I find a very large problem in reading about female sexuality. How is there a singular female sexuality open for analysis, or one sort of pornography, for that matter, that enables an author to claim grandiose and over-generalized assertions of dangers posed to "women"--inferring all women? I also find it very difficult to read about female objectification via sex, because although this may be true to varying degrees in varying contexts, I think it reduces female sexuality in the first place. To say that females are objects implies that all women want or feel nothing—they don’t want the sex, they are just participating as objects.
In terms of porn, I think the better question is why does porn tend to revolve around male fantasy? I think the answer is that women are socially and historically not allowed the same sexual freedom as men, so a parallel porn industry targeting women as consumers has not had the cultural space to develop. And if porn existed both ways—would that make it better? Then, would "men" and "women" both be objectified? Along those lines, in terms of women participating in raunch culture, although I won’t deny pressure to participate, etc etc—I think that is also denies female sexuality to a certain extent in the first place. Maybe raunch culture is forced or over-prevalent, but it is also the only dominant form of sexuality available. So if a woman wants to be part of a sexual culture, that is the most accessible option. These arguments do not address whether a public sexual culture is problematic, but only present a basic analysis that women are objectified. What, then, is a safe sexual culture--what would it look like for and women participating--and can it be achieved? Or are all public sexual cultures oppressive? I find the conclusion that "raunch culture and pornography are demeaning" not very profound.
Catherine MacKinnon, a feminist author and staunch anti-porn activist, more or less claims that all heterosexual sex is rape for females. I find this claim counter-productive to feminism, and misrepresentative of the end goal--equality for men and women. I find it irresponsible for a scholar to throw female sexuality into a singular experience; yes, rape occurs in relationships and marriage, but this is not a sweeping generalization by any means. Similarly, pornography exists in a variety of ways: multiple women, men and women, role-play, flat women, large women, men only, multiple men, people and animals, young people, old people--yet only one conclusion is made: bad for women. Why is a particular type of pornography more dominant? Now that is a far more interesting question. Can we look at pornography from an analytical and non-judgemental perspective? There are authors that do, and I appreciate that. In a later post I will explore that more. But these authors remain largely unheard, and feminist anti-porn sentiments rage loudest, although there are pro-porn feminists.
I guess I am just saying that over-generalized and surface-level arguments about women as one group and sexuality seem to say women are not sexual or would not want to culturally participate in sexual fantasy—when maybe they do, and there are no real avenues available—which is a different issue than being forced because of gender stratification.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Excerpt:
MacKinnon claims that all women are harmed by pornography. MacKinnon tells horror stories about the terrible things depicted in pornography and how they impact social norms and behavior. She details stories of girls being tortured and pornography is always part of the explanation. In one story she writes about a “woman testified in our hearings about walking through a forest at thirteen and coming across a group of armed hunters reading pornography. As they looked up and saw her, one said, 'There is a live one.' They gang-raped her at gunpoint for several hours. (184)” These are horrible human rights abuses and violent crimes that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but they are unrelated to pornography.
MacKinnon explains that pornography has caused the world to become a "pornographic place" (MacKinnon p. 174). Her claim is that the all women are subordinated by the existence and proliferation of pornography. She asserts that the harm caused by pornography outweighs protecting freedoms of speech that protect the makers and producers of pornography. At one point she claims that “the assumptions the law of the First Amendment makes about adults--that adults are autonomous, self-defining, freely acting, equal individuals--are exactly those qualities that pornography systematically denies and undermines for women” (181). I will refer later to these abstract “freedoms” that MacKinnon insists are worth sacrificing very specifically defined liberties for.
In order to arrive at the best possible theory of justice, we must place our minds in the theoretical "original position." The "original position" places representatives or actors in a frame of mind where they are unaware of their social advantage or disadvantage, gender, race, intelligence and other facts particular to themselves or the other actors. The individuals in the original position are empowered to determine the rules that will govern society and its institutions with all of the knowledge of society and those institutions. If done properly, this thought experiment should arrive at a better conception of justice than other theories such as utilitarianism. The reason for this is that the "original position" is, "the appropriate initial status-quo, and thus the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair. This explains the propriety of the name 'justice as fairness': it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial position that is fair" (Rawls p. 12). The result of actors determining principles of justice in a perfectly fair and equal setting, will lead to the creation of principles that are fair and equal. If the principles of justice are determined in any other frame of mind, for example the state of human affairs at any given point in history, those principles will be flawed, unjust, unequal and also unfair.
As Rawls elaborates his ideas, he offers a progression of definitions for the principles of justice that are born out of the "original position." The first principle is: "Each person is to have equal right to the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all" (Rawls p. 250). The second principle is: "The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases: (a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all, and (b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those citizens with the lesser liberty" (Rawls p. 250). According to Rawls, actors in the original position would agree to these terms because such agreements would best ensure their own protection. The only way that any individual can be certain that any level of wealth, income, race, religion, gender, and propensity towards success will not disadvantage them upon exiting the "original position," is to protect the rights and freedoms of every member of society. Even the inequalities in society must serve to benefit everyone. In this way, "The social order can be justified to everyone, and in particular those who are least favored; and in this sense it is egalitarian" (Rawls p. 103).
According to the principles of "justice as fairness," MacKinnon is clearly coming from a perspective that is very far outside of the original position. Given her arguments and knowledge of her social position, I could understand why it would seem like a good idea to ban pornography. Many of the arguments that MacKinnon makes are emotionally moving and often very convincing, which is why it is not surprising that such a smart and rational woman spent so much of her energy campaigning against pornography. These arguments are constructed by a person that was well aware of her gender, her social position, and how her gender would impact her social position. Her arguments and opinions are what one could easily expect from a person under those specific circumstances. If placed in the "original position," I would expect MacKinnon would come a different conclusion about pornography. Under the "veil of ignorance" MacKinnon would choose her liberty over banning free expression.
MacKinnon writes, "Equality for women is incompatible with a definition of men's freedom that is at our expense. What can freedom for women mean, so long as we remain unequal? Why should men's freedom to use us in this way be purchased with our second-class civil status" (MacKinnon p. 166). I am going to come back to this, but it would be wise to clarify terms. She is talking about the freedom to make, produce, distribute, participate in, or buy pornography. It is important to note that MacKinnon defines pornography in a very particular way. In her own words:
We define pornography as the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words that also includes women dehumanizes as sexual objects, things, or commodities; enjoying pain or humiliation or rape; being tied up, cut, mutilated, bruised, or physically hurt; in postures of sexual submission or servility or display; reduced to body parts, penetrated by objects or animals, or presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture; shown as filthy or inferior; bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. Erotica, defined distinctly as not this, might be sexually explicit materials premised on equality. (MacKinnon p. 176)
In brief, pornography is not the same thing as erotica. Pornography involves subordination or degradation; erotica is sexually explicit material showing the subjects as equals. For the purposes of clarity, I will use MacKinnon's definition of terms.
Now, back to MacKinnon's point about the mutual exclusivity of equality. By taking away men's freedom to make, produce, distribute, participate in, or buy pornography, we are doing so in order to increase equality and therefore liberty for women. It is important to note that we would also be taking away the freedom of women to make, produce, distribute, participate in, or buy pornography. MacKinnon is representing the mindset and the particular interests of a particular group of people at a specific point in time that she may or may not represent. To get a Rawlsian understanding of this issue, we must place ourselves in the original position. And because "The veil of ignorance makes possible a unanimous choice of a particular conception of justice," (Rawls p. 140) it would be very useful to apply that thought experiment to MacKinnon's claims on pornography.
The question in the original position is how to balance the right to expression against MacKinnon’s preference to limit that expression. Her assertion that the proliferation of pornography inhibits the liberty of all women (MacKinnon 166) is based on her argument that pornography "goes beyond its content: it eroticizes hierarchy, it sexual inequality. It makes dominance and submission into sex" (Mackinnon 172). That "harm" that she refers to, the rights being taken away from women is not particular or specific. The "harm" is structural in society; she claims to see it everywhere. Expressing the sexualization of male power and female submission through pornography "legitimates them" (MacKinnon p. 171). Pornography, in her view, helps maintain and create the structures of domination over women in all aspects of life.
In the original position, individuals would need to weigh freedom of expression against MacKinnon's preference to limit that expression. It is clear that anybody under the veil of ignorance would want power relations between the genders to be equal. The question at hand is if one of the most "basic" liberties, freedom of speech would be more of a priority to individuals in the original position than abstract notions of gender equality. Rawls explains, “A less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all” (Rawls. P. 250). This point is essential in applying the “justice as fairness” when considering pornography in society.
Mackinnon advocates restricting the right to make, participate in, or distribute certain kinds of expression. In order to justify limiting these kinds of basic freedoms under Rawls’ theory of justice, one would have to demonstrate that the decreased liberties benefit the liberties of all. The “harm” that MacKinnon describes would never be enough to convince an individual in the original position that limiting their free expression will be beneficial to themselves and everyone else.
Great post!!
While I'm currently at work and can't comment in depth here (I know this post is old but just kinda stumbled upon it)I feel compelled to say a couple of things.
Andrea Dworkin has been accused of the same thing as Catherine MacKinnon, that "all sex is rape," etc. These quotes are generally oversimplifications of more complex analyses. Dworkin and MacKinnon attempted to attack the porn industry using civil, libertarian law (the kind we have in the USA.) It didn't work. I don't think that was necessarily because their ideas were incorrect (i.e. that pornography is hate-speech); IMO it has more to do with the very slanted nature of our legal system.
The post above uses a lot of abstract reasoning and leans on a presumption that the legal system we work in already is a perfectly good one, a "neutral" one, if you will, that only acts on behalf of (another abstract idea) justice.
Pornography is not an abstraction.
Just like WalMart is not an abstraction, or Trader Joe's, or any other industry that promotes harmful practices.
We live in a country where all sexuality is affected by patriarchy, even sexuality that presumably only occurs between women. We are shaped by our culture in many other ways- Big Media teaches us to hate fat people, does it not? Why are things like "sexuality" and "expression" granted immunity from materialist analysis? Or if that analysis goes further than, say, porn actresses should have unions (for example,) why is that any more repressive than the assumption that sexuality MUST BE EXPRESSED in ways that can be encapsulated by overt, public acts of sexuality?
When did doint exactly what a multi-billion dollar industry tells us to do become "expressive?"
The "civil-liberties trump card" that is often played against the radical feminist analysis of the porn industry really is an over-simplification to me, no matter how many times it gets abstracted into fractalesque oblivion. There is more to human sexuality than the pictures we are brought up on, and there is more to Mackinnon's analysis than "all sex is rape."
Thanks for letting me ramble a little.
-Elaina
Post a Comment