1. So according to Mackinnon, I think, at least, objectivity isn’t real, but instead it’s basically a denial of the inequality hat exists between the sexes (MacKinnon, 1983, 636). She states that there’s no ungendered perspective and what is objective is just what the dominant viewpoint is, so I guess like, man’s viewpoint in the eyes of a feminist. So basically, objectivity is just what the people in power or what general society says is fact or objective rather than actually being factual or objective.
2. MacKinnon argues that when someone claims a certain thing is “objective,” this is actually the subjective viewpoint of the dominant idea or people, since they are in power and have control of what knowledge is defined as and what specific things are defined as objective.
3. From what I understand, MacKinnon’s “theory of state” is that the state and its laws are inherently male in nature, and reflect only the male point of view. She says that, because a “perfect government” is in a sense meant to reflect society as whole, and society is male dominated and offers a male perspective, the government or state reflects that. She claims that “It ensures that the law will most reinforce the distributions or power when it most closely adheres to its own highest ideal of fairness” (MacKinnon, 1983, 645), basically stating that since society’s and law’s views are inherently male, it will naturally enforce ideas that are male in nature and objectify or subordinate females.
4. MacKinnon claims that the law and men see rape as a crime against exclusive access to women rather than a crime against women themselves. They see women’s sexuality as something to be protected until marriage, when the woman is in a sense, “fair game,” to them or the men they have a close relationship with. She specifically references the fact that men see rape as less awful if perpetrated by one that the woman is close to, since they have an already intimate relationship with that person, the men of course, not truly seeing that this kind of trust violation can often have an even more dire psychological effect. MacKinnon argues that the law sees it this way as well, based on the many cases of dismissal of marital rape, i.e., a man raping his wife. She claims that the line between sexual intimacy and sexual violence are in fact blurred in the eyes of men, viewing one who has already had sex as somehow less worth protecting than a virginal young girl, referencing specifically the fact that, as an underage girl, consent is completely unable to be given, whereas, after turning eighteen, consent is looked upon lightly by men and the law. “If rape laws existed to enforce women’s control over our own sexuality, as the consent defense implies, marital rape would not be a widespread exception, nor would statutory rape proscribe all sexual intercourse regardless of their wishes” (MacKinnon, 1983, 648). MacKinnon argues that to men and the law, the focus of rape as a crime isn’t against women and how it effects them, but rather against their virginity. Men, according to MacKinnon believe, if a little girl has any sex at all, consensual or not, a crime has been committed against them, and if a married woman is raped, they don’t matter because they have already been claimed in a sense. She states that women, especially rape survivors, see rape as a convergence of sexuality and violence, since they are inherently being violated in an extremely violent manner. Unlike men, they can distinguish between sexual intimacy and sexual violence.
5. MacKinnon states that rape trials attempt to determine whose conception of the meaning of the act of rape is correct. Therefore, since the state is male, they often side with the male’s perception of what happened. As MacKinnon states, many males don’t consider what they do to a woman rape, rather they consider it sex, so to the court, a part of the state, it is sex, and a woman has trouble proving lack of consent because the man thought it was consensual. In his mind, he had a right to rape (or in his mind, have sex with) the woman in question.
6. MacKinnon argues that rape is regulated because it is often not even seen as rape in court, and often, as she points out, not seen that way by women, i.e., there is a distinction in the mind of both the court, and of women, between full on rape and sexual harassment. MacKinnon points out the massive amounts of circumstances the victim and the court take into account outside of the actual rape, despite its lack of relevance to the event. She states that “even women who know we have been raped do not believe that the legal system will see it the way we do. We are often not wrong” (MacKinnon, 1983, 651). Through this obvious discounting of the woman’s point of view in the court, it seems that rape is a regularly accepted action, so it clearly isn’t prohibited.
7. As MacKinnon states, many men think that rape accusations are fabricated because they “are systematically conditioned not even to notice what women want. They may have not a glimmer of women’s indifference or revulsion” (MacKinnon, 1983, 653). As a result, when a man hears the details of a rape case, it sounds to him what his idea of normal sex is. Therefore, the man wholeheartedly believes that the woman is lying, he believes that her accusations are false because of the lack of awareness he has of what consent from a woman is, looking at it from a purely male perspective, because to them, the male perspective is the objective perspective and society and the law reflect this for them. Men cannot comprehend what these sexual relations mean to women, only what they mean to themselves.
8. I found this part a bit confusing, but I believe she’s trying to say that by separating the public, i.e., state and law side of things from the private matters that relate specifically to intimacy, society is essentially allowing women to have their own privacy and right to consent taken away. Since sex is related to intimacy, and intimacy is considered private, by this separation, we give men a right to get the state and lawful side of things to look the other way in cases of sexual assault, violating women’s privacy and their right to it in the process. This privacy protects the men who oppress and objectify women through forcing the state to get off their back, in a sense, allowing for more unjust treatment of women by men.
9. MacKinnon states that the law will be most male when it considers itself the most “objective,” as, when it reaches this point, it will only consider what it sees as fact, which is a male dominated viewpoint. When what it sees as fact is the only thing it considers, it will completely discount the point of view of the woman, what the women sees as true, and what the woman defines as things like sexism and oppression and race. In a sense, when the law sees itself as the most ungendered, that’s when it will become the most gendered. MacKinnon words this as, “when it is most sex blind, it will be most blind to the sex of the standard being applied” (MacKinnon, 1983, 658). Because its idea of objectivity reflects what society subjectively views as objective, and society is primarily male dominated, once it becomes most objective, it will become the most male.
10. I agree with most points that MacKinnon makes in this article, with only a few exceptions. Specifically, I agree with the points she makes about men being conditioned to disregard women’s consent or their actual feelings on a matter. I agree with these points because it can clearly be seen throughout various facets of society, both personal to me, and from an open societal standpoint In class, we watched various documentaries, one about toxic masculinity, and one about college campus rape, both depicting clearly the culture of rape among men against women, The Hunting Ground featuring a group of college kids gathering around a building shouting “No means yes, yes means anal!” Furthermore, in The Catcher in the Rye, the main character refers to being a virgin because he always stops trying when the girl says no, claiming that when she says no, you’re meant to keep going, to steadily convince her to have sex with you. MacKinnon makes a point of men being irrationally afraid of false rape allegations as well, something my roommate has mentioned being afraid of on multiple occasions. The only thing I disagree with, when it comes to this, are her wide generalizations of all males being like this. I speak only from a small social circle experience, but I, and many friends I have, don’t really hold these beliefs whatsoever, and based on current social climates I’ve observed, many men don’t (though the article was written in 1983, and things have likely changed significantly, and I naturally move in social circles that often think the same way I do). Other than some broad generalizations, though, I do agree with most of her points, especially with the ones made about the normalization and perpetuation of rape from a legal and governmental standpoint, whether it be through the sentencing of Brock Turner, or the approval to the supreme court of Brett Kavanaugh, these issues are clearly as prevalent in society today as they were when this article was written. The only other issue I had with her points were that she seemed to often speak in absolutes, i.e., something is entirely one thing or another, specifically in men and women’s definition of what rape is. She seemed to say all women saw it one extreme way, while all men saw it as a violation for their right to a woman, which I don’t necessarily think is the case. Sure, some men may think this way, but I believe there are shades of gray in between these, as not all people think in this black and white manner. I wholeheartedly believe that there are men in the world who see rape simply as a horrible act of sexual violence, much like MacKinnon says women do, rather than a violation of their own rights. Finally, while I disagree that objectivity isn’t a thing, I do believe that society and law has a habit of misusing “objectivity” in the place of what is clearly just a widely accepted point of view rather than essential fact.
11. I agree with MacKinnon’s overall argument of the state being a male dominated institution that reflects the society values of a male and what male dominated society deems “objective.” Despite my small disagreements on some generalizations I believe she makes, MacKinnon, through her description of rape law and how rape is handled in the state, makes a compelling argument to show how women are silenced in society and how, even when they are the ones most heavily effected by an incident, i.e., being the victim of a rape, the severity of this is still determined from a male perspective, and males are almost always given the benefit of the doubt in court. Therefore, this system essentially silences the female voice. A female’s consent is what determines whether the rape is rape, yet the courts still depend on what a male thinks consent is. As for her points about the state’s objective viewpoints, I agree with those as well. If what a male dominated society defines as objective is considered by the state fact, then that will obviously reflect the male’s point of view, and instead of considering the female perspective, there will only be the male’s ideas of what something means or how a certain act is defined. Her points about privacy and its effects also ring true, since, from a privacy standpoint, what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, and, since sex is considered such a private act, and men often consider rape simply sex, the state would naturally not investigate such occurrences and women would be further silenced by the so called “objective” state.