Talk:Catharine A. MacKinnon

message: I think there should be more mention of the anti-pornography ordinance, although it should probably be as a separate article that is linked in somehow.  What's the style for such things?  Should the text of the ordinance be included in an article about it?  Or should it just be a discussion of the various aspects of the ordinance with an external link to the actual text?
I think it's important to mention the anti-pornography ordinance because it's one of the events most referred to when discussing MacKinnon in feminist publications (or at least the ones that i've read.  sorry, i can't think of the specific examples at the moment).  In one of the articles currently listed in the "external links" section, it refers to MacKinnon as a proponent of censorship, but I believe that MacKinnon argued the ordinance not from a censorship standpoint or from an anti-sex standpoint, but rather from a civil rights standpoint saying that pornography causes measurable harm to women and that when it does, women should be able to sue.   Doviende 22:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: One of the external links ( The Outsider: Catharine MacKinnon ) -> ( http://www.tnstate.edu/cmcginnis/theoutsider.htm ) is password-protected and inaccessible to most.  This should probably be changed or deleted.
Bloom Radio 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Password-Protected Link 

message: You know, Dr. MacKinnon's list of publications is listed at her faculty web page.  Should we restrict the list to just her books?  I do not feel strongly about this one way or the other, but most profs. do not get the full list of pubs at Wikipedia.  If Dr. MacKinnon is a special case because she is so widely cited, then I concede the point, but just from a matter of style, I think that her list of books describes who she is pretty well and the long list of publications provides the reader with a limited amount of new information.  Maybe just a paragraph summarizing the list would be more effective. -- 75.24.213.40 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was added by User:Currer1013 in March 2006, that account did litttle else. Well, it is a judgement call. Most peopel will likely skip over the list, but I will leave it in for now, again because she is so widely cited. -- 75.26.4.46 05:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you addressed this! I will prune further. --FeralOink (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  All pubs or just the books 

message: The entry is extremely biased. Are her critics even mentioned? What about the fact that they call her a "Feminazi," which is a testament to extreme views? Even many of her fellow leftists detest her legal philosophy, for example, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice.
:You're welcome to add the views of said critics, assuming they're notable enough to warrant being mentioned.  I don't have any of Hentoff's books, so I can't do so easily, but perhaps you can.  --zenohockey 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redacted my comment. Was thinking of something else. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: MacKinnon wants pornography "censored"? Huh? With friends like the nudist Nikki Craft, maybe our problem is communicaiton. Are we, perhaps, not defining pornography very well?  The old "I know it when I see it" does not cut much ice with an trained and disciplined mind like MacKinnon. -- PinkCake 19:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reshaped the article slightly. MacKinnon is clearly a legal scholar. It seems we are having some difficulty defining what I will call her "social legacy" is, so I have given that subject its own section. This seems to have to do with some "theories" she has that are strictly of a social nature and her relationship to other feminists. Now, can we get some supporting documentation about the assertions made?  After we tighten that up, then maybe we can add ONE SENTENCE to the lead section about it, whatever "it" is.  Also: If her scholarly legal writings translate to actual laws in some country where English is an official language, then I am willing to entertain that they are notable beyond our duty to index them. The rest will tend to devolved into legal mumbo jumbo that dissipates not long beyond the lifetime of the writer. I REALLY respect Prof. MacKinnon, but I want to know the real impact of her legal writings beyond just the wishful thinking of an old woman (I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but please let's be practical here - she has written much and we need a coherent and correct executive summary and not just a flavor of the day about the latest sophmoric gripe about MacKinnon just because her message is not necessarily the life the of party). -- PinkCake 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censored? 

message: It would also be helpful to spend more time on her most successful (within law) contribution to legal theory - the sexual harassment doctrine, and the framing of sexual harassment as discrimination under Title VII and Equal Protection law.
Her analysis of pornography deserves balanced treatment - it's also what she is publicly linked with most often. But some of that is pure sensationalism - her view is easy to caricature.
Anyway, it shouldn't overshadow the sexual harassment doctrine - which probably should not be subsumed into "other work." You could argue that creating the situation where people are able to sue for sexual harassment (which was not possible until recently) is _as great_ a contribution to Americans experience of law, and to  legal theory, as her critique of pornography.
Djripley 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not just her sensational(ized) views 

message: In the last couple of months, this article has been greatly expanded by anonymous editor 68.50.186.198. While his or her contribution has been valuable, it is flawed by flagrant bias in favor of the views of the subject of the article, Catherine MacKinnon, therefore putting the article in violation of WP:NPOV.
Just for starters – a whole section of "accolades" by admirers by Cass Sunstein, but absolutely no mention of criticism of MacKinnon, much less a section? Give me a break! MacKinnon is one of the single most controversial legal thinkers of our day – an article which shortchanges this criticism is one that's flagrantly biased in her favor. MacKinnon's approach to law and feminism has been heavily criticized from several quarters for many years now, from several quarters – civil libertarians, of course, as well as sex-positive feminists and postmodernist thinkers. Notable authors who have written works critical of MacKinnon include Nat Hentoff, Nadine Strossen, Ronald Dworkin, Wendy Kaminer, Susie Bright, Donna Haraway, John Maxwell Coetzee, Drucilla Cornell,  Angela Harris, and Janet Halley, among others. A rather large body of work to completely ignore, no?
I insist that the NPOV tag be kept on this article until this imbalance is redressed. Peter G Werner 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the entire "Legacy" section, as it was essentially nothing more than a long series of quotes praising MacKinnon and her views. This section provided little or nothing in the way of biographical information or meaningful discussion of her views on feminism or law. Peter G Werner 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear on exact situation vis-a-vis Canadian law. The Butler decision still stands, but I believe the Canadian government has stopped its specific targeting of the gay community, and that may have come out of a court decision. Also, Canada seems to be on less of an anti-porn kick than it was 10-15 years ago, with non-violent porn being for the most part freely available. (Porn with SM or "violent" imagery may be still the target of censors.) Montreal may actually have the most "wide open" sex industry in North America at this point. I wish I could give you some specific cites for all of this, though. Peter G Werner 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag for bias 

message: Looking further at the contributions of 68.50.186.198, the article as it stands is far too long and un-concise, and far too reliant on direct quotation. Somebody looking for a concise introduction to MacKinnon's work and ideas simply will not find it here. Considerable cleanup is needed to reduce the amount of direct quotation in the article. Perhaps much of this article needs to go into a breakout article or articles of some kind. Peter G Werner 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long, too many quotes 

message: In this article the discussion of anything personal about her stops after the discussion of her childhood.  The rest of the article discusses only her writings and court cases.  Is she married?  Is she homosexual?  Does she have a life partner? Does she have hobbies or other personal life aside from her professional life? This is supposed to be a biography, not solely a legal and political analysis of her work.
:NNDB usually has that kind of stuff--64.9.236.149 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea what NNDB is. I agree, the biography part is practically non-existant, and its a real weak point in this article. I don't know if the people who have been contributing such information consider that topic "frivolous" or "unprofessional", but including biographical information is very important. A person is more than just the sum of their published works and court cases, after all. As for relationships, she was in a very high-profile engagement to Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson for several year during the 1990s, though that relationship ended some time ago. I'll try to add something about it. Peter G Werner 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Her class background can certainly be related to biases that she brings to her work carried over from the environment she grew up in. I may be wrong, but I do not think that her research into porn films involved actually interviewing any of the actresses in those films. Her attitude towards them seemed condescending and, frankly classist. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "I may be wrong," indeed. A moment's research reveals that MacKinnon's position on pornography arose out of her legal representation of, and friendship with, Linda Boreman, the actress who was presented in Deep Throat as "Linda Lovelace." See https://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2013/08/catharine-mackinnon-on-lovelace.html . A research-based legal and political analysis that you disagree with is not fairly characterized as a "bias." PDGPA (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But is the Linda Boreman case representative of all or most of the women who act in porn films? Did/does MacKinnon have any interest in the experiences of porn performers who were not traumatized or abused? MacKinnon apparently believes that Boreman's case is representative enough, but is that an opinion based on empirical evidence? I still believe that MacKinnon's class background can have an influence upon her approach to the performers in porn, but it's enough, I think, to mention her background and let readers research for themselves to see if it appears to be relevant to any legitimate critique of MacKinnon's works. 
And "A research-based legal and political analysis" can be biased or not depending upon the parameters of the research. If MacKinnon disregarded input from porn performers who have positive feelings about their work, that would be a sampling bias.    Pascalulu88 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion and analysis, which I assume to be reasonable, and which may even be right. (Or may not.) But Wikipedia is built on information from reliable sources. Unless you can cite a published "reliable source," as defined in Wikipedia's own editorial guidelines, expressing this point of view, it cannot be included in the article. PDGPA (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

text: "hypocritical obsession with clitoridectomy" Only a man would come up with a comment this stupid. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Need more personal information

message: It might give you some idea as to where some of her controversial ideas come from. 165.247.1.148 08:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for personal information

message: In re: the beginning of the biography--is there any legitimate working definition of "upper middle class," as opposed to "upper class" or "rich" that includes congressmen and federal judges?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.42.239 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Her class background can certainly be related to biases that she brings to her work carried over from the environment she grew up in. I may be wrong, but I do not think that her research into porn films involved actually interviewing any of the actresses in those films. Her attitude towards them seemed condescending and, frankly classist. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "I may be wrong," indeed. A moment's research reveals that MacKinnon's position on pornography arose out of her legal representation of, and friendship with, Linda Boreman, the actress who was presented in Deep Throat as "Linda Lovelace." See https://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2013/08/catharine-mackinnon-on-lovelace.html . A research-based legal and political analysis that you disagree with is not fairly characterized as a "bias." PDGPA (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But is the Linda Boreman case representative of all or most of the women who act in porn films? Did/does MacKinnon have any interest in the experiences of porn performers who were not traumatized or abused? MacKinnon apparently believes that Boreman's case is representative enough, but is that an opinion based on empirical evidence? I still believe that MacKinnon's class background can have an influence upon her approach to the performers in porn, but it's enough, I think, to mention her background and let readers research for themselves to see if it appears to be relevant to any legitimate critique of MacKinnon's works. 
And "A research-based legal and political analysis" can be biased or not depending upon the parameters of the research. If MacKinnon disregarded input from porn performers who have positive feelings about their work, that would be a sampling bias.    Pascalulu88 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion and analysis, which I assume to be reasonable, and which may even be right. (Or may not.) But Wikipedia is built on information from reliable sources. Unless you can cite a published "reliable source," as defined in Wikipedia's own editorial guidelines, expressing this point of view, it cannot be included in the article. PDGPA (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Upper middle class."

message: Slavoj Zizek points out in Welcome to the Desert of the Real in regards to contemporary feminist theory of MacKinnon's brand that: "is ultimately a profoundly reactionary ideological movement, always ready to legitimize US army interventions with feminist concerns, always there to make dismissive patronizing remarks about Third World populations (from its hypocritical obsession with clitoridectomy to MacKinnon's racist remarks about how ethnic cleansing and rape are in Serb Genes..." 
Apologies for the lengthy quote but I would be interested in perhaps a source for MacKinnon's comments on Serbs and also does Zizek qualify as a legitimate critic? -UMDStudent  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.146.127 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "hypocritical obsession with clitoridectomy" Only a man would come up with a comment this stupid. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Critics

message: Materials documenting Mackinnon's support for Canadian serial/thrill-killer Karla Homulka have been removed. Researchers will have to go to an authentic encyclopedia for the full story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofchecker1 (talk • contribs) 
------
Copied from the article to the talk page - Alison ❤ 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MATERIALS CENSORED 

message: A large chunk of content was deleted for lack of sourcing. It does, however, have one source in it. I don't have that source handy, so I don't know if it supports the rest; perhaps it does, since what was deleted was roughly on one subject. If it does, the source should be cited in probably all of the paragraphs, but that needs checking. I also haven't judged the quality of the source. Skimming suggests many attributions need to be added into sentences, as some content seems opinionated enough to require attribution. Does anyone know about this content and source? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  case deletion in October 

message: Would someone please provide a citation for this passage, "MacKinnon's book Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination is the eighth most-cited American legal book published since 1978, according to a study published by Fred Shapiro in January 2000." Nearly50 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: http://www.apa.org/divisions/div46/articles/malamuth.pdf
This study found that exposure to pornography did not have enduring effects on aggression towards women, the opposite of the claim it was being used to support.
"With respect to exposure effects, the results did not reveal that repeated exposure to violent or 
nonviolent pornography had any significant effect on laboratory aggression against women. 
These findings appear to be inconsistent with previous data showing that exposure to violent 
pornography may increase males' laboratory aggression toward women (e.g., Donnerstein, 
1980a,b; 1984; Donnerstein and Berkowitz, 1981; Malamuth, 1978). The most apparent 
explanation for this discrepancy is that earlier investigations examined immediate effects (i.e., in 
same session that exposures were presented) whereas the present experiment tested for 
relatively long-term effects. It may be that exposure to violent pornography might have an 
immediate impact on aggressive behavior against women but this effect may dissipate quickly 
over time."
So, I removed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.45.145 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The deleted statement was vague, so I made it more specific, made the citation more specific, and edited accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography exposure and sexual violence 

message: The second half of the "criticisms" section, beginning "Anti-pornography ordinances authored by MacKinnon and Dworkin in the United States sought for harm against victims", should be removed, ideally perhaps placed somewhere else in the article. It is not about criticism of MacKinnon. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Rms125a@hotmail.com, in this edit, you again removed all mention of MacKinnon's relationship with Jeffrey Masson with the comment that the material is "irrelevant". Perhaps you are confused about what "irrelevant" means in the context of a biographical article? The material would indeed be irrelevant if it were not about the article subject, but in fact it is clearly about her life, and thus is relevant to her biography. You have offered no good reason for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rms125a@hotmail.com has once again removed mention of MacKinnon's relationship with Masson from the article. I will take this opportunity to repeat that the material is in no way irrelevant or inappropriate, and does belong in the article. If Rms125a@hotmail.com believes that the source used is not reliable he should explain why. I am sure that, in any case, better sources could be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The alleged relationship is irrelevant cruft, if not outright gossip with no meaning or significancem except perhaps to soften MacKinnon's image. Quis separabit? 06:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that a remarkably unconvincing response. The relationship is not "alleged", it was actual. No one disputes that it occurred, and thus it is scarcely "gossip". Relationships that people have with other people are indeed often mentioned in their Wikipedia articles, and most editors do not have a problem with this. Unless you propose to remove all mentions of relationships between one person and another, I cannot see a justification for removing mention of this relationship in particular. Would your comment that mention of the relationship serves to "soften MacKinnon's image" reflect a concern that mentioning it somehow portrays her in a flattering light? I find that an unreasonable concern; the relationship surely reflects neither well nor badly on her. It wouldn't even be our concern as editors if it did. Finally, since you do not bother to explain why the source is not reliable, I am going to assume that there is no problem with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to debase myself or Wikipedia by giving my personal opinion of MacKinnon. I would point out that I said "except perhaps to soften MacKinnon's image". My comments stand. Quis separabit? 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have had every opportunity to give a convincing explanation of why that content should not be in this article, and you have failed to do so. You have not explained what is wrong with mentioning a relationship, given that many Wikipedia articles about living people mention their relationships. It seems clear that it is relevant information for a biographical article. The reliability of the source would be a more valid concern, but you have suggested no reason at all why the source would not be reliable. The content will therefore be restored to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Masson

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catharine MacKinnon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stanford.edu/dept/EIS/okin_conference/speakers.html#mackinno
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714063453/http://www.mcolaw.com/docs/ao_tobreakthesilence_speech.pdf to http://www.mcolaw.com/docs/ao_tobreakthesilence_speech.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402193857/http://www.isiswomen.org/wia/wia398/vaw00006.html to http://www.analogfeminism.net/Pornography__Civil_Rights_and_Speech_-_MacKinnon_DOING_ETHICS_ed_by_Lewis_Vaughn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402193857/http://www.isiswomen.org/wia/wia398/vaw00006.html to http://www.analogfeminism.net/Pornography__Civil_Rights_and_Speech_-_MacKinnon_DOING_ETHICS_ed_by_Lewis_Vaughn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402193857/http://www.isiswomen.org/wia/wia398/vaw00006.html to http://www.analogfeminism.net/Pornography__Civil_Rights_and_Speech_-_MacKinnon_DOING_ETHICS_ed_by_Lewis_Vaughn.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catharine MacKinnon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304124330/http://harvardcrcl.org/volumes-xx-through-ixxx/ to http://harvardcrcl.org/volumes-xx-through-ixxx/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402193857/http://www.isiswomen.org/wia/wia398/vaw00006.html to http://www.analogfeminism.net/Pornography__Civil_Rights_and_Speech_-_MacKinnon_DOING_ETHICS_ed_by_Lewis_Vaughn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402193857/http://www.isiswomen.org/wia/wia398/vaw00006.html to http://www.analogfeminism.net/Pornography__Civil_Rights_and_Speech_-_MacKinnon_DOING_ETHICS_ed_by_Lewis_Vaughn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304124330/http://harvardcrcl.org/volumes-xx-through-ixxx/ to http://harvardcrcl.org/volumes-xx-through-ixxx/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catharine MacKinnon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?id=3663
*Added  tag to http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/public/experts/ExpDisplay.php?ExpID=497
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610125210/http://www.biography.com/articles/Catharine-Alice-MacKinnon-9393211 to http://www.biography.com/articles/Catharine-Alice-MacKinnon-9393211
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An anonymous editor recently substituted "radical feminist" for "feminist" in the lede sentence's description of MacKinnon's work. Another editor reverted the edit. I am interested in initiating a discussion among interested, fairminded, and experienced editors of whether "radical feminist" (particularly, as that concept is explicated in the article on radical feminism) is indeed the better description. Or, on the other hand, is it an inappropriate descriptor here for some reason? The phrase is used in the infobox, and later in the article itself. PDGPA (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A few major sources in the article mention that she is an activist on gender equality issues and do not specify radical feminism. Considering that radical feminism is a specific form of feminism, I think just "feminist" is more accurate here.  23impartial (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feminist" or "radical feminist" in lede?