Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group S/Feminist Jurisprudence"
Rodockerc13 (talk | contribs) |
Rodockerc13 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Feminist Jurisprudence | Feminist Jurisprudence | ||
| − | Common Core | + | == Common Core == |
| − | Liberal feminism | + | === Liberal feminism === |
| − | Classic liberal feminism | + | ==== Classic liberal feminism ==== |
Blocks being removed is good enough | 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 | 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 | + | ==== Modern liberal feminism ==== |
Blocks being removed is not substantive equality, Granovsky is being underlying discriminated against as per his physical disability | Blocks being removed is not substantive equality, Granovsky is being underlying discriminated against as per his physical disability | ||
| − | Radical Feminism | + | === Radical Feminism === |
Entire system is flawed | Entire system is flawed | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
socialisation of young people would affect the rule governed principles of dworken, would help to organically change the law over time | socialisation of young people would affect the rule governed principles of dworken, would help to organically change the law over time | ||
| − | Marxist Feminism | + | === 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
similar to radical theory | similar to radical theory | ||
| − | Postmodernist feminism | + | === Postmodernist feminism === |
French feminism | French feminism | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
formal system doesnt recognize men who are marginalized - inefficencies occur as a result. | formal system doesnt recognize men who are marginalized - inefficencies occur as a result. | ||
| − | Relational Feminism | + | === 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. | 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 === | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | MacKinnon, law as male power | ||
Court doesn’t recognize feminist perspective. | Court doesn’t recognize feminist perspective. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 59: | ||
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. | 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 | + | == 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 | 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 10:29, 21 March 2014
Feminist Jurisprudence
Common Core
Liberal feminism
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.