Foucault, MacKinnon, and Masculinity

I have been thinking about Catherine MacKinnon’s “Rape: On Coercion and Consent” and the ways in which power can be constructed. In particular, I have been thinking about Michel Foucault’s panoptical structure of power and its relationship with sex and consent. Foucault’s panoptical structure of power posits power on a horizontal field where everyone, to some degree, has power over everyone else. Power dynamics may shift between individuals over time, but generally speaking each individual controlled by and has control over someone else. If this theory of power holds true, it concerns me that consenting relationships may not exist (not that MacKinnon’s theory of sexual assault contradicts this).

When MacKinnnon discusses sexual assault she does so under the presmise that men are perpetrators and women are victims, operating under the assumption that all men have power and are dominant and that all women are lacking power. This of course, denies consent. What if power relationships function like a panopticon? If two persons were seeking to consent, could they since they both hold some magnitude of power over the other? I would argue with MacKinnon to say that any form of power creates the potential for sexual violence, so consent could never be provided.

I am thinking of the construction of gender and if by identifying as a “woman” is somehow consenting to the violent landscapes that are placed on that body through state sanctions and laws. Perhaps part of the panoptical structure of power is indeed, that all men have the ability to consume, while all women have the ability to watch and monitor the consumption of men? I think MacKinnon’s establishment of male power can be seen at the roots of hegemonic masculinity, in that hegemony requires masculine men to consume (women, food, space, time, resources, etc). This might suggest that in order to change the power relationship between men and women, a critical look and undoing of hegemonic masculinity is in order. If hegemonic masculinity is undone, perhaps the attitudes regarding sexual assault might change. I am also curious if this might change the way this panoptical structure of power operates.

Is Consent Possible?

I found McKinnon’s argument to be perplexing, as it claims that heterosexuality is socially constructed and because of this, “valid consent has no place in this model ... where there are only various types of force and coercion”.

I can understand her argument as being valid and logical, at the time it was written, as it states that “their position depends on a theory of power and social construction that does not allow for the possibility of female sexual agency” (37). This projects that women do not have the right to express themselves in a sexual manner due to the patriarchal society. In some ways I do agree with this, as women have been and still are oversexualized while being oppressed when they do express their sexuality. However, I truly believe that the majority of women are capable of consenting to normal, heterosexual sex in modern day society.

Sexual intercourse is an innate desire and to say that women don’t ever consent to this with  their male partners is allowing the patriarchal society dominate yet another aspect of women’s lives; meaning that not only are women losing more control in society but they are further deprived of authority over their bodies. Women should be allowed to express their sexual desires just as much as men do and consent needs to be congruent between both parties.

As mentioned in class, it is hard to grasp the idea of engaging in sexual activity without mutual consent between partners, therefore, it was more difficult for us to to relate to her argument. Consent between partners before sex needs to be acknowledged on a global scale, as there are still a countless number of countries where it is believed that in marriages, consent is automatically given so marital rape is not a criminal offense.

Conclusively, her argument cannot be completely disregarded as in some societies today, heterosexual sex is forced and coerced resulting in women believing that they are “consenting” when in reality, they are not. At the same time, heterosexual sex is a natural activity that with mutual consent, people can enjoy and share in an intimate experience with their partner.

Definitions of Consent and Rape

In this post I am going to analyze how Adrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon both seem to view and represent ‘consent' in the context of rape. I find their understandings a bit confusing, and it makes me wonder how conversations around consent have changed from the second wave of feminism to today.

Dworkin’s speech is interesting because even though she is addressing the issue of rape I don’t think she ever clearly defines what it is. She acknowledges that rape happens, “because of the kind of power that men have over women” and that this “power is institutionalized.” However, she does not give a concrete description of what the act is. Her descriptions of rape do use words that evoke violence (like hitting and hurting, etc…) and violation (like ‘you can buy and sell women’ and they are there to ‘provide you what you need’). One of the issues that I have with this is that it seems to be focusing on one kind of rape, and that is our typical image of the violent rape that happens in the streets. Dworkin is addressing an audience of men and while she is asking them to stop raping women, she is not telling them how to do this. Furthermore, when she talks about practicing equality in the home she is not addressing the issues of consent and sexual autonomy within intimate relationships. I think this is a huge problem

Conversely, MacKinnon’s writing defines rape in a more succinct way. MacKinnon says that legally the “rape crime centers around penetration,” and uses words like, “forcible violation” to describe the act. In class we discussed how in MacKinnon’s text she claims that heterosexual sex is in always some form rape because heterosexuality focuses on the “eroticization of dominance,” in men and submission in women. This means that in some way there is always force involved and gender inequality is always present. Since these factors are always in play, MacKinnon deconstructs whether or not “consent is a meaningful concept.” This article begs the question of whether or not a woman can consent to sex with a man if she has internalized the systemic forms of oppression that make force and coercion an inherent part of heterosexual sex.

This language of consent makes me wonder about how we define consent in contemporary terms. While Dworkin’s speech did not address consent almost at all, MacKinnon’s made consent sound unattainable. While I agree that consent is an integral part in defining what is rape and what isn’t, I can see how existing power structures can negate consent, especially in intimate relationships. I suppose I am arguing that the focus on consent as the only defining feature of rape seems to ignore the gender inequality in place, but at the same time MacKinnon’s definition of rape is so extreme. I wonder if there is a balance between the two definitions that might be more useful in helping to define coercion in the case of power structures.

*I did not have page numbers in my readings so I couldn't use them in my citations. I'm sorry!

Positive arguments for ending rape culture without appealing to ethics

The Mackinnon and Dworkin pieces were pretty alienating to heterosexual men. By casting all heterosexual sex as a form of rape supported by the socially institutionalized power differential it creates a great burden and shame on those who perpetuate the system. While the pathos aids in the construction of more productive thoughts within radical theory it more distinctly alienates the social group of whom they demand change. The combative language fails to garner the soft power it will need to inspire change.

All said and done, it made me feel like shit.

So, as an ivory tower person with a background in history I always question what would lead a dominating hegemonic group to dismantle their power structure. Sometimes it is top down, like in several feudal societies where an enlightened despot recognizes the inhumane abuse of slaves and abolishes the class. More often it is bottom up, where the slaves would simply seize power and revolt. But in the pluralistic neoliberal society which veils the power in a constantly shifting hegemonic class, many people are unable to even see the issue. Furthermore, in the overly connected world people are quick to dismiss issues like rape culture as a crazy left wing ideal which does not truly exist. In the world that frequently denies the existence of the issue, I question what motivation the people who benefit from the system have to dismantling their power they do not even recognize.

Rape and sexual assault is hugely traumatizing and under reported. We probably all know someone who has been violated and the long lasting somatic issues do not just affect them, but it affects their family and friends. When a survivor cannot trust a partner, or their friends in social situations it affects their ability to travel, or even operate fully in social circles. When a survivor suffers from PTSD, it affects their ability to focus on their educations, careers, and responsibilities. This is not their fault, and the people who are able to handle the unwarranted stress and trauma on a daily basis to overcome these barriers installed by an unfair world have more strength than I ever will. But in terms of the hegemonic class who benefits from it we must realize that these victims are our friends, they are our family, and the people who we rely on and rely on us. Dismantling rape culture is not just an issue of ethics, but it directly benefits everyone. Without fear, more full and complete relationships can be developed between men and women amongst countless other benefits in the human capital of women in the world.

I do not like the bombastic tone of Dworkin, I agree that she should be angry, and obviously the assailants are the problem. But there are more constructive arguments to dismantling rape culture than the obvious ethical fact that it is wrong, and I would prefer having heard those than an alienating speech about men as the problem. 

Loss of Control

This week in class, we were able to deconstruct some of the more “radical” feminist discourses concerning the relationship between sexual assault and gendered power dynamics. While we worked through Mackinnon’s Rape: On Coercion and Consent, we questioned whether it was inherently possible for consent to exist at all within the heterosexual context. After all, if consent stands on the foundation of equality between two or more parties, how can it exist at the intersection of a social framework that hinges on male domination and a legal framework that prioritizes/relies on the male perspective? Mackinnon states that “the crime of rape is defined and adjudicated from the male standpoint, presuming that forced sex is sex and that consent to a man is feely given by a woman” (180). Evidently, this reinforces the disproportionate distribution of power but also perpetuates/prolongs the loss of control after sexual assault itself. 

Mackinnon's description of this “measuring consent from the socially reasonable, meaning objective mans, point of view” (181), demonstrates the legal system’s ironic regard for male agreement/approval as necessary to labeling something as “real rape”. In this context, through the eyes of the justice system, a woman’s own lived experience is not her own. She is stripped of her authority and control over her own experience and, consequently, how it is labelled, dealt with and defined. The legitimization of the survivor’s assault rests in the hands of the perpetrator, in the “meaning of the act to the assailant” (180) or rather the meaning of the act as claimed by the perpetrator, something that is out of the survivor’s control.

I thought that this was particularly interesting because I believe that in popular discourse surrounding consent today, the concept of having the right to control our own bodies (and what happens to our bodies) through individual choice seems to be vital. Furthermore, when discussing the healing process, emphasis on re-establishing a sense of control is key as supporters are strongly urged not to tell survivors what “the right thing to do” is or to do anything that would take away the survivor’s agency. Therefore, we can see a huge discrepancy in the approach taken by sexual assault centres (for example)  and the legal system in this context, both of which are supposed to have survivors’ best interest at the centre of their structures. 

Who is the "Reasonable Rapist?"

The idea of the “Reasonable Rapist" in this week’s reading has caused me a lot of trouble over the past few days. Catharine Mackinnon’s “Reasonable Rapist” speaks to an idea from Campbell’s text regarding the “Rules of Rape” and the fact that there aren’t any. Still, women have to tell ourselves certain lies to feel safe and I think that the Reasonable Rapist might be the same rapist who does in fact follow the rules of rape women invent to maintain the façade that we are safe from rape in the world.

What are these rules of rape? How does one rape someone in a way that is “fair” to the victim? I’m picturing some sort of rulebook that says things like “a rapist needs to make their attempts in a way that the victim could get away if they tried hard enough.” But all of the rules I can think of are dependent on the victim’s ability or inability to stop the rape and that is not their responsibility. It is not a victim’s responsibility to stop their rape. It is the rapist’s.

I mentioned in Wednesday’s class that I struggled to picture this reasonable rapist. Why are men allowed to misunderstand and be ignorant of consent? Over and over we see men walk free from court rooms because how can you rightfully charge someone for something they didn’t know they were doing? If a person’s intent was not to rape, then clearly no harm was done.

This baffles me.

It seems men are either too young to understand consent or, in cases where sexual assault is undeniable, the rapist was “mentally ill.”  Rapists can cry ignorance and society somehow finds this an acceptable excuse. Instead of taking the opportunity to teach these men a lesson by charging them for their crimes, juries and judges do little more than give these men a brief scare and a rap across the knuckles.

Here’s the thing: if you step on someone’s toes, whether they are the toes of a stranger or your best friend or your partner, you probably didn’t mean to step on their toes. You probably didn’t mean to cause them pain. But that doesn’t mean you don’t need to apologize and acknowledge what you did. Nobody’s reaction to stepping on someone’s toes is “I didn’t mean to!” You don’t deserve to be rewarded because your intent wasn’t to cause harm. You still owe that person an apology and you need to watch your step in the future. You still have to account for your own actions.

And if you go around stepping on other people’s toes on purpose, there’s probably something wrong with you.

Unless rapists are held accountable for their rapes, whether it really was a case of ignorance, rape is never going to stop happening. White male rapists can feel secure that they’ll go free claiming mental illness in a court of law. Sixteen-year-old football jocks can feel secure that they won’t be blamed because they were too young to know better. Boys will be boys. Under different circumstances, these men and boys are probably all upstanding citizens who love their mommies. It’s still not an excuse. I don’t care if you’re literally Michelle Obama. If you step on my feet, you need to apologize. Even if it was an accident. Even if I was somehow blocking your path.

If you cause someone harm, you owe them an apology and you owe yourself the consequences of your actions. If you are a reasonable rapist, you'll take the jail time and you'll spend the rest of your life trying to make up for your actions.

Till It Happens to You, Lady Gaga new release- trigger warning

Till It Happens To You

http://www.ryot.org/lady-gaga-just-released-what-might-be-the-most-important-music-video-of-the-year/943104

Just follow either link above and the video should be on the page.

I just want to add some thoughts and tie-in to the reading we are discussing tomorrow. I think it should be noted that the music video features perpetrators and victims of varying race, class, and gender fluidity, embodying that rape is not motivated by a certain ‘attractiveness’ or uncontrollable desire to that subjective attractiveness.  The choice to incorporate a larger sized perpetrator in one scene and a gender fluid victim in another struck me before reading the Cahill article and now serves a greater significance after having read it.  There are no aesthetics that deem a person more vulnerable of being a victim of rape or of committing rape because rape is not a violent attack on the specific person it victimizes, but on the larger group to which they belong.  And then the discussion within the video of the constant power dynamics that fuel and surround the violent, non-sexual act both during and in the period following.