4 ms·

Could you show me an example of modern feminists trying to suggest that consent can be withdrawn retroactively? I find your argument that people can now be cred

by gm678 7y ago

Could you show me an example of modern feminists trying to suggest that consent can be withdrawn retroactively? I find your argument that people can now be credibly accused of rape because their partner misjudged their wealth to be unrealistic and in bad faith, and I have not seen any evidence for it.

mirimir 7y ago
From TFA, which I quoted in another subthread: > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Maybe she's not a "modern feminist". But that's the sense I get from TFA about current policies.
- rayiner 7y ago
  MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act. This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with the proposition that an arbitration clause in an employment contract with a big company is only theoretically consensual. The concept of "wage slavery" is widely accepted on HN as well. The basis of these ideas is that people may "consent" to something but that is not the same thing as welcoming the thing. In the sexual context, few people would disagree that, for example, someone cannot "consent" to sex with a prison guard or an arresting police officer. What about economic or social coercion? What does consent mean in cultures where women have no way to support themselves or any social standing outside a relationship with a man?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind. I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?
    - rayiner 7y ago
      That may be, but the article is characterizing McKinnon’s view, not quoting it. As to “responsibility” it’s not an easy concept either. People who don’t create the coercive circumstances often knowingly take advantage of them. I’d point out that when McKinnon wrote the quote, it was still legally impossible in some states to rape your wife. (Marriage was essentially considered irrevocable consent.) Even today, social dynamics are geared toward what male expectations—sex on demand with no strings attached. Any given man many not create this framework, but they live within it and take advantage of it. (Although that’s slowly changing. They did an investigation at my kid’s school into widespread sex between male teachers and high school students in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it was “bad” but tolerated. Today we would call it rape. The liberalism of the sexual revolution, which as Dworkin points out accrued largely to the benefit of men, is being recalibrated and that’s a good thing.)
      - mirimir 7y ago
        I do appreciate the historical context. And I agree that sexual assault and harassment aren't acceptable. But if the women profiled in TFA are credible, things have gone too far on college campuses.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act This is injecting your own message into what was written. MacKinnion wrote that, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated". Feelings of violation can manifest after sex, and it is an assumption on your part that this does not fall into scope of what MacKinnon considers sex. MacKinnon wrote that she considers it rape "whenever" women feel violated, so at face value this encompasses feelings of violation that manifest after the fact.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      This is a poor reading of MacKinnon; in this case, there's no need for anyone to read into the statement when you can read what else she's written. She's one of the most heavily cited feminists of all time in academic literature.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Agreed. I believe this is the context for the original quote: https://books.google.com/books?id=rxE8FQzjpYMC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=%22politically,+I+call+it+rape+whenever+a+woman+has+sex+and+feels+violated%22+context&source=bl&ots=whAO6ajW9T&sig=ACfU3U1C1CKeMVyTkSFsh-XfaoARg_ZExg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjetMPUhuzkAhXMqFkKHecGAxc4ChDoATAAegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=%22politically%2C%20I%20call%20it%20rape%20whenever%20a%20woman%20has%20sex%20and%20feels%20violated%22%20context&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=rxE8FQzjpYMC&pg=PA82&lpg=P... MacKinnon writes right after that quote: > I think it's fairly common, and is increasingly known to be common, for men to seek sexual access to women in ways that we find coercive and unwanted. On those occasions the amount and kind of force are only matters of degree. The problem is that rapes do not tend to be reported or prosecuted or sanctioned based on the force that was used; not based on how coercive it was and not based on how violated the woman feels; instead they are based on how intimate she is with the person who did it. This is why most women think we won't be believed in reporting the most common rapes, that is, rapes by people we know.

by gm678 7y ago

mirimir 7y ago

From TFA, which I quoted in another subthread: > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Maybe she's not a "modern feminist". But that's the sense I get from TFA about current policies.

rayiner 7y ago
MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act. This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with the proposition that an arbitration clause in an employment contract with a big company is only theoretically consensual. The concept of "wage slavery" is widely accepted on HN as well. The basis of these ideas is that people may "consent" to something but that is not the same thing as welcoming the thing. In the sexual context, few people would disagree that, for example, someone cannot "consent" to sex with a prison guard or an arresting police officer. What about economic or social coercion? What does consent mean in cultures where women have no way to support themselves or any social standing outside a relationship with a man?
- mirimir 7y ago
  OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind. I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That may be, but the article is characterizing McKinnon’s view, not quoting it. As to “responsibility” it’s not an easy concept either. People who don’t create the coercive circumstances often knowingly take advantage of them. I’d point out that when McKinnon wrote the quote, it was still legally impossible in some states to rape your wife. (Marriage was essentially considered irrevocable consent.) Even today, social dynamics are geared toward what male expectations—sex on demand with no strings attached. Any given man many not create this framework, but they live within it and take advantage of it. (Although that’s slowly changing. They did an investigation at my kid’s school into widespread sex between male teachers and high school students in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it was “bad” but tolerated. Today we would call it rape. The liberalism of the sexual revolution, which as Dworkin points out accrued largely to the benefit of men, is being recalibrated and that’s a good thing.)
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I do appreciate the historical context. And I agree that sexual assault and harassment aren't acceptable. But if the women profiled in TFA are credible, things have gone too far on college campuses.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act This is injecting your own message into what was written. MacKinnion wrote that, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated". Feelings of violation can manifest after sex, and it is an assumption on your part that this does not fall into scope of what MacKinnon considers sex. MacKinnon wrote that she considers it rape "whenever" women feel violated, so at face value this encompasses feelings of violation that manifest after the fact.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    This is a poor reading of MacKinnon; in this case, there's no need for anyone to read into the statement when you can read what else she's written. She's one of the most heavily cited feminists of all time in academic literature.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Agreed. I believe this is the context for the original quote: https://books.google.com/books?id=rxE8FQzjpYMC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=%22politically,+I+call+it+rape+whenever+a+woman+has+sex+and+feels+violated%22+context&source=bl&ots=whAO6ajW9T&sig=ACfU3U1C1CKeMVyTkSFsh-XfaoARg_ZExg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjetMPUhuzkAhXMqFkKHecGAxc4ChDoATAAegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=%22politically%2C%20I%20call%20it%20rape%20whenever%20a%20woman%20has%20sex%20and%20feels%20violated%22%20context&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=rxE8FQzjpYMC&pg=PA82&lpg=P... MacKinnon writes right after that quote: > I think it's fairly common, and is increasingly known to be common, for men to seek sexual access to women in ways that we find coercive and unwanted. On those occasions the amount and kind of force are only matters of degree. The problem is that rapes do not tend to be reported or prosecuted or sanctioned based on the force that was used; not based on how coercive it was and not based on how violated the woman feels; instead they are based on how intimate she is with the person who did it. This is why most women think we won't be believed in reporting the most common rapes, that is, rapes by people we know.