From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:54:21 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gf:
| >>MacKinnon writes books.  I take it they contain something.
| >>I suspect that I would find some of her ideas bad, and
| >>possibly others good, or at least interesting.

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| >	I don't know if MacKinnon _has_ written any books, though I
| >suppose there must be something out under her name. She's a law
| >professor and lecturer. She writes legal articles, and has her talks
| >published. Would you like some of it? Probably. Judging by your

This quotation is taken from an article that never showed
up here.  Kenn, I'd appreciate a copy by mail if you have
one.  The last phrase is especially tantalizing.

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| Oh, indeed she has written several books. One of them is "Feminism
| Unmodified," which I'd love to see, but haven't located yet. Another
| is "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State" (Harvard Univ. Press, 1989).
|
| In it, MacKinnon starts out with "Feminism and Marxism" ...
| ... [ deprecates apparent Marxist basis ] ....

I must point out that the ill fate of Communist regimes
does not invalidate Marxism, for all the Marxist need say
is that the philosophy was improperly applied.  I would
find it a greater fault if it relied on Marxism as
revealed truth as, for instance, Nozick seems to rely on
Locke.  I can accept Marx as a starting viewpoint but
not scripture.

In the quoted material, I did not see anything
demonstrating _how_  freedom of speech, by permitting
pornography, terrorizes women, although it is hinted at
(through connection with rape and patriarchal institu-
tions).  I'd be curious to know if this necessary step
is made, assumed, avoided, or what.  I'm talking about
pages 204-205.  I'd get the book out of the library if
the libraries around here were ever open, but I must
rely on others for this for now.

| If the paragraphs discussing "pornography" seem to make no sense, it is
| probably because the reader is unfamiliar with the technique that Marxists
| call "the Dialectic," which enables one to prove anything one wishes
| by demonstrating that everything both is, and is not, the same as
| its opposite. (This is what Orwell was parodying when he wrote "War
| is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", etc.). MacKinnon is trying to argue
| here that freedom for men means repression for women.

I think you misunderstand dialectical thinking.  If every-
thing were the same as its opposite, then MacKinnon would
have to acknowledge that pornography was not only suppres-
sive toward women, as she says, but also liberating for
them.  What dialectic would suggest is that increasing
one person's freedom may diminish another's; or that
increasing one person's freedom to do one thing may
diminish her freedom to do another.  Furthermore, the
gives and takes in these situations can be seen as a part
of a larger system, or structure.  I can give examples,
but your imaginations may suffice.

I don't see where MacKinnon attacks heterosexuality _per_
_se_ -- what she seems to attack is _enforced_ hetero-
sexuality, which is something completely different -- one
might even say opposed to heterosexuality-per-se.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )