COMMENTS: 40
Female Chauvinist Pigs
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Anxious to be perceived as hot, and reluctant to feel left out of what Levy calls "the frat party of pop culture," FCPs eagerly make sex objects out of other women and themselves, claiming that watching Drew Barrymore whirl around a pole in the Charlie's Angels sequel and posing for Playboy is "empowering." Levy thinks they're kidding themselves, mistaking sexual power for real power and, worse, believing that mimicking the sexuality of strippers, Playmates, and porn stars -- women who are paid to simulate real women's sexuality -- is power in the first place. "'Raunchy' and 'liberated' are not synonyms," she says.
True. But they aren't necessarily opposites. As I was reading FCP, I kept remembering a scene from my youth. It was 1992 and I was in my kitchen, flipping through my dad's copy of Newsweek, when a picture stopped me cold. The girls in it were my age, but they looked a lot cooler than I did with their bleached blonde hair, arms crossed over their chests, and the word "Slut" scrawled in Sharpie across the defiantly unaerobicized stomachs protruding from their half-shirts. They were riot grrrls, "a sassy new breed of feminist for the MTV age." For the magazine's suburbanite subscribers -- who most likely couldn't fathom why a teenager would use her body as a billboard for high school's nastiest insult -- the article quoted one of the movement's zines: "SLUT. Yeah, I'm a slut. My body belongs to me. I sleep with who I want . . . I'm not your property." It was both no means no and yes means yes. To a seventeen-year-old girl, this was mind-blowing.
Levy is an ardent student of feminist history, eagerly chronicling how, in the 1970s, women's liberation and the sexual revolution overlapped, then diverged, before devolving into the sex wars of the 1980s that split the activists into two camps: "pro-sex" and "anti-porn." But besides a smackdown of purportedly pro-woman CAKE parties -- which "seek to redefine the current boundaries [of] female sexuality" via pole dancers; scantily-clad, pillow-fighting models; and the drooling guys who attend them -- Levy skips right over the riot grrrls and the rest of the feminists who began coming of age in the 1990s, the women who call themselves the third wave, who aren't just consumers of raunch culture, but helped create and define it.
It's a shame that Levy chooses to focus exclusively on young women who have nothing more on their minds than going wild, no political agenda other than getting ahead or liberating their own libidos. Because there are plenty of women who take a more socially conscious approach to smut. There are the women who, unhappy with a lack of girl-friendly porn, started Sweet Action, a glossy that showcases full-frontal rocker boys. There are the former editors of dearly departed teen magazine Sassy (which regularly and seriously used the word "patriarchy") who ran a monthly, guy-focused "Cute Band Alert" feature because "everyone needs someone to objectify."
But third-wave women did more than turn the tables on men; they questioned the very foundations of sexuality. Levy worries that one of the biggest sexual issues confronting women is "the prioritizing of performance over pleasure." And I concur that there's a serious problem when teenage girls feel like they need to show up to school tarted up like Christina Aguilera on the cover of her Drrrty album. But that isn't the whole story. As any undergraduate worth her Women's Studies diploma knows, third wave she-roes like Judith Butler, author of Gender Trouble, and Madonna, star of Truth or Dare, have had a lot to say about how performance can be a part of pleasure. (One that guys may be cluing in to: An acquaintance recently told me about going to see friends of her daughter's play in a band. In the middle of the set, the two guys stopped performing -- in the acoustic sense, at least -- and began furiously making out. "It's almost like teenage boys have caught up to where teenage girls were ten years ago," the woman mused.)
Speaking of performance: Levy devotes an entire chapter to "bois," lesbians who dress androgynously, aggressively pursue casual sex, and otherwise mimic adolescent male sexuality. Some of them, she says, adhere to "almost comically unreconstructed gender roles." I have no doubt that some androgynous lesbians are sexist, but Levy is on dangerous ground when she suggests that when a woman impersonates a teenage boy it means she's part of the problem. What about the bois who are both skirt-chasers and feminists? I'm thinking of J.D. Samson, the mustachioed member of the hugely popular band Le Tigre, and probably the most well-known and vocal boi in pop culture. In 2003, she posed as a dog walker, pool boy, lifeguard and various other hetero boy archetypes in a popular lesbian pin-up calendar. It certainly wasn't Playboy, but it wasn't anti-objectification either.
In other words, raunch culture isn't all about fake boobs, and the women who embrace it aren't all FCPs. Purchasing the Aerosmith DVD with all three Alicia Silverstone videos on it (which I did) or being the pleased recipient of an old copy of Playboy as a Christmas gift (that was me, too) might not be, to use a word that Levy and the FCPs both love, "empowering," but that doesn't mean I'm disempowered. Participating in raunch culture may not always be a feminist act, but that doesn't make those engaging in it antifeminists -- or deluded. I'm thinking of the happily paired lesbian couple I went to a pro-choice march with who went to a strip club on a recent birthday. Or the feminist labor activist friend who finds Brazilian bikini waxes sexy. Â Â Levy rails against a culture in which "the only alternative to enjoying Playboy is being 'uncomfortable' with or 'embarrassed' about your sexuality." But I know lots of women for whom there is a middle ground between rabid antiporn Dworkinizing and Girls Gone Wild vapidity. There are plenty of us who have put together our sexual identities from bits and pieces of our personal histories, our pop culture experiences, our love of certain parts of raunch culture that don't feel oppressive. Levy says, "We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex instead of mimicking whatever popular culture holds up as sexy." But for those of us not planning a move to a remote island without television, radio, or Wi-Fi, it's impossible to live a life untainted by Britney Spears. What the third wave has been so good at -- and what Levy doesn't talk about -- is taking the tropes pop culture has given us and transforming them for our own purposes.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: T.S. on Oct 4, 2005 9:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How telling that the Jesella herself does just this, speaks about her own sexual libido as if it means anything to the advancement of women’s human rights that she personally likes Playboy, girl-made pornography and Sassy magazine’s “cute band alerts.” The valorizing of lesbians going to strip clubs and women making their genitals little-girl bald is exactly the vapid, commercial brand of male-approved grrrl power Levy exposes as a sham.
I believe this is wishful thinking, "What the third wave has been so good at -- and what Levy doesn't talk about -- is taking the tropes pop culture has given us and transforming them for our own purposes."
I’m a feminist in my 20’s and I have not seen these transformations. What I see is women so desperate to be considered sexy instead of equal they mimic Paris Hilton and Britney Spears while not storming the palace, or doing much of anything, when the Democrats backburnered reproductive rights. More teenaged women got cosmetic surgery than joined NOW last year. I don’t care about third wavers trying to “transform” their use of pornography and prostitutes into feminist acts, and the men who still control our lives laugh at and ignore the thonged girls with bad cases of penis envy, that is when they're not trying to get them to suck face with each other.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: yeahright
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: T.S.
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: Siren5864
Comments are closed-
Posted by: delphyne on Oct 4, 2005 1:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, Third Wave heroine Courtney Love appeared in a hagiography of Larry Flynt, woman-hater extraordinaire. What exactly has the Third Wave done to liberate women from male sexual oppression? I haven't seen any evidence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Raunch and pimps
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: philame
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: Siren5864
» RE: aunch and pimps
Posted by: delphyne
» All men are scum
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: All men are scum
Posted by: delphyne
» RE: All men are scum
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Get real you ass!
Posted by: Femforce22
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Oct 5, 2005 5:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet you keep on hearing about depressed female desire as a medical syndrome (Whether or not caused by the pill). And women talk about not getting pleasure from intercourse or masturbation. Also, it seems like several common female fantasies are lifted straight from ordinary male porn. I think that easy access to porn has caused girls to get confused about what they desire or how to act in sexual situations. So they just mimic what they see, and if they don't enjoy it, think it must be them. Also, I think guys have gotten lazy about trying to find out what pleases the girl they're with, as opposed to what they saw online last night.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Missing some of the point
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: Female porn
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Female porn
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Missing some of the point
Posted by: philame
Comments are closed-
Posted by: T.S. on Oct 6, 2005 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least you recognize this much about the unfair treatment of women to supply your hobby.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 6, 2005 11:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philame on Oct 7, 2005 2:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What evidence do you have that you are suffering from male oppression?
Posted by: philame
» Women can't hear what men don't say
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RealityCheck on Oct 9, 2005 11:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, If a man requires multiple female relationships to be sexually satisfied, can a current generation feminist ever accept that circumstance, knowing that the woman too may need other partners for complete sexual fulfillment? Is it okay for a man to accept that and "take his turn?" or is it degrading to a woman to accept that?
If the pervasiveness of porn in society has led to the widespread acceptance of "open relationships" in the culture (with a focus on safe sex and STD screening blood test), which i believe it has, can that genie ever be put back into the bottle and could a woman like you ever accept this lifestyle of a 2-way street?
Do you think its possible for strippers and porn stars to provide any positive contribution to the sexual attitudes of a society, like less inhibition, more creative and adventurous sexual stimulation etc? or are they just prostitutes to be condemned or maybe worst--and why should a lap dance or having sex with 2 men at the same time be considered far worse than a "nice" girl aborting a child after a careless night of sex? What does the young feminist of today think?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ealityCheck
Posted by: Siren5864
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 9, 2005 11:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The version described in the article sounds to me like just the exporting of California to the rest of the country. Children's immitation of adult sexuality has always been a part of growing up. It's called play, having fun. The only problem is when people get stuck as children and never grow up. That's getting easier to do in a time with a values vacuum. Philosophers call it 'nihilism.'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nihilism is when people never grow up?
Posted by: eastcoker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: T.S. on Oct 10, 2005 9:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have watched a lot of porn, and anyone else who has knows that safe, protected sex is not what's commonly portrayed in mainstream porn. Condoms use is spotty and more money is paid for 'barebacking'. As porn director R. Douglas told interviewer Mickey Skee, "I don't give a damn about responsibility. This is business, and someone is going to do a video without condoms and get rich doing it, so it may as well be me."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 10, 2005 11:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've met, sometimes in person but usually online, many women with comparable experiences -- enough to make me think there's a whole feminist diaspora out there, with many of us doing grass-roots work in other movements or our own communities. The nearly total absence of grass-roots feminist perspectives from today's "left" stems from those days, I think.
I'm encouraged that other feminists are thinking about all this. I would dispute one point attributed to Ariel Levy, and that's about the "overlap" of women's liberation and the sexual revolution in the 1970s. The women's liberation movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s was in significant part a reaction to the sexual revolution, especially as embodied in New Leftist men. (As someone said way back then, The sexual revolution liberated women from the right to say no.) The relationship between women's liberation and the sexual revolution, and between feminism and the left, has been uneasy (at best!) since the get-go. The self-styled "sex radicals" of the 1980s were also "sex reactionaries," choosing the "if it feels good, do it" imperative of the sexual revolution over the more difficult imperative of women's liberation, which included thinking about it as well as doing it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mviscid on Oct 11, 2005 9:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, objectivity in these matters can be stifled when you're preoccupied with a related personal issue. Or when you're insistent that something's all right or all wrong. Make some room for middle ground! Toy with your fixations! Try it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Liked the article - go middle ground!
Posted by: delphyne
» RE: Liked the article - go middle ground!
Posted by: delphyne
» RE: Liked the article - go middle [sic] ground!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kabaumann on Jul 5, 2006 7:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 2, 2006 6:43 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read the book several months back, and posted an initial review at amazon. I'll only overlap on my first observation...
Something important which few have seemed to have noticed is that when you look around the globe, what you see is that the more feminized a society is the more porn of all types it has. Back during the "Father Knows Best" days, when there was still some semblance of a patriarchy, there was little porn, and what there was certainly wasn't mainstreamed. The same general priniciple goes for the strictest Islamic countries: no porn. This needs to be taken into account if the analysis is to be complete. Though it's not a big part of her book, Levy argues that the increasing raunchiness of the culture is due to women's lack of power. I'd claim she has it exactly backwards. Since no matter what else happens, women still have sexual power, their blatant parading and advertising of it merely demonstrates the extent to which social controls on women have been eliminated.
It's no secret that one of the goals of the 2nd wave was to destroy the patriarchy, especially the two-parent family. It's been pretty successful, and 3rd wavers are dealing with the consequences. 70% a black births now occur out-of-wedlock. Marriage rates have been steadily declining, as have birth rates, the age of first marriage has increased steadily (now over 30 for UK men), divorce rates remain at historically high levels, and women have now been complaining for 25+ years of a "man shortage" even though census figures show single men of the relevant ages outnumber single women by a substantial amount. What's going on?
Marriage itself has been reduced to being little more than notorized dating. The "contract" now confers no substantive rights on the man (only obligations), and it isn't enforced by the state in any event -- in fact the state will now actively assist the party who wants to unilaterally abrogate the contract, which is the woman 70% of the time. The chief function of marriage now seems to be in providing women with ex-husbands, who, because marriage has become a one-way adhesion contract, have effectively become the woman's personal part-time slave or customer for her new rent-a-kid business (aka visitation).
Since men aren't as stupid as feminism makes them out to be, and since the number of chumps is limited in any event, men in increasing numbers withdraw from the dating/mating process, or drop out altogether. Since women have been lecturing men for 30 years about all the things they aren't going to do for men any more, that leaves "only one thing" that might interest a man in a woman. This is OK because the only way women know how to try and lure men back into the process is with the ancient female tricks: more and better skin. (And they say men haven't changed...) So the whole thing devolves into one big female sexual display.
I could continue at some length, on the criminalization of male sexuality, but there're space limitations here. I claim the process Levy observes will continue until people in large numbers clue in and change the system. But this will require listening to the male side of things, which feminism forbids. Understanding isn't part of its agenda.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: T.S. on Oct 4, 2005 9:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How telling that the Jesella herself does just this, speaks about her own sexual libido as if it means anything to the advancement of women’s human rights that she personally likes Playboy, girl-made pornography and Sassy magazine’s “cute band alerts.” The valorizing of lesbians going to strip clubs and women making their genitals little-girl bald is exactly the vapid, commercial brand of male-approved grrrl power Levy exposes as a sham.
I believe this is wishful thinking, "What the third wave has been so good at -- and what Levy doesn't talk about -- is taking the tropes pop culture has given us and transforming them for our own purposes."
I’m a feminist in my 20’s and I have not seen these transformations. What I see is women so desperate to be considered sexy instead of equal they mimic Paris Hilton and Britney Spears while not storming the palace, or doing much of anything, when the Democrats backburnered reproductive rights. More teenaged women got cosmetic surgery than joined NOW last year. I don’t care about third wavers trying to “transform” their use of pornography and prostitutes into feminist acts, and the men who still control our lives laugh at and ignore the thonged girls with bad cases of penis envy, that is when they're not trying to get them to suck face with each other.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: yeahright
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: T.S.
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: T.R.S.
Posted by: Siren5864
Comments are closed-
Posted by: delphyne on Oct 4, 2005 1:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, Third Wave heroine Courtney Love appeared in a hagiography of Larry Flynt, woman-hater extraordinaire. What exactly has the Third Wave done to liberate women from male sexual oppression? I haven't seen any evidence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Raunch and pimps
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: philame
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Guys need porn
Posted by: Siren5864
» RE: aunch and pimps
Posted by: delphyne
» All men are scum
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: All men are scum
Posted by: delphyne
» RE: All men are scum
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Get real you ass!
Posted by: Femforce22
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Oct 5, 2005 5:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet you keep on hearing about depressed female desire as a medical syndrome (Whether or not caused by the pill). And women talk about not getting pleasure from intercourse or masturbation. Also, it seems like several common female fantasies are lifted straight from ordinary male porn. I think that easy access to porn has caused girls to get confused about what they desire or how to act in sexual situations. So they just mimic what they see, and if they don't enjoy it, think it must be them. Also, I think guys have gotten lazy about trying to find out what pleases the girl they're with, as opposed to what they saw online last night.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Missing some of the point
Posted by: paladin144
» RE: Female porn
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Female porn
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Missing some of the point
Posted by: philame
Comments are closed-
Posted by: T.S. on Oct 6, 2005 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least you recognize this much about the unfair treatment of women to supply your hobby.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 6, 2005 11:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philame on Oct 7, 2005 2:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What evidence do you have that you are suffering from male oppression?
Posted by: philame
» Women can't hear what men don't say
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RealityCheck on Oct 9, 2005 11:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, If a man requires multiple female relationships to be sexually satisfied, can a current generation feminist ever accept that circumstance, knowing that the woman too may need other partners for complete sexual fulfillment? Is it okay for a man to accept that and "take his turn?" or is it degrading to a woman to accept that?
If the pervasiveness of porn in society has led to the widespread acceptance of "open relationships" in the culture (with a focus on safe sex and STD screening blood test), which i believe it has, can that genie ever be put back into the bottle and could a woman like you ever accept this lifestyle of a 2-way street?
Do you think its possible for strippers and porn stars to provide any positive contribution to the sexual attitudes of a society, like less inhibition, more creative and adventurous sexual stimulation etc? or are they just prostitutes to be condemned or maybe worst--and why should a lap dance or having sex with 2 men at the same time be considered far worse than a "nice" girl aborting a child after a careless night of sex? What does the young feminist of today think?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ealityCheck
Posted by: Siren5864
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 9, 2005 11:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The version described in the article sounds to me like just the exporting of California to the rest of the country. Children's immitation of adult sexuality has always been a part of growing up. It's called play, having fun. The only problem is when people get stuck as children and never grow up. That's getting easier to do in a time with a values vacuum. Philosophers call it 'nihilism.'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nihilism is when people never grow up?
Posted by: eastcoker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: T.S. on Oct 10, 2005 9:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have watched a lot of porn, and anyone else who has knows that safe, protected sex is not what's commonly portrayed in mainstream porn. Condoms use is spotty and more money is paid for 'barebacking'. As porn director R. Douglas told interviewer Mickey Skee, "I don't give a damn about responsibility. This is business, and someone is going to do a video without condoms and get rich doing it, so it may as well be me."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 10, 2005 11:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've met, sometimes in person but usually online, many women with comparable experiences -- enough to make me think there's a whole feminist diaspora out there, with many of us doing grass-roots work in other movements or our own communities. The nearly total absence of grass-roots feminist perspectives from today's "left" stems from those days, I think.
I'm encouraged that other feminists are thinking about all this. I would dispute one point attributed to Ariel Levy, and that's about the "overlap" of women's liberation and the sexual revolution in the 1970s. The women's liberation movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s was in significant part a reaction to the sexual revolution, especially as embodied in New Leftist men. (As someone said way back then, The sexual revolution liberated women from the right to say no.) The relationship between women's liberation and the sexual revolution, and between feminism and the left, has been uneasy (at best!) since the get-go. The self-styled "sex radicals" of the 1980s were also "sex reactionaries," choosing the "if it feels good, do it" imperative of the sexual revolution over the more difficult imperative of women's liberation, which included thinking about it as well as doing it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mviscid on Oct 11, 2005 9:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, objectivity in these matters can be stifled when you're preoccupied with a related personal issue. Or when you're insistent that something's all right or all wrong. Make some room for middle ground! Toy with your fixations! Try it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Liked the article - go middle ground!
Posted by: delphyne
» RE: Liked the article - go middle ground!
Posted by: delphyne
» RE: Liked the article - go middle [sic] ground!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kabaumann on Jul 5, 2006 7:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 2, 2006 6:43 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read the book several months back, and posted an initial review at amazon. I'll only overlap on my first observation...
Something important which few have seemed to have noticed is that when you look around the globe, what you see is that the more feminized a society is the more porn of all types it has. Back during the "Father Knows Best" days, when there was still some semblance of a patriarchy, there was little porn, and what there was certainly wasn't mainstreamed. The same general priniciple goes for the strictest Islamic countries: no porn. This needs to be taken into account if the analysis is to be complete. Though it's not a big part of her book, Levy argues that the increasing raunchiness of the culture is due to women's lack of power. I'd claim she has it exactly backwards. Since no matter what else happens, women still have sexual power, their blatant parading and advertising of it merely demonstrates the extent to which social controls on women have been eliminated.
It's no secret that one of the goals of the 2nd wave was to destroy the patriarchy, especially the two-parent family. It's been pretty successful, and 3rd wavers are dealing with the consequences. 70% a black births now occur out-of-wedlock. Marriage rates have been steadily declining, as have birth rates, the age of first marriage has increased steadily (now over 30 for UK men), divorce rates remain at historically high levels, and women have now been complaining for 25+ years of a "man shortage" even though census figures show single men of the relevant ages outnumber single women by a substantial amount. What's going on?
Marriage itself has been reduced to being little more than notorized dating. The "contract" now confers no substantive rights on the man (only obligations), and it isn't enforced by the state in any event -- in fact the state will now actively assist the party who wants to unilaterally abrogate the contract, which is the woman 70% of the time. The chief function of marriage now seems to be in providing women with ex-husbands, who, because marriage has become a one-way adhesion contract, have effectively become the woman's personal part-time slave or customer for her new rent-a-kid business (aka visitation).
Since men aren't as stupid as feminism makes them out to be, and since the number of chumps is limited in any event, men in increasing numbers withdraw from the dating/mating process, or drop out altogether. Since women have been lecturing men for 30 years about all the things they aren't going to do for men any more, that leaves "only one thing" that might interest a man in a woman. This is OK because the only way women know how to try and lure men back into the process is with the ancient female tricks: more and better skin. (And they say men haven't changed...) So the whole thing devolves into one big female sexual display.
I could continue at some length, on the criminalization of male sexuality, but there're space limitations here. I claim the process Levy observes will continue until people in large numbers clue in and change the system. But this will require listening to the male side of things, which feminism forbids. Understanding isn't part of its agenda.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Racist Right-Wing Shock Jock Who Threatened the Lives of Judges Beats Jail Rap for Second Time
If the NFL Were More Lenient About Pot, Would the Players Get Involved in Less Drunken Violence?
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?




