In social and political philosophy, liberal feminists have advocated making women's political and economic opportunities equal to those of men; socialist or Marxist feminists have argued that women's oppression is inherently economic in character; and radical feminists have criticized liberal political notions such as equality and autonomy as inherently "masculine" see liberalism. Similar feminist critiques have been made of notions such as rationality and objectivity in epistemology and metaphysics.
References and Further Reading 1. Questions of Perspective As a critical theory, feminist jurisprudence responds to the current dominant understanding of legal thought, which is usually identified with the liberal Anglo-American tradition. This tradition is represented by such authors as Hart and Dworkin Two major branches of this tradition have been legal positivismon the one hand, and natural law theory on the other.
Feminist jurisprudence responds to both these branches of the American legal tradition by raising questions regarding their assumptions about the law, including: Each of these assumptions, although contested and debated, has remained a significant feature of the liberal tradition of legal understanding.
Feminist jurisprudence usually frames its responses to traditional legal thought in terms of whether or not the critic is maintaining some commitment to the tradition or some particular feature of it.
This split in responses has been formulated in a number of different ways, according to the particular concerns they emphasize. These feminists approach jurisprudence with an eye to what needs to be changed within the system that already exists.
Their work, then, is to gain entry into that system and use its own tools to construct a legal system which prevents the inequities of patriarchy from affecting justice.
Those who see the traditional system as either bankrupt or so problematic that it cannot be reshaped are often referred to as transformist or radical feminists. According to this approach, the corruption of the legal tradition by patriarchy is thought to be too deeply embedded to allow for any significant adjustments to the problems that women face.
Feminists using this approach tend to argue that the legal system, either parts or as a whole, must be abandoned.
They argue that liberal legal concepts, categories and processes must be rejected, and new ones put in place which can be free from the biases of the current system. Their work, then, is to craft the transformations that are necessary in legal theory and practice and to create a new legal system that can provide a more equitable justice.
Consequently, they see difference as a concept that must be de-emphasized. Sameness feminists work to highlight the ways in which women can be seen as the same as men, entitled to the same rights, protections, and privileges.
Difference feminists argue that at least some of the differences between men and women, as well as other types of difference such as race, age, and sexual orientation, are significant. These significant differences must be taken into account by the law in order for justice and equity to be achieved.
What has been good law for men cannot simply be adopted by women, because women are not in fact the same as men. Women have different needs which require different legal remedies. The two characterizations of the debate about what perspective is best for understanding the problems of the law do share some features.
Those who argue a sameness position are often thought to fit, to some degree, with the reformist view. Difference feminists are seen as sharing much with radicals. The parallel between the two characterizations is that both argue over how much, if any, of the current legal system can and must be preserved and put to use in the service of feminist concerns.
The two characterizations are not the same, but the important parallel between them allows for some generalization regarding the ways in which each is likely to respond to particular theoretical and substantive issues.
However, while the two may reasonably be grouped for some purposes, they must not be conflated. From these perspectives, feminist jurisprudence emphasizes two kinds of question: These two kinds of question are, perhaps especially for feminists, deeply connected and overlapping. Discussions of central theoretical issues in feminist jurisprudence are punctuated by elaboration of the substantive issues with which they are intertwined.
Questions of Theory and Practice In asking theoretical questions, feminists are concerned with how to understand the law itself, its proper scope, legitimacy, and meaning. Many of these are the questions of traditional legal theory, but asked in the context of the feminist project: What is the proper moral foundation of the law, especially given that any answer depends on the moral principles of the dominant structure of the society?
What is the meaning of rule of law, especially given that obedience to law has been an important part of the history of subjugation?
What is the meaning of equality, especially in a world of diversity? What is the meaning of harm, especially in a world in which women, not men, are subjected by men to certain kinds of violence?
How can adjudication of conflict be properly and fairly achieved, especially when not all persons are able to come to the adjudication process on a "level playing field"?
What is the meaning of property, and how can women avoid being categorized as property? Is law the best and most appropriate channel for the resolution of conflict, especially given its traditional grounding in patriarchal goals and structures?
The issue that for many feminists is at the heart of concerns is that of equality and rights. Two others that may be considered nearly as central are problems of harm, and of the processes of adjudication.
Equality and Rights Law works partly by drawing abstract guiding principles out of the specifics of the cases it adjudicates. On this abstract level, theoretical questions arise for feminist jurisprudence regarding equality and rights, including the following:Tanya D’Souza, Supreme Court of Victoria, and Laura Griffin, Nicole Shackleton, and Danielle Watt, all of La Trobe Law School, have published Harming Women with Words: The Failure of Australian Law to Prohibit Gendered Hate Speech at 41 UNSW Law Journal ().
Here is the abstract. feminist teriminin İngilizce İngilizce sözlükte anlamı Relating to or in accordance with feminism One who believes in the social, political, and economical equality of the sexes A member of a feminist .
Feminist jurisprudence is a broad church and reflects different strands of feminist thought but the unifying theme is that society and in particular, the legal system is patriarchal.
Thus, feminist legal theorists have maintained their quest for a specifically feminist jurisprudence, aiming to make moral and legal philosophy more receptive to.
The great Christina Hoff Sommers is just out with another of her splendid 'Factual Feminist' videos on the crisis of free speech on college campuses. As it happens, I got together with Christina.
Jurisprudence is the study of the theory and philosophy of rutadeltambor.com is is concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do. It deals with ethical questions concerning the administration of justice within a society.
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for rutadeltambor.comons and additions are welcome.