Customer Reviews

Only Words

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

[Note: This review deals almost exclusively with the first essay.]

Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon is at once one of the brightest and most controversial feminist legal scholars today. She and Andrea Dworkin were instrumental in getting anti-pornography legislation enacted or considered in several towns and cities (though the legislation adopted was later declared unconstitutional). MacKinnon is also the person to whom the claim that all sex is rape is most often attributed (probably unfairly). She is thus someone to whom much attention is, and should be, devoted.

"Only Words" is the sarcastic and ironic title of a collection of three essays in which MacKinnon argues passionately that pornography and sexual and racial harassment are not "only words." The operative word is "passionately," for "Only Words" is indeed a passionate and emotional work. MacKinnon, who has argued intelligently and with great force for a new theoretical framework (as in her "Feminism Unmodified"), here falls victim to her passion, producing a work that is academically unsound. Her evidence is, at times, shoddy or even ludicrous. For example, to support the claim that pornography causes violence, she cites a convicted murderer who said as much "as only an honest perpetrator can" (p. 18). That someone as intelligent as MacKinnon would cite the words of a killer seeking to shift blame (shades of Ted Bundy) is rather astonishing and a sign that emotion has overcome intellect here. Aside from the very real possibility that the killer was simply prevaricating, there is also the problem of a killer being able to identify cause and effect, a problem that MacKinnon overlooks.

Another problematic aspect of this work is MacKinnon's fervent references to and reliance on snuff films, those apocryphal films that record actual murders. Whether such films actually exist is subject to some dispute (see, e.g., Yaron Svoray's "Gods of Death" for an account of the search for one). Despite the fact that such films may not even exist, MacKinnon points to snuff films as a part of a continuum (of sorts) of pornography and rests far too much of her argument on them. This is not to say that such films do not exist, but when an intellectual exercise relies with a blind faith on such films, it is not being honest.

"Only Words" is not the work that the anti-pornography movement deserves or should be judged by. Nor is it MacKinnon's best work by a long shot.

Catharine MacKinnon, along with her long-time legal and scholary partner, Andrea Dworkin, is one of the most prominent feminist critics of pornography. Her *Only Words* is an attempt to place her critique of pornography within the larger context of a critique of hate speech in general.

In some ways, *Only Words* is a success. She presents her viewpoints lucidly and passionately. She does indeed offer a thought-provoking analysis of pornography as hate speech (though I should note that in the legal statutes that she and Dworkin have drafted, she treats pornography not as hate speech, but as libel), and offers an insightful approach to hate speech. Philosophers reading this book will see the strong influence of J.L. Austin's concept of the speech act. The idea Austin offers us is that there are cases in which to *say* something is also to *do* something. For example, under the appropriate circumstances, to utter "I do" or "Guilty" just *is* to marry, and to convict a defendant, respectively. MacKinnon uses this idea to argue that to the extent to which pornography *says* something (she isn't entirely consistent on whether pornography expresses an idea or an ideology, often vaccilating between different conceptions of what pornography does as is needed to suit her immediate goals), it also *does* something. Pornography, she argues, *is* a form of violence against women.

But while her comitment and passion are indubitable, her evidence is not as well situated. In good lawyerly fashion, MacKinnon is more interested in convincing her readers than getting at the truth. She plays fast and loose with her data, and much of the book (especially part I) seems to be written according to the dictim: 'I know what I think, so don't bother me with the facts.

Some examples: (1) MacKinnon continuously claims that the production of pornography always abuses women. However, there is a large genre of pornography--erotic literature--for which this claim is simply not true. Perhaps, as MacKinnon contends, this form of pornography harms women when people *consume* it, but she is clearly overstating her case, and fully well knows it. (2) On several occasions, she appeals to the especially appalling case of the snuff film (where women are tortured and killed in the production of the film). However, there is no evidence that *any* such films exist. Even the film whose title, *Snuff*, gave this genre its name, has been known to be a hoax for 3 decades. (The actress allegedly killed on-screen herself came forward and admitted that the claims about her actually being killed was a publicity stunt for a failing movie.) (3) On pp.18-19, she treats a man who raed, killed and necrophiled a woman (allegedly) bcause he had watched snuff films as representative of porn users, when the available evidence suggests otherwise. Most sex offenders and murderers have used porn; but it is *not* the case that most, or even many, porn users become sex offenders or murderers. MacKinnon is just playing on a popular stereotype here--is this hate speech on her part? (4) Speaking of playing on popular stereotypes, MacKinnon claims (p.20) that women involved in the porn industry are typically sex abuse victims, drug abusers, etc., etc. This may be widely believed, but there is no evidence to support this. (5) MacKinnon appeals to the widely believed but unsubstantiated claim that porn *causes* sexual crimes. Her only evidence is to offer *one* case of someone who committed a rape after having looked at pronography. One might as well offer one case of someone who died of a heart atack after lookingat porn as conclusive evidence that porn uses causes heart disease. Anecdotes do not establish such strong claims, and one anecdote certainly not.

This, unfortunately, is not the end of MacKinnon's shenanigans. Twice (on pp.37 and 62) she argues that porn and hate speech, respectively, *are* harmful because it can't be shown that they *aren't*. As a lawyer, making this kind of argument is shameful. MacKinnon is claiming that porn and hate speech can be banned simply because they can't be proven harmless. She comes very close to reducing racism to sexual agression. She repeatedly speaks as if pornography were some omnipotent force--even once claiming that it has as much power as any government (pp.39-40). She repeatedly speaks of the acts pictured in pornography in ways that make them sound violent whether they are or not--penises, in MacKinnon's world, can only do one thing--"ramming" (pp.23-4). The list could go on, but I'll spare you further details.

One reviewer wonders whether MacKinnon is really a lawyer. I can assure you that she is. In fact, the problem is that she is *too much* a lawyer in this book. The book is written with the intention to convince its readers no matter what, and if the facts don't fit, or if we need to appeal to popular stereotypes, or if we need to use sloppy but rhetorically powerful language, so be it.

There is no denying that Only Words by Catharine A. MacKinnon is a controversial take on current American legal policy that is primarily fueled by radical feminist thought. She argues that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States (you know, the one that, among other things, ensures equal rights) is completely disregarded in certain cases where the First Amendment is protected. To be specific, MacKinnon believes the pornography industry perpetuates inequality of women, which, in turn, perpetuates sexual discrimination and abuse. She also includes racial discrimination in her argument referring to instances where free speech allows racial inequalities to endure.
Some of MacKinnon's arguments seem a bit far-fetched, including, but certainly not limited to, her assumption that all women involved in stripping and pornography are products of sexual abuse, trapped in an industry that, under the protections of the First Amendment, has every right to exploit them. MacKinnon leaves no mention of the inevitable percentage of women in the pornography industry who, for whatever reasons, participate completed based on personal choice. Her over-descriptive narration of probably instances of abuse is disturbing, and in most cases throughout the text, it distracts from any reasonable portions of her argument.
Herein lies the true failure of this text. MacKinnon takes a reasonable argument regarding a weakness in the recognition of certain aspects of American law and disguises it as sexual slavery created and perpetuated by American men. It almost feels morally wrong to argue with MacKinnon, since one must agree that the types of pornography and abuse she speaks of are awful and should never occur under any circumstances. However, to agree with MacKinnon, you must overlook gaps in reasoning that appear throughout the text, including the manner in which she assumes that the only victims of pornography are women and that the only bad guys involved must be men. It goes against good sense to simply assume that men are never exploited in the pornography industry, but MacKinnon seems uninterested in exploring this possibility.
As I mentioned, MacKinnon also attempts to convince the reader that racial discrimination is maintained in a similar manner. In response to this portion of the argument, I found myself thinking, "So, what else is new?" Racial and gender discrimination have always existed, and whether or not we choose to override the First Amendment, I suspect they will continue to exist. While this initially might seem entirely pessimistic, I offer you this: perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the American spirit is that people continue to rise up and prevail despite such types of discrimination. The truth is, a balance must be maintained, and MacKinnon offers a solution that would greatly impair First Amendment rights as we know them. I would certainly enjoy it if Nazis and KKK members didn't exist, but I would constantly live in fear of the time when this censorship would begin to infringe upon other forms of free speech. Rather than spending the time and money enforcing MacKinnon's form of censorship, I would rather see the government focusing on initiatives to educate and improve opportunities for Americans.
In all, this book remains a valuable choice, since it absolutely forces the reader to take a stand on issues that are not always the most comfortable to think about. MacKinnon raises questions as to the way we approach inequality and discrimination in this country, and it ultimately leaves the reader thankful for the laws we do have and anxious to use them in new ways to better American life.

I bought this book because I was intrigued by the title. I expected a book that considered words used with criminal intent, in general.

I am disappointed that pornography is the only crime considered here. I wish the author had examined other kinds of cases--not to mention many many more specific examples. There is probably a wealth of legal material on such crimes, if only the author had broadened her horizons.

While I agree that pornography can be a crime, I find the author's arguments used to ban it fundamentally flawed. As other reviewers have noted, this book is argued poorly, uses a shoddy set of examples, and definitely runs afoul of logic.

Had I been interested in an anti-pornography book, I would have preferred one showing practical means to legally limit its damage.

This book does not argue cogently that the first and 14th amendments are NOT considered equally in cases of criminal use of words.

Neither does it effectively show that words can be criminal, or suggest means to prosecute such crimes. A pity.

--Alyssa A. Lappen

This book is well worth reading. It crystallizes some of the issues at stake in this debate and offers solid legal analysis. Of course, one may disagree with MacKinnon's approach or solution, which are of a piece with her other writings; indeed, the issue she addresses seems intractable and certainly generates much controversy. Still, it is a significant work, and I recommend reading it in conjunction with MacKinnon's more recent publication, IN HARM'S WAY.

This work may be important, if only because so many people seem to think it is. Sadly, MacKinnon's analysis is seriously lacking. The rhetoric is interesting at times, but the conclusions rest on very controversial assumptions. Moreover, there are a wealth of fallacies within MacKinnon's logic, even granting the assumptions. They include hasty generalizations, overgeneralizations, and very dubious use of statistics. Worse yet, the citations given are infrequent and not at all diverse. The legal analysis is also poor, as MacKinnon ignores legal distinctions established by legislation and case law. The scholarship is atrocious.

MacKinnon's main point, that certain types of speech should be considered violent acts and regulated as such, might still be valuable, except that she commits many of the same offenses she accuses other of committing. The work is a systematic demonstration of rhetorical trickery. The language she employs is loaded and only obfuscates the logic. Instead of presenting reasoned analysis, she substitutes vitriol. I found much of what the author wrote offensive, especially the implication that all males are esentially would-be rapists. Finally, I found MacKinnon's language to meet the same criteria she supported for determining when speech loses its status as protected under the 1st Amendment and should be considered a violent act.

I can only imagine that this work has gained the notoriety that it has because of the violent reaction it should cause among any serious academics and because it will no doubt appeal to many non-critical individuals (like the reader who thinks MacKinnon is her "mother") who have the same sort of ax to grind as MacKinnon. There are better, more honest authors arguing for the same conclusions. Don't waste your money and support this sort of psuedo-academic fraud by purchasing this book.

I want to state from the outset that I understand the importance of this book and Catharine A. McKinnon in general, but her ideas in this book will tend to be too extreme for even most radical liberals. I graduated from a fairly liberal California university, and we read this book in class, and students simply had a hard time connecting with McKinnon. She is so abrasive that she will tend to offend even those who agree with her. She is a feminist leader, and the reader should know that going in, but her writing style doesn't lend much to the reader in terms of being able to connect with her ideas through her writing.

Perhaps some readers will simply extrapolate her ideas and turn a deaf ear to her dismissive and accusatory tone, but her rape imagery, reaching analogies, and (at times) false logic will prove to be too much for many readers. There are many negative responses to this work from other leaders in the feminist movement and my classroom found it difficult to side with McKinnon's viewpoints in the wake of other more modern, convincing arguments.

Do I care for this text? No. Do I think its arguments are supported well? No. Do I think that it is worthy to be purchased? Certainly. The reason why this text should be purchased is because it is a cornerstone in the radical feminist debate raging over pornography. MacKinnon is bull-headed in this text (unlike she is in _Feminism Unmodified_ where she actually admits that women can and do enjoy sex... at times), but she is blatantly bull-headed. This text should be purchased if only to refute it, but it is worthy to be shelved on any bookcase that holds any texts of feminist theory. Does this book suck? Yes. Does it deserve one star? Certainly, but its impact grants it another star.

My definition of radical feminism is Camille Paglia or Susie Bright. They challenge and destroy perceptions of gender. This book is a poorly written rant against heterosexual sex written by someone who believes that tenure means never having to say you're sorry, or checking your facts or talking to real people.

The best revelation in this book - porn leads to masturbating. Shocking!

Read Rene Denfeld if you want to read a clearthinking feminist with a decent writing style (you'll be hurting for a decent writing style after this thing.) If you are inclined to agree with MacKinnon then read Dworkin. At least Dworkin has some great sex talk in her books.

For so few words, MacKinnon really covers a tremendous amount of legal history, free speech precendent and experiential examples. The power of words is detailed better than a linguist could have done it, and the legal framework she argues from is backed up by citing real-world cases.

As i read I found myself shaking my head in agreement because she states her theories extraordinarily well and grounds them in truths most readers will be familiar with and able to recognize. Like a sign saying "Whites Only" is not considered "free speech" but is considered in itself an act of discrimination, breaking through the porn fundamentalist's tired excuse of "it's only words/images". Words have the power to promote prejudice, and in the modern technological age these words are a terrific force indeed.

Words and images contain real social content that can be really damaging to the humanity of certain classes of people when those with more power promote hate speech through them. That the legal system is set up by men for men's benefit comes across clearly with the history of rape law MacKinnon provides.

Isn't it odd that some people keep insisting snuff films don't exist without suggesting why men who videotape themselves raping women, killing animals, destroying property, etc. wouldn't videotape this crime as well? There are several court cases around the US where men have been convicted of murdering women and the videotapes they made doing it were entered as evidence at their trials. I've heard no cogent argument as to how, especially after Abu Ghraib, anyone could believe people really wouldn't do and record the horrors they visit on others.

This book is ahead of its time and should be considered must-read material for all lawyers and gender equity activists.