Sexist Sows

Katie Macdonald

Dr. Paul

Rhetorical Analysis

Sexist Sows

It is taken as almost gospel truth that men discriminate against women. They are the ones who for generations remained atop the pedestal of superiority; they were the dominant half of our species. Therefore, it has come to fabricate such stereotypes as to completely shift the social atmosphere when something like feminism pops up. In the midst of the conflicting altercations between the many avid groups, Anne Richardson Roiphe wrote an essay in the New Yorker, entitled “Confessions of a Female Chauvinist Sow”. In her writings she aims to convince her readers that women must put faith in the idea that they are equal to men, not inferior, but neither superior. Despite the happenings of the past, the important thing—and the hard thing—is to wipe the slate clean, to start again without the meanness of the past. "Women who want equality must be prepared to give it and believe in it…” (Paragraph 9). Through exercising a careful manipulation of language in terms of connection to audience, contrast, and comparison, Roiphe effectively creates an equalizer in beliefs on both sides of the species-spectrum.

There is an old saying that plays something to the tune of, "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." It is possible that such a phrase was popularized in order for people to equip themselves with a psychological defense against the reality that words can, in fact, have a tremendous amount of significance depending on their usage and context. The careful manipulation of language in essays, for example, is one way that words can be arranged and exploited. One way in which Roiphe orchestrates her scheme in the essay is through the use of specific pronouns, such as "us," "we," "they," and "you" to establish a rapport-like connection with female readers. The effect of this subtle device is that Roiphe is able to directly communicate with other women, enabling her to transmit her point of view.

This connection is vastly important, as what woman would enjoy hearing her opinion that “women as a group are indeed more masochistic than men”(Paragraph 11)? She goes on to explain that the practical result of this division is that women seem nicer and kinder, but when the world changes, women will have a fuller opportunity to be just as rotten as men and there will be fewer claims of female moral superiority, but it still entails an insult to women as a whole; however, by putting herself on the same level as her audience, and by always presenting a counteracting example, such as the fact that there are “1000 Jack the Rippers to every Lizzie Bordon” (11), she allows the claim to become more accepted.

In addition to capturing the reader's interest with the indisputable bonds, Roiphe begins using contrast. The numerous examples of contrast throughout the essay portray men and women as being drastically different, especially morally. Boys are thought to be incapable of engaging in “easy companionship” (Paragraph 4) as girls are able to do, and men are generally believed to be “less moral”(4) than women. “Everyone assumes a mother will not let her child starve, yet it is necessary to legislate that a father must not do so”(Paragraph 5). Roiphe uses contrast to illustrate the common anti-male attitudes women have, and in doing so, makes it obvious that women feel superior to men. This exactly, Roiphe points out, is the barrier to equality between men and women. It is clear to the reader that equality between the sexes will never exist as long as women continue to feel superior to men. The contrasts also function to support points Roiphe makes later concerning the similarities between men and women.

About midway through the essay, Roiphe transitions smoothly from contrast to comparison and begins focusing on the idea that women are actually very similar to men. She bluntly states in paragraph 11 that aggression is not a male-sex-linked characteristic, and despite her shared emotional conviction that women given power would not disrupt the peace, she admits that even “great queens have waged war before”(11). Comparisons such as these lead Roiphe into making her strongest comparison: “Us laughing at them, us feeling superior to them, us ridiculing them behind their backs…if they were doing it to us we'd call it male chauvinist pigness; if we do it to them, it is inescapably female chauvinist sowness”(paragraph 14). This particular technique forces the reader to reflect on previous ideas in the essay. Roiphe’s previous statement “what they have done to us [women], and, of course, they have and they did and they are…” (paragraph 2) momentarily makes the assumption that men are to blame for the inequality between the sexes. However, through effective comparison Roiphe leads her readers to logically infer that women must also be responsible for the inequality between men and women. Minorities, and in this case, women, automatically feel superior to the oppressor because, after all, they are not hurting anybody. In fact, they feel they are morally better. It then becomes clear to the reader that the secret sense of superiority women feel is what makes them equally as chauvinistic as men.

If a male chauvinist was a "sexist pig," then what is a female chauvinist? The term “sexist sows” seems to fit rather nicely. Roiphe worked through her techniques to come to this conclusion; had she gone straight to the point without careful administration of her language and without putting a contrast along with the comparison, a very different effect could have been contrived. Her audience, particularly the female members of it, would have undoubtedly been offended. Roiphe’s specialized techniques allowed her to create a specifically designed essay beneficial to leveling the adverse in points of view. It is true that the women's movement cannot remake consciousness, or reshape the future, without acknowledging and shedding all the unnecessary and ugly baggage of the past, but it is important that the movement not become so anti-male as to dismiss its own hidden prejudices and class assumptions. Men and women are who built this world; and in all aspects of intelligence and humanity neither can surmount the other. We are equal.