As a social system, the backlash works. The two adversaries feed off of each other in a kind of inverted symbiosis: one mocks the other, and the other heaps even more power on the one. This arrangement should be the envy of every ruling class in the world. Not only can it be pushed much, much farther, but it is fairly certain that it will be so pushed. All the incentives point that way, as do the never-examined cultural requirements of modern capitalism. Why shouldn't our culture just get worse and worse, if making it worse will only cause the people who worsen it to grow wealthier and wealthier?
Female Chauvinist Pigs serves as further warning to political progressives: when women rebel against their roles in our society with their pocketbooks instead of their voices, with their bodies and not their minds, and when politics takes a back seat to projecting a mere image of the radical, look out. The consequences are a debasement of our culture, a degradation of our roles as citizens in a democracy, and a vapid politics of "Red State vs. Blue State."
See more thoughts at count dookie.
ed: JH Edited: PC
Article comments
1 - Bob A. Booey
Wow, great job, John. I'm very impressed -- I'll keep my eyes out for you other writing on this site. This should definitely be a Pick of the Week.
And you're reading some great stuff.
That is all.
2 - Temple Stark
Impressive.
I forgot everything I read with this ending though: See more thoughts at count dookie.
3 - Temple Stark
Books Editor Pat picked this his pick of the week. Go HERE to find out why. and thank you very much.
4 - fnord
>>> Being able to have an orgasm with a man you don't love, or ... that is not liberation. ... the problem is: You're not going to elect Carrie to the Senate or to run your company.
(Sigh) The same old error in thinking: "they're doing A, therefore nothing is happening with doing B." They're having more fun with sex, and so that means there won't be more women in the Senate or at the top of businesses. Hellooooo ... people can affect more than one issue at a time, especially when one issue is "recreational", shall we say, compared to the other. Male senators, and business leaders, apparently do not have to give up a strongly-expressed sexuality to be where _they_ are, so why should women?
It's the usual advocacy-fallacy of "No, don't do that!! Do this!!" Helloooo ... people can do *both* 'that' *and* 'this'.
5 - Tara NY
Everything in moderation. As part of this so-called sexually liberated generation the fact that women lose control of their sexuality by believing it is all that empowers them rings all too true. It does not mean we should give up our right to be sexually empowered, but that we have an obligation to our minds as well. Being healthy and loving life should not require a compromise of mind over body. Having fun times does not mean a person is happy overall. Having been there in every sense, and knowing that most men hardly enjoy my intellect as much as my face and my figure, I know that this well named "raunch feminism" is a disgrace to the ideals of feminism altogether. If this is how women are convincing themselves to become feminists once again, then I suggest we revert back to Betty Friedan. Her brand of radical allowed women to put on jeans, and never implied that women should empower themselves by turning to self degradation.
6 - Lauren
You're hiding, John Zorbedian. Don't. You have good stuff to say, I think. Don't be sceered - come back. I look for people like you, found you with your really good Ariel Levy review, searched and you're gone...
Real human,
Lauren