pageok
pageok
pageok
"Where Are The Women? A precious few were published in recent addition of the UCLA Law Review":

Ann Bartow (Feminist Law Professors) asks this, following up with, "Invited articles by fourteen men, but only two women, in a Symposium edition?" Since the Symposium was one that I coedited, and since my fellow organizer and I were responsible for the invitations, I thought I'd mention this.

First, one should look at the topic of the symposium, which was "The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms After D.C. v. Heller." In fact, here's what the first commenter, "uclastudent," said about this:

One, the slating of the Symposium Issue of the UCLA Law Review is done not by the Law Review staff but by the faculty.

Two, this symposium was on the Second Amendment. It's my understanding that this topic tends to be dominated by a small group of legal scholars. I would not blame the Law Review or the faculty for any gender imbalances here.

Here's Ann Bartow's response:

Two, this symposium was on the Second Amendment.

Really? I had no idea! Asshole.

Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship. So the field was pretty open, and more women could have easily, and without any quality dilution, have been included.

Now, the first comment seemed to be pretty civil, and sensible. The "this symposium was on the Second Amendment" statement didn't seem to me to be said snidely, or as some revelation; it introduced the point of the paragraph, which is that the choice of panelists turned in large measure on who was prominent in that particular field. Does this really merit an "Asshole." in response?

But as to the merits, it turns out that every one of the articles in the symposium had as its author or lead coauthor either (1) someone who has written either extensively or prominently on the Second Amendment, (2) someone who has written a vast amount on gun control policy (Cook and Kleck, who to my knowledge are the two top scholars on the subject in the country), or (3) the winning lawyer (Gura). This leads me to think that Prof. Bartow doesn't actually know the field that well, since it's hard to see how her "Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship" can be correct. (I realize that what constitutes a "particularly notable record" is somewhat subjective, but it's hard to see how she can find "many" under that standard, unless she just categorically excludes the relevance of leading gun control policy scholars or the winning lawyer.) And if I'm right that she doesn't know the field well, how is it that she can be so confident that "more women could have easily, and without any quality dilution, have been included"?

This having been said, I will happily announce that I had absolutely no desire to add more women, or to add more men, to the mix. (I have no knowledge about my fellow organizer's thoughts on the matter.) But I don't think I need to debate here whether conference organizers should consciously seek women panelists when "more women could ... easily, and without any quality dilution, [be] included," given that Prof. Bartow offers no factual support for her assertion that such a thing would even be possible.

Finally, there certainly are some female constitutional law scholars, as well as some male constitutional law scholars, who are so extremely prominent that they are worth asking to the conference even if they haven't written anything on the Second Amendment or on gun control policy. The bar is naturally higher for them, but there certainly are such. We in fact invited both women and men in this category; as it happens, though, the only people who accepted were ones who fit in the three categories I identified.

So we have a vulgar insult of a perfectly reasonable commenter. We have what strikes me as either an incorrect summary of the credentials of those who participated, or at best an unreasonably blinkered sense of what credentials conference organizers might look for (that's if Prof. Bartow's view is that Cook's and Kleck's stature as gun control policy scholars, and Alan Gura's role in the case, don't count as relevant credentials). And we have an unsupported generalization about how there were other equally qualified women whom we could have included. All in all, not a particularly persuasive criticism, it seems to me.

3090:
The exchange doesn't reflect well on Bartow, but your civility, Eugene, is one reason I think people take you seriously. Good job.
7.13.2009 8:42am
mic deniro (mail):
Back in the 80's I organized a Gordon Research Conference I was going to call "Diet and the Evolution of Man" until a postdoc of mine, a woman, saved me from that tone-deaf effort. The Conference went off as "Diet and Human Evolution."

Ms. Bartow could have dodged EV's criticism by writing:

Two, this symposium was on the Second Amendment.

Really? I had no idea what the symposium was about, asshole.
7.13.2009 8:51am
rosetta's stones:
7.13.2009 8:53am
stevesturm:
I recall something in the news recently similar to this situation, where the lack of an 'acceptable' mix in the list of invitees is evidence of bias and where the burden is on you to prove your innocence rather than on the accuser to prove her allegations.

And I hope you weren't surprised by her response, as 'a*****e' is definitely a proper label for someone on the side of sexist bigots.
7.13.2009 8:54am
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
If Ann Bartow cannot divine the meaning of simple correspondence without perceiving a condescending insult and responding with overt insult, on what basis do we believe she can correctly interpret the Bill of Rights?
7.13.2009 8:55am
NaG (mail):
In the end, it's always about the quota.
7.13.2009 8:57am
ari8 (mail):
Typical Bartow.
7.13.2009 9:01am
drunkdriver:
Looks like a clear case of "Some Dumb Bartow Syndrome."
7.13.2009 9:06am
Richard Riley (mail):
And (in his civil way) Eugene doesn't note Bartow's reference to a recent "addition" of the UCLA Law Review. But (in my snide way) I will!
7.13.2009 9:06am
Google Scholar Sayeth...:

Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship.



Per Google Scholar, a search by author for "Second Amendment" finds

Philip J. Cook has 11 articles.
Jens Ludwig has 8.
Adam M. Samaha has 4.

Saul Cornell has 23.

Alan Gura has 2.

Dennis A. Henigan has 7.

Don B. Kates has 23.

Gary Kleck has 7.
Shun-Yung Kevin Wang has 0.

David Thomas Konig has 7.

Nelson Lund has 29.

Joyce Lee Malcolm has 7.

Reva B. Siegel has 2.

Mark Tushnet has 12.

Eugene Volokh has 14.

Adam Winkler has 4.

Kelsey M. Swanson has 0.
7.13.2009 9:08am
Houston Lawyer:
Nag nag nag.

Who listens to "Feminist Law Professors" anyway? They subtract value from any discussion. They are fun to ridicule, however, as they are completely lacking a sense of humor.

They are also used to playing a rigged game where they throw out unfounded claims of bias. Typically, the target of this claim is expected to pull a mea culpa and perform some act of obeisance. People who don't play by these rules are subjected to crude verbal insults.
7.13.2009 9:27am
SeaDrive:
Do I understand correctly that the underlying frame of reference (I almost wrote "pathology") is that only men are interested in guns, and if some woman is pro-gun, she's certainly not a liberal or a feminist?

If so, someone needs a lesson in how many victims of rape and abuse and stalking are carrying guns in their purses, and consider it to be in the general category of female empowerment.
7.13.2009 9:31am
Matt P (mail):
The wonderful thing about a free press is that Ms. Bartlow has the opportunity to publish her own Law Review to prove her contention that diversity in a ToC is as important as the C in question.

If she is correct, her journal will be more useful and she will have added something good to the discussion of the Second amendment -- if not she can save her invective for some one who really deserves it. That's the great thing about freedom, if you see a problem you have a chance to work to fix it on your own.

Alternatively, you could just publish last names in the ToC...
7.13.2009 9:37am
resh (mail):
Aren't the gender metrics comically alluded to here really a microcosm on Ricci's folly? Not enough women (black managers), so let's reduce the entire framework of the meaningful event (seminar/test) to a lost cause.

I think it's clear you're a sexist, EV, and hiding behind the phallic allure of your weapon. Suggest that next time you send out your invites with an Annie Oakley photo attached.

And make her nude. That'll stir the pot.
7.13.2009 9:41am
BT:
Question: What is a ToC?

Thanks in advance for not calling me an asshole.
7.13.2009 9:44am
Google Scholar Sayeth...:
Not to be outdone, Bartow now has another post about another journal not meeting the gender quota as she defines it.
7.13.2009 9:45am
Matt P (mail):
Table of contents, gas pole!

Sorry couldn't resist. By the way you'd think that someone with Ms. Bartlow's education could come up with a better insult than A*******E
7.13.2009 9:46am
Ursus Maritimus:
But as to the merits, it turns out that every one of the articles in the symposium had as its author or lead coauthor either (1) someone who has written either extensively or prominently on the Second Amendment, (2) someone who has written a vast amount on gun control policy (Cook and Kleck, who to my knowledge are the two top scholars on the subject in the country), or (3) the winning lawyer (Gura). This leads me to think that Prof. Bartow doesn't actually know the field that well, since it's hard to see how her "Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship" can be correct. (I realize that what constitutes a "particularly notable record" is somewhat subjective, but it's hard to see how she can find "many" under that standard, unless she just categorically excludes the relevance of leading gun control policy scholars or the winning lawyer.) And if I'm right that she doesn't know the field well, how is it that she can be so confident that "more women could have easily, and without any quality dilution, have been included"?

I think she is well aware of the scholarship, it is just that to her fringe figures like Cook and Kleck are just not notable for their scholarship(1) while the real scholars are truth-seekers like Professor Carl Bogus and Professor(2) Michael Belleslies to whom the second amendment is not a subject of scholarship in it self, just an element in a broader agenda for social justice.

(1) Because what they produce is not scholarship, it is just rationalizations for white supremacy. Since the purpose of the second amendment was to allow white men in the South to, in the guise of a 'militia', deploy deadly force against any attempts at resistance from Blacks and Native Americans. Thus any defense of the second amendment is support for genocidal white supremacy, unfiltered raw hate, incoherently disguised as yelps about a 'right'(3)

(2) The only reason the so called committee decided against him was that they were personally afraid of what the gun nuts would do if they didn't acquiesce with their campaign of smear and intimidation.

(3) Thus I have disproven the very existence of a gun control 'debate', for what is a debate but an argument between two positions? But in this case there is only one position, for what is outside that position is just an emptiness of hoots, feral noises and hate.

PS: I need a new snappy screen name. SirCastro is taken, so I've been thinking of perhaps VonCastro, or DukeCastro. Or perhaps Captain Sarcastic? What do you think?

PPS: Don't have a heart attack, Clayton :-)
7.13.2009 9:46am
ArthurKirkland:
Even if the feminist blog has a churlish editor, understated the relevance of most or all of the invited authors' backgrounds and still hasn't corrected the use of "addition" -- all three points appear to be valid criticisms -- 14-2 is an against-the-odds slant that invites inquiry.

Bias, conscious or subconscious, and its consequences seem to be worth consideration. Some conservative scholars, for example, devote substantial attention to perceived bias against conservatives. On blogs. Such as this one.
7.13.2009 9:51am
interested observer:
yes, it is clear that the only reason Ashcroft and Mukasey were asked to write an article about the W. regime is because they were men.

A non-sexist editor would have invited an article from Harriet Miers.
7.13.2009 9:51am
Skyler (mail) (www):
I think the solution is for more law text books to use feminine pronouns instead of masculine pronouns because that makes them feel better.
7.13.2009 10:01am
3090:
ArthurKirkland,

I think you've missed the whole point. Bartow is not interested in "considering" the question, which is what Eugene thoughtfully did. Bartow just wants to call people "asshole."
7.13.2009 10:09am
mcbain:

14-2 is an against-the-odds slant that invites inquiry.


care to present the real odds here? I mean how many of the authors would have been women if Prof Volokh wasn't "consciously or subconsciously" biased?
7.13.2009 10:13am
drunkdriver:
By the way you'd think that someone with Ms. Bartlow's education could come up with a better insult than A*******E

I'm sure the comment author has been called worse by better. As everyone who read the exchange thought, it only served to diminish Ms. Bartlow and make her seem unserious.

And, probably, lots of fun at parties.
7.13.2009 10:15am
Marc J. Randazza (mail) (www):
What do you expect from Ann Bartow? This is what happens when women get pissed off at their fathers as teenagers and never get over it.
7.13.2009 10:18am
PubliusFL:
mcbain: Exactly. Arthur's "against the odds" comment is of a piece with Prof. Bartow's claim that "more women could have easily, and without any quality dilution, have been included." If so, name some. Anyway, Prof. Volokh already pointed out that more women were invited than chose to participate, so the 14:2 ratio is the result of self-selection as well as bias (if any).
7.13.2009 10:19am
PLR:
Revisiting that first comment, but adding back the missing element:
Two, this symposium was on the Second Amendment, dipsh**. It's my understanding that this topic tends to be dominated by a small group of legal scholars. I would not blame the Law Review or the faculty for any gender imbalances here.
OK, that word wasn't really in that bland sentence. But there appears to be something in Ms. Bartow's mindset that put it there. After all, she didn't call the commenter an idiot for stating the obvious, she called the commenter an a-hole, an insult reserved for when one has been personally offended.

Maybe some people wake up in the morning expecting to be condescended to. (And you know who you are).
7.13.2009 10:20am
Matt_T:
This having been said, I will happily announce that I had absolutely no desire to add more women . . . to the mix

Clearly a mortal sin, Prof. Volokh. Haha. I'm a newcomer to legal scholarship, but generally the reminder "Don't trust anyone whose career is built around a grievance" has steered me clear of the real jerks in the profession.
7.13.2009 10:20am
DerHahn (mail):
Feminism won't have succeded until an unqualified woman is just a likely to be selected as an unqualified man.
7.13.2009 10:30am
A. Hole:
While I admire Eugene's judicial temperament, I'm not sure what the point is of a reasoned response to a vulgar insult. I would just ignore her, or if a response is necessary, respond in kind with: "Ann, you ignorant slut."
7.13.2009 10:30am
Smooth, Like a Rhapsody (mail):
Maybe she merely mistranslated the Ukrainian term for "dear, respected colleague".

I can not believe that a tenured, progressive academic--who undoubtedly cares deeply about social justice, and may even belong to the "Alliance for Justice"--would use such a churlish vulgarism.
7.13.2009 10:40am
Anon321:
Nag nag nag.

I think the solution is for more law text books to use feminine pronouns instead of masculine pronouns because that makes them feel better.

This is what happens when women get pissed off at their fathers as teenagers and never get over it.


I agree with the tone and merits of Eugene's response, but I'd just note that some of the commenters on this thread tend to strengthen the case for feminism generally. If a feminist critique of a given practice misses the mark, it's useful to explain why. It's pretty silly, however, to resort to lame stereotypes about women, or to attack a strawman version of feminism. Doing so just tends to make people think that maybe there is something to this whole feminist-law-professor project.
7.13.2009 10:50am
Tony Tutins (mail):

Two, this symposium was on the Second Amendment

Obsessive use of the topic sentence is the hallmark of legal writing. It states the thesis, while the remainder of the paragraph fleshes it out.

Having some familiarity with Second Amendment (and gun control) literature, I was nodding my head at most of the authors. I had never heard of either Konig or Siegel (1M and 1F for those keeping score.) And I don't think of M. Tushnet or Winkler in the context of Second Amendment rights. So at best, these two men could have been replaced by two women in the name of correcting gender inequality.
7.13.2009 10:57am
TRE:
I really hate the us-vs-them ridiculous gender war bullshit. Are your reproductive organs really the most significant thing about you?
7.13.2009 10:57am
Bob White (mail):

Feminism won't have succeded until an unqualified woman is just a likely to be selected as an unqualified man.


Did you see the article counts upthread? The lead authors who've published fewer than four pieces are Alan Gura (counsel in Heller), Reva Siegel (woman), and Kelsey Swanson (presumably female). Sounds to me like unqualified women are overrepresented. Take that, glass bowl!
7.13.2009 10:57am
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Arthur Kirkland,

When have conservatives/libertarians ever argued for more representation in some academic venue using a proportionality or quota-like argument? In fact the very idea offends them! I usually note that almost immediately they make it clear that's not what they mean at all, as Kenneth Anderson did here in this Volokh post.
7.13.2009 10:59am
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
Bully.
7.13.2009 10:59am
Andy Bolen (mail):
What an unpleasant lady. So unpleasant that by the end of this post, my outrage out the typo had paled. :)
7.13.2009 11:01am
ArthurKirkland:

I think you've missed the whole point. Bartow is not interested in "considering" the question, which is what Eugene thoughtfully did. Bartow just wants to call people "asshole


My point was that the question -- naturally raised by a 14-2 count -- should be considered almost without regard to any churlish, uninformed, poorly worded objection.

I see no basis for any reliable conclusions, in any direction, regarding the 14-2 count. There could have been no problem. There could have been a conscious problem. There could have been a subconscious problem. Leaping to an unsubstantiated conclusion is unattractive, from any direciton.
7.13.2009 11:10am
ArthurKirkland:
I don't see much difference between conservatives directing attention to alleged underrepresentation in academic settings and a feminist directing attention to a quantifiable, odds-defying gender slant in a particular academic setting.
7.13.2009 11:13am
wfjag:
There you go, Professor, trying to justify the result based on facts. It's much easier to simply count noses and then allege a Title IX violation. See, e.g., A New Frontier for Title IX: Science, New York Times (July 15, 2008) www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15tier.html?_r=1

Accordingly, Prof. Barlow was right, and you were wrong, so any comment she made was justified since she was victimized.
7.13.2009 11:19am
mcbain:
Arthur Kirkland,

You keep talking about an "odds-defying gender slant" but you do not back your accusation with any facts. Now normally it is incumbent on one that makes an assertion to back that assertion up.

I am no big city lawyer thought, so your standards might differ.
7.13.2009 11:29am
A.C.:
If people are allowed to sort themselves by preference, there will be some pockets with more men and some with more women. One symposium isn't enough to go on. It's possible that something random -- the subject, maybe, or different events and publication opportunities -- altered the mix. Even if you are on the lookout for systematic bias, the sample here is extremely small.

However ridiculous Bartow is (and I think she's pretty ridiculous here), let's not resort to sexist stereotypes when criticizing her. She can behave like a jerk. Okay, fine. Nobody ever claimed that women were immune from that tendency. But it's a mistake to generalize from certain women who are jerks to women as a group. Just as it's a mistake to generalize, as some feminists do, from certain men who are jerks to all men.

I prefer to hold both sexes to a higher standard.
7.13.2009 11:32am
ArthurKirkland:
14-2 defies the odds of probability. It doesn't prove improper bias, but it readily invites inquiry among anyone other than the close-minded.
7.13.2009 11:39am
mcbain:

14-2 defies the odds of probability.


no it does not. If there are 140 male scholars and 20 female scholars it lines up perfectly.

Thus if you make a claim that there may be something biased about the selection you should look at the pool of those who may be selected. Neither you nor whatsherface did so, thus you do not have cause to call those who dismiss your complaint closeminded.

Base your claim on something more substantial that "14 is more than 2."
7.13.2009 11:45am
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Arthur Kirkland,

What about the ratio of men to women on death row? Does that similarly offend the mental faculties? How about the number of ethnic Jews on the federal bench, in fact, the out-sized number of Jewish feminist professors and intellectuals? I demand representation for the Protestants, the Wiccans, and the Cherokee amongst you.

A.C.,

How does your higher standard accord with common terms in your literature like "male privilege" and the "patriarchy"? Those seem to me possibly sexist or stereotypical. What do you think?
7.13.2009 11:51am
3090:

14-2 defies the odds of probability.



In what way does it defy the odds of probability? If 14-2 departs from the baseline you're using, what is that baseline and why did you pick it?
7.13.2009 11:53am
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
I agree with Arthur.

And I do try to avoid vulgar language, myself, notwithstanding whoever it was in the comments here sometime back who disliked people writing "f-word" instead of spelling it out. Some people don't like those things. If EV wants to uphold some standards of polite communication, good for him.

But I get her irritation at that sentence, because I read it as "we're talking about guns, sweetheart, so run along and do something girly". I accept that you did not mean it that way, since you say you didn't. People come to these things with their own experiences, for which you can't be responsible, but which are valid for them. She may have been condescended to 50 times last week. You would not be in a position to know. If you had had her experiences you might have been much more vulgar and hostile. I say this, not knowing her or anything about her, but thinking about some stuff I am currently dealing with for the first time in my professional life. I don't like it one bit. I don't deserve it, and a man wouldn't like it either.
7.13.2009 11:53am
mariner:
3090:
The exchange doesn't reflect well on Bartow, but your civility, Eugene, is one reason I think people take you seriously. Good job.

Well said, on both counts.

Houston Lawyer:
Who listens to "Feminist Law Professors" anyway?

Too damned many people. That's how we get such crap as the Violence Against Women Act, Title IX, and the Lautenberg Amendment.

Again, nice job Professor V.
7.13.2009 11:58am
wm13:
"People come to these things with their own experiences, for which you can't be responsible, but which are valid for them."

I would deny absolutely that it is acceptable for a professor to call a student an "asshole," or for a lawyer to speak to a secretary that way, no matter how bad a day the speaker has been having.
7.13.2009 12:00pm
Andy Bolen (mail):
I would deny absolutely that it is acceptable for a professor to call a student an "asshole," or for a lawyer to speak to a secretary that way, no matter how bad a day the speaker has been having.

This.
7.13.2009 12:08pm
Gramarye:
ArthurKirkland:

I'll admit that the disparity invites inquiry, but the inquiry would be better directed towards why there are so few women in Second Amendment scholarship, which (at least to my outsider's eye) does appear to be the case, rather than why so few female scholars were invited to submit papers to this symposium. I can't exactly see any evidence of, or motivation for, a desire to exclude women from the niche of Second Amendment scholarship. Indeed, I would imagine more would be quite welcome.

Inquiry is one thing. You sound like you're asking for an "inquiry" with preordained conclusions, however. At the very least, you're inviting the conclusion that the numbers speak for themselves--and they don't, not without knowing the field from which invitees were selected, and thus the breakdown of who didn't make the cut.
7.13.2009 12:11pm
reality (mail):
Self described feminist law professor is viciously unpleasant and unreasonable. Pope is Catholic. Ursus americanus defecate in sylvan areas.

Anyone who is so absorbed in their own identity and victimization to make it their focus of scholarship is by definition not someone who can be engaged with intellectually or who can be convinced by contrary arguments. They are scholarly narcissists and should be ignored and excluded from mainstream academic life.
7.13.2009 12:12pm
theobromophile (www):
EV - as always, a very reasoned and classy reply to a subject that may not merit it.

As for the 14-2: I seem to remember one of the Conspirators noting that female conservatives are underrepresented in legal faculty (i.e. the super-majority of women are liberal). While I'm loathe to say that women aren't interested in guns or the actual Bill of Rights, as written, it is entirely plausible that the 14-2 ratio is the result of nothing more nor less than the dearth of conservative or libertarian women in legal academics.
7.13.2009 12:24pm
Tennessean (mail):
Anyone who is so absorbed in their own identity and victimization to make it their focus of scholarship is by definition not someone who can be engaged with intellectually or who can be convinced by contrary arguments.

Maybe this was rhetoric hyperbole, but given the earnestness of what follows, I doubt it. Being so interested by one's identity, when one is part of a group that has been victimized, does not "by definition" make one unable to engage intellectually or to become convinced by contrary arguments.

Maybe those are the effects in practice, but that is certainly not the "definition" of being such a scholar.
7.13.2009 12:24pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
wm13, are you of the understanding that I'm defending Bartow's use of vulgar language? If so, you're missing my point totally.

I have to say that one of the things I notice is that if I use a vulgar word that is in use by the men around me - and it's hard not to let things slip out when I hear them all the time - I get a double take that the men don't get. Maybe they're just not used to hearing it from me personally, or maybe men are supposed to be vulgar and women are supposed to act like ladies. I try to act like a lady, but it's hard sometimes. I wonder how outraged we would all be if it had been a male who had used that term to uclastudent.

Back to the point Arthur is patiently and consistently making - when you see a disparity of outcome it does not hurt to ask yourself why. It could be that there is no particular reason, things just fell out that way. Or it could be that there is a bona-fide reason. These are cool, you've answered your question and you can go on. It doesn't hurt to just simply ask, because you could turn up a problem that needs to be addressed - you won't know if you don't look. And it's not useful to get bent out of shape because the question was asked.

This thing is different from the Ricci case, in that the New Haven test was open to all applicants and the chips were able to fall where they might; whereas for this, the participants were actively and individually invited. Is it really that outrageous to simply ask why the 14/2 split?
7.13.2009 12:25pm
mcbain:

Is it really that outrageous to simply ask why the 14/2 split?


no of course not. as a matter of fact it is an interesting question. However it is not the question that was asked. The insinuation that EV was responding to was that he had the opportunity to invite female scholars, but chose to select male scholars. EV showed that was not the case.

Perhaps the feminist law professor ought to get her female students more interested in 2nd amendment scholarship if she wants to affect the 14-2 split.
7.13.2009 12:38pm
A.C.:
Cato -

In what way are the terms "male privilege" and the "patriarchy" part of "my" literature? Yes, I'm female, but I practice a kind of law that's related to large construction projects. I'm not the only girl here, either. The one feminist course I took in law school bored me half to death.

And yes, I think the terms are sexist and avoid using them myself. I have been treated badly by a few men in my time. But I have also been treated badly by a few women.

I've never found bad behavior to be limited to one sex. (The worst workplace troublemakers, in my experience, are often male/female tag teams... "work spouses" running amok.) For that reason, I divide the troublemakers from the nice people based on something other than the M or the F they put on forms.
7.13.2009 1:00pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
What do you expect from Ann Bartow? This is what happens when women get pissed off at their fathers as teenagers and never get over it.
To be fair, being pissed off is a natural reaction when you realize that everyone thinks your chosen field is kind of a joke, and after years of education, you learn that all you're qualified to do is count the number of law review articles written by men and women.
7.13.2009 1:05pm
GMS:
Wow, dropping the "asshole" bomb in response to a very civil, snark-free comment that didn't even point out her failure to appreciate that words that sound alike don't necessarily mean the same thing. The discussions in her classroom must be fascinating.

I think Eugene should publish a new addition of the symposium presenting the "Feminist Law Professors'" viewpoint. To save her the trouble, let's go ahead and anticipate Bartow's submission: "Guns bad. Second Emendment something something militias. Functional equivalent of rape. Male construct. Scalia is an asshole."
7.13.2009 1:06pm
AJK:
Earlier this year the Duke Jounral of Gender Law &Policy sponsored a symposium on public health issues. There were 9 speakers (10 if you count the journal editor); 1 was a man. Does this 9-1 split invite a similar inquiry?
7.13.2009 1:07pm
Frecklerock:
PLR raises a crucial point above.

Prof. Bartow's initial question is hardly a vicious, uber-feminist accusation of sexism or bias. She doesn't accuse UCLA of any discriminatory intent or malfeasance: "Invited articles by fourteen men, but only two women, in a Symposium edition?"

"Uclastudent" immediately delivers with his arguably curt "1-2" response. And this is where PLR comes in: Some people apparently wake up in the morning ready to be condescended to. And so Prof. Bartow snaps with her "a**hole" comment (which certainly is not civil). But apart from that, still she does not scream bloody murder, does not accuse UCLA of intentional bias or sexism. Rather, she argues it must be the case that the Law Review can do better than a 14-2 gender split.

Perhaps the group feels she should have followed with a series of probing questions, rather than a blanket statement (even one that isn't very harsh or accusatory). For instance, that she should have asked whether there is a select group of writers on this subject, and are they dominated by men? And if so, then why is this the case, is this a good thing, and does it require a remedy and of what sort? Backing up, we could also ask: what was the gender break-up of submitted articles vs. the articles that were chosen for publishing? Or maybe we want to inquire as to who at UCLA put out feelers requesting submissions, and might it be that they reached out to a network dominated by men, not properly reaching other scholars (women) not in that limited circle. Or should Bartow start by recruiting a new generation of female second amendment scholars?
7.13.2009 1:10pm
Frecklerock:
Yes, AJK, it does invite a similar inquiry. Somewhere there is a blog devoted to the intersection of public health and gender law and policy issues, and that blog community would be perfectly within their rights to post on why is it that scholarly works submitted in their field trend so heavily towards women? And should we do something about it, perhaps by putting extra resources into soliciting articles from male scholars? Or is it that our field is in fact dominated by women scholars, and what can we do about that to incentivize men to specialize in our field, and is that a good use of resources, etc. etc.? I just don't see these inquiries as threats or witch hunts. They are worthwhile examinations.
7.13.2009 1:16pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The attempted defenses of Bartow on the grounds that the ratio "invites inquiry" are misplaced. In fact, Bartow did inquire and was given an answer; it was the answer to her inquiry which prompted her vulgarity.
7.13.2009 1:23pm
levisbaby:
This Bartow seems like a ridiculous person.

But so do all of the people who apparently need smelling salts after seeing the word "asshole" in print.
7.13.2009 1:32pm
NaG (mail):
@Laura(southernxyl): The problem is that Prof. Bartow is NOT asking "why," it's that she already assumes the answer -- namely that women are underrepresented because of some pervasive male bias. If Prof. Bartow was able to name four or five (or even one!) female law faculty or practitioners that have significant scholarship in the 2d Amendment field and asked why those women had not been invited, that would be one thing. But she does not. She merely thinks it was sexism for there not to be more women on the panel, and she thinks a person is an "asshole" for thinking otherwise.
7.13.2009 1:33pm
3090:

But so do all of the people who apparently need smelling salts after seeing the word "asshole" in print.


It's harmless, but this may be the most inane comment here. Who reads this thread and thinks the issue is the word "asshole"?
7.13.2009 1:45pm
CDU (mail) (www):
It's harmless, but this may be the most inane comment here. Who reads this thread and thinks the issue is the word "asshole"?


Actually, I do think a professor calling a student an asshole is an issue. Not the issue, mind you, but one of the issues.
7.13.2009 1:51pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Where Are The Women? A precious few were published in recent addition of the UCLA Law Review
Invited articles by fourteen men, but only two women, in a Symposium edition?


NaG, this was the sum total of Prof. Bartow's initial question. If you read that she's already assuming sexism here, then it's reasonable for her to read condescension in uclastudent's answer.

David, there are two issues here.

1 - Was it reasonable for Bartow to ask how come the 14/2 split?

2 - Was it all right for her to use vulgarity in her reply to uclastudent?

IMO, 1 - yes, 2 - probably not. The "probably not" does not displace the "yes". I realize that the OP addresses 2 pretty much exclusively, but other commenters are addressing 1 and answering it negatively.
7.13.2009 1:53pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Also:

She merely thinks it was sexism for there not to be more women on the panel, and she thinks a person is an "asshole" for thinking otherwise.

It appears that she used that word, not b/c the person didn't agree with her that there was sexism, but b/c the other person acted like she didn't know what she was talking about. Nobody likes being talked to that way. You wouldn't like it.
7.13.2009 1:56pm
ShelbyC:

If you read that she's already assuming sexism here, then it's reasonable for her to read condescension in uclastudent's answer.


What do you think she's assuming? She's not pointing out that men are more prevelant in the field of 2nd amendment scholarship.
7.13.2009 1:59pm
NaG (mail):
@Laura(southernxyl): I know Prof. Bartow assumes sexism because of her response to uclastudent's post. Specifically, uclastudent says: "It's my understanding that this topic tends to be dominated by a small group of legal scholars." If that is true, then, as several people have patiently explained, a gender imbalance in that area would naturally lead to a gender imbalance when a symposium on that subject is convened. Prof. Bartow's response was: "Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship." This has been shown to be demonstrably wrong, and clearly so to anyone who had bothered to look at the facts. Thus, she has rejected a fair, non-sexist explanation for the imbalance. She clearly only wants the "it was sexism" explanation to be the winner here, and she is willing to make whatever unsubstantiated statement she wishes to exclude other explanations.
7.13.2009 2:01pm
levisbaby:

It's harmless, but this may be the most inane comment here. Who reads this thread and thinks the issue is the word "asshole"?

I certainly don't. But all of the prissy posters above who fret about this "vulgarity" seem to think it is an issue.
7.13.2009 2:02pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
I don't know that she's assuming anything. She's pointing out that 14 men and 2 women were invited and she's asking why. Perhaps she is assuming sexism, but she's not saying "those damn male chauvinist pigs are deliberately excluding women because they're pigs", she's just asking why so few women. What's to get all defensive about? If there aren't very many female scholars who are already published on the 2nd amendment, then that's her answer.
7.13.2009 2:04pm
Regulan Bloodworm:
ArthurKirkland:
"My point was that the question -- naturally raised by a 14-2 count -- should be considered . . .

Why exactly should a count of the scholars' genders be considered before the scholarship presented within?
7.13.2009 2:06pm
NaG (mail):
@Laura(southernxyl): If you think that uclastudent's words are "condescending," including the "it is my understanding" part that invites someone more knowledgeable to come in and correct that understanding, then you should just be prepared to realize that the vast majority of people will simply disagree with you. You're entitled to your opinion, but, at that rate, so are the Flat Earther's.
7.13.2009 2:07pm
NaG (mail):
Laura(southernxyl): "If there aren't very many female scholars who are already published on the 2nd amendment, then that's her answer."

Except she already rejected that answer when it was suggested to her, out of hand, with no actual investigation whatsoever on her part.
7.13.2009 2:09pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):

then you should just be prepared to realize that the vast majority of people will simply disagree with you.


Thank you for that. I am 48 years old and it has never occurred to me that my opinions might ever be anything other than mainstream until you told me. But thanks for telling me that I am entitled to them, anyway.

BTW, if you think that "the vast majority of people" will simply agree with you, well....
7.13.2009 2:10pm
JohnO (mail):
I have no problem with the question, which Eugene appropriately answered. The problem is someone on a law school faculty who would use that level of vulgarity in responding to a student. It seems to me that some baseline level of decency is appropriate.
7.13.2009 2:14pm
Brian Garst (www):
Feminist scholarship is an oxymoron. Bartow is a typical angry hack with an agenda posing as an intellectual.
7.13.2009 2:15pm
krs:

Really? I had no idea! Asshole.

I should file that phrase away. It could come in handy fairly often. Anytime I'm arguing with someone who chooses to explain his/her views by starting with a simple factual statement is in for it...
7.13.2009 2:16pm
mcbain:
Laura, you said:

If there aren't very many female scholars who are already published on the 2nd amendment, then that's her answer.


uclagradstudent said:

... this symposium was on the Second Amendment. It's my understanding that this topic tends to be dominated by a small group of legal scholars. I would not blame the Law Review or the faculty for any gender imbalances here.




To which he or she received the


... Asshole.

Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship. false So the field was pretty open, and more women could have easily, and without any quality dilution, have been included. unsubstantiated



I really don't see how you can honestly defend Bartow's behavior based on the above exchange.
7.13.2009 2:18pm
NaG (mail):
@Laura(southernxyl): Look, even in your first post on the subject you didn't come right out and claim that uclastudent was being condescending. You cached it in terms of Prof. Bartow potentially having "experiences" that would have prompted her response. So, sure, some people who get attacked all the time might grow accustomed to thinking that every comment is an attack, whether it was intended as such or not. But that doesn't mean they are right to treat everyone around them as an attacker.

Quite frankly, if uclastudent's post is to be claimed as an example of a personal slight on the Internet, then the Internet must be one big flame-war.
7.13.2009 2:23pm
Calderon:
Laura(southernxyl) -- you list 2 issues, but the OP actually primarily addresses a 3 issue, which is whether Bartow's following substantive claim is correct: "Many of the articles listed in the ToC are written by people who do NOT have any particularly notable record of previous Second Amendment scholarship. So the field was pretty open, and more women could have easily, and without any quality dilution, have been included."

Bartow doesn't provide any support for the claim, and for the reasons EV explains, it doesn't seem to be correct. The only reasonable explanations for why Bartow gave those answers is that she doesn't know about Second Amendment scholarship, and asked her question assuming sexism without looking at the specific facts around this issue.
7.13.2009 2:26pm
David Hardy (mail) (www):
"14-2 defies the odds of probability."

Not really. If you stop to count the number of lady scholars who have done serious work on the 2nd Amendment, one leaps out: Joyce Malcolm. There may be a second, but I can't think of a name. So to get to two (or possibly more, I haven't researched the gender of those whose first names could be either gender), the editors had to do a bit of work.
7.13.2009 2:26pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

14-2 defies the odds of probability

Not if we're talking, say, NASCAR drivers. For years, Joyce Lee Malcolm was, to my knowledge, the only female notable scholar in the field of American gun rights.

Ann should be exhorting her sistern to take up Second Amendment scholarship. For some reason, both pro- and anti-gun rights scholars come from the XY chromosome set.
7.13.2009 2:27pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Mcbain:

You quote uclastudent as saying "It's my understanding that this topic tends to be dominated by a small group of legal scholars." Is it possible that there could be a circular thing going on here: gentleman scholars are more readily recognized than lady scholars (to take a leaf out of David Hardy's book) and therefore the field is dominated by "a small group" of gentleman scholars? If that is the case - I'm saying "if" - then Bartow has a legitimate point to raise.

NaG, sometimes I think the internet is one big flame war.

"Look, even in your first post on the subject you didn't come right out and claim that uclastudent was being condescending. You cached it in terms of Prof. Bartow potentially having "experiences" that would have prompted her response." My response was to people who wondered why she would have responded that way. I'm not saying she was right to use that term. I'm saying that her frustration might be understandable given her experiences, which are not yours - IOW, if you'd had her experiences you MIGHT be tempted to snap at someone who expressed basic information to you as though you were a three-year-old.
7.13.2009 2:39pm
Brian Garst (www):
Feminist scholars have a tendency of taking any criticism as personal attacks. They also often respond with...you guessed it, personal attacks.

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i40/40sommers.htm


All books have mistakes, so why pick on the feminists? My complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected. The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank.

..."Thug," "parasite," "dangerous," a "female impersonator" — those are some of the labels applied to me when I exposed specious feminist statistics in my 1994 book Who Stole Feminism?
7.13.2009 2:41pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
I guess Prof. Hardy and I should link pinkies or something.

Gender imbalance was even more pronounced in the famous Bogus anti-gun symposium issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review, when the ratio was ten-to-one (Prof. Malcolm was likely not invited because her work supported the right to arms):

THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER
Carl T. Bogus

TO HOLD AND BEAR ARMS: THE ENGLISH PERSPECTIVE
Lois G. Schwoerer

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN ACTION
Michael A. Bellesiles

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF ORIGINALISM
Jack N. Rakove

DISARMED BY TIME: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE FAILURE OF ORIGINALISM
Daniel A. Farber

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA": THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Paul Finkelman

NATURAL RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Steven J. Heyman

WHAT DOES THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEAN TODAY?
Michael C. Dorf

LOST AND FOUND: RESEARCHING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Robert J. Spitzer

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN CONTEXT:
THE CASE OF THE VANISHING PREDICATE
H. Richard Uviller &William G. Merkel
7.13.2009 2:43pm
corneille1640 (mail) (www):

"14-2 defies the odds of probability."

Not really. If you stop to count the number of lady scholars who have done serious work on the 2nd Amendment, one leaps out: Joyce Malcolm. There may be a second, but I can't think of a name. So to get to two (or possibly more, I haven't researched the gender of those whose first names could be either gender), the editors had to do a bit of work.


Still, at first glance, 14-2 defies the odds of probability. The next step might be to ask the question you answered, namely, how many 2d amendment scholars are women. To someone ignorant of 2d Amdt scholarship (i.e., someone like me), 14-2 seems odd without the added information you provide.
7.13.2009 2:45pm
Tritium (mail):
It seems to me very add that we need experts in specific clauses or amendments, when the text is very simple...

Then again, they serve to cause enough doubt and confusion, the Constitution becomes less in strength. I think Marbury vs. Madison concludes that the Constitution is permanant, and not fluid, yet congress continues to seek and obtain from the incorrect source, additional powers.


But in the great case of Ifarbury v. Madison,1 the doctrine is stated with so much clearness and force by Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Supreme Court, that a full citation of the language of that decision may properly here be made:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designated to be permanent.

" This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

" The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained ? The distinction between governments with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

" Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

ilCranch,391[176-178J.

" If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

" Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

" This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

7.13.2009 2:50pm
Guest12345:

She's pointing out that 14 men and 2 women were invited and she's asking why.


Actually she pointed out that there were papers/articles authored by fourteen men and two women. From the ToC you cannot determine anything about who was invited to participate.

Second, it's not a helpful question to be asking. Except to people who compulsively count innies v. outies, or blacks v. whites, star bellied v. non-star bellied, or ambulatory v. non-ambulatory, the nature of the author of the paper is irrelevant. A measurement without context is useless. If someone feels that some fact or metric matters they should explain why they feel that way.

Thirdly, you can look at the blog and you'll note that this isn't the first time a simple count of men v. women has been made. I wonder how much they really care about the underlying issues and how much they merely want to be able to beat the victimization drum and collect a paycheck for doing so. Anyone who really cared would be actually doing some kind of in depth examination of the situation. How does doing what any three year old can do bring any value to adult, educated consideration of social issues?
7.13.2009 2:53pm
3090:

if you'd had her experiences you MIGHT be tempted to snap at someone who expressed basic information to you as though you were a three-year-old.


C'mon, Laura, really? As Eugene pointed out in the initial post:


The "this symposium was on the Second Amendment" statement didn't seem to me to be said snidely, or as some revelation; it introduced the point of the paragraph, which is that the choice of panelists turned in large measure on who was prominent in that particular field.


Given truth serum, I suspect everyone here would acknowledge this. If Bartow construed this statement as condescending, it speaks to her willingness to be offended, or perhaps to pretend to be offended.
7.13.2009 2:58pm
theobromophile (www):
I disagree with Bartow and her reaction (mainly because it's the internet, and she did not have to hit "post comment," and, being a bit older, she should have more self-control), but see what Laura(southernxyl) is saying.

As someone who is routinely told, straight-out, that she is stupid (when such is not the case, and, even if it were, the cruelty would be inappropriate), I see how people can have very limited patience for condescension and may accidentally see it where there is none, nor none intended.

What the last 30 or 50 posts have ignored, though, is the fact that women legal scholars tend to be clustered in certain areas - feminist law, critical race theory, civil rights, etc - and are almost absent in others (e.g. the Second Amendment). Surely, some of these outstanding lady professors have something meaningful and new to contribute to other academic areas - not as women, per se, but as scholars. It doesn't seem sensible to turn legal scholarship into a ghetto, with the women on certain issues and the men on everything else. (And if the women are doing it to themselves, well, that doesn't make it any better.)
7.13.2009 3:11pm
ShelbyC:

It doesn't seem sensible to turn legal scholarship into a ghetto, with the women on certain issues and the men on everything else. (And if the women are doing it to themselves, well, that doesn't make it any better.)


Why not? Don't people have the right to choose what areas of scholarship to go into, even if this means a disparate gender ratio in some areas?
7.13.2009 3:48pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Shelby, it makes a world of difference how those ghettos come about. If women aren't interested in guns and therefore no female legal scholars specialize in 2nd Am. rights, that's one thing. If female legal scholars would specialize in 2nd Am. rights but they are discouraged or downright shut out, and gravitate to female-friendly specialties as a result, that's a whole different ballgame. In my opinion. As has been pointed out to me, my opinion may differ from everyone else's, but there it is.

But we won't know if women are being shut out if we can't even ask why the disparity exists without people getting huffy.

There are a lot of pro-gun women out there. So I think it's a reasonable question to ask why the gender disparity. If pro-gun and therefore possibly conservative women are getting shut out of lawschool somehow, that's a different problem that might need some attention.
7.13.2009 3:56pm
Ursus Maritimus:
Where Are The Women? A precious few were published in recent addition of the UCLA Law Review
Invited articles by fourteen men, but only two women, in a Symposium edition?


That does not read as a question, or a brief email. It reads as a headline! Note specifically the last sentence that begs the question, assumes that fourteen men and two women were invited, and ends with a question mark as an alibi.


"Where are the Carriers? A precious few has been launched since Pearl Harbour. Four has begun construction, but only two more planned, after two years of war?"

That is NOT 'just a question' to get more information about force levels!
7.13.2009 4:08pm
wm13:
we can't even ask why the disparity exists without people getting huffy.
Huh? Anyone reading this would think that it was Prof. Volokh and uclastudent calling people "asshole"; it's Prof. Bartow who seems unable to engage in 30 seconds of civil conversation without going off the deep end and screaming obscenities at powerless underlings.

All I can say is, thank God she wasn't my professor. Then again, I went to a much better law school than the one at which she teaches.
7.13.2009 4:08pm
Guest101:

As someone who is routinely told, straight-out, that she is stupid (when such is not the case, and, even if it were, the cruelty would be inappropriate), I see how people can have very limited patience for condescension and may accidentally see it where there is none, nor none intended.

If you sincerely believe that Professor Bartow's response was justified, or even excusable, on the basis of whatever prior experiences with gender bias that she may have at some point encountered, then how do you propose that civil academic discourse between men and women should take place? The commenter's statement, as Professor Volokh points out, was a mild, objective critique, and a fairly standard example of the style of argumentation ubiquitous in the legal academy. If female professors are indeed justified in viewing any statement of disagreement, however politely phrased, as "condescension," then it would seem that the only way for men (assuming that the anonymous commenter was male, an assumption for which there appears to be no basis) to avoid being labeled an "asshole" is to simply avoid attempting to engage with their ideas at all. That hardly seems the way to facilitate opening the doors of the academy wider, which is what Professor Bartow claims to want.

It seems to me that women who share the goal that Professor Bartow professes-- that of expanding female academics' opportunities within the academy-- should be among the first to condemn Bartow's response to this commenter, not make excuses for her behavior.
7.13.2009 4:13pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Polar Bear, I reckon she can put what she likes on feministlawprofessors.com. You can email her and suggest stylistic changes, but I don't think she'll be receptive.

wm13, you don't see people getting huffy?


I think the solution is for more law text books to use feminine pronouns instead of masculine pronouns because that makes them feel better.


That's not huffy?
7.13.2009 4:17pm
CDU (mail) (www):
But we won't know if women are being shut out if we can't even ask why the disparity exists without people getting huffy.


In general, I agree. However, in this case is Bartow even asking why the disparity exists? A quick look at her blog reveals this is not the first time she's done this. She periodically posts a table of contents from a law review, notes the numeric gender disparity, and rhetorically asks "Where are the women?" She doesn't look at any other scholarship in the field to see if the disparity is occourring in the field as a whole or just this law review. Doesn't name any prominent female scholars in the field who she thinks should have been invited. No further investigation at all.

I would submit that this sort of approach is why some people tend to get huffy when something like this comes up. If more folks who are interested in these disparities took the investigative, evidence-based approach you're advocating I think there would be a lot less huffiness.
7.13.2009 4:21pm
corneille1640 (mail) (www):

If you sincerely believe that Professor Bartow's response was justified, or even excusable, on the basis of whatever prior experiences with gender bias that she may have at some point encountered, then how do you propose that civil academic discourse between men and women should take place?

It doesn't seem to me that that specific commenter was necessarily arguing that the "a------" comment was justified, only that it might be understandable why someone might revert to (what appears to me, at least) inappropriate language and name calling.

Also, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have occasionally resorted to inappropriate ad hominem attacks when my temper fuse was shorter than necessary.
7.13.2009 4:36pm
Federal Dog:
"It's pretty silly, however, to resort to lame stereotypes about women"

This is definitely something that Ann Bartow should keep in mind.
7.13.2009 4:40pm
NaG (mail):
Laura(southernxyl): "Shelby, it makes a world of difference how those ghettos come about. If women aren't interested in guns and therefore no female legal scholars specialize in 2nd Am. rights, that's one thing. If female legal scholars would specialize in 2nd Am. rights but they are discouraged or downright shut out, and gravitate to female-friendly specialties as a result, that's a whole different ballgame. . . . But we won't know if women are being shut out if we can't even ask why the disparity exists without people getting huffy."

Laura, women are not being shut out of any area of law. There's no cabal of male lawyers out there who try to ensure that scholarship written by women on the 2d Amendment doesn't get published. The reason why Prof. Bartow and many other female attorneys don't publish articles on the 2d Amendment is because they choose not to -- they find other areas of law more interesting. Women also tend to dominate all areas of juvenile/domestic relations law, and are well-represented in health law and environment law, just to name a few. Nobody tells them, "You're a girl, so go to these girly areas of law." And nobody tells male lawyers, "Why would you want to go into domestic law? That's for girls." It doesn't happen. And we don't need to "ask why the disparity exists" because anyone who has been to law school knows better.
7.13.2009 4:45pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
40 years ago, I went to work for a major employment law firm located in a large Southeastern city. Although female law students at that time, unlike today, were in the distinct minority, this firm had a female partner (out of eight partners) and females regularly made up nearly 1/3 of its new lawyers. This was unconventional, as it was then widely said that women weren't cut out to be labor lawyers, and few were noted scholars in the area. Today, more than 50% of labor and employment lawyers are female, and female scholars are legion in that area of the law.

My point is that these things can change over time, but someone needs to take the lead on each side of the problem.

In some areas (e.g. feminist studies), I doubt if the supply of interested males will ever be enough to much increase gender diversity.
7.13.2009 4:48pm
NaG (mail):
corneille1640: "It doesn't seem to me that that specific commenter was necessarily arguing that the 'a------' comment was justified, only that it might be understandable why someone might revert to (what appears to me, at least) inappropriate language and name calling."

I agree that we all have those days where we might overreact to an otherwise innocuous comment. And the proper response is to apologize for overreacting, instead of trying to argue that the reaction may have been justified based on the "experiences" of the overreactor. Laura has tried to rationalize Prof. Bartow's overreaction by claiming that uclastudent's comment was "condescending." That's placing the blame on the wrong actor. Whatever Prof. Bartow's "experiences," uclastudent's comment was perfectly reasonable. I have no problem with Prof. Bartow saying whatever she wants to say in response, however. She can be nice or nasty however she wishes. Her reaction will only affect my perception of her as a person, and she very well might not care what I think anyway.
7.13.2009 4:50pm
frankcross (mail):
Ann Bartow's position would be a bit stronger if she could have identified a single female law professor whom she believes should have been invited.
7.13.2009 4:50pm
Ursus Maritimus:
<i>Polar Bear, I reckon she can put what she likes on feministlawprofessors.com. You can email her and suggest stylistic changes, but I don't think she'll be receptive.</i>

You are moving the goal posts! First you said that what I quoted in bold was NOT slanted to suggest that there was sexism afoot, and when I use an analogy to make the slant obvious you say that she can write what she likes on her website.
Her right to do whatever with her website was never in question!

I will take that as an admission from you that her tabloid-style 'just a question' was slanted.


To recap: start by 'just asking a question' that implies wrongdoing by the answerer. Get a correct answer. Reply with an insult and an obvious false statement. Turn around and claim to be the injured party.


I'm eagerly awaiting the same dance regarding 'asshole' but summarize it before hand to save electrons

"'Asshole' is just a word. It has no negative connotations. People use it to address each other in a neutral fashion constantly, every day!"

>"I think it is negatively charged, and here is why (...)"

"Why shouldn't she have the right to use negatively charged words on her own blog?!"
7.13.2009 4:58pm
Ursus Maritimus:
Polar Bear, I reckon she can put what she likes on feministlawprofessors.com. You can email her and suggest stylistic changes, but I don't think she'll be receptive.

You are moving the goal posts! First you said that what I quoted in bold was NOT slanted to suggest that there was sexism afoot, and when I use an analogy to make the slant obvious you say that she can write what she likes on her website.
Her right to do whatever with her website was never in question!

I will take that as an admission from you that her tabloid-style 'just a question' was slanted.


To recap: start by 'just asking a question' that implies wrongdoing by the answerer. Get a correct answer. Reply with an insult and an obvious false statement. Turn around and claim to be the injured party.


I'm eagerly awaiting the same dance regarding 'asshole' but summarize it before hand to save electrons

"'Asshole' is just a word. It has no negative connotations. People use it to address each other in a neutral fashion constantly, every day!"

>"I think it is negatively charged, and here is why (...)"

"Why shouldn't she have the right to use negatively charged words on her own blog?!"
7.13.2009 4:58pm
Ursus Maritimus:
Oops. Sorry for the double posting.
7.13.2009 4:59pm
A.C.:
Even if the student who posted on Bartow's blog did intend to be condescending and treat her like an idiot, she is the professor and he (are we even sure it was a he?) is the student. If the professor can't figure out how to assert that power difference without resorting to expletives, something is wrong.

I personally think more women should learn to handle guns, and I think the Second Amendment is important. But I'm not sure that it calls for symposium participants from any particular background.

There are some topics that benefit from including people who can tell stories they learned first-hand. If you are talking about disability issues, for example, you might want to include a few people with disabilities who can bring their own experiences into the public policy discussion. This can add a real-world dimension that supplements strictly academic approaches to the issues. I don't think this is any different from having a few judges (as opposed to scholars who study judges) on a panel that talks about how judging is done.

But I don't know why a gun rights discussion would benefit from having certain categories of people serve as panelists. Is any particular idea off the table if women are not giving many of the talks? I doubt it.
7.13.2009 5:20pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
The takeaway from this post is that name calling in public discourse is like a suicide bomb. There's only person it's guaranteed to blow up.
7.13.2009 5:21pm
geokstr (mail):
Does anyone know the breakdown of the opinions expressed in these articles for the symposium? Did they reasonably well reflect a wide range of ideas on the subject of the 2A, from expansive to restrictive interpretations?

This feminist's selective outrage seems to be that "diversity" in anything and everything is represented by the ratio of male to female body parts. Did she bother to inquire if the ratio of black, Latino (and of course wise Latina) and Asian-American authors reflected properly their % of the population?

This is typical of the left - that "diversity" has nothing whatsoever to do with a range of ideas. It is inclusive and big tent only if the result looks like the bar scene in Star Wars, but everyone must believe in the same dogma or they are told to take a hike.

I wonder if the good professor, in any symposia, conference or discussion she promotes/organizes/moderates on one of her (no doubt) favorite topics, Roe v Wade, is careful to include not only a representative mix of genitalia and melanin content, but also actual ideas from those who might disagree with her, regardless of race, gender, and all those other politicized criteria. Given that abortion is looked at as a necessary evil at best by a majority of Americans, would we be justified in being uncivil to her if conservative opinions were not invited to participate in proportion to their prevalence in the population?
7.13.2009 5:48pm
ronnie dobbs (mail):
Professor Bartow is an excellent example of the Standard American Law Professor (professor lex iratus). Despite holding degrees from excellent universities and essentially guaranteed (not particularly backbreaking) employment for life, the SALP is generally angry with the world and tends to spout a lot of dumb crap (e.g., "Look, there are more men than women in this particular issue of Journal XYZ!") and expects that it will be deemed intellectually meritorious. What a hack, and a rude one to boot.
7.13.2009 5:49pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

There are a lot of pro-gun women out there. So I think it's a reasonable question to ask why the gender disparity. If pro-gun and therefore possibly conservative women are getting shut out of lawschool somehow, that's a different problem that might need some attention.

As I tried to point out, women are poorly represented even on the anti-gun side. Professor Bartow could ask her peers why they are not publishing on the Second Amendment. Are they trying to, but law review editors are turning them down to a (wo)man?

Or are women simply little interested?
7.13.2009 6:07pm
phallic symbols (mail):
Let's take Bartow at face value. Women are just as interested about writing about 2nd amendment issues.

Good.

What though does this say about feminist analysis of guns as phallic symbols?
7.13.2009 6:16pm
TruePath (mail) (www):
So several comments have suggested the uneven gender ratio of the authors warrants investigation. I'm unconvinced (as I explain below) but people are welcome to investigate whatever they want. Ms. Bartow could have investigated by compiling statistics on 2nd amendment scholars and doing some statistical tests. If she didn't have the time to do it herself she could have simply posted, "Hey, I have no idea if a 2:14 ratio in this context is troubling does anyone have data about this?" Instead she choose to clearly imply, in the absence of evidence, that publishing the issue with this gender ratio was presumptively problematic.


Now even if one supposes there are equally many equally eminent 2nd amendment scholars of each gender then one should expect a purely random selection of 16 such scholars to contain no more than 2 women 1 time in 256. So on this assumption if Ms. Bartow simply drew this single issue at random from all the law review journals she reads it might reasonably be troubling. More likely, however, is that Ms. Bartow glances at a large number of law review issues during the year and this one stood out because of the small number of women authors. So even disregarding possible gender imbalance in the area and other effects merely finding a review with few women authors isn't particularly noteworthy.

Moreover, it's not unreasonable to think that (as Ms. Bartow seems to want) many law review issues do try and recruit a minimum percentage of female authors but likely don't try to ensure a minimum percentage of male authors. But that will disproportionately use up the time and resources of female academics forcing other reviews to either accept lower quality submissions or an majority of male authors. Indeed, the same argument applies on the discipline level (every extra woman in feminist studies is one less in another discipline).
7.13.2009 6:22pm
yankev (mail):

If female legal scholars would specialize in 2nd Am. rights but they are discouraged or downright shut out, and gravitate to female-friendly specialties as a result, that's a whole different ballgame.

Hey, if you really want to give her the benefit of the doubt, how's this -- "Where are the women" was a plea along the lines of "Come on sisters, why aren't WE producing the kind of scholarship that would result in our getting invitations! Let's show what we're capable of."

Of course, that's contradicted by the rest of her blog entry, but it's just as likely as the idea that Second Amendment scholars are discouraging female legal scholars.
7.13.2009 6:33pm
ArthurKirkland:

You sound like you're asking for an "inquiry" with preordained conclusions, however.


This is what I wrote:


My point was that the question -- naturally raised by a 14-2 count -- should be considered almost without regard to any churlish, uninformed, poorly worded objection.

I see no basis for any reliable conclusions, in any direction, regarding the 14-2 count. There could have been no problem. There could have been a conscious problem. There could have been a subconscious problem. Leaping to an unsubstantiated conclusion is unattractive, from any direciton.


Perhaps my botched spelling of "direction" was confusing?
7.13.2009 6:50pm
why (mail):
My point was that the question -- naturally raised by a 14-2 count -- should be considered almost without regard to any churlish, uninformed, poorly worded objection.

A) Why?
B) Do you have a charge number?

In what world are questions considered without regard to how they are asked?
7.13.2009 6:53pm
ArthurKirkland:
I do not understand the emphasis on "churlish." It was intended to mean boorish, and remains, in my judgment, an apt choice of word.

I do not understand the "charge number" question.

Questions are considered without regard to how they are asked in the world of people smart enough to focus on the issue and to refrain from devoting too much attention to the messenger.
7.13.2009 7:51pm
ShelbyC:

There are a lot of pro-gun women out there. So I think it's a reasonable question to ask why the gender disparity.


It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question. It's not reasonable to call someone who tries to answer an "a-hole" and make an unsupported assertion that "more women can be included"
7.13.2009 7:55pm
geokstr (mail):

Tony Tutins:
As I tried to point out, women are poorly represented even on the anti-gun side.

Or are women simply little interested?

Csreful there. A similar inference did get a prominent economist fired as head of a famous Ivy-league university not so long ago.
7.13.2009 8:04pm
Grumpy Old Man (mail) (www):
Why use as a term of opprobrium, the name of an organ that is a source of pleasure to so many?
7.13.2009 9:22pm
ArthurKirkland:

Laura, women are not being shut out of any area of law. There's no cabal of male lawyers out there who try to ensure that scholarship written by women on the 2d Amendment doesn't get published. The reason why Prof. Bartow and many other female attorneys don't publish articles on the 2d Amendment is because they choose not to -- they find other areas of law more interesting. Women also tend to dominate all areas of juvenile/domestic relations law, and are well-represented in health law and environment law, just to name a few. Nobody tells them, "You're a girl, so go to these girly areas of law." And nobody tells male lawyers, "Why would you want to go into domestic law? That's for girls." It doesn't happen. And we don't need to "ask why the disparity exists" because anyone who has been to law school knows better.


After reading most of these comments, I gather we have heard the last of the whining concerning the asserted underrepresentation of conservatives among professors in general and law professors in particular.

If more conservatives had the chops and the inclination to become professors, they would. And they wouldn't need "special" awards and "special" fellowships and "special" honoraria (the Olin-Bradley axis) to pad their resumes prop up their careers, either.
7.13.2009 9:40pm
learned intermediary:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Ann Bartow has previous on this sort of thing, like when she threatened to sue/out Zuzu of Feministe: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/10/20/so-sue-me/

She's the Brian Leiter of the feminist blogosphere: obnoxious, rude, incorrigible, and as cringeworthy as online embarrassments go.
7.13.2009 9:49pm
ShelbyC:

If more conservatives had the chops and the inclination to become professors, they would. And they wouldn't need "special" awards and "special" fellowships and "special" honoraria (the Olin-Bradley axis) to pad their resumes prop up their careers, either.


it takes "chops" to be a professor?
7.13.2009 9:55pm
ArthurKirkland:
At most schools, you must demonstrate knowledge. At some, however, they'll take a professor on faith.
7.13.2009 10:32pm
U.Va. Grad:
She's the Brian Leiter of the feminist blogosphere: obnoxious, rude, incorrigible, and as cringeworthy as online embarrassments go.

Give Leiter some credit: even when he's being mean and condescending and trying to eviscerate someone, he's got enough class not to call him or her an "asshole."
7.13.2009 10:42pm
U.Va. Grad:
She's the Brian Leiter of the feminist blogosphere: obnoxious, rude, incorrigible, and as cringeworthy as online embarrassments go.

Give Leiter some credit: even when he's being mean and condescending and trying to eviscerate someone, he's got enough class not to call him or her an "asshole."
7.13.2009 10:42pm
theobromophile (www):
But I don't know why a gun rights discussion would benefit from having certain categories of people serve as panelists. Is any particular idea off the table if women are not giving many of the talks? I doubt it.

Off the top of my head, the only remotely relevant point that women could make is about guns as the great equaliser: even strong, trained women are no match for many men, and, without a gun, we don't have a chance (even if a male aggressor isn't armed, either).
7.13.2009 11:05pm
try again (mail):
"I do not understand the emphasis on "churlish." It was intended to mean boorish, and remains, in my judgment, an apt choice of word.

I do not understand the "charge number" question. "

When you are paying my time, you can demand that any question be answered, regardless of how rudely it was asked. If you ain't paying the salaries, then where on earth do you live that you can demand questions be answered regardless of how rudely they were asked?

If she acts like a jerk, why should anyone do anything but point at here and laugh? That's how it works in the real world.

If she wants respect, guess what, there's a good way to show that.
7.13.2009 11:48pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Am just returning from chapter 3 of the Car Buying Experience from Hell, which is not over yet.

Seems to me that we very recently had a post here, and a bunch of comments, wherein it was stated that if a man wants to say that n---rs should burn in hell in front of his minor children, so that they pick that up and repeat it, his right to do that trumps anything the children's mother might try to do to stop it. Now we are wringing our hands because a grownup was referred to as an a-hole by a stranger on the internet. I am getting whiplash trying to keep up.

I am all for raising the standards for human communication. ALL FOR IT. But can we have a little philosophical consistency here?
7.14.2009 12:01am
try again (mail):
No one is saying that Professor Bartow doesn't have a right to call a student an asshole. They are saying that in doing so, especially in this case, she shows extremely poor taste, judgment, and raises many questions about her capabilities as professor and lawyer. Just like the guy talking about n*rs is showing similar poor taste and judgment and has every right to do so.

Bartow has shown time and again that she is a jerk. Feel free to defend her, even jerks need friends and defenders.
7.14.2009 12:11am
Nemo2 (mail):
Eugene -- This was an outstanding, scholarly, well-written critique of Prof. Bartow's comment.
7.14.2009 12:40am
this is getting boring:
Would she be offended if I called her a c***t? Apparently she believes using names of body parts is acceptable.
7.14.2009 12:44am
Perseus (mail):
And they wouldn't need "special" awards and "special" fellowships and "special" honoraria (the Olin-Bradley axis) to pad their resumes prop up their careers, either.

No conservative would try to "pad" his CV with them were he seeking an academic position in all but a handful of colleges lest he supply the hiring committee with an obvious flag to put it in the rejection pile. I certainly didn't.
7.14.2009 1:24am
Prick:
"Would she be offended if I called her a c***t [sic]? Apparently she believes using names of body parts is acceptable."

I think that she'd probably object to the use of gendered terms in the pejorative.
Unless she felt like calling you a pr*ck, c*ck, or d*ckbag.
7.14.2009 1:28am
Tony Tutins (mail):

Ann Bartow has... threatened to sue/out Zuzu of Feministe

Well, zuzu can be irritating. On the face of it, suing her doesn't sound outrageous. Not as if you were suing Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, or Nelson Mandela.

Plus she outed herself last year to get a pro-Hillary essay published on The Guardian's commentisfree site.
7.14.2009 3:09am
3090:

ArthurKirkland:

After reading most of these comments, I gather we have heard the last of the whining concerning the asserted underrepresentation of conservatives among professors in general and law professors in particular.

If more conservatives had the chops and the inclination to become professors, they would. And they wouldn't need "special" awards and "special" fellowships and "special" honoraria (the Olin-Bradley axis) to pad their resumes prop up their careers, either.


This is odd. The same person who argued that "14-2 is an against-the-odds slant that invites inquiry" deems it whining to point out the disproportionate ratio of liberals to conservatives in academia. I worry that the level of cognitive dissonance involved here may cause Arthur's head to explode.
7.14.2009 8:35am
NaG (mail):
ArthurKirkland: "If more conservatives had the chops and the inclination to become professors, they would."

First, I thank you for accepting my point that women aren't being shut out of any areas of law as some have tried to posit.

Second, there are far too many examples of leftist professors and deans raising strident objections to conservative scholars being added to their ranks for your weak attempt at petard-hoisting to have any credit. It's not only in law, either -- remember how much fur went flying when the University of Chicago dared to propose naming something in the economics department after Milton Friedman?
7.14.2009 8:40am
yankev (mail):

Seems to me that we very recently had a post here, and a bunch of comments, wherein it was stated that if a man wants to say that n---rs should burn in hell in front of his minor children, so that they pick that up and repeat it, his right to do that trumps anything the children's mother might try to do to stop it. Now we are wringing our hands because a grownup was referred to as an a-hole by a stranger on the internet. I am getting whiplash trying to keep up.

I am all for raising the standards for human communication. ALL FOR IT. But can we have a little philosophical consistency here?
There is nothing inconsistent in asserting, on the one hand, that rude, vulgar, and ill-natured speech in support of an idiotic position should be lawful, and saying on the other that that rude, vulgar, and ill-natured speech in support of an idiotic position does not reflect well upon the speaker. If trying to keep up with that is giving you whiplash, I certainly hope that you are not involved on a regular basis with law, politics, philosophy or any endeavor requiring verbal reasoning skills, or that if you are, you know a good chriropractor.
7.14.2009 9:34am
3090:
It's worse than that, yankev. Laura's plea for "philosophical consistency" borders on disingenuous. If she wants to highlight a particular person's comments from the post she references and argue that those comments are inconsistent with that person's comments here, that would at least be a legitimate argument.

But it makes no sense to argue for "philosophical consistency" in this website's comments section because there are many different people here with different opinions. I might just as well say, "Laura, I've seen comments on this website that are inconsistent with yours. Would you please be philosophically consistent with those comments?"
7.14.2009 10:08am
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
But I have had people gripe at me for expressing my opinions on this libertarian blog. More than once.

Plus, you want to talk about "disingenuous" - how about a man asserting that there is no barrier to women in a specialty that he is not in, with nothing to back up his assertion, in the face of an evident gender disparity. I'm not saying the disparity is evidence of sexism. I'm saying that if that is your one piece of hard data, you can't reasonably assert that sexism doesn't exist.
7.14.2009 12:00pm
ShelbyC:
Tony Tutins:

Well, zuzu can be irritating. On the face of it, suing her doesn't sound outrageous.


IANAL, and never been prouder of it.
7.14.2009 12:12pm
3090:

But I have had people gripe at me for expressing my opinions on this libertarian blog. More than once.


Huh? You make a plea for "philosophical consistency." I point out that it makes zero sense to ask for philosophical consistency from a comment section comprised of many individuals with different philosophies. Your response is simply that you've had people "gripe" at you on this site? How does that support, or even relate to, your plea for "philosophical consistency"? Basically, you made a flimsy allegation of hypocrisy, and when called out on it, you say people here have been critical of you. That is in no way responsive, and indeed especially odd coming from someone who complains that "we are wringing our hands because a grownup was referred to as an a-hole by a stranger on the internet."


Plus, you want to talk about "disingenuous" - how about a man asserting that there is no barrier to women in a specialty that he is not in, with nothing to back up his assertion, in the face of an evident gender disparity. I'm not saying the disparity is evidence of sexism. I'm saying that if that is your one piece of hard data, you can't reasonably assert that sexism doesn't exist.


What on earth are you talking about? I don't know where that paragraph came from or why you addressed it to me. In any event, you say:


I'm not saying the disparity is evidence of sexism. I'm saying that if that is your one piece of hard data, you can't reasonably assert that sexism doesn't exist.


The second sentence does not follow from the first, for one can only say that the alleged sexism is indisputable if you believe that the disparity is evidence of sexism in the first place.

Listen, Laura, if you have a serious, coherent argument to make, I sincerely invite you to make it. If, on the other hand, you just want to beat your chest and spout partisan talking points, count me out.
7.14.2009 12:40pm
ronnie dobbs (mail):
Somewhat apropos the current discussion:


A professor who confronted me declared that he was "personally offended" by my column. He railed that his political viewpoints never affected his teaching and suggested that if I wanted a faculty with Republicans I should have attended a university in the South. "If you like conservatism you can certainly attend the University of Texas and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis everyday on your way to class," he wrote in an e-mail.

I was shocked by such a comment, which seemed an attempt to link Republicans with racist orthodoxy. When I wrote back expressing my offense, he neither apologized nor clarified his remarks.

Instead, he reiterated them on the record. Was such a brazen expression of partisanship representative of the faculty as a whole? I decided to speak with him in person in the hope of finding common ground.

He was eager to chat, and after five minutes our dialogue bloomed into a lively discussion. As we hammered away at the issue, one of his colleagues with whom he shared an office grew visibly agitated. Then, while I was in mid-sentence, she exploded.

"You think you're so [expletive] cute with your little column," she told me. "I read your piece and all you want is attention. You're just like Bill O'Reilly. You just want to get up on your [expletive] soapbox and have people look at you."

From the disgust with which she attacked me, you would have thought I had advocated Nazism. She quickly grew so emotional that she had to leave the room. But before she departed, she stood over me and screamed.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0713/p09s02-coop.html
7.14.2009 12:41pm
NaG (mail):
I will assume Laura(southernxyl) was referring to me when she said: "...you want to talk about 'disingenuous' - how about a man asserting that there is no barrier to women in a specialty that he is not in, with nothing to back up his assertion, in the face of an evident gender disparity."

Laura, the reason for the "evident gender disparity" has already been explained to you, repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge it. According to you, the numbers themselves are all you need to prove sexism, because that's the only evidence you have deemed worthy of consideration. And as for me having "nothing to back up" my assertion that women are not precluded from being scholars in 2d Amendment law, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you aren't a lawyer, because no lawyer would even bother with your argument. Anyone who has been to law school knows that women are free to take whatever classes they wish. Any woman who wants to be a 2d Amendment scholar has unfettered access to the existing scholarship and can write whatever she likes. No law review or other publication will give a fig whether the writer is a male or female. If the article is good and advances the debate, it will be published. At this point you're just trying to gin up an excuse.
7.14.2009 1:13pm
yankev (mail):

But I have had people gripe at me for expressing my opinions on this libertarian blog. More than once.
If you say so. I have not seen evidence of that in this thread. I have seen a lot of posts taking issue with your illogical statements, unsupported charges and faulty reasoning.



Plus, you want to talk about "disingenuous" - how about a man asserting that there is no barrier to women in a specialty that he is not in, with nothing to back up his assertion,
Okay, how about it? Isn't the burden on the one who charges that there are barriers?

in the face of an evident gender disparity.
Is there no evidence beyond that apparent disparity?

I'm not saying the disparity is evidence of sexism.
But a sentence ago you were. So now you are saying there is no evidence to support your charge of barriers, but that despite the absence of evidence, the man (whoever that was) must disprove the charge, for which admittedly there is no evidence? By the way, if a woman had asserted the absence of barriers, would you have found her assertion equally disingenuous?

I'm saying that if that is your one piece of hard data,
But a moment ago, you said this piece of hard data is not evidence. Which is it?

you can't reasonably assert that sexism doesn't exist.
The assertion is not that sexism does not exist. The assertion was that there has been no evidence that lawyers who are women do not face barriers in performing scholarship regarding the Second Amendment beyond whatever barriers they might face in other topics.

What part of this do you find so difficult to follow?
7.14.2009 1:59pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Why are y'all so defensive?

No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a chemist. I manage the labortory and quality program at a chemical plant.

Let me try this again.

You have one data point: the gender disparity. I'm not talking about the disparity that Bartow complains about here, because you all have explained to me that there just aren't many female lawyers who specialize in 2nd A. law. I get that. That means that there is a gender disparity in 2nd Amend. law specialists.

A disparity isn't an assertion that there is a problem. It's simply an observation made on fact.

You have hypotheses as to why that gender disparity exists - women don't care about guns, whatever. But you don't have data to show that women don't care about guns. The only HARD data you have shows that there are disproportionately few women who specialize in this area - that's it, unless you have surveys of female lawyers and scholars giving their reasons why they chose the fields they did, and if you do, you haven't mentioned it. Not being a woman, and not experiencing what a woman would experience, you have no way of knowing whether a woman who wants to specialize in this area faces sexism or not. You are assuming that she would not, and asserting that she would not - based on what? Based on data you've not shared, or based on your not wanting to have to acknowledge it or feel like maybe you ought to do something about it?
7.14.2009 2:15pm
3090:
Yep, I knew you weren't serious.
7.14.2009 2:27pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Which, being translated, means you can't answer my argument.
7.14.2009 2:45pm
yankev (mail):

Why are y'all so defensive?
I'm not defensive, I'm bemused by the total absence of logic.

Not being a woman, and not experiencing what a woman would experience, you have no way of knowing whether a woman who wants to specialize in this area faces sexism or not.
I got it now. Only women are capable of recognizing sexism, because sexism depends entirely on what a woman subjectively experiences or perceives. Therefore the mere existence of a statistical disparity shifts the burden of proof to men to prove that no entry barriers exist, despite the absence of any evidence of entry barriers. But if a woman were to assert the absence of barriers, she would not have the same obligation to support her assertion as a man would.

Wow.

No, I'm not a lawyer
Yeah, some people had already guessed that.
Then again, I doubt that I'd do much better at solving chemical equations.

Which, being translated, means you can't answer my argument.
Your argument, being translated, means there's nothing there to answer.
7.14.2009 2:54pm
Matt_T:
Why use as a term of opprobrium, the name of an organ that is a source of pleasure to so many?

Grumpy Old Man, your witty, subtle, and ironic comment has won the thread.
7.14.2009 3:14pm
Volokh Groupie:
I think that Prof. Bartow is mostly in the wrong here. Even though the ratio of those at the symposium should raise an eyebrow or two and can prompt some discussion of how it came about she clearly has already decided on the narrative to answer that without a very good argument. The response that it was about guns and that the area tends to be dominated by men doesn't strike me as necessarily condescending.

Southernxyl makes the understandable point that that can come across as condescending as its possible the commenter had made an obvious point that Prof. Bartow had already considered and cast out of hand (that appears to be the case in her further responses). However, considering that the commenter was making a legitimate argument regarding the imbalance it strikes me as arrogant and dismissive to respond the way she did (I guess the argument can also be the that commenter was also too blunt about it). Maybe she can explain why she feels the reeponse was warranted but that explanation should be her response if she wants to seriously discuss what appear to be allegations of bias. Alleging gender bias is a serious accusation, so the onus here should be on Prof. Bartow to present a somewhat analytical case why such bias may be true. Much of the discussion and debate in academics would be squelched if all of a sudden one could make allegations of personal bias, choose not to engage them thoroughly and then act viscerally to responses (even if they are blunt).

That said, the tone of these comments is pretty appalling. One doesn't have to believe that feminist law theory is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean childish attacks/sniping with the occasional misogynistic comment on feminism and feminist lawyers are warranted.
7.14.2009 4:08pm
NaG (mail):
Laura(southernxyl): "Not being a woman, and not experiencing what a woman would experience, you have no way of knowing whether a woman who wants to specialize in this area faces sexism or not."

Actually, yes, we do. Everyone who has been through law school, dealt with law reviews, and has practiced as a lawyer knows that there is nothing preventing a woman from becoming a scholar in any area of law that interests her. What is so interesting about this is that you accuse men of not being able to understand what a woman experiences, when you sit there as a chemist with NO IDEA about what those of us in the law experience, and yet you deign to insinuate how the practice of law is conducted! Amazing. Look, maybe the crusty world of chemistry has sexism coming out its gills, but the law profession is so steeped in "social justice" that we have law professors who dedicate their studies to the promotion of feminism in law. How many "Feminist Chemist" groups do you have?
7.14.2009 5:10pm
Volokh Groupie:
There are women in science groups on most campuses around the country.
7.14.2009 6:04pm
why (mail):
I scanned the comments over a 24 hour or so period of time, but I see no misogyny. Can you point to some of these misogynistic comments?
7.14.2009 8:43pm
why (mail):
Not being a woman, and not experiencing what a woman would experience, you have no way of knowing whether a woman who wants to specialize in this area faces sexism or not.'

Not being a free radical you have no ideas of the barriers a free radical faces within a liter of a buffered solution.
7.14.2009 8:45pm
why (mail):
Not being a woman, and not experiencing what a woman would experience, you have no way of knowing whether a woman who wants to specialize in this area faces sexism or not.'

Not being a man or a father, you have no way of knowing of the misandry of the family courts against fathers. When you hear of such cases, how do you react, and how do you know how to react?
7.14.2009 8:46pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Dang, y'all. Did I strike a nerve?

"Therefore the mere existence of a statistical disparity shifts the burden of proof to men to prove that no entry barriers exist, despite the absence of any evidence of entry barriers."

You are wilfully misunderstanding what I am saying.

Let me try again.

If there is a statistical disparity, then it makes sense to ask why. There may not be a barrier to women, but there might be. A man would not necessarily see it if he is not looking for it. So if you don't ask, you won't know. I believe I've said this over and over. You are accusing me of saying that disparity proves sexism. I have not said it, because I don't think it.

.....

"yet you deign to insinuate how the practice of law is conducted!"

Oh, for pete's sake.
7.14.2009 11:51pm
NaG (mail):
Laura(southernxyl): "Oh, for pete's sake."

Laura(southernxyl): "Which, being translated, means you can't answer my argument."

That was easy.

Laura(southernxyl): "You are accusing me of saying that disparity proves sexism. I have not said it, because I don't think it."

Except that you repeatedly ignore all evidence other than the single instance of statistical disparity. And you have no other evidence aside from this single instance of disparity -- even Prof. Bartow could not come up with another woman with a background in 2d Amendment law who wasn't included. It's silly.
7.15.2009 9:05am
yankev (mail):

A man would not necessarily see it if he is not looking for it.
Perhaps. And perhaps there are some women who would see it whether it were there or not.
7.15.2009 9:26am
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
"Except that you repeatedly ignore all evidence other than the single instance of statistical disparity."

What evidence do you offer, to prove that sexism is not discouraging women from specializing in 2nd Amendment rights?

Yankev: Probably. That doesn't mean it's there, and it doesn't mean it's not there. I'd like to see the emotion taken out on both sides, and observation and thought applied. Quite frankly, I'm surprised at the vehemence of some of you people insisting to me that there is no sexism in law.
7.15.2009 9:35am
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
NaG - let me add for clarity.

I'm not saying that the burden is on you to prove that there is no sexism - UNLESS you are going to assert that there is no sexism. If you are going to assert that there is no sexism, in the face of the gender disparity, then you need to offer something to back that up. Otherwise you can just say, "not many women specialize in 2nd Am. rights, and I don't know why." Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
7.15.2009 9:37am
DJS:
I'm so heartened to see some of the comments that this is "typical Bartow." That is excatly what I thought when I read the post.

I'm a recent law school graduate who tried to engage in honest debate on Bartow's blog, only to be insulted by her in response. So I stopped reading her blog once I realized she wasn't interested in debate. Pretty simple. I don't understand how she keeps readers, or how she doesn't see how terrible she comes off online.
7.15.2009 9:23pm
Frecklerock:
A number of comments highlight that Prof. Bartow did not present her argument as to gender ratio among authors as a thoughtful question, nor support her argument with any data - and rather launched forward with the accusatory headline:

<blockquote>
"Where Are The Women? A precious few were published in recent addition of the UCLA Law Review. Invited articles by fourteen men, but only two women, in a Symposium edition?"
</blockquote>


That criticism seems correct. But I have also observed that very brief, very provocative statements are a common tool used in the blogosphere, often to introduce an issue area and invite comment, and particularly with the increased use of character limited messages in f'book, twitter, etc.
7.16.2009 8:46pm
Prick:
@ frecklerock "I have also observed that very brief, very provocative statements are a common tool used in the blogosphere, often to introduce an issue area and invite comment . . . ."

When that is intended, responding to those who answer the question with name-calling is typically frowned upon.
7.17.2009 1:41am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.