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.