 |
|
|
||||
|
Can we redefine "Female Chauvinist Pigs" please?This book condemns the rise of "raunch culture" and the predilection for many young women to flaunt their bodies, view porn and have meaningless casual sex. The author takes issue with the idea that such flagrantly "male" behaviour has been dressed up as female power. I could discuss the pros and cons of her argument at length, but I really shouldn’t because I’ve not yet read the book, only various articles on it. I can, however, make a comment about the title. What I’m not happy about is the way she’s screwed up what "female chauvinist pig" should mean, particularly when it comes to porn. In Levy’s book, the alleged FCMs betray the sisterhood by going to strip clubs and CAKE parties to see other women strip, and by viewing porn featuring naked women. In her view, FCMs have taken up "objectifying" other women. I want to put my hand up and say: what about me? How come I don’t get to qualify as a Female Chauvinist Pig? I’m one of those evil women who’s making a living from porn, but the difference is that I’m "objectifying"* men. I help other women to admire the male form and encourage them to see men in a purely sexual light. I’m part of the "raunch culture" because I’m trying to bring overt female sexuality into the open, through my encouragement of porn for women. And surely I’m an FCM because I enjoy hardcore porn that features women having sex with men, one of the FCM activities described in the book? And what about the time I tried pole dancing for exercise, although God knows it nearly killed me? And how about all those chicks who love CFNM parties - private gatherings where men take off their clothes for the pleasure of women. Or the giggling women at male strip shows screaming "show us your dick!" Don’t they get to be maligned as well? Should I even ask whether gay porn viewers are male chauvinist pigs because they like "objectifying" other men, or are they gay chauvinist pigs, a whole other category? That’s the thing I don’t understand. Levy has slotted herself into the old argument that all porn is about naked women, and that it’s all about degradation and objectifying the female form. Therefore a woman who enjoys porn must somehow be oppressing other women in some way. Given the multi-faceted nature of modern pornography, it doesn’t make sense, but the view persists. Levy isn’t the first to get confused like this. A couple of years ago the Nielsen Netratings survey revealed that 28% of all porn surfers were women. When reporting this, the mainstream media consistently referred to Suicide Girls as a "women’s porn site." I could never work it out. That site predominantly features nude women. Yes, the ethic behind it is supposedly different to most mainstream sites, but on the simple level of content, it caters to heterosexual men #. Why don’t people acknowledge that if a woman is looking at porn, she might be looking at nude men? This "blind spot" persists because there’s a cultural fiction that a heterosexual naked man is not worth looking at. People insist that women are more beautiful than men, and that penises are ugly. Therefore, no normal woman would want to voluntarily seek out an image of a nude man. Only gays do that. I would have liked to see Levy’s argument applied to my kind of porn for women. Are we letting the team down by looking at naked men? Is it OK to "objectify" a man but not a woman? Is there something inherently bad about enjoying porn, even if it’s presented in a respectful manner? I’d always pictured a female chauvinist pig as a woman who is insensitive and boorish, only there’s a reversal of the sexes. So an FCM would ogle men with impunity, whistle at them as they walked past and make derogatory comments about the size of a man’s penis. Maybe after sex she’d tell him to get back in the garage where he belonged. Interestingly, dictionary.com defines a chauvinist as "a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind," which means that the word itself should probably not have been used in Levy’s context at all. It seems as though there’s a whole lot of unquestioned assumptions being made about what women are thinking (or not thinking) when they step beyond the assigned role of meek virgin and start to wield their sexuality, be it through the use of porn or through the display of their bodies. And when you start making generalisations about people’s motivations, things get tricky. When a woman goes to one of my sites to look at pictures of naked men does it matter if she simply sees a fantasy object? Is she viewing porn with an ironic slant or a purely lustful one? More importantly, does that affect the way she treats the men in her life? Does it make her less respectful of men, or does she go away with a deeper sense of the beauty of the male body? Does it make her want sex without love or does it mean she goes back to her partner with increased desire for better, more meaningful sex? I have no idea. I can’t pretend to know what other women think. But it seems that Levy does, and labels them accordingly. The best response to Levy’s book that I’ve read so far is by Kara Jesella at Alternet via Nerve. Well worth a read. * Note: I’m not a Dworkinite, and don’t subscribe to that old argument about porn’s "objectification" and how it leads to rape. I objectify the shop assistant at the supermarket as merely a means to an end, so let’s not get into this argument here. # Note: Yes yes, don’t get your knickers in a knot, O lesbians and girls of fluid sexuality. I know, I know. Just let me make my point. Posted: Friday 28th October 2005, 11:16 PM Back to the Blog
|
|