Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: CMN

No, she never said that in so many words, but I think that to be fair you also have to recognize that Prof. MacKinnon (whom I respect and whose class I took at MLS) has said a variety of things that, taken together, make that a reasonable if imprecise gloss on her position. Take the below quote from your link:

"Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."

Now, rape is usually defined either as forcible sex or as non-consensual sex. MacKinnon clearly takes the position that, to the extent "force" is an element of the crime of rape, it ought to be satisfied by the act of penetration itself, which is inherently "violent." Thus, if rape is defined simply as "forcible sex," MacKinnon's position is that all sex involving penetration meets the definitional requirements of rape.

Of course, she doesn't really think that's how rape should be defined, so let's go at it from the "consent" angle. Well, notice that in the quote above she doesn't use the term "consent," but instead talks about "subordinate position." This is because MacKinnon doesn't think "consent" is a useful concept either--as long as there is inequality between men and women, the legitimacy of a women's "consent" is always suspect. While MacKinnon can imagine the possibility of "reciprocal" sex, certainly she and Dworkin view(ed) the present state of society as one in which women are systematically kept in a subordinate position.

So it's true that MacKinnon doesn't think sex "must be rape." But I think it an entirely fair statement of her position to say that "In our present societal circumstances of pervasive subordination of women, no sex act between a man and a woman can be clearly distinguished from rape."

If you think I am still misstating Prof. MacKinnon's view, I would be grateful for any correction. I don't doubt that many of her critics are sloppy and malicious. But unfortunately, I think to some extent the problem is that trying to pin down what she actually means is like trying to pin down Chomsky. She says things that seem logically to add up to X. She denies that she ever actually said X. Yet she never really denies that she thinks X, not without some semantic qualification that leaves it ambiguous. (I.e., "I'm not saying that sex must be rape," when the question was whether she thinks in practice it is rape.)

Posted by: CMN | Apr 28, 2006 6:20:54 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.