Feminist chauvanist pigs?

When reading Benhabib's chapter on postmodernity and feminism(s), I was very intrigued by her analysis of the male gaze, and it's relevance to subversive feminist art.

Feminist Intention--It seems that the proposition of the male gaze perpetuates a lack of agency for women, and perhaps men as well, because it is so deeply rooted in the intentions of the creator of the text--here, we have no agency as viewers because we are supposed to identify with the male, as surrogate males, or as the narcissistic female--it leaves no room for subversive subject positions. And there are nonetheless countless situations where the male gaze is subverted, as we know...the gay/lesbian viewer, the male body as desirable object/subject, etc.

Equally, in feminist art that intends to empower women by making them the subject and not object of the work, who I see as perhaps labeling their art as 'feminist', working with the same codes as high art and mass culture. Having a feminist intention is not enough. I'm referring to the discussion on 153-155 on the ambiguity of feminist art--is the use of women's bodies, by women, not exploitative? This gives too much credit to the creator, whose gender is intended to guide the way in which we interpret the work.

I guess I'm just curious about my sense that the depiction of woman as actor, as sexual agent, and what effect that has had on women's mentality. The new 'feminism' as portrayed by mass culture seems to be an expression of overt sexuality, where women seem to be actors. is this a result/symptom of setting out to subvert the tradition of "women appear[ing]" and men act[ing]"? In feminist art, we see women 'acting' in reclaiming their sexuality...This intention has been appropriated by mass culture alike, and the result has been a blurring of the lines of feminism and self-objectivity--the confusion of overt sexuality and feminism which is taken as empowering in mass culture.