Manliness, Part III: Paradox

Thanks to Bridget for calling our attention to this curious story involving female political candidates challenging the manliness of their male adversaries; the story also includes male candidates ascribing feminine vices to their female candidates.  Both phenomena are interesting, but in different ways.  I want, mostly for idiosyncratic reasons, to focus on the first.  To that end, here’s a taste of what I think are the most poignant parts from the news story:

*Sharron Angle, the “ever-grinning, grandmotherly GOP Senate candidate” from Nevada told Harry Reid, the incumbent and Senate majority leader, to “[m]an up,” as she “pushed the Senate majority leader to discuss Social Security’s solvency.”

*Sarah Palin told Fox News in August that President Obama didn’t have the “cojones” to get tough on illegal immigration.

*And Christine O’Donnell publicly stated that her primary opponent should “put his man pants on.”

As evinced by their grammar of masculinity, these statements suggest that politics is still considered to be the province of men.  Yet, there’s a wrinkle in that reading, right?  For the female candidates are questioning the manliness of their male competitors and, thus, indirectly conscripting that manliness for themselves (for example, when Angle says that Reid should “man up,” she is implying that she has “manned up” and thus deserves your vote).

This raises a couple of issues.  First, is the grammar of masculinity capacious enough to accommodate the voices of women?  (in the eyes of Angle, Palin and O’Donnell, it obviously is).  Second, is such accommodation by men (or conscription by women) a good thing for women?

But the issue that most concerns me, again, for idiosyncratic reasons, is what becomes of manliness as an ontology under such circumstances where the women, in a most manly fashion, dish out accusations of feebleness or cowardice–feminine vices–against men?  Is it even manliness if a man decides to “man up” because a woman, and thus someone who formally lacks manliness, accused him of being a gender failure?  Wouldn’t such “manning up” only go to prove that the woman accuser possessed the manly authority to judge and impel the desired behavior in a man?  Far from the man showing that he has manned up, wouldn’t he, in essence, concede that the woman who forcefully compelled his actions was the one who actually manned up by judging his worth as a man and causing him to “man up”?

Or, is the opposite true?  That, if a woman accuses a man of being unmanly, the judgment is all the more scathing, precisely because a woman formally lacks manly authority?

Or, are both lines of questions true?

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Masculinity | Leave a comment

The Sisterhood on “Mad Men”

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Gina Barreca weighs in on the Women of AMC’s “Mad Men,” here. Comments Ms. Barreca,

Sisterhood, smisterhood. You know what’s really powerful? Women laughing together. Really laughing. Truth-laughing. Even when it’s all not politically or sentimentally perfect. Even when it’s down at the expense of another woman. Or–even better– at the expense of the women themselves. It’s most especially glorious when it’s done at the expense of the sort of weirdly conventional absurdities that remain unrecognized as the bizarre things they actually are, when women laugh their asses off because they simply cannot believe what’s happened. It’s something you’ve almost never seen on television; even in movies, you only get a glimpse here and there. But in last night’s Mad Men season finale, they got it right: the writers, the actors, the direction—even the blocking in the scene—were perfect.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and the Arts | 1 Comment

Are Women “Persons”?

It’s the anniversary of the “Persons Case.”

If you are not a Canadian feminist legal scholar, you can learn more.

-Ruthann Robson

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminist Legal History, Firsts | 1 Comment

The Gender Gap and the 2010 Elections: Women are less enthusiastic about voting?

According to Gallup editor Frank Newport:

I looked at the 8,700+ interviews conducted with registered voters in the month of September. I found that 41% of men were very enthusiastic about voting in the midterm elections, compared with 28% of women. That’s a 13-percentage-point gender gap. This actually represents a modest increase of enthusiasm among men compared with June, when we measured 36% male enthusiasm. Women have stayed virtually the same across time, 27% very enthusiastic then, 28% now. Thus, the gender gap has enlarged modestly.

The enthusiasm gap is particularly large among Republicans. Keep in mind that Republicans of most races, creeds, and ages are more enthusiastic than their counterparts who are Democrats. And keep in mind that enthusiasm among all Republicans has risen since June.

But Republican males are particularly more enthusiastic compared to Republican females. At this point in time (that is, September 2010) 56% of male Republicans are very enthusiastic about voting in the midterm elections, contrasted with 41% of female Republicans.

Compare that to the tepid levels of enthusiasm among Democrats in September. Here are the numbers: 32% enthusiasm among male Democrats, 25% among female Democrats. The gender gap is still there among Democrats, but more subdued than among the highly charged up Republicans. (There is a six-point gap among independents.)

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics | 2 Comments

Man Up, Woman Down? Masculinity, Femininity and the 2010 Elections

From the LA Times, “It’s a Strange Year for Gender in Politics,” by Kathleen Hennessey of the Tribune Washington Bureau:

In one of the stranger moments in the Nevada Senate debate Thursday, Sharron Angle, the ever-grinning, grandmotherly GOP Senate candidate, fired off the retort of the night.

“Man up, Harry Reid,” the 61-year-old said, dropping the smile as she pushed the Senate majority leader to discuss Social Security’s solvency.

Angle’s zinger stood out for its unexpected near-hipness. But in the current political climate, the fact that it was loaded with sexual stereotypes seemed hardly to register as controversial.

The 2010 election cycle may be remembered for a jarring shift in the political dialogue between the sexes, a moment when polite sensitivities were shelved and bold gender-based power plays became the norm.

The trend is clearest among a new class of conservative women — the “mama grizzlies” who pride themselves on a strong and irreverent post-feminist posture and frank rhetoric. Their leader, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, set the tone when she told Fox News Channel in August that President Obama didn’t have the “cojones” to get tough on illegal immigration.

About a month later, Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell told a radio interviewer that her primary opponent should “put his man pants on.”  * * *

The trend isn’t exclusive to conservative women. Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan also told Republican Rep. Roy Blunt to “man up” in their Senate debate Thursday. * * * The boldly direct approach seems to suggest a double standard. It is hard to imagine a male candidate telling a female opponent to be more ladylike without facing repercussions. In fact, the candidates who have recently been accused of sexism were men.

In Colorado, Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck was widely criticized for telling voters to support him because, unlike primary opponent Jane Norton, “I do not wear high heels.” In California, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown apologized to Republican Meg Whitman after an aide was recorded calling Whitman a “whore.”

But in the Colorado Senate race, Buck was not the first to strike on gender terms. In a July ad, Norton assailed attack ads against her. “They’re paid for by a shady interest group doing the bidding of Ken Buck. You’d think Ken would be man enough to do it himself,” she said. * * *

Implicit remarks are no less effective. It was Margaret Thatcher, a hero of Palin’s, who, when sensing that President George H.W. Bush was wavering on the Gulf War, reportedly warned, “Don’t go wobbly on us, George.”

The full story is here.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics | 1 Comment

Louisiana Appellate Court Rules In Favor of Tulane On Issue Of Closing Women’s College

A Louisiana Appeals Court has upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Tulane University, which closed legendary Sophie Newcomb College after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The litigation was filed by the descendant of Newcomb’s founder, Josephine Newcomb, who donated money to establish the school in memory of her deceased daughter Sophie and desired that the school be kept open forever. The lower court held, however, that Mrs. Newcomb’s grants of money to the school did not in fact include such a condition.  The plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal.

Newcomb College is famed for its courses of study, which during the early part of the twentieth century produced among other the young women artists who created the famed Newcomb Pottery. Some pieces sell in the thousands of dollars. Read more about Newcomb College, its work, and its legacy here.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia | 2 Comments

50 Best Blogs for Women’s Rights

From the “Our Degrees” blog, this list of the 50 best blogs for following women’s rights:

  1. Feministing
  2. Women’s Rights at Change.org
  3. The Women’s Media Center Blog
  4. Sociological Images
  5. DCTC
  6. We Are The Real Deal
  7. Sadie Magazine Blog
  8. Name It. Change It.
  9. Stop Street Harassment
  10. The F-Word Blog
  11. Feministe
  12. Gender Across Borders
  13. My Fault, I’m Female
  14. BUST
  15. FWD/Forward
  16. Feminist Philosophers
  17. Womanist Musings
  18. Muslimah Media Watch
  19. Our Bodies, Our Blog
  20. Ms. Magazine Blog
  21. What About Our Daughters
  22. AAUW Dialog
  23. XX Factor
  24. Women & Hollywood
  25. Viva la Feminista
  26. Yes Means Yes!
  27. The Crunk Feminist Collective
  28. Questioning Transphobia
  29. Repossess Reproductive Justice
  30. Women and Prison
  31. Reappropriate
  32. Nancy Gruver’s Blog at Daughters.com
  33. Feminists For Choice
  34. Body Impolitic
  35. Change Happens: The SAFER Blog
  36. Say It Sister!
  37. Young Feminists
  38. Happy Bodies
  39. National Sexual Violence Resource Center Blogs
  40. Women’s Glib
  41. ECHIDNE of the snakes
  42. Women’s Refugee Commission
  43. Akimbo
  44. Hollaback!
  45. Girldrive
  46. Operation Beautiful
  47. where is your line?
  48. TransGriot
  49. amplify
  50. The Human Trafficking Project

The post (here) includes descriptions of these blogs.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminist Blogs Of Interest | 1 Comment

Calling All Bloggers

The blog Girl With Pen is seeking assistance. See the job posting below.

It’s been a little quite round here this summer.  But we’re coming back in blazes come fall.  And speaking of:

Author and Founding Partner of She Writes Deborah Siegel (aka, me!) seeks a webmaster for the group blog Girl w/Pen (www.girlwpen.com) to begin in Fall 2010.  Ideal candidate is organized, self-motivated, tech savvy, and familiar with WordPress; has a strong work ethic; and is excited about feminism and media.  At present, the position is unpaid. This is a unique opportunity for a grad student or recent college grad to gain web/communication/organizational skills and work experience at the intersection of academia and the blogosphere at a highly visible feminist blog.

Webmaster duties entail:

  • dealing with any tech issues that come up for GWP’s crew of 10-ish regular monthly bloggers
  • adding new books by GWP’s bloggers to the sidebar and the “Our Books” page
  • serving as a point person for GWP bloggers for anything else that comes up
  • recruiting a new regular blogger or two here and there when current bloggers rotate out; setting up said new blogger with a bio page and showing them the ropes
  • responding to reader queries that come in through the “contact” form (the majority of which are either requests to be included on GWP’s blogroll, or press releases)
  • updating GWP’s blogroll
  • forwarding relevant press releases to the relevant GWP blogger
  • letting an author or organization know when her/his book or study has been mentioned or reviewed and sending her/him the link to the post
  • tweeting links to posts, posting on FB, Digg, other relevant social media and social bookmarking sites

Candidates will be interviewed by phone. Please send resume and contact info for 2 references to deborah@shewrites.com

(If you know someone who might be the right person for the job, please forward this post!)

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminism and the Arts, Feminist Blogs Of Interest | Leave a comment

Employment Discrimination Alleged Against Ruth’s Chris Steak House

Three women have filed suit against Ruth’s Chris Steak House, alleging gender discrimination.  A copy of the complaint is here.  This excerpt from the complaint provides a sense of the alleged atmosphere at the place of employment:

H/T Ralph Stein

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Employment Discrimination | 1 Comment

Rape is Violence, not “Buyer’s Remorse”

Over at Politics Daily, correspondent Sandra Fish details the controversy surrounding Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck:

[Buck], the Weld County [Colorado]district attorney, is facing criticism from a liberal group for not prosecuting an acquaintance-rape complaint five years ago, when he told The Greeley Tribune that a jury might conclude that “this is a case of buyer’s remorse.” * * *

The Colorado Independent reported the case Monday in the first of three parts. On Tuesday, the progressive online news site published a transcript of a call the accuser made to the man allegedly involved at the request of police. In that recorded call, the man acknowledged the couple hadn’t had consensual sex, according to the transcript obtained by the site. The Colorado Independent also said it interviewed the woman.

The 2005 case involved a then-21-year-old Greeley college student who invited a former boyfriend to her apartment. She was drunk, and the man allegedly ended up having sex with her as she passed in and out of consciousness, telling him “no” several times, according to the Colorado Independent and police reports. In the telephone transcript released Tuesday, the man acknowledged those circumstances when questioned by the woman.

The transcript of the recorded call is here.  The most stunning part?  This exchange:

Her:  I’m just really frustrated and I’m really hurt and …

Him: I know.  Like, I, I, I know, like I feel, I feel awful, I really do.  * * *

Her: I mean do you realize that … it’s rape.

Him: Yeah, I do.

Buyer’s remorse?  No.  An admission of a crime.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Feminism and Politics | 3 Comments

Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison to Keynote UB Feminism Conference

CALL FOR PAPERS — KEYNOTE SPEAKER TONI MORRISON

The University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center on Applied Feminism seeks submissions for its Fourth Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference. This year’s theme is “Applying Feminism Globally.” We are thrilled to announce that Nobel Laureate and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Toni Morrison is this year’s keynote speaker. The conference date has changed from the prior Call for Papers; please see below. For more information about the conference, please visit law.ubalt.edu/caf.

This conference seeks to explore how feminist legal theory operates in a global and international context. The theme raises a variety of questions: How has feminist legal theory affected the lives of women across the globe? How could feminist legal theory improve women’s lives in a global context? How does feminist legal theory differ across cultures within and outside the United States? What do comparative perspectives teach us about feminist legal theory? How could feminist legal theory from outside of the United States benefit American women and feminist scholarship? How do anti-essentialist perspectives on feminist legal theory apply in an international context? How do post-colonial perspectives on feminist legal theory apply in a domestic context? What can feminist legal theory contribute to the debate over universal vs. cultural specific norms and objectives? Is feminism still ambivalent about many areas of international law? What, if any, role has feminism played in the empowerment of women in international law-making? Can feminist legal theory improve our understanding of challenges facing immigrants within our own borders? What does feminist legal theory offer for indigenous peoples? How are human rights norms compatible with feminist legal theory?
This conference will attempt to address these and other questions from the perspectives of activists, practitioners, and academics. The conference will provide an opportunity for participants and audience members to exchange ideas about the current state of feminist legal theories and how those theories are being and can be actualized on behalf of women in a global context. By expanding the boundaries of our exploration, we hope to deepen our understandings of feminist legal theory and to move new insights into practice. In addition, the conference is designed to provide presenters with the opportunity to gain extensive feedback on their papers.

The conference will begin the afternoon of Wednesday, March 30, 2011, with a workshop for conference participants. This workshop will continue the annual tradition of involving all attendees to be participants in an interactive discussion and reflection. The workshop will be approximately two hours in length. On Wednesday evening at 8:00 p.m., Toni Morrison will be delivering the keynote address for the conference.

On Thursday, March 31, 2011, the conference will continue with a day of presentations by legal academics, practitioners and activists regarding current scholarship and/or legal work that explores the application of feminist legal theory in a global context. The conference will be open to the public.
To submit a paper proposal, please submit an abstract by 5 p.m. on October 29, 2010 to Professor Michele Gilman at mgilman@ubalt.edu. In the subject or “re” line of your submission, you must type: CAF conference submission. It is essential that your submission contain your full contact information, including an email, phone number, and mailing address where you can be reached. Abstracts should be no longer than one page. Practitioners’ and activists’ papers need not follow a strictly academic format, but all paper proposals should address the conference theme. We will notify presenters of selected papers in mid-November. We anticipate being able to have twelve paper presenters during the conference on Thursday, March 31, 2011. All working drafts of papers will be due no later than March 10, 2011. All abstracts and drafts will be posted on the Center on Applied Feminism’s conference website to be shared with other participants and attendees.
In addition, the University of Baltimore Law Review has agreed to offer publication to a few of the selected papers presented at the conference for an issue dedicated to the conference proceedings. If you are interested in submitting your abstract for consideration by the UB Law Review, please indicate as such on your abstract submission. To be eligible for publication in the UB Law Review, submissions must not be published elsewhere. Typically, the UB Law Review publishes pieces ranging from 25 to 45 pages in length, using 12 point times new roman font and one inch margins. One volume of the Law Review is dedicated to papers from this annual symposium.
Finally, please note that a limited amount of money may be available to presenters for travel expenses. We look forward to your submissions. If you have further questions, please contact Prof. Michele Gilman at mgilman@ubalt.edu.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia | 1 Comment

If You Want to Work for the History Channel, You Need to Be An Historian With a Penis!

Historiann has the details about a History Channel solicitation letter that states:

We’re open to many physical-types for the host position, but we’re focusing on finding more of a rugged, rough, and smart type. Think Survivor’s Jeff Probst or Dirty Jobs’ Mike Rowe, but with a background in American history.

Here’s a description of our ideal host:

Male, mid 30s – mid 40’s, blue collar intelligent with the right mix of humor and gravitas. Needs to be quick on his feet and have the ability to give game instructions, interact with contestants, and ladle out historical fact. Rugged but approachable and knowledgeable.

–Ann Bartow

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Employment Discrimination, Feminism and the Workplace, The Overrepresentation of Men | 1 Comment

More Hazing Accusations Against Sigma Gamma Rho

This time, in California.  Here’s what the NY Times reports:

In the San Jose State case . . . a former student at the university, charged in a civil lawsuit, filed Aug. 31, that over a three-week period in 2008 she was subjected to progressively more violent hazing from Sigma Gamma Rho members.  [The plaintiff] claims in her suit that they beat her and other pledges with wooden paddles, slapped them with wooden spoons, shoved them against the wall, and threatened that “snitches get stitches.”

“One of the girls who was a big sister told me it was supposed to be so you can feel what your ancestors went through in slavery, so you will respect what you came from,” Ms. Howard said.

In 2008, San Jose State suspended the sorority chapter until 2016. Four of the sorority members have pleaded no contest to misdemeanor hazing charges, and been sentenced to 90 days in county jail, two years of probation and barred from any further involvement in the sorority.

Ms. Howard’s civil suit charges that the university and the sorority were negligent in investigating and responding to her accusations of hazing.

See the NYT full coverage here.  The Root covers the story here.

Wake up, national office.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia, Acts of Violence | 1 Comment

Accomplices in Hatred, Allies in Hope

I attended high school from 1984-1987 in suburban New York. I confronted daily harassment between each period, each class. An innumerable group of male students would yell “faggot” and other insults so loud that I could not hold conversations. I was beaten twice, and spat on once. Each incident resulted from my challenging an attempt to humiliate me.

In college, I was the first openly gay male columnist at the school paper. My first column talked about sharing a dorm elevator with a popular fraternity brother who I knew was gay and his “girlfriend.” I named no names, of course. Many classmates supported me, but I became the target of intense homophobic hatred, including several death threats from groups of men. Several sources reported to me that a blown-up photograph of me was used as a dartboard in one of the more popular fraternities.

These incidents marked me in a way that I think may be hard for straight people, and even gay people who came out later, to understand. Perhaps I’m not beset by post-traumatic stress syndrome, but what I survived certainly rose to a level of torment that would have pushed many a teen over the brink toward suicide.

Not that I didn’t think of it, but fortunately I came out to my parents early, when I was 14, and their support meant that it would never have crossed my mind to care more about the vicious hatred I faced in school than about the love and support I got from my parents, teachers and friends.

So I have more than a few reactions to the death of Tyler Clementi.

One: Anger

I am angry. Still. Of course I’m angry at the people who did this to me, but more than that, I’m angry at the high school I went to for allowing all of this to occur to me and never expelling the people who committed the atrocities. The first time I was beaten, I didn’t report it because a friend told me I’d be viewed as a tattle-tale and that I would not be liked. It was two weeks into my new high school. The second time, I did report it and the boy was suspended for one day. I still have a scar under my chin from when he drop kicked me, leading me to fall to the floor, lose consciousness and rise to ask who had done this to me. The witnesses were all silent expect one.

For Tyler, the two individuals who arranged to film him were most responsible, but any of the individuals on their Twitter feed could have protested this cruelty. They did not, and thus were complicit in his torment.

Two: Dismissiveness

I hear many straight people express outrage at what happened to Tyler. I’m thrilled to finally hear people express shock and object to homophobia. It’s great that they make their “ally” status official. Being a true ally requires some difficult reflection about the many ways in which hatred spreads. Hearing someone demeaned for being a “faggot” or a “dyke” turns everyone in earshot into one who hurts (including by silence) or helps the victim. Resistance to homophobia and sexist gender stereotypes is what is needed. Support is what is needed. Some “tolerant” people lament homophobia to a victim but didn’t object when the harassment was taking place in public. They were complicit in the harassment and need to own what they failed to do to stop it.

Three: Schadenfreude

A few years ago, my closest friend from high school wrote me to let me know that the boy who had tormented us the most was arrested for a triple murder. At last this vicious man was known the world as such. At last someone would make him pay for his evildoings.

Thinking about Tyler Clementi, I don’t think the kids that videotaped him had any more intent to inflict harm than those who tormented me. They’re kids who are full of insecurity and use hatred to deflect it. Even though I do not think they committed murder, I hope they will pay some price. Maybe when the state starts protecting lesbian and gay people instead of encouraging their subjugation this will finally telegraph to other families with teenage kids that they must teach their children to refrain from such conduct.

Four: Hope

Today, thanks to the very internet that served as a means for Tyler’s harassers to torment him, Tyler was able to connect with other gay youth and college students. He must have felt very alone, indeed, to commit suicide, but resources have become vastly more available than when I was a teenager. At last, more than just LGBT academics and a few activists are raising the need for more active statements of support for free expression of one’s sexual and gender identity. As I think is often the case (witness the Boies/Olsen Perry v. Schwarzenegger case), straight people making LGBT rights arguments may seem more persuasive because they appear to not be directly benefiting from the argument, and therefore come across as more objective. If it takes straight people to direct attention to the epidemic of teenage LGBT homophobia and suicide, it’s welcome attention. Let’s make it clear to each other and to students in schools across the country that Tyler’s death and the hateful behavior that led to it are unacceptable.

-Darren Rosenblum

(cross-post from the Huffington Post)

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, LGBT Rights, Primary and Secondary Education | 1 Comment

Manliness, Part II: What Is Courage?

As Bridget pointed out, in the news recently, we have seen a terrible episode involving young, presumably heterosexual, men who tortured gay men in the Bronx.  It is an appalling example of hypermasculinity where violent cruelty is its own reward.  Mayor Bloomberg aptly observed:  “What kind of twisted logic spurs a large group of men to show off their toughness by ganging up on helpless individuals? That’s not showing you’re tough, that’s just showing that you’re weak and despicable.”

I think that any morally responsible person, like Mayor Bloomberg, will reflexively condemn the hate-driven violence as intolerable and worthy of punishment; like the mayor, any moral person will denounce the crime as “despicable.”

However, there is another issue raised by the mayor which is less straightforward:  the role of courage (and cowardice) in the ontology of manliness. As I will suggest, there is a relationship between the two that is both paradoxical and parasitic.

As a matter of convention, men are required to be courageous.  So tangled is the relationship between manliness and courage that the two words derive from the same etymological root in some languages.  In Greek, andros means adult man and andreia means courage;  in English, vir is the stem for manliness (as in virility) and virtu doesn’t exactly mean “virtue” with its undertone of Christianity, but connotes the pre-Christian, ancient idea of strength and manliness.  (In a less academic context, I have winced when avowedly left-leaning male law professors have congratulated female colleagues for having the “balls” to stand up for some idea or position; the compliment is both an homage to the female colleagues as persons as well as an expression of oblique contempt for the stereotypical cravenness of women).

But courage isn’t something that one has or doesn’t have.  To wit:  Acts that appear to be outwardly courageous are often impelled by a dreadful fear, and thus, a cowardice all its own.  Here’s the great novelist Tim O’Brien recounting why he did not flee the draft during the Vietnam War:  “I feared the war, yes, but I also feared exile. I was afraid of walking away from my own life, my friends and my family, my whole history, everything that mattered to me. I feared losing the respect of my parents. I feared the law. I feared ridicule and censure.”  In sum, he concludes:  “Family, the home town, friends, history, tradition, fear, confusion, exile: I could not run. . . . I was a coward.”

After basic training, expectations for manly “courage” endured.  O’Brien says of his battalion’s soldiers that “[t]hey carried the soldier’s greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to. . . . They died so as not to die of embarrassment.”

Under such circumstances, which are easily reproduced in bars and school yards across the United States, and, yes, neighborhoods in the Bronx, men, usually young men, do things that are dangerous and thus presumptively courageous but because they are afraid of seeming a coward.  But what of the paradox?–Are you behaving courageously, and hence acting like a man, or are you overwhelmed by fear, and thus engulfed by the feminine vice of cowardice? Stated differently, where does the fear of being afraid fit in the ontology of manliness? (Douglas Galbi has suggested that men have acquired this fear of being afraid–what passes for courage–through the forces of evolution.)

For those interested, I explore these themes in The Burdens of Manliness.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Masculinity | 1 Comment

“Survivors Speak: Essential Leadership in Combating Demand for Sex Trafficking and Commercial Sex”

Watch here.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Coerced Sex, Sex Trafficking | Leave a comment

Rather Perplexing “Professional Development” Story

Attendance is not something that should have been required, anyway. And of course female attorneys were excluded.

–Ann Bartow

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Legal Profession, Masculinity | Leave a comment

How to React to Violence and Intolerance?

Xavier Le Pichon writes in Ecce Homo of the 6th century B.C.E., an era that gave rise to Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius and the Second Isaiah:

As humans increased their capacity of transformation of the world and consequently increased their power, they also increased the abuses they made of this power through unjustified violence. But these massive abuses pushed some of the members of the societies to act as “prophets” of the human dignity who react to violence and intolerance by increased benevolence, tolerance, respect and love for the weakest and most suffering members. Everything happened as if these surges in violence were actually “forcing” humans to discover ever more the nature of their eminent dignity. These extraordinary “inspired” men had an enormous influence on the evolution of human culture. Humanity had been constructed by the daily struggles of men and women confronted to their own fragility and vulnerability. Among them, there must have been myriads of people who acted as innovators but history has not kept trace of them. With these prophets, men appeared who had an immense influence on their contemporaries as well as generations to come and who permanently affected the human culture through the growth of our common human heritage. This new phenomenon asks in a new way the question of the nature of the “inspiration”, the personal capacity by humans to transcend their confrontation with suffering and death within a personal unique experience.

In the wake of the news of the horrific torture inflicted by a gang of teenagers on three gay men (see here), I find Professor Le Pichon’s words difficult to understand.  ”React to violence and intolerance by increased benevolence, tolerance, respect and love for the weakest and most suffering members”?  Professor Le Pichon has so much more faith than I do.

I have met few prophets.

But to advocate for human dignity is within the grasp of each of us as lawyers and law teachers.  What does that mean, and can it ever be enough?  Would any “advocacy” have stopped what happened in that abandoned Bronx house?  Hatred is a powerful force that strips both haters and the hated of their humanity.  No more hate.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence | 1 Comment

Horrific Bias Crime in NY

From today’s New York Times:

He was told there was a party at a brick house on Osborne Place, a quiet block set on a steep hill in the Bronx. He showed up last Sunday night as instructed, with plenty of cans of malt liquor. What he walked into was not a party at all, but a night of torture — he was sodomized, burned and whipped.

All punishment, the police said Friday, for being gay.

There were nine attackers, ranging from 16 to 23 years old and calling themselves the Latin King Goonies, the police said. Before setting upon their 30-year-old victim, they had snatched up two teenage boys whom they beat, the police said — until the boys — one of whom was sodomized with a plunger — admitted to having had sex with the man.

The attackers forced the man to strip to his underwear and tied him to a chair, the police said. One of the teenage victims was still there, and the “Goonies” ordered him to attack the man. The teenager hit him in the face and burned him with a cigarette on his nipple and penis as the others jeered and shouted gay slurs, the police said. Then the attackers whipped the man with a chain and sodomized him with a small baseball bat.

The beatings and robberies went on for hours. They were followed by a remarkably thorough attempt to sanitize the house — including pouring bleach down drains, the police said, as little by little word of the attacks trickled to the police. A crucial clue to the attackers was provided by someone who slipped a note to a police officer outside the crime scene, at 1910 Osborne Place in Morris Heights, near Bronx Community College.

Seven suspects were arrested on Thursday and Friday, and two were still being sought in a crime that the leader of the City Council called among the worst hate crimes she had ever heard of. “It makes you sick,” said the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, the city’s highest ranking openly gay official.

The charges included abduction, unlawful imprisonment and sodomy, all as hate crimes.

“These suspects deployed terrible, wolf-pack odds of nine against one, which revealed them as predators whose crimes were as cowardly as they were despicable,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said at a news conference.

* * * The nine suspects — the group seemed not so much part of an established gang as a loose group of friends who adopted a nickname — knew some or all three victims. The idea for the attacks seemed to have been hatched last Saturday, after one member of the group saw the 30-year-old man, who he knew was gay, with a 17-year-old who wanted to join the gang, the police said.

Hours later, at 3:30 a.m. on Sunday, the group grabbed the 17-year-old, took him to the house and slammed him into a wall, the police said.

He was beaten, made to strip naked, slashed with a box cutter, hit on the head with a can of beer and sodomized with the wooden handle of a plunger, the police said. And he was interrogated about the 30-year-old and asked if they had had sex.

The teenager said that they had. The gang members set him loose, warning him to keep quiet or they would hurt his friends and family. The teenager walked into a nearby hospital and said he had been jumped by strangers on the street and robbed.

At 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, the police said, the group members grabbed a second 17-year-old, beating and likewise interrogating him about his contact with the 30-year-old. He, too, said he had had sex with the man. They took his jewelry and held him while the 30-year-old arrived for what he thought was a party, his arms filled with 10 tall cans of Four Loko, a caffeine-infused malt liquor. He had cleaned out a store of its entire stock.

He was immediately set upon and tied up. Then the assailants ordered the second teenager to attack the 30-year-old, and they joined in the beating. The beating lasted hours, the police said. The attackers forced the man to drink all 10 cans of liquor — each about twice the size of a can of beer, with a higher alcohol content, 10 percent to 12 percent, according to Four Loko’s Web site.

While the man was held captive and attacked, five of the Latin King Goonies went to his house, which he shared with his 40-year-old brother. Using a key taken from the 30-year-old to get inside, they found his brother in bed. They pulled a blanket over his head and hit him, demanding money. When he refused, one placed a cellphone to the brother’s ear, and he heard the voice of his younger brother, who said he had been kidnapped and who pleaded, “Give them the money.”

The brother complied. The men took $1,000 in cash, two debit cards and a 52-inch television.

The brother managed to free himself about three hours later, and he called the police, leaving out the fact that his brother was being held. By then it was Monday morning. Detectives went to the brothers’ home and, upon leaving, saw the 30-year-old, passed out on the landing from the alcohol he had consumed. But having no reason to believe he had been a victim of a crime, they did not question him.

Detectives returned later that day, suspicious of how the robbers had entered the brothers’ home without using force, and the 30-year-old told them he had been picked up in a van by strangers and forced to give them his keys and address, the police said.

Officers still had no idea about the first teen who had visited the hospital, because he had not called the police, and hospitals are not required to inform the authorities about assaults, the police said. The man had said he was robbed near 1910 Osborne, and police officers tried to obtain a search warrant for the house but were told they did not have enough cause, the police said.

Late on Tuesday the second teenager walked into a Bronx police station house and gave a version of what had happened, the police said. None of the three victims, in their first interviews with the police, were fully forthcoming, fearing reprisal and wanting to keep their lives a secret. But the second teenager gave an address, and a second request for a search warrant was granted.

On Wednesday morning, officers entered 1910 Osborne Place and found a surprising sight: an immaculate house, with fresh coats of paint and the smell of bleach hanging thick in the air. One detective called the house “the cleanest crime scene I’ve ever seen,” Mr. Kelly said.

“Lots of bleach and paint were used to cover the blood shed by their tortured prey,” he said. “They even poured bleach down the drains.”

Rugs and linoleum had been ripped out. Detectives were able to scrape evidence, including pubic hair and empty liquor cans, from the house, but not much was found, Mr. Kelly said.

The break in the case came later Wednesday when someone in a crowd of onlookers outside the house quietly slipped an officer his phone number and, when a detective called, gave the name of the man believed to be the ringleader of the group of nine: Ildefonzo Mendez, 23. Officers later learned the name of the first victim from the other teenager.

By Wednesday night, all three victims had given full accounts of the attacks, and for the next 36 hours, officers with the Hate Crimes Task Force, the Gang Division and Special Victims squad worked up a list of nine suspects.

Arrests began Thursday. * * * One suspect confessed, a law enforcement official said, others have not given statements.

One suspect was taken to the hospital unconscious Friday night, with an undisclosed medical problem.

The full story is here.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, LGBT Rights | 1 Comment

CFP: “Examining Gender, Social Justice and Sports,” March 17, 2011

From the FLP mailbox, this call for proposals:

6th Annual Audrey-Beth Fitch Women’s Studies Conference: “Leveling the Playing Field: Examining Gender, Social Justice and Sports,” Thursday, March 17th, 2011

On Thursday, March 17th, 2011 the Women’s Studies Program at California University of PA is sponsoring the sixth-annual Audrey-Beth Fitch Women’s Studies Conference. The theme for this year is “Leveling the Playing Field: Examining Gender, Social Justice and Sports.”

This year’s theme invites participants to critically examine issues, actions, cases, policies, and practices that comprise, challenge, and/or arise from the nexus of sports and social justice issues. From Title IX to drug testing, from the Williams sisters to Ben Roethlisberger, from softball to hardball, potential participants will interrogate, investigate, and celebrate women and/in sports.

Submissions are welcomed from diverse disciplines, including women’s/gender studies, social sciences, sports and athletics studies, communication studies, health sciences, economics, business, education, social work, humanities, and professional fields. Papers should relate directly to the theme and each presenter will have 15 – 20 minutes for her/his presentation.

Creative submissions are also welcomed. The conference organizers seek to create an event that informs, raises awareness, and/or motivates all involved to take action for change.

This one day conference features keynote speaker Jessica Mendoza, President of the Women’s Sports Foundation and softball Olympian. Also featured is Professor Deborah L. Brake, author of Getting in the Game: Title IX and the Women’s Sports Revolution (2010) and a nationally recognized expert on gender equality in sports.

All proposals must be in MSWORD format and include 1) a 500 (or fewer) word abstract describing the proposed paper/ presentation; 2) a resume or curriculum vita. Please submit proposals electronically to Dr. Marta McClintock-Comeaux at mcclintock@calu.edu with the subject line “2011 Audrey-Beth Fitch Conference.” The deadline for submissions is December 3, 2010.

Questions? Contact Dr. Marta McClintock-Comeaux at mcclintock@calu.edu with the subject line “2011 Audrey-Beth Fitch Conference.”

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Call for Papers or Participation, Feminism and Sports | 1 Comment

Public Forum Series in London on Gender and Scientific Advances

The University of Cambridge Centre for Gender Studies is holding a three public fora in London on November 2, 2010.  The theme is gender and bio-medical advances of the 21st Century.  Here’s the info:

November 2, 2010: “Making Babies in the 21st Century: The Rise of Reproductive Technologies

Baroness Onora O’Neill (Chair, Nuffield Foundation)

Professor Marcia Inhorn (William K Lanman Jr Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs, Yale University)

Professor Susan Golombok (Director, Centre for Family Research, Cambridge)

Professor Carl Djerassi (Inventor of the modern day contraceptive pill, Emeritus Professor, Stanford University)

November 16, 2010: “Gendered Behaviour: What Can Science Tell Us.”

December 1, 2010: “Transitioning Gender: The Challenges of Radical Technologies.”

Each forum will be held 18.45 – 20.15 in Hall 2, King’s Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG.  Tickets are £9.50, and available online here.

The programs are presented in association with the Guardian and support from Cambridge University Press)

H/T Richard Storrow.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Science, Feminism and Technology, Reproductive Rights, Upcoming Lectures | 1 Comment

Justice Kagan’s First Week at Work

Image source: here.

H/T Joan Shaungnessy

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Courts and the Judiciary | 1 Comment

New Book Announcement: ‘Girls to the Front’ by Sara Marcus

Music and politics writer Sara Marcus has published Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution (Harper Perennial, Paperback, 2010).  Here’s the description from the book’s website:

Riot Grrrl roared into the spotlight in 1991: an uncompromising movement of pissed-off girls with no patience for sexism and no intention of keeping quiet. Young women everywhere were realizing that the equality they’d been promised was still elusive, and a newly resurgent right wing was turning feminism into the ultimate dirty word. In response, thousands of riot grrrls published zines, founded local groups, and organized national conventions, while fiercely prophetic punk bands such as Bratmobile, Heavens to Betsy, Huggy Bear, and Bikini Kill helped spread the word across the US and to Canada, Europe, and beyond.

Girls to the Front, the first-ever history of Riot Grrrl, is a lyrical, punk-infused narrative about a group of extraordinary young women coming of age angrily, collectively, and publicly. A dynamic chronicle not just of a movement but of an era, this is the story of a time when America thought young people were apathetic and feminism was dead, but a generation of noisy girls rose up to prove everybody wrong.

The book may be of interest to scholars of 20th century U.S. history, the history of feminism or music fans.

Author Sara Marcus’s blog can be found here.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminist Blogs Of Interest | 1 Comment

The Role of Feminism in Politics

That was more or less the topic of this conversation earlier in the week on WNYC, the public radio station in New York, between guests Betsy Reed, executive editor of The Nation, and Rebecca Traister, senior writer for Salon.  A digital audio recording of that segment is here.  In the Traister writes a scathing criticism of the Democratic party in the October 18, 2010 edition of the Nation.  Reed isn’t convinced that this is the “GOP Year of the Woman.”  She writes: 

When all is said and done in the 2010 midterms, it’s quite possible, even likely, that the ranks of women in Congress will be depleted by ten or more. Given the Democratic advantage in women legislators, even if a few more Republican women are elected, a bad year for Dems will be a bad year for women, as many Democratic women legislators who arrived in 2006 or 2008—like Arizona’s Gabrielle Giffords, Colorado’s Betsey Markey and Illinois’s Debbie Halvorson—find themselves vulnerable to challenges from Republican men. Such a decline in female representation would be the first in more than thirty years. We may see the faces of some newly elected right-wing female legislators on TV, but moderate and independent women will likely find themselves with an even smaller voice in Washington. The irony is that, in this so-called year of the woman, this result will be, more than anything else, an expression of the preferences and passions of angry white men.

The full article is here.

Traister takes the Democrats to task:

[A]version to any hint of femininity is likely why we rarely hear about the prowoman legislation Democrats have pushed through. The first bill President Obama signed was the foot-stomping, beret-tossing Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, about which we don’t hear a peep these days, even as the purportedly women-driven Tea Party barks about the ways women have been economically injured by this administration.  * * * The party’s reluctance to capitalize on its feminist successes makes it look scared and, well, weak. It has also allowed Sarah Palin and her brood of appallingly conservative female candidates to step into the void, attempting to rebrand their female-unfriendly ideology as the estrogen-driven arbiter of gender equality.  * * * As false as Palin’s claims to feminism ring, we can’t forget that they are coming just two years after 18 million Democrats voted for a woman with a real-life commitment to socially progressive policy and an actual stake in the feminist legacy. It should be increasingly clear that an appetite for dynamic female leadership, perhaps long suppressed, has been whetted, and that either party might benefit by rising to satisfy it.

Yet in this election cycle, we see no Democratic equivalent to the Mama Grizzlies, no energetic retort to Republicans’ anemic claims that they are the party of women. Why are Democrats reluctant to take this moment to assert their association with the legacy of women’s liberation as a point of pride? Why has there been no attempt to promote national stars or to capitalize on the argument that empowering gifted women—especially those whose policy aims actually benefit other women—is a noble, progressive goal to which we should all proudly commit ourselves?

Read that full article here.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics | Leave a comment

New Controversy at Duke University

 As described at Jezebel.com:  “ Duke [University]  is in an uproar about a highly detailed “fuck list” that a recent female graduate made — in PowerPoint, complete with penis-size evaluations and dirty-talk transcripts.  Upon graduating, the author decided to pass on the wisdom she had learned, in thesis format. The subject: “An education beyond the classroom: excelling in the realm of horizontal academics.” The thirteen subjects are each preceded by a tableau of photos of the men, most of which seem to be pulled from Facebook and athletic action shots.”   Each man was graded using the following criteria:

 

Is Karen Owens, the author of the list, a cyberbully?  What distinguishes her from the Rutgers student who videotaped his roommate’s sexual encounter?   She didn’t intend for the report to go “viral” on the Internet, but  did e-mail it to 3 friends.  Her partners willingly engaged in sex with her, but not to have the details of their encounters rated and published.   The case raises interesting and troubling questions over power, sexual freedom, and invasion of privacy.

-Audrey Rogers

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Technology | 2 Comments

Fourth Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference at UB–DATE CHANGED

CALL FOR PAPERS – NEW DATE

The University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center on Applied Feminism seeks submissions for its Fourth Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference. This year’s theme is “Applying Feminism Globally.” The conference date has changed from the prior Call for Papers; please see below. For more information about the conference, please visit law.ubalt.edu/caf.

This conference seeks to explore how feminist legal theory operates in a global and international context. The theme raises a variety of questions: How has feminist legal theory affected the lives of women across the globe? How could feminist legal theory improve women’s lives in a global context? How does feminist legal theory differ across cultures within and outside the United States? What do comparative perspectives teach us about feminist legal theory? How could feminist legal theory from outside of the United States benefit American women and feminist scholarship? How do anti-essentialist perspectives on feminist legal theory apply in an international context? How do post-colonial perspectives on feminist legal theory apply in a domestic context? What can feminist legal theory contribute to the debate over universal vs. cultural specific norms and objectives? Is feminism still ambivalent about many areas of international law? What, if any, role has feminism played in the empowerment of women in international law-making? Can feminist legal theory improve our understanding of challenges facing immigrants within our own borders? What does feminist legal theory offer for indigenous peoples? How are human rights norms compatible with feminist legal theory?

This conference will attempt to address these and other questions from the perspectives of activists, practitioners, and academics. The conference will provide an opportunity for participants and audience members to exchange ideas about the current state of feminist legal theories and how those theories are being and can be actualized on behalf of women in a global context. By expanding the boundaries of our exploration, we hope to deepen our understandings of feminist legal theory and to move new insights into practice. In addition, the conference is designed to provide presenters with the opportunity to gain extensive feedback on their papers.

The conference will begin the afternoon of Wednesday, March 30, 2011, with a workshop for conference participants. This workshop will continue the annual tradition of involving all attendees to be participants in an interactive discussion and reflection. The workshop will be approximately two hours in length. On Wednesday evening at 8:00 p.m., the keynote speaker will be delivering the keynote address for the conference.

On Thursday, March 31, 2011, the conference will continue with a day of presentations by legal academics, practitioners and activists regarding current scholarship and/or legal work that explores the application of feminist legal theory in a global context. The conference will be open to the public.

To submit a paper proposal, please submit an abstract by 5 p.m. on October 29, 2010 to Professor Michele Gilman at mgilman@ubalt.edu. (Please note — this is an extended deadline.) In the subject or “re” line of your submission, you must type: CAF conference submission. It is essential that your submission contain your full contact information, including an email, phone number, and mailing address where you can be reached. Abstracts should be no longer than one page. Practitioners’ and activists’ papers need not follow a strictly academic format, but all paper proposals should address the conference theme. We will notify presenters of selected papers in mid-November. We anticipate being able to have twelve paper presenters during the conference on Thursday, March 31, 2011. All working drafts of papers will be due no later than March 10, 2011. All abstracts and drafts will be posted on the Center on Applied Feminism’s conference website to be shared with other participants and attendees.

In addition, the University of Baltimore Law Review has agreed to offer publication to a few of the selected papers presented at the conference for an issue dedicated to the conference proceedings. If you are interested in submitting your abstract for consideration by the UB Law Review, please indicate as such on your abstract submission. To be eligible for publication in the UB Law Review, submissions must not be published elsewhere. Typically, the UB Law Review publishes pieces ranging from 25 to 45 pages in length, using 12 point times new roman font and one inch margins. One volume of the Law Review is dedicated to papers from this annual symposium.

Finally, please note that a limited amount of money may be available to presenters for travel expenses. We look forward to your submissions. If you have further questions, please contact Prof. Michele Gilman at mgilman@ubalt.edu.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia | 1 Comment

Welfare Cheese, the Working Class and the Tenure Class (or, the Cheese Stands Alone)

I attended the Third National People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference a few weeks ago. It was a wonderful event; it was well-organized and intellectually stimulating and offered a broad array of presentations. The National POC is an event that began in 1999 with the coming together of the several regional People of Color Legal Scholarship Conferences. The focus of the national event, like the regional events, is to provide a forum for law professors of color (and other professors with interest in issues concerning law faculty of color) to present scholarly work in an intellectually rigorous but warmly supportive atmosphere. I have long credited the POC conferences with my success in academia, and by success, I mean the fact that I am still here. M’la; m’ap kenbe toujou, as they say in Haiti.

During one of the dinner events at the National POC, I was tickled when one of the speakers referenced welfare cheese. There was a brief wave of laughter, ranging from polite titters to hearty guffaws. It struck me all of sudden: some of the people there not only didn’t know what welfare cheese was, they’d probably never eaten any. Welfare cheese (aka government cheese), for the uninitiated, is cheese that is provided to recipients of welfare and/or other means-tested benefits. I first heard of it, and ate it, during the 1970’s and was mighty glad to get it. Welfare cheese makes awesome grilled cheese sandwiches. I know well what welfare cheese is, from personal hard luck life stories. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who looks like me knows what welfare cheese is from personal experience.

In fact, research shows that highly educated people, even of various racial or ethnic backgrounds, are disproportionately from the middle and upper middle classes or the wealthy classes. This is perhaps nowhere more true than among university faculty members. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education discussed the fact that few studies focus on working class or lower class students and faculty members. While there is some data regarding the economic class of students, apparently no comparable data exists for college faculties. I think that all too often, even well-educated people conflate race and ethnicity with social class, assuming that if, for instance, efforts have been made to bring in faculty members of color then by necessity this means that social class diversity has been achieved. This is, of course, not true, and has never, I think, been widely true. While programs offering greater access to education and other social goods over the last forty years have meant greater racial, ethnic and gender diversity in some workplaces, I might argue that some of the people from underrepresented groups who were helped by such programs were already middle class or very comfortably working class, and had been for a few generations.

Of course, such discussions raise the issue of just what it means to be middle class versus working class. For some people, working class means having parents or grandparents who didn’t have a summer home (seriously; someone shared that with me once.) For others, working class means rarely enjoying mainstream cultural events and knowing no one with a college degree, despite having consistent access to necessities such as food and shelter. Never mind what it means to belong to the poverty class. Poverty class means more than lacking some material comforts; it means lacking necessities and having a near absolute deficit of social capital. Social capital is the stuff that dreams (and educational attainment) are made of. Very few people in academia, it would seem, have ever belonged to the poverty class. This is due in no small part to the fact that access to advanced education takes a good deal more than a bright mind and hard work. It takes a startling array of economic and social resources, and these resources are frequently deployed from the time a person is born.

The discussion of social class in academia reminds me of the not unrelated discussion of the future of tenure in the academy. Some people see the tenure system as a hindrance to good institutional governance, since it is sometimes hard to compel tenured faculty members to embrace change. Others see tenure as necessary for insuring an independent minded, intellectually vibrant academy; faculty members who serve at the will of administrators would be little likely to engage in research or teaching that might offend established norms. Both sides have good points. But what often goes unaddressed in discussions of tenure among tenured faculty members themselves (who, not surprisingly, usually favor the tenure system) is the meritocratic assumptions about the nature of the institution. People who have tenure, or are on the tenure track, deserve those statuses, right? Serial adjuncts and faculty members on contracts often don’t have the same privileges, but if that’s true, it’s because people with tenure (or access to tenure) are smarter, work harder, and are just better, right?

Not right. While there are frequently well-articulated, reasonably objective standards for getting tenure (or for getting on the tenure track) what goes unexamined is the practical barriers to meeting the standards and most shamefully, the sometimes differential ways in which the standards are applied. Looking only at legal academia, it is noteworthy that a majority of persons who work as instructors but are not in tenure or tenure track jobs are women. One reason sometimes offered for this is that faculties often recruit nationally for tenure track jobs, and women are sometimes less able to move around easily to accept such jobs. That is true, yes. But all too often what starts out as a national search for tenured or tenure-track positions ends by settling on a local candidate who is, all too often, surprisingly like the majority of people already in place from a gender and racial perspective. There are other barriers as well. Even when women succeed in getting on the tenure track, they are, according to research, likely to have less prestigious jobs and earn less money than men with similar (and often lesser) credentials.

I could go on and on here about class, both inside and outside of academia. There is a lot to say; these are, after all, long-standing problems. Talking about class makes many people uneasy, since in many ways it raises a challenge to ideals of merit. All the more reason we should talk MORE about it, not less.

-Lolita Buckner Inniss

(cross-post from Ain’t I a Feminist Legal Scholar, Too?)

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia, Race and Racism, Socioeconomic Class | 2 Comments

A Small Step Some Law Professors are Taking in Response to News of Bullying and Harassment

Here’s what a group of colleagues (myself included) did yesterday at my law school.  Fourteen faculty and staff members joined together and distributed to all staff and faculty mailboxes the following signed letter and a sticker that reads “Be an Ally. Be the Change.” (available for purchase from here; shown above).

 We are saddened by news reports of elementary, secondary and college students who are subject to bullying and harassment, seemingly because of their sexual orientation. 

Conscious of our roles as teachers (of adult students, but teachers all the same), each of us feels need to express in a visible way that, as individuals, we respect and value difference at our law school, in our larger communities and in our profession. 

To create and foster a welcoming, supportive and tolerant community requires repeated affirmation of the humanity of others.  Each of us proposes to take modest, affirming action by putting on our office doors a duplicate of the attached sticker.  It reads: “Be an Ally.  Be the Change.”  We invite you to do the same, if you feel comfortable doing so.

The sticker’s phrase is linked to the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s annual “Ally Week.”  The purpose of Ally Week is to make visible and to support all of those who are allies against anti-LGBT language, bullying and harassment.  This year, “Ally Week” is from October 18-22, 2010.  We hope that, long after the particular week is over, our stickers will serve as visible symbol of our commitment to a diverse community in which all people can flourish.   

We hope.

Anyone who would like to use the text for a similar distribution at one’s home institution is welcome to do so.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in LGBT Rights, Law Teaching, Primary and Secondary Education, Sexual Harassment | 1 Comment

Manliness, Part I: Anyone Call for a Knight?

I am John Kang, associate professor of law at St. Thomas University (Florida).  First, I hasten to thank Bridget for kindly offering me a chance to blog on Feminist Law Professors.

I am presently researching the connection between manliness and the law, specifically the Constitution.    I’ve written about this connection in “The Burdens of Manliness” (33 Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 477 [2010]) and “Manliness and the Constitution” (32 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 261 [2009]).

I know that this blog is called Feminist Law Professors but it seems to me that much of feminism as an ontology is also about masculinity or issues of manliness (consider that notwithstanding its title MacKinnon’s Feminism Unmodified is in substantial ways an untrammeled exploration of hypermasculinity and manliness).

One of the things that caught my eye as I did research on manliness was how some judicial opinions, including a few written by Supreme Court justices, organized themselves around the theme of men as knights who were arriving to save damsels in distress. More than colorful tropes, the images of knights and damsels, did the work, or much of the work, of legal reasoning by helping judges to justify why a given party should lose and another win.

Curious, don’t you think?

Here’s a couple of examples.

In Bradwell v. Illinois 83 U.S. 130 (1873), the Supreme Court Court upheld an Illinois law that denied Myra Bradwell a license to practice law because she was a woman.  Justice Bradley penned an unforgettable concurrence. He explained that “the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres
and destinies of man and woman.”  For Justice Bradley, “[m]an is, or
should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity
and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of
the occupations of civil life.”  Notice the work being done by the trope of knights and damsels, so to speak:  women are damsels–with their “timidity” and “delicacy” who must be protected from the rough and tumble world of legal work and men must, like knights, serve as “woman’s protector and defender” and prevent women from being harmed.

This theme comes up again in Justice Brandeis’s concurrence in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).  Regarded by some prominent con law scholars as being perhaps the greatest judicial exposition of the right of free speech, Justice Brandeis’s opinion depends crucially on the image of knights and damsels.  Women make only one appearance in his lengthy and sometimes lyrical opinion.  He describes colonial America as a time when “[m]en feared witches and burnt women.”

Men, obviously, shouldn’t let this happen, Justice Brandeis argued:   “To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the process of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion.”  Men, Justice Brandeis tells us, must be “courageous, self-reliant” in order to protect women from being “burnt.”  It’s a weird, if macabre, example, especially for an opinion written in 1927, about, no less, a woman (Anita Whitney) who was an exemplar of courage (see my “Manliness and the Constitution,” at 328).  By contrast, Justice Brandeis, heralded as a champion of free speech and despite the rhetorical brio of his concurrence, meekly acquiesced Whitney’s criminal conviction for merely belonging to a socialist political organization.

Lest you think Justice Brandeis’s opinion a bit archaic, there are contemporary examples of judges relying on this knight/damsel trope.  If interested, check out my articles.  This exploration is part of a larger project; hence, comments, criticisms, and questions warmly welcome.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Masculinity | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Money Matters in Ongoing Marriage Law

Married life is characterized by a sharing norm. As I described in an earlier post, spouses commit to and in fact engage deeply in sharing behavior, including a shared family economy. Overwhelmingly, spouses pool economic resources, including labor, and decide together how to allocate them to benefit the family as a whole.

In addition to its affects in the paid labor market (see my last post), sharing money matters inside a functioning marriage.  It shapes the couple relationship as well as each partner individually. Research shows that in an ongoing marriage, money is a relational tool. For example, making money a communal asset is a way to demonstrate intimacy and commitment, and that can nurture a couple’s bond. Yet, in some circumstances, an assignment of resources to just one spouse can also be understood (by both partners) to be appropriate and deserved—a recognition of the individual within a sharing framework. Conversely, it is also possible that spouses’ monetary dealings can undermine individual autonomy and the relationship as well. For example, one person might exercise authority over money in a way that disregards the other. Accordingly, power to influence financial resource allocation within the family is important for individual spouses and for togetherness.

It becomes a special concern then, that sharing patterns in marriage are gendered.  As highlighted in my previous post, role specialization remains a part of modern intimate partner relations. Particularly true for married couples, men continue to perform more as breadwinners, and women more as caregivers. As a result, women tend to have reduced earning power in the market. How does this market asymmetry translate into economic power at home? Happily, in a significant departure from the past, a majority of couples report that they share financial decisionmaking power roughly equally. Indeed, most married couples today endorse gender equality as an important value in their relationship. However, in a significant minority of marriages, spouses agree that husbands have more economic power. For some couples then, a husband’s breadwinning role and/or perhaps his gender, confers authority in contentious money matters.

How should law governing an ongoing marriage respond to these sharing dynamics? Consider this hypothetical fact situation. A husband has a stock account from which he plans to make a gift to his sister who he feels really needs the money. The husband suspects that his wife would not approve of the gift. Even though the wife too loves the sister, she believes the sister is irresponsible with money. Let’s assume that the money in that stock account was acquired while the parties were married, and that it came from the market wages of one or both of the spouses earned during marriage. It was a product of the couple’s shared life. Does contemporary law allow the husband to give his sister the gift without her consent? Without even telling her? How should legal power over the money be allocated?

A surprise perhaps, the law in most states is that the husband can give away the stocks without the consent or even knowledge of the wife, and she will very likely have no recourse, even if they divorce. This is so because perversely, spousal economic relations law in the forty-one “separate property states” simply ignores the marriage altogether. Ownership is based on formal title, with a default rule of individual acquisition. (Ironically, the title determines ownership rule has been partially abandoned in divorce law, and to a lesser extent in inheritance law, but still dominates intact marriage law.) As it stands now, the titled spouse is unilaterally empowered to dispose of an asset that should be considered co-owned with the other. 

As I have developed in an article (and am continuing to explore in other projects), my view is that this approach is backward and should be replaced with an actualized joint property regime for marital wealth. Basically I argue for an intensified and expanded community property law approach (that for some transactions functions more like a tenancy by the entireties), grounded on an explicitly theorized foundation. I recommend that marriage should be conceptualized in law as a distinctive partnership of equals for a shared life that includes mutual economic and non-economic contributions as well as joint life-planning and resource-allocation decisions. This sharing framework reflects and facilitates communal goals and behaviors chosen in married life. But it also draws attention to the vulnerability interdependence recurrently produces, offering protection for both individual and joint interests. Key for working against gender hierarchy, the equality standard helps level the economic playing field as couples negotiate resource allocation within the family.

Under my model, both husband and wife are equal co-owners of the stock account. The joint and equal property ownership rule recognizes the sharing process in marriage and equally values whatever kind of contributions spouses make, including both market work and unpaid caregiving work. Additionally, the spouses must collaborate and consent regarding a major transaction like the gift to the sister. (Third party actors, primarily financial institutions, would serve as key enforcers of the mutual consent requirement, by requiring, for instance, two signatures for certain withdrawals, mitigating the opportunity to monopolize joint wealth). This is needed to provide a safety net against the risks sharing inevitably brings. At the same time, operating in the background of spousal negotiations, the rule evenly distributes legal power over the resource.  A transfer like the gift potentially affects each spouse individually, as the transfer would concretely diminish wealth to which each partner has a claim. Also crucial, the consent requirement would give each spouse a voice in the decision over what to do with jointly owned property. In addition, allocation of financial decisionmaking power could affect the spouses as a couple and the family unit more broadly. Not surprisingly, having to reach agreement is a more demanding process than unilateral decision making, and may well trigger or reveal conflict. Yet research suggests that sharing control over money is good for marriage. A large-scale study found that “when couples do take the time to share control over money management, they seem to have happier, calmer relationships.” A recurrent collaborative decision-making process marks and augments the communal experience.

-Alicia Kelly

cross-post from Concurring Opinions

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Women and Economics | 1 Comment

Reflections on What to Make of Tyler Clementi’s Death

Like many people, I’ve taken hard the recent suicides of so many gay teens, including Tyler Clementi.  I got choked up last Thursday afternoon in front of the University of Connecticut Law School faculty when I mentioned his death as part of a talk I was giving on lgbt rights more generally.  But I’d like to avoid using this post as either an opportunity for painful identification or emotional confession about the issue, so here are a few thoughts:

First: Does it matter, and if so how, that what was streamed about him on the web was same- (not different-) sex intimacy/sex/something?  (I want to avoid calling him gay, I have no idea how he self-identified, or whether his attractions had organized themselves into an identity.)  As I listened to the NPR coverage of the matter while driving back from Hartford in the rain, I took note of the fact that both the “teaser” and “lead in” for the story emphasized a violation of his privacy and the issue of “cyber-bullying,” not homophobia or homophobically-related shame.  Have we reached a point where the (unconsented to) exposure/publication of sexuality is an offense with equal cause for objection regardless of whether it was homo or hetero sex, or is there something more and differently objectionable about the outing of a young person’s attractions/acts/desires for another person of the same sex?  If so, doesn’t this reproduce and re-credentialize the notion that there’s something shameful about the exposure of same-sex desire?  Yet, so long as we live in a world that exacts a price for non-normative sexuality or desire (as this world most certainly does), how can we deny the added psychic cost of having one’s sexual encounters outed in such a public manner?  To pose the question another, and more legalistic, way: was what happened to Tyler Clementi a privacy crime or a hate crime?  What’s at stake in taking sides on this question?

Here’s the thing: if he’d been video-taped having sex with a woman he might have felt personally violated, exposed, and maybe humiliated, but it would have been something that was publicly available for boasting and homosocial bonding (thank you Eve Sedgwick).  And above all else, the victim here would have been the woman.  He would have been (regardless of what he actually felt) the hero of the film.  The fact that everyone agrees that he was the injured party here is testament to the enduring cost of heterosexism.

Second: Might we want to pause before indulging the impulse to turn to criminal law to punish the perpetrators of this awful event and remedy its deadly consequences?  After listening to Dean Spade talk at numerous lgbt conferences about the perils of criminalization, I can’t help but question why and how the lgbt community continues to seek recognition and refuge in criminal law.  As Spade, a law professor in Seattle, has put it:

In the context of mass imprisonment and rapid prison growth targeting traditionally oppressed groups, what does it mean to use criminal punishment enhancing laws to purportedly address oppression? … Hate crimes laws strengthen and legitimize the criminal punishment system, a system that targets the very people that these laws are supposedly passed to protect … By naming that system as the answer to the significant problem of violence against trans [and lgb] people, we participate in the logic that the criminal punishment system produces safety despite the fact that the evidence suggests that it primarily produces violence  … A new mandate to punish trans [and homo]phobes is added to the arsenal of justifications for a system that primarily locks up and destroys the lives of poor people, people of color, people with disabilities, and immigrants, and that uses gender-based sexual violence as one of its daily tools of discipline.

What happened in a Rutgers dorm room this week was unconscionable – the first month of school; figuring out who you are and what you like for the first time outside the pickets of the nuclear family; violated by your roommate – remember we pair freshmen and women with roommates because they “need” the sociality that a roommate brings.

But of course we can’t lay all the blame at Rutgers’ feet.  It didn’t start there.  We can equally point to the priming that happens in almost all middle and high schools that renders same-sex desire so shameful that its exposure amounts to a kind of soul-killing for the same sex desirer, and that desire’s broadcast on the internet a “harmless freshman prank” to those who do the broadcasting.   Criminal law can’t and won’t do much to interrupt the conditions precedent to this week’s loss of life.

Katherine Franke, cross-posted from Gender & Sexuality Law Blog

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, LGBT Rights, Masculinity | 2 Comments

Cell Phone Drive to Benefit Domestic Violence Victims

This year, Domestic Violence Awareness Month coincides with the ABA’s National pro bono week which occurs from October 24 through 30, 2010. The ABA’s Domestic Violence Commission is encouraging women’s bar and law student associations around the country to host a Verizon Wireless HopeLine drive to collect cell phones to help domestic violence victims. I hope you will forward the following information to any organization that you think might be interested.

Extensive information about the HopeLine phone recycling program can be found here, including how to obtain brochures promoting the drive, and options for dropping off phones or mailing them. The donated wireless phones and accessories in any condition from any wireless carrier will be scrubbed of personal information, refurbished, and sold for reuse, and those without value are recycled in an environmentally sound way under a zero landfill policy. Proceeds from the sale of refurbished phones are used to provide free wireless phones and airtime to victims of domestic violence. Wireless phones and technology can serve as a vital link to emergency or support services in a time of crisis or as a reliable, safe connection to employers, family and friends as survivors rebuild their lives.

To date, more than 7 million phones have been collected, and over 90,000 phones with over 300 million minutes of free wireless service have been distributed to victims of domestic violence. Verizon Wireless has also awarded cash grants of more than $7.9 million to organizations working to prevent and raise awareness of domestic violence since 2001 through HopeLine. In addition, this project has properly disposed of 1.6 million no-longer-used wireless phones in an environmentally sound way and kept more than 200 tons of electronic waste and batteries out of landfills.

While the current focus is to host a drive in October, obviously whenever donations occur they will be appreciated and the website has free mailing labels for individuals who wish to donate.

- Myrna Raeder

Myrna Raeder is a Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and a member of the ABA Domestic Violence Commission. -ed.

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence | 1 Comment

Selling Sex in Canada vs. Buying Sex in Sweden

Last week, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court ruled that certain Canadian anti-prostitution criminal laws violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were therefore unconstitutional.  A copy of the opinion is available here.

At issue in the case were three particular provisions of the Criminal Code: the “bawdy-house provision” (section 210),  the “living on the avails of prostitution” provision (section 212(1)(j)) and the “communicating provision” (section 213(1)(c)):

210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house1 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) Every one who

(a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house, (b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or (c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

212. (1) Every one who … (j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view …

(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person

for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

According to Justice Himel, these provisions interfere with prostitutes’ rights to “express themselves in an effort to protect their personal safety,” among other rights.

Writing here in the (Canadian) Globe and Mail, Professor Benjamin Perrin (Law, UBC) describes the opinion as “a strikng example of judicial activism run amok.”  He says:

The greatest flaw in Judge Himel’s reasoning is that she places the blame for the risks involved in prostitution on criminal offences against solicitation, bawdy houses and living off the avails of prostitution, rather than on the violent johns and traffickers who are the real cause of physical violence, rape and murder in Canada’s sex trade.

Perrin favors the Swedish approach, which punishes those who pay for sexual services, not those who provide them.

On its public affairs program, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation hosted a conversation between Swedish embassy representative Charlotta Schlyter and Canadian MP Joy Smith.  Smith supports the Swedish approach.  A recording of that program is available here.

H/T Martin Dufresne.

Update:  See Katherine Franke’s take on the case here.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Sex Trafficking, Sisters In Other Nations | 2 Comments

Be an Affirming Teacher or Peer: No More Silence, No More Bullying, No More Discrimination

From a joint statement issued by GLSEN (Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network), PLFAG (Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and The Trevor Project (crisis and suicide prevention for LGBTQ youth):

Recently, there has been heightened media attention surrounding the suicides in NewJersey, Texas, California, Indiana, and Minnesota of several youth who were known to be bullied relentlessly because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. * * *

The end to bullying and creating a culture of respect for all isn’t a one-step or one-sided effort. It is critical that concerned friends, family and community members know they have the power to take action to help at-risk youth right now. Studies show that when a young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning (LGBTQ) person knows there is an affirming teacher, school nurse, clergy member or parent they can trust, they are much more likely to turn to them for help when they are bullied or depressed. Similarly, when a school or community has a Gay-Straight Alliance or other affirming and accepting group, young people are less likely to feel isolated and can turn to peers and faculty advisors when they need help. Knowing the warning signs and how to help someone who is suicidal are also key to preventing a suicide crisis.

The horrible instances of school bullying that have led young people to take their own lives reflect the growing need for a change in our culture to value the differences of our youth. That cultural shift must begin now, in communities, schools, and at home by recognizing and addressing the needs of LGBTQ youth, and letting them know they are not alone. It is now up to all of us to make sure it happens.

GSLEN is sponsoring “Ally Week” October 18-22, 2010 (planned long before the recent suicides).  For professors and law students wondering how to take concrete action, this might be a way to get started.  More info here.Ally Week - October 13-17, 2008

Many of the suggested activities — anti-bullying pledges, etc. — could easily be adapted to the law school setting.  Law students could invite their future-lawyer peers to take a  to never use anti-LGBT language in the classroom or office, to speak up when others do, to volunteer time to support proposed student nondiscrimination acts or anti-bullying legislation.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, LGBT Rights, Law Schools | 1 Comment

The Center for Reproductive Rights – Columbia Law School Fellowship – Deadline November 1, 2010

From Diana Hortsch, Director of the Law School Initiative at the Center for Reproductive Rights, this notice of a fellowship at Columbia Law School:

The Center for Reproductive Rights – Columbia Law School Fellowship (“CRR-CLS Fellowship”) is a two-year, post-graduate fellowship offered by the Center for Reproductive Rights (“the Center”) and Columbia Law School (“the Law School”). The Fellowship is designed to prepare recent law school graduates for legal aca­demic careers, with a focus on reproductive health and human and human rights. Fellows will be affiliated with the Center and the Law School and will participate in the intellectual life of both programs.

The CRR-CLS Fellowship is a full-time, residential fellowship for up to two full years starting in June, July, or August 2011. The Fellow will be a member of the community of graduate fellows at the Law School and will be integrated into the legal and policy work of the Center. They will have work space at both locations. The Fellow will also have access to law school facilities, including the library and on-line research resources, and faculty events. It is expected that the Fellow will work closely with an assigned Law School faculty mentor.

Fellows will pursue independent research and scholarship in preparation for entering the legal academic job market at the conclusion of their first Fellowship year. During their Fellowship tenure, Fellows are expected to produce a work of publishable legal scholarship that is related to reproductive rights. Fellows will also have responsibility for a range of work at CRR, including planning and hosting of academic conferences or roundtable discussions, drafting blog posts and/or other short advocacy pieces, and creating curricular materials. The scope and details of the Fellows’ work will be agreed upon in consultation with their faculty mentor and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

STIPEND AND BENEFITS: The Fellow will receive a stipend of $55,000 per year for each full year in residence. The Fellow shall be responsible for purchasing and maintaining her or his own health insurance. The Fellow may purchase insurance through Columbia University.

ELIGIBILITY: Applicants must show exceptional promise as a legal scholar and a commitment to entering academia. A strong interest in reproductive or sexual rights, women’s rights and/or human rights is required, although extensive experience in the field is not essential. Applicants will be evaluated by the quality of their application materials, and by their record of academic and professional achievement. A J.D. from an accredited law school in the United States is strongly preferred.  In some exceptional cases, we may consider those with foreign law degrees. Fellows are not required to be graduates of Columbia Law School.

APPLICATION: Completed applications must be received by the Law School by November 1, 2010. Please note that it is preferred that application materials, other than the transcripts and letters of recommendation, be submitted electronically. A complete application must include:

1. CRR-CLS Fellowship Application Form (biographical and contact information);
2. Curriculum Vitae;
3. Unofficial transcripts from college, law school and any graduate schools attended;
4. Statement of Scholarly Interest and future academic projects, including a discussion of how the fellowship will help the applicant in pursuing those interests and realizing those projects;
5. A paper or other writing sample that demonstrates the applicant’s writing and analytical abilities and ability to generate interesting original ideas. This can be a draft rather than a publication;
6. A 1-2 paragraph statement of why you want to pursue a career in the legal academy;
7. Three letters of reference. At least two letters should be from professors who can speak to the applicant’s potential as a future legal academic.

Transcripts and letters of recommendation should be mailed or delivered to:

CRR-CLS Fellowship Program
Professor Carol Sanger
Columbia Law School
435 W. 116th Street
New York, NY 10025

ATTN: Margaret Symuleski, Faculty Assistant

Other application materials should be sent via email to: msymul@law.columbia.edu

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in From the FLP mailbox, Law Teaching, Reproductive Rights | 1 Comment

The Emotional Darkness of Hate: Suicide at Rutgers

Last week Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge.   The (Newark) Star-Leger reports here:

Freshman Tyler Clementi was enrolled at Rutgers University for a little more than three weeks when he asked his roommate if he could have the dorm room to himself on a Sunday evening.

The roommate, Dharun Ravi, agreed and went down the hall to friend’s room, according to fellow students and law enforcement officials. There, he remotely turned on a webcam and — either deliberately or accidentally — watched Clementi in a sexual encounter with another man over the internet.

“Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay,” Ravi wrote in a Sept. 19 post on his Twitter page.

Two days later, police said Ravi tried to use the webcam again to catch his roommate in a sex scene. This time Ravi failed, but he told all 148 followers on his Twitter account when to log on to a live video chat to watch.

The following day, police believe Clementi jumped off the George Washington Bridge in an apparent suicide. A post on his Facebook page said, “jumping off the gw bridge sorry.” 

Mr. Clementi’s roommate, Mr. Ravi, and a dorm neighbor, Ms. Molly Wei, each have been charged with two counts of invasion of privacy.  According to the New York Times reports here that, “[t]he most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of five years.”  The Times reporter wrote in the same article, ”It is unclear what Mr. Clementi’s sexual orientation was; classmates say he mostly kept to himself.”

Does Mr. Clementi’s sexual orientation matter?  Yes, in the sense that Mr. Ravi tweeted that he had seen Mr. Clementi “making out with a dude,” and sought to capture the next encounter on film, with the apparent intent of humilating Mr. Clementi.  On the other hand,  I’m not sure what the reporter implies.  In saying that Mr. Clementi’s sexual orientation was “unclear,” is this factual groundwork for a defense against a possible hate-crime charge — that Mr. Ravi didn’t know Mr. Clementi was (or was not) gay?  Or that the suicide would be “more tragic” if Mr. Clementi’s were falsely thought to be gay and then killed himself?  But if he were gay and then killed himself…well, gay people are troubled like that?  I hope that is not what the reporter meant.

This tragedy exposes the cruelty that human beings can inflict on each other.  Mr. Ravi acted intentionally and with pre-planning to make public a digital recording of a private sexual encounter between Mr. Clementi and another man.  In what universe is that merely a high-tech ”prank” or “poor judgement and bad behavior….hallmarks of adolescence,” as one story puts it here?  Mr. Ravi turned a sexual episode from Mr. Clementi’s life into entertainment, into a freak show that college students could look at and laugh.  Yes, college freshmen can be immature.  But where were these students’ inner voices saying, “This isn’t nice; we shouldn’t do it”?  Or, “Noone should be a target because of their sexual orientation.”  Mr. Ravi and Ms. Wei are both people of color.  Had they never experienced what it is like to be “other”-ed?  None of Mr. Ravi’s 100+ Twitter followers urged him not to proceed? 

What’s the difference between what Mr. Ravi and Ms. Wei did and the baseball-bat murder of an Ecuadorean immigrant José O. Sucuzhañay in Brooklyn in 2008?  That Mr. Ravi and Ms. Wei didn’t get their hands dirty?  Or that they didn’t kill anyone…Mr. Clementi killed himself? 

Mr. Clementi found himself in emotional darkness.  He must have felt he had no other option other than to take his own life.  There are some people who suffer so badly — from mental illness or otherwise — that interventions are difficult.  But Mr. Clementi’s death is a clarion call to work against institutional and interpersonal indifference to the humanity of others.  To intervene against cruelty.  To speak out against acts intended to harass, embarrass or humilate.  To work for a world free of hate.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Feminism and Technology, Justice? | 1 Comment

Teaching Resource on Feminism and Pornography

Those who teach Feminist Legal Theory or other classes in which pornography is a subject of academic discussion might be interested in this recording of an interview by Professor Gail Dines (Wheelock College) with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  Professor Dines is the author Pornland: How Porn has Hijacked our Sexuality. Here is the CBC’s description of the program:

It’s a big business with billions of dollars in revenue, millions of customers, trade fairs, corporate lobbyists and all the usual gang of hangers-on: bankers, lawyers, and investors.

The guys who run it worry about rates of return, market share, product differentiation, and technological innovation. As an industry it brings in more revenue than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined. And yet, we collectively spend a lot of time and energy denying that it really exists, that it is much of a problem and dismissing critics with ad hominem labelling and disdain.

We are talking about pornography.

At the beginnings of the 1950s, porn was something boys indulged in behind the barn and creeps enjoyed in dingy little movie theatres. 60 years later, porn is everywhere.

There are 420 million internet porn pages, 4.2 million porn web sites and 68 million search engine requests for porn daily. And the language, imagery and ethos of porn have become the stuff of movies, music, books and advertisements. Our culture, our politics and our economy all have porn laced throughout.

All of this may sound alarmist, but if Gail Dines is correct, it should be alarming; if for no other reason than the effect porn has on how men and women, and especially young men and women have come to define who they are, how they relate and what relationships and intimacy really mean.

Dines goes further. Given that the average boy first sees porn at the age of 11, we are raising a generation of boys who are cruel, bored and desensitized.

The running time is approximately 40 minutes.  The interview (or parts of it) could be helpful for getting classroom conversation started.

H/T Martin Dufresne.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Law Teaching, Pornography's Harms, Sex Trafficking | 1 Comment

Nothing Quite Like the Force that is a Stereotype

This postcard was on every seat when a colleague arrived at her local synagogue for Rosh Hashanah services.  (I have redacted the name of the congregation.)  My colleague was irate, and asked others sitting around her whether they, too, found the postcard offensive.  Some did; some did not.  

What about the image strikes an offending chord?  The image relies on the stereotype of Jewish women as pushy (“feisty bubbe”) or aggressive (“warrior mom” kicks in heels!).  What sorts of events does this Jewish “Sisterhood” sponsor?  Sharing skills, discussing issues, raising money for schools — those seem like good goals.  How to accomplish that?  A “shopping bash at Lord & Taylor,” of course.  Read this way, the card draws on negative associations with Jewish women as materialistic consumers.

A second colleague offered a different perspective.  What’s wrong with the postcard, she says, is that it tries too hard to make the “Sisterhood” organization seem appealing and fun, attempting to attract a younger, hipper crowd (“nice shoes!”), when the group is made up of middle-aged or older women (which I don’t know to be true or not).

Other opinions?

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Religion | Leave a comment

Villanova Law and Literature Conference September 30-October 2, 2010

From Penny Pether (Villanova), this announcement that Villanova will hold its second annual law and literature symposium September 30 – October 2, 2010:

Panel presentations will include eighteen selected papers by graduate students and professors in law or the humanities.  The theme of the symposium, “Ethics of Traditions,” follows last year’s successful symposium on “Law, Literature, and Religion.”  Papers this year will address Papers this year will address literary, rhetorical, narrative, or textual aspects of law and ethics, ethical philosophies, ethical speech in law and literature, literature and feminist legal ethics, ethics and justice in law and literature, law and ethics in popular culture, and shared traditions in law and literature.

Further information is available from Professor Pether: pether@law.villanova.edu

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Upcoming Conferences | Leave a comment

Kierner on “Martha Jefferson Randolph and the Performance of Patriarchy: Family, Gender, and Presidents in the Early American Republic”

On October 8, 2010, Cynthia A. Kierner (History, George Mason University) will present her paper, “Martha Jefferson Randolph and the Performance of Patriarchy: Family, Gender, and Presidents in the Early American Republic” at the Newberry Seminar on Women and Gender at the Newberry Library in Chicago, Illinois.  Here is a description of the paper:

Neither a female politician nor a political innocent, Martha Jefferson Randolph played an array of public roles. Thomas Jefferson’s elder daughter brought an aura of domestic virtue to the presidency at times when partisan attacks on her father were both personal and political. Later, she used her Washington connections and experience to garner political patronage while lending legitimacy to an equally scandal-ridden Andrew Jackson. Never overtly challenging gender conventions that idealized virtuous women as domestic and subordinate, Randolph played a pivotal role in constructing an official culture that highlighted domestic patriarchy as a cardinal feature of an anti-aristocratic American presidency.

Advance copies of the paper are available upon request to those who will attend.  Additional information here.

FWIW, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation maintains an educational website called “Monticello Classroom” here.  That’s the source for the portrait of Martha Jefferson Randolph, at right.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal History, Upcoming Lectures | Leave a comment

Call for Guest Bloggers

We have over 300 feminist law professors in the blogroll and we’d like to hear from more of you.  If you are interested in a “guest blogging” stint, please send me an email at bcrawford@law.pace.edu.  Add your voice to the mix!

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Blog Administration | Leave a comment

As Seen on TV?: SDNY Finds Social Framework Testimony Wouldn’t Help Jurors Because Gender Stereotypes are Exposed on Sitcoms & News Reports

Moreover, the Court agrees with the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc., 664 N.W.2d 355 (Minn.Ct.App.2003) wherein the court found that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Dr. Borgida’s testimony because the opinion was unhelpful to the jury. The court noted that “[i]nformation about and commentary on gender issues is so abundant in our society that it has become a common stereotype that women receive disparate and often unfairly discriminatory treatment in the workplace.”…In addition, the court in Ray observed that “[g]ender stereotypes are the stuff of countless television situation comedies and are the focus of numerous media treatments on nearly a daily basis. It is unarguable that virtually all adults in our society know about gender stereotypes.”…The Court agrees. E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., 2010 WL 3466370 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

Bloomberg involved an action by the EEOC against Bloomberg, LP.,  in which it alleged

that from approximately February 2002 through the present, Bloomberg engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment practices, including discriminating against Claimants based on sex/pregnancy by: (1) paying them less total compensation after they announced their pregnancy and returned from maternity leave; (2) demoting them in title or in the number of employees directly reporting to them; (3) diminishing their responsibilities and/or replacing them with male employees junior to the Claimants; (4) excluding them from management meetings and otherwise isolating them once they announced their pregnancy and returned from maternity leave; and (5) subjecting them to stereotypes regarding female caregivers when they returned from maternity leave….EEOC further claim[ed] that Bloomberg engaged in unlawful employment practices by retaliating against the named Claimants and other similarly situated female employees who protested the alleged unlawful sex/pregnancy discrimination by reducing their compensation, criticizing their performance, reducing their job opportunities, and threatening to terminate them.

So, let’s consider the proposed testimony of Dr. Borgida and the court’s ruling and decide whether we agree with the conclusion of the court listed at the top of this post.

As the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York noted in its opinion in Bloomberg:

Dr. Borgida is a professor of psychology and law at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) and has a Ph.D. in psychology with a specialization in social psychology and psychology and law from the University of Michigan. Dr. Borgida engaged in what is called a “social framework analysis,” which “uses general conclusions from tested, reliable, and peer-reviewed social science research as a context for educating fact finders about the case facts at hand.”…The analysis “provides an assessment of general causation in a research area in order to inform the fact finders about more specific causation issues associated with a particular case.”…In conducting his analysis, Dr. Borgida reviewed several deposition transcripts as well as Bloomberg personnel materials.

Based upon his review of these materials, Dr. Borgida concluded that

the stereotypes about employees who are mothers and/or pregnant more likely than not influenced the perceptions, evaluations, and decisions about them at Bloomberg. The cultural and organizational context at Bloomberg more likely than not activated the gender stereotype about mothers as less competent and as less agentic and less committed to their careers. Given the subjectivity, discretion, and lack of accountability in the Bloomberg decision making process, stereotypic perceptions more likely than not influenced employment decisions about employees who are mothers and/or pregnant.

So, this was social framework evidence, a topic that I have discussed in a couple of prior posts, including my post about an excellent essay, A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Class Actions, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 37, 39 (2009), by University of Colorado School of Law Professor Melissa Hart and Marquette University Law School Professor Paul Secunda. Courts have admitted and excluded such evidence for a variety of reasons, and I leave it up to readers to review the entire opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Bloomberg and this essay to see all of the reasons why the court was troubled by Dr. Borgida’s proposed testimony and why other courts have reached different conclusions.

All I want to address is the reasoning used by the court that led this post. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert opinion testimony is only admissible if it “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” The court found that Dr. Borgida’s proposed testimony did not meet this standard because, as noted,

“[i]nformation about and commentary on gender issues is so abundant in our society that it has become a common stereotype that women receive disparate and often unfairly discriminatory treatment in the workplace.”…In addition,…“[g]ender stereotypes are the stuff of countless television situation comedies and are the focus of numerous media treatments on nearly a daily basis. It is unarguable that virtually all adults in our society know about gender stereotypes.”

Really? So, the average juror watches “Modern Family” and fair and balanced news broadcasts, and all of a sudden he or she is an expert on gender stereotypes and discriminatory treatment in the workplace such that testimony from an actual expert in the field wouldn’t help the juror? Great! So, I think we can also assume that the average juror watches one of the CSIs, so who needs testimony by crime scene investigators? That testimony wouldn’t be helpful! And, I’m sure the average juror watches “Bones,” so there should never be any need for testimony by forensic anthropologists.

And while we’re at it, I’m certain that most people have seen one of the Law & Orders, so who needs law school and the bar exam? You want to go to marriage counseling? Why? If “Modern Family” is your go-to source for gender discrimination information, why shouldn’t it be your source for how to be a good spouse and parent? Heck, double it up with “The Middle,” and you get a full hour of great advice a week.

In all seriousness, it seems to me that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York made three primary assumptions in Bloomberg, none of which are defensible: (1) We live in an enlightened world where everybody recognizes that gender discrimination is prevalent; (2) sitcoms and news reports are reliable sources of information for real world issues; and (3) the average person has a good enough grasp of gender issues such that testimony from a bona fide expert would not be helpful to jurors hearing a gender discrimination case. Do you agree?

-Colin Miller

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Employment Discrimination, Feminism and the Workplace | 2 Comments

Women and Equality — Gender-Based Analysis, Law, and Economic Rights, October 22-23, 2010

Gender-Based Analysis, Law, and Economic Rights, October 22-23, 2010, Queen’s University (Ontario, Canada) Feminist Legal Studies Queen’s Conference

Long before the 2008 global economic crisis occurred, women in large economies began to see the promise of equality eroding. ‘Economic crisis’ policies have done nothing to reverse that trend. For example, a decade ago, the US and Canada were ranked 3rd and 1st on the UN gender-related development index; by 2009, they had already fallen to 19th and 4th, respectively, and are ranked much lower on newer equality-specific indexes. Similar patterns can be seen in the UK and many European countries.

At the same time, countries such as South Africa continue to demonstrate that ‘feminism works’ as they accelerate their movement toward increase sex equality. For women in such countries, the question is still ‘when will women achieve equality?’ But for growing numbers of women, the question is becoming ‘will women ever achieve equality?’

This workshop will examine current developments affecting the status of women with particular regard to the gender impact of legal, economic, and equality rights. What roles do race, immigration status, Aboriginal heritage, education, family composition, and other factors play in shaping women’s search for equality? Can specific roadblocks to the attainment of further equality be identified? Are there better policies that governments can enact? What roles have neoliberal, neoconservative, and economic ‘crisis’ politics played? Can international obligations such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and domestic commitments to gender-based analysis of all policies, practices, and laws counter such politics? And how are emerging environmental, security, and regulatory issues affecting women as compared with men?

Date and location:

This conference will be held at Queen’s University Faculty of Law, Kingston, Ont., room 001, on Saturday October 23, 2010, with an informal discussion on the evening of October 22, 2010.

Registration now open:

This conference is open to anyone interested in equality and women’s issues, including students, faculty, members of community organizations, workers, policy analysts, managers and administrators, government employees, and professionals.

Please register in advance with Megan Hamilton at megan.hamilton@queensu.ca. There are no registration fees for students, those on low incomes, or voluntary workers. However, those who can afford it are asked to contribute up to $30. Ms. Hamilton can provide information on special hotel conference rates for those coming from out of town, and program details.

Confirmed speakers:

Women and Equality — Gender-based Analysis, Law, and Economic Rights

Sex Equality in the Twenty-First Century

Sonia Lawrence, professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, and director, Institute of Feminist Legal Studies (York) — ‘Sex Equality and the Canadian Charter of Rights’

Kate McInturff, executive director, Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) — ‘Reality Check: Discrimination in the 21st Century’

Beth Atcheson, cofounder, Charter of Rights Education Fund and Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) — ‘A Personal Look at the Politics of Equality’

Ecofeminism and Environmental Policy Analysis

 Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, professor, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law —‘Reimagining Canadian Environmental Law through the Lens of Ecofeminism’

 Nathalie Chalifour, professor, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law —‘Gender-Based Environmental Policy Analysis – A Matter of Equality’

 
Sex Discrimination in Taxes, Spending, and Budgetary Policies

Valeria Seigelshifer, coordinator, Gender Budgeting Project, Adva Centre, Tel Aviv —‘Examining Budgets under a Gender-Responsive Lens: The Example of Israel’

Yael Hasson, coordinator, Women’s Budget Forum, Adva Centre, Tel Aviv, and doctoral candidate, Sociology Department, University of Haifa — ‘Why Women Lose from Tax Cuts’

Maria Wersig, visiting scholar, Pace University School of Law, and doctoral candidate, Frie Universität, Berlin — ‘LGBT Equality and Family Taxation in Germany – Impact of EU Law and Policy’

Kristin Skinner, doctoral candidate, Department of Political Science, York University —‘Guaranteed Income and Gender-Based Analysis: Challenges and Opportunities’ 

Women, Children, and Family Law: Whose Equality?

Pamela Cross, Legal Director, Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, and policy consultant, National Association of Women and the Law — ‘Women’s Economic Inequality in Family Law’ 

Marcia Zug, professor, University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbus SC —‘Deportation of Immigrant Mothers and “Best Interests” of the Child’

Whose Images? What for? The Making of ‘Women’ in Politics, Medicine, Religion

Patricia Peppin, professor, Queen’s University Faculty of Law, and director of the law program, School of Medicine — ‘Drug Imagery and Legal Imaginary: Assessing the Power of Advertising’

Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko, lecturer, University of Montreal — ‘The Religious “Other” as Enemy and Visions of Gender Equality: What do we Hide when we ban Veiling?’

Equality Redux: Olympic Women and the Upcoming PanAm Games

Laura Robinson, equality activist and Olympic competitor —‘Women, Human Rights, and the Olympics – The IOC Did Not Make Canada Discriminate’

Erin Durant, Queen’s University Faculty of Law ‘11; summer associate Borden Ladner — ‘Where is the Money for Women in Sports? What Sex Discrimination means for Women and Communities’

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Upcoming Conferences | Leave a comment

If Rosa Parks Got a Manicure

Jimmy A. Bell, a Bowie (Maryland) lawyer (pictured at right), has sued a Maryland nail salon for charging him $2 more for a manicure/pedicure than his female companion was charged.  He alleges “gender-based price discrimination.”  A copy of Mr. Bell’s complaint is here.

Mr. Bell’s complaint asserts that his case “mirrors the case of Rosa Parks in that Ms. Parks paid the same price for unequal treatment because of her race and Mr. Bell received unequal treatment for an unequal price because of his sex” (emphasis added). 

Huh? 

Bell has requested over $200,000 in damages and a jury trial.

WaPo has more here.

H/T Ralph Stein

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law | Leave a comment

Women As Half the Workforce Does Not Equal Equality

In this “mancession” economy with men losing more jobs than women, women have edged up to constitute about half the workforce. Have a look at some of the headlines on the topic over the last year. “A Women’s Nation Changes Everything” says the Shriver Report, “Women and Work: We Did It” says the Economist. It seems Rosie the Riveter has won the day. Atlantic Magazine even pronounced it as “The End of Men.”

But such sweeping tales of women’s equality are misleading. And when layered onto continuing and powerful gender behavior norms, the myth of equality circulating in American popular culture further obscures systemic gender differences, making them seem normal, and perhaps inevitable. But the reality is that gender equality has not been mainstreamed. Although there have indeed been remarkable changes in recent decades in women’s status, including increased participation in the labor force, important economic and power inequalities between men and women persist in modern family and work life.

However, the frontlines of inequality are shifting now. It’s less about sexism and more about caregiving. Even as women take on more paid work, home life has changed less than you might think. As sociologists and psychologists have observed, a “schema of devotion to family caregiving” for women continues to powerfully influence the way women and men work and care for their families—and how they understand themselves. The impact? Women today still provide the lion’s share of unpaid family work, doing twice the housework and child care as men. And men still do more market work and bring in more income.

Below I sketch out some highlights of the modern landscape on work allocation between men and women. I recognize there isn’t a single depiction of family life. So please understand that what follows is a short overview describing general patterns without detailing the important variations that lie behind the data. Also, the gendered pattern I describe recurs among heterosexual couples. Same sex couples are less likely to follow this pattern. Among other resources, I am tapping into persuasive and recent research available from time use studies from 1965-2000 evaluated in Changing Family Rhythms of American Family Life, a book by sociologists Bianchi, Robinson and Milkie. It’s a terrific resource if you are interested in more and more varied information.

The demands for family care have amplified and expanded. Over the last several decades, parenting has become more intensive, with studies showing that parents are managing to spend as much time with their children (or possibly more) than in the 1960’s when a majority of children had at home mothers. Additionally, as investments in children increase, many young people today tend to stay in the care of their parents long beyond age 18, as “quasi-dependents” experiencing what the scientific literature calls “emerging adulthood.” At the same time, many families also provide care for an elderly relative. Studies show that one in four working Americans has significant responsibilities to care for an aging family member. Like child care and housework, elder care work is disproportionately performed by women—by daughters and daughter’s-in law. Indeed, a great number of women will take care of elderly loved ones longer than they care for children.

How then are families managing to meet the demands of both family work and paid work? No doubt, both men and women share the load and work hard. Recent data from Changing Rhythms show that if you add up both paid work and unpaid family work, on average women and men work roughly the same amount of hours—about 65 hours per week (for parents with children under 18). That’s an increase in total hours worked compared to a generation ago. Yet in terms of who does what kind of work and how much, gendered role specialization has decreased but persists—men remain mostly breadwinners and women still are predominantly caregivers.

What are the modern contours? One important change on the homefront is that men do more housework and child care than their fathers did. So now the ratio of this work that women do compared to men is down to 2 to 1. Another change is that women have simply decreased the hours they spend doing housework (its down to about 17 hours per week for single and married mothers). Also, parents fragment and incorporate their leisure time into time with children and on children’s activities. And, as you suspected, multitasking reigns.

On the workfront, the sheer number of women in the workforce and especially mothers has increased dramatically. But that is just one part of the story. In assessing economic equality between the sexes, the eye-opening data is how many fewer hours of market work women do comparatively. A large cohort of women scale back their hours of employment to make time for family work. For example, looking at two parent families with children under 6, Bianchi and her colleagues find that only 31% have both parents working full time, and 37% have only the father working. Also telling, if you combine employed and at home mothers, the average hours of market work across all mothers (with children under 18) is 1200 hours per year. Excluding at home mothers, employed mothers average 1700 market hours per year. That falls far short of the 2080 hours typically expected for a year round fulltime employee. One last dataset: among employed parents, compare married fathers 44.6 average market hours per week to the 33.5 hours by married mothers and the 36.9 hours by single mothers. Scaling back work in these ways creates significant differences in terms of earning power.

When women do work fulltime year round, the most recent data available on the gender wage gap is that women earn 77.1 percent of what men earn.

It is clear that women have not achieved economic equality through employment. Instead, the contemporary allocation in families of market work much more to men and family care work much more to women greatly diminishes women’s earning power in the market.

With this as a backdrop, in an upcoming post I will describe some of the challenges and opportunites for equality in marriage law. (I also have a current project that includes cohabitants.) There have been real advances to equality within family life that might deepen. But for now, I’ll end with a few questions to consider: How much do the workplaces you are familiar with make space for both satisfying work and caregiving? In legal employment context? What about in the increasingly pressured academic world?

-Alicia B. Kelly

(cross-post from Concurring Opinions)
 

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia | 3 Comments

Eliminate Affluent Husband Care

The controversy over law professor Todd Henderson’s “We are the Super Rich” blog entry, posted and then withdrawn from Truth on the Market (Sept. 15, 2010) seems to have missed an underlying feminist tax policy issue.

Henderson argues against President Obama’s proposal to discontinue Bush era tax cuts for those with incomes over $250,000, using as an example his own dual-income family to explain how a tax increase would be burdensome. He misleadingly notes that his marital status means he pays particularly high taxes, and then details the high expenses his family faces, particularly since both he and his wife both have full-time professional jobs. He is a University of Chicago Law Professor, she is a doctor, which means they have high student loan debt; high child care and domestic service expenses, along with two cars. In fact, it is not simply his “marital status” that the U.S. income tax penalizes, but more precisely, Henderson’s dual-income marriage.

Henderson and his wife should not be taxed jointly the same as one person earning $300,000 (married or unmarried) because neither he nor his wife earns that much, and their lower individual earnings reflect lower ability to pay, considering the costs of work. If Henderson’s family had the same (relatively) high income from his wife’s job alone, we would be less sympathetic to Henderson’s complaint that a proposed $10,000 tax increase would require him to cut back on paid services such as lawn-mowing, housecleaning, and child care– forcing him to do this work himself rather than (for instance) spending his time on the golf course or blogging about excessive government spending.

A better solution than across the board tax cuts for high-earners would be to tax married couples individually, with individual tax rates – as well as government spending –designed to give more progressive support for the high costs of income-earning that Henderson rightly identifies (such as higher education and child care). We need to eliminate what I call the “affluent husband care” subsidy – the marriage-based tax bonus – that regressively targets family support to upper-middle-class breadwinner-homemaker married families, disfavoring the needs of single earners, heads of households, and dual-earner marriages.

As it stands, the current marriage-based family tax scheme provides a convenient way to harness middle-class support for super-rich tax cuts, allowing Henderson to claim that dual-earner affluent marriages are squeezed because the tax code is too progressive, rather because it is not progressive enough. I’ve discussed this issue further in Taxing Family Work: Aid for Affluent Husband Care, forthcoming in the Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law, draft downloadable here.

-Martha McCluskey

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Economics, Feminism and Families, Feminism and Law | 2 Comments

Reproductive Technology as Self-Induced Amnesia

I am skeptical amount government regulation of reproductive technology.  Science and medicine have allowed many people to become parents who otherwise couldn’t.  For those who want to have children but cannot, the anguish of childlessness can be gut-wrenching.  I get that.  I do. 

But if one could disentangle consideration of reproductive technology from personal experiences or desires, it is worth assessing whether reproductive technology is good for women in a big-picture sense.  I take seriously the possibility that easy access to reproductive technology prevents women (and men) from thinking beyond traditional (or even hipster/liberal I-know-a-gay-couple-who-had-a-baby) understandings of families:

The practice of surrogacy must be understood as facilitating parenthood and thus the expectations that motherhood is the default vocation for women and that children are the default status for families. Surrogacy both creates new possibilities for gay men, for example, to become biological parents, but it also shores up traditional gender roles and expectations. It is a medical way of easing the real pain that childless women (and some men) feel. It makes more difficult the radical reconsideration of the possibilities for human fulfillment. In this sense, surrogacy operates as a kind of cultural propanolol. Scientists believe that this drug, typically used to treat hypertension, can recondition certain memory pathways in the brain so that posttraumatic stress disorder victims and survivors of sexual trauma will not suffer from flashbacks. The use of propanolol has tremendous appeal; it can alleviate the suffering of many people. Opponents condemn propanolol on the grounds that it deprives the individual of the moral and ethical enrichment that comes from human suffering. But the law should not give cognizance to the notion that there is inherent virtue in suffering traumatic memories or in childlessness, for that matter. Ultimately each person must decide for himself or herself how much pain to tolerate. If surrogacy eases that pain, then it is justified. The government may properly tax the activity but it cannot prohibit it.

Citations omitted; full article available here.  My comments are about surrogacy in particular, but could extend to other practices as well.  Ultimately, I want reproductive choices to be made by individual women (and men) with the advisors of their choice, not the government.  Still, I can’t help wondering whether motherhood stop being the default status for women, if there were no reproductive technology.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Medicine, Reproductive Rights | Leave a comment

Gerzog on “More QTIP Mischief”

If it weren’t for Wendy Gerzog (Baltimore), I don’t think I would have figured out a way to combine my interests in three subject matters — taxation; wills, trusts and estates; and feminist theory.  Her 1993 article The Marital QTIP Provisions: Illogical and Degrading to Women, 5 UCLA Women’s L.J. 301 (1995) was one of those paradigm-shifting pieces that put me on a long intellectual quest.  So if Wendy Gerzog writes something, I read it.

To grossly over-simplify a complex area of law, electing “QTIP” treatment for certain property allows it to qualify for the estate (and gift) tax marital deduction.  An interest in “QTIP” property is short of full ownership of the property, and Professor Gerzog (and others) are critical of the tax law’s extension of the marital deduction to these transfers.

Professor Gerzog has added another publication to her already-significant body of writing on the QTIP provisions with Morgens: More QTIP Mischief, Tax Notes, Vol. 128, No. 3, 2010.  She writes:

It is the fiction of the QTIP provisions that makes the case so unsatisfying as well as at least somewhat inconsistent with [another marital deduction case]. When the marital deduction is afforded to the first spouse to die even though his widow may not have had any input on the decision to make a QTIP election and needs only to receive an income interest in the trust property, it will always seem fundamentally unfair for the widow to be treated as if she owned the trust property itself. This arrangement can scarcely be described as ‘‘marital’’ and the deferral benefits inuring to third parties (that is, the family of the first spouse to die) are unsupported by the supposed rationale for the marital deduction.

Citations omitted.

This short Tax Notes piece provides a quick overview of the QTIP problem, and is accessible to non-specialists.

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Women and Economics | Leave a comment

What’s Wrong with Cyberspace? An “Atrophied Sense of Humility and Charity”

Professor Alan Jacobs (English, Wheaton College) has a reflective post on “The Online State of Nature” over at Big Questions Online.  It is inspired at least in part by the cartoon at right (image source: here at xkcd.com).

I have thought a lot about why people get so hostile online, and I have come to believe it is primarily because we live in a society with a hypertrophied sense of justice and an atrophied sense of humility and charity, to put the matter in terms of the classic virtues.

Late modernity’s sense of itself is built upon achievements in justice. This is especially true of Americans. When we look back over the past century, what do we take pride in? Suffrage for women, the defeat of fascism, Brown vs. Board of Education, civil rights and especially voting rights for African-Americans. If you’re on one side of the political spectrum, you might add the demise of the Soviet empire; if you’re on the other side, you might add the expansion of rights for gays and lesbians. (Or you might add both.) The key point is that all of these are achievements in justice.

Someone might object: well, of course — those are political accomplishments, and politics is, or ought to be, largely about the pursuit of justice. That’s right, as far as it goes, but it overlooks the key variable that has changed in the late modern world: the dramatic increase in the information available to us about political action. We simply know more about politics, in all of its dimensions, than our ancestors ever could have. * * * 

And so, as we have come to focus our attention ever more on politics and the arts of public justice, we have increasingly defined our private, familial, and communal lives in similar terms. The pursuit of justice has come to define acts and experiences that once were governed largely by other virtues. * * * 

This same logic governs our responses to one another on the Internet. We clothe ourselves in the manifest justice of our favorite causes, and so clothed we cannot help being righteous (“Someone is wrong on the Internet”). In our online debates, we not only fail to cultivate charity and humility, we come to think of them as vices: forms of weakness that compromise our advocacy. And so we go forth to war with one another.

Read Jacobs’s full post here.

I suppose this post caught my eye because (false) righteousness is an accusation hurled often at feminists — including me, for writings on this blog.  And feminists — including me, writing on this blog — often critique the lack of civility in cyberspace.  

The righteousness, lack-of-civility and failure-to-cultivate-charity-and-humility critiques ask that cyber-writers assume good faith (or at least some good faith) on the part of others.  I am far less sanguine than Jacobs about the high-mindedness of internet denizens.  Many (most?) anonymous commenters lack Jacobs’s desire for thoughtful engagement.  

-Bridget Crawford

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia, Blog Administration, Feminism and Technology | Leave a comment

Constitution Day – - – for Feminists?

 

September 17  is “Constitution and Citizenship Day,” commemorating the signing of the Constitution in 1787. 

The Congressional resolution,  codified at 36 U.S.C. § 106, also includes a  requirement of an “educational program” at all educational institutions that receive federal funds.

Did your institution “comply”?   Did you participate?   Was the focus on the original signers?  Did any program include feminist perspectives?  A discussion of citizenship given current controversies?   Reference to Amendments, such as the Fourteenth or Nineteenth?

Soliciting comments, including any programs in which you participated, on the conlawprof blog here.

~Ruthann Robson

 

 

Post to Twitter

Share
Posted in Academia, Feminism and Law, Feminist Legal History | Leave a comment