Gender and Justice 2017
DOI: 10.4324/9781315093727-11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Equality Pit or the Rehabilitation of Justice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The value of feminist law reform strategies, however, has been the subject of two, related debates. First, feminist critical theorists have argued that law invariably does more harm than good to women; consequently, feminist law reforms are doomed to failure, and feminists ought to resist law's claims to be a force for good and focus their efforts on challenging legal and wider discursive constructions of gender (Brown, 1995;Frug, 1992;Jhappan, 1998;Smart, 1989Smart, , 1990Smart, , 1995Thornton, 1991). While this has been a powerful and influential argument, it has also been contested as being overly pessimistic and essentialist and as failing to account for potential ambivalence in the meaning of particular reforms (Hunter, 2012;Sandland, 1995).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value of feminist law reform strategies, however, has been the subject of two, related debates. First, feminist critical theorists have argued that law invariably does more harm than good to women; consequently, feminist law reforms are doomed to failure, and feminists ought to resist law's claims to be a force for good and focus their efforts on challenging legal and wider discursive constructions of gender (Brown, 1995;Frug, 1992;Jhappan, 1998;Smart, 1989Smart, , 1990Smart, , 1995Thornton, 1991). While this has been a powerful and influential argument, it has also been contested as being overly pessimistic and essentialist and as failing to account for potential ambivalence in the meaning of particular reforms (Hunter, 2012;Sandland, 1995).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%