The author examines and compares gender inequality in societies undergoing political, economic and legal transformation, and looks at two countries – South Africa and Afghanistan – in particular. These two societies serve as counterpoints through which the book engages, in a nuanced and novel way, with the many broader issues that flow from the attempts in newly democratic societies to give effect to the promise of gender equality. Developing the idea of ‘conditional interdependence’, the book suggests a new approach based on the communitarian values which underpin newly democratic societies and would allow women’s rights to gain momentum and reap greater benefits. [from the publisher]
Ruthann Robson reviewed the book for Jotwell, here.
More about Dean Andrews from the Albany website, here:
Dean Andrews, who was born and raised in South Africa, has extensive international experience, including teaching at law schools in Germany, Australia, Holland, Scotland, Canada and South Africa. An annual award in her name—The Penelope E. Andrews Human Rights Award—was inaugurated in 2005 at the South African law school of University of KwaZulu-Natal. Along with numerous other awards, she holds a “Women of South Africa Achievement Award,” as well as Albany Law’s Kate Stoneman Award, which she received in 2002.
In 2005 she was a finalist for a vacancy on the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the highest court in South Africa on constitutional matters. She has consulted for the United Nations Development Fund for Women, and for the Ford Foundation in Johannesburg, where she evaluated labor law programs. She earned her B.A. and LL.B from the University of Natal, Durban, South Africa, and her LL.M from Columbia University School of Law, New York.
She has published extensively on topics centered on gender and racial equality, South African legal issues, Australian legal issues, and international justice.
Dean Andrews will also be speaking to Professor Dayna Scott’s International Environmental Law class on Monday afternoon on the right to water in South African (constitutional) law.
Women and Wrongful Convictions: Learning from Difference
Dr. Emma Cunliffe is an Associate Professor in the UBC Faculty of Law. Dr. Cunliffe’s research focuses on medical, scientific and behavioural evidence in criminal trials; and more generally considers the interplay between expert knowledges, common sense and legal reasoning. She is the author of Murder, Medicine and Motherhood (Hart Publishing, 2011) which examines the case of Kathleen Folbigg, a mother who was convicted of murdering her children based on misleading medical evidence. Her book demonstrates how legal process, medical knowledge and expectations of motherhood work together when a mother is charged with killing infants who have died in mysterious circumstances. With funding from SSHRC, she is working with Professor Christine Boyle on a project examining child homicide cases in Canada. Dr Cunliffe is a member of the editorial board for the International Journal of Evidence & Proof. At UBC, she teaches criminal law, evidence and a graduate seminar in research methodologies and has won the Killam Award for Teaching Excellence and the George Curtis Memorial Award for Teaching.
Co-Sponsored by: Criminology and the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies
Two really amazing looking CFP’s – one from the Feminism and Legal Theory Project with the conference January in Atlanta, and one from Mount Allison U for 2014.
The Feminism and Legal Theory Project at 30: A Workshop on Geographies of Violence: Place, Space, and Time (Deadline: October 21, 2013)
Location: Emory University School of Law, Atlanta, Georgia. Date: January 24-25, 2014. The summer of 2013 marks the beginning of the 30th year of operation for the Feminism and Legal Theory Project. During the 2013-2014 academic year we will be looking at the history and impact of feminist legal theory in a variety of key areas of concern to those interested in the institutionalization, construction, and maintenance of gender and gender differences, as well as broader issues of social and economic justice. Following in the footsteps of our workshops on sex and reproduction and the family as areas of early feminist legal scholarship, we will consider violence.
Thirty years ago the discussions revolved around “domestic violence,” this workshop will look at the issues more broadly. One overarching question in all the sessions is: what is the role for and future of feminist legal theory and gender analysis in a “post-egalitarian” and “intersectional” world in which claims and analyses based on gender differences are viewed with suspicion? Guiding Questions: What “counts” as violence? How does the space and place in which violence occurs affect our responses to it? Why is there such resistance to the idea of wide-spread gendered violence in American politics? What are the different perspectives on violence reflected in disciplines such as law, medicine, public health, anthropology, political science, ethics, and religion? How do societal institutions act in conjunction with or opposition to the state in understanding and addressing violence? What is the relationship between interpersonal violence and structural violence? Between violence and art and culture? Can the state be understood as violent? What are the benefits and drawbacks in looking at violence from a societal or cultural, rather than an individual or criminal justice, perspective? What would a society designed to eliminate violence look like? What is the relationship between “public” and “private” violence? What can we learn from looking at gender-based violence (broadly conceived) among cultures with different traditions, economic organizations and legal frameworks for gender equality? Is gendered violence endemic to all societies, and inherent in human nature? Or are there identifiable causes and remedies? What about violence against children? What is the relationship between neglect and violence? Can violence ever be justified, for example in the cause of humanitarian interventions? How do the categories of “victim/perpetuator,” “domestic violence,” “intimate partner violence,” and “gendered violence” shape our approaches to law and policy? What is “rape culture” and what are its implications for individual cases of aggression? How does violence shift across the course of the lifespan? How and why should we think differently about violence directed toward different age groups: children, youth, adults, and seniors? What can and should be done to address emerging forms of online bullying and virtual violence? Workshop Contacts: Martha Albertson Fineman, firstname.lastname@example.org, Stu Marvel, email@example.com. Submission procedure: Email a proposal as a Word or PDF document by October 21, 2013 to Yvana Mol at:firstname.lastname@example.org. Decisions will be made by October 31 and working paper drafts will be due December 20 so they can be duplicated and distributed prior to the Workshop. Workshop details: The Workshop begins Friday at 4PM in room 575 of Emory Law School (1301 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA). A dinner in the Hunter Atrium will follow the panel presentation session on Friday. Panel presentations continue on Saturday from 9:30 AM to 5PM and breakfast and lunch will be provided.
Discourse & Dynamics: Canadian Women as Public Intellectuals : Conference on Women as Public Intellectuals in Canada and Quebec, Mount Allison University, (Deadline: October 31, 2013).
CONFERENCE: 16-18 October 2014, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick. This national conference proposes to appraise women’s contributions to dynamic discourse in Canada and Quebec. Scheduled in conjunction with Persons Day, 18 October 2014, the conference will feature among other notable participants Margaret Atwood, Nicole Brossard, Siila Watt-Cloutier, Jessica Danforth, Charlotte Gray, Pam Palmater, Judy Rebick and Janice Stein.
Canadian women have contributed enormously to public discourse, in important but often under-valued ways. Across different generations and cultural communities, women in English Canada and Quebec address key questions that animate intellectual discussion, from concerns about the environment and the economy to issues of social justice, racism, poverty, health and violence. But are their voices valued and heard, or are they subsumed in the general noise of public debate? Why they are not accorded the attention and approbation they merit? The concept of the public intellectual has come under considerable scrutiny in recent years. Classic studies such as The Treason of the Intellectuals (Benda 1928) or The Opium of the Intellectuals (Aron 1957) have been succeeded by further investigations, among them The Last Intellectuals (Jacoby 1987), Representations of the Intellectual (Said 1993), Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline (Posner 2001), Public Intellectuals: An Endangered Species (ed. Etzioni and Bowditch 2006).
In 2007, Toronto Star columnist Alex Good asked “What has become of the Canadian public intellectual?” (“Woe is Us,” 8 April 2007) while Queen’s Quarterly published essays on the matter by Michael Ignatieff (“The Decline and Fall of the Public Intellectual” Fall 1997) and Mark Kingwell (“What are Intellectuals for?” Spring 2011). Kingwell, reflecting on Canada’s most important thinkers, acknowledges that identification is controversial, but mentions McLuhan, Frye, Innis, Woodcock, Grant, Gould, Jacobs, Atwood, Taylor, and Ignatieff. This list is not untypical–most names are those of men. The National Post’s 2005 search for Canada’s most important public intellectual repeats this bias; of the twenty-two individuals profiled, only four were women, Margaret Atwood, Naomi Klein, Irshad Manji and Margaret McMillan. Yet women in Canada and Quebec have spoken and written on subjects of importance and concern in the public domain, from energy resources to free trade, from economic inequality to policies on immigration, from culture to medicine. Where are their names? Does the “public intellectual” brand effectively exclude women? Does its evolving definition take sufficient account of gender? of race? of class?
Proposals are invited for presentations that explore this topic. We are open to a wide range of participation, from individual papers to panels, performances, poster sessions, or other displays. Points of focus might include but are not limited to: refiguring the public intellectual, public intellectuals, activists, academics, artists, commentators: what are the relationships? conditions for the public intellectual, Canadian/Quebec women as public intellectuals of the past/present/future, the internet/blogosphere and the public intellectual, the impact of Canadian/Quebec women’s voices in the public sphere, substance versus style, whom do we listen to and why owning public space, daring to speak out. Proposals for individual or collaborative presentations should include: 1. title (up to 150 characters) 2. abstract
(100-150 words) 3. description (500 words) & on a separate page: 4. a short biographical note 5. full contact information. Proposals may be submitted electronically by October 31, 2013 to DiscourseDynamics@mta.ca ORGANIZERS: Christl Verduyn, Director, Centre for Canadian Studies, Professor, Department of English, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, E4L 1G9. Aritha van Herk, Professor, Department of English, 2500 University Dr. N.W., University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4. A selection of papers will be considered for publication and a follow-up conference is foreseen in 2016 at the University of Calgary.
First msmagazine.com is reporting that more than half of 2012 women voters identify as feminists. And: “…the study found that women of color are more likely to call themselves feminists. Almost three quarters of Latin-American women and 66% of African American female voters self-identify as feminists.” (i know, i know. You want to know more about the polling method – can’t help you there, i don’t have a subscription and I couldn’t find a full report of the poll elsewhere. I’m sure we’ll see it eventually, because there aren’t many people who aren’t pretty surprised by this poll – whether happily or unhappily).
The Feminist Legal Analysis Section of the OBA has changed its name to “Women Lawyers’ Forum”. The first group in the OBA/CBA to focus on women is celebrating its 20th anniversary and moving forward as part of the national women’s conference of the CBA.
I am a Feminist!! I am a feminist!! There I said it!! Let’s face it, for many, it’s the real “f” word!! For me, declaring myself to be a feminist simply means I believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of sex, race, politics etc. What makes this belief so scary or offensive or so hard to acknowledge!!
From long ago Osgoode graduate student Dr. Lolita Buckner Inniss, @auntiefeminist on twitter and blogs here (Ain’t I a Feminist Legal Scholar Too? A blog that explores the relationship between blackness, feminism and feminist legal scholarship). My colleague Dayna Scott and I will have a chance to meet Prof. Onwuachi-Willig on March 8 at this event, a conference based around the collection Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia put on by the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice. But the teach in also looks interesting, and Prof. Buckner Inniss is suggesting thisChronicle of Higher Ed adaptation of Prof. Onwuachi Willig’s piece in the collection.
On March 11, 2013 from 4:00 until 6:00 p.m. in the Fillius Events Barn the Women’s Studies Department of Hamilton College will hostProfessor Angela Onwuachi-Willig of the University of Iowa College of Law. Professor Onwuachi-Willig will lead a faculty/staff teach-in on how gender and race operate in the context of women faculty of color in the academy. One of the launching points of her discussion will be her chapter titled “Silence of the Lambs” from the book Presumed Incompetent. We will continue our discussion informally over a buffet dinner that immediately follows the event. **We would be delighted to have you join us! Hamilton College is especially convenient to those of you in the central/upstate New York region.**
Please click here to indicate whether you will come. Whether or not you can attend, please help us by answering some survey questions that are also located at the link.
Presumed Incompetent (Utah State University Press, 2012) is a groundbreaking account of the intersecting roles of gender, race and class in the working lives of women faculty of color. The book features first person narratives and qualitative empirical studies that examine some of the underlying structural factors that perpetuate bias and exclusion for women of color in the academy.The book also offers concrete recommendations for how institutions can address some of these problems.
Professor Onwuachi-Willig is the Charles and Marion Kierscht Professor of Law at the University of Iowa. She is one of the most-accomplished and best-known scholars in the legal academy. Professor Onwuachi-Willig is the recipient of numerous honors and awards. She was elected to the American Law Institute, has been a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and was a recent finalist for Iowa Supreme Court Justice. Professor Onwuachi-Willig graduated from Grinnell College, Phi Beta Kappa, with a B.A. in American Studies, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School, where she was a Clarence Darrow Scholar, a Note Editor on the Michigan Law Review and an Associate Editor of the founding issue of the Michigan Journal of Race and Law.
Click here to read an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education adapted from Professor Onwuachi-Willig‘s chapter.