Thanks to MC12 for the following:

MacKinnon runs from implications of her own analysis

In the New Yorker of 9 Feb. 1998, Jeffrey Toobin wrote:

"In her book [on sexual harassment] and in her subsequent work, including her writings on pornography, MacKinnon portrays men and women in a constant state of war -- a war that the men are winning. MacKinnon has long argued that in a patriarchal society, the notion of consent has no real meaning for women. The real question, as she put it in her book, is 'whether women have a chance, structurally speaking and as a normal matter, even to consider whether they want to have sex or not.' In the light of the argument of her book, MacKinnon's question is clearly rhetorical. But her implication is clear: consent is a myth; all sex is harassment."

In the New Yorker of 23 Feb. 1998, MacKinnon replied:

"All sex is not sexual harassment. Nothing in my work implies that it is. Jeffrey Toobin's statements to the contrary are lies. The law of sexual harassment at work requires (among other things) that sex be ITAL unwelcome END, a requirement repeatedly in my 1979 book, 'Sexual Harassment of Working Women,' and legally established by the Supreme Court in the case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Sinson, in 1986, on which I was co-counsel. Surely we have had enough lies of this subject."

MIM Comrade (MC45) adds: This is the same old shit we've pointed out about her before, not a new revelation of her hypocrisy. She's always said one thing in theory and the opposite in court (since obviously she's not going to win any lawsuits talking about how consent is impossible and so all interaction is harassment) which is the whole problem with eliminating oppression through the courts. You will find as much contradiction as is in the below quote just in Feminism Unmodified.