Under Duress: Agency, Power and Consent, Part Two: “Yes”

[redqueen]

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:04 PM - Edit history (3)

Trigger Warning

Again, hands down the best analysis I've seen online. Or anywhere, really. She ties it all together.

Yes Means Yes? Agency Feminism

First, I’d like to discuss a school of thought in feminism which I’m going to call ‘agency feminism’, which emphasises women as active, not passive, agents. In agency feminism, the basic unit of consent is the individual, and the definition of “consensual” is whether or not the person involves says it’s consensual.

...

Yes Means No? Radical Feminism on Consent

...

Radical (and some other) feminists identify a ubiquitous pressure against women’s consent which is part of and partially created by rape culture. In an interview discussing her book, Are Women Human?: And Other International Dialogues, Catharine MacKinnon described it as follows:

The (sexist) assumption is that women can be unequal to men economically, socially, culturally, politically, and in religion, but the moment they have sexual interactions, they are free and equal. That’s the assumption – and I think it ought to be thought about, and in particular what consent then means… My view is that when there is force or substantially coercive circumstances between the parties, individual consent is beside the point.

...

Adverse Encounters Between Radical and Agency Feminisms

“But I said yes!”: A woman is having enjoyable sex with male partners. She doesn’t experience the sex as violating. When she reads a radical feminist article which discusses the significant power imbalances in hetero sexual relationships, it doesn’t seem to match her lived experiences. She feels that she doesn’t experience significant pressure on her consent, and that this invalidates the article. She’s encountered a general position of “yes means (maybe means) no” and individualised it to her situation, hearing “your yes means no”. Because her account is palatable to patriarchy, she is widely platformed to speak about her adverse encounter with these ideas, and many people agree with her. She can easily find other people online recounting similar experiences, and even gets some coverage in the mainstream media. These experiences accumulate and become an agency feminist lobby which is not just for enthusiastic consent but against radical feminism. As a result, more women who encounter radical feminist concepts are predisposed to take one look, think, “This doesn’t match my experience –just like everyone else is saying,” and dismiss them.

“But she said yes!”: A woman is performing sexual acts with a male partner which she doesn’t want to do. She has, however, said “yes” to them, and may even sometimes initiate them. She tries to speak up about it, but nobody listens. She breaks up with her partner and names the behaviour as rape (both of which can be very difficult things to do). Her account is not palatable to patriarchy and she is attacked, silenced and retraumatised. But now, her ex-partner speaks up; he explains that she was saying “yes”, and as such she took responsibility (remember that word?) for the sex acts that occurred in their relationship. “It’s not rape,” he says, “And those feminists agree with me.” He has taken an individualist agency-feminist position –the rights and responsibilities model of “my yes means yes” – and has generalised it to all situations, a kind of “every yes means yes”. His account is recognised as unreliable by many feminists, but it is very palatable to the anti-feminist mainstream, and it is widely reported, as well as being picked up as a cause célèbre by reactionary anti-feminist movements such as MRAs (Male Rights*Rapist* Advocates). These experiences accumulate in the daily lives of survivors and of volunteers working at rape crisis centres and become part of the fabric of rape culture understood all too well by many radical feminists.

...

http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-two-yes/

[ismnotwasm]

1. Incredible

This blog considers the power relation in relationships between men and women to be severe: a power dynamic over which, unless a man is visibly and significantly offsetting his power, he must be considered potentially abusive and at the least dangerously, wilfully ignorant – myself, I don’t care to make the distinction. I do know women (whose relationship history includes relationships with men) who don’t relate experiences of being hurt by male partners. But I don’t know many, and it seems like every time a women-only space opens up, more of the women I know reveal an all-too familiar history.

I believe that abuse is so normalized that some women literally don't recognize it for what it is, the 'I thought but then' stories; as in 'I thought abuse was like (----) but then (relates experience or awakening)

There are also women, say sex workers, who have a broadly defined definition of abuse, and insist that what they experience is not abuse. These are the 'real abuse is' story (I feel powerful on the stage, I am powerful, using my sexual power is not being abused, real abuse is (----)) and here is one of those potential schisms in feminism; suffice it to say I support safety laws for sex workers, I hold no 'moral' agency over them, even if I believe that, as the article points out 'the power relations in relationships between men and women to be severe' sex workers are exploited and are not able to choose consent in the first place, their physical safety and mental well being is important to me.




I've read through these a couple of times, and will read them again; this is the good stuff, it rides a just right tone between the frustrated ironical blogger and a heady feminist philosophy piece. I love when people are able to write like this; the information is totally accessible. It's also clever, she has anticipated and answered standard patriarchy objections to the ideas of consent.

For me, I read pieces like these and a slight inner tension that I'm not aware of just goes away. It's validation, yes, but its also someone, a thinking someone who is able to articulate what I feel. Better than chocolate, yo.

[redqueen]

2. Better than chocolate, yes.

She is amazing. Check this one out. Another favorite that I often think should be linked in an OP here.
http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/the-ethical-prude-imagining-an-authentic-sex-negative-feminism/

[ismnotwasm]

3. Ok, now I'm in love

Is all compulsory sexuality derived from compulsory heterosexuality? Or are there other compulsions towards sexuality which operate in hetero/non-hetero spaces? I actually don’t know. But I know that if compulsory heterosexuality was eliminated or reduced, the question would become much easier to answer.

To sum up: wherever you go, whatever your sex and sexuality, compulsory sexuality is always in the room. It can be queered, channelled, refused or denied but it is present. Compulsory sexuality is sex without the joy. It is doing something that you’d love (if you love it at all) but with the boss standing behind your shoulder, criticising or praising you according to standards you do not create. It means upholding those standards if you fuck the way he says, and dealing with his censure if you fuck differently or not at all.

Brilliant.

On of the questions and objections I've always in arguments had about rape, sex and power, or sex vs. power committed in the act of rape, is why does the rapist get to define what 'sex' is? Does a women (or man or child) who has been raped think they've had 'sex'?

I like the way this is outlined because it answers that question, not specifically of course but through analysis. In a patriarchy, the answer is yes. I still-- and will still---object to the concept, but the conclusion is inescapable.

[redqueen]

4. LOL, IKR?

I had that exact same reaction to reading her stuff.

This is why its taken me so long to post her stuff though: How can you narrow that down to four paragraphs?!

I love the excerpts from MacKinnon that she highlights, too. And I love MacKinnon.

[ismnotwasm]

5. And Dworkin

With no apologies.

[redqueen]

7. ....

[radtransfem]

9. MacKinnon tackles this specific question in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State

... so if you liked my article (thank you for your comments!) you'll love that book! Here's a relevant quote:

The problem is that the injury of rape lies in the meaning of the act to its victim, but the standard for its criminality lies in the meaning of the act to the assailant. Rape is only an injury from women's point of view. It is only a crime from the male point of view, explicitly including that of the accused.

The crime of rape is defined and adjudicated from the male standpoint, presuming that forced sex is rape and that consent to a man is freely given by a woman. Under male supremacist standards, of course, they are. Doctrinally, this means that the man's perceptions of the woman's desires determine whether she is deemed violated. This might be like other crimes of subjective intent if rape were like other crimes. With rape, because sexuality defines gender norms, the only difference between assault and what is socially defined as a noninjury is the meaning of the encounter to the woman.

Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Harvard University Press, 1989), p180

[ismnotwasm]

13. Thank you

I think reading that book sounds like an excellent idea.

[MadrasT]

6. Both parts are brilliant.

Reading them was like one of those "waiting to exhale" times, and I got to exhale.

If I had a tail, it would be waggin'.

[redqueen]

8. I'm really glad I finally made OPs to share them...

It's truly awesome stuff, just really hard to pare down. The only way to fully appreciate it is to read the whole thing.

[radtransfem]

10. Thank you -

Reading these comments made me smile!

[redqueen]

11. Oh, no...

Thank YOU! I've been enjoying your blog for a good while now. You have no idea how much.

[ismnotwasm]

14. I'm glad

And what RedQueen said, Thank YOU.

You're very talented, and have the ability to reach minds that aren't completely closed. And I love, love the way you define your articles in terms of color and privilege. I feel that so important to bring us together.

I'm a fan.