Lord of the Flies and Jurisprudence

I was ruminating about the similarities/differences between the Orestia and William Golding's Lord of the Flies earlier today. The two stories are indeed different, however, I was wondering if they were a central parallel between the two, viz. there is a split between two parties, two different types of law.

The Lord of Flies, if you have not read it, has a dichotomy between two groups: first, there is Ralph and Piggy, two individuals that use "the conch" to make and determine laws (i.e. one can only speak when holding the conch); second, there is Jack and the rest of the boys--they are more "savage" in their law making. All of these characters, which I forgot to mention are boys, are stranded on an island and are deciding what it the best structure of governing.

I am not sure if each group of individuals represent a specific jurisprudence, such as "natural law" or "positivist law," but I do believe there are elements of these jurisprudence in both. For example, one could say, more or less, that "the conch" may represent a form of positivism insofar that whatever an individual says while holding the conch is the rule. This is much like whatever the rule states as written, to a positivist, is the law.

I haven't read this novel in quite some time, so my memory is nebulous at best. However, I think the play between natural law/positivist law certainly extends outside the literary works of simply Aeschylus and his Orestia; that is, you can find these two types of law in other works of media.

Sex Crimes and Feminism

Beyond male’s perceived hierarchical status in society, is male’s physical dominance over females. I feel that this plays a major role when addressing equality among the sexes. Males tend to pursue want they want initially through diplomatic means but if they fail, they resort to force. This can be applied to the workforce but moreover it is most relevant on social and domestic fronts. Some of the major issues discussed by Patricia Smith in “Four Themes in Feminist Legal Theory” are rape and sexual harassment. Smith argues that laws on rape and sexual harassment are just as ineffective as they were in the 1950’s, when these crimes were considered subordinate. She argues that laws protecting people against rape and sexual harassment are vague and do not directly address specific elements of these crimes. She argues, for example, an employer could attempt to extort sex from one of his/her employees on the basis of promotion or job security. Furthermore, Smith asserts the laws ineffectiveness to deter these sex crimes. I disagree with Smith on this claim. I believe that deterrence from committing sex crimes such as rape and sexual harassment are greater than ever. With growing attention and public concern regarding people’s safety and rights, courts, laws, and administrative forces have cracked down on sex crimes. For example, schools have adopted a “No Tolerance” policy on rape and sexual harassment. You will be expelled from Penn State for rape and possibly sexual harassment, among other potential legal consequences. The point is feminists may be underestimating social changes and its effect on subverting a male favored society.

feminist jurisprudence

It seems kind of crazy to me to base a philosophy of law solely on the equality of the sexes. While I think gender equality is definitely something we need to strive for in our society, I think the legal system should focus on much, much more than that. What about equality for everyone in general, rather than specifically the sexes? I definitely can see the feminist side of the argument; rape laws and sexual harassment is often a hard issue for women, but many strides have been made since the rape reforms that are better for rape victims. Many other laws support women's rights, such as over-the-counter contraceptives and abortions being legal. Also, men could argue that the legal system helps females more than it helps males. I remember learning in a few of my classes that women are much more likely to get easier sentences and/or lower minimums that men that are convicted of the same crimes. Also, with custody and divorce battles, society often sides with women. So, I think equality of sexes is important but I think it is somewhat ridiculous to focus an entire philosophy of law on that one small aspect of society.

Feminism or humanism

I would like to venture into a more generalist idea of the concept of feminism. Feminists are often looked at as ultra liberal women who feel that they should be considered as equal or better than men in society. I took a women and justice class last year and discovered that feminists are not quite who society and the mass media has made them out to be. Their name is often too misleading to make much sense to individuals who don't understand the true tenants of feminism. Feminist would be better termed as humanists, people who believe in equal rights of all individuals including people of different races, religions, creeds, gender, nationality, etc... They believe that white men are often afforded too much freedom to go about their lives and do not respect individuals who are different than them. It is hard to imagine that most members of society are not for equal treatment of individuals based on demographic characteristics. I would absolutely call myself a feminist, as in a person who believes that there are basic moral rights and privileges that any individual should have no matter what the are. A human, is a human, is a human no matter what they are called or what they do, we all have some basic rights.

Sometimes men are better

It's hard to say that "all women" are one way and "all men" are another way. Each individual is unique. Therefore, one individual woman can be more logical and business-savvy than an individual man. Conversely, an individual man can be more nurturing and motherly/fatherly than a given woman. But if we have to judge women as a group and men as a group, then it does seem that men are more business-minded than women are. Therefore, it makes sense that there are many more male CEOs and lawyers and many more female nurses and stay-at-home parents.

Sure, you could argue that this is the case because men were raised to do that. I think that would be a good argument 30 years ago, but not today. As a woman, I feel that I have been granted the same educational and career opportunities as any man.

I don't think it's necessary for each job to be made up of equal numbers of men and women. Should each job also have equal numbers of people with dark skin and light skin? How about straight hair and curly hair? Gender is just one characteristic of many. I don't think it should even be considered for a job. The best qualified person should be hired.

Will we ever be equal? ( Feminist)

When one hears the word feminist different things run through his or her mind. I know when i hear the word feminist different things run through my mind. Some of the things I think about when I hear the word feminist I think about the inequality between men and women or women's rights. What is the exact definition of a feminist? According to www.dictionary.com the meaning of the word feminist means is the doctrine, advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to men. Before women had many political rights as of today women were view lower than men in society and didn't have any political rights as men. One of those rights were women weren't allow to vote until the nineteen amendment which states " the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
You will think the amount of years it took women to fight for their political rights that men and women will be equal in society but unfortunately that is not true. The dominat position in society affects the equality in society. To be honest as woman I don't think women will ever be equal to men. We live in a capitalist society and only the rich survive and half of the rich in our country are men. Even though in society men and women are changing traditional roles the women is still view as the traditional house hold mom. Women could fight for many rights but women will never be as equal in a capitalist society.

Feminist Jurisprudence

Supporters of feminist jurisprudence believe that the reason that women are treated unequally is because of the way the justice system is set up. Supporters focus mainly on the law and the sources of bias within it. Basically it is another form of feminism. I do agree that women are not completely equal to men. There is still somewhat of a "glass ceiling" that prohibits some women to rise to the top with promotions and salary, inequality in pay between men and women for doing the same job, and little support for women and family. I do recognize that our society has come a long way from how it used to be. There are laws that prohibit the work force to exclude on the basis of gender and there are a good amount of women that do make it to the top and do make just money as much perhaps even more than plenty of men. However, that does not specifically mean that the laws are always followed. There seems to be a way in which companies and corporations get around the laws and still exclude women for reasons that they cannot help; an example would be to decide to have a child.

There is also bias within the law that can seem to be leading to gender equality. Take a rape case for example. Many women are not taken seriously when they have been victims of rape. Their integrity is questioned. The ones that are brave enough to take the case to court and to try and obtain justice are sometimes belittled by defense attorneys by being accused of "wanting it or consenting to it" and dressing in a way in which the female should KNOW that being raped was a possibility. Because of this problem within the justice system, many victims of rape do not even report the incident in fear of being exploited or even pure embarassment. Rape cases are a huge example of the bias and gender inequality within the justice system.

Supporters of feminist jurisprudence are aimed at solving the problems starting at the heart of the law in hopes of eliminating gender inequality all together. Although women have come a long way and fought for years for equality, I feel that it may be impossible for it to be eliminated in all aspects. It has been a social norm for men to be the superior gender for years and years. There will always be someone who will be opposed to this huge change for fear of it affecting them in a bad way.

Feminist Jurisprudence

The term feminism relates to the theory where in an ideal society women would have political, economic, and social equality; however, in many societies this is not the case. While feminist jurisprudence is a branch of the feminist movement, it differs by implementing the effects certain laws have on women’s lives. In other words, feminist jurisprudence suggests that the change of certain laws can bring political, economic, and social equality for women. While many feminists would want gender equality for all women, I firmly do not belief that CERTAIN women are ready for that type of radical change. Fighting and joining combat units while at war? Perhaps some women are up for the challenge; however, it is safe to say that many are not. While gender equality would bring many advantages for women, there would also be many disadvantages. For example, it is proven that the legal system tends to be more lenient with women than it is with men. Even though, there are no current laws that actually indicate that – the notion that society carries of women simply overwhelms any attempt of gender equality. Males, for many years, have carried the role of protectors and providers for women; therefore, males have the tendency to view women as vulnerable. I am not saying this is right; however, this is the perception that society has acquired throughout the years – until the past three decades. Regardless if new or “reshaped” laws are implemented to gain gender equality, there would never be such equality between men and women. Unfortunately gender inequality has become a custom in many societies.

Feminist Jurisprudence: More of the Same?

Feminist Jurisprudence is one of many movements within the feminist belief. It is similar to the others in that the goal of the movement is to have equality of both sexes in nearly every facet of society, similar in that it believes there is no inherent difference e between either sex and therefore both should be treated equally, and that gender is no more than what society constructs it to be, an assignment of certain roles and ideas to each sex based on what society mandates. However, the fundamental claim in Jurisprudence that makes it unique from all other facets of feminism is that it claims that this equality between sexes can never truly be achieved without a leveling of the legal playing field; that is, women are subjected differently to laws than men because of the way they were founded, formatted, and enforced.

This being said, these types of claims that the law is biased towards women held a lot more clout during the middle of the century; for example, since women gained the right to vote, it does not seem like any constitutional amendment or law subjects women to a different standard than men. There are no laws that come to mind that prohibit women from doing certain things that men cannot do, so the claim of Jurisprudence could be said rather to be this; that women need the law to be structured around promoting, if need be directly, the equality of men and women, and to do this, laws need to have no bias towards women, but rather, set out adequate remedies for women’s plight. However, if these” remedies” are designed for women, is the bias within the law truly gone, or has it just shifted sides?

Feminism can only go so far

Feminist Jurisprudence has brought women's rights and equality for women a long way over the years. Women were previously not allowed to own land, work, or even vote. Today, women are, in many senses condsidered equal to men. They have fought for and won equal pay for equal jobs, as well as many other equalities that they did not previously have. However, changing and reshaping laws to make women "equal" to men can only ever go so far. When it comes down to it, the reason that women were never considered equal to men goes back to the societal perception of women that became accepted as the norm until recently. However, this perception will never be completely broken, and women will never truly be considered "equal" to men. While many feminists may be upset by this statement, the fact is that passing some laws to create equality can not undo hundreds of years of a lesser perception of women. While family roles are ever changing, many will always consider the woman to be the homemaker of the family. Women are nuturors by nature and will never break this sterotype. Additionally, there are just several jobs and activities that men will always do better than women. Many physically demanding jobs such as construction and industrial related jobs will never see an equal ratio of men to women. Sports is another area where women will never size up to the men. While feminist jurisprudence is doing a lot to gain women more and more rights, there can never be such a thing as true equality in our society.

Feminist Jurisprudence

When people take a quick glance at the heading of “Feminist Jurisprudence”, they tend to not read beyond the title. They drop everything and run because of the key word, feminist. Most people, including men and women, do not embrace this; they fear or shun the concept. Most, place the common radical stereotype of feminists being overbearing men hatters. In reality, this is not the case. Most people are feminists and do not even know it. Dictionary.com expresses feminism as “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men”. Therefore, if you just believe that men and woman should be equal then you could title yourself, a feminist. What is also remarkable is that the feminist movement evolved into a movement not only for women rights, but into a broader category of rights to all underprivileged groups. Women are one group as a whole, yet there is still diversity amongst women. There are women of color, poor women, white women, wealthy women, lesbians, and such others. Feminism goes beyond the scope of just demanding equal rights for women because each individual possesses come other quality. Feminist Jurisprudence also followed this tradition as of evolving into something more than just equality between the sexes. During the third phase of this discipline, it broadened its theory of society privileging certain groups above others. Therefore, feminism does not just benefit woman, but it benefits society as a whole. This discipline is trying to break those oppressive social norms which everyone clings to and bring equality to all.

Feminist Jurisprudence and Economic Analysis of Law

Feminist Jurisprudence and the Economic Analysis of Law offer two different ways to view the law. Feminist Jurisprudence holds that the law has been instrumental in the subordination of women. It states that the legal institutions promote a certain hierarchy, and has developed to assert that society itself is inherently hierarchical. Through feminist jurisprudence, one seeks to get equality for the suppressed. However, similar to the Pareto efficiency, it may not be possible to “equalize” one group without demoting another. Take the maternity leave, for example. If paternal leaves were to become the new norm, then men would face the ramifications with respect to one’s career that women face now. The dominant position in CLS holds that there are standards of justice that hold authority over individual choice. This authority thus places normative constraints on these choices, thus perpetuating the dominance of one group. The dominant position, with regards to FJ, holds the stance that the legal system is a mechanism that perpetuates the male dominance already inherent in the status quo. Sexuality is central to the dominant position. If women’s sexuality is socially constructed by male dominance, then women’s subordination results primarily from male’s dominant socialization. Economic analysis of law is more concerned with empirical data and models. It uses economic concepts to assess the effects of laws, to assess which laws are economically efficient, and to predict which laws will be promulgated. Economic analysis of law uses things such as Pareto efficiency for how laws should be made. I feel that Economic analysis of law will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people, whereas FJ seems to only cater to the oppressed.

Feminist Jurisprudence

One thing I hate hearing is that all feminists are these hippie, bra burning, anti-men radicals and blame men for all of women's problems. I have taken several women studies classes and have learned a lot about feminism and what it actually is. If you believe that men and women should have equal rights then you are a feminist. There are many different kinds of feminism but the overall goal of most feminists is equal rights. Many people claim that men and women can never have completely equal rights. For example, many people say that its unfair for women to receive six weeks off from work for maternity leave. Most companies have equaled this by granting men paternity leave. In class today there was an argument about men not wanting paternity leave because they did not want to be look at negatively or have people think poorly of them. I don't see why anyone would think badly about a father taking time to care for his child. At the same time however, that person cannot expect to come back into work and immediately receive a raise. This would not be fair to the countless other employees who put in hard work for those six weeks. For whatever the reason was, that person missed work for an extended period of time. They should not be punished for this because raising a child is very important but they shouldn't be rewarded for missing work. My overall theme of this blog is that feminism has always had a negative connotation that it doesn't deserve. A very, very large portion of this nation believes in equal rights and that would make the majority of this country feminists. Weird huh?

Male Feminists!

I was once asked by a professor if I was a feminist. Now as a male in American society, I must admit, I was somewhat taken aback. After all, we--as men in America that is--are encouraged to have somewhat of a stolid, indifferent outlook on things; that is, we are encouraged to be strong, tough, quiet men that do work and put food on the table. With that being said, I was unsure, in this framework of the alpha male, if one could be a male and a feminist at the same time?--there seems to be some conflicting viewpoints here.

After initially hearing the question, however, I began more to think about the idea of a male feminist and came to the conclusion that, yes, I am indeed a male feminist--please do not castigate me for this men! My reason for being a male feminist is that just because one supports females and their rights, it does not necessarily follow that one is a female with feminine attributes. For example, if I were to support the idea of giving money to poor, abject individual's in third world countries it does not necessarily follow I am a poor, abject person. The fact of the matter is this, namely, if one supports a group it does not follow they are a part of the group or possess any of the characteristics (undesirable characteristics at least) of the group.

At the end of the day, I think it is important to remember we are all human beings who desire happiness and do not desire unhappiness or suffering. Every one deserves help, whether your black, brown, yellow, pink, male, female, etc., and no one is any better than any one else. Keeping all this in mind, let me reiterate my initial statement: By all means, yes, I am a feminist! In fact, as much as it sounds like "an after school special," I am a supporter of all peoples!

Female Jurisprudence

Female Jurisprudence at first people feel that it is strictly for the benefit of women. It does benefit women but I feel that having equality for women benefits men also. Female Jurisprudence calls for a nonbiased in the workplace for women in the workplace. Female Jurisprudence has had 3 phases over the years in the 60’s and 70’s it was about enforcing ideals of equity within law, in the 80’s it was about the critique of gender bias in law, and in the 90’s it was more about other forms of anti-hierarchy such as homosexuals. I think that the nonbiased workplace gives females an opportunity to be independent and not just rely on males to support them. This releases the burden on males to be the sole financial contributor to the family. It also opens up other opportunities for males. Males will have more opportunity to be a big factor in raising their children. Paternity leave is a new option for new dads and I support this and agree with this. Being there for your wife and new child is important for the family to get adjusted and raise their new child. In class many people disagreed with this saying that it is not right for the dad to be away from work but in and equal society it should not be seen that way and the dad should be commended for his family values. Family should be put first over work, it may hurt a person at their job but they should have the option to choose to help raising their child.

Feminism v. Humanism

According to the theory of Feminist Jurisprudence, the law has been a key player in the oppression of women throughout the decades. However, I feel that this is a skewed way to view our society. I agree with the idea of a movement to make women equal. But I feel as though it should not stop with one group of people.
I do not believe that the law has restricted women in the past, I feel as though it has been the societal norms. When one looks through history he would be hard pressed to find a law stating “Women are not permitted to work.” The dominance model of Feminist Jurisprudence suggests that the societal image of women is shaped by men, and men possess the dominant position. This is a difficult model to view because it leaves very little leeway for the actual agency and autonomy of women.
Feminist Jurisprudence encourages the amendment and development of laws that help create a general sense of equality. I feel as though law has been an aid to the equality of women, not an aid to the oppression of women.
As far as the model goes, I cannot help but agree with creating equality for women, but I feel as though it really should not stop there. I feel as though a better model to follow would be something more along the lines of “Humanist Jurisprudence.”
Relating to our class discussion today- I would like to point out that laws have been created for male equality too. The idea of paternity leave was never around until recently, and that was created for male equality.
I guess the question I am asking is, is feminism at all a good thing? Couldn’t we say that they important message is humanism?

Feminists vs. Economics

Feminist Jurisprudence and Economic Analysis of Law are both good ways to look at the law although I agree with one more than the other. I can see why people like Feminist Jurisprudence, it aims to help out a group of people that have been oppressed over the years, not so much anymore but, I guess there are still some cases of it. While the best thing about Feminist Jurisprudence may also be the thing that turns me off the most. That fact that it is looking to help out one group of people while putting all other groups on the “back-burner” makes me question how well this theory would actually work. The fact that Feminist Jurisprudence excludes other groups seems contradictory to me. They are frustrated because the law makes them subordinate but they are not concerned about any other groups that the law makes insubordinate.

Economic Analysis of Law seems to make much more sense to me. While some people may not agree with Economic Analysis of Law because it can hurt people through Parteo Economics, in the long run I think that it helps more people than it hurts. If our society has been based somewhat upon Economic Analysis of Law than I believe it has been pretty successful. The fact the in the last 200 years we have become the richest country in the world shows how successful Economic Analysis of Law has been. While some will say the Economical Analysis of Law leads to greed, which may be true to an extent, it can been seen in our country that it can also give back much more than anyone else in the world.

Female Jurisprudence v Economics of Law

The majority will choose law and economics to follow because female jurisprudence seems to only defend a certain group of people, an undervalued group of people. Often the rants of Female Jurisprudence seem radical compared to the argument of Economics of Love. The Economics of Law seems to attempt to satisfy the needs of most people. The Economics of Law would be better at achieving equality because of its use of the Pareto Principle, although I am aware that Pareto doesn’t necessarily equate to equality. Female Jurisprudence seems to cater to a wounded party. Female Jurisprudence caters to women and homosexuals, assuming that, because of past treatment, that they are innocent and just. Just because a party was and is being discriminated against doesn’t mean that they are always being discriminated against or oppressed. I will never say that discrimination doesn’t exist; the fact that we have to address the issue negates that theory.

Although, the Economics of Law was introduced and supported by members of who are in power. Economics of Law. seems to put a lot of stock in the established law, which was created by men for men.

Female Jurisprudence is important because at one point, the group that it defends was in desperate need of a legal concept that considered them. And the issued that the plague the defenders of Female Jurisprudence are relevant today.

Capitalism and Law

Reading about law and economics, I found it interesting to see how law and certain economic/government styles go hand and hand.

First, consider capitalism. Now before you raise your hands for the "good old red, white, and blue" consider, for a moment, what capitalism and a capitalistic society is built upon, namely, according to others in our class and myself to a certain extent, greed; that is, for a capitalistic society to function there has to be incentive, a reason to want to move up the social ladder and participate in society. This is where greed enters; people want more, so the do more. Now one might say greed, though not the most desirable underpinnings of a society, has the most utility. After all, the most goods are being produced and we have a higher standard of living. And that's true and great. In fact, I like being able to go to Wendy's and order off the dollar menu (Who doesn't want a cheeseburger for a dollar? It may not be healthy for you, but it tastes good and is cheap.) However, my only concern with a system built on greed, assuming you believe America is built on greed, is the disparity, nationally and internationally, among the rich and poor. I guess what I am trying to get at is this, namely, is right that we in America can buy [delicious] cheeseburgers for a dollar while individuals in other countries can't afford any food at all?

Now I am not a die hard liberal by any means (in fact, I am not partial toward any individual who is extreme in any political disposition; they always seem so one sided in their dispositions and only look at facts/statistics with which they agree), but I am unsure if a government and its laws based on greed are good for everyone in the world. However, this simply may "just the way it is." I am definitely not in favor in socialism or communism, but I think adjustments could be made.

I am curious what other individuals in the class think of some type of law making a universal minimum wage (if this is even possible). What kind of economic effects would it have? I know myself, personally, would be willing to spend more here on goods if individuals in other countries (like China where they make basically everything) could have somewhat a higher standard of living. It may be hard only having "only one pair of Jordan's," not being able to buy the newest, sweetest "Ed Hardy Shirt," and not having my "PS3 and nifty Blu-Ray player"; but I think I could manage paying more for goods and having less. In my opinion, goods don't bring happiness, and that's what we all really want.

Pareto's Principles as they apply at the societal level

After commenting on Evan's post, Feminist Jurisprudence vs. Economic Analysis of Law, I continued to think about using the ideas of Pareto efficiency on the societal level. When I talk about the societal level, I do not mean the economic conditions of a society, but the actual social structure and conditions within the society. For many years, especially during the third wave of feminism movement, still continuing today, there has been a push towards the complete equality of the sexes, at all levels within a society and within all areas of that society. From my understand of the Pareto efficiency principles, the principles mainly deal with the concept that it is not possible to redistribute wealth or money to some weaker group, without harming another group or reducing the efficiency in another area. If we can apply this to the societal level, and by now I am sure that many of those reading this are going to be upset by the following, it seems that it would be impossible to alter the balance, in this case status and power of the sexes, between men and women in an attempt to aid one without harming the other. This is not meant to be a sexist or gender biased claim for the promotion or continuation of one sex's apparent elevated status over the other, but merely an attempt to use established principles in an area where they were not originally intended to be used, but may be very applicable. I cannot imagine that the comment will be very positive to this, but I hope that those reading will be able to look past the example I used and look at the actual application of the principles of Pareto.

The Dominant Position

The rationale for the “dominant position” in critical legal studies is that there are objective standards of right and justice that possess an authority that is independent of actual human choices and thereby it places normative constraints on these kinds of choices. It can be argued that the “dominant position” reflects a group’s status anxiety, meaning that they are fearful of losing their position of authority and control; therefore, they enact laws that will serve to their benefit of keeping them in power. In relation to feminist jurisprudence, the “dominant position” is representative of the status of power and control men have historically assumed in society which led to varying degrees of female subordination throughout the ages. In relation to the economic analysis of law, the dominant position of market power can be used in various ways such as exploiting customers by raising prices and limiting supply to raise its own position, using unfair discounts or branching into other markets. In this aspect of the law, the position of dominance relies solely on economic factors and can be identified by defining the relevant markets, identifying the market strength and determining any possible barriers to entry. This why there are many articles in effect barring the abuse of dominant position by corporations because such abuse leads to the illegal monopolization of markets and industries often through mergers and buy-outs of competitors. In both the economic analysis of law and feminist jurisprudence, the group that is in control uses its power to insubordinate others.

Feminist Jurisprudence vs. Economic Analysis of Law

Feminist Jurisprudence vs. Economic Analysis of Law is an interesting argument. FJ questions the law's role in maintaining the social status quo, while EAoL creates models and tries to help everyone out at the same time, somewhat relying on Pareto efficiency principles. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I prefer EAoL as a general rule, although in specific cases I'm sure I could be convinced in favor of FJ. At its core, the argument is simpler, yet deeper: Feminist Jurisprudence is about society, women, and normative questions. Economic Analysis of Law is more positively oriented. The problem I have with FJ is that it tends to violate fundamental principles of our legal system, such as: innocent before proven guilty. What I mean by that is that it assumes that all laws were made to keep women down and play some part in their oppression and denial of rights. While this may be true in some cases, FJ looks to take it to the extreme. Because laws are so open to interpretation, their meaning changes through the years. These days, we have women on the Supreme Court and in judge's chairs around the nation. Their interpretation of the laws today is vastly different than the understandings of yesteryear. While the problem isn't solved (the law still has a ways to go before women are completely equal under it), progress is being made. So, FJ is almost outdated in a sense. Economic Analysis of Law is not without its problems. Pareto efficiency as a model for how laws should be made can have unforseen consequences. If we just use numbers broadly instead of looking at specific instances, we might exacerbate the very problem we are trying to solve. Unfortunately, laws can't be made with only a specific instance in mind, hence the conundrum. If a rich family and a poor family are both being taxed, anything that raises taxes on the rich family, even if it helps the poor family out, is not Pareto efficient. If a law is created that raises taxes on the rich to help the entire government, as well as the poor, it is not Pareto efficient. This is against the principles of democracy, because the individual is not more important than the majority. The minority still have rights and much be protected, but not at the expense of the masses. Economic Analysis of Law and Feminist Jurisprudence are both strong philosophies, but both have their weaknesses. I prefer Economic Analysis of Law, as it's based on numbers and facts for the most part, rather than morals and ethics, which are ambiguous. This can cause unforseen problems, but at least you can back it up with hard data. A proponent of Feminist Jurisprudence, on the other hand, might say that numbers aren't everything.

Critical Legal Nihilism?

I wanted to respond to Rob M's claims that the differences between realism and critical legal studies are small and that both express an essentially quietistic attitude toward the possibility of altering the legal system. For the record, sometimes "posts" will respond to one another. What starts out as a comment will sometimes become much more involved. When that happens, just post your comment separately and then link back to the original, as I have done above.

The difference between legal realism and critical legal studies might pertain to the possibility of improving the predictability of laws. Remembering that critical legal studies rejects the empirical method of realism because that method arguably concludes what it assumes, critical legal studies argues that the inherently subjective nature of empirical research makes it difficult to conclude any general assessment of the law using that method.

More to the point, if critical legal studies denies the empirical method of realism, the conceptual method of positivism and the moral evaluative method of natural law, then what method does it promote? If it does not promote any method as being adequate, why might this be? If critical legal studies is effectively non-normative, is this the same thing as being quietistic or even nihilistic, claiming that certain methods of altering the law are not only ineffective, but that all methods are ineffective because “in [. . .] fact [critical legal theorists] do not believe it is possible to change the system enough, or [that we] have the ability to remove human biases, to actually alter the system and make the improvements necessary”?