Dear feministing-community members,
I am currently enrolled in a social science research master, focusing particularly on gender issues. I have to write a paper for my Theorizing Gender course and, out of personal interests, I have chosen to write about post-feminism and the phenomenon of what has been described as female chauvinist pigs. You know the stereotypes: a young, white, urban woman who, in the name of feminism, reclaims her sexuality; who is not afraid of coming over as sexually assertive (aggressive?); who may enjoy pornography, etc. Quintessentially sex and the city-like behaviors and attitudes (anyone who's read Female Chauvinist Pigs will know what I am talking about!). I'd like to use your comments in my term paper if that's ok with you - otherwise I'll gratefully accept your contribution to my researching process :) It is my aim here to get a feel for how the (American?) feminist community feels about these issues.
So, here's the questions!
1. What, in your opinion, does post-feminism (not to be confused with difference-oriented 3rd wave feminism) entail? Do you agree with its assumptions (on female sexuality, on the gender system, etc) and conclusions?
2. What do you think of the emerging ideal of sexually assertive femininity as found in women's magazines, advertisements, popular series on tv)? Do you think this kind of ideals have liberating effects - or do you take a more pessimistic stance?
That's it - I know, not a lot, but to me it would be great if you could give these a thought.
By the way, I hope to put the rise of 'female raunch culture' into a more historical perspective (discuss the anti-feminist backlash) and also contrast the assumptions underpinning this discourse with notions of (female) sexuality as developed by post-sructuralist and/or psychoanalytic theorists. The conclusion will consist of an evaluation of the phenomenon in light of resistance and politics.
Thanks a lot reading this; I hope you find some time to answer my questions.
Kind regards,
Irene (Ziggy)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A question for you - on post-feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10640
I think that Post-Feminism has to entail the flawed idea that feminism's work is done, or that the movement itself has been exhausted of usefulness (If that's not the case, then maybe it has to do with a desire for personal empowerment combined with social and political laziness). I don't really agree with any of it, though I do feel like my style of feminism has some attitudes in common with it.
Sexually assertive femininity doesn't have to mean female chauvinism. Being a sexual agent and in charge of getting one's needs met is important, and a good goal. Being sexually assertive is part of that. I don't really think of that ideal as originating in a post-feminist framework though; its been around a while.
When I was in college we made shirts that said "I will be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy". I still really love that shirt.
I think the idea of post-feminism can be really destructive because it confuses people about what feminism really is. In my opinion, it takes the emphasis off important political and social goals of the feminist movement, and reduces it to lifestyle choices. I tend to view it as something women access to feel assertive or empowered, without wanting to be labeled as feminist or get politically active.
As far as sexually assertive women, the main message of the magazines, ads, etc. feels more a "you should act this way because men like it" philosophy and not about actually empowerment - but I accepted that pop culture was never going to meet my ideals quite a while ago.
Well, I haven't read Female Chauvinist Pigs primarily because I bristle at the title -- and everyone I've known who has read it has a very negative opinion of the white (check-ish), urban (check), sexually aggressive (check), middle class (check), woman in her mid-twenties (check) who is usually viewed only as a stereotype.
NEWSFLASH: I'm not just a stereotype of the so-called female chauvinist pig; I'm also a stereotypical self-hating Jew, with a stereotypically manipulative mother; living in sin with my stereotype of a computer programming boyfriend who loves James Bond video games and reads Wired (but owns no books).
I think that the negative tenor associated with the idea of the female chauvinist pig tends to drive a lot of young, sexually liberated, urban, white women from feminism to "I'm not a feminist but [insert main goal/idea/principle of feminism here]". It's dangerous to use that kind of language to marginalize a huge segment of the population, especially since a not-insignificant segment of feminism uses the idea that sexually liberated women are dirty cause they fraternize with men (or any other rad-fem ideas) to marginalize the rest of feminism and perpetuate the idea that all feminists are hairy man-hating lesbians. And while some feminists are hairy, and some are lesbians, and some hate men, promoting the idea that we all are only serves as more fodder for anti-feminists to minimize our collective voices ...I also kind of feel like the rad-fem segment of feminism is really seeking to keep the oppression in place by promoting in-fighting so no one can get anything done.
Well, that probably doesn't answer your questions at all...
Thanks for your answer nevertheless - I can see how you would bristle at the title of levy's book. Her point is I believe not to exclude people or to setereotype them - I think she's merely describing a phenomenon that is gaining prevalence in the media - and not necessarily an attitude found in most urban white in-her-20ies woman. Anyway. Again, as for the stereootypes - studying stereotypes/cultural representations has its merits, and pointing out what there stereotypes exclude is as much part of my research as revealing what they seem to embody.
Why is your first inclination to jump all over other feminists, Rachel Setzer? (Thereby playing into the "promoting infighting" notion you advance).
Why is it that it's the "not-insignificant segment of feminism" who get all the delicious credit for branding "sexually liberated women as dirty?" (And, can you explain how you arrived at the determination that there is such a segment of such proportions in today's movement?)
Don't major newspapers, television news shows, cable news networks, magazines, and radio commentators play a teensy role in creating and constructing such stereotypes? Don't movies, TV, and literature? I'm sure just a teensy, tiny role...not a major role at all...
A lot of pop culture brands sexually-liberated women as dirty. It's a problem. Unfortunately, a lot of feminists seem to buy into this idea, even if they come at it from a different angle.
Time and time again I've seen very reasonable feminists dismiss aspects of sexuality as "sucking up to the patriarchy." This seems to show up more on blogs that identify as rad fem. The basic message seems to be something along the lines of: It doesn't matter how much you think you enjoy anal sex, porn, strippercize, kinky sex, etc., because you're really just been brainwashed by the patriarchy and you like the male attention. How could you possibly know what turns you on?
I've never heard a feminist say anything suggesting that a woman who does these things is "dirty," and I'm very glad of that. However, there's a general idea that the woman in question is just uneducated, and would feel different if she sat down and did some thinking.
Between Ariel Levy and the purity hawkers, where's a slutty girl to go? Team Chastity thinks we're dirty and Team Feminist thinks we're idiots.
Third-wave feminism has improved upon this, thank god. It's still a problem within the feminist community, as this post and comments have show.
I actually thought Levy's book came across as very sex-positive. Her main critism, from my reading, included how women are encouraged to be "sexy" rather than enjoy sex; to embrace raunch culture, emulate sex workers (who, by definition, are doing it for WORK and not specifically for pleasure), etc., but are not socially encouraged to think about sex as a pleasurable act for themselves. I did not see the author criticizing women who enjoy lots & lots of the sex. She merely pointed out a possible paradox of finding empowerment through the commodotization of female sexuality.
Wait, let me get this straight-
You are writing a paper about a stereotype?
Will you be writing papers about other minority stereotypes as well?
Or is it only acceptable if the minority whose stereotype you propagate is female?
There is something annoying about this:
"(not to be confused with difference-oriented 3rd wave feminism)"
I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it, but, it has something to do with the feeling that you are dividing, excluding, insulting, prejudging, dismissing individuality (another way to say prejudge, i know, but, I can't over emphasize it)....
Something about your assignment or your attitude smells funny to me.
I can see that you would take it personal if I equated sexually assertive female sexuality with ´female chauvinost piggism´, for lack of a better word. This is not, however, what I am doing, I believe.
About the stereotype - it is my goal to analyse the discourse of the sexually liberated woman (which IS stereotyped in popular media! usually, indeed, as a white, urban, slim chick who's out to get what she wants). This is quite a valid approach in cultural studies, i.e., looking at cultural representations and deconstructing them, so to say.
I find it interesting how on the one hand, cultural representations of women (and discourses aimed at those women about sex and sexuality) have shifted from a one-dimensional focus on her passive object-status to a more active subject-state. One of the questions posed in my paper, however, is whether this sexually liberated women is an ideal at least as normative and excluding as older stereotypes (the virgin).
So my paper won't exactly delve into questions of individuality - It is my aim to uncover what kinds of assumptions and structures of inequality (sexism, racism, heteronormativity) underly this discourse and why, historically speaking, it has gained prevalence in recent years, or supplemented older norms about female sexuality and femininity.
It is my feeling that it has something to do with the backlash against feminism (and in that sense, I feel it might be part and parcel of 'post-feminism') and ever-increasing reach of the biomedical discourse disciplining the female body.
So. I'm sorry if this smelled all a bit funny to you.
And to be honest, I was a bit offended about what you said about my attitude. I assure you it's with the best of intentions I am going to write that paper, yet I do want to be skeptical of this ideal of the sexually liberated woman, seeing how it has become commercialized, imbued with all kinds of normative meanings, and excluding in itself, not the least in terms of class, race, and sexual orientation.
I'm a sexually liberated woman. I may be too old to be considered 3rd wave and too young to be second wave.
I enjoy sex. I am not raunchy, not a slut, not any other stereotype. I have not ever appreciated the propagation of any stereotype.
There is no such thing as post feminism at this time. Feminism is alive and kicking, here n now.
Girls gone wild is a very small segment of the population.
Your use of the words "as if" suggests that they have no idea what they are doing. We don't know which of them was raised by feminists, by Mormons, by whatever.
One could be rebelling against a fundamentalist Christian upbringing and another could be expressing her sexuality at a whole new level for the world to see how silly and unimportant is it to her. They certainly aren't repressing their sexuality. It's not for me, it's not something I want to watch or encourage, but, I'm careful not to judge them.
The only way you can know their motivation and understanding of choice is to interview them as individuals, if you can objectively. Anything else is a prejudice from your perspective, isn't it?
alright, I have made my point clear. I have repeatedly apologized for the way i phrased my question in the initial post and I have elaborated on my plans for this particular research/paper. Again, stereotypes/cultural representations are a valid object of study; and it is my aim to illuminate exactly the kinds of stereotypes/prejudices/cultural scripts underlying the stereotype of the sexually liberated woman (i.e. not real women - but the constructed and commercialized version of her). sucvh studies are vital, in my opinion, as they contribute to our understanding of how current-day femininity, female sexuality, etc are constructed/commercialized/exploited, even.
You seem to willfully misinterpret my question now just to accuse me of being bigoted and prejudiced. I don't see why you would do so if you read my other comments, but there you go.
I haven't read the book, but it really bothers me that I am a "female chauvinist pig" because I am sexually aggressive. That philosophy seems to me to buy into the traditional idea that women don't enjoy sex, and are only sexual in order to please men.
I don't know whether this is what Ariel Levy actually said, or if it's just the way you're phrasing it, but if being assertive in order to get what I want makes me a chauvinist pig, than so be it.
Its a good book, but wasnt suggesting that women not be sexually aggressive. Ariel never even made a mention of that as an issue in her book. She criticised things like the Girls Gone wild culture and did some interviews with young guys and women to try and sort out their ideas about sexuality. She also documented an experience in which two girls were laying on the beach in Florida (spring break) and a GGW film crew came up to them and asked if they would take their shirts off. They declined and went back to sunning. While they did this, some guys caught site of the GGW crew and began circling the girls and started chanting "take it off." The girls kept protesting, but no one listened. Eventually they took their shirts off. Ariel was documenting the popularization of inauthentic sexual displays by women and how that gets confused with actual sexual liberation. This also perpetuates a rape culture in which men feel entitled to women and women feel they have to detach and play a role for men. Another interesting thing she highlighted was when hetero women visit strip bars with guy friends. They like the atmosphere but when Ariel queried further, her interview subjects started talking like they didnt see themselves as females, but different 'guys.' Its a good book, and suggest reading it (took me about two days). It examines many not often talked about aspects of modern society and depictions of women within it.
Like I said, I haven't read Levy's book, but from what I've heard I think I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. The OP just used some incredibly unfortunate (and downright offensive) phrasing.
"I have chosen to write about post-feminism and the phenomenon of what has been described as female chauvinist pigs. You know the stereotypes: a young, white, urban woman who, in the name of feminism, reclaims her sexuality; who is not afraid of coming over as sexually assertive (aggressive?); who may enjoy pornography, etc."
This really is saying that sexually assertive women are female chauvinist pigs, and that's incredibly backwards thinking. This may not describe Levy's views, but it definitely echoes some views I've heard expressed elsewhere, by women who considered themselves feminists, and it's the view I was reacting to with the comment.
As far as my feelings on pornography....I watch it, and like it, but I only choose sex positive films such as that which is offered by online stores like blowfish or good vibrations. Its important for the woman to be enjoying it for it not to be unhealthy. I dont get my ideas of female sexuality from advertisments, or mainstream media. They would quickly do a 180 if they felt they could capture a bigger demographic by pandering to a sexually inhibited 50's housewife image. I also dont know what you are referring to, when you talk about sexually empowered women in the media. Can you give some examples? If youre referring to more open discussion by women about wanting and expecting pleasure in bed, then I would attribute that to womens bigger sexual knowledge that had been launched during the 70s feminist movement. There was a expectation of women enjoying sexual pleasure and the knowledge that she was fully capable of it and men should be attentive to her needs rather than dismissive. Sexual pleasure in bed was quickly associated with respect to your female partner because of this.
As for more active pleasure-seeking women - I am with you that that in itself is not a problematic development and can be truly empowering. I do question, however, the conditions under which sexual agency is shaped and what particular form it takes. Also, I am wondering exactly what sexual liberation has come to mean in today's consumerist/neo-liberal West - it seems sometimes that the emphasis on sexual liberation is used to disguise persisting sexism/heteronormativity/other structures of oppression. Empowerment seems to have become a question of lifestyle, not of organized/collective resistance against oppressive norms and structures.
As for examples - I am tempted to mention once again girls gone wild in which openly flaunting one's body, one's sexuality, is conceived of as a liberating temporary transgression, as a brief interval of empowerment.
See, I object to the idea that porn has to have any specific scenario in order to be healthy. The only thing that makes porn "unhealthy" for me is labor issues. If the actors and actresses are being treated well, then there isn't a problem. Sex work is a labor issue.
Everyone gets turned on by different things, and that's not a problem, and it's certainly not "unhealthy." A lot of women only get turned on by porn showing female pleasure. This is why a lot of straight girls are aroused by girl-on-girl porn. It's not that male pleasure would be less of a turn-on so much as it would be a distraction from the good stuff. A lot of men like to see male pleasure and male pleasure only, following the same reasoning. Some people like the kinky stuff where one partner doesn't seem to be enjoying him or herself at all. That's not unhealthy at all.
I think people overthink sex a lot. Desire is natural for both men an women, and the form it takes is usually beyond our control.
I think the whole idea of women slutting around just because men do and not because they want to is creepy as hell. And women who don't want to do that are looked down upon by other women as anti-feminists or not looking out for their rights.
Yes, and I think it's the same creepiness I feel when people respond by saying "You don't have to act like men in order to gain equality!" when faced with open feminine sexuality, as if masculinity has a monopoly on sex...
Or, rather, as if men have a monopoly on desire.
Really? Your solution is to just hate women who dare have more, different sex than you just as much as you hate men who dare to do the same?
One would think the feminist thing here would be to respect the choices of grown women regarding what they want with their bodies.
And FWIW, I've never heard a pro-sex feminist who has a lot of sex (even with those horrible multiple partners!) look down on another woman who prefers monogamy, waiting or what have you. So why the strawfeminist there?
Wow, I didn't read that comment like that at all -- but looking back at it, your reading totally could've been correct... So, for the record, my "I agree" was about agreeing that it's ridiculous to construe women being sexual as women wanting to be "like men" in some way.
Really? Your solution is to just hate women who dare have more, different sex than you just as much as you hate men who dare to do the same?
One would think the feminist thing here would be to respect the choices of grown women regarding what they want with their bodies.
And FWIW, I've never heard a pro-sex feminist who has a lot of sex (even with those horrible multiple partners!) look down on another woman who prefers monogamy, waiting or what have you. So why the strawfeminist there?
~ post-feminism: it's a phrase that most feminists take issue with. I mean, once the Supreme Court rules that to deny gays their right to marriage is unconstitutional, will we go around calling ourselves "post-pro-gay-rights"?
If you believe men and women are equal, and work towards that, you're a feminist: there's never a "post-" to that.
I assume that one of the reasons that people might call themselves post-feminist is that they associate some bad qualities with the word, bad qualities that they want to distance themselves from, to move beyond.
-----
~ sexually-assertive femininity: yes, great! women should be more sexually assertive. But what is troubling to me is how quickly it becomes an all-or-nothing gambit, reminiscent of the virgin/whore (or what I first learned in a Chicano literature course as the Madonna/Malinche) binary. (There are plenty of good resources on this subject, as you write your paper.)
Take a look at any article about virginity v. sexual expressiveness -- this one in the NY Times by Randall Patterson is pretty representative:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30Chastity-t.html
Why, at the end, is the conflict between a virgin and a girl who has sex simply because it "feels good"? the majority of men and women have sex before marriage, but still see it as very emotionally fulfilling and meaningful.
In my opinion, this majority is ultimately what is lost in representations of the "Female Chauvinist Pig."
Thanks so much for that link; interesting! The all-or-nothing aura surrounding female sexuality in cultural representations is exactly what I am skeptical about - it seems to me that sexual assertivity and sexual expression (which are good!) can become a normative standard in itself - something people (men?) expect from you, something you come to expect from yourself. Which is bad, I believe. In that sense, such discourses are always potentially dangerous. Anyway :)
When I was in college there was a series of t-shirts that said things like "I hate boys" and "boys lie" and things like that. That's what I think of when I hear the term "female chauvinist pig." I don't know how this plays into post-feminist discourse, but on its own it's an example of the tendency to fundamentally misunderstand feminism. Instead of questioning social constructions and working toward individual liberties this form of "feminism" seeks to just switch gender roles (the same women wearing those t-shirts would have been enraged to see a guy wearing a shirt that said, "girls lie"). And this was at a women's college with a very good reputation for women's studies.
1) To me, post-feminism is used in two ways: 1) to claim that we don’t need feminism anymore (because men and women are now equal) and we can and should move beyond feminism, or 2) by people who are looking for a new, funky way to package feminism for a new generation (i.e. by writers in magazines trying to cover feminism by being new and fresh). As I don’t think feminism’s goals have been achieved I don’t think we can or should move ‘beyond’ it to post-feminism. I think that writers trying to appear modern to their audience/s do a dis-service to the goals of feminism by pushing an idea of ‘post-feminism’. There will always be disagreements among feminists, and feminism continually changes but I do not see any evidence that we no longer need feminism or that feminism’s goals have been achieved.
2) I think it is no surprise that various media take and use the language of ‘liberation’ or ‘feminism’ to appeal to an audience so it’s no surprise that being sexually aggressive/assertive is being portrayed as being feminist but just because something is portrayed as liberating does not make it so.
I think in the portrayal of the sexually assertive female that is in a lot of television shows, magazines, etc, we can find feminist discourse that concentrates on women’s enjoyment, empowerment, autonomy, etc, as well as the more patriarchal ideas of telling women that the most important thing about them is whether they are attractive to men and have a man in their life. I don’t think you can say it is all one way or the other.
The book Female Chauvinist Pigs looked at a lot of women who thought that performing sexually for men and enjoying it was liberating and Ariel Levy asked how could it be liberating if the reason they were doing it was for male attention and approval. While I agreed with that sentiment I felt that Levy completely ignored all the other women (and men) exploring female-centred sexuality that is for the enjoyment of the people involved and not for outside approval/attention.
While I thought Ariel Levy made some good points in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs, there was so much in her book I really disagreed with that I don’t think I would recommend the book to anyone. And she made a LOT of claims that just weren’t backed up by any evidence.
There's my two cents' worth! :)
Carmen
Hey, I like your thoughtful comments. I was just wondering (from a very personal point of view as well) what you think of when you mention female-centered sexuality. Is that something you can elaborate on? Do you mean certain practices/acts? or a more intuitive approach/less performance and phallus-oriented way of having sex?
part of my paper will include references to feminist thinkers who have theorized the possiblities of women to enjoy sex/be sexual beings without the phallus, so to say (irigaray, wittig). the more post-structuralist question would be if it is possible to speak of female sexuality at all for it implies an essentialist view of the female body and Woman. Instead, such theorists (of which most notably Foucault of course) argue that desire is shaped by discourses (and not, like Freudians would insist, something repressed, static) - and perhaps exactly those discourses derived from the increased sexualization of advertisements/increased visibility of pornography. what would you think?
Feminists dont believe in a post feminism. Were still dealing with threads from issues from 40 years ago, which were threads from issues 100 years ago, ect. Ariel Levy's book wasnt criticising female sexuality, it was criticising women objectifying other women to be a part of the boys club culture.
Thanks for all your comments.
For the record, I am not equating sexually liberated or assertive women with female chauvinist pigs - I am, however, trying to get at the normative components of such cultural constructions and also their 'real' effects in shaping women's perceptions of their bodies, their sexuality, etc. Here I feel the link to postfeminism is an interesting one; notions of self-determination, free will and choice underpin a lot of justifications/explanations for the exploitation of women and their bodies in popular culture. Consider Girls Gone Wild in which consent (and the consenting process) is always taped and shown, as if to pre-empt charges of exploitation - as if to invoke the feminist response and to dismiss it simultaneously. it is here that I believe lies the crux of the matter - where feminism is conceived of as being a collective (and of course, ecxlusive) affair, 'real' choice/self-determination is located in individual women - and the personal is hence effectively de-politicised. How larger structures of sexism (and racism, and heteronormative norms) constitute the range of options available to women is a question silenced or relegated to a feminist past.
The positive ideal of female sexuality is, I believe, immersed in these codes of postfeminism (and sadly so). Of course, certain sexual practices need not be condemned (I am the last to do that, by he way) - but I feel we must ask ourselves if the 'sexual agency' of women in itself has the potential of growing into a normative and hence excluding standard, and under what sexist conditions has it come to the fore in the first place.
I'm interested in responding to your post, but I'm going to think about my response and post here probably later today. Thanks for the questions...I'll definitely provide an answer/opinion probably later on today.
Post-feminism is a neocon fantasy. We are still in the trenches, and in the trenches we will stay until the job is finished.
Women do not have equal rights yet. In fact, the only Constitutional right we have is suffrage, which was won in the 1920's. Since that time we have been able to change the culture in many ways, but that has never translated to a Constitutional guarantee of women's right, which can be rolled back at any moment by other changes to the culture.
It always blows my mind when someone suggests that feminism is no longer needed or has already achieved its aim. Which aim is that? I read the headlines and see women disportionally subjected to abuse and spousal murder. Women still earn 70% of what men earn, with mothers bearing the brunt of the disparity. Women still lose custody of their children when the man wants a custody battle, due in part to the economic disparity. Sexual harassment is still rampant. Hell, we haven't even had a female president yet!
Where do I get one of those T-shirts janeair mentioned? "I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy."