![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Monday the 17th of November, Professor Cathrine MacKinnon - yes, that MacKinnon - gave a guest lecture at a joint event put together by the Tel-Aviv Uni Law Department and my very own Women and Gender Program.
My friend [Gossip!Girl] and I had been *squeeing* about this lecture ever since we got the notices about it, so for about a week we were going around Gilman (the Humanities building) talking about MacKinnon. She is such a celeb!
On the day, Monday, we decided to seat ourselves about hour before the lecture was scheduled, which was a good call, because half an hour before it was due the hall (which can house approx. 200) was packed. People were sitting on the floor and milling outside the door.
There were short opening speeches by the event organizers and the department heads of Law and the Women & Gender Program.
And then she spoke.
I feel I should mention that the woman is tall, with an awe inspiring presence. The minute she walked into the hall the energy spiked and it revolved around her. She began her lecture and wow! she speaks like she writes; no holds barred, with fire and no-nonsense.
She's not just awe-inspiring, she's just plain inspiring.
She cuts through the bullshit and spreads out the reality of the world like an Augur (yes I know they had to be of the masculine persuasion) cutting open the guts of a goat.
Only we're the goat and the guts sure aren't pretty.
And with that lovely metaphor in mind, you may have an idea of the way she speaks and writes her radical theory (despite being active through mainstream channels).
I jotted down some bullet points that I found to be important in her lecture. I hope you can forgive my own disjointed interpretation of her points and for mangling her ideas and very impressive speaking style.
Finally, I'd like to note that I'm not writing down MacKinnon unexamined, she has plenty to account for in her theory and practice and of course by trying to recreate what she spoke of and what I myself to be of import, I'm immersing my own ideas and opinions.
Without further adieu:
The lecture was titled "Gender - The Future", which is vague to say the least.
MacKinnon began the lecture by mentioning a sci-fi book published in the 1970's titles Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy. In this book two potential futures are presented - an androgynous future in which gender (or sex roles) are abolished and the term "equality" is redundant. The second is a future in which sex is nothing bu pornography, television depicts the degradation of women and reality copies and performs what is depicted.
MacKinnon rhetorically asks towards which future are we headed, confidant that we know.
And we do.
The lives of some women are better due to the women's movement.
Women as a group are not yet free or equal anywhere. Blatantly inserting myself here for mo, because I really can't ignore the underlying essentialism of this statement - the reality is that no one is free (equality is not equivalent to freedom) and the categories of the binary Genders subjugate us into the roles we are taught to perceive and believe as natural. Woman, as a gender category, has historically (and currently) been the most oppressed gender (intersectionality brought into account of course).
The question which is posited in this reality (both MacKinnon's essentialist one and the constructionist I put forth) is why? Why are women still the oppressed and subjugated group?
What do women need liberation from?
MacKinnon answers: The all encompassing male domination - a domination of masculinity despite the criticism under which it has been put since the 1970's.
One of the reasons for this reality is the sexualisation of power, which today is easily translated as Profit, this is visible through pornography and prostitution, which in turn is made up of women who have been abused and continue to be abused. MacKinnon really doesn't make any distinction, to her all sex workers are victims and those who say otherwise are trapped in a false consciousness, which is, ha, ridiculous.
What isn't ridiculous is that through the media and pop-culture consciousness is dictated and through this dictation we, society, learn and recreate the Gender hierarchy which is promoted in order to keep women sexually available. Therefore, MacKinnon makes this brilliant leap, the economy is interested in keeping gender inequality because it's good for business. The economy, that is the Capitalist industries of sex and entertainment, make their profit off women being sexually available.
Because this is a Capitalist structure, the training of women to be this way begin in the family - the nuclear family which the smallest unit (not the individual - one can't be a good Capitalist, if you don't have someone House Keeping and Rearing) in the Capitalist economy. In this unit we replicate and are taught the values we need to succeed and the ideals of who we must be in order to be Normal.
Normal is that men want women who want to be sexually used.
MacKinnon posits that this pattern of masculine dominance begins and is replicated, as mentioned, in a family unit in which children are sexually abused.
This, we know, happens far more often than statistics can even begin to show.
Girls who are abused grow up to be "everyone", with a high percentage of abused women in the sex industry. The vast majority of abusers are men, very likely to have been abused themselves as boys - almost no statistics on sexually abused boys exist and the stats that do exist more likely show an extremely small percentage of what actually happens.
Abused boys have two choices according to MacKinnon - become allies with a socially inferior group (women) or become abusers (men).
In other, shorter words:
Girl children who are abused continue to be abused. This is Gender Feminine.
Boy children who are abused become abusers. This is Gender Masculine.
And what is needed is solidarity among women and men who are aware of this dynamic.
Whew!
That's a lot of info isn't it?
MacKinnon is dated in her theory, because she really does still lump all women together and is binary in the way she posits the categories of gender.
Beyond that essentialist streak, she ignores the fact that there are feminist sex workers, who work within the industry both mainstream and alternative and aim to change it.
I would hardly call the indie Lesbian erotica, mainstream industrial pornography - it really is more like art and why can't sex be viewed in that way - is entertainment not art either?
And yes, people get paid for entertaining others and sexuality is a part of that and really, that isn't the issue.
The issue is lumping the entirety of sexual entertainment as porn, which I feel is what always got MacKinnon (and Andrea Dworkin and the rest of the Anti-Pron movement in the 70's and 80's) a whole lot of flak.
The guts of her argument aren't pretty and MacKinnon herself seems to be aware of the short comings in her theory and the way she presents her theory (at least, I like to believe so), I think this happens because MacKinnon has to be able to use her theory in praxis - that is through the mainstream channels - the Law, in MacKinnon's case.
It was a fascinating lecture, with plenty to argue about and dig deeper, she presents a very disturbing root cause of why humanity does what it does.
It's worth thinking about and breaking apart again and again.
Also, one doesn't go to see MacKinnon speak in order to agree or disagree, you go to see a Very Important Person in action.
And it was totally worth it.
And you, my vastly intelligent friends, readers and lurkers, what are your thoughts on what I've presented here?
My friend [Gossip!Girl] and I had been *squeeing* about this lecture ever since we got the notices about it, so for about a week we were going around Gilman (the Humanities building) talking about MacKinnon. She is such a celeb!
On the day, Monday, we decided to seat ourselves about hour before the lecture was scheduled, which was a good call, because half an hour before it was due the hall (which can house approx. 200) was packed. People were sitting on the floor and milling outside the door.
There were short opening speeches by the event organizers and the department heads of Law and the Women & Gender Program.
And then she spoke.
I feel I should mention that the woman is tall, with an awe inspiring presence. The minute she walked into the hall the energy spiked and it revolved around her. She began her lecture and wow! she speaks like she writes; no holds barred, with fire and no-nonsense.
She's not just awe-inspiring, she's just plain inspiring.
She cuts through the bullshit and spreads out the reality of the world like an Augur (yes I know they had to be of the masculine persuasion) cutting open the guts of a goat.
Only we're the goat and the guts sure aren't pretty.
And with that lovely metaphor in mind, you may have an idea of the way she speaks and writes her radical theory (despite being active through mainstream channels).
I jotted down some bullet points that I found to be important in her lecture. I hope you can forgive my own disjointed interpretation of her points and for mangling her ideas and very impressive speaking style.
Finally, I'd like to note that I'm not writing down MacKinnon unexamined, she has plenty to account for in her theory and practice and of course by trying to recreate what she spoke of and what I myself to be of import, I'm immersing my own ideas and opinions.
Without further adieu:
The lecture was titled "Gender - The Future", which is vague to say the least.
MacKinnon began the lecture by mentioning a sci-fi book published in the 1970's titles Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy. In this book two potential futures are presented - an androgynous future in which gender (or sex roles) are abolished and the term "equality" is redundant. The second is a future in which sex is nothing bu pornography, television depicts the degradation of women and reality copies and performs what is depicted.
MacKinnon rhetorically asks towards which future are we headed, confidant that we know.
And we do.
The lives of some women are better due to the women's movement.
Women as a group are not yet free or equal anywhere. Blatantly inserting myself here for mo, because I really can't ignore the underlying essentialism of this statement - the reality is that no one is free (equality is not equivalent to freedom) and the categories of the binary Genders subjugate us into the roles we are taught to perceive and believe as natural. Woman, as a gender category, has historically (and currently) been the most oppressed gender (intersectionality brought into account of course).
The question which is posited in this reality (both MacKinnon's essentialist one and the constructionist I put forth) is why? Why are women still the oppressed and subjugated group?
What do women need liberation from?
MacKinnon answers: The all encompassing male domination - a domination of masculinity despite the criticism under which it has been put since the 1970's.
One of the reasons for this reality is the sexualisation of power, which today is easily translated as Profit, this is visible through pornography and prostitution, which in turn is made up of women who have been abused and continue to be abused. MacKinnon really doesn't make any distinction, to her all sex workers are victims and those who say otherwise are trapped in a false consciousness, which is, ha, ridiculous.
What isn't ridiculous is that through the media and pop-culture consciousness is dictated and through this dictation we, society, learn and recreate the Gender hierarchy which is promoted in order to keep women sexually available. Therefore, MacKinnon makes this brilliant leap, the economy is interested in keeping gender inequality because it's good for business. The economy, that is the Capitalist industries of sex and entertainment, make their profit off women being sexually available.
Because this is a Capitalist structure, the training of women to be this way begin in the family - the nuclear family which the smallest unit (not the individual - one can't be a good Capitalist, if you don't have someone House Keeping and Rearing) in the Capitalist economy. In this unit we replicate and are taught the values we need to succeed and the ideals of who we must be in order to be Normal.
Normal is that men want women who want to be sexually used.
MacKinnon posits that this pattern of masculine dominance begins and is replicated, as mentioned, in a family unit in which children are sexually abused.
This, we know, happens far more often than statistics can even begin to show.
Girls who are abused grow up to be "everyone", with a high percentage of abused women in the sex industry. The vast majority of abusers are men, very likely to have been abused themselves as boys - almost no statistics on sexually abused boys exist and the stats that do exist more likely show an extremely small percentage of what actually happens.
Abused boys have two choices according to MacKinnon - become allies with a socially inferior group (women) or become abusers (men).
In other, shorter words:
Girl children who are abused continue to be abused. This is Gender Feminine.
Boy children who are abused become abusers. This is Gender Masculine.
And what is needed is solidarity among women and men who are aware of this dynamic.
Whew!
That's a lot of info isn't it?
MacKinnon is dated in her theory, because she really does still lump all women together and is binary in the way she posits the categories of gender.
Beyond that essentialist streak, she ignores the fact that there are feminist sex workers, who work within the industry both mainstream and alternative and aim to change it.
I would hardly call the indie Lesbian erotica, mainstream industrial pornography - it really is more like art and why can't sex be viewed in that way - is entertainment not art either?
And yes, people get paid for entertaining others and sexuality is a part of that and really, that isn't the issue.
The issue is lumping the entirety of sexual entertainment as porn, which I feel is what always got MacKinnon (and Andrea Dworkin and the rest of the Anti-Pron movement in the 70's and 80's) a whole lot of flak.
The guts of her argument aren't pretty and MacKinnon herself seems to be aware of the short comings in her theory and the way she presents her theory (at least, I like to believe so), I think this happens because MacKinnon has to be able to use her theory in praxis - that is through the mainstream channels - the Law, in MacKinnon's case.
It was a fascinating lecture, with plenty to argue about and dig deeper, she presents a very disturbing root cause of why humanity does what it does.
It's worth thinking about and breaking apart again and again.
Also, one doesn't go to see MacKinnon speak in order to agree or disagree, you go to see a Very Important Person in action.
And it was totally worth it.
And you, my vastly intelligent friends, readers and lurkers, what are your thoughts on what I've presented here?
