Only Words 3th (third) edition

by Catharine A. MacKinnon

When is rape not a crime? When it's pornography--or so First Amendment law seems to in film, a rape becomes "free speech." Pornography, Catharine MacKinnon contends, is neither speech nor free. Pornography, racial and sexual harassment, and hate speech are acts of intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination, and should be legally treated as such. Only Words is a powerful indictment of a legal system at odds with itself, its First Amendment promoting the very inequalities its Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to end. In the bold and compelling style that has made her one of our most provocative legal critics, MacKinnon depicts a society caught in a vicious hypocrisy. Words that offer bribes or fix prices or segregate facilities are treated by law as acts, but words and pictures that victimize and target on the basis of race and sex are not. Pornography--an act of sexual domination reproduced in the viewing--is protected by law in the name of "the free and open exchange of ideas." But the proper concern of law, MacKinnon says, is not what speech says, but what it does. What the "speech" of pornography and of racial and sexual harassment and hate propaganda does is promote and enact the power of one social group over another. Cutting with surgical deftness through cases of harassment in the workplace and on college campuses, through First Amendment cases involving Nazis, Klansmen, and pornographers, MacKinnon shows that as long as discriminatory practices are protected as free speech, equality will be only a word.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Law, Sexuality, Feminist Theory

Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Catharine A. MacKinnon is the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and the James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School (long-term). She holds a BA from Smith College, a JD from Yale Law School, and a PhD in political science from Yale, and specializes in sex equality issues under international and domestic (including comparative and constitutional) law.

Prof. MacKinnon pioneered the legal claim for sexual harassment and, with Andrea Dworkin, created ordinances recognizing pornography as a civil rights violation and the Swedish model for abolishing prostitution. The Supreme Court of Canada has largely accepted her approaches to equality, pornography, and hate speech, which have been influential internationally as well. Representing Bosnian women survivors of Serbian genocidal sexual atrocities, she won with co-counsel a damage award of $745 million in August 2000 in Kadic v. Karadzic under the Alien Tort Act, the first recognition of rape as an act of genocide.

(source: law.umich.edu)

Reviews

[Hiba Elyas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Men will create laws prohibiting abortion for the sake of protecting women whilst legalizing pornography (and all forms of sex work) which brutalizes and humiliates women, especially black women but it’s fine right? Liberation and all yea?

This book highlights the relationship between law and pornography. Mackinnon cites cases where men who have murdered women were given lesser sentences because their mental state was backed up in court by their extreme pornography consumption. Pornography is a LEGAL matter it’s a patriarchal tool because let’s be honest if legal reforms “cared” about women’s issues as they claim they do whilst they constantly deny every issue feminists presented to them pornography would in no way be legal because it BENEFITS MEN ONLY.

[Heather West · Rating 2 out of 5]

Catherine MacKinnon, with the best of intentions, always seems to end up with the message that all must be constrained in order to protect the women. Here, she argues that pornography is simply too denegratory of women to continue to exist, and besides, women don't like it.

She perhaps has a point, that pornography can contribute to the perception of women. However, it is not as if the only possible way to fix this is to place pornography outside the scope of free speech, effectively rendering it illegal.

In this book, MacKinnon seems to say that women need protection, that they simply cannot defend themselves against society. For sure, society does not equip women to make that defense, but it is our job as concerned persons to make sure that these women know that they have this power. It is our place to educate them, not to take their options away.

Perhaps the material contributes to the knowledge that women can enjoy sex. Or that there are a massive number of ways that the sexual spectrum expresses itself. Of course there will always be pornography which caters to bigoted men, but so will there be books and magazines and bars and websites. Some of which won't even have pictures. Simply making this material, or thought, or activity illegal, as MacKinnon hopes to do, does not solve the problem. Education of men and women, instead, will do it. Creation of woman-friendly porn. All manner of other, non-speech infringing ways.

[بثينة الإبراهيم · Rating 3 out of 5]

تركز الكاتبة في البداية على الإساءات الجنسية التي تتعرض لها المرأة باسم الفن، والتي يحميها الدستور تحت حق حرية التعبير... تخصص الكاتبة في حديث هو أقرب للمرافعة القضائية منه إلى البحث العميق كلامها عن أفلام البورنوغرافي (الأفلام الإباحية) وتحاول إثبات أنها ليست أكثر من إساءة وأنه لا بد من معاقبة منتجيها ومروجيها كما يعاقب الأشخاص الذين يظهرون مواقف عدائية أو يتلفظون بعبارات مسيئة للسود أو الأعراق والإثنيات الأخرى، باعتبار أن هذه خرق للدستور وجرائم كراهية... لكن لا يجرّم منتجو هذه الأفلام التي لا تظهر المرأة إلا على أنها أداة متعة وقد ينتهي بها الأمر إلى أن تكون ضحية جريمة قتل، كما حدث مرات كثيرة، واعترف بعض القتلة بمواظبتهم على مشاهدة هذا النوع من الافلام، ومع ذلك ما تزال محمية بموجب الدستور...
تقول:" You learn that speech is not what you say but what your abusers do to you"! فالنساء، كثير منهن، يجبرن على ممارسات لا يستسغنها أو يرضينها باسم الفن، ثم يطلب الرجل إلى المرأة أن تقلد هذه الصور أو الأفلام وتفعل ذلك وتصمت عن إعلان رفضها وتنسى ما تريد وما لا تريد!
"Saying (kill) to a trained attack dog is only words, yet it is not seen as expressing the view point " I want to kill you", which it usually does, in fact, express!". p.12

[Jack Wolfe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is essential reading for students of the First Amendment. It's both a persuasive condemnation of pornography and a necessary (both then (1993), and now) call for America to renew its commitment to equality, especially when it comes to free speech (the latter subject which, if MacKinnon is to believed, our courts have a fairly simplistic and often hurtful understanding of). I find MacKinnon's writing true and right, the perfect balance of academic seriousness, legal savvy, and finely tuned outrage. It's a shame American viewpoints on free "speech" (including, hence my quotes, porn) have been so deeply entrenched by the "speech" of less-than-fair-and-balanced media outlets-- this is a powerful argument that deserves to be processed with an open mind. Try it yourself and see if you're not convinced.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am finding that small cadre of early radfems (centered around MacKinnon and Dworkin) remain incredibly relevant to present contexts. Given the ubiquity of pornography in the public conscience and individual lives, this text remains relevant. Furthermore, MacKinnon offers a promising argument for the balancing of the First with the Fourteenth Ammendments. Given a pervasive male supremacy which has changed in some dimensions since the writing of this book but by all means remains deeply embedded in society, this analysis is convincing.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Militant feminism. This book basically says all sex - including heterosexual and homosexual consensual - is bad because it subordinates and takes advantage of women.

You have to give some credit to MacKinnon for her radicalism, but I feel at this point, we've moved beyond this type of thinking.

[Dasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting analysis but the amount of praise given to the Canadian Supreme Court and that the court takes women as an underprivileged group seriously seems to diminish Canada's real issues with human rights and gender/sex discrimination and abuse.

Apart from that - a really interesting book that makes one consider pornography in a different light (hopefully).

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Appreciated the insights but the writing style made the book tedious and unreadable. I much preferred Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, her earlier work.

[Keith · Rating 2 out of 5]

So, a short book - only 112 pages of actual text, backed up with notes - but really hard to read. Her writing style is just not for me.

Concerned with the First and Fourteen the amendments in the American Constitution the author explains how the legal interpretation of freedom of speech is at odds with the interpretation of equality and how the First Amendment has been used to bolster and support the interests of the few; in this case the producers of pornography. This is intertwined with references to racism, Nazism, sexism and other inequalities that hide behind the First Amendment to pedal their literature. To this extent, the author draws up reasonable arguments.

However, I have a number of problems:

Like many authors of the period, Catharine MacKinnon seems unable to grasp that women are not an homogeneous group and therefore generalizations don't help her arguments.

She uses extreme examples to justify her position and infers that these extreme forms of pornography are consumed and enjoyed by the many - the prime example is 'snuff films' in in this context.

However, my real problem is the inference that the pornography industry is akin to the Holocaust. Sorry, but as bad as the pornography industry is, and I believe it to be horrible, drawing inferred comparisons with industrialized slaughter is nauseating to say the least.

Many feminists have the right to be angry at the injustices in this world, both past and present. Please write about it, shout about it, protest about it. But be careful about the things you make comparisons with. Some things just aren't the same.

[6655321 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ok, so, MacKinnon is really weird because she has some solid points (there is a really incongruous way in which we talk about protected speech and what we consider to be worth defending and how it often empowers the worst people to continue in their horribleness); so, why the two star review? I think the major problem is MacKinnon has this absolute lack of analysis on how the law works and wants to write her legal fan fiction (on how she wants the laws executed) rather than looking at practical questions (i.e. how her pet law with Andrea Dworkin literally was only used to fuck over queer people not skeezy porn producers) and her hyperbolic extremes are a lot to swallow (despite the enormous amount of money sunk into looking for them snuff films do not exist and if they do they are not common or all that appealing to most people). But for real, there is a question that i think she *should* have focused on regarding *what it says about sexuality* that certain forms of pornography that are promote really unhealthy views are so popular (which would be a completely different and interesting and nuanced argument). I appreciate that MacKinnon is a 2nd waver who isn't a TERF but jesus sometimes her arguments are a lot to take.

[Camille · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un excellent essai, écrite par l'une des tenantes du féminisme radical US, à propos de l'autorisation du porno par le droit états-unien sous couvert du premier amendement, portant sur la liberté d'expression.

Après avoir renouvelé, Dworkin à l'appui, sa conviction selon laquelle le sexe étant à la base de la représentation sociale, les représentations pornographiques classiques justifiaient le viol et la discrimination de la femme dans la société, l'auteur compare les produits de l'industrie pornographique et leur traitement judiciaire à d'autres cas de discrimination.
Pourquoi les cas de harcèlement sexuel, qui se manifestent par des paroles, ne tombe pas sous couvert du premier amendement, alors que la pornographie, si ?
Comment le gouvernement en arrive-t-il à autoriser des marches nazies, et à condamner l'expression de la pauvreté et de la mendicité, sous couvert du premier amendement ?

Très intéressant, extrêmement documenté.

Bien que ne partageant pas tout à fait les idées de MacKinnon sur le sujet, ce livre m'a beaucoup appris.

[Carmen something · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of her most consise and beautifully written texts, Only Words is an eloquent argument against the pornography profiteering rampant in this nation. Though I'm sure she and I would not see eye to eye in practice, her scope of thinking is brilliant, confrontational, and landmark.

[Jasmine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting view on pornography as protected speech, how this is harmful to women in that it perpetuates the normalizing of violence against women and children, and how freedom of speech and the freedom of equality should line up, which it currently does not in this country.

[Carolyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to read this book for a women/criminal justice class. I thought MacKinnon brought up interesting ideas about the effects of pornography but I found myself skimming because of the ranty- repetitive

[Staci · Rating 4 out of 5]

A feminist argument for why pornography is harmful and legally shouldn't be protected as "free speech." I read it in college for a class and some of the points really stuck with me. Very interesting.

[Georgia · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is more protected? His sensation or her life?

[John Reis · Rating 1 out of 5]

MacKinnon begins with a horrible tale, which is presented as if it represents the treatment of women in the most horrible way throughout history. It is polemical. Is it a tale or is any of a true? And if any of it is true is it still true? She makes wild claims and wild identifications. “Pornography is masturbation material. It is used as sex. It therefore is sex.“ Pornography, however, is not sex. The acts performed may have been voluntary or involuntary. The participants may take pleasure in the acts, or simply believe they are earning a paycheck. some may feel they are doing this to get back at someone. Some may in fact be victims; some may be doing it for money.

It seems according to McKinnon, none of the performers do it of their own free will. They do not have free will. In a sense they are not human. They are merely victims. She needs to argue this position to make her own case.

“Sooner or later, in one way or another, the consumers want to live out the pornography further in three dimensions.” “Sooner or later, and one way or another, they do.” “It makes them want to; when they believe they can when they feel they can get away with it, they do.”

It has become a common defense that “I couldn’t help myself.“

The use of may or might is common in this book.

“Empirically, all pornography is made under conditions of any quality based on sex, overwhelmingly, by poor, desperate, homeless, pimped women, who were sexually abused as children.” There is no evidence provided here. No documentation. It is just an assertion.

Porno graffiti is protected as free-speech. She asks the rhetorical question “what is more protected, his sensation or her life? Should it matter if the murder is artistically presented?”

“Pornography brings its conditions of production to the consumer: sexual dominance.” Is that true? What of solo material or lesbian material?

Repeated mentions of snuff films. This is rhetoric. This is polemic. This is propaganda. It is an advocacy piece.

This book does a disservice to those who wish an end to pornography.

Women are not sexual beings. They never choose to have sex. They are always only forced to have sex. They never reach the age of maturity and consent. They are children who must be protected. Thus MacKinnon diminishes women.

Vulgar speech in the presence of a woman is considered to be sexual assault. She provides dozens of examples. “… Social life occurs only in social context, and this is a social harm“ with respect to the foregoing samples.

Cat calls are “a sexual invasion, an active sexual aggression, a violation of sexual boundaries, a sex act in itself. “ “Were there no such thing as male supremacy, and were it not sexualized, there would be no such injury as sexual harassment.”

“That sexual words make sex happen…” when speech is sex, it determines what is taken as real.”

Anita Hill’s testimony in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing was “sex happening. It was not simply sex being discussed.”

The final chapter is focused on equality. MacKinnon argues that the more the speech of the dominant is protected the more dominant they become, and the less the subordinated are heard from.

“First amendment speech, and 14th amendment equality have never contended unconstitutional to rain.” She argues that this is mostly because both have been interpreted more negatively than positively prohibiting government violence of violations more than chartering legal intervention for social change. Lol.

She goes on to claim a connection between old antebellum laws about teaching black children to write, thus denying them freedom of speech, and yet the denial of their freedom of speech is created by the very educational system they are forced into.

“Has this doctrinal edifice guaranteed free and equal speech?” She changes the argument here. Was equal speech ever guaranteed anyone anywhere?

“What is wrong with pornography is that it hurts women and their equality.”

“Nothing in the American law of obscenity is designed to perceive the rape, sexual abuse of children, battering, sexual harassment, prostitution, or sexual murder and pornography.” But aren’t each of these addressed in criminal law?

“Where is all this leading? To a new model of freedom of expression, in which the free-speech position no longer supports, social dominance, as it does now; in which free-speech does not most readily protect the activities of Nazis, Klansman, and pornographers, while doing nothing for their victims, as it does now; and which, defending free speech is not speaking on behalf of a large pile of money, in the hands of a small group of people, as it does now.“

There is no real legitimate argument here. In any syllogism you might make of her arguments you find there are two middle terms. She is polemical throughout. She does not understand speech act theory if that is what she means by “speech theory.”

This book is thirty years old. And pornography has grown. Women in this industry are now called sex workers. So, in the end, this is all only words.

[Crito · Rating 2 out of 5]

Comes off as manipulative in the worst way. MacKinnon wants a ban on all pornography full stop and needs to argue from that position in the strongest way possible. Instead she proceeds from things that everyone would agree are bad - women being coerced into and abused during the production of pornography is bad; showing a coworker porn and asking them what they're doing later is bad - to which MacKinnon says see we all agree pornography is overwhelmingly harmful, let us use the power of the state to abolish it once and forever, as if there weren't about 20 steps skipped there. You see this attitude embedded in the legislation she wrote which later got struck down, and which got struck down due to the frankly ridiculous definition of "pornography" stipulated; pornography by the attempted legal definition would be that which shows 1) women enjoying pain and humiliation 2) women getting assaulted 3) women getting tortured or literally dismembered on camera 4) bestiality or "penetration by objects" 5) women getting tortured again and finally 6) women "presented as sexual objects for domination, conquest, violation, exploitation, possession, or use, or through postures or positions of servility or submission or display." This is the same move; there are a litany of ridiculous and obvious outrages, weird enthymemes (how in the world is "bestiality or dildo masturbation" a one or the other?), and a number six which clearly does all the heavy lifting and is where the actual arguments are supposed to come in. We're supposed to agree with the outrages and let the rest in. And conversely, if we disagree, it's because we don't agree that women shouldn't be literally mutilated on camera. What I want is for MacKinnon to take the best case - a happy couple mutually agreeing to film their happy copulation and posting to onlyfans - and argue it is harmful production of subordinating speech. That's not the overwhelming case of course; porn isn't the brutal hellscape it was in the 70s and 80s but you still have abuse of star talent, abuse and blackmailing of amatures duped into porn, women trafficked into Romania and forced to cam, even just a solo model self producing and getting online harassment, there is a lot of bad stuff out there. I'm not convinced the sin is the video file: I think it is in the tangible harms being visited on those involved. MacKinnon argues that after we prosecute the abusers and rapists, the thing itself is its own sin. MacKinnon cites a case where a man fresh out of prison raped and killed a girl after visiting a porno video shop. He was put on death row and appealed, and in his appeal he argued that due to his exposure to porn he was in an altered state and was less liable. The judges rejected this argument since as they rightfully point out "Shiro understood the criminality of his conduct and ... pornography is not a mental disease or defect which would permit a finding of insanity... under Shiro's theory pornography would constitute a legal excuse to violence against women." In other words, the testimony the judges reject as an excuse to commit sexual abuse is the argumentation MacKinnon uses to illustrate the supposed violent effects of pornography! Now I personally do not think MacKinnon would be for excusing sexual assault or pornography, indeed then why write this book, I only cite it to illustrate the alarming tendency of this book towards sophistry. It's possible MacKinnon had to bring it up through feelings of soreness and bitter vindication since the opinion cites the opinion which struck down her pornography ban - oh if only it hadn't been struck down, then the psycho murder rapist would never have done the deed. It's just that we're so far removed from reality at this point where we're in a timeline where porn is just dismemberment and subsequent inspired rape. Argue from reality, I say, make the case on the strongest possible grounds. I thought there was a serious argument about subordinating speech here, and instead it's a daisy chain of motte and baileys where at the end of the chain is an argument that obscenity laws were bad because they didn't go far enough. To MacKinnon the three pillars of disgracefully allowed speech are Nazis, the KKK, and pornography, and really that third one lands with a hollow thud compared with the two others don't you think?

[Tiffany Starling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Catharine A. MacKinnon s'attache à démontrer la violence intrinsèque à la pornographie dans cet ouvrage, où elle analyse et critique comment la pornographie n'est traitée que comme une idée, une représentation, et non comme des actes.
Un point de vue de juriste sur la pornographie, avec une analyse des croisements sexes/races, notamment en empruntant des exemples de procédures pour discrimination raciale.

Je n'ai mis que 3/5 car j'ai trouvé le livre dur à lire, pas en ce que le propos est difficile à comprendre mais plutôt parce qu'il est expliqué parfois de façon redondante, par le biais de trop nombreux exemples, que certains passages pouvaient être largement synthétisés et le fait que ce ne fut pas le cas fini parfois par rendre le propos confus.

Quelques passages que j'ai recopié ci-dessous :

"la loi n'est faite que de mots. Bien qu'elle ait un contenu, nous ne l'analysons pas comme si elle se réduisait à la simple expression d'idées. Lorsque nous en contestons une - par exemple, celle qui limite la liberté d'expression - nous n'alléguons pas qu'elle nous a offensés, mais qu'elle nous effraie, nous menace, nous met en danger. Nous considérons les conséquences de son application comme un fait accompli et l'énonciation des termes juridiques comme équivalent à la mise en oeuvre des réalités qu'ils représentent. C'est tellement évident qu'il est inutile de le mentionner, non seulement parce que le premier amendement ne protège pas la liberté d'expression du gouvernement, mais aussi parce que la loi bénéficie du soutien du pouvoir, de sorte que ses mots sont considérés comme des actes. Il en va de même de la pornographie : elle incarne le pouvoir des hommes sur les femmes, exprimé à travers l'inégalité des sexes et consacré par le pouvoir de l'Etat et avant lui. Il n'y a pas plus de sens à traiter la pornographie comme une simple abstraction et représentation qu'il y en a à considérer la loi comme une simulation ou un fantasme. "

"s'il est un domaine où les mots ont toujours été considérés comme des actes, c'est celui du harcèlement sexuel. (...) Ce ne sont que des mots (après avoir cité des exemples de manifestation du harcèlement sexuel), pourtant ils n'ont pas été considérés comme des vecteurs d'idées, alors que, comme toutes les pratiques sociales, ils en véhiculent. "

"l'égalité sociale est mise à mal par certains moyens d'expression et (...) certaines personnes jouissent d'une liberté d'expression beaucoup plus grande que d'autres. De ce fait, le pouvoir de ces personnes est devenu de plus en plus absolu, violent et coercitif à mesure qu'il faisait l'objet d'une protection juridique croissante. On observe une méconnaissance (...) du lien qui existe entre ces deux aspects ; plus votre liberté d'expression est restreinte, plus celle des personnes dominantes vous maintient d'inégalité ; la protection de leur liberté d'expression renforce leur position et réduit encore plus au silence ceux qui sont en position de subordination"

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FEMINIST LAW PROFESSOR ARGUES “LEGALLY” AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY

Catharine Alice MacKinnon (born 1946) is an American feminist legal scholar, activist, and author, who is Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. She first became widely-known for her opposition to pornography.

She wrote in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of this 1993 book, “Originally presented as the Christian Gauss Memorial Lectures in April 1992 at Princeton University, these three discussions took their current form as a result of the instigation and inspiration of that forum. Later, the Columbia Legal Theory Workshop … and Feminist Legal theory class at Yale Law School provided supportive settings for their development and clarification.”

She notes, “What pornography does, it does in the real world, not only in the mind… it should be observed that it is the pornography industry, not the ideas in the materials, that forces, threatens, blackmails, pressures, tricks and cajoles women into sex for pictures. In pornography, women are gang raped so they can be filmed. They are not gang raped by the idea of a gang rape… Empirically… it is only pornography, not its ideas as such, that… support aggression against women in particular.” (Pg. 15-16)

She observes, “Empirically, all pornography is made under conditions of inequality based on sex, overwhelmingly by poor, desperate, homeless, pimped women who were sexually abused as children. The industry’s profits exploit, and are an incentive to maintain, these conditions. These conditions constrain choice rather than offering freedom.” (Pg. 20)

She points out, “Suppose lynchings were done to make pictures of lynchings. Should their racist content protect them as political speech, since they do their harm through conveying a political ideology?... If the lunching includes rape, is it, too, potentially speech?... Why, consistent with existing speech theory, are these activities not expressive? If expressive, why not protected?” (Pg. 34-35) Later, she argues, “Child pornography is not considered the speech of a sexually dissident minority, which it is, advocating ‘ideas’ about children and sex, which it does.” (Pg. 91)

She states that pornography is “the power of women over women, expressed through unequal sex, sanctioned both through and prior to state power.” (Pg. 40) Later, she adds, “What is wrong with pornography is that it hurts women and their equality. What is wrong with obscenity law is that this reality has no role in it.” (Pg. 88)

This is one of the most influential feminist books opposing pornography, and will be “must reading” for anyone studying the issue.

[Rose · Rating 2 out of 5]

I always enjoy reading MacKinnon, but on this occasion I felt that her argument regarding pornography as sex and as subordination, rather than expressing sexual subordination which certain individuals then choose to consume, was lacking. While I can buy her argument for specific kinds of pornography (and there is a plausible case that it holds for the vast majority of pornography made and consumed today) her thesis seems incredibly vulnerable to any kind of move to create pornography that a) doesn't rely on the economic coercion of women to depict subordinate sexual acts and b) isn't/can't be used by men as a reference point to harass and subjugate women IRL. Her issue seems to be more with the harms of depicting the exploitation and subordination of women rather than pornography itself, but she ends up concluding that all pornography should be restricted in order to protect/promote the equality of women as a group facing group defamation. Perhaps this issue could be resolved by creating different definitions of pornography, but it seems that her arguments as they stand in this book don't tackle the permissibility of a 'feminist pornography' or even consider if such a thing is possible.

[Tori B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent points on pornography from a perspective we don't often hear-- that of those who don't have a choice in the matter. I appreciated her bluntness and passion on the topic, which I haven't seen many other places. It's devastating that human trafficking is such a violent and shocking part of the Western World that is simultaneously rarely talked about, just as much when this book was written as it is now.

I knocked a star because she seems to make statements occasionally more for shock value than to logically follow her own argument's trail. Even still, this book's got a nice place on my shelf as the questions it raises about the nature of "free speech" and the relativism of rights were fascinating and thoughts to chew on.

[zeesbookies · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.0

Had to read this book for an essay on the freedom of speech and equality. Was not disappointed.

The dynamics of an unequal society giving the powerful tools of speech while silencing the less powerful not necessarily through censorship. There is no need for censorship when the dominant group has the microphone.

Pornography is a big deal. And it needs to be stopped. It is no longer about the liberation of feminist women. No. Pornography does more harm than good and women must speak up.

[Charlotte · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate so much what she is trying to do with this book, but I got lost at times. The points I picked up on are relevant and true, and I had many tough but important moments recollecting times of trauma as a woman, and surrounding porn, too. If I had been able to follow a bit better it would get 4 stars for sure.

[Mira Raju · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first essay comes off as a bit sensationalist (it might feel like MacKinnon is angry at you, the reader, personally), but the following essays are extremely convincing and clear-headed. An essential read – just push through the shock value in the beginning.

[Rosie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very good and very to the point. Concise but not brusque. It contains all the important talking points without any excessive verbiage. Would recommend for anyone interested in learning about MacKinnon without having to get through one of her longer, denser books.

[Mike Mena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick, easy read. On it's surface it is classic "anti-porn" feminism, however, I think what is fascinating is the books attempt to add a material dimension to the realm of ideas.

[Katrinka · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5; some confusing language in parts kept this from being a 5—but fantastic overall.

[Lindsey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Suggested by a participant in a training I'm facilitating, I really tried to give this my full unbiased attention, but ultimately I could not even remotely get on board.

[Lou Reckinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼