Toward a Feminist Theory of the State

By Catharine A. MacKinnon

★★★★☆

One of the most out-spoken radical feminist authors, her book is very interesting. Taking at its outset the position, that "sexuality is conceived as a far broader social phenomenon, as nothing less than the dynamic of sex as social hierarchy, its pleasure the experience of power in its gendered form" (p. xiii), it seeks to give a systematic account of the origins of female oppression. The first part is a discussion of Marxism, both on its positive accounts and how it must inevitably come into conflict with feminism. Defining feminism as the view "that women have been unjustly unequal to men because of the social meaning of their bodies" (p. 37), it argues that Marxism must inevitably deny the autonomous role of women and their cross-class (!) issues, which is the crux of the opposition she makes. A lot of her critiques of Marxism are correct, yet she does not really discus a crucial gap: accounting for the special role women have played in the working class, often as the most exploited sector of it, especially globally - which is a major gap, in my view.

In the second part of her book ("Method"), she lays the foundation of feminist analysis and the role of consciousness-raising among feminist work in highlighting the sexism women face. In the third part ("The State") she discusses the role of the state and law in the opression of women, as woman - she especially has a great discussion of rape, where its legal definition only encapsulates all violence that is abnormal in normal sexual encounter. She also has a great discussion on achieving sex equality, which cannot be based on simply creating superficial equality between women and men (i.e. equal rights), but also not simply relying on enshrining biological differences as means of 'protection' for women (the pitfalls one sees today quite strongly).
I found it ultimately a very convincing book, and it has a lot of good discussion points, however I disagree with her in the first part, where she says ultimately both ideas are counter-posed; and I think it limits a lot of potential productive dialogue that could have happened afterwards. Nonetheless, it is a very useful book and especially on the legal aspects, where she is an expert on.