“Deconstructing” feminist legal theory – Introduction.


This is the introduction to a series of five weekly essays using as a starting point a paper written by Leslie Francis and Patricia Smith called Feminist Philosophy of Law available at the link below.

Francis, Leslie and Smith, Patricia, “Feminist Philosophy of Law“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/feminism-law   

Much as it pains me to say this, not all feminists are as dumb as a bag of hammers.  Yes indeed, it is true that the majority of empty-headed sheep like, vacuous women who claim to BE feminists are – dumb as a bag of hammers that is – and of them, a huge number are seriously dysfunctional – but – these are the not the feminists that policy makers or politicians listen to, nod sagely at, as if they understood and were following the incomprehensible rubbish that these feminists spout,  then sign on the dotted line, to enact yet more anti-male legislation, even more policy, that disadvantages men and boys and advantages already privileged women.

Not forgetting of course funnelling even more of tax payers (men) money into programmes and services that benefit ONLY women.

Some of these clever feminists are very clever indeed – and one of the tricks of the trade, so to speak, is to present a “scholarly” paper that is literarily stuffed to the gills with high falutin concepts, dripping with references to other clever feminists, and positively bulging with citations to “studies” and “surveys” and fancy sounding “experts”. The paper that forms the basis of this series of essays, crafted by Leslie and Patricia is an almost perfect example of what I just outlined above – it is a rollercoaster ride of a paper that takes in almost every aspect of law, of jurisprudence and of legal scholarship – from a feminist perspective.

Uh oh – I hear you groan – and you would be right, the gurrrls cover four areas of major concern to women from the perspective of feminist legal philosophy.

  1. Formal Equality and Equal Citizenship
  2. Marriage, Reproductive Rights, and Commodification of the Body
  3. Violence Against Women
  4. Equality in Social and Economic Life

Each one of these I will be addressing in a separate essay, using Leslie and Patricia’s “analysis” of course.

To give you a taste of where these ladies are coming from here are some extracts from the introduction; –

“…….pervasive influence of patriarchy on legal structures, demonstrates its effects on the material condition of women and girls, and develops reforms to correct gender injustice, exploitation, or restriction…”

I’m betting you spotted the “P” word?

“……how legal institutions enforce dominant masculinist norms.”

Oh look – the juxtaposition of “dominant” and of course, not in a good way, with “masculinist”

“……Promoting freedom and equality for women reflects a profound shift in basic assumptions about the nature of women and their proper place in the world: a shift from inequality to equality of the sexes, along with re-examination of what equality itself requires….”

This is actually worth noting, because Leslie and Patricia do go on a bit about “making assumptions” about women, then proceed to write a dense, wordy and utterly unsupported by evidence, diatribe founded on myths, assumptions and fables about MEN. Yes, I know – I’m shocked as well that a couple of academic feminists would airily spout unsupported myths about men, as if they were akin to “written on tablets of stone” – TRUTH.

“……much feminist legal theory proceeds on two levels: one pragmatic, concrete, and particular, and the other conceptual and ultimately visionary…..”

I don’t actually have much problem with the first part – “pragmatic” and “concrete” are good – it is the next part that betrays the preferred method of “thinking” for woolly headed feminist scholarship – “conceptual and ultimately visionary”.  Ah yes – our first foray into the land of feminist flim flam, it sounds so…….so….esoteric, so deep thinky, doesn’t it?

Though, I’ve always been led to believe that those who founded their “thinking” on visions tend to be a bit………what is the word? Nuts.

“…….political equality; marriage, reproductive rights, and commodification of the body; protection from violence; and economic rights…..”

Here we have the standard bag of feminist “issues” the really, really important “women’s issue” because of course, we must bear in mind we are discussing these “issues” from a feminist perspective, therefore –

“…….political equality; marriage, reproductive rights, and commodification of the body; protection from violence; and economic rights…..”

Do NOT apply to, concern, or have any impact on MEN. AT ALL. For proof of that please refer to the opening extracts and make note of the key words “gender injustice” “exploitation” “patriarchy” “dominant” and “masculinist”

Believe me, it doesn’t get any better, as the girls churn out reference after reference, citation after citation and myth piled upon fable, piled upon assumption.

 As part of their introduction, the girls lay out six areas that they intend to examine these “issues” through; –

1.1 The Rule of Law

1.2 Equality and Difference

1.3 Reasonableness in Law

1.4 Public and Private

1.5 Human Rights

1.6 Multiple Methodologies

 Yes – you guessed it – through the perspective of feminist legal theory – sigh.  One of my favourite subjects in law school was Jurisprudence, and it was there that I learned to loathe Catherine McKinnon with a passion, in fact I loathe McKinnon more than I loath brussels’ sprouts, and they make me shudder.  I can think of only one use for her screed “towards a feminist theory of state” in the interests of environmentalism that is – as toilet paper – and yes I absolutely refuse to capitalise the title of that “book”.

 These sub introductions will also form the basis of a separate essay.

 Ok – mini rant over – let’s carry on.

 The girls do make major use of McKinnon – she pops up over and over again, as THE expert on all things female, all things feminist, and of course, all things feminist legal theory, hence why this paper is such a poisonous and perfect example of the kind of “thinking” that led us to the place we are today – the complete nullification of the idea that Men have Human Rights. 

Men have “privileges” men have always had “privileges” even poor men, sick men, disabled men, men who are homeless, veterans, prisoners of war, boys who are dysfunctional, simply because they are boys, in fact, there is no man who has ever been born, or died on this planet who has not been “privileged”.

 The girls conclude the paper with this statement ; –

Law furthers social stability but may entrench norms of oppression. Law can also be a necessary means for reform. Law can be an anchor to the past or an engine for the future. Each function has its place. Feminist legal philosophy is an effort to examine and reformulate legal doctrine to overcome entrenched bias and enforced inequality of the past as it structures human concepts and institutions for the future.”

Self explanatory isn’t it – but I’ll translate – law is whatever feminists say it is, on the basis that, any law that holds women accountable for any action is a bad law, and any law that ensures that men have any rights is also a bad law.

Nothing has contributed to the present toxic legal, cultural and political environment we now live in more than “feminist legal theory” – it is the vehicle through which the poison of feminism and gynocentrism was carried to infect our entire society and culture.


NBOf course I invite anyone who wishes to, to address any aspect of this paper in whatever order, or from whatever perspective they deem important.


© Anja Eriud 2014


6 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Russell
    Jan 06, 2014 @ 13:31:51

    Pleased your on the case Anja. Looking forward to the further essays on this topic.


  2. wtfwtf13
    Jan 06, 2014 @ 14:48:28

    An domhan, ar an taobh thiar ach go háirithe, tá ag éirí go tapa ina thearmann do ngealt!

    Feminist trojan horses seem to be at places that matter, that’s why academic feminism is so dangerously toxic.
    You don’t really need to be an expert to smell the BS in the paper but yet this passes as some kind of valuable academic work !


    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 06, 2014 @ 15:19:43

      “An domhan, ar an taobh thiar ach go háirithe, tá ag éirí go tapa ina thearmann do ngealt!”

      “The world, on the west side in particular, is fast becoming a refuge for lunatics!”

      Indeed it is – though I’m with Voltaire regarding those who demand the unquestioning acceptance of their “opinions/insane beliefs”

      “It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

      ― Voltaire

      The other aspect of feminism is that they assume the pervasivness of its doctrine somehow “proves” it’s validity.

      “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

      ― Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals

      If that were the case, we would all be afraid to venture past the borders of our own lands, in case we fell off the edge of the world 🙂


  3. TooCoolToFool
    Jan 06, 2014 @ 23:09:06

    Too late.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: