I have often made the comment that one of the reasons the law feels so alienating is that it is based on precedent and our nations history on which precedence is based is shameful. It's a history of slavery and the view of women as the properties of the their fathers and husbands, enforced by the law. An example of what I mean can be found in an all too often cited portion of the Restatments (a summary of the common law with illustrative examples).
A man who obtains consent to sexual intercourse by promising a woman $100, yet (unbeknownst to her, of course) he pays her with a counterfeit bill and intended to do so from the start. The man is not guilty of battery, even though the consent-to sexual intercourse is a battery. Yet we know that to conceal the fact that one has a v.d. transforms "consensual" intercourse into battery. Seduction, standardly effected by false promises of love, is not rape; intercourse under the pretense of rendering medical or psychiatric treatment is, at least in most states. It certainly is battery... See Desnick v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995). Which goes on to say, "The woman who is seduced wants to have sex with her seducer, and the restaurant owner wants to have customers.
There is so much that is problematic with that statement but for now I will just say: See what I mean?!!!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Abortion
Before the end of the school year we had a plenary discussion about abortion. It was a great presentation to have. Two doctors came in and talked about the actual procedure. For me abortion will always be a health issue, a woman’s health issue, and the concept that women should be incubators is wrong, and that family planning is a woman’s right. But it was important for me to hear some of the specifics, especially the later term abortions. They are difficult to hear about the procedure and I can understand why some people have a problem with later term abortions, but for me, health, including mental health and problems with the baby, all sorts of reasons why we should never preclude the options, especially when they are such a small fraction of the abortions that happen (at least in Washington State and since there are very few places that actually provide abortions that’s probably true nationally).
Regardless of any views, it highlighted how important it is to make sure that we know the details of the things we advocate for.
Regardless of any views, it highlighted how important it is to make sure that we know the details of the things we advocate for.
Book Club
After graduation, I've had the chance to partake in some non-law school activities. Book club, we talked about Maureen Dowd's most recent book Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide (her earlier one also received great fanfare: Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk).
It was a very interesting discussion and I'm often perplexed about how we got to the world we live in today. How did we get to a point where women and men are so different? Dichotomies and separation. Us vs. them. Did it really always exist? Did something happen that made it so? Watching the Da Vinci Code even with all the fiction makes me think about history and how hard it is to figure out any concept of the truth.
Not that it is anywhere near the first time I’ve thought of these things. I’ve been thinking of them for years, thinking about variations on the theme, whether it be historical or philosophical.
It reminded me of the book Backlash by Susan Faludi. I think about the hype we’re spoon fed from the media. Whether it’s stupid myths about marriage or pressure about giving up careers and raising families, there always seems to be pressure and forces trying to convince women that all they care about is men, getting one, keeping one, and all that jazz. A demographic I don’t fit with, and consequently often feel disconnected with. A group that I will probably spend my entire life fight for.
Tonight I got another of the somewhat harmless/harmful t.v. shows about how to get a man. Four different women, ironically two lawyers, that two dating coaches are teaching how to catch and land a man.
It was a very interesting discussion and I'm often perplexed about how we got to the world we live in today. How did we get to a point where women and men are so different? Dichotomies and separation. Us vs. them. Did it really always exist? Did something happen that made it so? Watching the Da Vinci Code even with all the fiction makes me think about history and how hard it is to figure out any concept of the truth.
Not that it is anywhere near the first time I’ve thought of these things. I’ve been thinking of them for years, thinking about variations on the theme, whether it be historical or philosophical.
It reminded me of the book Backlash by Susan Faludi. I think about the hype we’re spoon fed from the media. Whether it’s stupid myths about marriage or pressure about giving up careers and raising families, there always seems to be pressure and forces trying to convince women that all they care about is men, getting one, keeping one, and all that jazz. A demographic I don’t fit with, and consequently often feel disconnected with. A group that I will probably spend my entire life fight for.
Tonight I got another of the somewhat harmless/harmful t.v. shows about how to get a man. Four different women, ironically two lawyers, that two dating coaches are teaching how to catch and land a man.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Graphic Guest Speaker
Toady in Criminal Law, we had a guess speaker who used to work at the FBI discussing serial killing. The class was presented to us – as last year for the first time in 3 or 4 years some women had a problem, so there’s a warning and if you want to leave it won’t be held against you.
Now he is speaking – in talking about rape he described on of the type of rapists as a “gentleman” rapist who only does what a woman “allow” him to do. It just makes you wonder if the people prosecuting the crimes think of rapists as gentlemen and that they are allowed
One of the things I find very relevant of that kind of language is that your interpretation influences the questions you ask, and the questions you ask influence the answers you get. With sexism, homophobia, and other assumptions influencing the way you think about something, makes me wonder if that isn’t part of the reason Ted Bundy went so long before being caught.
Here’s another interesting thing – he keeps commenting about how a serial killer has “sex” with the victim. The use of the word sex implies “consent” that is by no means what happened. It is rape and that would be the appropriate word, not sex.
Now he is speaking – in talking about rape he described on of the type of rapists as a “gentleman” rapist who only does what a woman “allow” him to do. It just makes you wonder if the people prosecuting the crimes think of rapists as gentlemen and that they are allowed
One of the things I find very relevant of that kind of language is that your interpretation influences the questions you ask, and the questions you ask influence the answers you get. With sexism, homophobia, and other assumptions influencing the way you think about something, makes me wonder if that isn’t part of the reason Ted Bundy went so long before being caught.
Here’s another interesting thing – he keeps commenting about how a serial killer has “sex” with the victim. The use of the word sex implies “consent” that is by no means what happened. It is rape and that would be the appropriate word, not sex.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Tragedy
Not law school related, but I guess you could call it legal related, because of the violence. It feels like every week we have gun violence. And now I’m watching the news about a hate crime less than a couple of miles away. It started out with a couple of guys harassing two girls, asking them if they want to have sex, and then their friend, a fifteen year old African American male stepped in to try and stop the harassment, and instead got beaten so badly he was hospitalized.
In a tragic moment, we see the strong connection between sexism and racism.
In a tragic moment, we see the strong connection between sexism and racism.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Emasculates
From Dictionary.com
e·mas·cu·late ( P )
To castrate.
To deprive of strength or vigor; weaken.
adj. (-lt)
Deprived of virility, strength, or vigor.
In a sentence: “This interpretation emasculates the fourth prong.”
As in one of my top five pet peeves about law school, using gendered/sexually inappropriate words to try and express a concept, through the use of a word like emasculate or sexy or dominatrix, completely missing the point of what you’re trying to say and continuing to maintain and strengthen sexual stereotypes.
e·mas·cu·late ( P )
To castrate.
To deprive of strength or vigor; weaken.
adj. (-lt)
Deprived of virility, strength, or vigor.
In a sentence: “This interpretation emasculates the fourth prong.”
As in one of my top five pet peeves about law school, using gendered/sexually inappropriate words to try and express a concept, through the use of a word like emasculate or sexy or dominatrix, completely missing the point of what you’re trying to say and continuing to maintain and strengthen sexual stereotypes.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
A Woman's Day
What a day. I joke sometimes that I have a gay day or a woman day. Days were my life seems to revolve around my organization in my identity politics. Well today was a woman day. We met as a Steering Committee to discuss the Men’s Law Caucus. I took control of the meeting and ran it like I used to run support groups and discussion groups. We went around a circle, introduced ourselves and talked about our own reactions. The unanimous consensus was that the first time everyone saw the shirts they were offended the first time they saw the shirts. Many people inquired to people they know about the shirts and the groups. And while they felt a little better, it really did seem like there was lingering discomfort and feeling like it really was being done to mock our group in particular. There were some valid points brought up. Women at our school represent a majority, Is it possible men are beginning to feel marginalized. While I think that’s an important question to ask, I think it’s also important to look at empirical evidence. Which I am trying to do.
SBA – 14 positions available – for next year only four are held by women. Men make up 71% of the SBA leadership
Journals –56 leadership positions available at least 24 positions are held by men and 9 are people I don’t know whose names are gender ambiguous. So men make up between 43% and 58%. If it’s the former, that would be exactly proportionate.
Moot Court Honor Board - 8 Positions; 3 positions are held by men, so men make up about 38%
Then we have approximately 34 other student organizations, included in those are LWC, Civil Rights Org, (different from ACLU), Immigrant Family Law program, and Law Students for Choice are predominantly female. The Federalist and the Military Law Students are predominantly male. Some of the others may have stark gender representations, but I don’t really know.
Part of my purpose for trying to look at things empirically is because I don’t want to loose sight of the fact that things are changing and maybe someday gender inequality will be completely gone. But I wonder if, the absence of gender inequality translates to the lack of oppression. Because here at the UZ we have a little overrepresentation of women in class, but I don’t think we defy the statistics that less than 10% of students talk and off those, only about 10% of the voices are female.
After the MLC discussion and then another class, I hosted a discussion on rape. Two other people showed up, one guy and one woman. The conversation was thoughtful and intelligent. It was actually pretty cool to think about some of the issues with other people, especially another guy. The issue is complicated and it’s nice to hear different perspectives.
And now, now I’m procrastinating on a brief that desperately needs to be written for it is due tomorrow. I feel completely unprepared for how to draft an appellate brief, which is some of my block. Part of that is my own fault for not getting a better draft done sooner (although I’ve been stuck with about the same amount for over a week now – so I guess part of it is not realizing that I needed some additional help). The other part is due in no small part to our terrible legal writing program. In a previous life, I did a lot of writing and if there is a truism about writing, it is that you have to do the work to get better. We have done a paper a quarter, and while that may sound like a lot, we spent approximately six weeks last quarter doing completely pointless exercises looking up reference materials. Which did very little to help, I don’t think having a problem that says go to this book and look for this case and tell me if fact x is true does anything to build a basis of how to find relevant law, precedent, or anything else when faced with an issue. But more importantly, random research trips do very little to almost nothing to help you figure how to write a good legal argument. As someone who wants to write clear, concise, and intelligent legal arguments this is especially troubling.
Instead of doing additional work to try and overcome the shortcomings, I struggle alone and distract myself with issues I wish didn’t exist.
SBA – 14 positions available – for next year only four are held by women. Men make up 71% of the SBA leadership
Journals –56 leadership positions available at least 24 positions are held by men and 9 are people I don’t know whose names are gender ambiguous. So men make up between 43% and 58%. If it’s the former, that would be exactly proportionate.
Moot Court Honor Board - 8 Positions; 3 positions are held by men, so men make up about 38%
Then we have approximately 34 other student organizations, included in those are LWC, Civil Rights Org, (different from ACLU), Immigrant Family Law program, and Law Students for Choice are predominantly female. The Federalist and the Military Law Students are predominantly male. Some of the others may have stark gender representations, but I don’t really know.
Part of my purpose for trying to look at things empirically is because I don’t want to loose sight of the fact that things are changing and maybe someday gender inequality will be completely gone. But I wonder if, the absence of gender inequality translates to the lack of oppression. Because here at the UZ we have a little overrepresentation of women in class, but I don’t think we defy the statistics that less than 10% of students talk and off those, only about 10% of the voices are female.
After the MLC discussion and then another class, I hosted a discussion on rape. Two other people showed up, one guy and one woman. The conversation was thoughtful and intelligent. It was actually pretty cool to think about some of the issues with other people, especially another guy. The issue is complicated and it’s nice to hear different perspectives.
And now, now I’m procrastinating on a brief that desperately needs to be written for it is due tomorrow. I feel completely unprepared for how to draft an appellate brief, which is some of my block. Part of that is my own fault for not getting a better draft done sooner (although I’ve been stuck with about the same amount for over a week now – so I guess part of it is not realizing that I needed some additional help). The other part is due in no small part to our terrible legal writing program. In a previous life, I did a lot of writing and if there is a truism about writing, it is that you have to do the work to get better. We have done a paper a quarter, and while that may sound like a lot, we spent approximately six weeks last quarter doing completely pointless exercises looking up reference materials. Which did very little to help, I don’t think having a problem that says go to this book and look for this case and tell me if fact x is true does anything to build a basis of how to find relevant law, precedent, or anything else when faced with an issue. But more importantly, random research trips do very little to almost nothing to help you figure how to write a good legal argument. As someone who wants to write clear, concise, and intelligent legal arguments this is especially troubling.
Instead of doing additional work to try and overcome the shortcomings, I struggle alone and distract myself with issues I wish didn’t exist.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Crim Law – Mistake of Fact – Cases for Today
Paternalism is so fabulous – it’s valid history and we shouldn’t pretend it didn’t happen, but couldn’t we acknowledge how repugnant these thoughts are?
Regina v. Prince, L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154 (1875) Defendant convicted of taking unmarried girl under 16 yrs out of possession and against will of father; 14 yr old girl told D she was 18 yrs and D’s belief she was over 16 yrs both honest and reasonable
White v. State, 44 Ohio App. 331, 185 N.E. 64 (1933) D convicted of violating statute providing that whoever, being the husband of a pregnant woman, leaves with intent to abandon such pregnant woman shall be imprisoned.
People v. Olsen, 36 Cal. 3d 638, 685 P.2d 52 (1984) D’s good faith reasonable mistake that girl was over age of 14 yrs not a defense to charge of lewd or lascivious conduct with child under age of 14 yrs, where statute silent on issue. Cf. MPC § 213.6(1) (defense of reasonable mistake not available where criminality turns on child’s being below age of 10 yrs).
Dotterweich, Morisette & Staples to United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994): Should D be convicted of violating Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act for “knowingly” transporting in interstate commerce any visual depiction if … the depiction “involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” when he knew he was transporting the depiction, but did not know the person being depicted was a minor?
Regina v. Prince, L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154 (1875) Defendant convicted of taking unmarried girl under 16 yrs out of possession and against will of father; 14 yr old girl told D she was 18 yrs and D’s belief she was over 16 yrs both honest and reasonable
White v. State, 44 Ohio App. 331, 185 N.E. 64 (1933) D convicted of violating statute providing that whoever, being the husband of a pregnant woman, leaves with intent to abandon such pregnant woman shall be imprisoned.
People v. Olsen, 36 Cal. 3d 638, 685 P.2d 52 (1984) D’s good faith reasonable mistake that girl was over age of 14 yrs not a defense to charge of lewd or lascivious conduct with child under age of 14 yrs, where statute silent on issue. Cf. MPC § 213.6(1) (defense of reasonable mistake not available where criminality turns on child’s being below age of 10 yrs).
Dotterweich, Morisette & Staples to United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994): Should D be convicted of violating Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act for “knowingly” transporting in interstate commerce any visual depiction if … the depiction “involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” when he knew he was transporting the depiction, but did not know the person being depicted was a minor?
Monday, April 17, 2006
No Time to Explore Women's Bodies in the Law
One of the things of particular interest to me is the feeling I get that so many of the issues we deal with in our classes revolve around controlling women’s bodies. I’ve heard about a law review article by Ann Althouse, The Lying Woman, The Devious Prostitute, and Other Stories from the Evidence Casebook, 88 NW U.L. Rev. 914, that is supposed to be relevant to this interest of mine. I just looked it up and it would have to be 84 pages long.
But I’ll read it when I somehow find the time, just like when I somehow find the time, I’ll find out who exactly I’m supposed to ask about the possibility of getting funding to go to a conference in the UK: Up against the nation-states of feminist legal theory.
They law school sort of tears away at the soul and is draining in so many ways, and I fight against it, but it’s a beautiful day and I’m about to buckle down and study hard for three hours, then be bailiff for someone for a mock trial, and then go home, grab something to eat, maybe go grocery shopping and then buckle down till midnight, which is about the time that I just can’t seem to stay awake any longer. But more than the work, it’s the concept that some of the things you’re really interested and really want to do – there just doesn’t seem time for. I had this goal to read one law review article a month, but that hasn’t happened (outside of research for classes). And you feel it sometimes, the requirement to understand how things are viewed, the logic used, sometimes you see it infiltrating your feminists concepts or other social justice thoughts, and it’s tough sometimes to remember that just because the legal system has this foundation in patriarchy and ensuring that power remains distributed in a way where the haves get more and the have nots expand their numbers, doesn’t mean that’s the way it has to be. I just remind myself that it’s part of the process.
But I’ll read it when I somehow find the time, just like when I somehow find the time, I’ll find out who exactly I’m supposed to ask about the possibility of getting funding to go to a conference in the UK: Up against the nation-states of feminist legal theory.
They law school sort of tears away at the soul and is draining in so many ways, and I fight against it, but it’s a beautiful day and I’m about to buckle down and study hard for three hours, then be bailiff for someone for a mock trial, and then go home, grab something to eat, maybe go grocery shopping and then buckle down till midnight, which is about the time that I just can’t seem to stay awake any longer. But more than the work, it’s the concept that some of the things you’re really interested and really want to do – there just doesn’t seem time for. I had this goal to read one law review article a month, but that hasn’t happened (outside of research for classes). And you feel it sometimes, the requirement to understand how things are viewed, the logic used, sometimes you see it infiltrating your feminists concepts or other social justice thoughts, and it’s tough sometimes to remember that just because the legal system has this foundation in patriarchy and ensuring that power remains distributed in a way where the haves get more and the have nots expand their numbers, doesn’t mean that’s the way it has to be. I just remind myself that it’s part of the process.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Law School is Not LIBERAL
I go to law school in one of those North American schools, in a city most would call progressive, but having briefly attended the undergrad and now being at the law school, let me say that it is not liberal. Moderate yes. Conservative, well I guess that depends on your definition, but the Federalist Society does have members.
Anyway, I'm at an Outlaws meeting (law school humor for the BLGT group) and someone makes a comment in that meeting about how we're at a liberal school (I, of course, mentioned that I disagree with that statement). Within minutes of that comment we're talking about the upcoming military visit and a comment gets made about how we don't want to protest because we don't want to alienate our military supporting allies. The talk continues about creating alliances with the military. To which I was said "Woa nelly! You may not want to alienate the military, but we sure don't need to become be falls with them. Not all of us support the military."
Anna* responded "You don't mean that, you mean you don't support the war, but you can still support the military."
"Um no, I mean I do not support the military. That's right, the people serving in this illegal war are doing so completely voluntary - remember we do not have a draft. Additionally, even if it is at the bequest of the administration, individual members of the military are the ones creating horrific human rights violations. I understand that there are all sorts of reason people go into the military (financial difficulties, looking for community, family tradition, etc.), but until they work on cleaning up their act (because let's not also forget how rampant violence against women is in the military), I will not be pro-military. And who know, given my pacifist tendencies, maybe not even then. Give me a department of piece, and maybe, just maybe I could get behind that. Maybe pay people billions of dollars to go and help other countries build water systems, treat disease, etc., now maybe that would make me pro-military. Until then, please don't speak for me."
Oh but wait the drama continues! Who would have ever thought that suggesting the LBGT Group on Campus have a rainbow flag at an event would be a controversial topic?! But alas it is - b/c we might not want to be too visible! Why - you're going to love this, because people who are in the closet may not feel comfortable approaching us. Yes that's write, because somehow if we don't put a gay flag up, people struggling with their sexuality will suddenly feel perfectly comfortable approaching our booth. What planet are these people living on? If your gay organization is afraid to admit is gay, the only thing you're going to do for the people struggling with their sexuality is make them feel like the UW is not a safe place to be out.
*All names fictional
Anyway, I'm at an Outlaws meeting (law school humor for the BLGT group) and someone makes a comment in that meeting about how we're at a liberal school (I, of course, mentioned that I disagree with that statement). Within minutes of that comment we're talking about the upcoming military visit and a comment gets made about how we don't want to protest because we don't want to alienate our military supporting allies. The talk continues about creating alliances with the military. To which I was said "Woa nelly! You may not want to alienate the military, but we sure don't need to become be falls with them. Not all of us support the military."
Anna* responded "You don't mean that, you mean you don't support the war, but you can still support the military."
"Um no, I mean I do not support the military. That's right, the people serving in this illegal war are doing so completely voluntary - remember we do not have a draft. Additionally, even if it is at the bequest of the administration, individual members of the military are the ones creating horrific human rights violations. I understand that there are all sorts of reason people go into the military (financial difficulties, looking for community, family tradition, etc.), but until they work on cleaning up their act (because let's not also forget how rampant violence against women is in the military), I will not be pro-military. And who know, given my pacifist tendencies, maybe not even then. Give me a department of piece, and maybe, just maybe I could get behind that. Maybe pay people billions of dollars to go and help other countries build water systems, treat disease, etc., now maybe that would make me pro-military. Until then, please don't speak for me."
Oh but wait the drama continues! Who would have ever thought that suggesting the LBGT Group on Campus have a rainbow flag at an event would be a controversial topic?! But alas it is - b/c we might not want to be too visible! Why - you're going to love this, because people who are in the closet may not feel comfortable approaching us. Yes that's write, because somehow if we don't put a gay flag up, people struggling with their sexuality will suddenly feel perfectly comfortable approaching our booth. What planet are these people living on? If your gay organization is afraid to admit is gay, the only thing you're going to do for the people struggling with their sexuality is make them feel like the UW is not a safe place to be out.
*All names fictional
Identity In Law Classes
There is an interesting thing about law school, you read all these cases about all these topic and some of the time, they relate to things that affect your real life, but the reality, the humanity of it seems to get lost in the academia. There is something to be said about trying to look at topics "intellectually" but when you're reading about cases about why to punish and you are required to read about how you're so 'deviant', 'immoral', etc. It is alienating to not acknowledge that these aren't arbitrary rules that affect some unknown other but philosophies and laws that affect real people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
