Only Words

Rating:
Summary: Badly written, lousy conclusions, is she really a lawyer?
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: At least it makes you think a little...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Where's the logic?
Review: 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.