Speaking of Rape & Deconstruction

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Daniel Davies wrote:
>I'd be the last person to claim any feminist credentials, but I thought
>that the idea that not every "yes" constitutes consent was pretty-well
>established, and certainly predates deconstruction.  Surely the whole idea
>that the defining difference between rape and nonrape is a single,
>definitive act of the woman's will is intrinsically questionable, and not
>by deconstructionists?  I seem to remember Germaine Greer giving a lot of
>interviews which suggested something like "putting the category of rape
>under erasure") Or am I missing something?  (specifically, am I missing
>some sort of rhetorical trap)?

I'm surprised that Flemings didn't block the post....

Anyhow, questioning Yes categorically takes you in the direction of
MacKinnon & Dworkin, which is to say, puritanical moralism.  As for No, I
haven't heard of any feminist who is happy with deconstructing No in the
context of rape.  Yes & No are not symmetrical in feminist thoughts.

Feminists, in any case, aren't interested in "deconstruction of binaries"
_per se_; it's not "binaries" per se that oppress women.  Feminism is a
political theory & project (and as such it seeks to expose the
naturalization of gender and other problems in so far as they block the
emancipation of women & abolition of gender oppression), whereas
deconstruction is not.  Deconstruction can be used by a person of any
political sympathy -- left-wing, right-wing, chicken-wing.

Yoshie