Ariel Levy got it wrong. In the feminist author’s 2005 book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Levy posits that female chauvinism entails a celebration of sex at the expense of one’s dignity. She cites soft-core porn offerings, such as Girls Gone Wild, as evidence of the feminist movement’s inadvertent effects and bemoans the fact that women are now empowering themselves through sexual exploitation. While I could pen reams of criticism on the ill effects of so called “raunch culture,” I must find fault with Levy’s definition of female chauvinism. In my estimation, female chauvinism is what feminism has become.
If you look at the literal definition of chauvinism…
1: excessive or blind patriotism
2: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also: behavior expressive of such an attitude (definition via Merriam-Webster)
…one can’t help but see the similarity to modern feminism. It needn’t be an issue of believing women superior to men; the "undue partiality or attachment to a group" will suffice. The most marked aspect of modern feminism is the immutability. There is a dogmatic devotion to its beliefs, and no amount of evidence will shake it. Any dissent is blasted and characterized as "misogynistic" no matter how cogent or sincere. People who agree with feminism at its core, but find fault with some tenets of the movement, are simply not welcome at the clam bake.
The idea that women should be afforded more choices than merely wife and mother, or that all human beings should be equal in the eyes of the law, are hardly radical notions. Certainly they do not appear that way to a 28-year-old who’s been told her entire life, both explicitly and implicitly, that she was superior to those lowly boys so beset by their primitive instincts.
As a teenager I identified with feminism, more so out of societal pressure than a genuine desire to become part of the movement. I spent my adolescence in the 1990s, a surprisingly liberal and earth-friendly period of time which had many similarities to the current "green" movement and mainstreaming of feminist theory. I was schooled on Sassy, the only feminist teen magazine. I idolized people like Courtney Love and Kathleen Hanna for their aggressiveness and masculine rock-star poses. Eventually I grew out of it. My opinions became more nuanced. Suddenly, feminist theory looked rife with holes and inconsistencies. When I couldn’t make my personal beliefs jibe with the feminist party line, I had to abandon it.
Article comments
1 - Joanne Huspek
Interesting take on this, especially your last paragraph, which is so true. We have no "wars" to fight, and that's probably a bad thing.
2 - Marcia Neil
Sorry, but 'Girls Gone Wild' was supposed to be a study of young female behavior near hidden archaeology site(s) among other species cognizant of covered/unseen artifacts. It is an example of male chauvinism that a 'nudie'-type film was made and distributed instead.
3 - Mindy
This is an excellent piece. You may be interested in a book length treatment of the phenomenon you identify. The emotional immaturity of third wave feminism is nicely exposed in Helen Garner's The First Stone, an engrossing retelling of the witch hunt engendered by a minor sexual harassment incident at a Melbourne university. Narcissism and a gross sense of entitlment have hijacked feminism rendering it an irrelevant solution to the manifold problems women still face. As Erica Jong says, "Sex is not power, a seat on the board is power". Women have to transcend the semantic triflings and small injuries that are bogging us down in absurd arguments and start focussing on the heart of the matter - economic equality. Without it, everything else is just window-dressing. Poor people are universally oppressed regardless of sex. Our economic disadvantage is women's greatest challenge.
4 - Andrew
While I found most of your article to have been extremely well thought out. One major blind spot I noticed was in the area of domestic violence where you completely skipped over the issue of abussive women and the way radical feminist groups trivialise, diminish and in some cases even villainise abused men. While your article certainly didn't dismiss the ideas, it didn't address it either. Perhaps it is something worth looking into for your future writings, as the evidence out there points to roughly 50% of all DV being mutual, roughly 25% being solely men abusing women and roughly 25% being solely women abusing men.
5 - JDex
There are different forms of feminism, or 'waves' as it's known. You really should have gone over that more instead of painting with such a broad brush. By the way, if you fall when I push you, is it still your fault?