Feminism Book Club - Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy - Weds 5 May 2010 @ 9pm

[Molesworth]

Mumsnet Feminism Book Club

Next time (Wednesday 5th May at 9pm) we're discussing Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs: women and the rise of raunch culture". Everyone welcome!

Amazon link

Extract from the introduction on Ariel Levy's website

Synopsis

Today's young women seem to be outdoing the male chauvinist pigs of yesteryear, applauding the 'pornification' of other women, and themselves. This is a world where simulating sex for baying crowds of men on shows like Girls Gone Wild and going to lapdancing clubs - as patrons - is seen as a short cut to cool. Ariel Levy says the joke's on the women if they think this is progress. She tears apart the myth of this new brand of 'empowered woman' and refuses a culture-wide obligation for women to act and look like porn stars. This terrifically witty and wickedly intelligent book makes the case that the rise of raunch does not represent how far women have come - it proves only how far women have left to go.

I didn't get much out of the lesbian chapter - perhaps I'm just being hetero-normative there though!

The key bit of her analysis for me was the notion that sex now is seen in terms of performance rather than pleasure.

that's how I understood it too Molesworth.

Hi, I've just come across this in active conversations and thought I'd join in, having read this a few months ago. Apologies for coming in late though!

As a relative newcomer to feminist writings, it had a big impact on me (I ended up buying it for several girlfriends), and I thought Levy articulated so many of my concerns.

What came across to me was the fact so many women seemed almost ashamed of being female. So many seemed to believe, deep down, that men are undoubtedly superior.

The chapter 'From Womyn to Bois' (page 118) really struck me. It seems the lesbians Levy writes about are ashamed to be female, and that being a man (or Boi) is not only more fun, but also superior on every level. I felt almost more dismayed by that than by anything else. What did anyone else think about that chapter?

Yes, her argument about girls'/women's sexuality being defined by performance is a powerful one I think, showing how 'sex everywhere' does not equal 'sexual liberation' at all (as some would and do claim)

please do hold forth Dittany!

Nooo, don't back off dittany, I've read this so differently to you I'd love to understand your take on it. Where did she say it makes no sense to blame men? I can't remember that bit and I'm sure it would have leapt out at me!

What got to me was how joyless it all sounds,particularly the women talking in the Shopping for Sex chapter - the one who said,as something she didn't understand, "if I stop being attracted to someone,I can't have sex with them" - well,dur...
And it isn't any better for the boys/men - it made me feel that everyone is being sold short,and they think that it is good.

Pogleswood - it makes me want to lecture groups of teenagers about how they are doing it all wrong but I don't think they would listen, somehow!

Re: the lesbians chapter, again my interpretation was that the backlash against feminism has led to this warped idea of 'liberation' = 'be a man', but that that's no kind of liberation at all. That was the message I got from the whole book really. Not woman-blaming, but pointing out how the backlash has warped the whole idea of liberation that the 2nd wave feminists had.

Blimey, she DOES say that (thanks dittany)

Did I read stuff into this book that wasn't actually there?

I also thought the lesbian chapter was really interesting,the whole "men are best" feeling was so strong,and the idea that basically groups of women were being objectified by other women,just as heterosexual women are by men,felt very odd.

Yes, I agree with the strongest message being that liberated women act like men, not women.

But do you think the Boi movement was overstated by Levy? I've not heard of it anywhere else... although not being gay, or a part of a gay scene, maybe that's why.

On another note, it made me thankful we have school uniforms here in the UK.

So, do you think, as India Knight says on the cover, this book should be required reading in schools? I do think teenagers would read it, if it was given to them - it's lively and readable, for the most part.

To me whether or not women are to blame for any of this comes back to essentialist ideas about male and female, which is why Water's book was a good idea - combining the rise of porn culture with the revival of essentialism.

If we really believe men and women are essentially different then we accept that all the women who say they have an innate desire to please men, submit to men, and make an exhibition of themselves are telling the truth.

Or if we don't think these differences exist, then we imagine the roles of men and women reversed. If men were appearing in 'Boys gone wild' and wearing skin tight outfits and appearing fondling each other in Zoo at the eye line height of little boys, and male singers gyrated in thongs to a tween audience of little boys, would women still attempt to objectify themselves and make a huge effort to please/submit to men? I don't think so. I think the choices women are making are not real choices - I think they are the result of patriarchy, which benefits men - all men.