Monopoli on A "New" New Departure

Paula A. Monopoli, University of Maryland School of Law, has pulished A "New" New Departure at 102 Washington University Law Review 1961 (2025). Here is the abstract.

In the wake of enactment of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, women’s rights activists embarked on an exercise in popular constitutionalism known as “the New Departure.” Frustrated by the failure of Congress to include women in the Reconstruction Amendments, suffragists turned to a strategy based, in part, upon republican theory. They argued that women had an inherent right to vote grounded in natural law and in their status as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. They operationalized that theory by engaging in mass-voting events and were prosecuted for illegal voting. These activist efforts came to an end in 1875 when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that theory in Minor v. Happersett. This paper situates the New Departure at the beginning of a historical continuum that includes two subsequent periods in feminist legal history—the Progressive Era and the period which began in the wake of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. It explores how women’s rights activists in each of these three periods have rejected originalism as an interpretive methodology that, by its very terms, has a subordinating effect on women’s constitutional status. Such activists have proposed alternative interpretive methods which centered women and their legal, economic, and social status. Feminist constitutional advocacy in the post-Dobbs period continues in this tradition by resisting the dominant interpretive method and arguing for a “new” New Departure toward interpretive methods which elevate rather than subordinate women’s constitutional status. Exploring feminist constitutional strategies across time illuminates a history and tradition that may have a generative effect for current efforts to restore the right to abortion and establish a broader reproductive justice.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bucholski and Murphy on Kinder und Kueche: Women, Marriage, and Children in Nazi Germany

Lara Bucholski, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, and Christopher Murphy, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, have published Kinder und Küche: Women, Marriage, and Children in Nazi Germany as Max Planck Lawcast, Episode 22. Here is the abstract.

During the years that it was in power, the Nazi regime made far-reaching changes to German civil law, especially family law. Marriage was understood as a societal 'service', children were deemed to be the nation's 'most precious asset', and mothers were idolized as the backbone of society. In today's Lawcast episode, Lara Bucholski details how these civil law changes serve as proof that law is rarely truly neutral as seen by the fact that the value-based jurisprudence of the Nazi regime influenced and modified existing law to its advantage. Thus, although law may be drafted with great precision, significant power remains with those who apply it.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link. Listen on: Max Planck Law, Spotify or Apple. For more Max Planck Lawcasts: https://law.mpg.de/lawcast/

Bruyas and Perrin on What's Law Got to Do With It? Language and Gender Equality in Law

Pierrick Bruyas, University of Strasbourg, and Caroline Perrin, Utrecht University, have published What's Law Got to Do with it? Language and Gender Equality in Law. Here is the abstract.

Certain languages require speakers to grammatically acknowledge and indicate gender, while others do not impose such requirements. Recent research indicates that this linguistic distinction correlates with gender-based variations in economic outcomes. This study delves into the connection between gender marking in language and gender equality in law. Utilising the ‘Women, Business and the Law’ database, our findings reveal a positive association between the degree of gender marking in language and the legal rights granted to women. Our results remain robust under various sensitivity tests.

Dowload the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Contributions, Research Handbook on Gender, History, and Law, Edward Elgar

 Call For Contributions

Call for Contributions for Research Handbook on Gender, History, and Law (Edward Elgar)

As part of Edward Elgar's Research Handbooks in Gender and Law Series edited by Robin West and Alexander Maine, this volume on Gender, History, and Law aims to bring together critical and thought-provoking contributions on the most pressing topics, issues and approaches within legal and gender history. The collection aims to set the agenda in the field and serve as the most important and up-to-date point of reference for researchers as well as students, policy-makers, and lawmakers. 

We are aiming for about 30 essays of 8,000-10,000 words by scholars of legal and gender history on any topic that fits within the book's broad themes, including but not limited to gendered history within legal categories such as family, criminal law and international law, on particular historical periods, on specialist topics such as capitalism and labor, sexuality, race, identity, citizenship, the legal profession and courts, and on sources and methodology. 

The Research Handbook will be published in English, but we seek to provide a broad global perspective. To fulfill its aim of providing cross-cutting scholarship in law and history, each contribution should explore perspectives on what it means to do legal history in the chosen area in the context of the author's own approach.

Manuscripts must be original and not published elsewhere, and are due to the editors by July 1, 2025. Publication is anticipated to be in the summer of 2026.

Please submit abstracts by September 30, 2024. For questions and to submit abstracts, please feel free to reach out to any of us.

Rosemary Auchmuty (r.auchmuty@reading.ac.uk)

Caroline Derry (caroline.derry@open.ac.uk)

Danaya Wright (wrightdc@law.ufl.edu) 

Amann on Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted at Nuremberg @MDianeAmann @UGASchoolofLaw

Diane Marie Amann, University of Georgia School of Law, has published Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted at Nuremberg as University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-4. Here is the abstract.

Conventional narratives tend to represent the post-World War II international criminal proceedings as a men’s project, thus obscuring the many women who participated, as lawyers, journalists, analysts, interpreters, witnesses, and defendants. Indeed, two women stood trial before Nuremberg Military Tribunals. This article examines the case of the only woman found not-guilty: Inge Viermetz, who had been an administrator at Lebensborn, the Nazi SS adoption and placement agency. The article outlines the prosecution’s child-taking case against Viermetz, as well as her successful gendered self-portrayal as a conventionally feminine caregiver. With references to Professor Megan A. Fairlie, at whose memorial symposium it was presented, the article concludes by considering contemporary implications of this acquittal at Nuremberg.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Papers: Washington University Law Review Symposium on the 150th Anniversity of Minor v. Happersett @WashULRev

From Hannah Keidan, Chief Diversity Editor, Law Review Lead on the Symposium, Washington University Law Review, h.f.keidan@wustl.edu

Kaitlyn Salyer, EIC, Washington University Law Review, kaitlynsalyer@wustl.edu

Susan Frelich Appleton, Lemma Barkeloo & Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law, appleton@wustl.edu

Travis Crum, Associate Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law, crum@wustl.edu

Call for Papers:

On Friday September 27, the Washington University Law Review is hosting a Symposium on the 150th anniversary of Minor v. Happersett, the case in which the Supreme Court held that women were not enfranchised by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. We're casting a wide net for potential paper topics, and they can range from Reconstruction-era history, 20th century history on women's civil/political rights, feminist theory, and post-Dobbs developments. Abstracts are due by Friday June 14. Please see below for the Call for Papers. This symposium is primarily run by the students, but Professor Susan Appleton and I are serving as faculty co-advisors, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. The 150th Anniversary of Minor v. Happersett: The Past and Future of Women's Rights Washington University School of Law September 27, 2024 Call for Papers Abstract Submission Deadline: June 14 The Washington University School of Law and the Washington University Law Review will host a Symposium centered on the 150th anniversary of the historic St. Louis case, Minor v. Happersett, on September 27, 2024. (The 150th anniversary will align with the subsequent publishing of the Law Review's Symposium edition as Volume 6 of Issue 102 the following spring.) In 1872, Virginia Minor challenged a St. Louis registrar's decision to block her from registering to vote. Minor argued the Fourteenth Amendment conferred upon her the right to vote as a "privilege" of American citizenship. In 1875, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Minor's assertion, ruling that voting was not a right of national citizenship. Despite the rejection of Minor's claim, this case remains an important historical moment in both American women's suffrage and the feminist movement at large. This Symposium will bring together scholars across many fields of law, including feminist studies, voting rights and election law, and related fields. Submissions having no direct relation to the Minor case are welcome. Papers might address topics including, but not limited to, the following: • The history and evolution of women's rights • Past or present voting rights and election law • Ballot initiatives post-Dobbs The Symposium will consist of approximately 3-4 panels over the course of one day, with the panels being created by the Law Review based on relatedness of subject matters across selected pieces. Participants will attend and serve on the panels, and will be asked to read up to a dozen papers (with special attention paid to the papers of others on their panel). The papers circulated for the Symposium are drafts, and the discussion on September 27 will include feedback. The Symposium will include a dinner the night before. There is no conference fee, and Washington University will host all of the meals on the conference date. Funding will be available to assist with travel expenses-each participant is eligible for up to $1,000 to reimburse hotel and economy-class airfare expenses. To apply, please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to symposiums@wustllawreview.org by June 14, 2024. Submissions will be vetted by a committee of students from the Law Review, supervised by faculty advisors (listed below). Selection will be based on the originality of the abstract as well as its capacity to engage with other papers in a collaborative dialogue. Participants will also be invited to submit a paper for publication in the Washington University Law Review's Symposium edition (Issue 6 of Volume 102). The publication cycle for this edition will begin in February 2025, with publication estimated to be in the late summer of 2025. If you are interested in publishing a paper (10,000-15,000 words), please indicate your interest when you submit your abstract. Participants will be notified of their selection by early July. Drafts for distribution at the Symposium will be due on September 6. We look forward to your submissions and participation. Questions can be directed to the organizing Law Review members and their faculty advisors via the symposiums@wustllawreview.org address. Kaitlyn Salyer Editor-in-Chief Washington University Law Review kaitlynsalyer@wustl.edu Susan Frelich Appleton Lemma Barkeloo & Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law Washington University School of Law appleton@wustl.edu Travis Crum Associate Professor of Law Washington University School of Law crum@wustl.edu ------------------------------ Travis Crum Washington University in St. Louis School of Law ------------------------------

Surana on Breaking the Cycle: Exposing Victim Blaming in Media Through the "Pink Lens" @JindalGlobalUNI

Palak Surana, O. P. Jindal Global University, has published Breaking the Cycle: Exposing Victim Blaming in Media Through the "Pink Lens". Here is the abstract.

The article, “Breaking the Cycle: Exposing Victim Blaming in Media through the 'Pink lens" examines the issue of victim blaming (V.B.) in the media, with a specific focus on cross-religious V.B. The perpetuation of V.B. in the media contributes to a lack of empathy and understanding towards victims, perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and hinders efforts to create a just and equitable society. The article analyzes the movie "Pink" as a powerful example of addressing V.B. in a nuanced and sensitive manner, highlighting the patriarchal mindset and societal attitudes that contribute to V.B. The movie demonstrates the impact of V.B. on women from different religious backgrounds and emphasizes the need to challenge harmful stereotypes. Additionally, the article explores the psychological factors that contribute to victim blaming and discusses gendered V.B. in Bollywood movies. It also acknowledges that V.B. can affect males and highlights examples of male victimization in Indian cinema. Furthermore, the article discusses the news value of V.B., the impact of the media in shaping public perception, and the powers of media tools to combat V.B. Finally, it explores the "Pink Impact," emphasizing the film's positive reception and its contribution to raising awareness and initiating discussions about V.B. in Indian society. Overall, the article emphasizes the importance of recognizing and challenging V.B. in all its forms to create a more just and equitable society for all individuals.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Cossman on #Metoo and the Corporation in Popular Culture @BrendaCossman @SULawRev

Brenda Cossman, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, is publishing #Metoo and the Corporation in Popular Culture in the Seattle University Law Review. Here is the abstract.

This paper considers #MeToo films and televisions shows that take place within corporations. Bombshell (2019), The Morning Show (2020), The Loudest Voice in the Room (2019) and The Assistant (2019) each explore the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault within the corporation, loosely based on real storiesI consider the ways in which these films/shows focus on the corporation as the site of #MeToo events: sexual harassment and assault of female employees by powerful men. The representations are paradoxical. The corporate officers and directors are represented as culpable, as at best turning a blind-eye, at worst covering up the violence in the interest of their financial bottom line. Yet in most, the leadership of the corporation is ultimately called to action, if not account; powerful men are fired, the old boy network toppling (yet not). While initially part of the problem, they become part of the solution. Problems of sexual harassment and corporate governance are individualized, and the image of the corporation sanitized through the outcome.

Download the article from SSRN at the link. On a related issue, see Christine A. Corcos, Growing Up With Popular Culture in the Time of Title IX, 83 Louisiana Law Review 60 (2022).

ICYMI: Murray on The Legal Gaze and Women's Bodies @murrayyxta @LoyolaLawSchool @ColumbiaJGL

ICYMI: Yxta Maya Murray, Loyola Law School, has published 'We Just Looked at Them as Ordinary People Like We Were:' The Legal Gaze and Women's Bodies at 32 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 252 (2017). Here is the abstract.

This article analyzes the struggles of two female musicians who were caught in the criminal justice system because they revealed their bodies. Using archival research and personal interviews, I tell the story of punk rocker Wendy O. Williams’ 1981-1984 obscenity and police brutality court battles. I also relay the life of Lorien Bourne, a disabled and lesbian rock-n-roller who was charged with disorderly conduct in Bowling Green, Ohio in 2006. I examine how legal actors, including courts and jurors, viewed Williams and Bourne using classed, ableist, sexist, and homophobic optics. In so doing, I extend my previous work on legal “gazes,” or what I have called the legal practice of “peering.” I end the article by looking to the women’s art and lives as correctives to oppressive manners of legal seeing.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Nijman on Bertha Von Suttner: Locating International Law in Novel and Salon

Janne Elisabeth Nijman, T. M. C. Asser Instituut; Amsterdam Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam; The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), is publishing Bertha Von Suttner: Locating International Law in Novel and Salon in Portraits of Women in International Law: New Names and Forgotten Faces? (I. Tallgren ed., Oxford University Press, 2022). Here is the abstract.

This portrait of Bertha von Suttner brings us to study sources traditionally not considered relevant within the scope of international legal history. That is, female diaries and a bestselling novel, Die Waffen Nieder! (1889), which has a female protagonist. Not allowed access to the formal sessions of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences, Von Suttner resorted to a typical female practice to influence intellectual and political debates. As Salonnière in the Hague during these Conferences, she created an informal social space for frank conversations among the small cosmopolitan elite of diplomats, journalists and international legal experts to influence negotiations and to contribute to the ‘peace through law’ project. Locating international law in her novel and Salon, this portrait connects loosely with a more socio-legal and materialist approach to international legal history. It shows Suttner held a rather well-developed - and at times fairly sceptical - outlook on international law.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Haksgaard on Including Unmarried Women in the Homestead Act of 1862 @haksgaard @WayneLawReview

Hannah Haksgaard, University of South Dakota School of Law, is publishing Including Unmarried Women in the Homestead Act of 1862 in volume 67 of the Wayne Law Review. Here is the abstract.

When Congress passed the Homestead Act of 1862 it decided to distribute land to single, unmarried women. Most Congressional members who supported including unmarried women did so because women were a necessary part of empire building—women were expected to marry, bear children, and engage in building permanent communities. Few Congressional members cared about women’s equality or the progressive goals of the women’s rights movements, although some Congressional members thought women would be incapable of successfully homesteading. This article presents the fascinating history of including unmarried women in the Homestead Act of 1862 by conducting an intensive study of the act’s statutory history, beginning in 1843. Building on the work of historians, this article analyzes how the lived experiences of female homesteaders matched up with the expectations of the Congressional members who included them, on such topics as women’s willingness and ability to homestead, women’s equality, and women’s role in marriage and reproduction. Throughout, this article explores how this statutory history can influence our understanding of antebellum unmarried women’s rights.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Seabourne on "Let Her Be Burned, etc.": A Consideration of Husband-killing and "Petty Treason" in Medieval England @gcseabourne

Gwen Seabourne, University of Bristol Law School, has published ‘Let Her Be Burned etc.’: A Consideration of Husband-killing and ‘Petty Treason’ in Medieval England. Here is the abstract.

This is a working paper based on research to date on medieval petty treason, specifically the treatment by the common law of wives alleged to have killed their husbands.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Call For Papers: Workshop: Women of Justice: Images of Female Legal Professionals in Popular Culture: A Transnational Comparison, August 11-12, 2022

 

                                                       

 

 

Call for Papers

Workshop

Women of Justice

Images of Female Legal Professionals in Popular Culture: A Transnational Comparison

11−12 August 2022 Münster, Germany

The Arab-German Young Academy of Sciences and Humanities (AGYA) in cooperation with the University of Münster is pleased to announce the Call for Papers for the international and interdisciplinary workshop ‘Images of Female Legal Professionals in Popular Culture: A Transnational Comparison’ at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Münster, 11−12 August 2022.

 

Popular culture, be it literature, cinema, or television, has a long history of imagining stories around the judicial system, legal processes, and everyday practices of law. As a result, legal professionals frequently emerge as main characters or important protagonists in different genres of cultural production. For a long time, however, these characters, whether lawyers, judges, or law enforcement officers, were overwhelmingly male. Notwithstanding a few notable exceptions, male legal professionals dominated almost all cultural productions. This changed near the end of the 20th century, when a shift became apparent in the United States, the pioneer of law-related screen productions. Scholarship has argued that increasing representation in both plot and casting have corelated with rising numbers of female legal professionals in real life. Yet, images of women in law-related popular culture have also been described as ‘appalling’ (Shapiro 1994), ‘disappointing’ (Caplow 1999), or ‘cautionary tales’ (Papke 2003).

 

Such negative appraisals criticize stereotypical depictions which frequently come in one of two guises: Either the women lawyers experience an allegedly insurmountable conflict between their professional and personal lives (Grosshans 2006, Banks 2011); or – in marked contrast to their male counterparts – they lack opportunities to emerge as heroes (Corcos 2003). These depictions, in turn, heavily influence how the public imagines, not only the female pop cultural character, but also women in the real-life legal profession.

 

Only recently have legal and media studies scholars identified more nuanced portrayals of female legal professionals (see e.g. Foster et. al. 2009, Banks 2012). Yet, these studies again focus almost exclusively on US-American and, to a lesser degree, British productions. What is still missing from the analysis is how female legal professionals are viewed and portrayed in popular culture outside

the dominant sites of media production. Has the cultural export of US-American legal drama or British crime fiction influenced how law and gender are imagined in other parts of the world? How do the actual participation and representation of women in the legal profession affect their depictions in different genres of popular culture? Has popular culture, both domestic and imported, altered the way society thinks about female lawyers, judges, or law enforcement officers? Our international and interdisciplinary workshop aims to address these questions and, to foster a truly transnational comparison, is particularly interested in contributions that look at popular culture in countries and regions not commonly recognized as creators of globally consumed media productions.

 

Topics, themes, and issues to be explored include, but are not confined to the following:

·       Stereotypical versus realistic images of female legal professionals in popular culture

·       Audiences/readership and their changing perceptions of women in the legal profession

·       Women’s access to the legal profession and their representation in real life versus popular

culture

·       Changing portrayals of women in the legal profession and cross-cultural influences

·       Plots, characters, and sociopolitical critique through female lead characters

 

The workshop is organized by AGYA members Lena-Maria Möller (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law) and Shahd Alshammari (Gulf University for Science & Technology). Travel costs and accommodation for confirmed speakers will be covered by AGYA. Funding is still subject to approval.

 

Those interested in presenting papers are invited to send a tentative title, an abstract of around 300−500 words, and   a   short   biography  to  Lena-Maria   Möller  (moeller@mpipriv.de)   by 15 February 2022.

 

Notifications of acceptance will be announced by 1 April 2022 and draft papers will be due by 1 July 2022. The workshop language will be English. The organizers aim to publish the papers either as an edited volume or as a special issue of an academic journal.

 

While we are aiming at holding the workshop in person, we are happy to accommodate presentations by authors who will not be able to travel because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

About AGYA

The Arab-German Young Academy of Sciences and Humanities (AGYA) is based at the Berlin- Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (BBAW) and at the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT) in Egypt. It was established in 2013 as the first bilateral young academy worldwide. AGYA promotes research cooperation among outstanding early-career researchers (3−10 years after PhD) from all disciplines who are affiliated with a research institution in Germany or in any Arab country. The academy supports the innovative projects of its members in various fields of research, science policy, and education. AGYA is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and various Arab cooperation partners.

 

For more information about AGYA please visit www.agya.info

Seaborne on Rape and Law in Medieval Western Europe @BristolUniLaw

Gwen Seaborne, University of Bristol Law School, is publishing Rape and Law in Medieval Western Europe in Companion to Medieval Crime and Deviance (H. Skoka, ed.,--). Here is the abstract.

A consideration of legal responses to rape, in later medieval western Europe. Content warning: given the subject matter, there is material here which is difficult.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Allen on The Emotional Woman @alenamallen @UARKLaw @NCLRev

Alena M. Allen, University of Arkansas School of Law, is publishing The Emotional Woman in the North Carolina Law Review. Here is the abstract.

The emotional woman is nonexistent in the common law, but the reasonable man is an indelible figure. Conceptions of reasonableness permeate nearly every aspect of the law while emotion is largely absent. The reasonable man determines negligence. Reasonable minds determine whether a contract has been formed. Reasonable doubt stands between freedom and incarceration. The primacy of reason in American jurisprudence is so engrained that it is rarely questioned or critiqued. Although it seems axiomatic to equate socially desirable conduct with reasonableness, this Article dissects how reasonableness became a central tenet of American law and argues that continued adherence to reasonableness as the optimal standard for evaluating conduct entrenches value-laden androcentric norms. It further argues that, in practice, reasonableness is an ill-defined construct masquerading as an objective standard. As such, instead of arguing for a reasonable woman standard of care, this Article departs from the standard feminist critique and argues that reasonableness itself is inherently androcentric. Thus, it argues that reasonableness is not the optimal standard for evaluating tortious or criminal conduct. Using current social science research, this Article argues that emotion is crucial to sound decision-making and proffers the emotional woman standard as a superior alternative to the reasonable man. Lastly, this Article discusses implications for how the emotional woman standard furthers existing paradigms of feminist discourse.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Litman, Murray, and Shaw on A Podcast of One's Own @LeahLitman @ProfMMurray @kateashaw1

Leah M. Litman, University of Michigan School of Law, Melissa Murray, New York School of Law, and Katherine Shaw, Cardozo Law School, have published A Podcast of One's Own at 28 Mich. J. Gender & L. 51 (2021). Here is the abstract.

In this short Essay, we discuss the lack of racial and gender diversity on and around the Supreme Court. As we note, the ranks of the Court’s Justices and its clerks historically have been dominated by white men. But this homogeneity is not limited to the Court’s members or its clerks. As we explain, much of the Court’s broader ecosystem suffers from this same lack of diversity. The advocates who argue before the Court are primarily white men; the experts cited in the Court’s opinions, as well as the experts on whom Court commentators rely in interpreting those opinions, are often white men; and the commentators who translate the Court’s work for the public are also largely white men. We suggest this lack of diversity has consequences both for the Court’s work and for the public’s understanding of the Court. We also identify some of the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity in the Court’s ecosystem, including unduly narrow conceptions of expertise and a rigid insistence on particular notions of neutrality. We also note and discuss our own modest efforts to disrupt these dynamics with Strict Scrutiny, our podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. To be sure, a podcast, by itself, will not dismantle the institutional factors that we have identified in this Essay. Nevertheless, we maintain that our efforts to use the podcast as a platform for surfacing these institutional dynamics, while simultaneously cultivating a more diverse cadre of Supreme Court experts and commentators, is a step in the right direction.

Download the essay at the link.

Biswas on American Feminism in Formation: Margaret Fuller's Women in the Nineteenth Century and Louisa May Alcott's Little Women @IITHyderabad

Shreosi Biswas, IIT Hyderabad, has published American Feminism in Formation: Margaret Fuller's Women in the Nineteenth Century and Louisa May Alcott's Little Women. Here is the abstract.

In the last one hundred years or so, the theory and praxis of feminism have almost touched the zenith although, even in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, feminism was only a neglected theoretical perspective, due perhaps to the fact that it liberally as well as radically challenged the mainstream patriarchal conventions. Debates and discussions were there, stray demands for rights of women were also raised here and there, a limited number of women in different countries of the world might also have risen to very high positions of power and authority, but till the last decade of the eighteenth century there was no consistent and dedicated writing to provide support to the women’s causes. My intention in this paper is to examine and evaluate the contribution of Margaret Fuller Ossoli and Louisa May Alcott in giving the necessary philosophical-theoretical support and literary justification to feminism during its formative period in America through a close study of Women in the Nineteenth Century (1845) and Little Women (1868). An exploration of the philosophical-literary back-ups which ignited the flourishing of feminism in America, even before the term ‘feminism’ was coined, is both interesting and insightful.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Baker and Green on the Non-Existence of a "Legal Name" @j_remy_green @AustinACBaker @HRLROnline

Austin A. Baker, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and J. Remy Green, Cohen & Green, P.L.L.C.; Boston University School of Law, are publishing There is No Such Thing As a 'Legal Name': A Strange, Shared Delusion in volume 53 of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review (2021). Here is the abstract.

As far as federal, most state, and any other source of American law is concerned — as several courts in the early 20th Century put it: there is no such thing as a legal name. Yet, the phrase “legal name” appears everywhere, often beside threats of the penalties of perjury if you give something other than your legal name. For example, transgender people often hear “well, this has to say your ‘Legal Name,’” as an explanation for why they must be referred to by their deadname. One would assume, given the widespread use, surely must be a clear, unambiguous name that constitutes a person’s “legal name” — as well as “legal” reasons an organization insists on using that name, right? Well. Not so much. Thus, this Article seeks to highlight the (legal, moral, and philosophical) wrongness of that notion. We begin by explaining the practical significance of this mistake (the mistake being something like, “legal name means XYZ and only XYZ,” where “XYZ” means “name on [usually one and only one of: birth certificate/social security card/driver’s license/name change order]”). Then, we survey the “legal” status of names in various legal domains, highlighting that legal consensus tends to be that there is no one “correct legal name” for individuals (if anything, people often have many “legal” names). We then frame the wrongheaded notion that a person has a single clearly defined “legal name” as a harmful, collective delusion. So how do we rid ourselves of this delusion? We present a series of ready-to-cite conclusions about the current state of the law and introduce a normative framework for how institutions and individuals ought to choose between people’s various legal names when referring to them. Specifically, we introduce what we call the ‘Preference Norm’, according to we should defer to the legal name someone prefers absent some existent superseding legal reason not to. We argue that violating this norm in many cases constitutes a gross violation of someone’s dignity. We conclude by proposing a series of concrete legal suggestions which are meant capture the spirit of the Preference Norm.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Ramsey on Women's Votes, Women's Voices, and the Limits of Criminal Justice Reform, 1911-1950 @ColoLaw

Carolyn B. Ramsey, University of Colorado Law School, is publishing Women's Votes, Women's Voices, and the Limits of Criminal Justice Reform, 1911-1950 in volume 92 of the University of Colorado Law Review. Here is the abstract.

On the eve of the Nineteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1920, Carrie Chapman Catt—the leader of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA)—envisioned the establishment of a nonpartisan body dedicated to female voters’ political education that would help newly enfranchised women develop a voice in public affairs. To this end, Catt guided the conversion of NAWSA into a post-suffrage association called the National League of Women Voters (LWV). While Catt’s goal of training women for full citizenship was abstract, many state and local Leagues took a more practical approach, learning from the experience of tackling specific social problems. This Article, written for a symposium commemorating the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment, assesses the role of LWV leaders in California in reforming three aspects of the criminal justice system that affected women: courts, police, and prisons. It draws from the archival papers of the San Francisco Center of the LWV, as well as other primary sources, to reveal the contradictions and shortcomings, as well as the achievements, of newly enfranchised California women who sought to carry on the suffragists’ legacy. During the four decades between 1911 and the middle of the twentieth century, the San Francisco Center advocated gender-specific approaches to crime with varying degrees of success or failure. Initially prompted to investigate the ills of lower-level criminal courts (known as “police courts”) by a local judge’s mishandling of rape cases, San Francisco clubwomen launched a full-fledged effort to establish a Women’s Court. Part I of this Article discusses the origins, goals, and limitations of the Women’s Court and the San Francisco Center’s subsequent campaign for the appointment of a female prosecutor and municipal judge. Although influenced by Progressive ideas about the use of specialized courts and trained experts, League members mostly confined their efforts to morals offenses that recalled the Victorian social purity movement, rather than seeking remedies for domestic violence and other aspects of crime that affected women. Part II explores another project supported by the San Francisco Center that exemplified how Progressive tools might perpetuate essentially Victorian values. During the first half of the twentieth century, San Francisco clubwomen urged the SFPD, with little success, to hire a substantial number of female police officers. The San Francisco Center emphasized prostitution and other vices of “fallen” women as areas of law enforcement for which female officers supposedly possessed special skills. Limited both by the SFPD’s reluctance to hire women and female reformers’ myopic interest in preventing prostitution, the San Francisco Center doggedly pursued an agenda that entrenched gender segregation on the police force without bringing real remedies to systemic sexism or the victimization of women. Part III describes the most revolutionary criminal justice reform project that members of the California LWV spearheaded in the first half of the twentieth century: the creation of a “prison without walls” for female offenders. Based on the notion that women who committed crimes, even felonies, might be taught law-abiding ways through education, hard work, and humane treatment, the Tehachapi prison experiment demonstrated that newly enfranchised female voters had gained traction in public life. However, while the creation and operation of the women’s prison gave substance to a rehabilitative ideal more forward-looking than many LWV proposals for moral enforcement, the male-dominated legal system created substantial impediments to the success of the Tehachapi facility. The Conclusion assesses the contributions of the LWV and its state and local branches in California. Like their sisters in the national organization, members of the San Francisco Center worked tirelessly on social welfare issues and civil service reform, opening unprecedented paths to jobs and community involvement for women. In contrast, their criminal justice reform efforts were hampered, not only by the differing interests and continued power of male jurists, police chiefs, and prison officials, but also by the clubwomen’s obsession with prostitution. The affluent white activists of the San Francisco Center and the state-level LWV failed to advocate structural changes that might have liberated women, especially poorer and racial-minority women, from gendered violence. Yet despite the San Francisco Center’s limited success in obtaining justice for victims of sexual exploitation, integrating the San Francisco Police Department, and rehabilitating female offenders, its activities helped put women into public office and provide concrete opportunities for political engagement in the first few decades after suffrage was achieved.

Download the article from SSRN at the link. 

Zier on Feminism, Insanity, and Property Rights in 1940s America @MagdaleneZier

Magdalene Zier, Stanford University School of Law, Stanford University Department of History, is publishing 'Champion Man-Hater of All Time': Feminism, Insanity, and Property Rights in 1940s America in the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract.

Legions of law students in property or trust and estates courses have studied the will dispute, In re Strittmater’s Estate. The cases, casebooks, and treatises that cite Strittmater present the 1947 New Jersey supreme court decision as a model of the “insane delusion” doctrine. Readers learn that snubbed relatives successfully invalidated Louisa Strittmater’s will, which left her estate to the Equal Rights Amendment campaign, by convincing the court that her radical views on gender equality amounted to insanity and, thus, testamentary incapacity. By failing to provide any commentary or context on the overt sexism, these sources affirm the court’s portrait of Louisa Strittmater as an eccentric landlady and fanatical feminist. This is troubling. Strittmater should be a well-known case, but not for the proposition that feminism is an insane delusion. Despite the decision’s popularity on law school syllabi, no scholar has interrogated the case’s broader historical background. Through original archival research, this Article centers Strittmater as a case study in how social views on gender, psychology, and the law shaped one another in the immediate aftermath of World War II, hampering women’s property rights and efforts to achieve constitutional equality. More than just a problematic precedent, the case exposes a world in which the “Champion Man-Hater of All Time”—newspapers’ epithet for Strittmater—was not only a humorous headline but also a credible threat to the postwar order that courts were helping to erect. The Article thus challenges the textbook understanding of “insane delusion” and shows that postwar culture was conducive to a strengthening of the longstanding suspicion that feminist critiques of gender inequality were, simply put, crazy.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.