Reddit reviews Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture

No, but they are perpetuating the same stereotypes that justified not giving you those rights for generations and generations.

See: Enlightened Sexism and Female Chauvinist Pigs

> This isn't to attack anyone personally for identifying with this word, but to shed light on my experiences in the hopes that we can come to greater conclusions together.

I really appreciate this being at the beginning. I want this post to be a fruitful, respectful discussion among women, not a flamewar between feminists and anti-feminists. I'm willing to criticize feminism as a card-carrying member, but I'm not willing to debate about the existence of misogyny or whether or not women face unique challenges that need addressing.


First, I believe you are perfectly justified for not calling yourself a feminist -- and I say this as a self-identifying feminist. When a woman rejects the label, a lot of feminists' knee-jerk impression will be that this particular woman doesn't care about being treated with equality, is ungrateful for the gains of feminism, is brainwashed by the patriarchy and brimming with internalized misogyny, etc.; but the unfortunate fact is that mainstream (liberal) feminism continues to be hugely problematic. It's been racist and classist, myopic and puerile. It does not promote analysis. It treats the white, western, middle-class, able-bodied, hetero cis-woman experience as universal. It confuses florid displays of sexuality with empowerment and conservativism in that area (lowercase c) with oppression, which is not only NOT liberating for many women, it's also disrespectful to many survivors of sexual assault (such as yourself) and racist. Just google "Slutwalk and racism". There's also this book called Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture that I read a few years ago, and the author Ariel Levy has a lot of the same criticisms you do. I'm really glad that this was one of the first books I read when I was new to being a feminist, because I think it helped me to steer myself in a different direction. I don't remember absolutely everything, and it may or may not contain ideas I might disagree with at this point, but I still recommend it. And I also agree with you about there being an inordinate amount of focus on relatively petty things -- liberation isn't achieved by one's stance regarding pubic hair or the color pink.

Your post is so, so important. I know that when many women won't identify as a feminist, a lot of the time it's because they have no idea what feminism actually entails. However, it's also perfectly possible that a woman rejects the label because she's actually aware of the problems in the mainstream feminist movement and doesn't want to align herself with it. I don't think it's fair that feminists demand that all women who believe in equality adopt the label. I wish I could get behind "Believe in gender equality? Then you're a feminist!", but I can't. There are good reasons to not call yourself one. And this should piss feminists off! This should make feminists reflect on their movements, analyze their beliefs, and work to correct the inadequacies (like intersectional feminists do). What feminists shouldn't do is react like an immature youtuber, where anyone with any criticism is "just a hater", or "self-hating and ignorant". Calling yourself a feminist doesn't magically make you enlightened, it doesn't give you a leg-up on being just and fair, and NOT calling yourself one does not translate into a knowledge deficit. Feminists who are worth a damn already know this. This discussion is already going on, but it needs to be even more widespread than it already is. Thanks for making the post.

There's an awesome book called Female Chauvinist Pigs that looks at how we went from women burning bras to 18 year olds posing for girls gone wild. It's a great read and I highly recommend it! It explained a lot about my own journey into feminism. =)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0743284283?pc_redir=1414449178&robot_redir=1

I really enjoyed Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, especially the chapter about "Pigs in Training" where she examines the oversexualization of female youth. Also fascinating was her analysis of this category of women in the workforce called "loophole women" who consider themselves an exception to the rule of timid females in business, boasting about having "the biggest cock in the building" to seem more "male" than their female co-workers. And she looks into the commodification of sex as it relates to the perception of empowerment. It was a quick read and very relatable to me at a time when I was struggling to make sense of what femininity and sexuality and feminism really meant for me.

http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312261847&sr=8-1

There are many more that exist, of course, but here are some of my favourites:

Bitchfest - A collection of essays from Bitch magazine

Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture by Ariel Levy

Men explain things to me - Rebecca Solnit

Backlash - Susan Faludi

Bad feminist by Roxane Gay - I'm just in the middle of reasing this now, really enjoying it.

Of course it's "logical" for women to buy into patriarchy - but it's only logical after one has accepted that this is the way things are and they cannot change.

>So why is it that when men hold a sexist ideology, their positions are attributed to a well established (and by many, respected) ideology, but when women analyze the same information, and come to the same conclusions, is it assumed that she's internalized this completely irrational ideology that supposedly belongs to men alone, as if she's somehow been brainwashed and manipulated?

This is confusing - I think feminists would say both have been equally socialized (they wouldn't say "brainwashed") to believe patriarchal constructs. Part of the confusion seems to be that you're using "rational" to mean "self-interested." A man buying into patriarchy is purely self-interested, right, because he's reaching for the highest status in his given society, accepting no limitations on that status. Women who buy in are also trying to achieve the highest status possible in their society, and in that way are self-interested, but the woman is accepting that there are limitations for her. She is trying to be the highest-status subordinate. From that wider perspective, she's not acting in self-interest if she does not challenge her ultimately subordinate status. That doesn't mean it's irrational, but it does make buying into the patriarchy as a man vs. as a woman inherently different, because a man's position in patriarchy is by definition different from a woman's.

I think you could go further, though, and argue that men buying into patriarchy are not actually truly acting in their own best interests, because as we all well know, patriarchy hurts men too. But it's different from internalized misogyny because it's still completely self-interested within the logic of the system - within the way patriarchy defines value - if not truly self-interested in the context of other (more organic?) systems of value.

Edit: There are also different ways of "buying into patriarchy." My discussion above has in mind women who accept and embrace a very traditional feminine role. But there are also women that are what Ariel Levy has called "female chauvinist pigs", who essentially adopt a sexist masculine persona in order to try to achieve higher status than women are generally allotted in patriarchy (since, again, in patriarchy masculine>feminine). Again, this is completely rational within the context of patriarchy, arguably even more "logical" (self-interested) than the traditional woman's strategy, but as Levy points out:

>There's just one thing: Even if you are a woman who achieves the ultimate and becomes like a man, you will still always be like a woman. And as long as womanhood is thought of as something to escape from, something less than manhood, you will be thought less of, too.

Two that I think are great without going back too far are Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.

I'm looking at amazon.com and thinking of ordering a new one from bell hooks, who I've always liked. As an African-American woman, hooks has always had a broader perspective.

I'd also recommend Susan Faludi's Backlash.

Amanda Marcotte's recent It's a Jungle Out There was a quick read and good.

I'm currently looking at Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism and by Siegel and Baumgardner's Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, but they're about 4th and 5th on my current reading list and I can't yet say how I'd rate them.

Also on my reading list is Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint) by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba on my list. Looking forward to that one. Warren Farrell is a former feminist and the father of the men's liberation movement. The movement had progressive roots, but I think Farrell's moved more center, and certainly the men's movement has some very conservative branches. I think it will be interesting splitting apart any anti-feminism from the pro-men's liberation stuff.

I personally don't think there's any conflict between men and women's liberation, but I want to be more informed as to the current arguments.

In a nutshell, Ms. Levy asserts that women are at least partially to blame for the "raunch" culture -- women making other women and themselves sex objects.

If you are interested in learning more, here is a link from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347384465&sr=8-1&keywords=female+chauvinist+pigs.

I would suggest you check it out from your local library.

You're making me math?? Oh, you cruel fiend :)

This book + this dvd should be $22.21, if I didn't mess up my math :) .

Here's actual data on why I urge you to not screw up your relationship, if you are with a good man.

This book was published this year https://www.amazon.com/Girls-Sex-Navigating-Complicated-Landscape-ebook/dp/B0111YAT0Y

>They are considerably less likely, for instance, to receive oral sex in casual encounters, and when they do, it’s rarely to climax: only 17 percent of women reported orgasms in first hookups that included oral sex alone, as opposed to 60 percent whose most recent cunnilingus experience was in a relationship. (Men in hookups, incidentally, overestimate their partners’ orgasms by a third to a half.) In hookups involving intercourse, 40 percent of women said they’d come (half the rate of men who did), as opposed to three-quarters in serious relationships.

>Perhaps one could argue that it takes time for men to learn a female partner’s body and responses, but it also requires interest—and basic respect. Young men routinely express far less of both for hookup partners than for girlfriends or even “friends with benefits.”

Also based on this book from from 11 years ago, 70% of women having casual sex were not having orgasms https://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283

If you aren't satisfied with sex with your boyfriend, I can suggest some books to fix that too.