New semester = more posts?/A look at Female Chauvinist Pigs.

Hello out there! Fall 2009 has begun, and I'm hoping it'll breathe some new life into this little blog here. My project on the Galli is still in process, though I did get to give two (well-received) presentations on it back in August. More on that later, hopefully. The next project, the one on Ian Harvie, is beginning to get underway. I'm quite excited about it, so let's hope all goes well, shall we? All warm fuzzies appreciated!

Back in the class room, I'm taking another course that has got my opinionated feminist side up on its soapbox, ready to tell it to the world, sister! I'm hoping that some of my responses to class material will find their way into the adventure log that is this blog.

To start with, I'm going to discuss Ariel Levy's book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. Levy critiques "raunch culture," which she describes as women being exhibitionists, putting a certain kind of sexuality on display, which gets them the approval of certain other people, a large percentage of whom happen to have penises. She compares it to "Tomming," as in Uncle Tom, from Harriet Beecher Stowe's Civil-War-inpiring novel. Which begs the question, is female sexuality enslaved? Despite all the talk of "liberation," is a civil war in the bedroom needed, in this day and age? Hmmm... perhaps nothing quite so bloody, but definately something as reality changing would seem to be in order.

First, let me address the issue of terms. Words such as "female," "woman," "femininity," and their (unfortunately) binary counterparts on the penis side of things are highly problematic. That being said, there is no good way to discuss such things without greatly risking reinscribing the power-drenched binary I would so like to explode (into about a billion pieces or so). But for the sake of time, space, and sentences that don't make your head spin, we are going to proceed from here: female, woman, women, and femininity are largely assumed to be inseperable in our culture (despite the best efforts of many social movements). Male, man, men, and masculinity are also largely assumed to be inseperable. When I discuss Levy's book, I am discussing how things seem to work within that particular construction, NOT how I think things should or could be.

On to the book...

I tend to agree wholeheartedly with Ariel Levy. Thing is, the "sexual liberation" is highly problematic in that its expression is so skewed: why are only women representative of "sexy?" The only time or place we see men in the same kind of exhibitionist pose is in places like West Hollywood, where men are looking at other men as objects of desire - objects being the key word here. I've heard the bullshit notion that female bodies are just naturally more attractive, but if WeHo doesn't convince you of the attractiveness a male body can have, then perhaps centuries of Greek art will. Or how about the occassional objectification of the male body that does get through modern cultural filters (though they are often problematic in their implications of power as well - I'm thinking of these "ride me cowboy" billboards I saw some time back)? And what about the men in all those romance novels that get consumed by the ton? Don't tell me Mr. Wonderful's body wasn't discussed in all its glory - I know better! Years ago, as a young teen, I spent a whole year devouring those things (still trying to recover).

Not that I'm looking for "men" to paralle the exhibitionist trend Levy highlights among "women." Why objectify other humans that way? Why turn yourself into such an object? Why pin your self-worth on how much others get off (sexually) on looking at you? Aren't human beings worth more than that? Is a female nothing more than a hole to fuck, more or less appealing? Isn't a man more than just a prick backed by a more or less powerful body and/or social position?

And what about the actual sex itself? Levy note a tendency among young females where sex becomes a social tool, not done for personal enjoyment (and almost never actually enjoyed), but to gain status. Isn't that akin to prostitution? Granted, people (and all kinds of other primates) have been using sex as social grease for as long as anyone knows. But is that what you want your sex life to be? Whether its old-fashioned or revolutionary, I have something else in mind. I believe I have the right to ENJOY my sex life as much as my partner(s). And that's really the only kind of sex I'm interested in. Why else would I bother? There's something cold and alienating about sex as a power play, and that's not the kind of world I want to live in. Manipulative ploys aren't my style, again, because I believe in respecting other human beings. Manipulation, and "notch-in-my-belt" activities, those things are not respectful in the least. When you dehumanize others, you dehumanize yourself. I have no desire to do that.

Here's a thought for ya: how about sex as a loving, intimate, reciprocal exchange betweeen people who respect each other? Who see each other as fundemantally equal, despite whatever social position each may have, entrenched in relations of power, entangled in webs of gender, race, class, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Let sex be the most stripped down (pardon the pun) engagement we have with another human being, intimate AND enjoyable, centered on mutually giving pleasure to each other. Is it possible? Can we do that? Can we at least try? Some of us still think so...