BCP ‘00-'01 Kang ke Like — Feminist Privacy plot Z NC PLA OA INCe ea PE FALLEN wey PSSNers) © iene) Whee Se Wie ae pote Ute , BrP THE DUBORDINATSN OF Wee IN Bot Purse =% Pete —SpHeRed. Catharine A. MacKinnon, ferninist@ilgp ‘89, Toward a Femizist Theory Of the State, p. 193-194 {mariesa] ‘When the law of privacy restricts intrusions into intimacy, it bars changes in ibe FPS aly ss conxensive with state power, the Supreme Cou held hata Sat could ot pu logical aes te righ to veto abotonsin the ft timetr becuse, pen Roe the sate Gd ot have this power Oerve at 4 rogues Ropes koe one ata time, See aaa ‘existing SeTimtonal womanhood, This instance of liberalism-définedl from the male standpoint as if it had no particularity and applied to wimen as if they were persons, gender neutral- reinforces the division betweed: the public and private which very parulrand oot gender metal it a eal rmystifies the unity iaOr Teron the public and prvae, an at once epistemic ad material depoliticizes women’s subjection within it. Privacy law Keeps some men out of the bedrooms of other men. ————BCP ‘00-01 Feminist Privgcy Kang pL of We Boe Lmglitetih Othe eR? tet NY MedeweretA > Peodlemxtee = IN THAT, TT Const (Worle Assent °F DIMEN Deen. THis Fat Tiel te cupeptames THE Re Eee ABD AL Totegent, , HAR) FED SuLvency CUED ARE Depicted. ete NG ww PREQUMTON ad AS A The ey BAU, Inherent, StS @ he a Rrsy & Toor a came weqten> of | Pea SPHERE, IS Ny THe LaperRTsN OF = OMENS Catharine A. MacK innen, feminist tate, +89, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, p. 196 {mariesal ‘The question then becomes not whether such knowledge is possible but ‘whether women are such a people and now is such atime. saising bas revealed that male power. Us just not the only realty, as it claims to be. Male power is a myth that makes itself “true. to confront male power in its duality: as at 2 eee in CONSCIOUSNESS TAISINE, me hax 7% it pegation, but The conteat of the message is revealed as true false af the same time; in fact each part reflects the other transvalued. If “Men are all, women their negation” is taken as social criticism rather than as ciitque, women's sommunaMy describes a fact of male supremacy, a fact of ‘ex “im itself: no woman escapes the meaning of being a woman within a ‘gendered social system and sex inequality is not only pervasive but may be ‘universal (in the sense of never having not beea in some form), though _ “intelligible only in..ocally specific forms.” For women to become a 99x - “for itself" is to move community to the level of visionnn eminisg Pry ” We @® Suc ae PPreseseN OF woe ONLY EN EERCHE? Ane DasewANCe AND Conte — THIS Wetec ED ey Rete TUK Ruta Host aust. Betty A. Reardon consultant, Joint United Nations InfStination Committee, Non- Governmental Organization Programme Group on Women, 93, Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security. p. 3 | Most a aguas EAL EaILID are 0 uctingoutuld pairs Pace aia nagar lo ase Gainsae andGuated tordstatco ones character ‘ro varity fraioromusing tsmmaltigles _oa tae a a e : sitesi hse of recurrent warfure are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a res was of thinking, which historically have generated considerable Pressure for standing armies to be used. ‘Spretnak T9831, Tessure for standing armies to be use 3 FIRES Wu pe eSTem friv- “A — AREN Yo The «un aout a regu, — sotial — inliflernde. VA women a. on KR Same GnditienS Che me, ens Fictend Sphes phase. fr abuntosen Oe adoecared a TAC By tinization ft Wi Ypntection & leo inh | ER guer pete Pee hi ndysio it Grekeg aN bewinant ee ran A war Cod pele. |p Seed OP ese hee mh YteNIe Kise mination. The ONL. hope ae bess vamen Erm gecith — mixdoncepten Fr ‘ wl nt gacninnhed chek — hetibolanlinatiann — it aK rei zjeokin & Ue pn ws te Nae vi cunt oY inn yor BA retin Ht futhue Doan ifesstadions prritelian hagtren Me huey by Hdd implica ine! Z ipcert ec tit Fon. oe bins 7 MRrmntivels — subsrbinutin oh went cite — stueal kites Gstawsse yelntes — fictional — zoloenty. @) “Or RRs Contraction oC qwolie [pri wl, “he Guberbinwtion turds, CMR inkiting AU epeeBer ‘eo Ean Few: Prive We _0V “ly chucked minal elite in ©» a, Pe re at ot Nude bbleauwt ie? feben G5 from INC mtsife minimal tah anbstantil aduntagc od, iar lade Feqelwation cf wathecked we anf Or ee) inbivduel i pate ewtelicniny te inter erecta qi 3 an toed it onl ‘ Regi and the rb) of Huan Lie | fasBcP “Sd-01 aang $M Fem © oh Pivaoy (1 The private space 75 basea on the male experiance, Laws thet upolt eee construct & Hichstomey between Wow ark Werunsr. Conic, ewurer @ Newcastle Law School, 165) Masculinity. Law. andthe Family. (Richard, p. 60,64 ) Lar ing ablicorbae’dvaion has Yon DOH OSES iv concen iy ee SS re reg SOT see we Grocery WHER oct : s Tip to analysis beyond the cemas oTM cours. TENT SETSGS) argues that the prvale Sphere Fer fhe aase, He suggest Oa The pubic and ie PR (pe a oe oral Ses clof wc practices and WraeHe on “open ae ron has nonetheles been wulised in a (OE lov arar came (one D3 “of binary oppositons which earn, Been {Fes (Raw TG, Carcner TEST THEE OR Tons Fares in turn, been considered.t0.b sntal to the SRapmyorconsciousmess 18-8 ipeparriarchalgpeialrdedin Tear foser ace SS ae oa 182). Doran TORS] SST Ree a Mo paca agena arguing ie pre Sern apce as de ple but pceted MES ay 2 cree 2 The ee wwe RO aurareha lad to which his ofcers do no eck 9s race conetrec “Goivour v Balfour (1919) 2 KB 872, 57%. ‘Sho Semayne’s Case (a Tne dion epimates reading the OO (A a arena co as place of le ee noc nicer DE CEP in ee and woe don bee Pn ran pa cnseson Sr at division’Feminige tty SLP_ 0-08 S Kang 4. Crans, Rervacy oppresses Womdgry e2/ eee C4 EKAUSIEND OF DOMED IN THE Pe wate DEMES Pewsontood Ruth Gavison, visting professor of law, USC Law Center, Novemb3y 92, Stanford Law Review, p lexis g firs feminist claim is thatthe privatization of women has resulted in their “eatinatizaton In modern, post-industrial Societe, 4 Suere seis Ivble this realm has become inreasngly impoverished and Limited. Fe Raa chai eo only pole ~ bread-winning work. 252 $ scone wne obese ayn tae ds Se eat ahr Te eno se Se tai at Se ee oun saa arb fon my spe le ee oe cas a oy oo 3 Se ee cos el epee wel, nomen ear acaty Foal eo te take ty for ralsing children and for providing unpald services i , Tome while men are expeced Io eam a iving ouside the Bome. Feminists argu chat this elegation of womep tothe “privates unjust because it burdens women in many ways. n53 Tt warding ives, and i serving of discussion and redress. The “rival becomes Simultaneously iaviable and purely “selPTepacing” and derefore of no public interes C3 cig hl, ven CE dig ie women Reivacy oF autoncey in Bre gevate Sphere Columbia Journal of Gender and Lavt 71/992, (te ser Cathougn ney ate ct often ear abot ne anal eros tree wo coneetan pana. oie auroug ey a teacy ts argue a So ed om eng tote e2S eA eiarteby vty, gvenwhen privacy da i “BL. Sree privacy te regedly underving he Courts privacy anafyis. FYSt Ney, jsceto show hat DAES 4 part neaaloes btwcen We Seer vate so 2 riahavs 9 afi SECTEETO WTR one's 583 doy ohgrs OF of, -e2rand werBcP 00-O\ Feminiss Privacy Kany §-Chans ef Pevsocy suoocdiaates wombn (-) te Tevate Seuece Isnares Aur IMeelSONS woes sarguret Baldi sida professor of aw at Florida sae inthe Harvard's Women's Law Joural, Spring 1997. ane wsict ass ‘Women ae located ouside, jnsideyand-aeroseshe zones of public and = _gilvare, Modem feminism has, nevertheless, focused primarily on the situ Bio’ Sf waren in one location: the isolation of women inthe private domestic’. « > sphere. This emphasis on womew’s privatization is no theoretical saprice. As” Taste Pareman expla, the the meaning of gender itself "the public ascribed to the realm of men, the ‘rIVate, To WOMEN In popular (and academic) consciousness the duality of femal serves 10 enea (or circle) of iberal separations ‘and oppositions: female, oF ~ nature, personal, emotional, love. private, FFauition. morality. ascription, articular, subjection; male, or ~ culture, politcal, reason, justice, public , philosophy, power, achievement, universal, freedom. 045 EXCLUSION FROM THE PUBLIC SPHERE HARMS WOMEN IN PRIVATE. | Laura W, Stein, Associate Professor of Law, N jew York University, Minnesota Law Review, 1993, lexis omen in the private incre bas sub PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR WOMEN UNDERMINE WOMEN PRN AC MacKinnon, Professor of Law, Michigan, Feminism Unmodt ‘To fal to Tecopnize the meaning of the p vate in the ideology and, rome on the abortion issue ‘rom each TentsBLP 00-01 Feminist Privecy Vans 4, Crag ray Veivacy Maa \2eg WOH, — C3 ezcussion 0F WOMEN 2qzF 4 Privacy destroy S womens cights ts “relegating wemen tra donate povete Sphere Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 7/31/1992. [the skier] Catharine Mackinnon, Frances Olsen, _\ fenlorang'a msleaang ana eecogea 0) Tae dates coeTueEe « a rm ia ue he paradiom for he soil suche ‘dcuaee fat rere vat ies, eagon,vlunlary assocans, et) scans ye socates a he pate apace, Winn Ys mode, powers ‘4 inte sate, sot arcumecbed and ted y basic rons, while the private sphere is deemed tobe fe realm ae 5m, auonomy, and equality of oppertundy into which publi: State et iavene, Tr 9 | ee Son that as long a3 te tate does private fe, autonomode pT edirduate wa : H'_ SreSHISING. pe-poltical sohece CECORTEA Tatura, ne “are located and based on consent between autonomous aduis. qrearnaton af ther "non-political relations, nye “J 19 Olsen, Finger to the Dev, supra note 18, at 376 see also MacKinnen supra note 18, at 98 aoe (CS But_as many feminist poiticl theorists have pointed ou. his duaist models superimposed in liberal theory u s° another boundary between publ Party, rnnay-netuset dase Me and i etc SOS). 20 is secon T5.g hind of silent presence in liberal contract theory. When privacy othe home "iis. ‘Yet their subordir ar ety, and chance o exit rom, the so-called mariage conract 21 On tis model, then. privacy sppasent. ion and scrutiny attaches fo an “entty’-the family~shielding its natural, internal, intimate relations from public in%Ce e0-0\ Karnes 4s rans . womal iS os Reiwney wai c xy Spree DIVE ATE RBeween PouTncsc AND Domest DuTles—wwmMen Becone SUBoEDINATES ‘Arita L. Allen, law, University of Pennsylvania, March ‘99, William and Mary Law Review, p._ lexis The concept ot gts ne semana asl ei Gt ta Tiinglsable MIS and pnvate spheres, the private sphere being areal z = Zo conceived : of individual decisionmaki “ r Ege The Grecks istinguished the “public” sphere of the polis, or city-state, from the “private” sphere of the = ikos, or household. a7 The Romans 8462*725 similarly B 2 distinguished res publicee, concerns ofthe community, from res privat, concerns of $F inivdvals and fanilis. 8 The pole ealm was he sector i whch Fe aarp mre citizenship paniipated in § collective governance. a9 By contrast, the private realm was the fhundane sector of economic and biologic survival. n1O Wives, ebildrea slaves, and vate sphere, living as subordinate ancillaries to \, servants populated te Yo Sic cdalen att Te case ene toca ie upto be said ie be and private spheres survives inthe postsEolightenment Western — g 5 wate spheres survives in. AB § Goeral uadiion. a5 does the premise thatthe private sphere consists chiefly ofthe home, 5 Ie fay, and apliea nine sort. eoaeweeewerVwWvvr.— Cn Ce ee re LT So ee ee et a nes Sn ee sama Timental power ~ on a justification for excluding women bom i blic pursuits donot Beft the gentler sex public sphere eave bese 9 aL tea wag orld responsibilities sich as giving birth ‘over the last quarter-century, the 1 u%0-0\ Feeninisy Privacy aang, 5, Cann, ee ic io) Rewony Subj gare worndin ‘THE “PRIVATE” EXCLUDES WOMEN AND SUBJUGATES THEM, Ruth Gavison, Professor of Law, Hebrew University, Stanford Law Review, 1992, p lexis ‘The frst feminist claim is thatthe privatization of women has resulted in their marginalization. Ia mod societies gated tothe private, while ths realm has become increasing Fate now bli: many ways, First, many ales, buraso = fog systems exzioded women polieal by detying thea al sas independent of he fathes oF HEbokds tn sdatson wo hese exclusions, omen were ganted ony ied economic sb popery-boling ih nd n many Counties, women were baned fom mary profession, aching medicine and law, Even dx), without many of te formal Senet egual argon me poll: poesonl wey wonen eee trequaly_ Fl won fo Fal omens, Donny fo raising bites aa Tor providing uipeid vies te home while men are expected to = Fens aut scepter of wate ote poate amuse TOUS ae {Simany Wipe Tt ceies them positive Hara. Satin. remding Ives, and independence, withou seknow edging the Ssbaton jt and dering of ates areas “The pve” becomes siultaheously inviible and purely “self-regarding,” and fore of no pubs intrest —I—=>——F>>——————— Di sca sting prvag om abStecet Heras masks the cocce lations oF The gublee/peivate sn agape men's S bord ia atlas aroi Bateman, feminist plc sient reader n Goveramentin te Uof Sydney, Public and Private in Socal Life ed SJ, Benn and G.F. Gaus, 983, p. 2-4 {the SkieH] tye satiate reatinn hetween the private and the natural suhscured tee iam that wa fOFeT deelopmen ahd a Cn coco gosta | Ine 97 hbersism owe voRatiOns). Sih ie and Ho sho cs, wom ge ae TE a TCL ceptions: female ar = nate penn, en dete ttn moray. spt past yeti a Fe seg ie, poiticsl wasn, astice, pubic, plalosophy, fora. Tie sont furan YaBLP 00-0\ Feminish Privacy Kora, §.Ch ee/ nay 4. Crony, Ravacy Coadones wom a 2 The private Sphre verter wonren Poe lene nen. < Foctelos hora University of Michigan, 1 a Ses eee non '44ze) If women are socially defined such chat female sexuality cannoe be ved or spoken ot felt or even somatically sensed apart from ies cenforced definition, so that itis its own lack, then there is no such thing as a woman as such; chere are only walking embodiments of men's projected needs. Under male supremacy. asking whether there is, socially, a female sexuality isthe same as asking whether women exist, Methodologically, the concept that the personal is political the feminist answer to this question. Relinquishing all instinctual, natural, transcendental, and divine authority, this concept grounds ‘women’s sexuality on purely relational cerrain, anchoring women’s power and accounting for women's discontent in the same world they sand aguinst. The personal as political i aot a simile, not « metaphor, and not an analogy. It does not mean that what occurs in personal life {s similar co, or comparable with, what occurs in the public arent. It {a noc an application of categories from public life to the private world, 1 when Engels (followed by Bebel) says that in the family the husband is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proterariat."* Nor is it an equation of ewo spheres chat remain analytically distinct, as when Wilhelm Reich interpreted state behavior in sexual corms," oF 4 ‘one-way infusion of one sphere into the ocher. as when Harold Lasswell [interpreted political behavior as the displacement of personal problems inco public objeces,"* It means thar women's distinctive experience as_ women occurs within thac sphere char has been socially lived as the _Personal—prvaie—easarianalinterionzed, particular. individuared, Tatimate— thar what itis co know che politics of woman's situation Teer RTT women’s personal lives, particularly women’s sexual fives ‘The substancive principle governing the authentic politics of women’s pervonal lives ie pervasive powerlessness 1 Meh. expressed od reconscieuted daly ae SRT perioral Be olitical means that gendeTATa Uivisioa of power is discov verifiable cheough women's intimate expeTeTce oF seRUaT OUT Toon, which 1 dchinitive of and WrGAyMOG with women’s TW as “RRR Thos omni aie oad opaenlor ay the political, and its epistemology iS ats politics, Feminism, on this — anaes AE EE RAPTOR seth is guneeucnnalesreson > [LA = [eescP vo-o1 Teminisy Crivaty Kana, A, Orang ry C4 A Gees on the private sphere allows « jet Gestion Loe the Subercinnkion of Wena: ‘MacKinnon, professor of law at University of Michigan, "83 (Catharine, Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender, ed: Katharine Bartlett and Rosanne Kennedy, p. 143,09 Goonsier 1 ctl eagle. The separation of public from erate i 3 LEA Si nate ci co coecrvty atari ito women SEES Bocdnanan: Leply bas both formal and subeante dimentions Fe Re Teena not subsea, the allocation of public mater 9 ina in aed iy ey ded ms no mabe ley" wich ened Sy eigen on oe reer poona cry Is hermetic means tha which nace sa aad amcor by ting tye ole Imac the pom pb On ne Sk woe er eo 8 euis paste We et ne, Ou SEE IN EN a eu hence we nv) or wolion Pray # everthing WOOD gupint sonen hw see bers alowed wo be 10 Ree a he ae Ce PMB crs eering woe hee been eed whan eed in ms fee mer acy to have To confront the fact that we Mev, so privacy 1 Tatrone our private depredarion a che public order. To fail to recopnis al vek | i = a eae Tak of men io be et alone treat ne Foe Te ra cue ron ooh eg S2uNtTad qe ease he pre pee io idl women’ . cae th Serdang women collcve news 2 the #mpenes “ie pee wen i ee cake wD INABe 00-01 Feminigr Pevacy Hanae nn ey Reimcy devalues woman Seeees a tN eae RON THE PRSUC AND c CLUDES DOME ceisnn ams) » er of. NYU Law Minnescta Law Review, TY reaponse to Ferinast CABGUES 1593 Laura, Associate Pr “Living anth the risk of backfi of Prvacy and Equality” May. apgintains cat the is the wor! r 1g the deol og parses elas nn 2 lS SH wate FIST. the ideal of separation ee sD women Som ihe public apbere ~ aan Teas zs SRE round at ese pblie pursuits do aa Sedtshe Zener 226 sous as ‘ewolicitexd.usions of women from the public sph ae ee quar: F s jo make Snr center or remain in th Peguimizes d ving bith oF 3 ang 5 7} LACK QF BROTECTIONS IN PRIVATE REALM DEVALUES WOMEN AS A GROUP NadinehoatSProfesor gt Lav, Burgers and lisabeth Schneider, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School, The Politics of Law: A save Critique, 19% p. 157 “Prskoe the law flaps» Sonertal ole, though an exclusive role, in shaping and maintaining women's subordination. The law has operated directly and explicit to prevent women ftom ataining self-support and influence inthe public sphere, thereby reinforcing their dependence on men. At the same time, its continued absence from the private sphere to which women are relegated not only leaves inva women without formal remedies But so devalues and Giseds hem troop]Line * aoe NES — Gender roles mes Patricmly art eppression. on ica @ Had pete fo Women oD) ‘Cin an important sense, then, gender i inked with important des ge’ ican the des loc ut recon ind Speen OT owe pre Basis eatmp Tr roe genera woo re insole Gr meats MT Wile gender may have TO os Se Sartre orrany soul characrenscs such a ace, age, ethic rele j re fen nd cal, Tht ate ia lo be fo a (xO ste na cuss ait As concepts, then, ena RO in ia if “or ways of describing men and women as they actually are. Instead, they are ‘cantrol potential theats to patriarchy, manage men's competition with Giving wore. ark men socially Consinetal roles rreshs The oppressian ‘thet evists In seiety Ble jst @ Hartford College for Women, I eens oe) nderize what are inherently human qualities, we lock our- sche in web i thane main co chy goings arise ito remain naledominned acleccaniee ea ee — oes eer wone oe a i cma enh ‘eincaretcretellspadanacgcte — ition, we obsess abou gender and define asthe coe of sel ender so 6%FRE ‘ov ala Entity poeey Suberd nates Women by Rereiny The te the private Sphere Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 7/31/1992. {the skier) . Hisar te male noun and pronouns ave bee te pret omen from voting c= Ti oiling proper: Desputsthe decisions + csgaiding te nearing hee nord fo clude wore 3 al he nferenees “ RESEND . ‘Some peorie argue that this is a really petty 9oint. she use of “man” represent primar. holders of cemain inthe wor'd. f"mar wiv cet Neutral pronouns are sill associated with males Gripe And Gearge Professor of Sociology @ University of Chichester and Professor of Education @ ‘University of London "96 (Chris and Roslyn Gender, "Rase”and clas and schooling)Pg39-40(A-10) Grcwnseege sree ts inne, ma (ie efter, ache’ ox exon). ‘She found thar worsen ¥ere sit usm ibe tener yang akerauves ths dl 2 wed sascaline pris teulibg speckles in agaeee © showed four people in varios male/male ras bs, genera the respond ‘Sam matched petureg.of two men and two women oni 1 the incase formas, never tO menor mankand What ths work Carpuably) shows is that while at 3 comccus evel wt words are ot ue | mY 560 ve numbers. wee | exh sexes when they use "@ MacKay and Falkerson (199) sugges futher arguments about hs. They ve people sentences 0 read likeAN ld howekerper cleaned her carpet Before suns’ and asked whether dus coud refer t both sexes or Ont ‘pe. Orly 2 per cent sai could refer both sexes 3 in other words, re ss no abagury about the sentence: However, wih‘ bicyclist can Bet at be sno safe fom dogs’ 87 percent sid ths was only appbcabe fo males (fn ‘ther words, te sentence made them vale a mak Cl) and ths perce age 9s nt reduced cven when sercnces conning noune ke secre, (pss oF recepuorst were Wed whe Teaining the male pronoun Swan ‘ics Sivera O90) as ecw 15 such mudi al of wc Ra ar comes demonstng hat most people do not aly understand heat 3B ing 10 women a weu a8 men sce abo Spender, 1980. pp. 155-6). Another ccanple of tha kind of ambuguy @ To survive, man needs food. wale. Shei and female companionship’ Man’ bere w arty ‘Men’ maaquending 362 oven, One indicason that tack man’ nok a genenc term ss a sentence lke Man, bev a mama, beat fed is YOUR AS UWE SERIENGE SATE “pe eke web een sD ihe ecco en Se apt re oe Sue ao 1 “ gankind” why werent housewives called housersen? And ifs such a ety hy [et hat he least that : Tage tt shat she east that canSeo Tem fea Hy & ne rte Lane * Cn iS q The concept F ti Cts Gre vomised 2 te wele. ; soe. They occe es and thus cere poutviewky. Set 7 professor of law at Brooklyn Law SchoolC$B-Blizabeth, Feminist Legal Theory: Zadings in Law and Gender, ed: Katharine Bartlett and Rosanne Kennedy, p. 314) "CSome feminist critiques of rights see rights claims as formal and hierarcnicat— Tigho periculas 7 ae cha * oa 7 ‘As Catharine MacKinnon, 3 leading expe OD pron eer NBC rights will authore the male experience of the wend" ‘Some lepl writes sce similarities between the CLS crtique of rights based con “lberal lela” and the ferinit crique based on “patriarchy” Bath bend F = ane asf dichotomies. Further, ‘Oe eraques usefully the indeterminacy of 1 Te wa eck rhs dacouse cer reales lation tnt pape Bae rma — Righighe the warn WHER Tan BEE rom polities! stupa. They appropriately Samo EH socal MOWERS a ‘ewer encounter when relying on rights to effect social change > 3 - Abelvect rights are an 7 wale view. S ca ERB Pot @ Universiy of Michigan, 16S) wine A., Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, ' e Sate p. 299-24) ORS aie setae mal pana he wd Si are fe aun sadn Te eS, Se ae a ian ase Tea re a eee ee eee ‘atone male powet Be poumigy Tat es a TORR Basie_norm and fundamental description. Onl a Sonat tach svamiancal. Macaloay Then ‘not just che way things are Ter “ep appr eweciic patina, mo ny thing: fements and partials geveaed in proces and prcsedon, adios casion and legilaion 258-24 . ;te bwia Pete Live * deer we We es ee ped se a rs Y os) € are ts oe iat eee ie fn Se 8et ys Women aad minenitie 5 Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 4/30/1999 (te skier) In recent years, a number of feminist scholars and actvsts have examined the function of rights in liberal politica theory ‘and have raised questions about the usefulness of iberal rights for women. 1 Some argue that anough liberal nghts cen 'e used in arguments for women's equality, they can also function to uphold the power of privileged groups. For insta, n Pomography and Cvi Rights, Catharine MacKinnon and Ancrea Dwerkin pint out tat olor unct sructures of power in society _spowersay tal important rights wiLbe uolated f socieh crahoe Ww protects rights -but mosty it protects Se BRET TSS 17.18) Mockenonand Dorn go onto Sese7BE the “Fepeciic ways in which poweTuTgrcups have used nigh to maintain ther positions of dominance in society. For instance, they note that whe supremacists inthe segregated South used rights such asthe "right to association” to ‘Yargue against demands for tegration: "Forced fo integrate. whites lst te power to exclude Blacks. This they experienced as having lost the ight to associate with whom they wanted, thats 0 say, exclusively with each other (3886, 17) In other words. itis often the powerful groups in society who succeed in using rights to protect the ‘advantages that they have. > Libecalisn, is Condritted ty Ae Qublic/privak lichotuny teat has A Se, rein Politics and Law. Oxford, THE POLITICS OF COMMUNITY, 1885 p.72 Perhaps the Best-known, and most decply contested feature of feminist ciique ofthe liberal tradition isis attack on the ichotomy between public add private. in bth is analytic and its prescnpive aspers. As we have seen, the liberal “conception ofthe limited neutral Sate carries wilh Tan implicit conception ofa private, non-political sphere in WHich state “Tatervenion is inappronraieand-abere-individeal sufonomy isin be exercised, Liberalism is Comnifedte 1 Seperttinn of public ond prune Eluabeyh FibGetand Nicol Lace, Decurers in Politics and Law, Oxford, THE POLITICS OF COMMUNITY. 1@op47, but o Sor mae se il porane Te eri ea aan ent ao aie Xeon en pi pr ang Teas sci or ind aac ed ep. i fa alia ST ed Pe pax. Tus die expel au in Ml arp ate ly an oh ee ‘Should use force to coerce a citizen's conduct js the prevention of harm to others. 99-Lancs NEGATE i Negative rights enbrencn inet vatiry Lisa géfrwartzman) doctoral candidate in philosophy, State University of New York. Stony Brook, HYPATIA, Spring p3s Funlbermere, MacKinnon argues that the harm fom which oppresed OWES SURE, Pecos ofthe Uo} in ich MEME y conceived as “negative” rights against the state. is not Timited to the fact that. are ft itly unable to exercise their Re eae Sa RSST Scythe ner ton poopesis fr aen powe tare Oa a a result the latter group may suffer whenever the first group exercises is Mghis Thus. the assertion of negative righis By — inembers of the powerful group may further solidify the inequality: “If one group is socially granted the positive freedom to do whatever it wans to another group tdelemnine iat The second SFoup willbe and do this rather than that, no amoun OT— Tiegalive freedom legally guaranteed to the second | will i for women, this has meant that a main in which women are distinctively subordinated and deprived of power. has ben placed beyond reach of legal guarantees” (MacKinnon 1989, 164-63)_By granting negative rights tn the dominant group ~= men in this _ ‘case ~ and depriving the subordinated group of access to any rights that would bring about change. the law can function to ment Commitment +» neyatite feedon enitendes pur cinrchy Elizabgth Fi > Lecturers in Politics and Law, Oxford, THE POLITICS OF COMMUNITY, (633. p61. From. Se pe gssian Siar pole oe peer eh an eee ti coelon he pt sone si ero i RETESET ot simply the rain tat ‘a normative commitment tone}ae? any) ] Hegemonic discourse of the APPiymah ve remains sgaqzestored perpervahn, Gad Sntue Quo Best eying any demmamrrope ot Savers, wWemor oaitacs Y | Mint oan Spree SSR RNY MOTE TETI pia ng Sea cate Soave TT SF Paechter, the School of Educatida, at the Open University, "98 (Carrie, | Fducating the Other: Gender, Pawer and Schooling, 1998, P. 2-3) Cl tn this book I talk a lot bout the hegemonic nasure of discourses. Both since been applied in a vanery of theoretical and practical contents, bo cE ee ntconceps and {need o cant my ‘hin and beyond ss Marz roots Ik 2 onesPs tev of them By discourse | mean 2 way of speaking. wring oF thinking ‘han incorporstes parucular dings as gven, unchallengeable rhs, The Trctullengeable nara of these ‘uths' means that, win a parucular is- ‘ou, only cenain things can be sad or thought o question these assump fsons 1 to step outside the discourse. Or to putt another way es UV amt using the term scour’ 0 refer socaly rpansed frameworks ‘Cracanng dat define eveyone: and spent domai of what can be si Sd done: (Burman, 1994p. D Discourses are useful and important; we do need o beable tose iis lon what can and cannot be said win 2 paricular context. Scientific ‘Slcuaon, for example, would be far more difcu ifthe discourse of science Gatece pose some resvicdon on what does and what does not "count as and therefore have [Sony ascounes, converue conventions forthe exchange of ideas oF the wo make them ‘Siroig out of social roles, and teat them 28 selfevident ouths. As will d ETE uo so pre area numberof edacasonal scourses, ying sueceed in that subject 2 an cally 98s NEN 1969, Lada, 199, fo cinmpl, those of female academic deft or of ranunl child development, thus the power of the discourse. thar have Decome pernicious inthis way. They have Become $0 ten-for- 2 (parsed, 30 unctallengesble, that they mask other ways of looking a educa- ao Pa rakes up win ie decostrcion of uch preva Sr indore becuse they sve 10 mask conf so Lat s BS met efi ad tons we pone © PETE oReT 10 prevent. ce Poi csing im the fe place’ (Lakes, 1974, p. 23). Ths masking of the “Ths desonstrucion process can be dificult because of the hegemonic of discourses allows fore of se anure of mas of the discourses under dscusion, Hegemon. cOOce Tiassa 771978, Sma 1996) and the mAieTSe Pa of en spelt Game 97D, which bas “he prevaling socal over without force, aEconomic privacy debate seeks to exclude some issués and interests from public debate by economizing legitimTzing the public‘private dichotomy as an excluder of women. Robbins, Bruce: Professor of English @ Ratger’s University; 1993: The Phantem Pubiie Sphere: 9. 2 rac one Te pies oes wechnal s¢obiems for warazers and pia ail mc feo ublic pola! muress. In bot Sto shitthibem tors general debate This usual gig nies anc odnsuals anu io te 3S trate oarerng, or eemnee = GREET Emer ocmesct mutter and df public discourse Shou ths phenomenon w cinaled ino specalized msunaions eee ued ‘th, ay, fmily law: 300al wCrk, and che sociology and ethology of deviance.” thea ths serves (© feproduce gender mance and subordination. Similar, Sagussia 5 Se ri, gat, inoue) (eatots SUC ONy, abot SS —— mre acenens tien ne seres aa SeeMerie gender and race) Coan onBCP ‘00-'01 Kang, Feminist Privacy { Lat * Contra oT ——————CC essexe of priiechay. Fapasor Sociologist farts Cotes Wome, ie) {Grove than anything ei, patiatchy i based op control as» core principle J\ “around which entice socen weed. What drives patarchy 392 975 (ON emu ues competion, agazetsion, and oppression —is dyna bar loss and humiliation andthe surest route to what they “terms of women and men,itis'6r Oe ae Saprtaion af women i Cin a mporan pal of pearly, Bur paradoxically, it may not be the puimt of patcarchy. 7 Z gm ‘Women are caught in a booby trap of restrictions and oppression (Marilyn, Women in Culture, edited by Luncinda Joy Peach, pg. 47 7998) C2 Women are caught ike this, too, by nerworks ‘ot torces nd bamers AH3t-expose one to penalty, loss, or contempe whether one works outside ‘the home or not, is on wellare or not, bears oe A aca Once bower: geste — ee sna of aif or verry co veh wus of ns at SES counpent tae of unlormry anenpt women inp | “There is n0 doubé that the search for the essence of things iss quest for unity = ‘Woes jes fee, uh Py. a SAE CET “Zocor oi focine or meth ned. Se once for form - o 2 Sas avery tat rn prs roe te ence ue fron. | Sends ccall anengon ors “Gee response of femanist 10 Dey reaizabeo that tlk sow | SERS wie rome ata sen ator a | BER eee ssl women Ts saeco. of ane be pnd a eT paleh ale se teroce be poem as, \ han au espn eel fact, Aap a os oF ee oe Tune, td an Bh | SER SGNEAL ne comune ein mong ac os ore See | SRS cence mst ears commend mak fewer lent | Bn be gnu sm asreace Bt he aren at os SERA, SRB Aor er nan mor genres ane wd Since fut a te cacpry of pet mass vey, cae Bick Sa tad ores eo ck et a veg ERY | et cartes pi docs und mere The sume sw oe cae ck Cr | Mitten a man eo ony nc en ‘anno renaebcfry bck umaran rome te 06 "aka opel cee, ot pet Fe eg ls tot Tower in a. of come, apn te capes Of ose een we eRe ac aay te ofr ve tres a eaggy bt al fe ‘Soauns me teh crores eu tht do ot cms lara ey wb Dope uw sy cecal ny - The cvstant anal ayons te Hein Control over weren. “Jonni iologist @ Hartford College for Women, (557 Tan G., The Gender Knot,p. 2 (Under gasitche contol shes ot ont the broad out cT Sur atso mens inner lives. does his chrough its central place ‘TRITON oF Masculinity: a real man is in control or at least gives the impres- sion of being in control. The more men see control as central ro thee sense SFelf well being, worth, and safery, the more driven they feel to goaeri« 4% nd to organize thei inner and outer lives around it Ths takes men away from connection to others and themselves and toward disconnection. This it because contcol involves 4 relationship berween controller an re We sn doesn cmon errr oa if we're conrling an og have to mentally spit ourselves ino a "me" chars bring con- twoled and an “1” that's doing the controling Andifwe Stee have justly the contol and pres ourselves from an aware ese of creo Cte) Se eed [Martiny Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusettes, 98)(Jane clland Equity in the Classroom, Ed. PF Murphy and CV GipPs p. 24-25) ch male domination ty a spray atBCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy Kang p._\ of Line * Avvrasens ' Artonomy and feelom clenics the human instinct to be relational, ay Tselation ant peepetnating pobiachy. ea Sola @ Hanford Colege for Women, 186T> (Allan G., The Gender Knot, p. 30,3) essary wounded in 4 Great Li that the answer lifes needa in goX| __, cssobnecion and conotetier thst Sanecon, sharing nd coopersion, Gent” Te Get ut nm hy nd me ar them 0 isconeced when in (fundamentally selational, What is ame" without a “vou.” a “mather® ot without a “child. "a “teacher” without a "student"? Who are we if not our te 0 oer son, 4 bother ple—"I am... a father, a husband, a worker, a friend, a 27 But patriarchal magic turns the truth inside out apd “self-made man” goes from oxymoron 0 al : wean TRe ne Tos aman Coeneeon ad ‘merge, ands sere of contl becom the closes many mene age conned wih anything, including hemaclss ) 2D, 3] Autonoma PoP? of inlependdence anc te ptviareha| ideals tht wen associate with d. Reeser seog 8 fat Cte Woes 5D Zin more subtle ways, misogyny arises out ofa system that offers women +4) fOien as a form of compensation. Because patriarchy limits men's emo- qc, sia and spicules and bea wi other men, they of Warten asa way to ease their sense of emper- Tcaninglessnes, and discon r ‘ation re autonomous and independent 2 HET UP want and TERE women a the same Gme—TRIF is MAE TT WOME CANT FORTY HCE What they wane Caught i the SY second eh fe tem hat pu em ni et GO” pice. They could igo at patnatchy and how thew positon int crests tha Giemina. The path of lest rman Rowen to ET women fof what men lack, by accusing women of not being loving OF = —BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy Kang p Zor Z Lene + Auten aN Te Separeleress implied by actonemy makes it Ge meen int conc eph. a Linc * f-ekugesPty Poenospeply camses wente vies Wom as chicos Loe Pr consumption: Cen ayo ign, => : 2 %6 foward a Feminist Theory of the State, p. [Y0-14 ) Lio be sexually objected means 5h your Being d “ese es ard then ws FOTRT STDS THs ee the ‘male system Paenoean 2 sexual practice of ha becouse i ein _TepresenTaTOn There 16 no 1 eSUCTBTE PERCE, HOTA There 16 n0 1 reduce RENEE HOT social conseruce of sexiem, men have sex fh their mane of “Raman Poraraphy center aa SSB seca BT TE RS me Use pornogra- it creates the experience of « se concealing the reality of force. Live of violation, variously termed female masochism and consent, comes to define female sexuality,? legitimacing his poliial system by concealing the force om which ie 1s based > 140 4BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy Kang p.| of] Ieee Peary AnD AnonYMITY ae Cucourace, SeXuar HARRASSMENT : 2 MeClain. Linda C, Profof La. Hoira Univ. William and e Mary Law Review March, 1999 ~ Pethaps the contemporar. interest io cestrited access and anonymity on the fi Shows zhe continuing appeal to privacy. but reconstucted for anew technological Cte Perhaps what consumers want-ccessi0 information and testicted acces fosters or hinders democracy and civil society. For example, frank and biunt exchanges about race take place on the internet, and the anonymity of these exchanges 9 asier this dialogue. n162 To the extentFeminist Privacy BCP ‘00-'01 p lors Kang Lance? Ape) = Claims fo a cinht te abortion reify the, Pui« [privadke sincere whichis nvlto domi: wonen. Schneider, Professor of law at Brooklyn Law Schoof,."86{Elizabeth, Feminist Legal Theory: "Es in Law and Gender, ed: Katharine Bartlett and Rosanne Kennedy, p. 325, 326. ‘Second, feminist commentators fad the very articulation of the womer's Aimer peer acamager rage cho Wak rgrodae ce mt ge of primey capo the pace of eto making whch cx. lining of re cago he em regnaney. ther than th Inpoanee coat char coe ie Cero aE WR SLT RAE DT ov ae BECP ST eh a ETE ore et ov body at hr te 7 a webiF petecarclet Abidin right race te app dam! nance . MacKinnon, Catberine A. “Toward a Feminist Theory ofthe State” (Lean, Mean Feminist Queen) 1989 |94 Cin. cone ic becomes clay the seep fr reproductive, . fESdom hat never Tycluded « woman's night to refuse sex Ta TE concepe of eration which has undergieded ehe politics of ‘men on the same terms as men: “without consequences.” Meaning, no children. In this sense the abortion right has been sought a freedom {Fam the unequal reproductive consequences of sexual expression, with sexuality centered on heterosexual genital incercourse. I has been as if biological organisms, rather than social relations, reproduced the ff species. But ifone'sconceen is not how more people can ger more sex, aBCP ‘00-01 Kang Feminist Privacy pol S Lancs Nreertt N WA PATERRCHAL SECLETY Agoens ld CNCOV RAGES MACE SEKUAL ACCRESEISAY — wirHouT eK OF A Ct ID a Catharine A. MacKinnon, reknown feminist, 87, Feminism Uninodified: discourses on life and law, p. 5 gs In the context of a sexual critique of gender inequality, abortion promises to women sex with men on the same reproductive terms aS men Rave sex with women. So long as women do not contro access to our sexuality, abortion Facilitates women’s heterosexual av TEE enon i ee Oe Ny o: j héadache, As Andrea Dworkin put it; analyzing male ideology on abortion, "Getting laid was at stake." The Playboy Foundation has ® supported abortion rights from day one; it continues to, even with shrinking disposable funds, on a level of priority comparable to that of its opposition to censorship. \, Denying trading for nbortinn is linked t¢ peivaty prttechionc Patrici Universit}, itical Science and Woman's Studies at Purdue vacy and the Politics of Intimate Life, {In my view this niggardly approach to abortion funding was possible because the constitutional basis for protecting the decision to abort a preg nancy rests on privacy. Under theprivacy approach) a woman has «right “to be free from overt state interference: (i.e ‘criminalization), but having, scomthar freedom, she has no grounds for claiming a right to the resources 3c WOU ETHBIE FF nce sad, "We ‘grant that there is a Fight tO privacy whick -rmits woman to decide on Fan TE pang Burshen we av Ge Saison 5 — ‘While we will make sure that the state does not bar al jons outright, we will nor override policies—legislative decisions—to discourage or other wise burden the abortion decision.” If “privacy” in the sense of autonomy means freedom from government prohibition, that is all it means, The tate has no affirmative obligation to ensure poor women a meamngtul “opportunity to exercise their privacy Fights. ‘on their own the means to exercise their rights.BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy Kang p.Zof > Lone + Apo TEeN porrin vights give men move sexual access 40 wemen Cathar fessor of Law. University of Michigan, FEMINISM UNMODIFIED, 1875.99. In the conéwTaFs sexual critique of gender inequality, abortion promises to women sex with men on the same reproductive terms as men hive Sex with women. So long as womet do not ConraT ACs 1 our Sexual 5 cal avaibbility In other words. under Conditions of gender inequality. sexual liberation inthis ot omen: tf mals “ailbility of abonion removes the one remaining legitimized reason that ‘women, have had for refusing sex besides the headache, As Andrea Dworkin put it, analyzing male "ideology on abor ing land was a ake" The PD sae Aas supported abortion nights from day one t continues to. even with Shking go fans ona vel of prion comparable to ht fs epposton esos | Privacy pase abortion protections backFive on women | Laura WCStei Associate Profesor of Law, New York University, Minnesota Law Review. (535p. lexis Privacy Cnc alo fault the doctrine fo its failure to identify abortion as an issue about women's subordination. They ar That privacy dootrine will never transform the world into a less Oppressive place because it turns women's atentida away or ese OT Sal OpOTEETON, Prvacy docking nasa ston about the role ofthe stat. THIS ‘lon wo aoe he ena persion tal leads US EO to the social conditioning | wi 10 Say NO OF. worse, unable even to wanl to say no By TEnoring——~ SFORIETS OpRTESTON, Prva oie males move diol for eminiss succesfully 0 attack hat oppression AlBCP ‘00-01 Kang Feminist,Priyacy p._| of Liste Motheerag fF AUDEN CF OME Ie mesa ede Paes Ceestes “Dc Pessbenck = 3 Linda C,. McClain, staff writer, Spring ‘99, The University of Chicago Law Review, eee reggae cei domes theme ea subordinate theit own needs 19 those of husbands and children (p. 117) SS Saree TESTE amour uty of te “second shift” that is, the vast majority of child care and domestic ith aig cere eee ga eg are spatng tothe pad labor force (p. 111; tochschila 1989), While this work documems, as West Geseribes 2 he them, “objecting Ss. such as Jess isu ee i aerial mater do women engage i such aluism? Wonen engaze io Oe a eee Wee eee are Fee Sa att nensetes but aso wiifed drogh cull 9 norms about mot rng. Moierng ces depen Beeuse sei ahs lke on og PTORPTEP SESS Te aatnomous and depend on others fr § Economie suppor (pp. 117-20; Fineman 1998). Because of ths dependency, a wife ightly fears tat her busband may disappear at any point: ghe transforms Aas — bets inia auc hoacidashsastectiulln aad desi, es i oemeaeanen i aeame .119.) SPECIAL TReATMAENS Tkwmea Sreeenyresy Stein, Laura Associate Prof NYU Law. Minnesota Law Review “Ling with te nsk of backize: A response wo Feminist Catugues . ‘of Privacy and Equality." May, 1993 ep ant cots conden ea aca he esi ceumegs frm ofthe derine. They are tary seine a womens ee ese concems ne = » SMW mateand “specia” 0 get them, Moreov ‘matize women dence AZFeminist Privacy pl or® Medical history WS Covtereg around the Concert of maSculinity, Woif>Yale graduate and Rhodes scholar, >) (Naomi, Fire with Fire, p.21) Qiasculniry, foe so fong the sel-enident ideal against which fe Eso compared nd fund fal sora en ped ee >) eae tare je‘ Suddenly, mal yminance and ag iti a causing hears Tease: men's hormonal eyes are being studied omote talaeeneatiherg? fx ani Soopiee tee ‘Zpparent cock-of-the-walk made. ime when he fs heard about the fl. "Masalmin?™ he poet "i dee S0und VE BIST HC You wee sow RSD ZL“00-" Feminist Privacy BCP ‘00-'01 Kang pZorZ The mectical Feld is an exclusively vnele— domineshed demain. cio feminist writer, 185) lyn, Beyond Power,p. $5 ) deere muclvet in pet ieee syten order toe help bree te down , ne mast” tele shes brenk eck of th. nT cas at the gue | BT pat of wi ie are, but how broad sede cd er Se a or eign ond phat and ES STS, 1k tw RTs a temas vole Er oe \ en world nto or the inevitable Way ese eee ec | eee tn Sc mt rparipae init once were Nee HES Mewolved: we are part of the aoe Teme the question i whether we chose Tals be part of the solution: — Erenjore whe is rapped Th tre pated syste must tebe ete aa ‘Cchnsoa, Siologist @ Hartford College for Women, 198m (Allan G, The Gender Knot P- 40, 41) Cee involved in pairchy a consequences beaut we ocaPy coe Calgusitoia ie hichiliakes Sceganieroppsnsn ty dt ont Sr, mics aaa 7 (fo molt avd being nbd in shan wecan. aid bing Smale oc males Neve’ “Allmen and all women are herefore involved inchs opprestive sytem, and | sone us can contol whether we parvcipae, only how. This especial pee ~porcantin elation [0 cen eh ee 0h ing ig 9 ss [pal vege be “oie te sytem, On satan em Sox Tnclyqueion wie ne at of te x system 19 2 2) Sphich challenges or srengthens 0 Satus_ quo. Privilege 1 not | roe rmething [take and which | therefore have the option of not tak- STR Beet me they wl coninoe ive and | aneBCP ‘00-'01 = Feminist Privgcy Accamoe | ACTA (Ss Liou an ‘Must reject the affirmative; only a reversal could sotve. Lather, Dr. Ohio State University, 1991 (Patti, Getting Smart, p. 82-83) C5 Ce capt flow explore tes Hein’ commdrum snd cerry open py ign commento of aoe Tinea ve mugs owed ison, wltnowedge, if omen Sioinca deena” (1965130) Forth pre wat es ceca te of entiation dowd wome's (owe sal il gomcanoe conan conte me AISI a coacod Logan (80) sn Haag’ (1986) son apn 8 rapes erent” rely few dence 1 Sant mapeion of wh Mone wea rma de-prepat of Some oe pal efecto Uigectm, We pecan sales car ate pug tactic wis proces npumens 2 ype of Nowe Anes (Sate enna ogee, Dra pcs fora ocasey rt eater oe eh rato Sper eaieet exe's scatter ae Sa paseo! iy, wee epee waa ee rea Teese carr go ying, mc relma sores € ‘eye oatig a of wets mk cy at = lounetval tne, 1905:19) mt we mri owed wap of knowing heh can mov os beyond ounces. Deconstevcrion Bowes War Aan Tekner, visting research scholar, Wellesley College Cente for Research on ‘Women, *92, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global SeEuFIY.P. pig {Feminist perspectives on national security take us beyond realism’s statist representations. They allow us to see that are multilevel and multidimensional. Women have defined security as the absence of violence whether it be military, economic, or sexual, Not until the { Teolism’s frequently depersonalized discourse are brought To ay light cam-we begin To constructs language of national secu. P~ types of violence as interrelated. 1 shall turn next to the SJ ecrnomic dimension of this multimensional perspective on : =n ailFer Biv. Me ue dete Ggomly We musk ble action and ts Crpoweree®. to break down Sociol! 5 - down Secichy's pebiqcte | Caasie Sse @ Harford College for Women, SD oe ee » 4) we tthe berween patnareny 262 sytem and ind uci linen sod wan, the cote facing ut becomes caret. The ches “about whether tobe ivalved in oppression: tin’ abou accepting Same Pe ora sate we did't create and 150 ABOUT WHET HAE OUTS — aa we did’ create and WisNT ABOUT WHET? TT ouTATOS bees sn pte i cnc bate TENE OT Ble. The choice is about how ro paricipare ims syRREMtHf— eeny to thar Sa Fp to change nor only oureves, but the world at Ob spr errno apd ye: Catcher OX, DorenpoweTn oh of exgonsbiy forte Venera epey are Taha, 7 1G HYBCP ‘00-'01 Kang ALICERNTIVE Feminist Privacy (user Lis i - We must question te mle vielnce and Mascrlinity im Society in wretor te achion soc ctl Chane. Cgpecue @ Newcastle Law School, ey) west wie vaclence <. wee. it oder, Ge a fard, Masculinity, Law, and the Family, p. 250, 21) (Gu naWargued in this chapter that chal ‘of masculinity must bea cena issue in Seeking to understandand, Menvolencer it the public domain, accounted for within the Tanguage of public masculiniies, may be comprehended. The imac ofthe mab. ofthe pub fight. of urban disorder. the tmasculinsm of public spaces generally = of cites, toms and Silages all might be accommodated within an account of public tates a claims to power and prerogative. These volences, exist in the street, round the comer, they permeate the publie domain. Ics through challenging the divsion of public and rivate masculinities (and the concomitant belief that only these public volences are deserving of legal recognition as crimes) that_ feminist studies have thrown into question the universally benign Ta a ar aerate Tie sales ot masculinity asa posi safe and desixable. ‘combat the prevalence of mz (Stanko 1987, 1590). Beyond the family, however, the ves ' Climate, Galenging the dangesnus-aspetstshe-fomiat masculinity, andthe aRSar The Tegal return of women’s dependent positon n RE RAE Seaways WHICH ale aaOTEY WAT hae fagiipvonuinuer tobe comsatuted through naturalised discourse oCaealiniy: Devonsiracing ihe eas ofthe Tamily manana the jgood fatheF-Thaye arguedin this. and the preceding ¢ must be part of this ehillenge. 7 2 wast be part of ris chatleBCP ‘00-'01 Kang Feminist Privacy p. Zot. wuss Ques fea (S) apes genear inegymelity ih society (5 He only 6 way te stor tts peopel existence. pres upemsnn "A. Toward a Feminist Theory of he States p{2 —) Ch disney ne sci ea inch J ‘question is, what are chey? Seer have been substancialy deprived not only of theie own erence bat of cerns of their own in which co wew 1 then ¢ a theory of semualiey whieh 160k to_underta “sication inorder co change ic muse fst enc apd SASS eae rscreality” asa construct chat has crcumscebed and, red social meas instructed in fe on ee most be seed i ks experienced emul ACES, Sa dhe ene f history a8 Foucault does) inthe social ravche aon doe) ot in language(s Dertida dos), Sexual meaning not een. of even primarily, by words and v0 cexs, We Je mad io, social relations id through which peocess gendet ests In ermine er, ea male power has powet FS ocerescs of male sexuality construct what sexuality as aaa ns including the standard way itt allowed and recognized SoS ratrind expressed and experienced, in a way that determines Fone er rclaing versal ogy Existing eco un Fea not ony-miarcibute wae’ they cll female rrr, wornen as such, a8 it were not imposed on women dil: “Roy wil nv. perticipate in enforcing the hepemony of che socal eae re ese.” hence jc product, “senuality.” ence ies construct “woman,” on the world, 7 12%. . We aus a hesk. wand rethi oO = . OSSumptions ih erde- to eek rane ion aca Rect @ Hantort Clee for Women, D (Allan G., The Gender Kast, p. €H musk & wha pa Thisie . rritscal ideas about men and women, he web of relationships ak Covtiquain the Syston ant the people in th Can help produce Societal charge. Johns Jologist @ Hartford College for Women, G > ‘The Gender Knot, p. if det violence jn a way that appreci (D Or. A; we think about problems like get any ae Ta the power of systems and the importance a s Fras oak about pat ro work onal rasa Tn ees us 10 roblems likexis en i ne? Pp cal Se a gyrate" without ital ad oa = mutual interaction, : in iat shapes social life. The spiral isn't us and ns pmo be ransormed eh Instead, soci ieisnt the systems i ‘out attention to both. 7 F Questioning mle OREM oN DEBS Wonen's i te allow ipo diate prove Qquclity. a, DP f @ Univesity of Michigan Q he ini Theor of »lot-oS} Consciousnes easing has cv is just 8c the only reality, at it claims eo be. is a myth that makes elf eve. Tote continent confor Sa its duatiyrarae ice Coral on one side and’ delusion on the other In consciousness rising wornen Jaen they Fave learned hat men are everything women their negation, but the exes are equal THe Zonent of the metage iy FEVGTET HE Woe Td Take The tae Tine each part retlecs the other transval fen areall, women aken a5 socal_criticiom FRA its enforcement. Reciprocally. the moment it is een that this life as ean not socal equa RaRAANRT CHAT Toner Tn termnd of Tack of maleness, as 7a aC me, the question OF WRT E Woman =a TE ground in and nf a world understood as neither of its making nor in ics own image, and finds, {ighin a ceitial embrace of soma 2 vise fe possibility of equality. As critique, women’s ‘orimmunaTiey describes Tact ol tale supremacy, a fact Osean ‘gendered social system. and sex inequality is not only pervasive byt ‘Bay be universal (in the sense of never having aot been in some form), though “intelligible only in locally specie foems."* Foe women to become a sex “for isl" 15 €0 move community to che . Bl level of vision. 7 [orf lS‘00-" Feminist, icy octave 01 ee ert Auicenwteot_@ Ores A Lon {feist Si) CHALLENGING Sot ARRANGEMENTS LIBERATES, PERE Fer Feasrotce AWD \Wyamce Ruth Gavison. visiting professor of lew, USC Law Center, Novembes,‘92, Stanford Law Review, p. lexis {| Refuting the desi g of the differeace and its implications lends suppetiot the denial of tartaric cent eee se “Provocative denis of iteence shold helo be ines a asin a 8 ‘% invitations to Took anew at our oul ‘tosee how much of it is ET ns ajo euiesenk mye Tese cas eine s ee ss ies and leg 9 the vocabul: CHMLEN CRS ALLO Dua Retro Sa ee st plan Yequies that we question ¢ wndedy a ; “Lt ing ne 5 SETS Feminist Privacy p.j of 3 Ss and grvate.BCP ‘00-'0. shia Feminist Privacy vans ~ / (ox fd Avecuntioe * KEALCT E iN S 2 Wage reject te nebion ob Britney in orclar te decnstict masculinity, ecturer @ Newcastle Law School, 15> Richard, Masculinity, Law, and the Family, p- Cie familial domain bas, in shore . ust ana. Rejecting oncepiion of sate interention a gd “te serosa: caltzaton of power ich vrai dichoromy, i becomes “unpack the Uber dial and affecive relator iat cology which has fixed the sexual, fami vate unt} ere and the asexual. rid of work to the public domain. Teed &, y and rej ‘masculine wor pubic dom pep nasi ot noe dee a Soeraces nicely ra rane Sor) an sg of 7 Peesai division is itself put on the agenda U Tn order te escape oppression we oe rejece the notion of privacy. [BOSTON REVIEW, AprivMay 2000, p45 Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago, "These cases dramatically illustrate the dangers for women of jumping on the privacy ‘What, then. should be ing utierty the idea of a the aterine minis approach? We cannot make SoA lee pr tre itn wih ee 8 ear aecraot mate Tbcieve we should begin by adoping Mis sinon ober re Eeiwen ais ha impact Ue iret f 800 SOREN _Derween self-regarding and. “Faroe and thos tha do pot, Lan acti tbe {i should ger no special protection by bein en ERG peron hat harm is he busines Taw, no mater Where the Barm Ou. rather 1BCP ‘00-01 Kang veep Ny [ . Bejeating the pabliqfprivate relationdip ana qusstiony te relationship bebuen laws cand pease, allows ws fe feconcaptreli re One views ab tHe wold. scturer @ Newcastle Law i ies) lecturer @ Ne School, I @ ard, yw. and the Family, p. 657,64 ) “1 is now necessary to outline the theoretical approach to the “Emergence of discourses of familial masculinity in law which Lwill develop in the following chapters. Rejecting the public/oiate dichotomy has major implications for how we understand Jaw/ family relation in terms of analytic concepts (in contrast to the curiatic purposes of the : VI The: This is not a matter of yi Teplacing one atheoretical conception of family law with a new, ideological, perspective; rather, et Ifwe are to, is ilalia Ryko v {Finsformation of political concerns ial objectives which it ent disturb and FY Farpt some of the central explanatory categories of critique. oakip We need, in paricul; to wnscend she publi/ocie dca (i Tomy The law ea Sarin te ably wo dagualy knowledges and ciperonces Sy pias elt ia Feb domain, ‘Analyses of the relationship between law and, -subjectivities of men and women involves Uulisation of a con- ceptual apparatus which is not part of the theoretical baggage of doctrinal exegesis or ‘black leer’ law and which also manages to ‘eject positivist ‘grand theories’ of law and oppression (Smart 1989a: 68) and the metanarratives of modernity (Lyotard 1984; Kellner, 1988). C%CXBCP ‘00-'01 Femini Kang oN P. Privacy Consciousaets raising . enlightens peeyle te Social Cheage MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Toward a Feminist ‘of the State” (Lean, Mean Feminist Quecs) 1989p. vary radical Teminist analysis of the situation of women has been Shaped and shared. As feminist method and practice, consciousness (arse raising is not confined co groups explicitly organized or named for chat ‘aps purpose. In fact, consciousness raising a8 discussed here w E Bee ced in consciousnes-Tasing groups, Such groups werbs bawever,» “2 pe RRTURS ane TORU CERTAT TOG development as a method Za of organizing, form of practice, and technique of approach to Social change 3} z oss in political theory and practice are integral co many of the substantive Ie-Ear oT Knowing, Consciousness faising is chat way. “(An] “oppressed group must at onceShacterthe self-reflecting world. which HERTS Cand at the same time, project its own image onto history. In order to di a nct from that of the To Ae eames vel, All revolutionary ‘movements create thei-@wh way of seeing. "' One way to analyze _ feminism a5 a theory isto describe the process of consciousness raising as it occurred in consciousness-raising groups. >Femi BCP ‘00-'01 Kang Contour Rarssag (Ss? At acg nelzed ‘ ace Om Congine mes! “Aising Giet powe be ” women MacKinnon, Caterie A. “Toward a Feminist Theory of te Sate” (Lean, Mean Feminist Queen) 1989 jp ~)9 2 principle. They are not random, natural, socially neutral, ot without ‘meaning beyoad chemselves. They are not frely willed, but they are actions nonetheless. From seeing that such actions have meaning for -maintaining and constancly iming the structure of male suprem- re Crs Contney -car y Ak constructs the patria chy MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State” (Lean, Mean Feminist Queen) 1989 |. < Proceed a ing connoeacively and analytically at the same time, con sciousness raising is at onde Comm = articulation Of ‘iar shared) detail as the matter of policical ‘ie explores terrain that “iz Bert damaged, most contaminated, er” (O%:BCP ‘00-"01 Kang Aa: (opti Parsanty KEM ING THEOUGH Conse ouSHESS Rargn Sevres Senge Cc HAnGe Catharine A. MacKinnon, feminist babe, +89, Toward @ Feminist Theory of the Siate,p. 239 Law from the male point of view combines coercion wil authority. policing society where its edges are exposed: at points of social esance, conflict and breakdown. Since here inno pace ouside tissue froma feminist erin sa Ce ae “S¥siemh emergesas particular only when confronted, ma way it Soa = ae SEINERIOTORY MUST Be Contrlled Tor GaToTogical COMMA WH SUCCERT, thd why CoRBCtOUsHEss rasing is subversiveTtis aso why when Taw sides wily TESS, as it occasionally has, itis said to engage in something other than law- politics or policy or personal opinion - and to delegitimate itself. ‘When seemingly ontological conditions are challenged from the collective standpoint of a dissident reali, leas jel nance suddenly ‘no Tonger inevitable, When itToses its groand'it “Toosens tts amp LL =... aaa GlBCP ‘00-01 Kang _ AU: (., vt Rarer0q R 7 CONSUIDUSNESS RAISING FACLUTATES ATTACKS ON PaTeneciy Gun Secac ChAbE Catnanne A. MacKinnon, feminist bbe, 189, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State,p. 90 ‘Pervasively implicit in these substantive insights is feminisib's method of ‘knowing about the world tin ts epistemological and political ramifications. Srl on igus ers xp at es ste pa gata ae ann oF gRSpInE WORE Situation as itis lived through. ‘The process pata sain ee ee eiacmamen or estnenng ahr sah Semen waa ore naa Sa aarti a ong vit Canons noe pes ive and ino aang fore od reforms, recovers and changes, its meaning. This is accomplished through Using the very inswument- women experiencing how they experience themselves: that is the product of the process to be understood. The appareat circularity ofthis asa theory of knowing about the world is nota barrier to analysis, but rather the core ofthe method, the way it breaks the circularly of this asa theory of knowing about the world is not a barrier wo analysis, but rather the core of the method, the way it breaks the circularity of that which it is attempting to understand in order to change. The seemingly sel-enclosed character of feminist consciousness and the community it inbabits by creating itis, in reality, the opposite of solipsism: what it ses is that iis male realy tha is slf-encoed. Feminism ony seems to be creular fom the pointof wien of the exstng epemcTogy because at ste Rlsior oF e~ erpelign es bead eon OT Ee pig othe A oe, Feminist Priv of.BCP “ Kang ‘00-01 rem give bith Yo neo ideus uth GevgpncFrotesor of Law. Hebrew University, Stanford Law Review. 18, ples Jends supporto the denial of diflerence but alters somewhat the desirability ofthe and i The naturéOF The claim: The challenge serves to facilitate sy rent social ments. rather ‘shan to dem existing (or even useful differences. These provocative denials of difference should therefore Be inte cesettions hofitis unjustified, at om ‘east in part, as invitations to look anew at ‘and. meeeruces Neeby watt erdealicas DA sone ae Ye ent any MEGDLaw toe George Washingon La Review, Volume 6S nua, 163}. 2767 st provide alan of resanc the dominant aigm fray. Theis ‘The goal ofa critical theory of privacy paradigm of privacy dee ea er a ue tual pen aig ‘deconstruction is a diMfcut task. Ai the present time, think that its still dificult to make a contextual and lesbians without resorting to abstractions nT =Thelieve that Professor Patrica Williams provides the most inspiring call for reconstruction. Still abstract, yet compellingly eloquent, Professor Williams pois us toward recontextuaizing privacy rights: ‘The task... then, is not to discard rights but to sce through or past them so that they reflect a larger definition of privacy and that is turned from excluston based on self-regard into regard for another's fragile, mysterious of the: 10 auignomn Tn discarding rights logether, one scars @obol too rm “Tee without rauma and much ssstance Instead, Scely MUST SADEMLAWaY... Give 1o al of society's objects and and respect Flood them withthe kea nage AUT@antive Dane. L teow CHANDING ATTITHOES AND WUEWS CATALYeR Sow” Anh Pouca Chance Betty A. Reardon, fellow at Teachers College, Columbia University, ’85, Sexism and the War System, p. G< long been ane belie! that auchentic transforma rahe cn sie ig as nich a mustter of emotional saber cade argument set Ferl ty this book that he palin, lies inv ye asunption iat strucaural, even eval fanaTy chan nt public reer tunes Such shanges usually involve the se ety coming tn perveive itself jes cosine, elation: lupe] Hus assumption about the iaterrelationship af personal and plead «Teange, whieh has beets majye inBaence an my approach fvineating, began sae intuition but has evel ed vate 4 fue Tis prthesis, ane that is shared by other feminists —— Accchendin debates pres key form fo Chewing existing concepts vegonttiny geter. Kennedy, professor of Australian National atharine and Rosanne, Feminist Legal Theory: eB) professor of law at Duke Universit avesity’s Center for Women's Studies, (99) Readings in Law and Gender, p. io of 4 Dente. & Fou, cursive space frees us for action. Z the Deparment of Geography of 12 ALE Alternativ’ dicta hist a titialy wood. The ansang metaphors estate 6 Were al tevcigtio a FHReuP Net We Cevegh uth “ot ce eiiutared sierses ont ibutg tethegin witepped hurtest tues thie ed hy contrast coment meters of rete atid tera tit, Bo pomesey aE ‘ Hranas tase wag tasty lesty aw Conversations "watd penkige Meat SE Hotei panty tone that currently exist These ew STAT thal cata stew sujet the ales, eabling novelpeormancen iiaal group He Tallcthative dncourss sabterry anu wueibites 10 he ights foe me itty the peti of fereinve. Ay poxeseuc used et font TYE IS WaT Be Fased Tom esecarch can he 4 means by which we Sr neaanaa a oar ik SAIS ice ccaecratine oc inate the cua ssn new. pestinudert femst politi sof Feruch talk does not precede fron) thus discursive space is prowess without end. atl witbou & im overTeteritied worl conve and a ives ae male olieter the Debate obet the nature of pore eegrtt Solees ‘Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 1/31/1992. the skier! ‘ "WOMGHTs [fe experiencesshowesertmpecton and are-alfected 4 Txthe word of intemanonal pic even ity hove been ferences bu doesnt ake them as fed oF neva can we move toward the creation of a nongendered disci pln thatinclades us aT &Feminist Privacy cP “00-01 - p.| of Kang Ait Tbe WTFY Preis ty (=) 4) 6 ‘The preceding discussion helps lay to rest ine dual myth of powerlessness and omnipotence. Clearly, no individual or group is Sica ma Se oe Temas Tica sre som th “USE THOR TETME in his ChapleF To" save us from the semantic awkwardness of endlessly repeating ‘the more powerful’ and ‘the less powerful’) Even the most downtrodden and disenfranchised control some measure of resources, from personal, to social, political, financial and/or institutional, or some combination thereof. These resources figure significantly in the complex social interactions, including negotiations, we recognize as the power process. Still, as Anna Freud (1937) suggested, subordinate or oppressed parties tend 10. introject or internalize, the negative characterizations that Theit ony wo of them. To mobilize their own resources, i less powerful must overcome the Tai ers by the dominant group's negative evaluations and recognize OFT Of their own asses. “Tlate 19605 and early T9703 women’s self-evaluations and awareness. Foucault's concern (1980, 1983) with the political implications of discourses and the relationship between power and knowledge (that is, ‘pouvoir/ savoir’) offers valuable insight into the complex processes by which truths and definitions, including evaluations of resources, are socially constructed and linked to power. The perceived omni those currently in_power_is caualy mytial dad senously immoblisnng 1 Oe Gar poner TT powerla “mythic_proportions, however, bal lead—to—Keep Ines bBCP ‘00-01 Feminisf P Kang pe _ _ Aut: LbENTrrY Lerisanc (s ? _ We ust ‘chen 9 srieceliy in Society WM order do cashier Seciet hg cl Sociologist @ Hartford College for Women, 1992. ‘GiianG. the GanderKass p. 7) understand patriarchy, we have to identify its cultural elements and we sirhow they are elated 10 the sroctu Fe man fo ample, bow culual eas that idenfy women primary 05 mothers and ‘men primarily as breadwi eee 9 i a ing with such ag understanding, we mast see What Te ee heii ma ada tor ar aF aT Row we, in choosing how to participate, shape it aIBCP ‘00-01 Kang ALTeeuettye te UNIS. We must Feveleg a Feminist F poblec / private 2 Solve Carol Bateman. feminist political scientist, reader in Government in the U of histerceal | Sydney, Public and Private in Social Life ed, S.. Benn and G-F. Gaus, 1983, p. ae | [the skier] © The popular success af The Dale te of Sew owes iicre to the need Getic capauty than fois philosophic sexanent The Ke sasumption ff the homk is that women necessatily suffer Crom ‘a findanicatally sive biological condition’ but be erating: biology. oF nature e creativity for women only opps ease 1k Fas meaning within specific scl soeial conceptions of ‘women’ siogal categueies of ator OT the tehattonship heiween wen and women or be 7 ake and pus spheres She seics ath Totcaxt amneeption a a fatural, Biofopes!Temate individual with a reproductive capacity which pus her at the mercy of a male individual, who is assumed to have a Faturai drive to subjugate her.'% This contemporary version of 2 thorough Hobbesian reduction of indiviguais To their natural state fads to a theoretical dead-end, not pethaps 3 surprising conclusion 1a ageaNEN Hae pitty accents the TC Feminis Priy PerpectiveGender-blnd pelicies incarpocating — Cremen's OkPeriencer of Subordination con effect trae equality ace doomed to MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State” (Feminist Goddess) 1989 La? Ic follows ihe sing sx equaiy aueons mast of asa As tee Teese Problem solving techniques used by women prevent weapon dependence war. CResslntrecor ofthe United Ministries in Léeeation's Peacemaking in Education Program, and also serves as coordinator of the Peace” Education Program of Teachers College, Columbia University(® Women and Peace, 1993, P. 26) C4 _” Dhroughouthistory, women have engaged ins form of canon a cad cA tier holped people to BEG [Tone dont rein one prey ert St, bet i the rtp tat gc endetc ‘Statin tobe funds he confit must bo exam sae “Geren eh potter Tr Tor rama, is Kind of understanding — “Pirerncrcs TO Eel feminists have sought to introduce into the Middle Eas dbete taetfics, they also demonstrate the vital need to“disarm’ ll parties zl ese vale?” ang sais by font such rocencs FF heir arms.” eo gre UP se gy reason wou ech oer, mat ulasy their resentments, anger, 60 hey ae eSeet peeaterors Soleo cera wie ae ca gests aan revolt derstanding that eeshions derive primarily fom an un Save ind wel ng of to th sf pend sees ofthe whol depend pe eanditfons of ding that leads Srcioanattaverouperia. isenundersan Ga dist coerecn produce mare benefaforal than 12perme . mers wet oo Perry. (SS) ‘The fominist critique demystifies the patriarchal war structure “Reardon,director of the United Ministries in Education’s Peacemaking in Education Program, and also serves as coordinator of the Peace Education Program of Teachers College, Columbia University, hb ‘Women and Peace, 1993, P. 27) C6 ‘vemysubeston ot tad language and ‘Alef these charscteristica stem from women's ways of knowing, wala cf Sr ata ee ere as ways to” ‘peace. Aa we seck waya to achieve authentic Global sesity, it woud “Fa wet tobe aware ofthese and to apply them to all peece movement tctions and to work for Uber inclusion in ecurity policy making. Toay__ Jbalp to illuminate the ofthe narrow and restricted nature of ‘curity ‘and to demonstrate tee wars posce and security Female ideology solves for war apd violeace Beteeine Baer of ne '85 Bridget, Educating for Peace, P. 134) ‘women whe ade th ee eit ela wil atu hk if crily Bbout defense questions than most men. They will be akeical of mili. ‘ok aazept such concepts us “security” radtion of oonintegration into the mil: shold wuke uw able 1 lok at so-al tay eave question 3 a Jf we bring our way of thinking not only Talo the peace movement, but also into peace si ‘ring some new and valuable into thove studies, Our own insights ‘often been through a process of action and research carried on within the fed of women’s studies.)BCP ‘00-" Kang ” Feminist Privacy pl ofZ_ Travan § Aeceermnte Fermeining silent in th Lee of adversary anh Jabiry Ake peith of least resistance Peptwtes potvincle, Jonnon, Sociologist @ Harford College for Women, 1982 GAM. TheGenderknas. SF snot ible, es certain agmenting them ito Te paris. ti posh love women wit is bodies, 19 8t ‘oF another in pursuit of men. This finds its wa into men a eas power sans oie aL oe = ree ad te rms oY 12BCP ‘00-'01 Feminispprivgey Kang N+ Nceprnee Failuete citicize Sorrces of apression Gee wens wrlorwines the pepe of Rminism. ‘MacKinnoa, Prof @ University of Michigan, 1288. (Caarine A, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State p.243 24k oer c eb fer, yon se. en manele Comicon. The first cask of a movement for social change is o face one's ticuation and name ic, The failure co fae and criccize che cealicy of women's condition, a = ra Torms. The hilute co move beyood cHaETT- ‘Bir of deerminism and adil paris, flute of emin @ ie left forms. Feminism on ics own cerms has Begun 1 give WOK © ibe The a Tog ot women <> Tom z Te ha Bega “Seeition of imped inferior, ‘ie has located the dynamic oF a Tacal defnicion of gender in the sexuality of dominance and subordi- ration, che sexuality of inequality: sex as inequality and inequalicy as sex. As sexual inequality is gendered 2s man and women, gender inequality s sexualized a8 dominance and subordination. The social law; laws thae she comms goose womes‘s sun take in be sik the obssoie) AY, obscure it, like the abortion law; and laws chat announce cheitiareRe "has diacovered masculine and femunine in she mirror of society. The. “approach from she standpnine of che subordination of womnen omen. ifc_situation of women's cone and claims the 5 enforced inferiority and devaluac 2 oe law: urrors seapped 7 243 - 2-4BCP ‘00-'01 Kang Feminist Privacy p.Lotl_ Aoi) Seru> OvER Each cetion te reject patriachy spills over Ine Society whe Tris & part of collechie actions Har lenel te ven weld cbewme. be seco @ Hater Coleg or Wome, 1 G., The Gender Knot, “ p 253 ) “a X{® Ne Noteanitue ly a L Paanak whi lex eletion an pated Sead. 2 The mr oe Pail ra digste to ie celinaten ok Fl at re gations SAE pteent ae othrtaten ot vty Ay bese te he De Yrhe bebe newt the gubedinin | bein wr aay seneationy eRe eplatin solver Duncan, Nancy: Lecturer @ the Dezanment of Geography of 16: Body Space: 9. 13 sd tal ues pow felons ctvtate Mua ly Hot late oF fund snr aes. ui tives ue day sunday existences Betecn eee pant test temembers of tay, betwen w uate at Jus pupil. there exist Flatts ot 2 Fucthertiore. Foucault segues, sich pewer ss et nit & multitude pots ul resilane Uiroughout acuwork (hut encumpasses the while uf a xntety folate exctinna Rothe juBle phere of eSATA oe The go POMC ary CS Te BlNe Ke Pech te Testohnhe b. % ahwus weman - any a) ere be Adder te be een Tom ifaat ‘Allan G., Kt 2 Rs Altenatut _ (Beale he pete [ponte oe outed MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State” Cn, Men Fen on) 192 Ag (41 = This epinemic 96 ig most at Tome st home, the experience the r iy, and why ie cent ‘Why 1 person w force ‘if-pawgce (the “why doesn’ she leave Se et Ee aren tbe mesure fhe Bry 1 ono te cigice of privacy in the abortion context thus Sere ‘public/peivate split for Hives amen. In this Iight, the abortion Funding ruling appears consistent with the larger meaning of the original granting of the abortion right. “7> € fits le) tnd implications) « ad elution but peal paindat, se Haid College or Women) ‘The Gender Knot, p. 4 “ar CA this ee, ike sci ystems, gasachy enn one shrough eo *slives. Through this, patiachy’s vai ey seat ‘This has pwo important implications for how we un- {derstand patriarchy to some ext je experienc iarchy as” & pier eae eee SP \ee “Tring, like a house in which we live Instead, By participating in parrarchy” cs Tahal we end TO BERSTE WATS fe “patriarchal world from one moment to The TR SER a trenk Tiere td connor everyday Win diferent waye, means that the paths we choose rooliow can do as much to change pats Taiyo foe toe > 4 d hata domination way leat + Martoline’ a Inottirn kn, ts dhs 6%ty oh, Adecructise Fem tw Alrhividual ceiechioh is wniguely bereli cin in an attempt to de Constynck Pedriaaky, Geen boven pases ane Women, 1997 Cosi sss to id sain untsone bulking sing cha. A es ove ecu sm al asst soe at ind avn ek st iean'chelp but bea dx ‘moment to the nex, In something as simple a5. a man following the path of b SERS ad conolingcoversavons and a woman lesing im gy idh- patriarchy in that moment comes into being, This i! See > ‘lon Since we can always choose paths of greater renstance or create new rev eniely systems can only be a stable asthe flow of human choice and Creativity, which certainly isnt a recipe for permanence. Inthe short run, pa {rarchy may look sable and unchangeable. But the relenles process of so cf alte never pode te eae ame rele vie ina om, eae 8 possible for everyone to participate in any system in an unvarying and Uvfocm way. Added to this are the dynamic interactions that go on among, _e srerms—herween captain andthe sats, for example, or beween fami iis and the economy-—that alto produce powerful and unavoidable ten sions, contradictions, and other currens of change. Ulimately, systems Can't help but change, whether we see or no. > 233, 2.3¢ $>Femi BCP ‘00-'01 Kang oe “We ( Paerarcny " Privacy Ficcemeal Solutiovs can't deconstruct pt 4 We mot evar Prtrinady's Inner workings in bs ae order to traley understank oe @ cca Ha Cates a ae, C Tallon The Gender Knet p. 42,43) R a as hl andi ede anes nd concen “i wees pena sate ogame nde ange si: oa als Coop esas nat tend srt eye in oc eats Grower sacha S98 ced acannon toe eae pal evel of ween et, hye Some eo ie A ere Seat sop aon o jho don't yet “get it® (even here, the patriarchal ae on having see little reason to ris any having found a safe haven, they aking yon household cannot claim theBCP ‘00-'01 Kang Feminist Privacy PLZ hae ‘Wet (2) Dicessoe ye Stemingly universal Wberal polices ere cltde women ay e Carol Bateman. feminist political scientist, ceader in Government in the U of Sydney, Public and Private in Social Life ed. $1. Benn and GF. Gaus, 1983, p. 2¥2-7 [the skier] Sine vein weeny os apPIopstE HELE HeAUNE Ue prevail at ! iS Diguity of the siberal comveptie 1 the private and public vbscutes and yshiies Ue social realty at helps constitute. Feminists argue that liberals as steuctuieul hy pateiarelal ay weil as ela ’ ons and that TRaSeane. Hen and Gauss aed one rey ree See arise od peciespeeren a oe TR hetworn veiw ad Srake TAB, 78 a va han nid wher the social contract ‘heorists have excluded women fom dhs scope of thie ap fy univer arguments. One reason why the excivsion goes ticedis that the separation OF the private and public is presente heosy a6 af it applied to all individuals in the some wa bften eiainied ~ by anti-feminists today. but by feminists in the nine arate rte, hat eal angst an teenth century, sioat of whom aeceped the alacteiae of Naluabie, The way in which wonen and wen are dilferentia'y loeated | lin private fife and the public works. a bail ndeate. a eorex spin a cate eae a ts Bea Face wn ihe oa shore, Mon popetly iahabut, and rule : TaTHin Duh spheres, The essential fem sequent s that te doeteine sepa Bul equ, and te osieaniie slisean fnvotiiberaktewry, wbscute the pateiatehal weaity wl a social structure Gf equates an the doainatwas of women hy sien, > 2 BLPBCP ‘00-'01 Caiea racy p.1_of\_ Ags yy Lew Woe Kemk Reac WoeltD Came imoare, Adelaide H. “Feminist Jurisprudence” University (Of Chicago Law Review. Spring 1999 ing EY like Jones's, G ahtup in the mands sad Sag pas, thee Ey ‘immediate furure, and it s bound byconeree X movement of sons bas takea place Wom what Christine ,°448) Litdeton has deserted the giddy evthesaumea he 1980s when ferns jursprdence nas the, or at least one ofthe, cutting-edge tends ia legal scholarship and curricular reforms" (1997, 1563) to the growing recognition of differences among women and she less giddy awareness o€@ DuBois, for eximole, remarked on. Tof pornography] up against ‘which feminism” came in 1985 (Du Bois et al, 1995, 212). The issues of mography and prostitution contrib uted to a political rift that continues today. 0 Radon GWarcoes OF UIE COMSAT TONE SF AR Latina American and lesbian fern inists bas enriched feminist legal theory a the same time that it has posed substantial, important. and tricky questions about where and when to come together and where to respect separate spaces (€.8. e Matsuda 1989; Haris 1993; Robsoa 1996; Wing 1997). > i rofessor of Philosophy, University of New Hampshire, 1 Feminist philosophy is key to judging debates. (itor bttp:/www.uh edw/~cfreelan/SWIP/Witt.html, accessed 730/99, p ei S)E shy and its central norms ini: ‘iticisms of the . Because the question of What's the question of whether fuck a ste pede aie onee eee, il analytic cates : lese central questions is ‘among ferninist contemporary philosophers. Hence, with feminist theary just as with other contemporary ical movements, the evaluation of the philosophical canon inevitably intersects with current febate Negative philosophical eanons are constricted ion the Mates Of RSI SuraSeoeie ee int of the present - Ca. ke i ole later &BCP ‘00-'01 Kang he . PAIBIARCHY 's, TusT stows How ENGRANED in You — jo ONE NATE — 5 we on oll bowers WE ADVOCATE A TRANS ESP MANO Catharine A. MacKinnon, reknown feminist, 8, Feminism Unmoatriea asco Saarne A Macionen feminist, ‘87, Feminism Unmoatieaaiscourses { Mrs. Schlafly opposes feminism, the Equal Rights Amendment, and basic change in women's condition, as if the central goal of the \ women’s movement were to impose a gender-tree society, as if we defined equality as sameness. This is not accurate. Our issue is not the gender difference but the diference gender makes, the socal menting iposed Upon Our bodies—what Tt means fo be a woman ora man {sa social process and, as such, is subject 1 Change Feminists do not seek sameness with men. We more criticize what men of Remsetves an omnaned IS MoT THAT MEN CAMSE WAR, THE Cueeent SISTEM OF GPPRESSION AND OTHERIZATNION oF women LeommMmizes ee Cee OTHER SATION AND VIOLENCE ToWARD ORR A CONETEMUED ENEMY, Causing WAR, Betty A. Reardon, fellow at Teachers College, Columbia Uni and the War System, p. 4 ee fy, 285, Sexism lepencls primarily on the r lites first, permis Tig The reilon nen aT plo AT,BCP ‘00-01 Kang Feminist Privacy p. Dor Peecernonis OF omeenéssS Anp THe Evemy couse WA = R bia University, 288, Sexism eity A. Reardon. fellow at Teachers College, Columbia 5, and te War System p. Lae rota, sess histor ofthe Baan species nate that eae ae peg ace ase Te hey maxwell be the povehic origins of Sul stu anes oF Fejeet in omselves, We attempt ws esorcize oatr own batt spirits by prow feeding them on ethers. A major ftunetion of othersis, infact, ta meet 48 she fulfil thou, When they ate negative ue bul, wehate and espise the ers aml tear their power user as Bur only by granting thew ive be 1 ts prowess ating tem pies bebasion such paver can we abnegate respunsilaility for nur asi ne havior A classic c her clieut culpable bette che haw, We asttally manage to punisfevthers lorour own sins. Suciety thus necils criminals and enemies. Eee was, the first of the lull seistonn of the pop aunt he ts us"), the enens ny to serve “mankind,” Berause we have yet w learn, ww sage Boge (We have met the eaten i always anher, anu feared, [eis widely sul che war systent ae kept inKang ” > Femintegraee Ae PRACAKTZSM (0 macy Bepapnt + oe par nn Cyabed with — etenemie Po a Tebetax tie pestis te past Sats, Abshly poset Wy for inegitationabior wv vle ¢ ont vied Apgeetls Gru 7 Dent ude Opps hawetit Gident , TR, envionment §— dvsteutsion wd pucker Aabetoat cstv, Ga Bor, ° ee pee apeeth : ; eaten ° ‘Preston, Chery B. Prof of Law, Brigham Young University. Georgetown [Law Toural. “This Old House: A Blueprint for Constructive Feminism” uly, 1995, ie foare. Wi ibe benef ofbindyeht, we can evise our sstezies- Ay Sees dicts agnatin ac sent Dep eminst need Dem st Utne by ENbatesily THe utzan oF Soy = FoR PRDIACH NIK PUN. Ze They pasty HE THNRO_eany Tnrezm PERM THATS MAT Ce ae IN 4Feminist Privacy BCP ‘00-01 ae por! Criticizing / lee relations doem + Lrter evtreanch Gentle Toles. We must question the difference between Here rebsiors thd exists in Sore), Sociologist @ Hartford College for Women, 16> nG. TheGender Knot p. 33°) ZA ssisial approach to femininity, masculine. and gender roles does _ snd men are somehow the tame and that any idea vo the com “Taryisjut an deol prop Te does mean, however, that we DSSTTOBIY A? + ‘ooE Ts Hawn nk bus gender dlerences and what happens when ‘we attach great imponance to-them. The pastatchal vision of men IM! OS _Seer spn at aun in whos iene me Hepes tcc done feces er fot to do with va one SS eee 4\Pi BCP ‘00-01 Feminist P inges Kang e Kes Lastercecreum oy Oder ESS OF GRIDER MEQUTIES 5 A STEC AN THE ReeTyRecTION Te RECMEKNG OTHER iy EQUAL TL ES Catharine A. MacKinnon, reknown femini onlife and law, Bg. -3 "81, Feminism Unmodified: discourses GQ sender, while a distinct inequality, Also contributes the social em ‘bodiment and expression of race and class inequalities, at the same (Gere a aces Ss a aeose SPS as race and class are deeply imbedded in gender. For exarnple~ Ue sexualzation of racial and ethnic attebutes The san cole se STEREOTYPES TSO TESS ayaa within racism Tor being done TOUR Pere The masculinity of money asa form OF power akes— ity of money as a form ol | TotRing | im its function as capital, although it does undermine some models of economic rationality, includi (We urgently need to comprehend the emerging Sattern in which | | Awakens, leflTst-ones. wea, fomen ‘e\ cular classes; perhaps their racial status, also no less real for being Zthese and other Samples ‘gender in this country appears partly to Ose TE ANG OA WTA SEPA AT GSS ov ‘ce-and clas spciictea make up, a8 wellas cross-cut, gender. A ‘general theory of social inequality is prefigured, if inchoately, in these connections. \ NFER oss Ty oA iBCP ‘00-01 a mmo No-TeADEUFT — RECOM EIN THE FLAGS INSTITUTIONS CAN GeinG Poon acc RaeeiceS - director, Policy institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, f Our Backs p. lexis Urvashi Vai 6-30-97, Che 1beueve the lesbian feminist movement ofthe 2s cena most pre what is Falla wings always have, abroad radial agenda for economic'and socal juste fr $55 fender equality and for sexol freedom. I we are interested in ehtng insationalized 2 ; Berge cading suuctrl economic inequality, ending hetrosexism embeded inthe 3b economy, inthe family and in goverment, then we must operate out ofan ideology-based pols, nt us ou of dent base organizations, The fre egies ust AYE 8 pitment io. inert tes that coniand¥ operates Trom its knowledge that SLATS hat can see The srengihs and weaknesses ofidensty based ve must be willing to supplement that politics and model of organizing with an Seology-based and a values-based politics forthe future. And we need to develop & EO practical public policy agenda tat reflects these priorities. | ART (negate een ALLY, 9fun. Riv Thay Kt Goomwnsrtesno (6) "Vs CompyderhRSRN) FC OD Exedy Mosthiles , Amitsi€Geiniversty Profesor. George Washington University, (The Spint of Community: The Reinvention of American Society PAZ) +” Community ethicy have heen used for 10 long to mask Dreju- a mmunitarian thinking is But it is not si 7.” dice or to exclude minorities that co! Se ‘Westy Be sipes Bee i nor simply madtaraniom I sot does not exalt the group over the individual asks for ia ~ layor David Dinkins likes to refer to the city’s racial and ethnic groups as “s gorgeous mosaic.” A nice image, but a financier Felix Rohatyn replied, 2 mosaic needs some sort of - Glue to hold the pieces together. e * “oes ro i wel, extent cia ills oly nlp he oni fom : retin a ene % individ 2 grbetn i Latonyn wot enbersin, indivieadigt sr fy be varity relat the , own’ © abort & v af Pe eH ~ INiet Me Claims, anh obangty — gslventy. @Tea feo oe AT : (pA MONTTARIND © z |x YK. usa. ConmvRtTMIMOI5m — Travehlzer> Hu BY DsCTATIONY Reepusipitiies. Amitaii@ogsCniversity Professor, George Washington Univesity, > (The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of Amencan Society p YY in of Auburn University, a philosopher ism, writes: Professor Tibor Machar close to Radical Individualis “responsibilities” are. gunn Run IAC Gh abusive. IN. Py ae Ty tae A fovnkatin’. Allow ¥ fod A with ggasi eo rN Wenn, Ieagk * Gas Gem 3 * i Ki oC iempewel FE eet Oo ML eee C) wwkaide, Niwa | arms Slatin rebar ne ne Mee Bak bat niente , mond DY Ner recipe * .- hike 2 tne Re ‘~” eee ilyt “w > wells G Ny ag ihe i HeneRiby © 5 7 ‘ t) et ae © “be m ile elitr fiddle ree > Sent te FD6. tutn Com dT MD us wh TRE kj + Camnuritovinn (BS fen de Ay Desk este Deets Huy tgp * Denes KOLTTY To fuer Ho) Digurty AmitalEizosDniversity Professor, George Washington University (The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society, p. (tf) ‘TK Communitarian position on social justice (for all groups) includes the following elements: First, people have a moral responsic ly bility to help themselves as best as they can. At first it may seem heart “Taste Hk, say, disabled people, older people who have lox thir jobs, and minority youn; le who have suffered discrimination 2 - {to participate actively in improving their Tot. There isa valid sense. that we owe them, that they are entitled to our help. But the laying of a claim fo participate actively in advancing their lives on th wow denned io rata ‘See mn ai to be compensated, ited. and prefers and preferred—is based, rst of all, on a concept of human dignity. There is, 28 conserva “Fives keep reminding us—somrething deeply degrading about being dependent on others. Its respectful of human dignity to encourage people to control their fate the best they can—under the circum- stances. For some, taking responsibility for themselves may mean only tying their own shoelaces or learning to feed themselves again following a stroke. For still others, it may mean admitting illiteracy and leaning how to read. For others, it could mean continuing to look for ajob following several rejections. But people should not be exempt from responsibility for themselves—for their own good) itetians ' appresiin - oe T'® wle pee wo Aestive . implications ot ob yy aw beat Kegs dedi abou , Oe ce er Hurwn dagpbotr~) soon tare . ®BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy Kang p.lof | x, Jehan ote Caro! Pateman. feminist political scientist, reader in Government in the U of ‘Sydney, Public and Private in Social Life ed $1. Benn and G.F. Gaus, 1983, p. 297 {the skier] woen, of more speaTically belweor husbands and wive Ard and unjatiable exept he eral gonna Zp, : : , Q 2 lion of ocguations by messi fie boleves) govem other ‘Sealand political institutions sn neteenthcentury Britain TRE yt sOcial subordination of women is ‘a single relic of an oid world of Hoy thought and peace exploded in everthing 86" “* Ai the Sepnnine Mere, rite cosy Mil attaks te appeal to nature and argues that otha Sm tan ne known about the satura dffesauss any. erween women ae GE men unt) evdence i avaiable about thew respective attributes, PKs ‘within relationships and institutions where they interact ax equals instead 4 i rr Mich a Mis argent dete gaint "46a joy ane fe ovens af bison which placed them an the x over their wives, Legal refi should turn the Family from a "schoo! of despotism’ into 4 ‘school of sympathy in equality’ and a “real school of the virtues of freedom? However, 36 event Feminist cries have pointed out, in the end he falls back on tke {ithe prevailing cieeumstances of women's upbringing, lack af educa ‘ion and occupational opportunities, and Tegal and socal pressures, they do not have 3 fice choise whether oF not to marry, he also assumes RE er toc ulom, meat women sisal chose mati “TapeTTEnGE, He wates that it wil genevaly be undersiod that when a Sworman marnes she has chosen her ‘carcer, just hike 2 man entering a ofesson sanctioned position of slaves she makes choice of the management of a household. and the bring ing up of a family, a the first call upon her exertions .. She re rnounces al) occupations) not consistent with the requirements of ‘The question why, if marriage is 2 “earcer", iberal arguments about (public) equality of opportunity ave any reievance to women, is thus neatly begged. > 4BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Priv, Kong p.| orf woos: Deeugery tAD Johnson, Sociologist @ Hartford College for Women, 1997 ronan, (Allan G., The Gender Knot. p. $1) ‘es sin eT ovis Sal ening woe open a alt against them, and the denial of che fullness of cheic independence, auton- nv sexi apes, eddy baman gg Obroe tas OO SG te image or wes Seibert noe ? eee aa eel specu casas Sonshps wit charm, omen td eter andthe oe sce pope, Alough th obvious gal ete tsa hare cae, eae meme 7 cae itan Lapemnaesoet aes © nation states arm themselves to the teeth and develop rigid hierarchies 10 control their own ole and “defend” ther 1s i on ofc unuiaani Te"oten® ae ltel niteamesene, AO ‘senting themselves as victims of unfair claims, unjustifed sggression, outra- 2 QM¥™™ af, Sosa on edn ig see msi ED Xypar = Koi 08 CAHN or ‘control 3 the “anon at here are bad gap Sed Good ease woh ero rae tos to the latter. When each side defines the other a its opposite, they mask what each has in common, which is the underlying basis for their use of vi lence. Beneath the good guyfoad oe controlled by 4 > deadly pargarchal "i mami OS = PaaraKtt Fea} We ald i 8.BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy Kang pot ae MPL SCAT ONY’ Petes tAD Rene Causes Paouereary ny of Cotaroas WT Mass Dearexcned Betty A. Reardon, fellow at Teachers College, Columbia University, 285, Sexism and the War System, p. {5 : A frsen more wo dhe pont gh susguneauno ecg at B warns, the sielders of th pti willy the trend taweard the de > required te meet the j reseed peuple Ratbscluety javit ivi keeping other appressed groups in line, Kygerves ang alae snk gis CTT 7 wate teintemdrer a wean eye ea wer a 3 ey are innuaent wf the sites we parject cao ate esieies, and they are weaker, Inn efi and vue are tweet the ost cherished Mize hatte § Saree aera ae acral watrior ‘They thay callaborate ie their oven oppression ty the Ripped groups, by acting out their assigned sharacteristies, antl a Soloing, they pruvide an imupetis te the continued producti of Nreapony (0 shat they may fe protected or avenged)BCP ‘00-'01 Feminisg Privacy Kang, or) TMpicAtyW* DiTerAR MY ORD Paveinecty's [peal oF Domwwavien TRAVENTS Peace! - Betty A. Reardon, fellow at Teachers College, Columbia University, °8§, Sexism and te War System p97 pg a puttaretial society" He define peice isa com SRE he SOT bier values prewail lor He mapirity of thee Earth's peep the answer early is no! eave and_patriarcli are anuthetical by deamon Patetan hy is oe rule of he laters, Wise sy sen a tale bash nigheTomination, male power—a Stem ole ning wos IAT QRToerauie depen Talos anal ameieation ass NRT EES nhie wishes eth publi sphere ot wank aunt deci making cover feeling, Teaven over cath, spit er Mesh ~ daisy in whe vwymen are identified with the negative side Patsiarehy toa systenm me Oa Durcaue rary, aliviation fisnn the earth, denial ot fematimn, generational sbuatsightedness, thy bes tifiation ob sath. Aaheilcr it be of sex, rae on thas, (anon 19795) ing agbesctreund titans oko play iheongh the deadly combative ‘The role al enemy i the conse denurtinator. In the By Sits we sie er the wer ey nga so. Gsned ined ae SS (in ths the winners and people of volar the losers These are thei date thes in panianhy. Akhungh patsiar hy ceranaly has aot prectuded Javing, caring, generous fathers, it has tended ta pede the develop: ent af those particular bwuman attributes in men, Men are socialized Hy STARR FouwDS = fo authority and regpmsibiliey rather than for care and hives wonven are socialized for submission and dependence rather tha for assertion, authority to impose theie willson hase Granted. this RapEATO evel othe assumption that the wll the: mbit isin the best interest af all concerned because it stents From superior knoswtedge and wisdom. Assubjects, both men ancl women ate ex IiTmneW are expected Wr develop the capacity to impose their www will trained! not only to accept imposition but to accomulgcare totally to Zinger thet or risk more forcelal, even violent, importign, Much so called feminine behavior, accommodation andl wiles, isthe conse quence of this particular condition, which requires mechanisms for coping with authoritarianism and avoiding violence. Men are condi \o andl ready th site violence and women are con. disiemert te tear andl avnit it tioned to be aggressisBCP ‘00-'01 Femini Kang p.Zhof! “utes: tor Rad | Patriarchy leads to war and men use women to produce sons for warriors Brock-Utne, University of Oslo, '85 (Bridget, Educating for Peace, P. 73-74) C4 “The German phllowopher Nietzsche, who was whlely rou wil used by the German Nazia, aw the role of women ax producers of we whe would ‘become warrior. In her book Gyn/Ecology (1979) on the metwethics of radical feminism, the American philosopher and professor of theology Mary Daly claims that Nietzsche was right not only in the obvious sense that the war sate requires mothers to produce sons to become soldiers, but also on the deeper psychic level: The poche ppg of women in nara fnetlons _sontinually (0 recreaie Tir wurTFor. The state of patriarchy ls the site of war, “in which periods of resuperation fiom and preparation for baile are euphe- imisticaly called “pease” As longa he tat of patriarchy continues asx ‘women wil goon recreating warriors. In a patriarchal society, men have iced Temaeh athe Wom. Women ats-exploiied, vicimized, and oppressed, In the above- uote work (Thus Spake Zerahusia), Niciasche (1888) ives men the fl- Jewing advice: If you are meeting a woman, do not forget the whip. In a [patriarchal society women are mutilated and physically abused, with the same claim that Nietzsche used: Women are to they are to learn “their proper place.” Their proper pi is is selves ate putt of Imesnalized the value system und beliels of the oppreor, even concerning their own worth. I i OL an uncommon experience of women working ia crisis centers for battered women in the western industrialized world that battered wives blame themselves, claiming that they deserved the whipping, beating, oF torture of their oan r . GarDER OPPSSION BBeETS Loomens TO SAVE Sway David Av. Blcharda, Law, New York University, November, 1996, Cardozo Law Review, p.lexis ‘Ke we have seen, the claim fot one's inaionable human rights (or example the AA recA ATT Sen fhe crimios camoTo Ree ETT Ee SITET HETMENYBotring women in terms of gender Se race ds [800] exetial to masculine guidance on basi sues of conscience that wer tent with moraily independent thought, speech, and action. ‘Angelina Grimke we eer i year none ee ta oan ierateatiige cro stan nt emerson weit oe acorn ee a es senat neces ay aie soem men Seven epee (olFreie Creer not es Dewmesm Vio renter pBeuy A. Reardon, consultant, Joint United Nations Information Committee, Non- Govemmental Organization Programme Group on Women: Feminist Visions of Global Security, GY-SO % ( viotence against wnmen ie unvenrsal and cmstant. Such viv lence meaner and divect-as the case with wifebeatingand rape. 1 eentdcuaral wal inetitational as in the laws that dehumanize and leat aith wranen aschattle and economic systems that exploit female tines Itisilen subtle and surreptitious, asin verhal harassment and lrseniaed discrimination. Vinlence against women is pervasive and dihen vicious. An Ladian feminist, Madhu Bhushan ‘11861, gives @ vied overview af hath nvert and structural violence against women From “bride burning” ithe murder of young wives by “accidental utchen fires! through sterentyping, demonstrating how it pervades the coviety andl the eulture. The following paragraphs include refer tence to the specific Indian problem of “dnwry deaths” but could be applied to mos! contemporary societies ‘complex interplay of the frees ofan unequal sicneconmc ‘\convand uh stitution seugagies an vlog sed ations Tesrmaciye, Thisunderstanding should prevent us Sine innetent physical vislence aginst women an sited incidenteattributable mainly tovndieidual aberrations. Oppres: Rareiagen > Renrine Woes ly 8 inn of and violence against women has. very defin cultural psychological, material and sicinlogieal hase, ‘Structural sacietal violence. as reflected inthe patriarchal fam- ily structure sehose main ideological function is feared towards rninuldinge children inte sex roles, is furthar specifically institutionalised in the system of dowry-—a coneept which not inerely reinforvesthe lower status nf woman, stamping her as an feunomie liability, but has also of late, begun carrying within itself a possible death warrant and a sanctinn for psychological land piissical torture of the bride atthe hands of the in-laws, In today’s highly consumerist sciety. a bride has become a smuree nfsulistantial eapital far the grown and his family. When the bride fails t live up tn material expectations, she is consid tered _dispneable and is either dane away with ar is driven to coment uni.» Lay 193, Women and Peace:Fem fe pb dk TATE + Ds /- Few a + wT ~) Maral vearons f0 Justify public poli (eads to a qurlic/ private Spi, which CoMFines Werken t0 te domestic. sphere . Young, seacher of ethics and political theory in the “Grate Schoo of Pic and Ieee a the Unversity of Pitsburgh, 1998, (rs Marion, Feminism, the Public and the Private, 1998, p33) 1 To summarize, the ideal of normative reason, moral sense, stands opposed 10 die and atectaty Impari: jal civilized reaghn sharasterizes the virtue of the republican man who rises above passion and desire. Instead of cutting bourgeois man entirely off from the body and aff owe culture of the rational Pubic confines them to the Nomestirphele which alesse Janets passions and provides emouidnal solace to mea ren. Indeed, within this dommes eo eee ED a sentiments can flower, and each individual can recognize and anne particularity. Because virtues of impartiality and universality dete fs public realm, it precisely ought not to attend to our Particularity. Modern ormative_rea litical expression in the idea of the and coherence With differentiation: the specificity oP womens Fo aay “The difference of race and saltweee variability or heterogeneity'< Sar pees goals, and desires of each individual The amor ity ‘Sod changeabliy oT elng Cap Sy eee -me liber idea OF private, choice accumes public/privane division. ssity of | a wil ‘Volume 40, March, L.Qilién) Professor, University of Pennsylvania Schoo! of law, William & Mary Law Review, Anita 19. p 72S oie Scems to presuppose that socal fis divided info distinguishable public and private spheres ‘The goncept of private choice seems: L a The Greeks: ‘Isecisional” privacy has origins in classical antiquity a i Be an ssetinclesee gcc Besant | ro et esata ge Sse prvate living as subordinate ancillan ganized into public liberal tradition, as does the premise in the post-Enlightenment Wester es survives thn the prvate phrenic the family, and apolitical intimate association, , that the private sphere consists chiefly ofthe home, . io%priviany doctrine reinforces Hie public/private split Laura WT Rasaciate Professor. New York Law School. Minnesota Law Review, Volume 77. May, sp. 1162-3 “The fem tics of privacy argue that privacy doctrine reinforces the ideology of the se es, They contend that the underlying assumption of privacy Saami coasted on-inerference bs-the gaurrnment in the ETE WITT Guarantee autonomy to private citizens. This theory. however, does not work for women. Privacy prvale sp ‘doctrine carves out a sphere relating to marriage, family, and heterosexual activity that is. “Same Time, i entrenches the existing male-dominated power structure within the private sphere 3s power structure Is not the direc governmental coercion. According to its critics, — ‘prima face just simply because the power structure 15 not the direct result of [rns en EE “The inevitable result is that rights based on privacy _ -eacemclyTiited ‘Thus, for example. the privacy-based right to abortion does not empower women to control their "own sexual destinies, women are still coerced into sexual relationships. a Tne ecparati oF the quolic ANd private spheres embraces the negative conception of privacy . Leis Marie ®SB>Law Stud, Law an Socal Inuiry, Volume 2, Winter, 13.49 in social contract sero reac Dena SO a aS nomi ve economic power theor di 05) wane gy that protects ae =n nation of 54 none een ee Tes ab i an ex mane ft ahr gees es ae asa th Protecting eatlemens ‘Most rig ison x ae ae: oa 4BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privacy pt of > Kang Jeet © olrwd) Taw Me Low is patriordul and ahuerks wWonen even when i+ Fayors wonen Diao author and store. The Poti of Law A Progressive Ctiue, Edited ty David Kai. 19> 298-299 Closely related to the, an exponent of particular ideologies that support male supre wate is monic function 19 i. While the concept ‘articulated and applied in the context of understanding and explaining the, so be uriarchy, a set of ideas could be-sai rm ural differences between male and female ation and domination Laws and isa result ofa natural division ofthe world into separate spheres and nat ies that suit women and men ‘court opinions that embody and express these kinds of ideas can play an important part in maintaining patriarchal ‘Besemony: Interestingly this hegemonic effet has sometimes occurred inthe context of legal deisions Tat appear TO actually improve womens lives. For example, beginning inthe mid-twentieth century a series of Supreme Court cases “Src Ss sions on he we of emmezptver andthe storion ssn unanieaeeal sue pase inn people's private sexual ives. In all ofthese decisions. the Court emphasized the privacy ofthe family and asserted that sexual that sexual__ flauons are par of private sper that outside the at's authors regula Th whi he outcome ea oT “conrl and obtion aos War CoETERT 6 Womch by Gg GEORG IMs ener epee oh Cee epee lpi ne tarocrhaboneoee ‘ne naturally separt private and pac spheres of human existence Sine isthe slogans oe Can nue, bring justice t wenen end Granting poway Sppcesicd = grenpt Lo. 4/30/1999 [the skier} (Garesponse o this, a iberal might argue that Because there are aws—both criminal and cvil—preventing harms warped by either the government or by indlviduale, protection already exists against the systemic heme of racism, S655, Gassism. etc. Whether an individual, group, or government commits these sorts of harms, laws alreacy exet to ‘daress them. Focusing on chil law, and on constitutional law in particular, Mackinnon does not deny that a respect and protect the rights, privat (oer mernbers of «gemaorg ese paver scas ashe cay ining for ex equally are ore— Seaaares ge Saceaeessnas ar Ser Ess heresies ca oH eae eee eae Ire oe ee ceaason a waen and aten Saat ee a aon a me RE = i)BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Priyacy Kang P. Tyg caten Sptsency Tec Equal Oppurtrrity Laws do nut sue, too Mao} obstacles Laisa Feo a RadlieClles, Wendy. Tre Lave WHF 1101, abu oases toward eguty bs been slow EGual oppor ‘tunity laws do not always provide equal access afach Teds equal results, and new rights for women have not been accompanied Dy much-needed social services—day care, heal care, suppor for battered women, training for women who enter the job market late with severe educational disadvantages Without services or a federal commitment to affirmative 2 emained ction and the enforcement of civil rights laws, equality remain elusive throughout the 1980s. Despite dramatic gains infiltrating ‘male strongholds—law, medicine, business, even police work— women were st as a class by occu us the o.com: bine child care. 7 \Ye MAL Dominance ls ExrenpeD THROUGH THE “biiSion OF SPHERES? ‘etna OMY protesor ofa atthe University of New York lw soo! Rights Journal 1993 ‘Sexual difference and sexual celatinns in the private sphere therefore must te considered aracigmatially non-palil” peripheral 0 poiial thet. re iso be any consistency behind public private di public. privare divide shieh-ereates- Se eee et aoc pee ge es a a Seal gs cae The liberal sate is founded us {elation between iw and society." né4 The blown-up liberal state of international society supplanted feudalism with democraicrovolutionanl -sqquggles but left women's human rights ina mediaualstage 065 of sibordination and dominance remains hidden, Unlike structures of dominate ‘and political Mrequalities among men, male forms ce over women are accomplished "socially, prior to the operation of law, without express state ether eines Sens" n88 The aseurplon eas ar wen is, he assump have consented to these Torms of social and political organization. n67 the Harvard Human \bbRor AS ay a oo) Tyg uscatta? Seuentt Tagen , ee The private realm ides Oe sybjaget anh pepe Peete a penn PRATT repremng MacKinnon, Cuterine A Toward « Feminist Theory ofthe Sate” (Lean, Mean Feminist Queen) 1989. Gy ‘ussions explored the functioning of sex roles in even one's “where ie was THOUERE women were Most 2 These ise “FrENTT offen came 10 look che most Te Enis woman, in her OWT parcicular, gree chosen, 9a products in her most private relations a structure oF svhich characterizes the enire publi order : TAT BF URE TACT i is practiced cn the level of group process, s0 that what could be a socioprycho- logical or theoretical insight becomes « lived experience. That is, through making public, through discussing in the group, what had been private, for example serual relations, it was found that che split terween public and private, atleast inthe context of relarions becween the sexes, made very litle sense, except as it Fonctioned ideologically fo keep cach woman feeling alone, particultly in her experiences of semua violation. ‘Aft sharing, we know chat women suffer at the hands of « male sphere of our existence, os to make oot living and the ways in which we illment in ‘Pronal Tlarionships. We know thet our most secret, our most now chat Ove most secret, us most Breas, oblems a grounded in the way that women ate weated, in che way. ‘women ae allowed 10 live."* Ss —— -BCP ‘00-01 Kang Tupacevedt: CANT Hei Loh yn) it @ dowbh~edyed Suord uroo4e pow acy reiFes hedere Sex? Say Rhonda Copelon. Associate Professor of Law at CUNY Law School, Attorney at Center for Constitutional Rights. A Less Than Perfect Union ed. Jules Lobel, 1988, p24 the skier} ‘2-3) eee In comparison to the intense questioning of private life char- acteristic of the late 1960s and 1970s, repeated reference to the private in the public discourse of the 1990s might almost seem like the ‘return of the repressed As before, critics and defenders of the body, the family andthe (gendered) person contest for pablc space. Yet across the political spectrum there is a heightened atten- tion to privacy issues. This is not a simple case of the turning of the wheel. Indeed, many who protest vehemently on behalf of the individual are the Ti ‘advocate the use of state power to I~ “Wrsateguard personal identity and the body, while re-valuing the ‘sphere of privacy. This has not meant an abandonment of the Pieri aroee ot the private or the forfeiture of a critical per- Spectve on private ie the sine qua nono secondswavefonane Rather, feminists have shown how the line between public and pri. vate is constantly being renegotiated. The most adamant defence of the private, Seyla Benhabib observes, necessarily involves bring- ing ‘private matters'to public light, Calling attention ta the mutual tion 1nd’ private Ii nist = ciate that lines between public and private life have been drawn and will continue 10 be drawn. However, Ul iption “involves pawer- AS Naricy Fraser points out, ‘not coeryone sands in the, i a 1¢ have more Bower than others to draw and defend the lings) p.2-" AmM ve ae TpLZcaTicN 7 Cait Hete amen) Blend, LE Pet vata s Me publ Patorarc by Carol Bateman, feminist potvca cies. read fer in Government in the U of Ssdney, Public and Private in Social Life ed SI. Benn and G.F. Gaus, 1983, p. 28% | {the skier) ef gevcate Abeton, SE EY Worse ‘ sonteasted with and apposed tn Swirly, they mute the Benn and Gaus's , ahistorical character n xia womuied and ate organi. rote ey a wacisatate’ > TET \Wompicatens: Cay Hap omen) P Pawacy RicttS Reeceet Grargectac PeTeRosexust (PEAS ‘Anita L Allen law, University of Pennsylvania, March 99, Wiliam and Mary Law . Review, p. lexis 2 & 2 caides of tiberlism ae apt wo insist that the publcprivatedisinetion i together an ~ £2 ideological tol of subordination in societt Ypropeny dominate oer groups, Feminsis share iba pcvacy uses esclisive & Fproperty dominate other “Fronopolies over soil cesources as well. societal incite. tothe. Folens and povery that charter he “cua” ves of many women and clon. 9105 2, The private she is pesmeaied by govecament The public {spies ubiquitous. Law, and therfore the arms of “public” gover. defies and ‘F mediates the complex entity-to-entt i 3 a child, practice a t 2 © 5 without whic i wea If someone is being harassed in certain ways that violate privacy, he or she can call the police. If someone harms anothers privacy interests, the 2 armed individual may be able to bring a lawsuit to bave losses compensated. s a _E To the extent that government is infused with patriarchal, heterosexual ideals, men's and © women's privacy rights are likely to refl cual sofa ‘As a woman, "my" i ivacy is limited by “his” and “theis” 2 “conceptions of Tife. Thus, a lesbian’s desire to live in Peace with her female lover and to adopt her lover's children may be thwarted by others! ‘conceptions of the morally good family. WW‘10 Feminist Priyacy BCP ‘00-'01 mt ae Kang . ; eu pubic / privak sPRures, Oey Soares many groups, Imcluding Professor of women's studies and history atthe Pennsylvania State Unversity, 1998, {Joan B., Feminism, the Public and the Private, \BB?p 14] iris Marion Young propotes that an emancipatory ethics must develop a normative conception of reason that Goes Tot oppose reason to desire am ity. Similarly, By-promoting Retero= PUBTC TAP unified universality, an envanicipa= “Serrano oF Mea a mise, YOUNG argues Habermas's theory of ommunicative action does not meet the fequirements she sets forth for an emancipatory ethical/poitical theory. Moreover, she worries that the distinction between public and private in modern | the Te5Se5 a will for homo- BeMelty that necessitates the exclusion of many persons and groups, alized “rot = j-wildness and irrationality Rather than-Tot i Fecover suppressed Enlightenment ideal Tiabermas's invitation Tecover suppressed Enlightenment Teale — FOUg TOOKS and other new social mi Tecent decades for an alternative conception of democratic pat ‘te that would neither exclude nor sactiRce personal or privare—> atten She ierprers the feminist Slogan "The Persone Pome ‘caI"To Tnean, ‘No persons, actions or attributes of persons should |l-BCP ‘00-'01 Feminig Privacy 2 of. Kang po : Sprutanes: No Se LH woe. USL OF PYIVEARY impLALS Social movemmues ‘Young acher of ethics and politcal theory in the Graduate Schoo of Public and Internationa Affairs at the University of Pitsburgh, 1€8>[ts Maron, Feminism, the Public and the Private, 1998, p44?) [The new social movements of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in the have begun to create an image of a more differentiated pub- lic thy, directly confronts the allegedly impartial and universalist sae fhivenens of roups, jncluding black, chica, and American-Indian liberation {end-to-tajact-the-ascim— to nurture and cs in pub- lic their distinctive cultures and forms of life, as well as asserting the dominant societ uts them. The women’s movement too “Redon be ster a aRUMTCTIVety WOMEN'S culture “ahd Tas asserted that both women’s specific bodily needs and women's situation in male.dofhinated society Tequire Wtending in “Tublic tospecal needs and unique contmbUTIoRS OT women: Mose Rinte-or te tiabted te Speier Gay are Toso MBeration have all produced an image of public life in which persons stand forth in their difference, and make public claims to have specific reeds met_j HUD Core eee ak the private. Sphere perpetacte State Contr | Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 7/31/1992. [the skier] as Se a Secsone at upest rong GRToUNITE ae estes as wt ee Sees saa tus aman toro econ a ala The te are Shen ccnars os partoon and ieretuon te ater oe neal and acitaveofindepenaentpvate atone, 28 SWey Sunsteins point is that "non intervention" by the state is neither impartial nor inaction, but rather a form of state action ‘ Ieptttiy * INE Dusk Cbeavine of clase '@caerne, toward Feminist Theory of the Gecko rofsc of Law, Unvesiy of Michigan Gop erty of Mian r Troi to secognie the meaning of the private inthe ideology and Tru of women’s subordination by seeking protection behind « ight (0 that privacy 13 to cut women Of from caleaive vetfonion tat "TBR Rippon inthe mea: Where are segregated in private, — ‘Separated Wom each other one 3a fi TN TIN A GYR One Timea igen cha privacy ate ‘women at once from each other and from public recourse. This right To privacy is a Fighe of men“ 1c to oppress women one aoa ti 's_existing 2 Y dcinicion Lanmanhood. This insance of liberalism applied wo 2 Sromen aif they wee ponons, gener neva? eames tel Of sivision beewen public ad ovate whch ot gender neu TL¥ ym, iin bees Pd ae, te aera dion, SBjstion within. Pracy law Keeps some men ou ofthe Booms — |} aoa “a VlBCP ‘00-01 Fomine Kang p.| of InP ECateed * Doves 1c \ tere Btendng ew ina) pilechons Incregses oppor harties mesti€ violerve and abuse Decew, Professor of Philosophy a Clark University, 1997 Judith, tn Pursuit of Privacy, p.85-6) (Cts gar MacKinnon ke other prominent eins drang Scenton othe degee wo which sexual apd peal Ylence ‘he fly has been 2 demain Sn eben expec or Sik somen shes arey orec thc abuse celsonhipe FRE Tironalt pene comons ae pera To the extent ar pirate oF Sane PRES RE TE TF Pe Sarge pl nener or rorer wee Sm cess airmen em Beech Moree. on MacKinnon's we eres exhib Ee casey oaee a " aint_and_pcremer_castng_uniat_power_relauonshipe and ‘fran tae He te ep oe | Saree eatery OSG | Milkone sf women elected by dumeshic vislence Caghasads> root taw @ Rutgers, $00? gis Stake taw Joural) p lexis lence is a pervasive and destructive force in the lives of women. Three to four million American w Wo to four thousand women ¢ cy uf eon General, domestic vio jeneral, domestic violence is Not only is crime against women widespread, but it also.manifests a dramatic yender imbalance. domestic violence, and stalking are far more likel to claim women than men as vi a mo beerBCP ‘00-01 PeministPrivacy Kang Tmputxtih + \\lotent & Privacy used to facilitate abuse 4 violence scew, Professor of Philosophy at Clark University, 1¢SS{Judith, In Pursuit of Privacy, p. 87-8] on re fami MacKinnon ones Seger ces ae ee ee co SEE ender neutron the din tween spre ne ou pea dn Sitteratou womens tured expences see fren us ps ey mal ut ep ee Tron pe etre md depois nomen s wyeron it Public) Private distinction used 40 immunize private Violence Linda C(MfeCiath, Boteseor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law. William & Mary Law Review, Volume 40, March, 1G) ‘An adequate liberal account of privacy requires a persuasive articulation, rather than abdication, ofa public/private distinction. To use Allen's formulation, this i the important task of rescuing the public and the private, which requires a liberal framework within which "public and Drivate are contingent, transformable conceptions of bow power-qught-bestia _Reallocated among individuals. social groups, and government.” haps the most forceful and pervasive feminist criticism and government." Per Reva Siegel's historical analysis of the evolving legal treatment demonstrates how. even after the l and a husband's right to administer “chastisement” to his wife, and even after the evolution from a model of authoritarian mariage 10 companionate Gouis Continued 10 use the concept of affective” or marital privacy o shield the home from public exposure, leaving Ta eT aE RESY against ifimate violence An adequate account of governmental nonin ‘Private life must condemn this invocation of privacy to immunize private violence, ‘men, For example, Professo? tof violence against women in the home powerfully ("lone rom tore Testes 2 \soyend PRIWACY INCREASES PATEIARCHY AND Domestic ToRTORE OF WOometN Geter Bote Law iy Unverty ow York Law Stop (Rbonds. “Human Righs of Women e. Reece J Cook, Pp.) TH vay among different culures. there is an as- Tining convergence in regard to the basic tenets o re n's de- and fo Bape Ii sale neces wo preserve neiesnen eae aie tension nthe nsiem=i teeaed nthe cere, pee fact that woen wll der this denny Jesouny scone nen violent scenarios, Women are to be (cared because they are sexual, Yoracious, ticksersoveereses and Iabans Womens — ‘Women’s capacity af ower igasr auack— whether ABE OTe of invimacy: competence at wape-caring work, soil ear ization f life, the basic patriarchal dynamic ‘continues to expres and replicate ill rough vskencr inthe orieue “sphere, ld that most studies of domesti Vslence come from western ne an Umer Te EES reir parca aranmemenarethourhis- re ing economic, socal, politcal, and ‘Seslogeal condos aug the credence af oe \eiarchy a8 well ao the imponance of rediesing gender boccl tor Tence ia mR aT io 7 Steenonwitarcs aeecenc ina e Goe fi va) FeO SRE mestic aoyse are 400 times more hE bso Qi ap. prof. UCLA’s school of public privacy, 1998 (Linda G., The Heart of Intimate Abuse, 1998, pg.16-17) The intergenerational transmission of domestic abuse is alarming. Children exposed to domestic “e and children who are ly abused are more likely to use vi shi ‘th ntmates. Boye who wes aml woence are more Hee, 35 adults, to batter female partners (Hotaling & Sugarman, I Straus and Gelles (1986) found that in_a comparison of violent 7 ‘men.sith.a control group of nonviolent men, the sons of violent arents have a rate of wile beating 900 times greater than that {sons of ganuialent-pirenta Tha Sure to violence can have enorinous long-term ellects on # \teBCP ‘00-01 Kang TARL at Kab Soren e Feminist Privacy p.5 of OF Hue millions OF women that ave abused, only Ph.D. prof. UCLA's school of public privacy, A swath percentage report it 4 Ynurate Abuse, 1998, pg. 12-13) in ‘8.7 million women of all races and classes are battered by an Intimate partner (Roberts & Burman, 1998; Straus & Gelles, 1986). Some scholars predict that 50% of women will be victims of do- mestic violence at some point in their lives (Littleton, 1989; Maho- Yney, 1991; Walker, 1979). Violence against women by their intimate partners is a leading £ause of injury and death to women, [i “GTauarriet couples reper at least one epsode ol pyaiel lense indeed, in 1992, the US, Surgeon Gereral Teiee a The moat cornea ener a eal to women [ween ‘and 44 (Novello, Rosenberg, Saltzman, & ‘Shosky, 1992). ‘Ten to 14% of all married women have been raped by their husband and Thai husbands (hnkehor & Yio, 18%; Paton ea ey 1985). Of all emale homicides, one 69% were committed by men. st women = 1, 1997 Auiougr starting, hese wtatiatics may undereniete te currence of domestic violence. Precise quantification is dificult because victims often hesitate to report incidents of domestic violence out of love for the man or thelr children, religious or cultural commitment or pressure, fear, or financial dependence, or a combination of these. Indeed, Straus and Gelles (1986) esti. ‘mate that less than 15% of victims report domestic violence incl. dents. More recently, the National Crime Survey Keport (US. DOJ, 1994b) revealed that 48% of the estimated 4 million battered ‘women in the US. did not report incidents of intimate abuse. Unreported cases are unlikely to be recorded elsewhere because ‘medical personnel often fail to question patients concerning sex- tual, emotional, or physical aggre jon by partners (Nurius, Hk frink, & Rufino, 1996). Similarly children’s social workers (CSW), advocates, and clinicians who are concerned about domestic violence and the related ins of child safety lackadequateasseas- ments to uncover domestic violence as well as methods to val. date the ethers exeneceg ya. 13-13 FP (Linda G. The Heart of \\BCP ‘00-'01 Feminist Privpcy Kang p.& of ToPyscactsens § \ |Letence Privacy “protections cau aluy » naglect ‘Anita L Allen, Professor of Law. Pennsylvania, William & Mary Law Review. 1@9). p. lexis ‘The concept of privacy has been central to the feminist critiques of Wester liberal societies. Feminist scholars have been in the forefront of liberal. progressive, and communitarian efforts to debunk and rebuild liberal understandings of privacy and Private choice. Many feminists explicate privacy construed primarily asthe private sphere of home and family life-as the problematic context OT TaCiTOTAT TENGE Subordination and isolation in subservient. dependent socio-economic roles. They — ‘gue on good evidence that violence and neglect can befall vulnerable individuals Ta any area of domestic or commercial “Ife Wien a community or ns government abrogates responsTbliy To CUZERs aad enterprises tagged" pavaTE Sti violtuce Privacy justicies Tuming & iaiind eye 40 Domestic V! viv! DianePolaiCaethor and atiorey. The Politics of Law A Progressive Critique, Edited by David Kairys, 16%, p. 298 ‘One practical result of the "hands-of" rhetorical stance of the law toward activites within the "private realm of the fami has ben to license men's exploitation of women within the family unit. in essence" by purportedly withdrawing itself from “egulation of the private sphere, the legal system has lent its actual support to male supremacy by permitting men to _Dampvetey dominate and control family Life, Even today, itis dificult to get courts fo intervene in domestic vi Stations Because ofa supposed deference tothe “privacy of the family * ' PrivacyiS @ mast for abuse Linda CSacClain Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law, William & Mary Law Review, Volume 40, March, 19@p. 775 Ubimately, feminist critiques of privacy highlight the need to sort out “dubious uses of the notion of privacy” and to reject the invocation of the values of privacy to "mask exploitation and abuse." The reconstructive task is to build “cor pean and ono for privacy and autonomy as valuable, and perhaps indispensable in a conception of free and equa atzenship for ‘ol n, abolitionist, well a othe ‘reative resonances among them. ye may be able atSonsinit pe rots of privacy and offer some alternative images ft Ors ing, we can beter express why the right o be let alone maybe the right most valued by “evilized” women as well as 20pe rth” Tgustrtechs & Hh AgkSene WT Public/Private Spheres aid Harassment Gries of womer’s studies and history a the Pennsylvania State University, 16, oan 8. int, the Public are the Private. 1998, .1-12] CNancy Fraser reconsiders the issue of democratic publicity in light of the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings concerning Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas, ‘who was subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court of the = =p. United States. Starting from what first looked like a ‘text-book & 2° example of the [Habermasian] public sphere in action, she asks RE whether women and men are positioned differently with respect ss. to privacy and publicity and, further, how issues of class and race BS are played out in the public sphere. Diagnosing these hearings from the standpoint of an overlapping struggle over gender, race, and class, Fraser concludes: ‘we need to revise the st: Jiberal_ ‘she points out that not all understandings of these categories pro- Mote democracy, especially when it amounts to enforcing ‘men's “Privacy rights to harass women with impunity in part by smear— ing in_public any women, sto protest, For Fraser, ‘the finist project aims in part to overcome the gender hierarchy that gives men more power than women to draw the line between public and private’. Yet the legacy of American slavery and racism means that ‘black women [have been denied] even the minimal pro- tections from abuse that white women have occasionally managed to claim’ Fraser insists that publicit and unambiguous an instrument of empowerment and emancipation. For mei “or aubordnate groupe Til dvays be attr of Balancing the potential political uses of publicity against the dangers of loss of Privacy" Unni STM (oy SM crud Prvare sphere hinders sexual harassment analysis 1 Pee eameenph G Neo Usp een ics nt Ln, Or, THE FOLTICS OF COMDMONETY. ED! Fone dee aves sts seals sai I isis of sexual harassment, which is often seen ' 23 ‘when as a problem which the parties ought to sort out between. “shich liberalism otherwise sees as public_A politcal theory which starts out from the atomistic “workplace. which liberalism otherwise sees as public. A poli ise, ate individual which depoliticses sexuality as private and which privileges a negative Conception of human ‘So dew a perso a emis a saul practise asta Haase \nBCP ‘00-01 Kang TpPLLCrteds 2 Pateiarch al oppression Cmseuu ews, Women that, Daa Pence The Polis ot Wess any” Culmenates i. Lemcerde - Feminist Privacy ple Ceivate sphere is the haven Br Womentr eyprestion we meth explode th private ints “the Catharine MacKinnon, feminist storey and activist, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, 1988 p. (oe {the skier] Tey public iees ane scan * OpPeccenN — éé=- _ agentt Gemen utn At Ont Ure MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Toward a Feminist (Lean, Mean Feminist Queen) 1989/8 In peivace, consent tends co be Gigsumel Towing coercion ig “supe 10 void this sumption. Bur the problem is getting anything privare c be perceived oe fave, Ta Taw Wie pate IS fundaupesealy an angle of Waiona Say SH way of seeing from che point of Wiew ot power, attached lacer roa place or quali of the State” d women are seen to consent to it. It 4 nor that this is never Overcome, but rather that there i there that must be overcome in order for force to be seen as force, \mBCP ‘00-'01 Kang Femini op UNRATE + Dpreesetol\ Privacy ight s desteoy jadividueliin and silence The coment Vortes oF the ptvate sphere in Government inthe U of caro! Bateman, feminist poitieal sien, reader in Government Sydney, Public and Private in Social Life ed. S.1, Benn and G.F. Gaus, 1983,p.27% | wee inst Locke's" weparatuion_of paternal {om poateS ! ee a aniomned as a separation oF the private rom the GO ey il Nea ie ri sphere can Br see a eH A tae all ie lite Locke's iewry als gr ean ate gfouded-n opponion 4 shows ow th Bt Sanaa essen Se Spee Te ay bso sa es TATE SAS Ee seuly ae sino wi and und rhs 4°35, Lea rampaton me unc spe goed by ne 3 i in the conflicing satus : ‘i tu of achievement, interests. SBhts, een mpersonal ani conventional enteda of 3 a er Petey and. propety ~ bstal entesa appliabe only to neh AB se reany consequence ofthis conseation of i i hat a Bee etl pal 60) Sta 4 SETHE fom hye private damestic sphere, > {BY Peva y pote ctienst sly pee ase rr ‘Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 4/30/1999 (the skier! Furinermore, mackunnon argues that the harm from which oppressed groups suffer, because of the way in which ngs eo te eae conve rights against the state isnot limited tothe fact that they are frequentty unable fo exercise their ights in any meaningful way. In ual F over another 5 a8 a resull. the later Kanenever the first group exercises ‘Thus, the asserton Rpdive rahis by Members ofthe powerful group may i The inequality. “If one group is socially granted the Pettie rcedom to do whatever it wants to another group, to determine thatthe second group wil be and dots ner POS eo eof nagative freedom legal guaranteed othe second group will make if the equal of he fret For ne domain in which women are distinctively subordinated and deprived oF see (Mackinnon 106, 16-65) By gantng negate aes the domin inated group of acc Re woure ong abo:Feminist Priv BCP ‘00-'01 p. Hor ee smayserteos + tenet oh Galoinn Te preer nyt crdererns aA| Jarome Den (strtsr ail cgree ate New XSi for Social Research, 1998) (Nancy. Feminism. the Public and the Private, 1998 p.332) Recognizing how the ca icity and_privacy have become coded By gender a : ral inadequa- Theory of the public sphere. For one thingy {CF ~poredeeste are TRSCRTOE A Alppors for and eal s65 To state power exclusively. Rather, yeccnted also 0 under aera privatization supports the Private’ power of bosses over workers, husbands OVeT > ~whritesover braces Pubtietry, then, 1s Tot onty-e-weaporr-against— Saxe Tyranny, as 105 bourgeois originators andcurrent Eastern fe extra-state power of capital, employers, supervision, no more dramae Pl “The erMUTIpaToFY se publicity in relation to private power than the way in which these events momentarily empowered many ‘women 10 speak openly for the first time of heretofore privately suffered humiliations of sexual harassmeni.) ?-33-L ‘THE PLAN LEGITIMIZES THE INEQUALITIES OF WOMEN Louise Mari€Riih, Law and Social Inquiry, Volume 24, 99% p. lexis Feminist scholars have revealed that nonintrference in the “private” realm has the effect of reinforcing power and “Powerlessness (MacKinnon 1989) Formal iy engender el equaliy TE aE: Tal cual and even oafores ueaaly, because ower relations from the public realm operate wath impunity inthe arena of soninierenton. In guaranteing ¢ ght © privacy inthe private h of power vy sous. nowledge_and.gmbolicatibaons cn a with impunity (MacKnnoe 1989, Polan 1993: Hoff ‘development of feminist critique ofthe legal and ideological ‘of private and public, of personal and political ted 40 the feminist mantra, “The personal is political." Not only is the personal politcal in the sense thatthe private sphere cotinspoer rans hat ior oso seni oneal inns he 9 te nda public and private subjects ito the influence of social power. CORE ASSUMPTION OF PRIVACY LEADS TO THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN Laura WStei Professor of Law, New York University, Minnesota Law Review, KES. lexis ‘The feminist cs of rary args tat pa doctrine reiforets he ieclogy of the separ pbs They contend that peima facie just simply Dow sinucoure is na th of gout Pe Le tent eptnizes the pate oppression of women, The eviabe reat sha ight based on privacy willbe exiremely limited \e=BCP ‘00-01 aT atatiay Nise auzeee bas Value OF Privacy Language Perpetnedes Gpression OF Women aan Gay Professor of Human Righs. Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Stanford Law Review. Volume 45, iyayp 36 ofthe bad results argument associated withthe problem of domestic violence doesnot depend on the notion of equvocation. The language of privacy allegedly, masks a form of ethical confusion. Use of the language of social conditions. and iN SOA RET TATE BO ETE TA i the intimate and ihe realm of family life is neither areal OFMESIOM WOT MAVEN MT WHICH The Gignty of seGirection can be cultv ‘To the contrary in private, Wor Tapani that invocations of the val ‘ “mating their oppression false impression Tl Protection of privacy is good for women, by isolating them, and by depoliticzing their struggle. Legal Prwnuy Rhelorg cenduns oirn's tx plubatiun Louise Mar€RibDLaw and Social Inquiry, Volume 24, 19 p. lexis “The thetorc of privacy in legal discourse condones the tate’ failure to regulate women’s economic and sexual explowaon. FE, autonomous i ‘within intimate relationships, go 5B, as long as the state Fi “Seren er oncontraciul, familial and intimate interactions, However, women tend tobe mest vulnerable PGES CaO they TERTOTE POET WHiCh is Tinked to valued z Guributions that acerve through activities inthe "public sphere” (MacKinnon 1989; Polan 1993; Hoff 1991). _attributions that accrue through activities in be "Peseatataw Spo sexism (S Ars EXCU SI MARY MOAKTE R Betty A. Reardon, fellow at Teachers College, Columbia University, °88, Sexism 2 ney, cbetel sectors irene eters PTretts that nor jest rhein epee TamePDy sex. but that sex ig the fur tar that rules their entire fives, all her functions in sotto a thw ste ate all yobs inestine and expecially to ea b other, Sew His manitest an all forms of behavior from subtle gestures and angstage to exploitation and oppression, andl in all unan instinuions fron the family te the snultinational carporation, Tt ieas camples persasive a phenomenon as is the war system. Few human beings jescape the social conditioning of both, ane! only a sina aninerity by transcended then, Mechanic ene Tape women being subject te fathers, hush: sob discrimination, “and pub Be, Tron ids, and even to ses, andl i exclusion from) the realnis of power wk technology and polities, AUone point in the won chauvinisin way viewed asthe care as well as the ofsexism. “The terms were used synonymiotsty, Fle feseare te and reflection make at clear that sexist fab more com: pened and more deeply rooted than such visible autFobiinus aspects ) serum Res as chauvinist hchavier. or even economic and political discrimination Jem ean Lis. |»sonra SE yteth Sexism equals bluepriat for all other power relations ‘Tipmen-Blument, Professor of Public Policy, 94 (Jean, Power/Gender: al Relations is , P. 125-126}e6 J The stubbom pattern of male dominance in leadership postions throughout the spectrum of social institutions suggests that the answer is far more complex than simple blame azsessment conveys. ‘potency of the gender role rint affects men and women, aeron socteg and Sroe pene Te Reba a most rMT (That is between humans and- ities they worship) has been preserved and handed down through the pentimento of ancient_gender images and myths in sacred_and secular culture From pre-Hellenie writings, through’ ‘The Old and New Testamenis, the Koran, to Shakespeare and Tolstoy, the images of dominant men and subordinate women have ins have instructed generations about the dangers inherent in changing the gendcr-power relationship, whi int for Tother power relationships (Lipman-Blumen, 1984). \ SeK4AUTY CONTEXTS OFN>ER_ pieeceRN RS f° Catarine A. Mackinnon, feminist abe, 824 Toward a Fem Theory wt ‘of the State,p. 115 - “Sah mone Sa Tilo The sexes we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, bet izes male sexual dominance, female Tf this is true, sexuality ts 2 mr = pirat has a theory of power, sexuality is gendered as generis sexualized. Male and female are "eroezalion of dominance ‘Wrnbask je man ference, Tsubmassron ‘Dame ceiges 8 sex nem fsanch) ‘Sexual objectTicstion, the ‘central process within this dynamic, 1s at once epistemological and political ‘The feminist theory of knowledge is inextricable from the feminist critique of power because the male point of view Forces itself upon the world as its way ‘of apprehending it. Aany Mah B3 {ity politics alienate women. Frances, The Feminist Classroom, Ed. MKT Tetrault, p. 225-6) ‘Mainscream scholars, paricularly critics of “multiculuraisn,” expeess cites ar what they se as che inceatng fragmentation of such approaches, tnd often reasert the need for mainesining che universalism of traditional views in the face of such self-centered relacivism. However, i contrast co the idea chat ultimace eruch must reside either (ot both) “aowhere” or “every: “here,” positional epistemologies asset che conterrul groundedaest of valid knowledge. In contrast co the isolation of fixed “idenic bring dire forms ‘elton © each ttoing, for cumple, ow gendered experiences, fr from being “tatu ae contrted ach ctor conteatalisn sedapecifing @ es ae experience. ‘Our castroom observations have shown us, moreover, tha the proces of ee - oO ‘ fhe open puma PAATSUDA, PROF. LAW um. HAWAIL, FO CHARI, 6% 4. CAL UREV. 1763, SEL p.tiw) or aceon he perpeciv of oot womens more han arguing fr one-womanone.oie, Praga becomes impoverished pluralism Saintsange is “Consider al pow of view” Ee acing egw swe pied Pagmae reed Le od hart 5583 ip oc anna deca i a ahaa ound Yr acre Se nthg ted Retracive Tra be musdou wha Poker Radin Gibney nd the stunted owlede of De golden Trot goal a scolar ad eal beings so bow x much we can about he human onion 30 19 improve sores of good [1765] foe ou Fo eat reaneval wo monumental an cantina 19 Asking "Whois i oom and why Set ehenentr ce quero ee ce oe eeval nid We ca ak as qr itera and inaleculy. We can qesion be pial cnet ft example of pe) By amp ‘deo pat of tn nen suczoon well hei nllectual absence. What would a eritque of pragmatism tal scounied for beterosexist oe hd by the does inte erature of Such «enue? al Teas ae te Kinds of questions at ite ere he exasperued challenge sugges ie when wil se be austied, when will his lk hou excl vles ed md whe Lt Oe See, "hut was cerrpled wea they Knocked on the door? a12 So bad coherence end te hard to aceept aa of ecient tit no clove revard. Bad ogra apres ppv: brane eM PS fa ts peak 9 quet ad obvioas See eeeentay) Du Prive fo enrichim tom's saa weet 3 gtice ia, "97, Reconstructing Political Theory ‘ita Allen, law, Unive ‘ty of Pennsylvani: sit allen law, Mary Lyndon Shanley and Usa Naeian P TI would argue that privacy deserves a place in the theon of core political values recognized by cories sensitive jinist con “cerns racy Goarrines of tort law implicily recognize, men and omen eypically utilize privacy for essential work, reexéation, and rest acy doctrines of constitutional law recognize, the power {0 Pe eno SSTage int postion circumacibes he ccacho ‘al freedom and foster the spirit of M+ government in ways that enhance persons Fest vary, The “right co privacy” in masters of reproduction bys Ra eeaee eier incerrupted educations and careers. t has meant a reducee mortality rate from botched abortions. These are important gains (Qppar_ nis for privacy and pia ‘choice enrich women’s lives. const aeA 2 elegy poke, Ske wether tigen - Decew, Professor of Philosophy at Clark University, 1997 Judith. In Pursuit of Privacy. p. 93-4) Geary ihe feminin crisque of prnaq mulsceied, and ‘ek To qurnoon Hat Ober ane Pacman wise be Sitios of be Pu pre dichowuy and he aging feu of scepng Hs has boen defended he pu Be, ower. appear to agtee ha aes somata aus, there maybe gem ue fr semen a SPREE REG Sarena a enna pee i conform. ie 0 cprew our nentuer maT eps sedaoe about eal a Won ane ‘any woereicn Br ea eG chai Olen {Sd Pacman. well ahr fms lac Gamo en, ar tin, and mye who are unling oro poac omplenh en the ingen nifuence in Ou clare se ene ee arte spheres sass women belong he Note nde ss pubic pstions— may he ch me nd ero ace the ees of prescnng the so spheres nme fora we txeting them fom tet gendcred pas and gendered ons " taoon* Perhaps MacKinnon bee that hex acs me ‘tourmounehe Ws now cleat, however that dhe femintergueo pray on ether ofthe merprencons [Se a Se he Rey ive oodiction & he ns ——— In thy nk bot we? ho a in ‘ x p abe OR, a 5 ial a ta ny a”) (eatin bh 6- Ye. allah naaks, ab Qematey Pulls“ Grocdes 8 we fe Mant t Bo Re dbternatne * A aa Tenis ppressten hom — qxrered oe uve hae wedaced hocrenieur tect “oe on On fe adver oul . bos boleriRizection. In ne & maa clade jail, fas © . (9%~ Mae Kinnon's writings Lal te cophre He unt Psy Cy perercet & Yack wonen. Harris, professor of law at University of California at Berkeley, 90 (Angela, Feminist Legal Theor Readings in Law and Gender, ed: Katharine Bartlet and Rosanne Kennedy, p. 276 ) MacKinson's ene, “clo ind” mprosch sho dirs the ana = ; aes Lhasa eae ae “ 7 at scremreea Saree . or a ESE Spl ane. "Tun th vied Sn QO Erving ot Back en fo terns of ie of whee women. ht belped = Te Who Ta vo 7 Feber os 7 men and women BFBE ov- vad, Can smataneosty ye us private sr bel Re Pe See, ST fie Comeand™ Otermsons OF omen DIE STL Rata Peace Judith Wagner Decew, law, Clark University, £97, In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, this, and the Rise of Technology, p $6] Zn, on this byt ier peta ol er vitae ul faa reaily enaplas STE ealty andl penanentse wl ave and ave dangers of distinguishing # private domestic realny immune from public Schutiny that preserve the status quo. Yet we can d The view that There b never value in difleremtiating. public and private spheres, and we can appreciate the importance of te: Sstricking governmental power over individual men and women Women have a stake in the preservation of privacy deypite the and philosophic Gres then, we can confront he “darker sie ly wulerale prey and fem fey, vale ae reject yrekne Decew, Professor of Philosophy at Clark University, 1997 [Judith, In Pursuit of Privacy, p. 89-90] Zr fr. nt fot mpc oe cy ‘conse coreciycogtatas de ned Un ee Staons and erusons on women by men. but athe mr Se Sederenplonie te Beat »&. she and of Soman. te rey and penasbencae cf aba and Oe agers of inn 2 prnate domensc realm immune fom Seruiny ‘Rat preseives he sama goo. Yel we can ih the view that tere oeer value in dilerentat aa See Sos ee pee Sena ee er Cal en td pete sae ie petaton ot PRT Ea the fae ha an BET AEE ager To The TRE GARE BO SSD gat a pipiens cide the praca pro tema of fuerng enence af abuse and diferemaaang, hen se utoreann u pproprins and ven tae To or tem oat we cn ures hem ceca sduter soe farang os poral rs eure wineabe Sinn mates 0784WP ‘co Te Perv ‘oo 0 7 a cert - Mee RRA DeLee SHOULD KRM K Se iNsie THE svsre Stanford Ruth Gavison, visting professor of law, USC Law Center, Novgmnber Law Review, p. lexis ( Fina, be extemal ritiqueofpubipivate terminology reson the cai that thas ‘been used as one of a number of tools obscuring and, thereby, uating the oppression and subordination of women. This was achieved by privatizing ‘women in @ combination of ways that together made them invisible, isolated, powerless, devalued, ashamed, and mote likely to perceive their predicament as indivigied and pero. 4 + o ‘This paralyzing effect is achieved by invoking different connotations of the private. Women es its densification wit female roles as well as an ofthat role as natural and “asia Whar bbe pa” shod note ae Tend «Pats opine anf resenting soo Oa is edu’ fue billet ein, ep nd ma ‘As I bave already mentioned, I believe feminists have succeeded in identifying and documenting real and dangerous pattems here. Clearly, we want to make language users avare that unjustified inferences are often made, and we want to minimize @ Sebmecmen tara and public that must be maintaINe-aInr THvOKeU, We WerepiumatOIr vf the distinction and the 3 Seay ear a PeSsSSae onal dangers. For instance, we want o ght the sense of shame which makes women unable o express hee private tragedies, butdo we also want o eradicate the sain of shi? 2115 ‘Where we identify undesableproceses, we should sek to change them. Where language constitutes of facilitates undesirable processes, we should fight against these as well ee ts te npn eel os _hich are essetial 1 Bety A. Reardon, fellow it Teachers College, Columbia Univer and the War System. (a, 2 ticularly women’s equalir? 5, Sexism men's equality is eo stromg a threat to IT sescist masculine identity Meat ts perceived as a threat ew Decaine stranger, sp tno the wean nin, Aero Sarwar herame more destructive and less disi innate Women, Til SORT IATA ner anh an dhe pithaye ile sell. And B erage and lonting that follraved the battle, but even in the sen ee icabe ciao deterrent wegaps pred es e e ve date fo all uunanit ha we prrwweked thus yest ns youth to appease their ATTA Sram The social diilerences between men amd Women EMT Tita not only Toreing women hack mie sulneraDility by fo their fives, but includes as well a threat to the ane power jomen, that of giving life: this time th of the fathers and they have athre BO all fife, We have in responcled, “Our way or now hy eould nor take from the WbWw? We be] KRITIK ALONE NOT ENOUGH- NEED AN ALTERNATIVE Ce a Ser invert of virgata, Feminism, ology, and Decoasbuction: a Pragmatiss View", _Ripara, Spa 1993, ip gorcucsdeduhan/ERr Roa) { Epa Sr. en ya the svugge ofthe weak again ine rong. So they hope that heir particular its nd Mo nels ik ind or stages Te term most equenty used i recent decades fo formulae th ops i ctique ompR an ae hes Higa cfc, lawyers, horns, and thers who are good a making disinetins of ology” The id ee eve ns to ae Oy “exposing ot demyafyng’ present soil practices. But be Deena) agosto demysty at wey Dorm fo be by suggesting an aerate practice, aber than one ‘ne Th po zl fel wnat provid Breimively metfeive More spe ; N _ aa presur on ineliv iduats +o rejer Prridchy iS Courd ive Johnson, Sociologist @ Hartford College for W< el Zihis means that there's litle ‘o be gained and much to lose from focus on individual aula ods men for xml canbe eld zune what they do o doo’ do, bt since patriarchy isnt "mes," blaming men for 16) ¢ it simply because they are men won't do much good. Worse, it makes it ee may en coca pay ca ss SA ‘een hens olga bog mated fev oF apologizing for being male. Ie also ditacs every” Sa mae oe eee rere wenTERR7- pot alking about oppression at al, onthe other Either way, we Tae \tLE wea 2 iy x” lees llapse of ble] pevate dishncton precldes any ele hatbever * P {haga Assosciate Professor of Political Science at Universe of Massacututes, 1GdUsean Bethke, smocracy on Teal, p. 44] Cut more serious than the problem of thetoncal excess is the one that puts democracy continuously on inal: f here ae to dsuncions bemween public snd pavate, penoRaT ARPS ‘$21 4 follows that there can be 10 differentiated acy or set_ fetus that ae see poll pares TERETE communiy. As columnar and wer Chasopher “Firters, himself a penon of the Lef, woe: “I remember fecing an uneasy premonition when, inthe peniod of defeat and Jemoraization that followed the 190s, it was decided that he let could be revived with the assertion thatthe per sonal is polual’ The consequences of that rater dubious Claim are now all around us, except hat personality has ‘dept pics abogether™ If genuine polis ceases © xs, what rushes in 10 GRE As place i pervasive fore, coer (gon. and manipulation. power of the crssest son suffsing ere axa RB fon Ov oS Eh ES een oa TEs oT MATOFIC Telps 10 construct, you become nipe—or_ the Hor of Western political thought warns wp for andere “Gale SIMORE TRE Problem is wou, 50 must the solston Fe Ths BS Mina the grin ofthe democratic temperament, one always aware that no single perspective, no sn q Noon dopa, Se ESETE SS wath ooo np (4b“gminst callapee & prfele + piblie sounds dangerously okse * Novi propaganda CKaminat-Podicy Feow at Radlite College, 1858, (Wendy, True Love Waits, p. 17-18) 7 There no longer exists an unpolitical sphere of lie,” Ie sounds The fine Hissin teint saver, Dan ib wap eaten by CGorutan cout i 1957, Fhe Nay declare thatthe personal was political long betore any contemporary feminist had her con seven ised, before many contemporary feminists were even horn, With their all-inclusive definition of political life. the Nazis pel complete wuttol over private thhaighis ay gab 0 Divate relations, gs wtaltarian regimes de, They detined sexual IEEE protests against pornography andterasement, Consider shese cases reported by Ingo Miller in his book Haicrs lantice: Wy 181 4 hewisle tnane was sorter ea to prise atan Aryan yidl His look vonstinuted wl. It “had a cleaily erotic basis and could only have had the purpose of effecting an approach to the itl who interested him. This approach failed to occur only because the witness refused to cooperate and summoned the police to her aid.” In another case, a Jewish man was sentenced 0 80 years in prison for allegedly being “excited” by a mas sage. despite the masseuse’s insistence that the deiendant did not appear £0 have been aroused. Based on a “confession” to the Gestapo, which he later recanted, the man was convicted of having “attained sexual grat : uyan race, The court held that the defendant had obtained a for one month for loo aan assault, the massage for * Tal aware of it.” ~Tikethe slogan there is no “unpolitical sphere of life," neither of these cases would be terribly out of place, rhetorically or ‘ideologically, in some hard-line feminist tract on sexual miscon- duct. The iew of Jewish male sexuality like the white Supremacist view of black male sexuality, has an unsettling re- infects the antipornography movement.EO sooty Natation Absolute (ejection + aaa csps Naziism PBrivacy has been a mitigated good for women, given its role in shielding marital rape and other tormsof family violence. Privacy had pitfalls for women even when it was invoked in their favor. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court grounded abortion rights in the right to privacy, which made it easier for the govern- ment to deny Medicaid funding for abortions. Privacy rights (rights to be let alone) arguably impose no obligation on govern- ment to provide abortions for women who cannot afford them. ‘As many feminists have pointed out, the Court could have based abortion rights in equality rights: since abortion prohibitions impose unique restrictions on women and pose unique obstacles to their economic advancement, they are fundamental bars to full equality. Had the Supreme Court recognized this in 1973, the ‘government would have had a clearer responsibility to ensure equal access to abortion services. ‘But if privacy rights do not imply rights to social services, they do include fundamental civil liberties. The Nazis utter oblitera- ‘Jou oP TRE pAVare sphere is a reminder that ina ciety, the gona oa laa Ts nor simply palisical—which should be obvious. Do we'want The Jovernment tapping our phones or reading our letters and diaries? Do we want the states enforcing archaic laws against adultery, oral sex, or: contraception? In 1986 the Supreme Court devalued the privacy rights of homosexuals when it up- held the sodomy conviction of a gay man in Georgia who was apprehended by police in his own home while engaged in con- sensual sex with another adult. This was a highly controversi decision; had it involved heterosexuals, it would *rosexuals, it would have been uni. versally condemned. | 14-Ze “ Policy Fellow a Radcliffe College, GP True Love Waits p. 19:20) tem