This is the title or an article in the Guardian today, and the of a new book by a Feminist scholar and lawyer, Catharine MacKinnon. (She graduated from Smith, which makes her an amazing woman for me already) bas having read some of what she says, I am even more impressed. She has been fighting for women's rights in the legal context, and is not afraid to state that the laws currently in place when it comes to rape,"the fact that the law of rape protects rapists and is written from their point of view to guarantee impunity for most rapes is officially regarded as a violation of the law of sex equality, national or international, by virtually nobody."There are famous feminists who do not like here, call her a Fascist (even more reason to like her), that she is promotes "Victim Feminism", Naomi Wolf claims that Mackinnon, "urges women to identify with powerlessness, even at the expense of taking responsibility for the power they do possess."
But to listen to what this woman has to say is quite mind opening, and really honest.
She states that that until sex inequality is tackled legally women will continue to be raped, murdered and served up as masturbation fantasies for men. To follow her logic, she says that heterosexual sex in our societies is based on inequality, she states that: . "In the same way that, say, friendships between black people and white people in societies that are racist do." She goes on to criticise the governments in all the world. Saying that even though they all say that they want to end sexual discrimination in all its forms, hardly any have delivered on this. "You don't have countries saying that, 'Yes, we have sex discrimination here and we want it. We're entitled to it and we enjoy it.' You don't have them saying that; you have them doing it."
In her new book, Are Women Human? MacKinnon answers the question stating that no they are not. "If women were human, would we be a cash crop shipped from Thailand in containers into New York's brothels? Would we be sexual and reproductive slaves? Would we be bred, worked without pay our whole lives, burned when our dowry money wasn't enough or when men tired of us, starved as widows when our husbands died (if we survived his funeral pyre)? ..."
MacKinnon writes that violence against women "qualifies as a casus belli and a form of terrorism every bit as much as the events of September 11 do". Is she serious that violence against women should be treated as a war? "I think only because it's men doing it against women that it isn't seen as a war."
Anyone can write bullshit!
ReplyDeletebut its getting shit done that matters.
And I am affraid this kind of bullshit is not the sort that gets shit done!
I can't say I'm all that familiar with the particular brand of feminist thought that has MacKinnon at its helm, but I do think she has a point when she writes of dehumanization.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Keko, just because it sounds clever doesn't ultimately make it right. Perhaps if you could expand on your thoughts, we'd all see where you're coming from.
Thanks Natalia :) I guess I ended up committing the gruesome act which I was criticising in the first place. So you have a point and I totally agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever expanding would mean I’ll be here all night and probably preaching to the converted, but I’ll try a general brief.
Anyone with a bit of brains and tact can build a cleaver sounding case for almost anything, but when the topic in question is one of social justice or anything which is implying that something needs to be done, then getting caught up in your own ego or playing to a crowd is less forgivable in my view.
As for Mackinnon undoubtedly a very smart lady, but a lot of her arguments which this post was eluding to are too alarmist and self (women) victimizing, as such targeting the too main weaknesses within human nature.
To me these seem to be too much about getting noticed and causing a stir and very little about getting something done.
On another note if you are aiming for equality you should preach the values of the collective you are trying to achieve, rather than taking a view form one side of the fence.
And if you wanted parallels, with a little bit of thought you find that Mackinnon policy for female equality if you can call it that, is not that different from the current US foreign policy, now that’s an interesting thought.
Hope I have not confused the issue further at this rather late hour.
PS. Sorry Luwla for the long comment
I don't know if I agree with the idea that if you are preaching equality you have to give both sides of the argument. I think that what Mackinnon is doing make total sense, she is bringing an issue to the forfront, speaking out loud and also giving it from one side. She is stating that women are seen as objects because of the current laws in place all over the world, I don't see why she has to talk about men's rights, when they are so well taken care of under the laws of most nations.
ReplyDeleteShe is trying to break through walls and layers of bullshit and tripe, and I think it is perfectly ok to do that by being loud, and saying things that might cause people to get upset...the forces them to actually then TALK!
Preaching the idea of the collective is not the same as giving both sides of the argument, rather it is stating why the goal you are trying to achieve is good and fair, and when it comes to matters of equality philologically it should follow that the ideal preached is fair, and after all fairness is meant to be for the better of all!
ReplyDeleteAs for laud, I am certainly not one for shrinking violets but when you are laud its more important that you have the right approach and argument, and its just my personal opinion that this is not! And if you are perceived by the main parties that can help your cause as not then you do your cause more harm than good.
Causing a stir for purposes of glossy magazines is not quiet the same as one which gets the attention of world order. And let us not go for the it’s a step on the way bullshit, because this is more of a step backwards!
I get the feeling we might have to agree to disagree, but time will tell I guess