Monday, August 17, 2015
From the NYT, a seeming contradiction between women's rights and radical Islam:
....young women attracted to what some experts are calling a jihadi, girl-power subculture. An estimated 4,000 Westerners have traveled to Syria and Iraq, more than 550 of them women and girls, to join the Islamic State, according to a recent report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which helps manage the largest database of female travelers to the region.
They were smart, popular girls from a world in which teenage rebellion is expressed through a radical religiosity that questions everything around them. In this world, the counterculture is conservative. Islam is punk rock. The head scarf is liberating. Beards are sexy.
Ask young Muslim women in their neighborhood what kind of guys are popular at school these days and they start raving about “the brothers who pray.”
“Girls used to want someone who is good-looking; nowadays girls want Muslims who are practicing,” said Zahra Qadir, 22, who does deradicalization work for the Active Change Foundation, her father’s charity in East London. “It’s a new thing over the last couple of years. A lot of girls want that, even some nonpracticing girls.”
Jane says she was raped by three men wearing Gurkha uniforms. She was herding her husband’s goats and sheep, and carrying firewood, when she was attacked. “I felt so ashamed and could not talk about it to other people. They did terrible things to me,” says Jane, her eyes alive with pain.
She is 38 but looks considerably older. She shows me a deep scar on her leg where she was cut by stones when she was pushed to the ground. In a quiet, hesitant voice she continues her story. “I eventually told my husband’s mother that I was sick, because I had to explain the injuries and my depression. I was given traditional medicine, but it did not help. When she told my husband [about the rape], he beat me with a cane. So I disappeared and came here with my children.”
Jane is a resident of Umoja, a village in the grasslands of Samburu, in northernKenya, surrounded by a fence of thorns. I arrive in the village at the hottest time of the day, when the children are sleeping. Goats and chickens wander around, avoiding the bamboo mats on which women sit making jewellery to sell to tourists, their fingers working quickly as they talk and laugh with each other. There are clothes drying in the midday sun on top of the huts made from cow dung, bamboo and twigs. The silence is broken by birdsong, shrill, sudden and glorious. It is a typical Samburu village except for one thing: no men live here.
Seattle follows Philly in making public restrooms gender neutral.
No matter how you identify, you’ll now be able to use a single-stall bathroom in the city of Seattle.
The Seattle City Council passed a law on Monday that requires all public spaces–both those controlled by the city and those of private businesses–to designate any existing and future single-stall restrooms as all-gender, reported local news outlet Seattle Pi.
This goes for all local businesses, including coffee shops, restaurants, hotels and stores. The law prevents business owners from labeling any restroom as gender exclusive.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
A Woman’s Nation, the non-profit organization run by Maria Shriver, recently released its survey The Shriver Report Snapshot: An Insight Into the 21st Century Man, analyzing the American man and how he relates to societally- inflicted stereotypes. In conjunction with the release of the report, Shriver hosted and moderated a panel discussion entitled “A Conversation on Modern Masculinity,” and included a number of the leading minds on the study of masculinity and fatherhood.
The survey yielded a number of interesting findings; men today feel that is “harder” to be a man than it was when their fathers were growing up, with some men finding that the apparently overwhelming addition of women into the workplace makes it more difficult for them to “be men.” Conversely, according to The Report, men claim that success in their personal life is what is most important to them, rather than financial or professional success. Additionally, most men reported that they feel very comfortable with the “increasing professional empowerment of women in the workplace.” However, although this increased comfort with the movement towards gender inequality is promising, the survey shows that many men do not feel comfortable expanding their own parenting role, whether it be in regards to taking paternity leave or being a stay-at-home dad.
Perhaps the most intriguing result comes from the part of the survey that looked to ascertain what qualities men value in their wives and what characteristics they hope their daughters will possess when they grow up. The response was oddly dissimilar, though men seemed to be in agreement on one point: they overwhelming want both their wives and their daughters (77% and 81% respectively) to be intelligent. This is an encouraging discovery, though it is somewhat tainted by the other findings in the survey’s comparison. For example, the study found that although 66% of the men polled listed “independence” as a quality they hoped for in their daughters, only 34% wanted independence in their spouse. This, of all the differentials between the qualities juxtaposed, is the most glaring disparity.
ELLEN REMMER had wanted to align her investments with her values for years, seeking to put her money into stocks and bonds that would have an impact beyond the returns. For her, this meant investing in organizations that either improved the lot of women and girls or helped the environment.
Doing so took longer than she expected. Even though it was her money, it was held in trust. She said it wasn’t easy to persuade the trusts’ advisers to change their investment policies. ****
In its annual survey, the Global Impact Investing Network found that a third of all respondents were interested in making investments that promote gender equality and women’s empowerment through both debt and equity investments in the United States and emerging markets. Some investors seek out female entrepreneurs and give them money. Others invest in companies like those that provide clean-burning cook stoves to women in Africa and Latin America.
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, a partner at Veris Wealth Partners, a wealth management firm that invests $800 million on an impact basis, said gender lens investing is now the most popular of its five impact strategies. (The others are aimed at environment and climate change, community and economic development, sustainable food systems and agriculture, and “sustainable mind-set and mindfulness” — or companies that take their time making investments.)
Despite this increased interest, gender lens investment can seem hard to do. “It’s an area where it’s difficult to gauge supply and demand because much of the demand doesn’t know the supply exists,” Mr. Bouri said.
During their nearly 30 combined years at the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University Law School, the two lawyers have helped exonerate more than two dozen people once found guilty of horrendous crimes. Most of the people they have freed are men; just four are women. And for a long time, Daniel and Royal thought that disparity made perfect sense. Men are convicted of crimes, especially violent crimes, at much higher rates than are women. So it follows that most people exonerated of crimes are also men: The National Registry of Exonerations, a University of Michigan Law School database that has cataloged information on more than 1,600 exonerations nationwide since 1989, includes just 148 women.
About three years ago, however, Daniel and Royal began to question whether that number was too low. Women make up about 11 percent of the people convicted of violent crimes, but just 6 percent of those exonerated of violent crimes. At the urging of a former client, Julie Rea Harper—who spent four years in prison for the murder of her son before a serial killer confessed to the crime—Daniel and Royal decided to try to figure out if there was anything that set exonerated women apart.
They started by looking at the few women whose cases they had worked on themselves. "I haven't had any men's cases that looked like these four cases," Daniel recalls thinking. "Could that really be a coincidence?"
After three years of pursuing that question, Daniel and Royal have concluded that most innocence projects—including their own legal clinic—are failing to bring justice to wrongly convicted women. They have identified factors that make female clients more difficult to exonerate, and uncovered startling facts that distinguish the cases of wrongly convicted women from those of men. And they have launched a project that could change how the American innocence movement helps these women get justice.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
The title, from an Atlantic piece, just caught my eye.
Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.
Both the World Future Society and the Association of Professional Futurists are headed by women right now. And both of those women talked to me about their desire to bring more women to the field. Cindy Frewen, the head of theAssociation of Professional Futurists, estimates that about a third of their members are women. Amy Zalman, the CEO of the World Future Society, says that 23 percent of her group’s members identify as female. But most lists of “top futurists” perhaps include one female name. Often, that woman is no longer working in the field.
HOW serious are we, really, about tackling income equality?
The Securities and Exchange Commission took a shot at it last week, approving a rule that would require companies to disclose their C.E.O. pay gap — comparing how much chief executive officers take home compared with ordinary employees.
That’s a fine idea. But here’s a better one: require companies to publish their gender pay gap.
Claudia Goldin, a labor economist at Harvard, has crunched the numbers and found that the gap persists for identical jobs, even after controlling for hours, education, race and age. Female doctors and surgeons, for example, earn 71 percent of what their male colleagues make, while female financial specialists are paid just 66 percent as much as comparable men. Other researchers have calculated that women one year out of college earn 6.6 percent less than men after controlling for occupation and hours, and that female M.B.A. graduates earn on average $4,600 less than their male classmates for their first jobs.
Here in America, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, sexism is very much on the wane, but misogyny is not. Sexism—the conviction that women don’t deserve equal pay, political rights, or access to education—can be combatted by argument, by anti-discrimination laws, and by giving women the opportunity to prove their ability. Misogyny is not amenable to such advances; they can in some circumstances exacerbate it, though they may drive it underground. An example of misogyny is when someone online threatens to rape and mutilate a woman whose opinions that person does not like. Another is when a Presidential candidate says of a female journalist whose questions he finds impertinent, “There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her—wherever.”
Amnesty International will support the decriminalization of all elements of prostitution—including paying for sex and facilitating sex-for-money transactions—after a vote of some 400 delegates at a meeting in Dublin, the New York Times reports:The proposal about prostitution provoked an aggressive lobbying campaign by international groups opposed to sparing buyers and pimps from penalties. Competing petitions were organized by women’s groups and celebrities— including former President Jimmy Carter, who issued a letter on Monday — appealing to the group to maintain penalties for buyers and to “stay true to its mission.”
Countries including Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand already have the kind of highly tolerant policies Amnesty will now advocate for, the BBC says, while the Times notes that Sweden's and Norway's laws fall somewhere between prohibition and decriminalization; in those Scandinavian countries, prostitution itself is legal but paying for sex can be punished with "heavy fines and prison terms."
The proposed language of the new Amnesty policy cautions that sex-work practices "that involve coercion, deception, threats, or violence" should continue to be considered unacceptable before asserting that "the available evidence indicates that the criminalisation of sex work is more likely than not to reinforce discrimination against those who engage in these activities, to increase the likelihood that they will be subjected to harassment and violence, including ill-treatment at the hands of police, and to lead to the denial of due process and the exclusion from public benefits such as health services, housing, education, and immigration status."
Donna Coker (Miami), Leigh Goodmark (Maryland), Marcia Olivo, CONVERGE! Reimagining the Movement to End Gender Violence, 5 U. Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review 249 (2015)
Abstract:This introduction to the CONVERGE! Symposium by conference co-chairs Donna Coker, Leigh Goodmark, & Marcia Olivo, describes the aspirations of conference organizers, reflects on the accomplishments of the conference, and looks ahead to ongoing work.
CONVERGE! Reimagining the Movement to End Gender Violence brought together more than 200 academics, activists, survivors, students, and service providers convened in Miami. People came in response to a call to reimagine the work to end gender violence: "We seek to refocus United States priorities in funding, activism, legal responses, and social services in ways that better address the intersecting inequalities that create and maintain gender violence."
The conference highlighted the connections between what is often described as “gender violence” or “violence against women” — interpersonal violence, particularly intimate partner violence and sexual assault — and the structural inequalities of colonization, sexism, heterosexism, racism, anti-immigrant bias, and economic injustice. Building on the groundbreaking work of INCITE!, conference speakers expanded the traditional interpersonal violence frame to encompass state violence directed at women — violence that is embodied in racist, homophobic, classist, and anti-immigrant policies and practices, whether in prisons, on the streets, at the borders, in the workplace, or in homes.
CONVERGE! was bilingual, with a strong voice of monolingual Spanish speakers, undocumented women survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, and domestic workers.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Given today's headlines about defunding Planned Parenthood, I am appreciating reading the following biography of PP's founder, Margaret Sanger which I've had on my shelf for awhile. Jean Baker, Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion. The book does a good job of providing historical and social context, legal nuance, as well as readable biography.
The National Women's Law Center explains the existing law of pharmacists' "right" to refuse to dispense contraception. Pharmacy Refusals 101
Refusal to Dispense Contraception are Increasing
- Reports of pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control—or provide EC—have surfaced in at least twenty-five states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI.
- These refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives or provide EC are based on personal beliefs, not on legitimate medical or professional concerns. The same pharmacies that refuse to dispense contraceptives because of personal beliefs often refuse to transfer a woman’s prescription or refer her to another pharmacy. These refusals can have devastating consequences for women’s health.
- Despite the fact one type of EC is available without a prescription, refusals based on personal beliefs are still a problem. Some stores prefer to keep non-prescription EC behind the counter or in locked cases, so individuals seeking it must interact with pharmacists or other pharmacy staff who may have personal beliefs against providing the drug.
The Legal Landscape: What Governs the Practice of Pharmacy?
- The laws governing pharmacies vary from state to state. Pharmacies must abide by state laws and regulations, which are written by the state legislature and the state Pharmacy Board.
- The laws and regulations in most states do not specifically speak to the issue of pharmacy refusals based on personal beliefs. States that provide general guidance about when pharmacies or pharmacists may refuse to dispense tend to limit the reasons for such a refusal to professional or medical considerations—such as potentially harmful contraindication, interactions with other drugs, improper dosage, and suspected drug abuse or misuse—as opposed to personal judgments.
- Many pharmacist associations that have considered this issue, including the American Pharmacists Association, have issued policies requiring that patient access to legally prescribed medications is not compromised—for example by either filling valid prescriptions or transferring them to another pharmacist who can. Although such policies are not legally binding, they encourage pharmacies to meet consumers’ needs.
The AALS Section on Trusts and Estates and AALS Section on Women in Legal Education will hold a joint program, Sex and Death: Gender and Sexuality Matters in Trusts and Estates, during the AALS 2016 Annual Meeting in New York City. They are soliciting proposals for presentations between now and August 21. From the CFP:
Submissions should be of an abstract of scholarship relating to the overlap between sex, gender, or sexuality and trusts and estates. Potential topics include implications of same-sex marriage, assisted reproduction and property rights, feminist legal theory applied to property transmission or tax, or any other matter examining the intersection between sex and death. Abstracts should be between 750 and 2000 words, inclusive of any footnotes. Scholarship may be at any stage of the publication process from work-in-progress to completed article, but if already published, scholarship may not be published any earlier than 2014. Each professor may submit only one abstract for consideration.
Full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are eligible to submit proposals. Foreign, visiting (and not full-time on a different faculty) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and fellows are not eligible. The deadline for submission is Friday, August 21, 2015.
To be considered, abstracts must be submitted electronically to Professor Wendy Greene, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> and Professor Alyssa DiRusso, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, at email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>. The deadline for submission is Friday, August 21, 2015. Authors of selected papers will be notified by September 25, 2015. Call for Paper participants will also be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Presenters will be selected after review by the Program Chairs of both sections. Additional presenters may be solicited by the Program Chairs to insure a diverse panel. Any inquiries about the Call for Papers should be submitted to: the Chair for the Section on Women in Legal Education, Professor Wendy Greene, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, 205.726.2419 or email@example.com and/or the Program Chair for the Section on Trusts and Estates, Professor Alyssa DiRusso, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, 205.726.4325 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
My colleague Will Huhn explains the decision "Follow the Law": Ohio Judges Must Perform Same-Sex Marriages
On Friday, August 7, the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct issued an opinion entitled "Judicial Performance of Civil Marriages of Same-Sex Couples." The Board ruled:
A judge who exercises the authority to perform civil marriages may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages. A judge may not delcine to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or personal, moral, or religious beliefs.
The Board's opinion is available at http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/BOC/Advisory_Opinions/2015/Op_15-001.pdf.
The Board of Professional Conduct is a 28-member body appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. It consists of 17 lawyers, seven judges, and four non-lawyers. One of the Board's duties is to issue advisory opinions on matters of attorney and judicial ethics. The Board does not issue a lot of opinions. In each of 2013 and 2014 it issued only four advisory opinions; in 2012 it issued three. The Board's recent opinion regarding a judge's duty to perform same-sex marriages was its first advisory opinion of 2015.
This opinion was triggered by the action of Toledo Municipal Judge C. Allen McConnell, who announced on July 6 that in light of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage he would refuse to perform those marriages, and that he had asked to be relieved of the duty to perform any marriages. See Toledo Judge Declined to Marry Couple Over Christian Beliefs: Same-Sex Couple's Marriage Delayed, Toledo Blade (July 8, 2015).
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct does not have the power to interpret the law. It only has the authority to construe the various rules and ethical codes that govern the conduct of judges. However, those ethical rules require judges to perform their duties under the law impartially. The Board noted that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that under the Constitution same-sex couples have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples, and that this is therefore the law of the land. If a judge were to refuse to perform same-sex marriages it would be evidence of bias and prejudice that could disqualify a judge from deciding any case involving same-sex couples or sexual orientation. The Board said that the same would be true if a judge refused to perform any marriages at all after Obergefell; this too would be evidence of bias and prejudice.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
At SUNY Stony Brook, Michael Kimmel proposes just that:
You’ve heard of women’s studies, right? Well, this is men’s studies: the academic pursuit of what it means to be male in today’s world. Dr. Kimmel is the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York system, which will soon start the first master’s degree program in “masculinities studies.”
No, Dr. Kimmel joked, the department title doesn’t just roll off the tongue. But it’s called “masculinities” (plural) to acknowledge that there is “more than one way to be a man.”
Friday, August 7, 2015
Donald Trump's unforgettable performance in the GOP debate last night is now well publicized.
Among the several provocative comments he uttered, one is especially noteworthy. During an exchange with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, who had asked him to respond to charges that he was a misogynist, he snapped at her and made a vague threat.
Today's WaPo contains some discussion about Trump's views on women.
“I don’t know why, but I seem to bring out either the best or worst in women.”
So wrote Donald Trump in his 1997 book, “Trump: The Art of the Comeback.”At the time, the real-estate billionaire was dealing with the end of his second marriage, so a little bitterness might be expected. Yet, throughout Trump’s books — particularly in his three memoirs, “Trump: The Art of the Deal”(1987), “Trump: Surviving at the Top” (1990) and “The Art of the Comeback” — he writes at length on his personal relationships, his experiences with women in marriage and in the workplace, even his dating life.
A memorable excerpt from the WaPo piece, quoting The Donald:
“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.” (“Trump: The Art of the Comeback”)
Thursday, August 6, 2015
From the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education:
The AALS Section on Women in Legal Education is pleased to open nominations for its 2016 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2013, the inaugural award honored Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in 2014 the award honored Catharine A. MacKinnon, and the 2015 award honored Herma Hill Kay. All of these remarkable women were recognized for their outstanding impact and contributions to the Section on Women in Legal Education, the legal academy, and the legal profession.
The purpose of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award is to honor an individual who has had a distinguished career of teaching, service, and scholarship for at least 20 years. The recipient should be someone who has impacted women, the legal community, the academy, and the issues that affect women through mentoring, writing, speaking, activism, and by providing opportunities to others.
The Section is now seeking nominations for this most prestigious award. Only individuals who are eligible for Section membership may make a nomination, and only individuals—not institutions, organizations, or law schools—are eligible for the award. As established by the Section’s Bylaws, the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education Executive Committee will select the award recipient, and the award will be presented at the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting.
Please submit your nomination by filling out this electronic form by August 31, 2015. Please note that only nominations submitted via the electronic form by the deadline will be accepted.
Please email Dean Cynthia Fountaine if you have any questions or difficulty with your online submission.