Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Robert McGee at Fayetteville State University has uploaded an article on gender and tax evasion. The abstract reads:
This paper examines the views of men and women in 82 countries on the ethics of tax evasion. Other demographic variables such as age, marital status, religion and religiosity are also examined. The study also includes a bibliography providing links to more than 80 other empirical and theoretical studies on the ethics of tax evasion, making it easier for scholars to retrieve data easily for their own research.
For those interested in a law and econ analysis of marriage, Theodore Seto at Loyola LA has uploaded a paper titled "A Coasean Theory of Marriage." The abstract reads:
A theory of the economic aspects of the law of marriage. In The Nature of the Firm (1937), Ronald Coase noted that although contractual exchanges generally maximize social welfare, in complex business environments the transaction costs of contractual relationships may be prohibitively high. Corporate law’s solution is to organize intra-firm transactions on a non-contractual basis. Corporate law is thus a solution to a transaction cost problem. Partners in long-term intimate relationships also engage in significant welfare-enhancing exchanges. Some are long term: "I’ll stay home and take care of the kids; you’ll support me." Some are short term: "I’ll drop off the dry-cleaning; you pick up the kids." Economic theory tells us that such exchanges produce producer and consumer surplus; the ability to engage securely in such exchanges is therefore economically valuable. Contract law might be used to secure the value of such exchanges, but the transaction costs would likely be extremely high. In addition, such exchanges commonly rely on trust; the contracting process itself would tend to undermine trust, making such exchanges less likely regardless of enforceability. The paper’s premise is that the economic part of the law of marriage substitutes non-contractual rules to enforce implicit deals between spouses. Like corporate law, it largely supplants contract law, solves a transaction cost problem, and thereby facilitates significant welfare-enhancing exchanges.
This premise, if correct, has at least four implications. First, it means that marriage, as a legal relationship, is economically valuable. The law of palimony (Marvin v. Marvin) offers distant second-best protections. Second, it means that the economic aspects of the law of marriage should be structured to maximize the legal security of welfare-enhancing exchanges between partners. Third, it means that denying the advantages of marriage to couples based on sexual orientation denies them the benefits of an economically valuable legal regime. In the 2008 Presidential campaign, for example, Sen. John McCain opposed same-sex marriage on ground that same-sex couples could contract into the same position. If my premise is correct, McCain completely missed the point. In Coasian terms, he was in effect saying: "We will not allow gays and lesbians to create business entities. But this does not disadvantage them because they can contract into the same position." Fourth, the paper’s premise provides a principled basis upon which to distinguish between polygamy and same-sex marriage. The implicit deal enforced by the law of marriage assumes a dyadic relationship; it may be completely inapposite to a polygamous unit. For a particular polygamous unit to determine whether the economic aspects of the law of marriage correctly reflect its implicit deal may itself involve high transaction costs. Unlike liberty and dignitary equality justifications for same-sex marriage, therefore, a Coasian justification does not apply equally to polygamous relationships. A Coasian justification may therefore allow courts to require extension of the economic aspects of the law of marriage to same-sex dyads without requiring extension to polygamous units.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
In honor of tax day today, from Slate It's April 15! Women, We Are Very Tax Compliant
[N]umerous experiments suggest a strong gender effect on tax compliance. Specifically, “Women seem to be more compliant than men,” says John Hasseldine, a professor of taxation at the University of New Hampshire. “You need to control for other variables, such as education and income level—for example, those in white-collar professions appear to be more compliant than blue-collar workers—but quite a few studies support the gender effect.” ***
Hasseldine views the compliance gap as a matter of socialization. I see his point: Girls get praised from a very young age for following the rules, while many boys learn early on via sports and roughhousing to take risks and chase glory. ***
Yet men with “a strong male cultural identity” hopped from figurative crater to crater, eluding the asks of the government far more frequently post-audit than any of their peers.
Why? I asked Mittone. What’s so manly about tax evasion?
“The reaction seems to be driven by aggressiveness,” he replied. “If the government says, ‘I’m coming to look at you and find you out,’ it’s almost like they’re starting a fight. The men may perceive the audit as aggressive, and feel like they’re under formal attack. So they’re not going to want to cooperate; they’re going to react aggressively.”
Howard is now working full-time to put together an 8-to-10 team Mixed Gender Basketball league — 12 players to a team, all paid equally. The first teams will be based in the Northeast: Philadelphia, Delaware, New York and New Jersey. He says the season will tip off in July.
But with the WNBA and other leagues, there’s no shortage of ways to see women play pro ball. Why does Howard think fans will pay to see his games?
“More excitement, drama, suspense and, guess what, the unknown,” he said. “People are going to pay for the unknown. People want to see how men play against women and how the women play against men. It’s that unknown factor.”
Howard’s a salesman who takes every chance to push the novelty of his concept. That includes the league’s logo, which depicts a woman scoring over a man.
The league's website is here.
Collaborative Research Network on Feminist Legal Theory
Law & Society 2014
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28
Book Discussion: Becoming Sexual by Danielle Egan
7 pm, University of Minnesota, Room TBA
THURSDAY, MAY 29
Alternatives to Marriage
Chair: June Carbone
8:15—10:00 am, Room
Erez Aloni, Beyond Recognition: Redistribution in Family Law
Jessica Feinberg, The Survival of Non-Marital Relationship Statuses in the Same-Sex Marriage Era: A Proposal
Leslie Harris, Drifting Toward Marriage: How and Why Legal Structures for Alternative Family Forms Converge on Marriage
Theodore Seto, A Coasian Theory of Marriage
Discussant: Kerry Abrams
Feminist Perspectives on Health Care
Chair: Kara Loewentheil
10:15—12:00 pm, Room
Jamie Abrams, Revealing the Illusion of Patient Autonomy and the Ghost of Roe's Medical Model
Kara Loewentheil, When Free Exercise Is A Burden: Protecting "Third Parties" In Religious Accommodation Law
Seema Mohapatra, Time to Lift the Veil of Inequality in Health Care Coverage: Using Corporate Law to Defend the Affordable Care Act’s Reproductive Health Care Mandate
Discussants: Jessica Waters, Margaux Hall
ART and Parentage
Chair: Wendy Bach
12:45—2:30 pm, Room
Courtney Joslin, The Biology Myth
Jody Madiera, The Legal Consequences of Infertility Patients’ Self-Identification as Consumer or Patient
Dara Purvis, Fathers, Abortion, and Equal Rights
Kara Swanson, Alternative Insemination and Adoption: Historical Perspectives
Discussant: Joanna Bond
Same Sex Marriage and Divorce
Chair: Rachel Rebouche
2:45—4:30 pm, Room
Cynthia Godsoe, Disentangling Marriage and Parenthood
Zvi Triger and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat, Same-Sex Divorce and the Right to Divorce
Ann Tweedy, Same-Sex Marriage and Indian Tribes
Deborah Widiss, Federal Marriage Discrimination, Take Two
Discussant: William Kuby
“Just the Facts:” Expertise and Empirical Evidence as Movement Strategies
Chair: Rachel Rebouche
4:45—6:15 pm, Room
Libby Adler, Facts About Gay People
Aziza Ahmed, Medical Evidence and Expertise in Abortion Jurisprudence
Elizabeth Kukura, Contested Care: The Politics of Research, Evidence and Knowledge in U.S. Childbirth Policies
Discussant: Elizabeth MacDowell
Business Meeting, 6:30—7:00, Hilton Board Room 3
FLT CRN Dinner, 7:00 pm, Rosa Mexicano, 609 Hennipen Avenue
RSVP for dinner is required: http://www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0B4AA8A62BA0FF2-annual
FRIDAY, MAY 30
Roundtable: Feminist Legal Theory Half a Century after the Second Wave
Moderator/Discussant: Clare Huntington
8:15 am—10:00 am, Room
Susan Appleton and Susan Stiritz, Legal Education Gone Wild: Law and Literature and Sex
Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, Unequal Terms
Max Eichner, Second-Wave Feminism and the Market
Jennifer Hendricks, Schrodinger's Child: Non-Identity, Probability, and Reproductive Decision-Making
The Economics of Intergenerational Care
(co-sponsor Aging, Law & Society)
Chair: Dirk Hartog
10:15—12:00 pm, Room
Alicia Kelly, Intergenerational Economies
Nina Kohn, Valuing Care
Peggie Smith, Compensating Family Members to Care for Elderly Relatives
Jessica Dixon Weaver, Of Babes & Elders: A Unified Approach to Intergenerational Caregiving
Amy Ziettlow, "Money and Stuff": Gen X Caregivers and Financial Decision-making for Their Baby Boomer Parents
Discussant: Naomi Cahn
Roundtable: Anniversary of Fineman’s Feminism and Legal Theory Project
Chair: Hila Keren
10:15—12:00 pm, Room
June Carbone, University of Minnesota
Martha A. Fineman, Emory Law School
Michele Goodwin, University of Minnesota
Fionnuala Ni Aolain, University of Minnesota Law School
Dorothy Roberts, University of Pennsylvania
Laura Spitz, Cornell Law School
Discussant: Laura Kessler
Subordination and Power in Families
Chair: Laura Kessler
12:45—2:30 pm, Room
Alesha Durfee, "They don’t want any problems": The effects of documentation status on the legal mobilization of domestic violence survivors
Samantha Godwin, A Feminist Critique of Parental Rights
Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, The Case Against Separating the Care from the Caregiver: A Relational Perspective on Children’s Rights
Aníbal Rosario Lebrón, Scorned Law: Rethinking Impeachment Rules for Battered Women
Sarah Swan, Third-Party Policing Comes Home: Gender, Control, and Responsibilization in Family Life
Chair: Jessica Clarke
2:45—4:30 pm, Room
Emma Cunliffe, Judgment and Error in Sexual Assault Trials
Mary Ann Franks, Men, Women, and Optimal Violence
Ummni Khan, Representing ‘John’: The Legal Reification of Sex Trade Clients and their Potential Status as Constitutional Subjects
Menaka Raguparan, Consent/non Consent: Challenging Sexual Assault Law’s Generative Meaning
Valarie Vojdik, Theorizing Violence Against Men
Discussant: Deborah Tuerkheimer
Families and Family Law – New Books Exploring the Past and Imagining the Future
Chair: Laurie Kohn
4:45—6:30 pm, Room
Jill Hasday, University of Minnesota Law School, Family Law Reimagined
Clare Huntington, Fordham Law School, Failure to Flourish: How Law Undermines Family Relationships
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, University of Iowa College of Law, According to Our Hearts: Rhinelander v. Rhinelander and the Law of the Multiracial Family
Katharine Bartlett, Duke University School of Law
Robin Lenhardt, Fordham Law School
SATURDAY, MAY 31
Parenting Outside of Marriage 1800-Now (co-sponsor Law and History)
Chair/Discussant: Kristin Collins
2:45—4:30 pm, Room
Sarah Abramowicz, The Construction of Motherhood and the Regulation of Fatherhood in Early 19th-Century English Child Custody Law
Deborah Dinner, Liberated Patriarchs: The Fathers’ Rights Movement, 1960-1980
Serena Mayeri, Unmarried Fathers, Sex Equality, and Marital Supremacy, 1970-1983
Mary Ziegler, Illegitimate Conceptions: Unwed Motherhood and the Remaking of the Abortion Wars
Women have made gains in the workplace but there's still a wage gap. Although attending college costs the same for both genders, women are more burdened by student loan debt after graduating. They spend a higher proportion of their salaries on paying off debt because, well, they have lower salaries to work with than men — from the very start.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Story from Texas:
....a Texas Lawbook study of 40 of the largest firms in the state shows that a serious gender gap continues to plague most law firms in Texas.
Only a small cadre of law firms have experienced extraordinary success promoting women to partner. A large majority of Texas firms continue to lag.
Nearly half of the law firms in the study (18 of 40) promoted no women or just one woman to partner in the last three years.
The number of women promoted to partner this year was up a modest 5 percent from a decade ago.
The rest of the story here.
A blog entry from Payscale:
Women deserve equal pay for equal work. There are laws on the books dating back to 1963 that are designed to protect women from being paid less than men for doing the same work. However, we continue to see complaints, such as the one against the owners of Kay Jewelers and Jared, from allegedly underpaid female employees. Is the answer more laws, or more enforcement?
Employment and labor lawyer Gerald D. Skoning writes in The Palm Beach Post that the plethora of discussions about a "need" for more laws against gender discrimination and pay equity are missing the point. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to protect women from being paid less than men. The problem is that they aren't enforced.
Check out the rest here.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Posted by Caisa Royer, et. al. (Cornell), Victim Gender and the Death Penalty, 82 UMKC __ (2014).
Previous research suggests that cases involving female victims are more likely to result in death sentences. The current study examines possible reasons for this relationship using capital punishment data from the state of Delaware. Death was sought much more for murders of either male or female white victims compared to murders of black male victims. Analyzing capital sentencing hearings in Delaware from 1977-2007 decided by judges or juries, we found that both characteristics of the victims and characteristics of the murders differentiated male and female victim cases. The presence of sexual victimization, the method of killing, the relationship between the victim and the defendant, and whether or not the victim had family responsibilities all predicted the likelihood of a death sentence and help to explain why cases with female victims are more likely to be punished with a death sentence.
[Judge John] Lewis said the legal profession risks losing respect because so many more women are becoming lawyers. In Russia, Lewis reportedly said, doctors are not respected because medicine is a female-dominated profession. Lewis also reportedly said the teaching profession has been harmed because females are choosing careers in law over education.
The committee found that Lewis created the appearance of impropriety by using words that may have reasonably been interpreted to show bias based on gender.
The committee also said its investigation raised concerns about Lewis’ treatment of alleged victims in sexual assault cases. In a different meeting, Lewis was accused of saying that aggressive prosecution of child sexual assault cases may ultimately do more harm than good to the families and the public. Lewis tells the Union Leader those remarks were about a specific case.
Lewis agreed to the reprimand. He said in a statement to the committee (PDF) that he didn’t intend to demean or insult women. “My exploratory comments were not meant as a put-down, a criticism or a statement blaming women for wanting to be professionals and seeking to rise as far as they could go in the work arena,” he said. “What I feared was that our society’s continued sexism might be at work, as it has in the past, to diminish the work women did.”
Lewis said his daughter has just finished law school and his wife is a feminist. He formerly prosecuted sex and other discrimination cases for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and pursued sex discrimination cases on behalf of women while in private practice.
Friday, April 11, 2014
In Thursday's oral argument before the 10th Circuit US Court of Appeals in case of Utah's ban on gay marriage, the state emphasized the importance of gender in marriage and the risk of harm from "genderless" marriages. Essentially that moms and dads are simply different and provide complimentary roles.
From the State's brief:
“And Utah voters, … reaffirmed among other things their firm belief—also supported by sound social science—that moms and dads are different, not interchangeable, and that the diversity of having both a mom and a dad is the ideal parenting environment.” ***
Common sense and a wealth of social-science data teach that children do best emotionally, socially, intellectually and even economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents. Such arrangements benefit children by (a) harnessing the strong biological connections that parents and children naturally feel for each other, and (b) providing what experts have called “gender complementarity”—i.e., diversity—in parenting. ***
This biological advantage is further enhanced by the unique, gender-based contributions that fathers and mothers make to their children’s wellbeing. While the value of gender diversity in parenting is common sense to many, the notion likewise finds confirmation in a growing body of social science research. As a group of 70 scholars recently concluded, the “empirical literature on child well-being suggests that the two sexes bring different talents to the parenting enterprise, and that children benefit from growing up with both biological parents.” In other words, the benefits flow not just from having two parents of any gender, but from what scholars call “gender-differentiated” or mother-father parenting: “The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” Indeed, research shows that men and women parent children differently, and in so doing contribute distinctly to healthy child development.
From Amnesty International:
The Philippine Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to uphold a landmark reproductive health law as constitutional is an important victory for millions of Filipino women and girls, Amnesty International said.
The court’s decision, which will require the government to provide free contraception to millions of the nation’s poorest women, is being welcomed by activists across the country.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the independence of the judiciary and means that millions of women and girls have a right to access medical services and information they need,” said Hazel Galang-Folli, Amnesty International’s Researcher on the Philippines.
In a country where 80 percent of the population is Roman Catholic, surveys have shown that 72 percent of Filipinos support the law.
As you know, the Democrats have been trying to close the gender wage gap while the Republicans have denied that such a gap exists, or that if it does, it doesn't merit legislative response at this time.
Of course, there is nuance in the debate which doesn't get much discussion by either party in their respective political rheotric.
Also interesting (to me) is how the GOP advocates try to justify the ostensive wage gap. Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) said in a speech:
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Rep. Jenkins couches her arguments in the style of good old fashioned liberalism (women are men's equals and should be treated that way), rather than conservative ideals about women belonging in the home (admittedly, that sort of argument would have been weird for her to offer, given her own terrific success as an elected official).
I don't mean to imply that the GOP has a better argument than the Dems, but that both sides seem to be drawing from the same general vocabulary of liberal equality, something that surprises me a bit.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
The lawsuit was filed in October 2013 in federal court and alleged that the district’s all-male wrestling program discriminated against girls on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In January 2014, Flaster/Greenberg lawyer Abbe F. Fletman andWomen’s Law Project attorney Terry L. Fromson were successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to allow seventh-grader Audriana Beattie to join the all-male wrestling program for the duration of the lawsuit.
The Court has now approved a consent decree entered into by the parties that will allow Ms. Beattie to remain on the previously all-male wrestling team and other young women who wrestle competitively may join the team.
The school district has also rescinded its policy that kept girls off boys’ teams and will not adopt any policy in the future that will unlawfully deny athletic opportunity on the basis of sex.
After decades on the decline, the number of "stay at home" moms in the U.S. has risen, with 29 percent of women with children under 18 saying they don't work outside the home, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center.
The figure from 2012 is up from 23 percent in 1999.
Mothers With Children Who Don't Work Outside The Home:
1967 — 49 percent
1999 — 23 percent
2012 — 29 percent
"The recent turnaround appears to be driven by a mix of demographic, economic and societal factors, including rising immigration as well as a downturn in women's labor force participation," the Pew study finds.
"Stay at home" mothers includes women who remain in the home to care for family as well as those who say they don't work outside because they are unable to find work, are disabled or enrolled in school
From the NYT, Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay
Republican lawmakers have said that given existing anti-discrimination laws, the legislation is redundant and is a transparent attempt by Democrats to distract from President Obama’s much-criticized health care law.
Supporters of the bill, called the Paycheck Fairness Act, say it would bring transparency to worker pay by making it illegal for employers to penalize employees who discuss their salaries and by requiring the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect pay information from employers.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
According to the Art of Manliness Blog, the three moral imperatives (the Three Ps) for manliness are:
1/ to Protect
2/ to Procreate
3/ to Provide
I tend to agree with the accuracy of the general proposition. But I don't think that it has as much relevance for my students' generation. I hear my female students complain (or reflect amusedly) that there are few "real men" these days. Most just want their XBOX, their bro-friends, and worst of all, their mommies (or proxy mommies).
President Obama on Tuesday is expected to sign two executive orders that will address the pay disparity between women and men. One will bar federal contractors from retaliating against employees who talk about their pay with each other. The other will require businesses to hand over data on pay, broken down by race and gender, to the Labor Department. The goal of both steps is to increase transparency, which is more important than it may sound. It’s hard to fight pay discrimination if you don’t even know what other people make.
That’s exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter, for whom the Lilly Ledbetter Act is named. She didn’t find out she was being paid less than the men around her until 19 years after she started at Goodyear. Even then, it was thanks only to an anonymous note. While President Obama has touted the fact that his first act as president was to sign that bill, it was a very, very incremental step toward gender wage parity. The law merely gives women more time to bring suits. The wage gap actually widened a bitafterward. Today, women who work full-time, year-round still make 77 percent of what similar men make, and progress has all but stalled for a decade.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
There has been a flurry of focus on the overwhelming nature of work/life balance. E.g., Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time; I Refuse to Be Busy. The second shift of housework, the reification of an organic Betty Crocker, and male norms of ideal workers all combine to stress and fundamentally impair a happy and mindful life. Something's got to give. Opt-out? Out source ? Or maybe we can just ease up on the uber-parenting.
So suggests this article in the Atlantic Don't Help Your Kids with Their Homework. Some key take-aways of "essentially useless parenting interventions" based on the sociological research:
- Helping kids with homework. Especially from middle school on, it can actually hurt them
- Meeting with teachers and principals
- Observing a kid’s class
- Volunteering at schools
- Bake sales
- Helping a teenager choose high-school courses
- Disciplinary measures such as punishing kids for getting bad grades or instituting strict rules about when and how homework gets done.
The things that do seem to matter?
- Reading to your child when they are young
- Talking to your teen about college options
- Getting your child placed with a good teacher
- Surrounding kids with colleged-educated adults with interesting careers
- Encouraging kids to ask critical questions and advocate for themselves