Recent feminist scholarship on femininities favorably incorporates into research notions of what Raewyn Connell (1987) labeled “emphasized femininity,” yet some scholars have concentrated on “hegemonic femininities,” either conceptualizing hegemonic femininities in relation to hegemonic masculinities, or casting hegemonic femininity as a free-standing, non-relational concept that can only properly be understood through an intersectional analysis. In this article, I critically reflect on two representative articles on hegemonic femininities, authored by Carrie Paechter (2018) and Laura T. Hamilton et al. (2019). I first argue that both papers misrepresent the work of Connell. Following that, I augment the two articles through a delineation of recent research on various types of femininities, especially scholarship on emphasized femininities and “dominant femininities.” I conclude the paper by examining how further scholarly work has enlarged upon and contributed new insight to the relationship among femininities, hegemonic masculinities, and intersectionality.

最近的关于女性气质的女性主义学者将Raewyn Connell（1987）标记为“强调女性气质”的研究概念很好地纳入了研究观念，但一些学者却专注于“霸权女性气质”，要么将霸权女性气质概念化为霸权男性气质，要么将霸权女性气质铸造独立，非关系的概念，只有通过交叉分析才能正确理解。在本文中，我批评性地回顾了Carrie Paechter（2018）和Laura T.Hamilton等人撰写的两篇有关霸权女性气质的代表性文章。（2019）。首先，我认为这两篇论文都歪曲了康奈尔的工作。接下来，我通过描述各种类型的女性气质的最新研究来扩充这两篇文章，特别是关于强调女性气质和“主流女性气质”的奖学金。最后，我通过研究如何进一步扩大学术工作，以及对女性气质，霸权男性气质和交叉性之间的关系提供了新的见解，来结束本文。