For Feisty Feminists

Dear Bar Review Lecture Guy,

It would be much appreciated in the future if, when you tell the story of the will you successfully contested, you refrain from referring to the the young woman that an elderly man married as a ‘young thing.’ It makes it pretty clear that you don’t see her as a human, but as an object.

Furthermore, the fact that when she had a ‘legitimate occupation,’ - legitimate in your opinion - she was a stripper has nothing whatsoever to do with the eventual outcome of the case. There is absolutely no reason for you to mention this except to emphasize that you think she is a dirty, dirty member of the sex caste and is not entitled to any money from her husband - and you know nothing about that relationship except that he was old and she was young. Somehow, in your mind, he’s the victim, despite the fact that she has probably been groped and assaulted by men, and then was cheated out of the things promised to her in her husband’s will.

Please refrain from commenting beyond what I need to know to pass the fucking test.

Thanks!

Equal Pay. It’s hard to really wrap your head around the concept. There are so many excuses for un-equal pay: women ask for salaries on the lowest end of ranges; they don’t have as much training; they work in fields that just don’t pay as much. Never do the people putting forth these arguments consider that women are systematically taught to devalue and question themselves; that training is not as readily available because of the socio-economic difficulties and social obstacles (i.e. overwhelmingly male-oriented schools, lack of advising and support for women); the hostility and outright misogyny many women face in traditional male-dominated, higher paying fields.

I have come up against these obstacles time and time again. I am privileged as compared to many women, enough that I have been able to get accepted into a pretty good undergraduate institution, and have my choice of the six law schools that accepted me. However, I went into law school with the express purpose of going into public interest law, the lowest-paying sub-field in law. This sub-field also happens to employ many more women than men.

(more…)

The sweet, sweet sound of people saying things that are actually true in a class about sexual violence. Here’s how to make me think, “Damn! That’s true! I have nothing to critique about that statement - you want to smash the patriarchy too!”

• DO acknowledge that there are no situations where past consensual sexual behavior has anything to do with a current accusation of rape.
• DO acknowledge that the law is not handed down from on high, perfect and just - but that it is a product of the culture we live in, and reflects the biases of that culture.
• DO recognize that even laws that are helpful in combatting a rape culture are used by judges and lawyers who have been indoctrinated into said rape culture.
• DO recognize that helping victims of sexual assault obtain justice requires that we, as a culture, thoughtfully examine the way that we think and talk about sex. For example, if we think the idea of getting consent at every level of sexual activity, as well as each time we engage in said activity, is ludicrous and unsexy, what does that say about us - and about our views on the ‘right’ to sexual access versus the right to sexual autonomy?

I’m a little sad that the mere recognition of the fucking truth makes me want to do cartwheels. If we didn’t live in a supremely sexist society, these types of statements wouldn’t make me elated - they would be akin to telling me that sky is above us and the ground below.

Inspired by the conversation that ensued after the class that inspired this post.

• Do NOT take up class time in a class about sexual violence by requiring everyone in the class to explain to your addled, privileged brain exactly why mistreatment of sexual assault victims is a gendered problem.
• Do NOT think that pointing out that male sexual assault victims get treated poorly by law enforcement negates the fact that it is still a gendered problem, or think you are SOOO clever for thinking of that. The overwhelming amount of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men against women. Saying that a male victim, treated badly by the system, disproves gender bias and sexism would be like saying that white victims of police brutality disprove racial profiling and police brutality against non-whites. It is still, overwhelmingly, a problem faced by one group of people.
• Do NOT compare a law that would redefine rape as ’sexual contact without explicit consent’ to sodomy laws. The former attempts to give agency to a group of people (women) that have long been denied such agency, in an area where they have long been mistreated, mistrusted, and blamed as victims. The latter is blatant homophobia, and an attempt to police people’s consensual sexual decisions under the guise of ‘the greater good.’
• Do NOT say that criminalizing rape where there was no consent expressed ‘trivializes’ rape, thereby doing a disservice to women who are victims of sexual violence. The underlying subtext of this argument is that violent stranger rape is ‘real’ rape, and the people who are victims of violent assault are the only ‘real’ victims. It also presupposes that women are lying whores who will cry rape to get back at someone, rather than seeing that the proposed standard seeks to give a remedy to people who feel violated.
• Do NOT waste my time by talking about all the what-if’s - ‘What if you’re not sure if the person really wants to have sex?’ or ‘What if the consent is not enthusiastic?’ The answer to these questions is DON’T HAVE SEX. I am also unconcerned with the fact that, if rape is defined as sex that lacks active consent, it means that some people won’t have sex when they could have. So what? It’s sex. It’s not oxygen - and this is coming from someone with a high sex drive. You can live without it. You have no right to sex - especially compared with other’s right to bodily integrity.

Stay tuned for the ‘DO’ installment of ‘How to not be an Asshole’.

For your reading pleasure, I present my reaction paper (slightly edited) to a law review article that proposes that the legal standard of rape should not be ’sexual penetration where there was a lack of consent, and the lack of consent was clearly expressed.’ The proposed standard is that rape, or at least the legal definition of rape, should include those cases where there was not clearly expressed consent. This standard would put the burden on the pursuer to obtain enthusiastic, willingly given ‘consent’ (I have issues with the word consent, you can read about that below).

Apologies to Twisty for the fact that this kind of rips off this post.

(more…)

In my continuing quest to take the ‘law’ out of law school, I signed up for an independent study. This independent study is completely policy-based: it focuses on Seattle’s 10-year plan to end homelessness. Those of you who know me in real life know how passionately I feel about homelessness and housing, and that I believe homeless people are both actively and passively discriminated against. Also, housing is not just what you get for being a good middle-class worker bee - it’s a human right.

This plan is, from what I can tell, a complete crock. I think it’s mostly for people who want ‘Member, King County Committee to End Homelessness’ on their resume - you know, so they can look all concerned about social justice and shit.

The 2006 Progress Report highlights some of my misgivings. The contents of the report mostly fall into two categories: 1. reassurances that the committee is doing important stuff and achieving many goals! But that’s pretty much all they can say about it, they can’t give you specifics. 2. Touching Stories about someone who used to be homeless.

It’s hard to explain exactly why the Touching Stories about people who used to be homeless stick in my craw. I think it’s great that Sheila, or Joe, or whoever, has housing now. It’s just that when you tell 10 of those stories, you are not showing that you have ended homelessness or changed anything systemic. In fact, I would argue that you are actually doing a disservice to homeless people who are still homeless - after all, if Jana could get housing, why can’t Eddie? It reeks of the pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, god helps those who help themselves mentality. Also, many of the stories feature subjects who are part of a group - such as veterans, chronic alcoholics, domestic violence victims, or teenagers - who are eligible for special assistance that is not available to everyone. (’Everyone’ meaning those who aren’t part of the nobly suffering ‘good’ homeless crowd that has a societally approved excuse for homelessness, and don’t think they aren’t getting the shit end of the stick as well.)

(more…)