Name:
Institution of Learning:
Course Code:
Instructors Name:
Date of Submission:
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
In spite of the fact that the United States of America is considered to have made strides in achieving equality especially for women, the American society sends a very different message. This is the main message in the book “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture” by the author Ariel Levy. Published in the year 2005, the book alleges that women in the United States of America are perfectly comfortable with the idea of being viewed as objects of men’s’ pleasure; they are proud of being viewed in this manner and society approves of them being viewed in this way (Levy, 2005).
The author begins by clarifying that this is not a new phenomenon; men have always viewed women as objects. The difference is the fact that society and even women now accept the use of women as sexual objects. Levy claims that this state of affairs is the result of a distortion of the feminist sex wars where women’s movement and sexual revolution were pitted against one another (2005). The permissiveness of society in the 1960s is also to blame for the current objectification of women as that is the time when women were simply viewed as available objects of men’s unlimited pleasure. However, she also alleges that the raunch culture is a protest against the values that are promoted as being feminine in a negative way such as being prude and uptight. This has also been attributed to the liberalization movement which was expressed sexually among other ways. Therefore, it would be hypocritical to blame men for the current trends in the objectification of women (Levy, 2005).
In recent decades such as in the 1990s, sex was a major tool in advertising, politics, music, art, fashion and food. Acknowledging and being sexually uninhibited was viewed as a desirable state. Today, regardless of the origin, history, qualification or talent a woman has, society seems to expect her to be visually attractive. All this does not benefit the woman in any way but it is known that the main purpose is to please the eye of any men that may be observing. Women who have managed to catch the gaze of men, for some reason, continue to want to look good and hot for men (Levy, 2005). This is referred to as self-objectification by the author and in spite of the fact that women may refer to this as empowerment and sexual liberation, it really is oppression.
Levy claims that women objectify themselves by asserting their uniqueness as compared to girls who are overly girly (2005). Surprisingly, this is achieved by objectifying such women by behaviour such as going to strip clubs and talking about pornography actors among others which is supposed to accord woman dominance in her social group. The second way through which women objectify themselves is in the way the dress especially when it conforms to society’s standards for female sexuality and embodying male desire.
The author has asserted that central to the propagation of the culture of objectifying women are “lipstick feminists” who think that engaging in behaviour to attract men’s attention empowers women. She has also criticized women who have achieved success by objectifying women and gives the example of Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Group which is run by his daughter Christie Hefner. The core business of Playboy is considered objectification of women. Levy hails women who succeed by means other than objectifying other women as participating in feminism normally proves that women are still inferior to men (2005).
The author concludes by proposing that all members of society should examine how they view gender and realize that objectification is based on disrespect. Levy suggests that men should find it in themselves to respect women and that women should realize that they are complete human beings and not just sexual beings 2005).
The author of the book is right with reference to several points one of which is the fact that the place of sex in the American society is overrated. In showbiz, entertainment and marketing, sex is considered a powerful tool for purposes of influencing the society. Women in particular are used to sending sexual messages to the public and it is rarely that men are seen in such roles. In this way, the whole of the American society has based its life on sex and sexual issues. My feeling is that this is a skewered position as far as society is concerned.
The fixation on sex by the American society cannot be healthy. I suspect that this is the source of most of the problems that society is facing today. To begin with, the family is the basic functioning unit of the society and of the nation as a whole. When the minds of the members of the family are all fixated on sex, a form of dysfunction is likely to occur. This may be the reason that many men are dissatisfied with their wives and the reason that many wives may be dissatisfied with themselves. Wives may continually want the attention from other men by being sexually provocative whereas husbands may be constantly in search of sexy women. All this continues while the children learn from their parents. The next generation is likely to have similar if not worse problems.
The American society has failed to accept people wholly for who they are. Women do not have to be “hot” and “sexy” for them to be acceptable within society. There is nothing wrong with practicing modesty in deed and in speech. The idea that women have to have certain physical qualities for them to be characterized as acceptable may be the reason that women are constantly trying to outdo one another and the reason that men are constantly on the prowl for the next hot girl. This means that relationships among the American people are fickle; they are just based on the looks of the women.
The exaggerated interest in sexuality particularly that of women, will mean that there will be a generation of elderly people with psychological problems. These will arise from the fact that eventually, there are some who are lucky enough to grow old. Will they still derive their self-esteem from how their attractiveness is esteemed by members of the opposite sex? Will they age gracefully or will they go down that road kicking and biting. As a society, it is important to cultivate values that will be useful long after women’s bodies have depreciated.
Given how society readily encourages shows of human sexuality, I cannot help but wonder if society accepts the consequences of these messages. This is particularly so for younger children who may not be old enough to make such decisions for themselves. So far, the effects of the increased concentration on sexuality may be manifested in the numerous abortion clinics in various states. In spite of the fact that nothing illegal is done, it is known that engaging in such behaviour ravages the very core of the soul of an individual besides putting them at risk of diseases and injuries.
However, according to Schacht, women have been oppressed for a long time by society and by members of the male sex in particular. He argues that these injustices are the result of negative advantages which are the assumptions that society makes concerning the male and female gender. These include the fact that men have better opportunities for jobs and higher salaries in comparison to women, women are often patronized in the course of conducting business, the press is dominated by stories of the achievements of men, men are more skilled at sports and are paid higher, men are not considered sluts when they become sexually promiscuous in spite of the fact that women are labelled in derogatory terms, men are not expected to be visually appealing in comparison to women, women do most of the housework even when living with men and women are viewed as being responsible for their pregnancies in spite of the fact that men are willing participants in the process. Men have been conferred an unfair advantage over women which may be the cause of the over-sexualisation of women in society.
Kimmel acknowledges that society is unjust in its regard of men and women and that the perceived differences are the result of these perceptions (2000). These are usually borne out of the socialization of men as being violent and rapacious and feminists who propagate the same. He argues that gender equality can be cultivated in institutions such as the family, the classroom and in organizations where people are employed. Gender injustices are blamed for the lack of love and nurturing in social institutions as men feel that they owe more to patriarchy and being seen as masculine (Kimmel, 2000). However, Kimmel alleges that in spite of the fact that there are gender differences which affect the relationships between sexes, they are far less significant than they have been in the past and therefore, the over-sexualisation of women is waning to an end (Kimmel, 2000). This may be achieved more by encouraging women to become more of themselves that alike to one another. McIntosh, just like Kimmel claims that men have been conferred certain advantages over women but that they are slow to acknowledge this fact and views it as a form of racism (1988). She therefore regards the oppressive acts of men, especially on women, as unconscious (McIntosh, 1988). Mills provides a way through which the male unfair advantages over females in the human society can be overcome in order to gain insight concerning the behaviour of males and females in society (1959). The author claims that the only in which this can be done is through an examination of the context within which the unfair advantage of men is enabled through use of “social imagination” (Mills, 1959).
References
Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society. Oxford University Press, USA.
Levy, Ariel. (2005). Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch
Culture, New York: Free Press
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Race, class,
and gender in the United States: An integrated study, 4, 165-169.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The promise. The sociological imagination, 3-24.
Schacht, S. P. (2001). Teaching about Being an Oppressor Some Personal and
Political Considerations. Men and Masculinities, 4(2), 201-208.
kaywangarimwangi 