NEWS: The Long Dick of the Law

CULTURE: The Long Dick of the Law

I really liked this post, about a woman law student's experience of law school, and particularly about class discussions of pregnancy--and by extension, reproductive rights law.

This is why the argument that people so often resort to when gender comes into the discussion--that talking about gender is "not objective," that feminists "have an agenda" (which apparently people who don't care about feminism lack?!?)--is so deeply flawed. Because the presumption is that the "objective" point of view is the one that is somehow disembodied, unsexed, ungendered.



Well, think about that. *Is* there such a thing as a disembodied, unsexed, ungendered human being?



And since there isn't, how could it even be possible to view "women's issues"--pregnancy, reproduction, abortion, childbirth--in an "objective," disembodied way? The fact is that some human beings can get pregnant (whether or not they ever do), and other human beings can't (however much they may love children). All the human beings that can get pregnant are women. None of the human beings who can get pregnant are men.



What this means, for women law students--and by extension, for any woman whose reproductive behavior, decisions, history, accidents, luck, or misfortune happens to intersect with The Law--is that The Law is not, and can never be, truly "objective." As the linked post puts it,

That's a very central, arguably *the* central, feminist point. If "objective" means "ungendered," then equality is fundamentally unequal. In this world, the one we live in at the moment, this inequality mostly (but not always) hinders women, because those aspects of humanity that are specific to women, or perceived as mostly women's province (reproduction, kids, housework, private life) are the ones that are seen as optional, as "choices," as alternatives to the (single, childless, defined by paid employment, fully autonomous) "norm."



Using a blind woman to symbolize justice is kind of fucked up, if you think about it.



Bitch_PhD finds discussions of feminist jurisprudence fascinating.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? If you're saying that means men and women will never be the same (read equal) 'cause one has a penis and one has a vagina, then um, yeah, so? Are you suggesting we can never be equal unless we all remove our sexual function? What exactly are you saying? But more importantly what's the significance of it (the significance you see in it)?

Basically, in that paragraph it feels like you make an assumption then a projection not supported by fact. But who knows, you probably just had to meet your weekly quota and don't care to actually put any real effort into it. I really have to stop reading your articles.

Oh I get it women get pregnant and it all happens inside their bodies.

By way of addressing the last paragraph of that quote, Women outnumber men in Law School today. Sorry I couldn't find a better source, but as far as I know it's a fact. And her faculty may be male-dominated, but that's her school. The president of my law school is a man, but the vice dean is a women and the associate deans are one-all. Three of my classes this semester are taught by women, two by men. Women have a much harder time in practice, and I'm not disputing that, but the dynamic is changing and has changed in law schools.

By way of addressing the rest of the article, you need to talk about issues in which you have a personal stake in law school. No one can go through three years of law school without talking about an issue that effects them personally. To be a good law student you need to have some capacity to discuss such issues dispassionately. We don't talk about whether Row v Wade should be the law, we talk about why it's the law from a constitutional perspective. It is the law, and that's all we need to know. So, I'm a little confused about what you're suggesting. Should women law students be excused from discussing reproductive law? Should male law students? Should law schools ignore reproductive law?

I say 'by way of addressing' way too much.

There's not much that you can do about it, short of changing the entire structure of our society and how money is made, and even then, men would still have an advantage, barring strict laws that prohibit men from using their inability to have children.

Additionally, having kids IS a choice that you make, given the wide availability of so many different types of birth control. If you want to get ahead in your career early on, wait to have children (and i'd say this is not limited to women only). In highly competitive fields (as law is), there are people who are ready and willing to take your position while you take a time off to have children.

A friend of mine got into Georgetown, and we were talking about this the other day. She understands that she needs to wait till 30+ to have children, if at all. Of course, if she wanted to take a much easier and less competitive path, she could easily have kids earlier and take lots of time off, etc

I've written about this in academia - gender, as a concept, doesn't exist anymore. Sex certainly does (discrimination against women is not called "genderism", now is it?), but gender - penis, breasts, vaginas, testicles as signifiers of identity - hasn't truly existed for about ten years outside of a vague concept withheld by the male-dominant elite.

I took that comment as it related to feminism, saying that whenever feminist issues come up, to try and be objective if it means being ungendered becomes something of a catch-22. I don't think contextually it was implying that being "objective" always requires one to be "ungendered".

I doubt you would meet many law students, law professors, judges or lawyers who would ever argue that The Law is generally "objective". Even setting aside gender dynamics, it's just not possible to write, interpret or analyze 99% of "law" under an "objective" standard.

How so?

Nearly eight hours later, one wonders.

Although thinking about this now, and even following one of your links, I'm reminded that there are those who believe that the law is objective. Specifically, I'm thinking of the first year torts concept of the "objectively reasonable man".

Of course, that concept is completely subjective when you think about it even for half a second, so I don't know how one could build an entire legal philosophy around the concept of objectivity. I dunno. I'm clearly not as versed on abstract legal philosophy as some others, but the idea of objectivity seems to me to be so unrealistic it's not even worth spending much time on. Then again, what the fuck do I know?

IF WOMEN STOP GIVING BIRTH WE DIE!!! IS THERE REALLY ANY CHOICE??

Soo...the 'shrooms are really kicking in now, eh?

Of course there is.

There aren't many ways to fix this, especially in fields where the high level of competition means that taking a year off to raise children is going to derail your career. Maybe extreme laws could help, but it's doubtful

Men and women don't have children in autarky. Men are only able to have children without compromising their careers if they have someone who is willing to absorb the costs of having a child (time and money), or can afford to pay someone to bear those costs (a nanny). Women have the same options, other than for the actual childbirth (although if you include adoption, it is possible). The only barrier at that point is the cultural attitudes, but then again, the willingness to entertain that is largely based on the partner you choose

I didn't think so either, but that's why I don't think it makes sense. Whether or not objectivity in anything practical is up to debate. In fact, I don't think it is. They've even demonstrated personal/emotional biases being demonstrated among scientist in relation to scientific study.

But, I'm not understanding why feminism alone is precluded from an objective conversation at least in theory. I suppose the question I would ask would be, can women be objective about issues that include their own body? Yes, no? Or more aptly put, can women be objective about abortion et al. in theory? It seems to me that they're saying (the author and the blogger) are saying no, because it affects them as women. Or are they saying nobody can really be objective about anything that involves anything regarding the human condition? And if that's the case what's the point in differentiating? Could one not make the argument that any conversation in law that is ostensibly objective is unequal or unfair? Anyway, I don't get why it's unfair, that's my problem. Because it only happens to women? So an objective conversation (if possible) is ridiculous? I don't buy it. What about a law student who's father has been murdered? Is it unfair to ask them try and be objective? Anyway, I'm going to shuttup now before I make myself look like an ass, if I haven't already.

but... but... Clive Owen can't live forever! what happens if he's way too old or dead when that happens?!

the human race is fucked!

Yes, a horrible presumption made by people who own dictionaries and know how to use them.

As a quick point, as a parent, I am the man in a situation where both parents work...until we had our second child we both worked normal, full time day jobs, and had to lay out around $150.00 a week for child care- which was reasonable, but painful...after we had our second child our childcare costs then got to the point where they were around $350.00 a WEEK...we then had to choose between my job and hers...I made marginally more...and to make ends meet, she works nights in a dead end job, and I work all I can in a dead end management postition, so we are both always tired and barely get to see each other....the sad part is, last that we checked...you can only claim $400.00 a year deduction on you taxes for child care...but can claim damn near anything for business 'expenses'...I'm sorry- but child care expenses so you can work full time should rate at least up there with mileage or business lunches, but it doesn't...and I want to find the place that will do a good job of watching my children for even 400 a month- much less a year...both parents in an equal relationship with children are penalized...for just having children...unless they make enough that $12,000 a year in child care doesn't matter

The only Lawyer to ever achive total satisfaction me in court was a black Female public defender. And by way of her attitude, I don't think any judge would fuck with her! She was awsome! If she had a practice I would hire her in a minute.
To hell with statistics

As far as the lady justice thing....would you have no problem with it being male, or would you just rather it be an ungendered being?

Taking a year off to RASIE a child? Um...they do not go from birthin' to raised in a year.

Why bother have kids if you see them as an impediment to your career?? Make the choice to have your career, there is nothing wrong with that.

I know that is not really Bitch's topic. I am just commenting on the idea that kids are an impediment, a hindrance--both negactively connoted words. If you feel kids are a negative in your life and you would rather do the career thing, why put that on a kid's head? Have your career or do whatever it is that you want and just don't have kids.

I don't want kids for many reasons, one of the main ones being that there are just other things I would rather do with my life.


Anyway....let the arguing continue.