‘Pondering Porn’ Missed Point of MacKinnon’s Speech

To the editors:



Monday’s editorial “Pondering Porn” misses the point—by a long shot. Tangled up in its claims and false analogies, it fails to provide nuance in its central criticism (after calling for more nuance from Catherine MacKinnon). Crucially, it fails to even mention the staggering levels of rape and male violence against women—MacKinnon’s “exhibit A” against pornography.

Perhaps The Crimson Staff missed her central point about pornography being part of the cultural construction of sexuality. MacKinnon directly attacked any assumption that human sexuality springs from some “natural” or non-social wellspring. MacKinnon stated categorically that sexual desire (on the part of both men and women) is social, socialized, and socially-constructed—and further went on to argue that much of it is deeply influenced by pornography. The speaker made no argument against “free choice.” She did, however, claim that desire—and yes, therefore even free will—is socially-constructed. And, importantly, constructed in ways that undermine sex equality, a goal (she emphasized) that vast majorities of people profess to support.

This critical misunderstanding about some presumed natural sexuality leads The Crimson Staff to claim that “MacKinnon’s brand of feminism” is “tired” and denies women’s sexual autonomy. Tired, as in, what? Rape is over? Tired, as in, this is just about those feminists who think women can’t be trusted to make decisions? And as to the false characterization that to theorists like MacKinnon “women are always victims” —who are we here, Ann Coulter? Where are we, on CNN’s “Crossfire”? Why dumb down a complex and nuanced argument?

MacKinnon’s interconnected and empirically well-documented points about violence, male dominance, and social construction of sexuality led her to explain that women’s unequal place in a male-dominated society means that we can’t just treat “consent” as black and white. This argument has the nuance the Crimson lacks. Take the case of MacKinnon’s former client, Linda Boreman (better known as Linda Lovelace), of “Deep Throat” fame. Here is a woman who was beaten, raped, and prostituted by her husband, who actually held a gun to her head to ensure she performed the acts seen in that movie. This is not what consent looks like. Or take a more familiar example – a young girl who is sexually assaulted by her (take your pick: father, uncle, brother, stepfather, etc) runs away from home to avoid further abuse and turns to prostitution to feed herself (and perhaps her children), because it is the best job she can get. Did she consent? Does it matter that her options are so limited? As MacKinnon pointed out, social science has documented that the vast majority of prostitutes suffered sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence, and are also desperately poor. The Crimson Staff compares the prostitute to the “janitor or factory worker.” The latter two are not routinely raped as part of their job, and then told they consented.

MacKinnon’s critique of pornography was incisive, painful, and singeing. Her question—what if women’s pervasive inequality (including rape, harassment, and battering) and pornography are intimately related?–should be on all of our minds, not dismissed as shock tactics. That is not fair to her argument, not fair to women, and not useful in achieving sex equality.



SHAUNA L. SHAMES ’01

Cambridge, MA

October 29, 2007

The writer is a government Ph.D. Candidate the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.