News > Culture > The Long Dick of the Law

commentary
MONDAY DECEMBER 3 2007 4:00 PM

The Long Dick of the Law

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Tags: abortion, objectivity, 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.

I am uncomfortable talking about pregnancy and abortion in class because it is a fundamentally unequal disruption of the imperfect but generally stable power dynamics in a law school classroom.
....
the vast majority of women will have to personally cope with pregnancy. A phenomenon which literally happensi inside our bodies, which when unwanted is an intrusion upon the most fundamental of accepted rights. And a statistically stunning one hundred percent of the men will not.

No, it doesn't matter that we're educated. Women with postgraduate degrees do, in fact, still have children. An unfertilized egg does not die from invisible LexisNexis rays; there is not a lost-and-found full of fallopian tubes in the law library. It's intriguing, too - fertility used to be a prized excuse for keeping women out of higher education, and now we're supposed to use it to differentiate between we, the Brilliant and Educated Future Lawyers, and those Other Women, you know, the ones who Get Pregnant.

And all of my professors are male. My writing fellow is male. The dean of my law school, along with the dean of admissions and the president of the university, is male. (Their secretaries/research assistants that I've met are, of course, female.)

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,

when being "apolitical," or "impartial," or "logical," is (or is perceived to be) valued over "I have the right to choose when and if a fetus grows inside my body," because the fact that it is unquestionably about my life makes it political, that is an unequal discussion.

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.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3

Comments

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

DEC 03, 2007 10:08 AM

If "objective" means "ungendered," then equality is fundamentally unequal.

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.

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL

January 2005

DEC 03, 2007 10:42 AM

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

Ascanius

USA

October 2006

DEC 03, 2007 11:52 AM

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?

Ascanius

USA

October 2006

DEC 03, 2007 12:08 PM

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

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

DEC 03, 2007 12:43 PM

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."

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

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

DEC 03, 2007 05:23 PM

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.

WADO

Brooklyn, NY

March 2006

DEC 03, 2007 05:25 PM

emotedcreations said:

If "objective" means "ungendered," then equality is fundamentally unequal.

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".

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA

September 2006

DEC 03, 2007 05:31 PM

thank god i went to a ridiculously liberal and diverse law school.

but yes, the idea of the default for everything being white, male, heterosexual and christian is loathsome and we won't get anywhere until we start breaking that down, in law school as in anywhere else.

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA

September 2006

DEC 03, 2007 05:38 PM

freshprncebelair said:
Additionally, having kids IS a choice that you make, given the wide availability of so many different types of birth control.

ok wow.
do you seriously not get that women, as the bearers of children, are the only ones who have to bear the inconvenience of that? yes, ideally whether or not to have children is a choice, but someone's got to be doing the birthing here--does that make it ok to continue to operate society in a way that ignores this difference, to the detriment of women? as long as men can choose to have children without being adversely affected in the workplace (or anywhere else) while women cannot, the system is flawed, see?

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

DEC 03, 2007 05:39 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
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."

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.

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

How so?

Ascanius

USA

October 2006

DEC 03, 2007 05:47 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
Bitch_PhD finds discussions of feminist jurisprudence fascinating.

Nearly eight hours later, one wonders.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

DEC 03, 2007 06:02 PM

Subrosa said:

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?