FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIGS, IMF, AND WOMEN’S LIBERATION:

In my recent observations of the growing tides of Women’s Rights Issues as the world stage brings to the forefront weekly currents that challenge the Male Chauvinist perspective and the Female Chauvinist Perspective. I recently picked up Ariel Levy’s book entitled Female Chauvinist Pigs.

Contrarily, in the Gaurdian article by Zoe Williams, ‘Feminism in the 21st Century’, Zoe Williams references Caitlin Moran’s newest book, How to be A Woman. Here we see the “disadvantages of economizing on sanitary products – and she is firm, she insists on, this simple definition of feminism. Feminism is just equality. Would a man be allowed to do it? Then so should you. Would a man feel bad about it? No? Then nor should you. Everything else – the pressure to be sisterly ‘When did feminism become confused with Buddhism?’” (Williams).

Yet in the introduction, Ariel Levy states: “Raunchy” and “Liberated” are not synonyms. “If Male Chauvinist Pigs are men who regard women as pieces of meat … Female Chauvinist Pigs,” are women who make sex objects of other women and of themselves (Levy). “How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women?" (Levy). Why did women reach a heightened level of power and voice during the 1970’s, only to find it take a rapid turn during the decades that followed?

In another Guardian review by Miranda Sawyer, Sawyer concludes: “Moran’s final, simple argument, that there should be more of us, more, different women taking up more space and having more power in the world, is spot on. Why should women only be allowed to be seen, and particularly heard if they are deemed acceptable enough to do so?” (Sawyer).

I feel Ariel Levy questions the important point, where the equality of bantering and acting like a pig, is this really equality, and is it "worth asking ourselves if this bawdy world of boobs and gams we have resurrected reflects how far we’ve come, or how far we have left to go? (Levy)”

In the last few days, now that the IMF has selected Christine Lagarde for its lead and the people of Thailand have elected the first female Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, this does not mean the Women’s Rights movement has won anything.

The leadership of the IMF has a history of following through on economic policies that have been highly imbalanced that focus more on economic movement in developing nations for import and export gains of wealthier corporate nations. But by focusing more on economics and not favoring social policies, the instability of the market system does not allow women any safer place in the world when poorer nations are trapped into the agreements of the IMF, WTO and WB.

Like Mother Jones had bolstered regarding the new challenges of women in gaining suffrage in 1919, she didn’t want women moving from the slavery of being a house-wife to being a slave for yet another abusive system, the labor market or, even yet, the self-degrading consumer market. 

If Christine Lagarde, leads in an ‘equal fashion’ as her previous predecessors, she will do little for the market system but perpetuate the imbalances. However, as with the new Prime Minister of Thailand’s response, when many have claimed her only success to reaching the office was her tie to her brother, the previous ousted PM Thaksin Shinawatra, in an interview she had reposed: ''I hope Thai people will give me a chance to prove myself'”. We will have to see how Christine Lagarde proves her leadership as well.

Ariel Levy is concerned whether this is the postfeminist world that Hugh Hefner supposed, where the directions of women are to follow in the fraternity party? Either the fraternity of drunken gone-wild or the fraternity of money-boys, who like Strauss-Kahn has multiple faces from IMF cold economic policy or alleged women-izer, rapist, or typical politician.