#1 November 7th, 2005 06:36 AM

mlwade

Member

Female Chauvinist Pigs

Wondering what you ladies who have posted pictures think of Ariel Levy's new book: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.  Would ISM count as an instance of the phenomenon that she is documenting?

thecatman

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

I actually hadn't heard of that book until I saw this thread here.  Went over to Amazon.com and checked out the descriptions and reviews.  From my cursory examination, it looks to be an attempt at restoration of gynocentric anti-sexual feminism a la Catharine MacKinnon.  While there's plenty to criticise in the shallowness of popular mass-marketed culture, this sort of devisive identity politics dialectic hardly seems construtive.  That's my two cents...

mlwade

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

The book is more about the rise of phenomena like Girls Gone Wild, women attending strip clubs where the strippers are women, and the like.  She says little about men and is instead interested in why so many young women are voluntarily emulating traditional male sexual behavior.  I don't have a settled opinion of the book and am reading various reviews to see what different folks have to say.  I don't love to alert the author to ISM which is obviously a forum for exhibitionism but seems rather different from the "raunch culture" that she examines.

jdudley76

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

I don't personally like the way Girls Gone Wild is publisized, but I think most of the emergence of open female sexuality has more to do with the dropping of inhibtions and fear of judgement and being called a "slut". I could be wrong, but the majority of the time I think women who display their sexuality are doing it for themselves and not through any sort of coersion. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it's done in an appropriate setting.

---

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."   - George W. Bush, as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002

blissed

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

Where's that a brothel sorry, that was probably ill judged like a lot of what I write here. But I think that the older you get the less likely we are to behave in exactly the way that's expected of us. But I might be wrong about that as well, so I'll shut up.

Markk02474

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

Lesbian Girls Gone wild is what I call the women's block party after the pride parade. Women in the bar above the alleyway gyrate and flash the female crowd below from the full height windows. Rugby team women pull each others shorts down also, but women's rugby seems to have emulated the men for much longer than other sport or social groups.

Go-go dancers in lesbian bars don't emulate strippers or go-go dancers in straight bars - they emulate the male go-go dancers in gay bars. In NYC, for example, I've seen them remove their tops at the Clit Club. The patrons do enjoy putting tips in g-strings like a strip joint.

Dating someone much younger is also now much more common for straight women. In on-line ads, some seem almost entitled to it and don't want a man their age, even. Many more women seem to want only men more fit or more attractive then they. That's in addition to earning enough money so that they can have kids and never work again. Lesbian women seem  generally more tolarant of age differences than straight women in my observations.

The straight female mate selection seems chauvinist, the other behavior might be piggish, but fun and harmless.

mlwade

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

If you get a chance, take a look at what the book says about a lesbian subculture where the women refer to themselves as Bois (pronounced Boys).

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

This email discussion at Slate is worth checking out regarding issues raised by that book.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

gala

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

gaa...i would like to take a look at this book before i say anything, but i don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon, so i can only respond to summaries and reviews that i've read.  one of the things i think is really treacherous about the book is the boi discussion.  you need to watch yourself around this topic, i think, because there are is a lot at work...identity politics, queer theory, and ideas about what "counts" as gender subversion.  as someone on the outside of the boi community, i feel a little uneasy talking about it at all, because i feel a lot of responsibility to let those foks speak for themselves, and have a hard time critiquing them.  it's also not likely that all bois are doing what they do to mimick misogynist or chauvinist behaviors, but i am concerned that levy might characterize the whole community as such. 

i think it's interesting to frame behaviors like spring break (which i do think can be described as a "behavior") and women watching female strippers as chauvinism.  as a voyeur myself, one who avidly and hungrily watches (good) female strippers (and drag queens, ohhh i love drag queens, but that might be another discussion), the models here on ism, and any other scantily-clad women that happen to fall into my line of vision, i can't say i experience any sort of exaggerated patriotism for my gender.  i really only get as far as admiration or curiosity about what it feels like to lay on her belly or how jealous i am of her shoes.  it doesn't give me any girl power steoriods or anything.  i just think, "hey, she's hot."  but i guess that brings me to a question about any chauvinism, whether it's male, female, or not: is it a conscious experience?  when i think about chauvinism, i think about the workers in the warehouse on the office, and i think they actively experience their chauvinism, and are conscious of it.  any other thoughts on this? 

as far as the increasing sexual expression of women: i think it's difficult to summarize the experience of all women here.  i think my version of sexual freedom marked by my participation in ism and my willingness to write and talk about my sex in graphic detail in most arenas feels differently than the freedom one experiences in a wet t-shirt contest in panama city beach, which in turn is a different experience than the freedom a woman can get from fucking who she wants when she wants how she wants.  i would love to hear how other folks feel about that...maybe i'm missing some universal thing.  but i'm not really sure where levy is going with her argument.  another question here is whether or not any of the girls who have gone wild do actually experience empowerment or freedom.  we can take a few different perspectives on that.  one could argue that, because the girls gone wild videos or amateur nights at straight strip clubs are ultimately being used to make a profit from predominantly male consumption and/or objectification of the female body, they are actually taking a hit on the empowerment thing.  on the other hand, we could look at that woman's individual experience, and if she feels empowered, she's empowered - we can't make conclusions about something we haven't felt ourselves.  hmm...i guess i'm left with no idea what to say about the book itself, since there are so many approaches to the topic itself.  and i've already said more than enough anyway.  any takers on this difficult topic?

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

any takers on this difficult topic?

Oh hell yeah.

The first thing I'd say is that I think it's very possible to overthink all of this.

I mean, I'm a big fan of thinking, and a big fan of organised formal systems of thought (you know, university educations and such).

What I'm less a fan of -- much less a fan of -- is the politicisation of supposed academic thought in the (post)modern humanities, so that we're endlessly discussing identity politics and chauvinism and exploitation as though these are fundamentally analytical concepts. Which they're not.

Because of this, discussions of these kinds of issues end up in very serious navel gazing along these weird hybrid analytic-political lines, like:

- well, a girl in a wet t-shirt contest appearing on Girls Gone Wild is producing material for male consumption that will make profits for other people, which is baaaaaaaaaad ...

- but maybe she feels truly empowered from doing so, which is gooooooooooood ...

- but is that the same as the empowerment a girl experiences from doing ISM? Don't really knoooooooooooow ...

And on it goes. This kind of overthinking is what I call unproductive overthinking because when you boil it down, it's just circular navel gazing that provides no real nugget of insight.

What I do think is this. I think anyone who writes a book like FCP is going to start out with a premiss, a viewpoint that they want to push. In this case, I think their viewpoint is that this modern move to public sexual display/acitivity by women is "Bad", and distracts women from achieving "Real Progress", because they are preoccupied with "Pleasing Men" (or "Imitating Men") rather than pursuing their own satisfaction, pleasure and progress. And somewhere along the line, "Society Will Be To Blame" because Sexist Society will be encouraging women to pursue these frivolous attention-seeking activities rather than, er, some more profound things, I guess.

I'm not sure I agree with her starting presumptions. It always seems to me that everyone wants to judge or control female sexuality, and whatever women are choosing to do at any point in time, someone (men and other women) will start passing comments. And writing books like this.

If the trend reverses fully (hypothetically), ten years from now we'll be seeing books on the New Prudery.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

gala

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

as someone who is interested in feminist politics and the formation of identiy (which some folks don't even believe in, and that's super), i have found it quite useful to toss around ideas about what we can and cannot know, what approaches we should take to a question, etc.  i have seen an increasing amount of backlash against that the older i get, and i'm going to assume that that's going to continue and i'll just have to keep doing what feels nice to me.  there is one thing i would argue with:

"What I'm less a fan of -- much less a fan of -- is the politicisation of supposed academic thought in the (post)modern humanities, so that we're endlessly discussing identity politics and chauvinism and exploitation as though these are fundamentally analytical concepts. Which they're not."

identity and chauvinism, for example, are things that are experienced by humans.  i would agree that they are not fundamentally analytical concepts.  but they are constructions, and they can be analyzed, and i think it's quite useful to analyze them.  any consideration of social movement and social change will be concerned with the ways in which we relate to self and identify.  which is why it's an important discussion when we talk about some of the issues female chauvinist pigs addresses, since the book is noting some sort of social change that has taken place.  also: i would argue that the politicization of academia is part of what makes it legitimate.  theory needs application.  politics (in the most general sense of the word - not in the electoral politics, hooray-for-hierarchy sort of sense) is a site for that.  many disciplines, like literary criticism, for example, are becoming increasingly inclusive of politics and political economy.  this looks exhasting for some folks, and it can be.  but i think it's necessary to continue to re-work the way we think about things like identity and chauvinism, because these are things that are constantly in flux in their constructions and manifestations, and they shape how we see the world.  it's common for them to be the subject of hostility, which is fine, but that doesn't diminish their significance.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

identity and chauvinism, for example, are things that are experienced by humans.  i would agree that they are not fundamentally analytical concepts.  but they are constructions, and they can be analyzed, and i think it's quite useful to analyze them.

Yes, fine, but HOW? Analyse them HOW? With what paradigm?

any consideration of social movement and social change will be concerned with the ways in which we relate to self and identify.

So outline a really good, solid, sound, tried-and-tested theory of "self and identity".

I don't mean to seem trouble-causing here. I just think the standards of scholarship in these areas are low relative to the high-flown rhetoric that surrounds them.

also: i would argue that the politicization of academia is part of what makes it legitimate.

Sadly, I'd argue the opposite. It's made it cliquish and irrelevant, and subverted the fundamental academic goal of seeking knowledge and understanding.

theory needs application.

"Politicisation" and "application" are not the same thing. I don't know what disciplines you are referring to that lacked application before the postmodernists came along. Physical sciences, biological sciences and social sciences teemed with application, for decades and decades. Where was this theory-without-application lurking?

English departments? Oh, of course...

many disciplines, like literary criticism, for example, are becoming increasingly inclusive of politics and political economy.

*shudder*

Oh yay. English professors incompetently discussing matters of economics. Which would be ok, in the sense that it's ok for me to talk about dentistry while knowing nothing about it. But what really sucks is when they presume to have scholarly authority to do so.

Trust me, I've yet to see a literature academic say anything sensible on anything "political economy" related. And I've looked.

i think it's necessary to continue to re-work the way we think about things like identity and chauvinism, because these are things that are constantly in flux in their constructions and manifestations, and they shape how we see the world.  it's common for them to be the subject of hostility, which is fine, but that doesn't diminish their significance.

See, I don't have any problem with this as a statement of intent. Of course we should think about these things. But in what directions, using what paradigm(s) to guide us? That's a tougher question.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

mlwade

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

I'd really love some commentary some day from someone who actually also read the book.  This is not meant as a put down to the folks who have responded to my original query.  I just would like to know what some folks think who actually are acquainted with what she writes.

Yes, fine, but HOW? Analyse them HOW? With what paradigm?

So outline a really good, solid, sound, tried-and-tested theory of "self and identity".

I don't mean to seem trouble-causing here. I just think the standards of scholarship in these areas are low relative to the high-flown rhetoric that surrounds them.

Sadly, I'd argue the opposite. It's made it cliquish and irrelevant, and subverted the fundamental academic goal of seeking knowledge and understanding.

"Politicisation" and "application" are not the same thing. I don't know what disciplines you are referring to that lacked application before the postmodernists came along. Physical sciences, biological sciences and social sciences teemed with application, for decades and decades. Where was this theory-without-application lurking?

English departments? Oh, of course...

*shudder*

Oh yay. English professors incompetently discussing matters of economics. Which would be ok, in the sense that it's ok for me to talk about dentistry while knowing nothing about it. But what really sucks is when they presume to have scholarly authority to do so.

Trust me, I've yet to see a literature academic say anything sensible on anything "political economy" related. And I've looked.

See, I don't have any problem with this as a statement of intent. Of course we should think about these things. But in what directions, using what paradigm(s) to guide us? That's a tougher question.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

Haha! Fair call.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

gala

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

mlwade has pointed out that the thread has taken quite a turn from its original topic.  it has instead become an argument about academia, politics, and "legitimacy" between mikhail and i, and no one should have to read that.  nor is it really productive - it will continue to go back and forth discussing theoretical and sometimes inaccessible things.  mikhail seems to come from a perspective of logical positivism and to have very high standards for things like analysis and theory, which i'm sure serves him very well.  it is not my responsibility to make academia appealing to him or to outline its triumphs in history or its many applications to politics or "real life."  i think that's a losing battle, as he already seems to know what he thinks on that issue.  i also don't feel that his patronizing "shudders" and his mockery of my attempt to engage with the original topic have provided the respect with which other members of the forum discuss and disagree, which is a good indication that it doesn't deserve too much more of my attention.  so, i'm going to stop giving that now and direct folks back to my original post, which does have to do entirely with the topics the book addresses (a book that apparently no one on this forum has read, which is fine), and which does ask for some feedback about individuals' experiences and perspectives with chauvinism and empowerment, which is perhaps a better way to carry out this discussion.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

Dear gala

I'm sorry you've taken some of what I've said as a personal attack, or me patronising you. I don't know you, and you seem to have defended your ideas with dignity. That I deeply disagree with some of what you say, says nothing about my feelings towards you personally. This is just debate, it's not personal.

Nor is it some stitched up debate between "logical positivism" and "postmodernism". I think some aspects of postmodernism have resulted in positive contributions, but making literature academics believe that they're fully qualified sociqal scientists is not one of them. Treating other existing disciplines as "discourses to be analysed" or "grand narratives to be deconstructed" is ideological imperialism, not scholarship. I would have thought the Sokal Hoax had taught us that by now, if nothing else.

I haven't read the book in question, but I have read various books of a similar nature recently, including Wendy Shalit's "Return to Modesty" (Shalit is one of the commentators in the Slate dialogue I linked to above). What these kinds of books have in common is
- an implicit starting point of approval or disapproval of the phenomenon under discussion
- a coherent or incoherent framework on which they base their approval or disapproval.

If you're lucky, you get an interesting description or explanation of why the phenomenon in question has come about in the way that it has. I wonder if FCP has a good discussion of that sort of thing. That would be one good reason to read the book, for me anyway. The implicit disapproval which I'm pretty sure is going to be there, I can do without.

Anyway, please, no offence was meant. I can argue what I believe quite fiercely, but I can be quite charming in person

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

Markk02474

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

A hundred years ago, the US had few laws against drugs or prostitution.

In my lifetime, major sexual trends in chronilogical order were:

-The Pill and "free love".
-Gay rights movement strengthens after Stonewall riot against police harassment.
-Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door" porn shown in mainstream theaters.
-Anti-sex feminists like Brownmiller and Dworkin in the 80's. "Off Our Backs" published.
-Democrats back in office, "On Our Backs" published - pro-sex feminists fight back, '90's on.
-Porn videos leave seedy theaters and come to home viewers.
-Gay rigths movement loses steam as acceptance becomes more common.
-Woman owned and run sex shops and web sites increase.

Female Chauvinist pigism just seems like a continuation of the pro sex movement, way beyond a backlash against the anti-sex feminists. Women wanting much younger men seems like a backlash against older man-younger woman couples.

This is feeding the US Christian right to have their own backlash. They've had limited success over the years, mainly getting large retailers to not stock some music, magazines, or videos. The Christian right succeeded briefly with alchohol prohibition, and are now working again on constitutional bans on gay rights and limiting reproductive freedoms.

Skinny dipping and Mardi Gras have always been fun and about shedding inhibitions, which I think is great. Ugly George was ok, though I never saw any of his videos. I cringe at girls who constantly act to get attention and wonder about their self-esteem needs. Likewise with girls in disco's playing gay to get guys' attention. Girls gone wild, also not seen, seems to feed attention seeking girls and also have a hyped, possibly exploitive, and commercial quality that Iare all negatives.

ISM, AbbyWinters, and other genuine amateur sites appeal to me for having more of the personal empowerment and shedding inhibiton goodness, downplaying the commercial aspects.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

Markk

Here's the sort of thing I'm getting at. I'll pose it in the form of a question.

Why is "inhibition-shedding" seen as a good thing while "attention-seeking" is seen as a bad thing?

This is what I meant when I say that writing about sexuality quickly gets loaded up with the writer's judgemental baggage.

I'm not disagreeing with you per se -- just asking a devil's advocate question.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

blissed

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

inhibition-shedding is about being confident.
and attention-seeking seems to suggest not being yourself, in reality being less than confident, and caring too much about what other people think. That's what I think anyway.

mlwade

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

I guess that, as far as I can tell, we human beings are judging creatures.  I'm not particularly troubled by judgment.  For me, the interesting thing is to find the angle of vision that leads someone to a particular judgment and to try to see things from that angle and work out how what I seeks works for me and mine, if it works for me and mine.  Since all perspectives are partial and no angle of vision is comprehensive, unless one has the vision of a God, i'm interested in letting my judgments go through as many angles of vision as possible in the hope, perhaps vain, that I'll be wiser for the effort.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

inhibition-shedding is about being confident.
and attention-seeking seems to suggest not being yourself, in reality being less than confident, and caring too much about what other people think. That's what I think anyway.

So you can classify people as either "confident" or "not confident"?

I ask because I can't. It seems to me that most of us are some mix of confidence and insecurity, gregariousness and shyness ... we're never either one or the other.

I'm a present or past member of a number of sites where folks pose nude. One of the things all these sites have in common is attention seeking. (The other element that some have as a motivating factor but others don't, is money.)

Which is to say, I can see inhibition shedding and attention seeking as going along quite closely together.

My deeper point is that this is reinforcing what I've been saying all along in this thread -- discussions of this sort always start from a judgemental position.

Example: inhibition-shedding is "good" (worthy of approval) while attention-seeking is "bad" (worthy of disapproval).

People constantly make judgments about other people's motivations when it comes to sex/porn/whatever. My expectation is that the book FCP is full of such pre-judgments about what is good or bad for other people.

Imagine if we had a discussion where we didn't do that! Wouldn't that be interesting...

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

I guess that, as far as I can tell, we human beings are judging creatures.  I'm not particularly troubled by judgment.  For me, the interesting thing is to find the angle of vision that leads someone to a particular judgment and to try to see things from that angle and work out how what I seeks works for me and mine, if it works for me and mine.  Since all perspectives are partial and no angle of vision is comprehensive, unless one has the vision of a God, i'm interested in letting my judgments go through as many angles of vision as possible in the hope, perhaps vain, that I'll be wiser for the effort.

Sounds on the money to me.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.

Markk02474

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

inhibition-shedding is about being confident.
and attention-seeking seems to suggest not being yourself, in reality being less than confident, and caring too much about what other people think. That's what I think anyway.

Pretty much that. I see inhibition shedding as personal growth and expansive. Attention seeking  (unless it increases your income) for self-esteem reasons does flag a need for that person to build self-esteem internally and not suck off external sources. Its similar to approval-seeking behavior.

These people are very exploitable ("I'll make you famous!") and that's the cringe factor with Girls Gone Wild, casting couch stories, and wanna-be models spending thousands for lessons and photo books. How much sunshine blowing did the photographer/videographer do? What percentage of girls are going to regret doing the shoot later on? I don't think being filmed in a natural state (naked) or doing something everyone does (sex) is so awful, but can close a few doors like being Miss America.

mikhaill

Member

Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs

Pretty much that. I see inhibition shedding as personal growth and expansive. Attention seeking  (unless it increases your income) for self-esteem reasons does flag a need for that person to build self-esteem internally and not suck off external sources. Its similar to approval-seeking behavior.

I've known very many nude models of one sort or other. None of them that I can think of was motivated exclusively either by "inhibition shedding" or else by "attention seeking". From every girl I've talked to, they've gained some combination of internal barrier-crossing and external affirmation from their experience.

This either/or'ing absolutely mystifies me.

What percentage of girls are going to regret doing the shoot later on?

See, now here we're on to something.

A few times, I've had the "Should I pose nude?" kind of discussion with a girl. I base my advice on this issue -- are they likely, in my judgement, to regret doing it later on?

Part of this is certainly a confidence thing. Are they willing to take the slings with the arrows? Can they deal with the insults or the sleazy come-ons, along with the praise and compliments?

Also, are their likely to be professional or personal reasons they might regret posing nude? Family relationships, job prospects, all of these things.

What I try hard never to do is second-guess their motives or desires. Are they seeking attention? Fine. Almost everyone who does this sort of this is. Are they shedding personal inhibitions? Excellent. Did they shed their inhibitions a full year ago and now they're being blatantly exhibitionistic? Excellent as well, although those girls aren't likely to be seeking my advice any more.

Who the hell am I to pass judgement on their motivatins? All I can do as a friend is to try and imagine whether I can see them wishing they hadn't done this. And tell them that, and then leave it to them.

---

Witty one-liner encapsulating powerful insight.