Feminist legal theory

The first known use of the term feminist jurisprudence was in the late 1970s by Ann Scales during the planning process for Celebration 25, a party and conference held in 1978 to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first women graduating from Harvard Law School. The term was first published in 1978 in the first issue of the Harvard Women's Law Journal. This feminist critique of American law was developed as a reaction to the fact that the legal system was too gender-prioritized and patriarchal. The foundation of the feminist legal theory was laid by women who challenged the laws that were in place to keep women in their respective places in the home. A driving force of this new movement was the need for women to start becoming financially independent. Women who were working in law started to focus on this idea more and started to work on achieving reproductive freedom, stopping gender discrimination in the law and workforce, and stopping the allowance of sexual abuse. == Main approaches ==

Some approaches to feminist jurisprudence are: • the liberal equality model; • the sexual difference model; • the dominance model; • the anti-essentialist model; • and the postmodern model. Each model provides a distinct view of the legal mechanisms that contribute to women's subordination, and each offers a distinct method for changing legal approaches to gender. The liberal equality model The liberal equality model operates from within the liberal legal paradigm and generally embraces liberal values and the rights-based approach to law, though it takes issue with how the liberal framework has operated in practice. This model focuses on ensuring that women are afforded genuine equality including race, sexual orientation, and gender—as opposed to the nominal equality often given them in the traditional liberal framework—and seeks to achieve this either by way of a more thorough application of liberal values to women's experiences or the revision of liberal categories to take gender into account. The liberal equality model applies Kimberlé Crenshaw's theoretical framework of intersectionality in relation to a person's lived experience. For example, when black women are only provided legal relief when the case is against their race or gender. The sexual difference model The difference model emphasizes the significance of gender discrimination and holds that this discrimination should not be obscured by the law, but should be taken into account by it. Only by taking into account differences can the law provide adequate remedies for women's situation, which is in fact distinct from men's. The difference model suggests that differences between women and men put one sex at a disadvantage; therefore, the law should compensate women and men for their differences and disadvantages. These differences between women and men may be biological or culturally constructed. In the account of dominance proposed by Catharine MacKinnon, sexuality is central to dominance. MacKinnon argues that women's sexuality is socially constructed by male dominance and the sexual domination of women by men is a primary source of the general social subordination of women. According to MacKinnon, the legal system perpetuates inequalities between women and men by creating laws about women using a male perspective. Additionally, MacKinnon further applies her dominance model of feminist legal theory to transgender sex equality. She criticizes the libertarian Textual and Literal Approach for exacerbating, rather than eliminating, the discrimination faced by lesbians, gay men, and transgender men and women. MacKinnon argues that the liberal Anti-Stereotyping Approach benefits only those who do not conform to stereotypes and yet meet the dominant standards while offering no help to those who face discrimination based on subordinated stereotypes. She asserts that only by adopting the Substantive Approach, inspired by her dominance model and focusing on the gender hierarchy driven by sexualized misogyny, can intersectionality be properly addressed, ultimately benefiting all women. The anti-essentialist model Anti-essentialist feminist legal theory was created by women of color and lesbians in the 1980s who felt feminist legal theory was excluding their perspectives and experiences. When feminist legal theory practices under an essentialist lens, women of color are often dismissed as they would in historical legal theory. While race is an important factor in feminist legal theory, it can also be misconstrued in a way that silences women of color, furthering racism in a system created to build more access. For this reason, Crenshaw's "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color" should remain a canonical to this topic to continue to support and challenge the gender essentialism within feminism culture and ideology the marginalized women of color by protection them further in legal implications through support. Feminist legal theory is still evolving to diminish gender and race essentialism to recognize how oppression and privilege work together to create a person's life experiences. The postmodern model Postmodern feminist legal theorists reject the liberal equality idea that women are like men as well as the difference theory idea that women are inherently different from men. This is because they do not believe in singular truths and instead see truths as multiple and based on experience and perspective. Feminists from the postmodern camp use a method known as deconstruction in which they look at laws to find hidden biases within them. Postmodern feminists use deconstruction to demonstrate that laws should not be unchangeable since they are created by people with biases and may therefore contribute to female oppression. == Hedonic Jurisprudence ==

Feminist legal theory produced a new idea of using hedonic jurisprudence to show that women's experiences of assault and rape was a product of laws that treated them as less human and gave them fewer rights than men. With this feminist legal theorists argued that given examples were not only a description of possible scenarios but also a sign of events that have actually occurred, relying on them to support statements that the law ignores the interests and disrespects the existence of women. == Influence on judicial decisions ==

Over half of cases involving feminist issues in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom included elements of feminist jurisprudence in their judgements. The most common form of feminist legal reasoning was placing the case within a wider context of the experience of those involved or another wider context, which could involve showing empathy for women involved in cases. Judges also considered the impact of judgments on disadvantaged groups, challenged gendered bias, and commented on historic injustice. Some feminist facts entered into the courts reasoning as common knowledge with feminist scholars being referred to. Lady Hale has used Intersectional arguments,arguments that extend the concept of violence in cases that domestic violence outside of physical violence. ==Notable scholars==

• Paisley Currah • Martha Fineman • Mary Joe Frug • Catharine MacKinnon • Mari Matsuda • Kimberlé Crenshaw • Dean Spade • Ann Scales • Robin West == See also ==