Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group S/Feminist Jurisprudence

Feminist Jurisprudence

Classic liberal feminism
Blocks being removed is good enough Charter section 15 is formal equality à gives rise to the CPP which apparently is fair and treats 	people equally within the provisions

Modern liberal feminism
Blocks being removed is not substantive equality, Granovsky is being underlying discriminated 	against as per his physical disability

Radical Feminism
Entire system is flawed CPP created by men, the program is created by mens sensibility of fairness, doesn’t take into account people who are injured. Blow up the whole system, even if women are included it is so ingrained in our society that even if 	women make the program it would still be flawed. Even if women are well educated and understand the flaws in the CPP, the charter was created by men and the laws of the charter and the rights enshrined in there inevitably give men more rights.

ignores material reality of people - maintaining the power that it is natural. Abstract rules made by men, ultimately serve to enhance their own interest - dont want to spend money on people like granovsky because he has less social utility.

abstract rules of CPP deny rights, they are fiction, dont deal with the real world.

socialisation of young people would affect the rule governed principles of dworken, would help to organically change the law over time

Marxist Feminism
People being undervalued, granovsky under valued because he has less to contribute because he is disabled. Men are essentially burgeoises, but men who are not in a certain position essentially become undervalued. Granovsky can contribute some money but cant contribute full amount, he is stuck in limbo 	because he cant fully contribute to society and more people need help than he does

Totally handicapped -more disadvantaged, act is helping them to become part of the machine again Law and economics - efficiency à super handicapped have a better chance of being fully 			contributing members of society if they get funds compared to granovsky want to be able to repurchase from handicapped people - get social utility from them

similar to radical theory

Postmodernist feminism
French feminism Granovsky is a prime example, he is in the cracks, in limbo, no meta theory can be used to define everyone because it leaves people out unfairly. They take this case specifically, look at the surrounding circumstances. Embrace otherness - granovsky is otherness because he doesn’t fit into normal categories, should 	be additional stuffed at to the CPP to deal with him and diminish the negative effects on him

formal system doesnt recognize men who are marginalized - inefficencies occur as a result.

Relational Feminism
Womens “ethics of justice” havent been integrated into the program. Mens “ethics of justice” who created the CPP are more interested in following the program to the exact provision. Women might find it more just to give him some limited amount.

MacKinnon, law as male power
Court doesn’t recognize feminist perspective. Dworkins neutral principles, are inherent rights belonging to men. He thinks rights are good. Men are afraid of using feminist theory because they are afraid of losing rights. Men in power know that they have these rights so they specifically adopt their own power as a right. “the force underpins the legitimacy as the legitimacy conceals the force”

Liberal views rationalise by male power by presuming that it doesn’t exist. Equality between women and men is assumed to be the operating principle, even women and men don’t realize that things are equal.

How to Change
Postmodernist is the best way to approach - embracing otherness is more indicative of the society we live in. Case by case is the best way to analysis in this case

Law and economics - we need precedent cant clog the system up. Budgetary concerns are important which makes case by case hard to reconcile, but ultimately it is the best for this system.