I think that MacKinnon's feminist theory holds no water, particularly in today's society. She talks about how the crime of rape is defined by penetration, which is a "male-defined" loss. By all means, change rape to a "female-defined" loss, but I am unsure exactly how she would change it. A defining part of rape is "penetration, however slight." It is usually this aspect that distinguishes between sexual assault from rape. These crimes carry different punishments, so they have to be clearly defined. If MacKinnon wants to redefine rape to a woman's definition, does this mean changing how rape is defined into something lesser? I'm sure being sexually assaulted is very traumatizing, but most would agree that being raped (by today's definition) is worse than being sexually assaulted. For comparison, think about the difference between being stabbed in a fight and being killed in a fight. This is why I think that the current definition of rape, no matter what sex defined it, is good the way it is.
Also, I think it was very interesting to find out that MacKinnon was once engaged for several years but the relationship later ended, with her declining to comment. Maybe this fueled the bitterness a little? It adds a fun new twist. I know that it is a stereotype, the man hating femi-Nazi that only hates men because she can't get one, and she probably doesn't really hate men, but it just worked out too perfectly to not comment about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that the definition of rape is fine as written currently. I think that MacKinnon is trying to make the point that the wording, i.e. penetration, shows male dominance over a woman, and she wants women to be empowered so I do not know how she would change it for that either.
ReplyDelete