|
Thanks
for your note to FEMINIST.COM--and
for taking the time to look
beyond the pages of The
New Yorker to see what
is really going on. I did not
read the Toobin article, but
I did glance at it and I am
familiar with it. Additionally,
I have heard it referenced repeatedly.
From what I can gather, Toobin
makes one big mistake--he doesn't
cover consensual sex--and assumes
that any workplace sexual relationship
is non-consensual.
Additionally, he seems to put
Catherine MacKinnon and Vicki
Schultz at opposite ends of
the "feminist spectrum" when
in fact they are probably somewhere
right next to each other. As
usual: trying to portray a feminist
cat fight-- and ignores that
1.) we have bigger issues to
deal with 2.) MacKinnon and
Schultz have more in common
than they disagree on. Schultz's
one main point seems to be that
sex (consensual) should be allowed
in the workplace. This point
isn't in contrast to sexual
harassment laws, but employers
who may put these restrictions
on their employees. This is
mostly done to avoid any fault
of the employer for any potential
non-consensual sex. Catherine
MacKinnon, who has done much
groundbreaking work on sexual
harassment and sexual harassment
laws--has never implied that
all sex was sexual harassment.
To the contrary, she has made
very clear that for "it" to
be sexual harassment it must
be "unwelcome" and "repeated."
In a nutshell--I think Toobin
makes some historical points,
but he sacrifices honesty to
unwarranted controversy. Schultz
is a feminist--(my description,
not hers) and in this instance
is being used to make other
feminists -- i.e. MacKinnon
-- wrongly look like unrealistic
sex police. (In his defense,
this may be more the editors
than him.) I hope that helps.
—Amy
|
