Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women And The Rise Of Raunch Culture (2006) - Plot & Excerpts
Female Chauvinist Pigs is an easily readable compilation of all kinds of different, problematic facets of contemporary raunch culture in the USA that Ariel Levy researched, especially in relation to today’s women (and girls). In this book, Levy puts forth that women these days seem to be using raunch culture in order to empower themselves. Aiming to rise above their own gender, women want to become ‘one of the guys’, accepting raunch culture just like the guys do (and often becoming an active part of it in the process, too), showing that they’re somehow cooler, better, and more desirable than other women. Plus, not to mention, just as good as men, believing they liberate themselves along the way. In doing this, they become the female chauvinist pigs (FCPs) of the title. Levy says it best herself: “If Male Chauvinist Pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves”, p. 12.Levy’s argument is convincing, and I think she does have a very valid point in the main message of her book that I just summarized above. She goes on to say that even though there might be women out there who genuinely enjoy being a part of raunch culture – who like the big breasts and the blond hair, the saved nether regions and the sexy pole dancing, and more – that there are also a lot of women who don’t, and they shouldn’t force themselves into a very narrow, stereotypical image of what a (‘liberated’) woman’s sexuality must be as provided by our current cultural climate. This is something I agree with wholeheartedly; a woman should be treated (and should treat herself) as a person, and let her own wishes and desires guide her, instead of conforming to those of others while none of those actions or behaviours do anything for her specifically.There is promise in Levy’s analysis of today’s raunch culture, and I thought she was especially strong in the chapters on female chauvinist pigs in general (chapter three), and the one on the influence of raunch culture on young girls and boys (chapter five). I think she validly addressed the problems that raunch culture might cause, especially in youngsters, and I have to say that I found the interviews she had with a bunch of girls to be quite shocking. I hadn’t expected raunch culture to be so deeply ingrained in these terribly young girls, but then again, I don’t live in the USA so I haven’t seen the situation up close.All that said, there are also A LOT of problems with Female Chauvinist Pigs. First of all, the writing is sloppy and the editing could’ve been a lot better, and at times I wasn’t so sure about the format Levy was going for. The interviews were written into the text a little awkwardly, making it unclear what kind of questions Levy had been asking the interviewees, and whether she’d been interviewing them at all instead of just documenting quotes. It seemed almost as if she’d been turning separate articles and/or interviews into a cohesive book, but she didn’t entirely succeed in this.Now for the actual content – my biggest problem was Levy’s biased manner of interviewing. It was super obvious that she went only for those interviews that would confirm her ideas; though she says that there probably are women out there happily enjoying raunch culture purely for their own pleasure, she never seems to interview those types of women. Furthermore, she aims her text almost completely at women, seemingly saying: “Look at what you’re all doing to yourself! Sex should be intimate and personal and special! Don’t let yourself be swept away by raunch culture!” In other words, she seems to ignore the influence of the entire human culture, and instead blames the individual women themselves for the existence of FCPs (or for being one). Well, guess why the tendency towards FCPs developed and where it came from? Why do you even think there exists a raunch culture in the first place?Next to that, Levy absolutely gives no solutions to the problematic situations she presents in her book. Nothing other than “Stop doing what you’re doing if it’s not making you happy!”. Not necessarily a big problem, as her aim could’ve been just to document all that she thinks is wrong with raunch culture, yet it annoyed me a little bit, especially since she seems to pin it all on women themselves.And last but not least, I considered her chapter on lesbians, transmen and transwomen, and non-binary people in general to be extremely problematic. Again, her interviews show a big bias in wanting to confirm her own ideas, and she never seems to use people’s preferred pronouns only if someone specifically asks for it (even going so far as to call someone a “he/she”). And it that case, she claims she used that persons preferred pronouns because he was more fully the gender he aimed to be. Excuse me, but that is ridiculously rude. I didn’t know Levy was an expert on how men and women are supposed to be/behave.A big part of her argument of why FCPs exists, is the fact that women wish to be one of the guys so that they can show that they can do the same things as men. And in this chapter, she actually says that female-to-male transpeople are part of the whole ‘faux men’ attitude. I don’t think I need to explain just how offending and wrong that statement is.Anyhow, a few of Levy’s observations really hit home (I wanted to be part of the guys, too, in my teens, and used my bisexuality often to show that I, too, could appreciate women sexually in a raunchy manner). I think she has a valid point, but there’s definitely some selective choosing of interviews/interviewees, problematic statement, and dehumanizing treatment of transpeople and non-binaries.Recommended for people interested in what raunch culture can do to both men and women (but mostly women), if you can overlook Levy's faults (which are many).
Read it, liked it. I don't think Levy necessarily attacks women "on top", pun intended, but rather states a different perspective on the gray areas that surround 3rd wave Feminism in the United States. As a young woman I grew up with many aspects of what Levy calls "raunch" culture, and as a 10 year old I remember constantly watching commercials for Girls Gone Wild, and watching MTV's spring break. Not so surprisingly I have many memories from my childhood that included watching girls go naked with only whip cream bikinis, and college girls having wet t-shirt contests for fun on TV. Sure, maybe someone can blame my parents for not supervising me like an inmate 24 hours a day; but really, we all know that advertisements have their way around parents. I actually used to think, that one aspect of growing up and going to college was "partying hard." I've also had female friends who started watching porn at around 11/12 years old. Their sexuality is completely formed by pornography because it was taboo to even mention sex in their houses. What we see today in our culture are; yes, women embracing sexuality and achieving orgasms (yippie), but also a youth culture that feels pressured to act as promiscuously as possible for the wrong reasons. Raunch and sexuality seem to have become one and the same. I'm all for women who embrace themselves and are liberated. However, for many girls, being a woman means to flaunt sexuality and promiscuity as much as possible and if you don't? You're labeled a prude maybe even casted out by your friends. Also, how many of us grew up caring more about our weight and breasts and hair than worrying about how well we did on an exam? How many times did we hear that our underdeveloped breasts were inadequate or our overdeveloped ones sexually enticing? With the world wide web of porn, hardly any girl reads playboy to teach them all about sexuality. This doesn't mean that playboy doesn't have its issues or that just because Playboy is run by a woman; they’re sending positive messages to young girls and women. It's a magazine that caters to men's needs, and over the years, we've seen how playboy bunnies have changed aesthetically speaking. Most are hyper bleached, hairless, fake breasted young girls. Also another thing about playboy; look at who the media focuses their attention on. Is anyone following Christie Hefner around with a video camera and filming her escapades? No, they're filming her father and the form of female sexuality that he embraces. I think by interviewing Christie Hefner, Levy shows the duality that modern women face. Here we have the woman president of a large multimillion dollar company, supporting progressive rights and politics, yet she’s fully endorsing her father’s idea of sexuality by working for his company. It’s like having a modern feminist Procuress. Though, I do think that my stance on Ms. Hefner would change if playboy catered to women’s sexuality also. Levy brings up many good points in this book, and I can see myself analyzing the points that she brings up. You're no longer pressured to lose your virginity by only your boyfriends, but you're also pressured by your friends and the rest of society. If you're not having sex, sex as a chauvinist man that is, it seems as if you're not liberated and you're frigid and therefore not a feminist. Also, forget about feelings. Those are not feminist either. Please read the part about cake parties. I think this book serves as exposure of 3rd wave feminism. Women have fought for rights, and work but it seems that sexuality is now the everlasting gray area. So, in other words, I am a fan of what Levy has to say about my generation of womanhood, and I'm actually wondering what is going to happen within the 4th generation of feminism. We already have little girl heels for three year olds (Suri Cruise), and Abercrombie and Fitch has designed a padded bikini bra for 8 year olds...what's next, the invention of mommy and me thongs?
What do You think about Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women And The Rise Of Raunch Culture (2006)?
this book has some really important points that unfortunately are mired in condescending agency-minimizing sensational language. She often describes women who she's identified as sexualized with childish characteristics. At one point near the end writes off the sexuality of anybody who's worked as a stripper or sex worker. This came pages after cavalierly saying "but some of my best friends are burlesque dancers..."Chapter four is one hefty transphobic chunk that brings down the whole book. I literally wanted to tear it out of the book. I do believe there's important points in this book and that women who behave in a chauvinist manner should be called out for it. But I think in several cases Levy goes too far. It does nothing to suggest a possible restoration with those Levy identifies as 'chauvinists" and unfortunately falls into the divisive radfem trap of villainizing and denying agency to the people who make up their perceived opposition.For a more thorough look at the problems in this book read this review of it: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
—Wryly
I'll start with the weak parts. Throughout the book she takes a half-anecdote/interview half-detailed analysis approach. She's a journalist so the first part is understandable. There is one part of the book where she interviews Christie Hefner, daughter of Hugh, about her job as the CFO or something like that of Playboy (she's the one that runs the enterprise.) Christie has a really interesting response to one of Levy's questions. She says, "So I think people who choose to pose for the magazine have a very definite idea of what they want to get out of it - and then they have a life and they may be an actress or a mother or a lawyer or an executive." Levy responds, "An actress or a mother sure, but a lawyer or an executive not necessarily. Putting your tush on display is still not the best way to make partner or impress the board." This is interesting and constitutes one of the serious weaknesses of the book. I think Levy is guilty of going after the wrong force. Her book is called "Female Chauvinist Pigs" equating people like Christie Hefner with someone like Hugh, who admittedly only wanted to liberate men's sexuality. What Christie accomplishes by talking about the desires of women to feel sexy in that way, (she actually uses the example of a woman who was injured in a car accident and became paraplegic and posed for the magazine to regain her own sense of sexuality) is exactly what Levy advocates in the conclusion. The conclusion admits that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with posing for a magazine or stripping. The issue is when raunch culture elevates one type of sexuality to the norm and demands that people conform to that norm. It is true that Playboy does this through its photography so that people don't choose how to pose, but that isn't the focus of Levy's critique (if it was, it would have been awesome). She wants to call out people instead of structures. It's quite telling that she has more contempt for Christie, then the fact that the decision for posing for the magazine makes it impossible to join the board room or become partner. She seems to treat the latter as immutable, while the former is what constitutes blameworthiness.Also there's a huge weakness, which is the entire fifth chapter. In that chapter she begins to talk about lesbian and trans culture. Her analysis of trans issues is actually pretty offensive. She sees the decision of FTM transpeople as part of the cultural shift away from pride in being a woman. She at a point admits a lack of clarity in understanding, yet still proceeds to judge an entire group of people. She appears to be fine with people that simply enjoy the fluid identity, but she has an issue if people opt for surgery. It's this sort of moralizing bullshit in terms of identity that really makes the book weak.Now I'll go to the strength. When she does analysis, it's downright amazing. In chapter six she does this in depth analysis on Sex and the City talking about the commodification of sex and how that constructs people to look at sex as a status symbol instead of as a fulfilling experience that one comes into with desires. She quotes Carrie as saying, "she usually 'couldn't help but wonder; what was going on in the head of the man she was seeing and rarely evaluated her own happiness as such." That's perfect, because it gets to the basis of the problem of sex as she articulates it. The issue is when we have a standard and evaluate ourselves to the standard without considered what our own internal desires are. She says that sex is such a unique experience that there's no way the raunch standard fits everyone, but people play into it because of its commodification and current status as a status symbol and even power symbol. That was only one of the examples, but I really liked that one so I chose it. Each chapter had analysis and anecdotes, but the analysis is where the book is at its best.
—Mike
Love the content; an excellent examination of the line between objectification and sexual freedom. I'll be following Ariel in the future, no doubt. Bonus points for attention to the gay community and examination of historical trends and the evolution of sex-based feminism leading up to the present day. Overall, this is a detailed and fascinating look at the damage "raunch culture" is inflicting by skewing feminism's original campaign for sexual expression and freedom. Damn, do I like a piece of that. All of what disappointed me about this book was the writing style and this frustrating point-by-point, news-article sort of structure. I love me plenty of examples and some real nitty-gritty analysis, but the first half of this book was pretty exhausting. It's not so much Levy's actual descriptive craft (which is enjoyable and occasionally quite humorous) as the way she structures it and presents her data. It tends to read like a news report, which is slightly annoying, and sometimes - dare I say it? Sorry, Ariel - dry. Despite these hiccups, I'll be looking for this author in future. No doubt about it.
—Kiki
