Legal historian Deborah Dinner has accepted a position as associate professor of law, effective July 1, 2011. A graduate of Yale Law School and a Ph.D. candidate in history at Yale University, ...She expects to complete her degree in May 2012. While she claims to study "history", she does not pay any attention to anything before 1965.
“Deborah is an extraordinarily promising scholar of the history of gender, work, and family,” adds Neil Richards, professor of law and chair of this year’s Faculty Appointments Committee.
She was not hired for her scholarly accomplishments. She is just now getting her silly women's studies degree. She was hired for her ideology.
What makes her so attractive to liberal academics is that she is dedicated to the destruction of the American family. Her most prominent publication was titled, "The Costs of Reproduction: History and the Legal Construction of Sex Equality". It argues that feminists should not be satisfied with anti-discrimination laws. They must work to dismantle toe "family-wage system" where parents earn money to support their families. Instead she wants a more socialist system where child-rearing responsibilities are shifted away from families and toward society at-large. She says:
Got that? By the "historical perspective", she does not mean the thousands of years of recorded history of the family, she means the history of feminist advocacy since 1965. By "market-rational discrimination", she means paying people based on their value in the marketplace. By the "family-wage ideal" and "status quo", she means the American nuclear family being self-sufficient and autonomous. She is against all of these things, and wants to shift "responsibility for caregiving" from the family to society with an assortment of new govt entitlements.
Feminists advocated for social-welfare legislation, in addition to an- tidiscrimination law, as a means to dismantle the family-wage system. In the late 1960s, the claim to childcare as a right echoed across diverse strands of the women’s movement.254 Grassroots activists demanded free, twenty- four hour universal childcare, funded by the federal government but con- trolled by local communities.255 Feminists sought to redefine childrearing as a collective, public responsibility rather than a private responsibility of indi- vidual women. The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose, for example, asserted that childcare did not represent “the unique responsibility of each individual women [sic]” but “rather ... a basic social dilemma which society must solve.”256...
Conclusion ... Market and social conservatism, however, foreclosed other aspects of the legal feminist agenda. These included ... the enactment of universal childcare legislation...
Vestiges of the family-wage ideal persist today in ... women’s ongoing disproportionate responsibility for caregiving. To advance sex equality, courts should interpret the PDA to entail a prohibition on market-rational discrimination. Congress would facilitate more egalitarian caregiv-ing patterns by augmenting the entitlements provided by the FMLA. Both courts and political pundits construct rhetorical and theoretical boundaries between sex equality and cost sharing to justify the status quo. A historical perspective reveals that these boundaries are largely illusory.Barack Obama is campaigning for re-election with The Life of Julia. His vision of American is to replace family autonomy with dependence on govt programs. The programs don't even work, and Stossel pointed out. That life does not include marrage, but "Julia decides to have a child." As Stossell says:No, it's not great. A life of handouts sucks the spirit out of people. It makes us serfs. If we all lived Julia's life, it would not be good for America.Obama is promising a feminist ideal that is contrary to the American family.
There is something seriously wrong with a woman who does not want "disproportionate responsibility for caregiving" of her own kids.
With law schools teaching this anti-family propaganda, the next generation of lawyers, legislators, judges, and politicians will be brainwashed.Barack Obama is campaigning for re-election with The Life of Julia. His vision of American is to replace family autonomy with dependence on govt programs. The programs don't even work, and Stossel pointed out. That life does not include marrage, but "Julia decides to have a child." As Stossell says:
No, it's not great. A life of handouts sucks the spirit out of people. It makes us serfs. If we all lived Julia's life, it would not be good for America.Obama is promising a feminist ideal that is contrary to the American family.