Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Authority and Corporeality: The Conundrum for Women in Law

  • Article
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Z.R. Eisenstein, The Female Body and the Law (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1988), 82.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Thornton, supra n.*, at 293–295; D. Weisbrot, Australian Lawyers (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1989), at 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For example, C. McGlynn, “Sex Discrimination at the Margins”, New Law Journal 146 (1996), 379–381

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Hagan and F. Kay, Gender in Practice: A Study of Lawyers’ Lives (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 6–12

    Google Scholar 

  5. C.F. Epstein, R. Saute, B. Oglcnsky and M. Gever, “‘Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: Women’s Advancement in the Legal Profession’, A Report to the Committee on Women in the Profession, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York”, Fordham Law Review 64 (1995), 291–449

    Google Scholar 

  6. R.L. Abel, American Lawyers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. Abel and P. Lewis, eds., Lawyers in Society, Vol. 1, The Common Law World, Vol. 2, The Civil Law World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  8. For a discussion of resistance in the American context, see C.F. Epstein, Women in Law (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993, 2nd ed.), 265–302.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Cain, “The Symbol Traders”, in Lawyers in a Postmodern World: Translation and Transgression, ed. M. Cain and C.B. Harrington (Buckingham: Open Press, 1994), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Compare, for example, A.J. Gellis, “Great Expectations: Women in the Legal Profession, A Commentary on State Studies”, Indiana Law Journal 66 (1991), 941–976

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.S. Kaye, “Women Lawyers in Big Firms: A Study in Progress toward Gender Equality”, Fordham Law Review 57 (1988), 111–126. I do not discount, however, the resistance to the feminisation of authoritative positions in other influential areas of end eavour, such as the finance industry. See, for example, L.V. Still, Glass Ceilings and Sticky Floors: Barriers to the Careers of Women in the Australian Finance Industry, A Report prepared for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Westpac (Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  12. B.F. Lentz and D.N. Laband, Sex Discrimination in the Legal Profession (Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Mincer and S. Polachek, “Family Investments in Human Capital: Earnings of Women”, Journal of Political Economy 82 (1974), S76–S108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. G.S. Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1975, 2nd ed.)

  15. S.W. Polachek, “Occupational Self-Selection: A Human Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure”, Review of Economics and Statistics 63 (1981), 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. R.L. Blumberg, “A General Theory of Gender Stratification”, in Sociological Theory, ed. R. Collins (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984)

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Saltzman Chafetz, Sex and Advantage: A Comparative Macro-Structural Theory of Sexual Stratification (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  18. The debt to de Beauvoir for the development of the constructionist thesis should be acknowledged. See S. de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trld. H.M. Parshley (London: Four Square, 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  19. For insightful discussions of the slippery relationship between sex and gender, see M. Gatens, “A Critique of the Sex/Gender Distinction”, in Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power and Corporeality (London: Routledge, 1996), 3–20; Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference, ed. D.L. Rhode (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990); J.W. Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis”, in Coming to Terms: Feminism, Theory, Politics, ed. E. Weed (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 81–100. On the relationship between heterosexuality and gender, sec Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling it Straight, ed. D. Richardson (Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1996). For a valuable discussion of masculinity and the way in which it has been able to reproduce itself through phenomena such as the “new men’s movement”, sec R. Collier, “’Coming Together?’: Post-Hcterosexuality, Masculine Crisis and the New Men’s Movement”, Feminist Legal Studies A (1996), 3–48.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Compare, for example, Trinh T. Minhha, Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 49; Rhode, supra n.15, at 5.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Compare A. Cornwall and N. Lindisfarne, “Dislocating Masculinity: Gender, Power and Anthropology”, in Dislocating Masculinity: Comparative Ethnographies, ed. A. Cornwall and N. Lindisfarne (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  22. While Catharine MacKinnon presents a politically powerful theory of sex inequality that does not ignore cultural and constructionist elements, the frequent conflation of biology, sex and gender conveys a deterministic appearance to her work which leaves little scope for individual agency. See C. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987); Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  23. C. Quadrio, “Current Cinematic Portrayals of the Female Psychiatrist”, Australian Feminist Studies 11 (1996), 115–128, at 120. Sec also M.A. Doane, Femmes Fatales: Feminism, Film Theory, Psychoanalysis (New York: Routledge, 1991). ’

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. K. Jones, Compassionate Authority: Democracy and the Representation of Women (London: Routledge, 1993), 121.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Pateman, “The Disorder of Women’: Women, Love, and the Sense of Justice”, in The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  26. K. Green, The Woman of Reason: Feminism, Humanism and Political Thought (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), 161.

    Google Scholar 

  27. For analyses of the antipathy towards women in the context of the nascent equality discourse at the time of the French Revolution, for example, see Eroticism and the Body Politic, ed. L. Hunt (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991); J.B. Landes, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. Outram, The Body and the French Revolution: Sex, Class and Political Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  29. See, for example, Ambo, “The Bench — A Prospective”, The Summons 4 (1895), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. G. Lloyd, “Woman as Other: Sex, Gender and Subjectivity”, Australian Feminist Studies 10 (1989), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. See, for example, C. Forell, “Reasonable Woman Standard of Care”, University of Tasmania Law Review 11 (1992), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Although there are some recent exceptions. See, for example, R. Collier, “Masculinism, Law and Law Teaching”, International Journal of the Sociology of Law 19 (1991), 427–451; Collier, supra n. 15. The critique of law and legality by the male-dominated American Critical Legal Studies Movement tended to steer clear of gender, as can be seen from the work of leading “Crits” (Critical Scholars). For an overview of the Critical Legal Studies Movement, see R.M. Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Thornton, The Liberal Promise: Anti-Discrimination Legislation in Australia (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  34. See, for example, R. Alejandro, Hermeneutics, Citisenship, and the Public Sphere (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  35. J. Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (New York and London: Routledge, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. Gatens, Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power and Corporeality (London and New York: Routledge, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  37. E. Grosz, Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1994); Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism, ed. E. Grosz and E. Probyn (London: Routledge, 1995); Feminine, Masculine and Representation, ed. T. Threadgold and A. Cranny-Francis (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990). The instability is also reflected in the emerging literature focusing on men’s bodies and the construction of masculinity. See, for example, Collier, supra n. 15; R.W. Connell, Masculinities (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1995); Cornwall and Lindisfarne, supra n.17.

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Gatens, “Corporeal Representation in/and the Body Politic”, in Cartographies: Post-Structuralism and the Mapping of Bodies and Spaces, ed. R. Diprose and R. Ferrell (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1991), 83. Compare Hunt, supra n.27.

    Google Scholar 

  39. E. Grosz, Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1994), x. See also Gatens, Imaginary Bodies, supra n. 15; Diprose and Ferrell, supra n.34; Thinking through the Body of the Law, ed. P. Cheah, D. Fraser and J. Grbich (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. Eveline, “The Worry of Going Limp: Are You Keeping Up in Senior Management?”, Australian Feminist Studies 11 (1996), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. M. Thornton, “‘Liberty, Equality And?’: Endowing Fraternity with Voice”, Sydney Law Review 18 (1996), 553–567.

    Google Scholar 

  42. I do not deny that some women use their sexuality in the workplace to their own advantage, although it is likely to detract from their authority. See, for example, C. Cockburn, In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations (London: Macmillan, 1991), 155.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. For an overview of gendered dualisms and the way they arc systematiscd, see F. Olsen, “Feminism and Critical Legal Theory: An American Perspective”, International Journal of the Sociology of Law 18 (1990), 199–215.

    Google Scholar 

  44. E. Swan, “Managing Emotion”, in Women in Management: A Developing Presence, ed. M. Tanton (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 90.

    Google Scholar 

  45. M. Thornton, “Feminism and the Contradictions of Law Reform”, International Journal of the Sociology of Law 19 (1991), 453–474.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Compare M. Angel, “Sexual Harassment by Judges”, University of Miami Law Review 45 (1991), 817–841.

    Google Scholar 

  47. C.A. MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  48. J. Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trld. L.S. Rondiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982). See also Grosz, Volatile Bodies, supra n.33, esp. at 192–210.

  49. Rationality and reason are also the conventional characteristics of legal method. See M.J. Mossman, “Feminism and Legal Method: The Difference it Makes”, Australian Journal of Law & Society 3 (1986), 30–52. See also N. Naffine, Law and the Sexes: Explorations in Feminist Jurisprudence (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  50. For a discussion of socially sanctioned technologies that are used to discipline pregnant women, averredly in the interests of the foetus, see I. Karpin, “Reimagining Maternal Selfhood: Transgressing Body Boundaries and the Law”, Australian Feminist Law Journal 2 (1994), 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. I.M. Young, “Breasted Experience”, in Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 189–209.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See, for example, M.J. Mossman, “Lawyers and Family Life: New Directions for the 1990s”, Part 1, Feminist Legal Studies 2 (1994), 61–82; Part 2 Feminist Legal Studies 2 (1994), 159–182; Epstein et al., “Glass Ceilings”, supra n.3,427f.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Compare J. Brockman, “‘Resistance by the Club’ to the Feminisation of the Legal Profession”, Canadian Journal of Law & Society 111 (1992), 47–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. D.K. Holmes, “Structural Causes of Dissatisfaction among Large-Firm Attorneys: A Feminist Perspective”, Women’s Rights Law Reporter 12 (1990), 9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  55. The work of feminist ethicists, such as Gilligan and Noddings, have sought to shake off the seeds of invidiousness associated with caring within masculinist discourses. See C. Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press); N. Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

  56. The feminist debate that counterpoises an ethic of justice with an ethic of care has the unfortunate effect of fostering the masculinist myth of autonomy, as shown by G. Clement, Care, Autonomy and Justice: Feminism and the Ethic of Care (Boulder, Col. and Oxford: Westview Press, 1996), 69f.

    Google Scholar 

  57. For analyses of the ambiguous relationship between public and private, see Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates, ed. M. Thornton (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1995); K. O’Donovan, Sexual Divisions in Law (London: Weidenfield, 1985); F.E. Olsen, “The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform”, Harvard Law Review % (1983), 1497–1578.

  58. C. Burton, “Women’s Accommodative Strategies in the Labour Market”, in Gender, Politics and Citizenship in the 1990s, ed. B. Sullivan and G. Whitehouse (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1996), 155

    Google Scholar 

  59. C. Grimwood and R. Popplestone, Women, Management and Care (London: Macmillan, 1993).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. For illustrations of the proposition, see the collection of essays in Asian and Pacific Inscriptions, ed. S. Perera (Melbourne: Meridian, 1995).

  61. For discussion of the contradictions of “feminisation”, see C. Menkel-Meadow, “The Comparative Sociology of Women Lawyers: The ‘Feminisation’ of the Legal Profession”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 124 (1986), 897–918.

    Google Scholar 

  62. A. Game and R. Pringle, Gender at Work (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1983), 18–19 etpassim.

    Google Scholar 

  63. D.E Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  64. D.E Smith, Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling (London: Routledge, 1990).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. Foucault emphasises the fluidity of power which “functions in the form of a chain”. The chain connects individuals so that they become “vehicles of power, not its points of articulation”. See M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon, trld. Gordon et al. (Brighton, U.K.: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1980), 98.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

    Margaret Thornton (Professor of Law and Legal Studies)

Authors
  1. Margaret Thornton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

A version of this paper was presented at Joint Meetings of the American Law and Society Association and the Research Committee on the Sociology of Law of the International Sociological Association, University of Strathdyde, Glasgow, 10–13 July 1996. It draws on research conducted for M. Thornton, Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996). This work was based on interviews with more than 100 women lawyers, including students, practitioners, academics and judges, located in all States of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Interviewees were selected through State law societies, law deans and student law societies, as well as through personal recommendation and “snowballing”. I am indebted to Krysti Guest for conducting many of the interviews and to Jean Crowther for transcribing many of the tapes. I also acknowledge the financial assistance received from the Australian Research Council and the former School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thornton, M. Authority and Corporeality: The Conundrum for Women in Law. Feminist Legal Stud 6, 147–170 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03359628

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03359628

Search

Navigation