english/ please revise
posted by Christi .
I found MacKinnon's "Sexuality" essay interesting, she argues that women's sexuality is socially constructed by male dominance and that women's subordination result from the sexual dominance of women by men. MacKinnon explains that because men's sexual desires toward women are aggressive and erotic, this can lead to distorted views of women's sexuality and their expected sexual behavior which can then lead to violent male domination over women. Thus, she gives the examples of rape and pornography and how they represent a type of oppression towards women. She states "submission erocticized defines femininity". Meaning all men are aggressive dominator that use women as a submissive victim and that all sex is a form of dominance. Basically male sexuality is sexuality defined for women. Although I enjoyed this essay, I could not stop my self from feeling guilty, thus in a way Mackinnon claims that all type of sexual intercourse or penetration is oppressive to women. Does this mean that by having sex and enjoying it I will be engaging in women's oppression? Though I do understand that an truly agree with MacKinnon that only when women manage to free themselves from this discrimination are we able to develop and build ourselves individually.
Thank you for using the Jiskha Homework Help Forum. You do not have to agree with the author, certainly. There are some grammar errors you might like to address. In the meantime, here are some sites on the work:
3. (free femininism essays): http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=feminism&page=2
As for grammar:
1. line 2 = result = subordination results
2. line 8 = dominator = dominators (subject is plural)
3. use women as submissive victims (not a submissive victim)
4. line 10 = my self = myself (one word)
5. line 13 = an = and truly, etc.
6. the last sentence is incomplete and you need to finish the thought
Now, when you ask us to revise, do you mean anything else? What was the "prompt" exactly? You are certainly entitled to give your own opinion. As for the question you ask, it could well be rhetorical!
I am not going to deal with the English or grammar.
I haven't read MacKinnon's work, but
I do know that any argument that uses "all" or "none" — especially in a psychological or sociological framework — is very likely to be flawed. Are the "all" statements her words or your words? Do you believe "all men are alike"?
People tend to sort others into ingroups ("us") and outgroups ("them"). This sorting varies from person and can change according to situations and mood. At the extremes, you can include all humans as "us" or — like a person with severe paranoia — nobody.
Even though there are variations within both categories, people are more likely to make finer disinctions with ingroup members but ignore these distinctions with outgroup members. How do you think MacKinnon is responding?
Another argument you might consider is that women have a major influence in socializing their children, both boys and girls. Do you think that they might not be taking advantage of this ability — especially in raising their sons?
I hope this helps a little more. Thanks for asking.