Sexual Assault and Identity Revised, Part 1: A Tale of Two (C/K)atherines

I want begin with a trigger warning. I recount graphic jokes involving sexual assault and rape, and I will dissect these in relation to their unintentional contribution to a discussion on how people subvert parts of their identities to better help communities they are part of, and some structural fixes to help survivors of sexual assault.

I pass no judgement about the experiences of those discussed in this piece; they were all put into an impossible situation and did what they thought was best at the time, and I cannot fathom what I would do in that situation.

This analysis will be split into two posts. The first post will go over the comedic piece and why the piece pairs nicely with Catherine MacKinnon’s theory of dominance feminism. The second post will look separately at the three events Katherine Ryan describes in her stand-up special It will also show that deciding whether or not to report sexual assault often involves multiple parts of a person’s identities, and a difficult decision to prioritize one or more over others.

Recently, to blow off some steam, I was recently watching Kathrine Ryan’s 2015 stand-up special. She is a white woman, born in Canada, who now resides as a single-mother in the United Kingdom. I have been struggling with a joke I heard on the special that went:

But on a serious note, a lot of women who were allegedly assaulted by Mr. Cosby were strong, power beautiful black women like me. And when asked, ‘Why didn’t you say anything?’ Ha! In addition to the many reasons why victims don’t come forward, these women were, like, ‘Hang on a minute. Look at the times.’ Because it didn’t happen today. Though it still happens today. Free Kesha. They were, like, ‘it happened a very long time ago,’ when these were struggling, young black actresses in America, and Mr. Cosby, a black man in the ‘80s there, was dominating television. They said, ‘I didn’t really feel like it was in my greater interest to bring that man down.’ And I have to tell you, on some level, as a female comedian, I kind of get that. Tina Fey could be raping me now, and I would tell no one. Amy Schumer could be wearing me like a watch, and I would just be like thank you for everything that you do for women in our industry.

While the jokes themselves are extremely crass and many would take offense at them, they accidentally stumble into a weird analysis of intersectional feminism and subverting identities that seem to address three completely different experiences of sexual assault.

Katherine Ryan accidentally stumbled into a Catherine MacKinnon feminist critique. Catherine MacKinnon idea of feminism has been labeled dominance or radical feminism. This strand of feminism stresses that the differences between men and women has become institutionalized in our government, laws, and even our thoughts. Further this difference gives men the dominant position in society and subordinates the women.

People even start to rationalize these differences, which gives the impression that the differences occur naturally. That in turn just reinforces people’s beliefs of why these difference should be codified or institutionalized.

So, what does Catherine MacKinnon dominance feminism have to do with Katherine Ryan’s stand up? Catherine MacKinnon describes sexual assault and rape as forms of discrimination on the basis of sex. MacKinnon believes that any time a man has sexual contact with a woman, even when it is consensual, he is exerting his sex over the women. MacKinnon states that the power dynamic between the two does not allow the woman to give full consent. This is especially heightened, however, when the woman declines sexual contact, but it is forced upon her. Therefore, MacKinnon believes, that any time there is unwanted sexual contact in the form of sexual assault or rape, this contact is a form of sex discrimination, and she believes that courts and legislatures should treat it as such.

This means, that in the three situations Katherine Ryan describes, two are forms of discrimination on the basis of sex.

In the first scenario, when Bill Cosby assaulted those two women, he was asserting himself over them, and was saying that he, as a male, was entitled to them as women, because they are worth less than them. He asserted what he perceived as his dominant position in society over their subordinate position. Catherine MacKinnon would qualify this as a form of sex discrimination.

In the third scenario, when Dr. Luke assaulted and tormented Kesha, he was also asserting himself over Kesha. Dr. Luke also saying that he, as a male, was entitled to do whatever he pleased to Kesha, because she, as a woman, is worth less than he is. He asserted what he perceived as his dominant position in society over her subordinate position. Catherine MacKinnon would also classify this as a form of sex discrimination.

However, the second scenario runs into a snag. When two women are committing sexual violence against another woman, how can they be asserting their dominance over her via their sex as women?

MacKinnon is familiar with this critique. She has often been accused of articulating a feminist vision that is heteronormative with her feminism. This depiction of sexual force does not explain why men assault other men, nor why women assault other women.

But I do agree with MacKinnon that heterosexual sexual assault is a form of dominance of the male sex over the female sex.