Feminist legal theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of a series on |
| Feminism |
.JPG) |
|
Concepts
Feminist movement
Feminist theory Women's rights Gender equality · Economics Gender mainstreaming Epistemology · Theology · Sexology Sociology · Legal theory Art · Literary crit · Film theory Political ecology · Political lesbianism Architecture · Anthropology Archaeology · Criminology Geography Pro-feminism · Antifeminism |
|
Subtypes
Amazon · Anarchist · Atheist · Black
Chicana · Christian · Cultural · Cyber Difference · Eco · Equity Equality · Fat · Gender Global · Individualist · Islamic Jewish · Lesbian · Liberal · Lipstick Marxist · Material · New · Postcolonial Postmodern · Pro-life · Proto · Radical Separatist · Sex-positive Socialist · Standpoint · Theology · Third world · Trans Womanism |
|
By country
China · Egypt · France · Indonesia
India · Ireland · Iran · Japan Nepal · Nicaragua · Poland Ukraine · Saudi Arabia United Kingdom · United States |
|
Lists
|
 Feminism portal |
Feminist legal theory is based on the belief that the law has been instrumental in women's historical subordination. The project of feminist legal theory is twofold. First, feminist jurisprudence seeks to explain ways in which the law played a role in women's former subordinate status. Second, feminist legal theory is dedicated to changing women's status through a reworking of the law and its approach to gender.
Contents |
[edit] Main approaches to feminist legal theory
The four primary approaches to feminist jurisprudence are:
- the liberal equality model;
- the sexual difference model;
- the dominance model;
- and the postmodern or anti-essentialist model.
Each model provides a distinct view of the legal mechanisms that contribute to women's subordination, and each offers a distinct method for changing legal approaches to gender.
[edit] The liberal equality model
The liberal equality model operates from within the liberal legal paradigm and generally embraces liberal values and the rights-based approach to law, though it takes issue with how the liberal framework has operated in practice. This model focuses on ensuring that women are afforded genuine equality—as opposed to the nominal equality often given them in the traditional liberal framework—and seeks to achieve this either by way of a more thorough application of liberal values to women’s experiences or the revision of liberal categories to take gender into account. Susan Okin (1946-2004), for example, has critiqued liberal approaches to justice.
[edit] The sexual difference model
The difference model emphasizes the significance of gender differences and holds that these differences should not be obscured by the law, but should be taken into account by it. Only by taking into account differences can the law provide adequate remedies for women’s situation, which is in fact distinct from men’s.[citation needed] The difference model is in direct opposition to the sameness account which holds that women’s sameness to men should be emphasized. To the sameness feminist, employing women’s differences in an attempt to garner greater rights is ineffective and places emphasis on the very characteristics of women that have historically precluded them from achieving equality to men.
[edit] The dominance model
The dominance model rejects liberal feminism and view the legal system as a mechanism for the perpetuation of what it sees as male dominance. It thus joins critical legal theory, which often underlines the instrumentalization of law for domination purposes.
Sexuality is central to the dominance account. Women’s sexuality is argued to be socially constructed by male dominance and that women’s subordination results primarily from the sexual dominance of women by men. A major line of critique of the dominance model is that it leaves no room for women’s agency since women are victims whose lives are fundamentally shaped by male dominance. The difficulty of the dominance model is that it leaves little or no room for women’s genuine autonomy or agency.
[edit] The anti-essentialist model
Feminists from the postmodern camp have deconstructed the notions of objectivity and neutrality, claiming that every perspective is socially situated. Anti-essentialist and intersectionalist critiques of feminists have objected to the idea that there can be any universal women’s voice and have criticized feminists, as did Black feminism, for implicitly basing their work on the experiences of white, middle class, heterosexual women. The anti-essentialist and intersectionalist project has been to explore the ways in which race, class, sexual orientation, and other axes of subordination interplay with gender and to uncover the implicit, detrimental assumptions that have often been employed in feminist theory.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Dean John Campion, Richard D. Hartley, and Gary Rabe, Criminal Courts, p. 27 (Uppper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 2008), ISBN 978-0-13-118979-9.
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
