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?

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.