{"title":"女权主义的判断","authors":"Kristin Kalsem","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197519998.013.32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1980s, feminists have been theorizing about what feminism means and should mean in the context of judging. Different philosophies have informed scholarly and advocacy efforts to address institutional gender bias in the courts, with priorities and strategies shifting over time. Initiatives have expanded to include calls for greater diversity on the bench and improving the process of dispensing justice. This chapter begins by canvassing multiple reasons why more “outsider” judges, marked by gender, race, ethnicity, and other marginalized identities, are desirable. It then examines the ideal of “feminist judging,” concluding with two recent scholarly projects that integrate feminist judging into real-world practices of the judiciary. One project involves training judges using methods of legal participatory action research, a community-based research paradigm that takes a bottom-up approach; the other Feminist Judgments project reimagines landmark legal cases through the rewriting of judicial opinions from feminist perspectives.","PeriodicalId":127651,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Feminism and Law in the United States","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feminist Judging\",\"authors\":\"Kristin Kalsem\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197519998.013.32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the 1980s, feminists have been theorizing about what feminism means and should mean in the context of judging. Different philosophies have informed scholarly and advocacy efforts to address institutional gender bias in the courts, with priorities and strategies shifting over time. Initiatives have expanded to include calls for greater diversity on the bench and improving the process of dispensing justice. This chapter begins by canvassing multiple reasons why more “outsider” judges, marked by gender, race, ethnicity, and other marginalized identities, are desirable. It then examines the ideal of “feminist judging,” concluding with two recent scholarly projects that integrate feminist judging into real-world practices of the judiciary. One project involves training judges using methods of legal participatory action research, a community-based research paradigm that takes a bottom-up approach; the other Feminist Judgments project reimagines landmark legal cases through the rewriting of judicial opinions from feminist perspectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Feminism and Law in the United States\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Feminism and Law in the United States\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197519998.013.32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Feminism and Law in the United States","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197519998.013.32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自20世纪80年代以来,女权主义者一直在理论化女权主义在评判背景下意味着什么以及应该意味着什么。不同的哲学为学术和倡导工作提供了信息,以解决法院中的制度性性别偏见,优先事项和策略随着时间的推移而变化。倡议已经扩大到包括要求法官更多样化和改进司法程序。这一章首先讨论了为什么需要更多以性别、种族、民族和其他边缘身份为标志的“局外人”法官的多种原因。然后,它考察了“女权主义审判”的理想,并以最近的两个将女权主义审判融入现实世界司法实践的学术项目作为结论。一个项目涉及使用法律参与性行动研究方法培训法官,这是一种自下而上的社区研究范式;其他女权主义判决项目通过从女权主义角度重写司法意见来重新想象具有里程碑意义的法律案件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Feminist Judging
Since the 1980s, feminists have been theorizing about what feminism means and should mean in the context of judging. Different philosophies have informed scholarly and advocacy efforts to address institutional gender bias in the courts, with priorities and strategies shifting over time. Initiatives have expanded to include calls for greater diversity on the bench and improving the process of dispensing justice. This chapter begins by canvassing multiple reasons why more “outsider” judges, marked by gender, race, ethnicity, and other marginalized identities, are desirable. It then examines the ideal of “feminist judging,” concluding with two recent scholarly projects that integrate feminist judging into real-world practices of the judiciary. One project involves training judges using methods of legal participatory action research, a community-based research paradigm that takes a bottom-up approach; the other Feminist Judgments project reimagines landmark legal cases through the rewriting of judicial opinions from feminist perspectives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Gender Disruption, Amelioration, and Transformation Liberal Feminist Jurisprudence A Relational Approach to Law and Its Core Concepts Backlash Against Feminism Feminist Judging
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1