer culture?
302   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

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. Data collection occurred
over the course of one month; however, the data represented a much longer time span.
Specifically, the threads ranged in year from 2010 to 2016. beerit was selected primarily
due to the sheer size of the community, but also its highly 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), male (90 percent), and younger adult (77 percent in the 21–34-year-old range).
Further, we recognize that the cultural status and consumptive meanings of beer likely vary
significantly by nation and region. It seems to us that the majority of beerit participants
reside within the United States; however, it is clear that there are also a substantial number
of international users through their contextualization of their own drinking culture such as
“In XX country,” or “As a [insert nationality here]”. Therefore, our data cannot speak directly
to cross-national patterns of gender and beer consumption. Given the homogeneous nature
of these demographics, we pay careful attention to the contextual specificity of our analysis
so as not to overgeneralize our findings. While these user-generated survey data help to
paint a demographic portrait of the community’s participants, such data have not been
utilized in the study of alcohol consumption and gender. Therefore, we seek to explore the
possibilities of user-generated discussion threads as a viable form of qualitative data. One
significant strength of researching discussion threads in online contexts qualitatively is that
it permits the analysis of cultural phenomena as they occur naturally in their interactional
contexts. It is difficult to confirm the identity of informants in pseudo-anonymous settings,
such as Internet-based forums; however, for this analysis, we took the user’s word at face
value when he/she disclosed his/her gender identity. Many commenters would preface their
responses with phrases such as, “As a woman, …” or “My boyfriend….” For those who do not
self-identify within their post, we attempted to speculate their identity by utilizing context
clues such as “My other friends who are girls….” Throughout our analysis, we provide the
commenter’s identifiers when available.
Given our particular interest in the relationships between gender and craft beer con-
sumption, 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 selecting
only those that were directly related to the topic of women’s attitudes, practices, and expe-
riences as craft beer consumers. In sum, we used convenience sampling to collect 27 full
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   303

comment threads and analyzed over 1,300 comments and sub-comments. 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. A comment excerpt is defined as a self-contained
segment of text in the thread data that is relevant to women’s experiences, attitudes, and
practices involving craft beer consumption. The comments that make up our data varied
greatly in length from a single sentence to several complete paragraphs. While the comment
excerpts were self-contained, we analyzed them in relation to one another if they were direct
responses to previous comments in order to more fully reflect the context of the comments.
While our aim was 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 advan-
tages of a grounded theory methods approach include, “the ability to conceptualize,” and
its ability to “provide data depth and richness” (El Hussein et al. 2014). Our data analysis
process was iterative in 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 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 (re)doing gender, we first examined 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, which
further supports Darwin’s (2017) findings. In these threads we found 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, a norma-
tive set of expectations for craft drinkers is constructed, ones that distinguish masculine
flavors and behaviors from those that are marked feminine. In addition to perceptions of
preference based on gender, beer itself is perceived to be more or less feminine based on
304   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

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.
Additionally, the gendering of beer leads consumers to believe that certain styles of beer
are superior to others, strictly based on the perceived gender of the beer itself (Darwin
2017). One 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, mascu-
line 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,
self-identified male, suggested to another commenter that if his girlfriend likes only 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 bound-
ary work. In reference to marketing of “pink”2 beer, one commenter said, “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 who 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 mar-
keting “pink” beer in fact seemed to deter some women from drinking craft beer, rather
than encouraging them. In Darwin’s (2017) view, “pink” beer may also carry less cultural
capital than more legitimate craft beers due to its association with femininity. As such, most
men and many women attempted to disassociate from such beers in an attempt to establish
an identity as a real craft beer drinker. 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 empower-
ment-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 in our study perceived 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!” On the one hand,
many women expressed distaste or apathy towards marking their “difference” from men
within the craft beer culture, arguing that women’s participation should be considered just
as equal or “normal” as their male counterparts. Yet, on the other hand, as a consequence
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   305

of this distancing from embracing femininity and “pink” in craft beer, as these commenters
often echoed, this beer automatically becomes devalued, or less than real beer for real beer
drinkers. Similar to Darwin’s (2017) findings, pink beer is given less cultural legitimacy by
its association with femininity, where anything female/feminine is valued less than male/
masculine. Stating that women want “real” beer over “women’s” beer does not mean that any
beer is genderless or undoes the need for explicitly gendered discussions around women’s
incorporation in craft beer culture. Rather, the gender hierarchy is redone by perpetuat-
ing the value of “real” beer as the neutral standard (also, subliminally masculine) while
devaluing beer for women. While we found that certain styles of beer were associated with
certain genders, and that certain beers were considered more culturally legitimate than
others (Darwin 2017), many craft beer drinkers expressed this theme of rejecting gender
stereotypes not only within pink beers, but also by expressing the belief that beer should
be “gender neutral.” The notion of gender neutral or genderless beer assumes that beer
itself does not possess an inherent gender, and all craft beer drinkers can drink any type
of beer. 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 contradictory manner
to 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 (1986), Scott (1988), Anderson and Johnson (2003), and
Kelan (2010) highlight, this does not necessarily mean that gender is undone to the point
at 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 upholding masculine beer
as “real.” Consequently, rather than undoing gender in this context, craft beer as a gendered
object is redone under the guise of neutrality. 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 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?
306   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Women’s experiences and men’s gatekeeping

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 consumption of craft beer and presence within craft
beer spaces redoes beer’s essentialized masculinity, all while these new gender dynamics
face resistance to change through men’s gatekeeping that perpetuates normative power
hierarchies.
Throughout the discussion threads on beerit, users grappled with the viability of pink beer
in the context of what it means to be a woman within craft beer culture. On one hand, many
women drinkers outright rejected the idea of pink beer and its “natural” association with
women, suggesting that the ways in which gender differences between men and women are
treated as innate, fixed, natural, and binary are undone at the seams so that gender becomes
a possibility in which one can explore, do, and be. Rather than women being relegated to
a second class/subordinated status of drinking “pink” beer, their rejection of all things
pink embraces a new kind of empowerment associated with womanhood that is liberated
from these binary roles. In these discussion threads we found evidence of women undoing
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 commented,
“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 associated feminine traits). To be a “real” craft beer drinker and a
woman are not two mutually exclusive categories; one does not (and arguably should not)
have to embrace traditional notions of masculinity or femininity.
Yet, on the other hand, this newfound sense of liberatory womanhood within craft beer
culture does not undo gender to the point at which gender differences no longer exist.
As West and Zimmerman (1987, 2009, 118) and Hollander (2013) argue, “Gender is not
undone, so much as redone.” In the case of women rejecting pink beer and calling for a
unified, supposedly “gender-neutral” and “real” beer, as well as the very financial viability
of pink beer being marketed, this serves as testimony to the institutionalized gender norms
by which people are held accountable to others. In other words, the rejection and denial
of gender differences in types of beer, as well as the marketization of women in craft beer,
tells a different story. Rather than there being no gender in craft beer, gender differences are
reconstructed (redone) through the accountability structure. Through these interactions
between beerit users, we see different ways in which people are conforming their behavior
in response to the knowledge that others will evaluate their behavior. In this three-step
process, women especially respond to the accountability of others through orienting their
behavior, assess their own and other’s behaviors in relation to the accountability structure,
and, most importantly, enforce gendered expectations.
For instance, we found women redo gender through their accountability to others by
demonstrating that they are knowledgeable and experienced beer drinkers. Women in these
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   307

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
by speaking out against pink beer (for further discussion of cultural capital, see Darwin
2017). For example, a self-identified woman commented,
I’m an Untappd3 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 self-identified woman even illustrated 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 in interactions with other craft beer
drinkers, we see women enacting non-traditional feminine traits in an attempt to legiti-
mize their own presence and qualifications. This communicates to others that they belong
to the community because that they recognize and uphold the current (gendered) cultural
hierarchy that values “masculine as neutral” at the risk of assessment. It is through this
interactional decoupling of womanhood and femininity that women can embrace craft beer:
what it means to be a woman drinker (including their preferences and roles) is no longer
separate from that of a man because women must fit the pre-existing male hierarchy to be
fully included. That is not to say that their gender does not matter, but in fact the opposite.
almost by claiming, “Hey! I know more than you…” and “I drink real beer” women are
staking a claim to their seat at the metaphorical (and even literal) bar by disenfranchising
and delegitimizing femininity within craft beer.
While these perceptions are noted in the data, women’s self-accountability is only one half
of the picture. We also noted evidence of men interactionally assessing and enforcing norms
through a variety of different tactics in order to redo gender. As Hollander (2013, 11) explains,
these are moments of “accountability rituals” where challenges to a person’s sex category mem-
bership require that “the target respond in order to reclaim membership in the category and
thus repair any interactional disruption that has occurred.” This could include direct or indirect
comments or questions, administration of material rewards or punishments, smiles or frowns,
or continued or discontinued social interaction between actors.
As we find amongst men among whom women craft beer drinkers interact, one primary
tactic to hold women accountable includes the strict gatekeeping that determines women’s
admittance (allowance) under the auspices of doing dominance and deference associated
with doing masculinity and femininity. Doing masculinity includes patterns of exhibiting
power and control over women and femininity, which we argue includes beer drinking and
knowledge of beer. In this analysis there are extensive discussions 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
308   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

given thought as to “how” to do this in a way 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 found repeatedly was 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 is at the
mercy of men who interpret whether or not women’s performance of gender is within the
realm of acceptability in terms of upholding the meaning and differences between gender
categories, as well as their associated power relationship.
This is further exemplified through the strict sexualized gatekeeping we viewed. Drawing
on Schilt and Westbrook (2009), the sexualization and objectification of women and fem-
ininity in craft beer spaces is a way for men to perform, or do, their masculinized (and
heterosexualized) dominance, power, and control: to do heteronormativity (for more see
Rich 1980; Ward and Schneider 2009; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Darwin 2017). By
highlighting the enforcement of women’s sexual submission to men, this brings attention
to the everyday workings of heteronormativity’s maintenance of the sex/gender binary. 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 wrote, “I know loads of women who just
like ‘beer,’ they’d laugh their tits off at this,” while another said, “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 (redoes) 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, sub-
sequentyly, what it means to be a woman.
Like Darwin (2017), who finds that gender policing of gender-transgressive drinkers
most often occurred across a gender group (i.e., men policing women) rather than within
a group (i.e., women policing other women), our data highlight a pattern of objectification
and sexualization of women by men. Yet, what we did not encounter were any instances
of men being sexualized by women. With regard to redoing gender, there is reason to look
for what is not said within these interactions: why are women transgressive drinkers more
regulated by men drinkers than vice versa? It is possible that the lack of male sexualization
further supports the concept of redoing heteronormativity within craft beer spaces. Darwin
(2017, 230–231) argues that the fact that women who transgress and drink “masculine”
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   309

beers serves to culturally legitimize masculinity: “Female respondents typically assume that
men’s beer orders are influenced by their expertise, regardless of which type of beer they
order. However, men do not similarly assume that fellow men select “feminine” beer due
to expert knowledge; rather, men are more inclined to excuse the transgression as a matter
of taste or novice status within the craft beer scene.” In this case, men who transgress are
not sexualized, objectified, or othered because of their assumed status as a legitimate beer
drinker. Even those who transgress are not subject to gatekeeping, unlike women, because
they already have a foothold within the proverbial door as men, which is considered already
more legitimate and “natural” than women. As a result, men are not sexualized to the
same extent because women do not have the same cultural capital or status to delegitimize
men. Within craft beer culture, women’s participation is perpetually questioned and held
accountable to uphold and redo the gender hierarchy.

Conclusion
Drawing on 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’ consumption behav-
iors are intrinsically connected to their gender identity. 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 is actively communicated, renegotiated, and accomplished through the interactional
construction of 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, increasingly, many women are attempting
to undo gender by embracing and participating in craft beer culture. Whether or not these
women are successful, however, is subject to interpretation. On the one hand, their asser-
tion of knowledge and expertise as well as their outright rejection of “feminine” and “pink”
drinks could be understood as a removal of gender barriers and differences within craft
beer consumption. Meanwhile, this could also be seen as gender’s redoing, whereby doing
gender within craft beer spaces is successful through the reinforcement of a dichotomous
gender hierarchy whereby “masculine” drinks and “real beer drinkers” are deemed cultur-
ally legitimate while femininity is devalued and outright rejected. Through the interactions
between men and women in this craft beer space, we can begin to understand the ways in
which the entry of women into craft beer culture at full force does not necessarily equate to
equality or full inclusion but, rather, to how both women and men negotiate the boundaries
of inclusion through accountability structures.
In this article, we highlight three themes in our research that emerge in craft beer drink-
ers’ 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 through the doing, undoing, and redoing
of gender. We find that as women’s consumption of craft beer, presence in craft beer spaces,
and participation in craft beer culture increases, the meanings of masculinity and femininity
are consequently challenged. As a result, craft beer consumers, as active participants in the
social construction of gender, interact with one another to renegotiate, construct, and enact
a set of normative expectations that are distinctly masculine and feminine (Kirkham 1996;
Oudshoorn, Saetnan, and Lie 2002).
310   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

As styles of beer continue to become more daring and innovative, more breweries open,
marketing develops, communities form, and the qualifications for craft beer change, and
demographics of the craft beer community grow and change, the meanings behind mascu-
linity and femininity—man and woman—will continue to develop. It is important to note
that these data provide only one snapshot of the ever-changing gender dynamics within craft
beer. One of the limitations of our data is that we selected threads that discussed craft beer
specifically instead of comparing craft with domestic beer. Therefore, we cannot assume that
all women beer consumers generally share these sentiments; however, based on our findings
we believe that this view is shared broadly among craft beer drinkers. While we believe that
those engaged in these discussions are more entrenched in craft beer culture, there is some-
thing to be said about the missing voices of women who are not included, do not feel safe,
or are just beginning to explore the world of craft beer. In fact, due to the unrepresentative
demographics of beerit as a community space, the opinions and experiences of both men
and women through these threads cannot be assumed to be representative of all craft beer
drinkers. Further research should include closer examinations of the intersections between
other forms of identities such as class, race, sexuality, and age within the craft beer com-
munity to examine how these gender dynamics are further complicated by social location.
Additionally, further research should consider ways to examine these interactions in spaces
other than beerit, such as more public spaces like breweries, bars, or beer festivals. 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
the female-only event Ales4Females at Left Hand Brewing). 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?
As we argue in this paper, looking at craft beer consumption not as a result of gender
differences but rather as influential and a cause for the accomplishment of gender itself
highlights the possibilities for ways in which gender dynamics change over time. The con-
stant push and pull between who can and cannot—should and should not—drink craft
beer highlights the points of tension surrounding the value of masculinity and femininity
within the gender hierarchy. As women continue to forge a path into the masculine-dom-
inated space of craft beer, we can only hope that this encourages dialogue and increases
visibility within this community. But, this can only happen if womanhood and femininity
gain cultural legitimacy amongst beer drinkers. While we found a detachment (redoing) of
femininity from “real beer,” perhaps the solution is the exact opposite: women’s embracing
of feminine presentation and roles while engaging in a traditional masculine activity: beer
drinking. As one beerit user noted:
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.
As this user exemplifies, beer’s continued dissociation from femininity creates an atmos-
phere in which women are unwelcomed, stigmatized, sexualized and/or othered within
craft beer spaces, marked as “not real beer drinkers.” As more and more women begin to
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   311

enjoy craft beer, they experience heightened gatekeeping and exclusionary interactions
with men that try to reinforce gender boundaries and hierarchies. This ultimately does not
undo gender, but it does recognize the differences between beer drinkers while the gender
hierarchy loses its power. Only through these tensions can the gender binary become nego-
tiated, contested, and redone to increase all people’s participation in craft beer to the fullest.

Notes
1. 
There is, however, a large amount of research on doing gender and drug users and dealers.
For women in particular, the complexity of accomplishing gender deals with aspects of both
hegemonic and subordinated femininities of the “good” and “bad” girl and the expectations
of desire and self-image. See Miller and Carbone-Lopez (2015), Ludwick, Murphy, and Sales
(2015), and Measham (2002).
2. 
“Pink” beer is a brand name of light beer marketed to women, but is also a generic term used
to describe “feminine” alcoholic beverages.
Untappd is a widely-used social networking platform that allows users to catalog, rate, and
3. 
review beers, breweries, and bottle shops.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
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 sociocultural
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 pronouns) is a doctoral student in the Sociology Department with a con-
centration on Women’s and Gender Studies at Virginia Tech. Her research applies critical trans and
queer perspectives to the construction and institutionalization of gender and sexual normativities.
In her spare time Megan is the Founding Managing Editor of Sociology of Race and Ethnicity and she
enjoys serving as the editor-in-chief for VT’s LGBTQ Magazine, The Interloper.
J. Slade Lellock is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at Virginia Tech. His research inter-
ests 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.
Julie Mikles-Schluterman received her PhD 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 on raising awareness of gender issues. Since 2011 she has hosted
the Red Flag Campaign on the ATU campus each spring educating students about dating violence
and sexual assault.
312   N. G. CHAPMAN ET AL.

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 (9/10): 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.” NORA - Nordic Journal of
Feminist and Gender Research 21 (1): 57–73.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: 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 J. W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.”
Gender & Society 19 (6): 829–859.
Darwin, Helana. 2017. “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, 222–235.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Deustch, Francine M. 2007. “Undoing Gender.” Gender & Society 21 (1): 106–127.
El Hussein, Mohamed, 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.
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.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Inquiry. Chicago, IL: 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.
Hollander, Jocelyn A. 2013. “‘I Demand More of People’: Accountability, Interaction, and Gender
Change.” Gender & Society 27 (1): 5–29.
Kelan, Elisabeth K. 2010. “Gender Logic and (Un)doing Gender at Work.” Gender, Work &
Organization 17 (2): 174–194.
Kerr, William C., Thomas K. Greenfield, Jason Bond, Yu Ye, and Jurgen Rehm. 2004. “Age, Period
and Cohort Influences on Beer, Wine and Spirits Consumption Trends in the US National Alcohol
Surveys.” Addiction 99: 1111–1120.
Kirkham, Pat, ed. 1996. The Gendered Object. Manchester, NH: 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
 FOOD, CULTURE & SOCIETY   313

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.
Ludwick, Micheline D., Sheigla Murphy, and Paloma Sales. 2015. “Savvy Sellers: Dealing Drugs,
Doing Gender, and Doing Difference.” Substance Use & Misuse 50: 708–720.
Measham, Fiona. 2002. ‘“Doing Gender’– ‘Doing Drugs’: Conceptualizing the Gendering of Drug
Cultures.” Contemporary Drug Problems 29: 335–373.
Miller, Jody, and Kristin Carbone-Lopez. 2015. “Beyond ‘Doing Gender’: Incorporating Race, Class,
Place, and Life Transitions into Feminist Drug Research.” Substance Use & Misuse 50: 693–707.
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.
Peralta, Robert L. 2007. “College Alcohol Use and the Embodiment of Hegemonic Masculinity Among
European College Men.” Sex Roles 56 (11-12): 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: Journal of Women
in Culture and Society 5 (4): 631–660.
Risman, Barbara J. 2009. “From Doing To Undoing: Gender as We Know It.” Gender & Society 23
(1): 81–84.
Schilt, Kristen, and Laurel Westbrook. 2009. “Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: ‘Gender
Normals’, Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality.” Gender & Society
23 (4): 440–464.
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.
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.
Wilsnack, Sharon C., Richard W. Wilsnack, and Lori Wolfgang Kantor. 2014. “Focus On: Women
and the Costs of Alcohol Use.” Alcohol Research Current Reviews 35 (2): 219–228.
Wilsnack, Richard W., Sharon C. Wilsnack, Arlinda F. Kristjanson, Nancy D. Vogeltanz-Holm,
and Gerhard Gmel. 2009. “Gender and Alcohol Consumption: Patterns From the Multinational
GENACIS Project.” Addiction 104: 1487–1500.