Tag Archives: jotwell

Leckey likes Monk (lots!) at jotwell equality: The Problem of (condemning) Homophobic Bullying

Even as we celebrate the news that the UN Sec’y General has said that homophobic bullying is a grave human rights violation,

It affects young people all the way through to adulthood, causing enormous and unnecessary suffering. Bullied children may become depressed and drop out of school. Some are even driven to suicide.

can i urge you all to take a look at Robert Leckey’s review of  Daniel Monk (Birkbeck), Challenging Homophobic Bullying in Schools: The Politics of Progress, 7 (2) Int’l J. L. Context 181 (2011at Jotwell Equality?  And then of course, read the original article here (not available free of charge as far as I can tell, curses! *tangent: see Danah Boyd’s excellent and important ‘rant’ on academic publishing here)?  Leckey writes approvingly (inter alia) of Monk’s “counterintuitive” argument that:

the problematization of homophobic bullying has ushered in a shift by which the negative characteristics once associated with homosexuality are now associated with the victims of bullying. “Development into successful normal adulthood is not ‘arrested’ by paternal or maternal attachment, but rather by homophobia itself. In other words, the development question now is not, ‘What makes someone homosexual?’, but instead ‘What makes someone behave in a way that fails to conform to heteronormative behaviour’.” The queer youth remains “a reassuringly distinct and tragic ‘other’ from that of the heterosexual.” Now the developmental cause is not homosexuality, but bullying. The upshot? Queer youth still need help.

Jotwell: Filtering information overload (what articles to read); also shameless self promotion, and "critical praise"

I’ve posted here about Jotwell before. Five times, it seems.  But recently I posted an announcement of a new Jotwell equality section.  Kim Brooks, Dean of Dalhousie Law, and I are the section editors, and the contributors are an amazing list of equality scholars (listed below – for links and pictures, click here).  Jotwell offers one way out of the dilemma of “what to read next when there’s too much out there”, and a related dilemma of increasing niche-ification, where suddenly people who work in a very similar area to you don’t read any of the same things – and only about 3 people in the world read the things you read.  There are obviously good reasons why this happens, but when another result is that it’s difficult to have academic conversation even with people who are, broadly speaking, in your field, it’s frustrating.

With that in mind, my own Jotwell “jot” (this is what they are called), went up recently. Would you like to read it (jots aren’t per se summaries, but they do have to indicate why the editor liked the recommend piece, and they are short)?  Ruthann Robson, one of the contributing editors, then posted on my post.  See? Connections.  And one author of the piece wrote me a lovely note of thanks.

You should know that Prof. Michael Froomkin, who runs Jotwell, is serious about the “liking lots” part of Jotwell’s mission.  You have to like the piece enough to say only good things.  This may not initially seem “critical” enough.  Yet the struggle to get my mind around the notion that rather than seeking to criticize, I needed to critically examine how the piece is excellent was itself instructive about how I have trained my thinking.  Something new – critical praise.

 

Contributing Editors of the Jotwell Equality Section

Professor Davina Cooper University of Kent Law School

Professor Elaine Craig  Dalhousie University – Schulich School of Law

Professor Margaret Davies Flinders University School of Law

Professor Katherine Franke Director, Center for Gender and Sexuality Law Columbia Law School

Professor Isabel Grant University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law

Professor Robert Leckey McGill University, Faculty of Law

Professor Val Napoleon University of Alberta

Professor Camile Nelson Dean and Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School

Professor Ruthann Robson Professor of Law and University Distinguished Professor City University of New York School of Law

Professor Toni Williams University of Kent Law School

jotwell, women's legal history (cdn edition): Feminized not Feminist Justice

Jotwell: Legal History Feminized not Feminist Justice at the Toronto Women’s Court

 

Angela Fernandez (U Toronto Law) tells us why she likes Amanda Glasbeek’s book – lots – over at Jotwell.  I briefly mentioned it here, but I really like Angela’s take on it (short clip below, link to whole piece above).  I also really like to see Canadian women who do feminist legal studies telling the world about each others work, right? Thanks Angela and Amanda.

Glasbeek has produced an extremely interesting and thought-provoking study for anyone interested in issues related to women-in-the-law, especially those related to women judges and whether they make a difference, the history of female crime and criminology, and generally good law-and-society legal history.  My sense is that there was a period of time when feminist or feminist-friendly academics felt it was some kind of betrayal of path-breaking feminists to point out just how outrageous some of these early initiatives were.  See, for example, Glasbeek’s discussion of what counted in this court’s estimation as “occasional prostitution” (see p. 97-98) or what could happen to you if you were arrested for petting in the park on a date (see p. 101).  However, outrageous is not a characterization Glasbeek would use, as she is always very careful in the book to outline the logic of maternal feminist ideology without dismissing it outright.  I take it that the choice in the title reflects Glasbeek’s judgment at the end of the day, feminized justice not feminist justice.  This is far from anyone’s ideal feminist justice even if it was the (deeply flawed) product of the feminists of its day.

Does this not make you leery about what the feminists of 2085 will make of our efforts? Well, I suppose it should.