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.
I agree with you that Feminist Jurisprudence assumes that women are innocent and just. While this may be true in most cases it certainly is not the case all the time. The fact that someone is discriminated against does not give them a free pass of innocence. I believe that if I had read about Feminist Jurisprudence about 50 years ago I would have seen it totally different. That fact that we’ve grown up in a world with less inequalities has makes me not put as much stock in Feminist Jurisprudence.
ReplyDelete