10 posts tagged “law”

I've written a few politically-oriented blogs in my blogspot account, and I scored a C on my Criminal Law midterm (yessss).  I have a legal memorandum due Monday that I don't want to start.  I've reached that plateau in the school year where I just don't give a--

I turn 21 on November 6th.  I'm going to a casino midnight of that day, and then I'll celebrate with alcohol some later time.  I'm not planning to get trashed because I don't want to go that far, honestly.  Not while I'm staying home.  Is it sad that I don't want to have sex because it freaks me out and ugly people do it?  If porn needs to be banned for any reason, it should relate tangentially to its newfound equal opportunity.  Everyone with a wee-wee or a hoohah (or both) should not be in front of the camera.  Seriously.  *shudder*

And maybe I'm being immature but...*convulsion*  I am not joining the ranks of people who do that.  The fluids and the noises...!  How do people...I mean...I can hardly masturbate without laughing at myself.  I feel great and then I feel so dumb.  Even when I fool around with my boyfriend (no offense, boyfriend), I'm into it in that moment, but afterwards I just...wonder what the hell I did, why I did it, and why I have to do it. 

I feel like a 12-year-old, so I'll stop here with the sex reflection.  But I do want to reproduce my most recent class experience.

Shifting Objectifications Solve Nothing -or- How to Oppress a [White] Woman

While the title of this post does connect indirectly to the discussion over at nubian's blog, it also relates to an experience I had in my Contracts class today.

Two key points:

1. Objectification isn't cool, regardless of who uses it.
2. Objectification isn't cool, regardless of whom is objectified.

Point 1 is exemplified in that comment thread about Jessica Valenti's new book, Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters. (The comment thread on Feministing's pretty interesting as well.) Using another form of objectifying women to promote something good is still objectifying and commodifying women's bodies. You're using the body part of a woman to market your product. Period. It doesn't matter if you're marketing jewelry, alcohol, guns, feminism, world peace, or Jesus. If you use the body part of a person or the image of a person to sell or to market something, you're using that person as a means to accomplish your own ends. As Kant would say, "That's pretty fucked up." Doesn't matter how much you have in common with the person, either. So, how do you singlehandedly oppress a woman and make her cry? You explain to her that using the tools of the patriarchy to dismantle the patriarchy make you no better than the patriarchy. In other words: you wrong and you ain't special. Besides, shouldn't we question why subversion is powerful and what exactly makes it powerful? What powers are we using, people? And if they're identical to the powers used against us, do our intentions/motivations really matter in the end?

Point 2 happened today in Contracts class. I swear, when our professor gets laid, his personality improves. Today he exchanged cake for giving correct answers in class. (Okay, his new weirdness could link to drugs, but HE HAD CAKE!) Today's class introduced the subject of damages for breaching a contract. We went over the fundamentals of two ways to compensate damages for breach: expectancy and reliance. My notes describe the difference thusly:

Reliance damages measure the difference between post-K (where you are now) and pre-K (where you were before) situations. Expectancy damages weigh the difference between expected results (where you would have been had no breach occurred) and actual results (where you are presently).

Our first case illustrating the weight of these two theories for calculating damages dealt with plastic surgery. (I believe the name of the case is Sullivan v. O'Connor.) The judges deliberating on Sullivan's appeal toed the line between reliance and expectancy calculations. Our main take-away point for the day emphasized that expectancy calculations would result in higher costs than reliance calculations. However, our teacher chose a very...interesting way to illustrate this example.

First, he proclaimed that he wanted to avoid anything that would anger feminists. Since Sullivan involves a "professional entertainer" suing for a botched nose job, our professor switched the facts. He transformed the plaintiff into a male seeking ab construction surgery. Then he "regrettably" drew a scale on the board from 1-10, corresponding of course with any infamous beauty/sexiness ranking scale.

Mr. Sullivan's abs before surgery rated as a 5. However, his "5" abs weren't raking in the sexist chauvinist female pig ladies (and I'm quoting), so he decided to go under the knife to obtain Brad Pitt in Thelma and Louise abdominals (ranked 11 on his scale o' sex). After surgery, poor Mr. Sullivan's abs failed the cut and have sank to a rating of 1. Ouch.

So on this scale, he illustrated the difference between expectancy and reliance. Using the expectancy scale, Mr. Sullivan would collect a hefty penny because the difference between an 11 rating and a 1 rating is a whole fucking lot. To illustrate the reliance rating, our professor then waded deeper into the pool of stupid: he equated Mr. Sullivan's ability to woo women with their level of intoxication at the first meeting. Yes, he went there. He argued that before the operation, Mr. Sullivan only needed three beers to distort the woman's judgment enough in his favor. However, after the botch job, Sullivan will require many more beers for women to ignore his newly created potbelly, so to speak. So his reliance calculations would determine the difference between his post-op situation (1 rating) and his pre-op situation (5 rating).

So after a day of cake sharing, objectification of males, objectification/denigration of females, and a strange streak of quality teaching, our professor calls it a day. We all pack to leave, and my friends realize that my [white] female friend is fuming at this lesson, to the point that she is physically trembling with anger, and she leaves the room immediately after the conclusion of class. I was pissed off as well, but after the last time I became angry about something that affected me deeply, I now try my hardest to focus on the lesson and to let the stupid fade to the background. (This is the same friend that I referenced as an anti-racist sympathizer in my post.)

A few of my friends (of course) did not understand what the big deal was. I mean, he did it with guys! Come on! He left women alone! What's the problem?! Specifically, what is HER problem?! I explained as plaintively and as calmly as I could that it does not matter who is the target of objectification -- objectification is wrong. It is also condescending to think that feminists speak out against patriarchy because they want to establish an equally wrong matriarchy in its stead. Of course, they all just scoffed and rolled their eyes at the whole situation. We Kwazy Lib'wals Wif Owr Kwazy Ideaz.

I referred to this instance in my title as oppression of white women because I found it strange that I did not have as visceral of a response as my friend did. If it were a racist matter, I would have been upset. If it were a racist and sexual matter, I would've cut somebody. But just sexist? Especially a sexist stereotype that's lumped more heavily on the heads of young white women and glosses over other women? Not so much. I wondered why that was.

I think I became jaded after a Philosophical Issues in Feminism undergraduate course where perspectives of women of color emerged nowhere in the curriculum or the discussion unless one of the five women of color made a tangential comment about it. The end-of-term discussion really fucking pissed me off after hearing all these white women around me talk about how ending sexist treatment "trumps" ending racist treatment. Good thing a section of me is saved; I guess the rest of me can go to shit in other ways.

I raised my hand and made the point that eliminating sexism will not be successful until we eliminate racism, homophobia, ablism, transphobia -- we have to tackle all the oppression-laced -isms and cooperate. My white female classmates then informed me that I would unfortunately have to wait until their problems were solved. One of them explicitly turned to me and said, "Yeah, but that stuff can come after we're done with sexism, you know?" As a way to placate me. I don't know how I resisted punching her in the face, especially since I was running on a half-hour's worth of rest for the second day in a row. I remember how livid I was, and I wrote very sloppily on the course evaluation that more course readings written by women of color need incorporation into the course.

So I guess as long as people felt comfortable spitting on different aspects of my identity, I tried to write off my disconnect as an ability to develop affinities and responses to individual violations of them as I please. Today, however, I realized that insulting one part insults the whole being. I can't accept that or tolerate it. The difficulty starts here.

What was the last game you played?

Diner Dash.  In my Civil Procedure I class.  I'm so terrified of what that class's final could possibly encompass because we're traveling slower than a snail tied to an anvil.

What books are on your nightstand?

I have way way way too many books on my nightstand because it's doubling as a bookshelf.  I'll put a few titles here, though, because I think it's a good question.

1. Sula by Toni Morrison
2. Every Tongue Got to Confess: Negro Folk Tales from the Gulf States by Zora Neale Hurston
3. Go Tell It on the Mountain by James Baldwin
4. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain
5. Fear and Trembling/The Sickness unto Death by Soren Kierkegaard
6. The Rebel by Albert Camus
7. Inferno by Dante Alighieri (translated by Mark Musa)
8. Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankel
9. Language and Myth by Ernst Cassirer
10. Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy
    
11. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling
12. The Bible by Jesus :-p
13. Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

But what I'm really about to read are my Torts and Civil Procedure case books, along with referencing my Federal Rules of Civil Procedure book.  Life sucks that way. 

When was the last time you had to speak in front of a group?  How did you feel?

The last time I had to speak in front of a group (do law classes count?) was in early May.  I had to deliver a presentation on Sociology of Law concerning black feminism.  My main thrust was the fact that oppression essentially has the same components, but each component is tailored to the exclusion of different groups of people, producing different effects and experiences.  While the overall goal of all minority/excluded groups is to eliminate oppression, all groups must work together and share collectively the experiences they've had with oppression to combat it effectively.  We need to stop trying to outrank each other in how discrimination and atrocities have affected our growth and perceptions. 

Well, I explained black feminism, but that was the overall point I made in explaining why studying black feminism was particularly important.  I was very nervous and I kept repeating talking points...but I think I did well.  I'm used to doing things in front of groups because I did a lot of theatre, but I have a lot of trouble talking to people in small groups and networking one-on-one with others.  I can't just go up to someone and say "Hi" to them.  It creeps me out and I can't explain why it does.

That title isn't made with as much righteous indignation as you would expect, because I am trying to view the law school experience as a learning and growing opportunity.

I volunteered information in class today.  :) 
Unsolicited, no less! 

Professors next week will be using the Socratic method, so I need to bone up on all my notetaking and reading assignments.  I also need to figure out how planners and calendars work. 

The more I cycled through orientation and processed the feedback I received from my teaching assistant, the more I realized that majoring in Law & Society at Hood was probably a slight waste.  In some ways, I am pretty familiar with reading cases that the length and density doesn't bother me.  However, my LARW (Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing) course has us doing the "maxi brief" that is incredibly redundant and whose composition is so complex.  I can no longer use my pretty fonts (I have to use shitty old Times New Roman). 

With all the reading and gruntwork law school requires, my social life will be condensed into an inkling of time where I enter a room and plug into an oxygen tank.  There's SO MUCH to learn in so little time.  I just hope I have what it takes to succeed.  Plus, our law school doesn't seem nearly as competitive as other law schools are rumored to be, but I may be making this observation too soon.  It's only been one week, and I've only had one course.  But I can already tell that law school is wildly and radically different from undergrad.

Yesterday morning, I was watching my favorite local morning news station (which happens to be Fox because it keeps the weather and statistics on a readable sidebar throughout the morning, even during commercial breaks) and another interview occurred concerning the Lamar Owens rape trial.  Basically, the jury granted Owens a "not guilty" verdict for the charges of sexual assault, but they did find him guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer because midshipmen and women aren't supposed to have sex on campus.  (Like it doesn't happen all the time.)  Anyway, the penalty for violating that rule is expulsion from the Academy. 

But there's a problem, and I brought it up when someone touched on the case in the LiveJournal feminist community.

Everyone testifying in the trial received immunity for cooperating, including the woman who accused Owens of rape/was his sexual partner.  So, regardless of the fact he's not guilty of rape, only he can still potentially be removed from the Naval Academy.  I thought this rule was unfair when I first heard coverage of the trial, and I still think it isn't fair now. 

So the morning news decided to conduct an interview with the head of the Anne Arundel County division of the NAACP.  The reporters asked their signature stupid questions; in this case, she kept pressing the head of the NAACP to answer questions about Navy protocol when dealing with sexual crimes on campus.  Of course, the man didn't know the answer, but he then launched into the typical civil rights rhetoric about how the Naval Academy proceedings are going about this situation unfairly, and how Owens remains the only one singled out for punishment.  I agree with both.  However, he then brings race in as a factor (Owens is black; all others related to the trial are white) and calls attention to his situation as victimization.  One thing that I am glad the man did recognize is the fact that the jury that acquitted him of rape charges was all white.  However, as the article I linked to details, the consequences of this entire situation rests unfairly and heavily on Owens' shoulders.  I hope he is able to graduate, honestly. 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_re_us/minority_women_lawyers
 
HONOLULU - An American Indian attorney is asked where she keeps her tomahawk. White male partners look past a black lawyer, assuming she is clerical staff. An Asian attorney is called a "dragon lady" when she asserts herself.

A study by the American Bar Association that says those real-life experiences, along with more subtle forms of discrimination, are prompting growing numbers of minority women to abandon the nation's biggest law firms.

"We're not even talking about trying to get up through a glass ceiling; we're trying to stay above ground," said Paulette Brown, co-chairwoman of the group that produced the study, released Friday during the bar association's annual convention.

The report, "Visible Invisibility: Women of Color in Law Firms," was conducted by the bar association with the help of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Questionnaires were sent to about 1,300 attorneys, both men and women, and responses came from 72 percent, or 920.

Law firms exclude minority women from golf outings, after-hours drinks and other networking events, the study says. Partners neglect the women of color they are supposed to help mentor.

In some cases, partners and senior lawyers disregard minority women less because of outright bigotry than because they have less in common with them and thus don't connect well with them, the study found.

Firms routinely hand minority women inferior assignments — such as reviewing documents or writing briefs — that provide little opportunity to meet clients, the study says. That means women of color aren't able to cultivate business relationships and develop the "billable hours" that are the basis of career advancement within a firm.

Among the statistics in the study:

• Forty-four percent of women of color said they were denied desirable assignments, versus 2 percent of white men.

• Forty-three percent of women of color said they had limited access to client development opportunities, compared with 3 percent of white men.

• Nearly two-thirds of women of color said they were excluded from informal and formal networking opportunities, compared with 4 percent of white men.

Such discrimination largely goes unchecked at law firms, forcing women to quit if they want to avoid it, Brown said.

The study cited 2005 data from the National Association of Law Placement showing 81 percent of minority female associates left their jobs within five years of being hired. That figure was up from the late 1990s, when it stood at 75 percent.

Elaine Johnson James, who is black and a partner at the firm Edwards, Angell, Palmer and Dodge, said she has seen such defections.

She recently called classmates from her Harvard law class in an effort to find black law partners to speak at an alumni panel. Of the 50 or so black women in her class and in the classes above and below hers, James said she found only one other than herself working at a firm.

"Harvard, now; you've got to figure if anybody's going to stick, it would be us," James said. "It's amazing that we have left the private practice of law in droves."

Michael Greco, the bar association president, said managing partners at law firms — mostly white men — need to dedicate themselves to reform.

"This is intolerable," Greco said at a news conference. "It stings the conscience of our profession."

This article strikes particularly close to my heart because I'm starting law school next week.  It really saddens me that women of color are so alienated.  It's not an issue of whether they're successful or have the acumen to do the job; but the social atmosphere is what keeps them behind the 8-ball.  It's ridiculous that even in a profession that claims to work for justice and equality that these complaints are arising.  I don't know what to say; I'm just really depressed. 

So, how did do with that weekend goal? No goal? What did you do this weekend?

This weekend, I embarked on an academic journey.  (In that sentence, "academic" can be replaced with "frustrating," "headache-inducing," and "genuinely awesome.")  One of my five courses decided to give us a summer reading and home assignment three weeks before law school orientation.  Legal Analysis, Research & Writing is the name of this now-notorious course (it's notorious in my head, at least).  This assignment alone has accounted for a recommended 120+ pages of reading, a case to brief (and to make matters worse, the case was written in the 1840s, so the language is appropriately dense and trite), and ample notes to jot down about turning in assignments, grading curves, and practices for time management.  I need the time management skills, but Christ on a cracker, I haven't had a fully decent summer break!  lol

I've made it a personal point that whenever I type "lol," I actually try to laugh out loud so that it's not a meaningless waste of finger exercise.  So I did a small chuckle when I typed that last bit. 

Anyway, my mom and I have been refining the particulars of a lawsuit that we're pursuing.  I'm probably not at liberty to speak about it publicly, so I won't give any of the juicy details here.  However, we did a lot of calls, faxing, and copying.  At first, I felt apathetic about the whole thing, but now, I understand the value of the civil justice system.  However, that value judgment will help me little when I attack that case abstract for orientation week.  ARGH.

I spent all day Saturday resting on my laurels because of muscle relaxers I've had to take, and I did quite a bit of legal scholarship and absorbing information.  Once I get into the nitty-gritty of writing notes (with an actual pen and piece of paper), I'll feel more comfortable with starting law school next week. 

On Friday I missed work, and I have to send in my doctor's note stating as much to the temporary agency for which I work.  I ate ice cream!  And chocolate!  And egg rolls!  And I've grown fatter! 

Yesterday, I watched Big Brother: All Stars; it's my favorite reality show.  (I'm referring to the United States version, by the way.)  Don't ask me why; it just is.  It's one of the very few shows of which I've seen every single season.  And it makes watching All-Stars bittersweet.  I composed an update for my boyfriend, so I guess I'll post it here, complete with all my commentary:

Well, let's see. 

The Big Brother 6 HoH powerhouse is finally over, because none of the four players won Head of Household this week.  Danielle won it after she and Erica were the only two players left, and she asked Erica to let her have it. 

Mike Boogie (Will's alliance partner) ended up winning the $10,000 in one of the golden eggs, James got the prize where you get to cancel one of the eviction nominations made that week, and Marcellas won the "get out of eating slop for a week" card. 

Marcellas ended up using his slop-free card on Chicken George.  He did it for strategic reasons rather than out of goodwill, but George doesn't know that.  At first, George wouldn't take it but then he finally caved and enjoyed the pizza the rest of the household got to eat. 

Danielle, as Head of Household, has hatched a plan to get rid of Janelle (since she royally screwed everything up last week).  She put Janelle and James on the block, but she is secretly on James's side, and she's gunning for James to win the veto because he had a reputation of winning tons of vetoes on Big Brother 6.  James wants Janelle out too, so he agreed to it, even at the risk of sticking out his own neck.  Plus, it keeps the house from suspecting that he and Danielle are working together. 

Will and Boogie are still on their high horses because they feel like they're sailing underneath the radar.  Danielle's main goal is to get one of the Season Six people out of the house.  She tried to talk to Kaysar to figure out why his alliance failed to get rid of Chilltown -- especially since Chilltown's been talking about eliminating the Season Six people since day one.  But Kaysar could not offer a good defense for why they did it.  He's too busy trying to keep the alliance together, but Janelle messed that up last week because now James is turning on them. 

So to summarize:

Danielle: Head of Household
Janelle and James: Nominees
George: Gets food for this week, thanks to Marcellas
Mike Boogie: Won $10,000
James: Won that eviction nomination veto thingy (which he may still use since it's his ace in the hole)

And I think that's it as far as tonight's episode.  I hope Danielle's plan works; otherwise, it's going to really bite her in the ass later.  *crosses fingers*

 

So, that's my weekend: lots of law school work, rest, and too much interest in Big Brother to really matter.  Adieu!

 

Despite the fact I've been classically trained in political goings-on (not a political science major, per se, but a Law & Society major -- it's a wacky mccrazy blend of legal theory, case law, sociology, and a little philosophy and political science thrown in), I'm not too savvy on the attention lavished on the Connecticut primary for the Senate seat.  It's a race between Joseph "Joe" Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, a Jewish man, and Gore's former running-mate when he ran for the presidency, and some other dude named Ned Lamont.  Meet the Press says Lamont's giving Lieberman a run for his money. 

Since Lieberman's an incumbent to the Connecticut Senate seat, and Lamont appears to be campaigning hard, this race is being watched in all of its partisan nakedness for dirty tricks, spin, baiting, and propagandizing.  Issues are not important.  It's not about what you necessarily can do; it's all about who you know and your associations.  Cue the intense distancing between Lieberman and the Bush administration over that dirty, dirty War on Terror.

But that's not the reason I care.  I spotted this on Reappropriate.com: Apparently, the face of political campaigning and support has turned black.  Now, as an African-American, I know something's wrong with that picture.  Granted, most black Democrats do think of Clinton as the first black president, or the only one they'd care to endorse.  (Getting head in the Oval Office?  Sweet!)  However, nothing about that picture really brings that home for me when I notice Lieberman's in blackface.  What sort of message is that picture attempting to bring home for me? 

• People will stop at nothing to encourage or discourage support for a politician's campaign, even when using something so blatantly racially insensitive;
• When interpreting pictures such as these, somehow viewers are supposed to look beyond the offense and pinpoint the artist's "message" (but if you encode your message in something morally repugnant, no one's going to look at your "art" for very long); and
• Politics will continue to reign so long as no one exposes it for the manipulating sophistry it is.  Where is our generation's Socrates -- the lone person who travels amongst these thieves and panderers, asking why they're professing a morality they've never seen?

I mean, yeah, we have Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (pronounced kohl-behr)...  I suppose that's a somewhat good start.  But where's our rags-to-hemlock champion inquisitor? 

Hi, and welcome to my brand spanking new Vox blog. 

 

I'm 20 years old (turning 21 on November 6th), and I hail from Baltimore, Maryland.  The city, not the county.  Yes, there is a very palpable difference between the two areas.  Being born and raised here, I can safely say that Baltimore is crappy...yet loveable.  As much as I complain about it, I don't think I'd trade it for any other place in the world.  Okay, that statement's pushing it; I haven't been many places.  But you love where you are when you do what you do well.  

What do I do well?  I'm a temp who does office and receptionist work.  Queen of the Mundane Taskforce.  I'm one of the many minions of the corporate world.  My job characterizes what Hannah Arendt aptly described as "the banality of evil."  I sacrifice all human emotion and will to power when I sit behind this desk, contemplating ways to filch small trophies from The Man.  There's no soul behind the voice that answers the phone calls or the hand that sorts the mail.  But never interfere in the Mundane Taskforce's bland monotony, or you will incite an anger unrivaled by the highest higher-up. 

I will not work as a receptionist much longer.  In fact, I only have four more days to go.  After this little adventure, I will move on to the big bad world of 1L Hell.  I'm attending the University of Baltimore School of Law.  I want to go into civil rights or constitutional law.  (There's not much of a difference between the two, but I'd prefer the former to the latter.)  And over the next week, I'm already burdened with over 100 pages of reading and a brief to prepare for only one class.  This is going to be sheer brilliance wrapped in a bullet.