Explore the vast range of titles available.

According to masculinities theory, masculinity is not a biological imperative but a social construction. Men engage in a constant struggle with other men to prove their masculinity.Masculinities and the Lawdevelops a multidimensional approach. It sees categories of identity - including various forms of raced, classed, and sex-oriented masculinities - as operating simultaneously and creating different effects in different contexts. By applying multidimensional masculinities theory to law, this cutting-edge collection both expands the field of masculinities and develops new thinking about important issues in feminist and critical race theories. The topics covered include how norms of masculinity influence the behavior of policemen, firefighters, and international soldiers on television and in the real world; employment discrimination against masculine cocktail waitresses and all transgendered employees; the legal treatment of fathers in the U.S. and the ways unauthorized migrant fathers use the dangers of border crossing to boost their masculine esteem; how Title IX fails to curtail the masculinity of sport; the racist assumptions behind the prison rape debate; the surprising roots of homophobia in Jamaican dancehall music; and the contradictions of the legal debate over women veiling in Turkey. Ultimately, the book argues that multidimensional masculinities theory can change how law is interpreted and applied.

\"13 Slaughter makes no similar claim about men. [...]women still suffer from domestic violence and poverty at rates higher than those of men.14 Thus, a concern for men's future without a closer look may be premature. [...]although Rosin does not come to the same conclusion, her interviews of college women suggest that young women are still subject to their male colleagues' erotic preferences.

STRUCTURAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL FAILURES Despite the recent public awakening concerning both sexism and racism in our society,1 the federal courts have systematically chipped away at employees' civil rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be free of both sexual and racial harassment at work.2 Since the 1970s, lower federal courts have recognized hostile work environments caused by race and sex as violative of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.3 In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson that sexually hostile work environments constitute sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.4 But despite some progressive Supreme Court opinions since then,5 the Court has also decided cases that narrow plaintiffs' rights to be free of employment discrimination under various federal statutes.6 Moreover, generally, federal district courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals have on many occasions signaled their lack of interest in protecting the rights of individuals to be free of illegal harassment and other illegal discrimination.7 This anti-plaintiff orientation results not only from substantive doctrines applied to the interpretation of Title VII, most of which do not appear in the text of the civil rights acts, but also from the application of procedural rules to Title VII and other employment discrimination cases that has unduly reduced the success rates of plaintiffs.8 Empirical research confirms an \"anti-plaintiff effect\" in employment discrimination cases at all stages of litigation in federal courts.9 In federal district courts and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, employment discrimination plaintiffs suffer a significant disadvantage compared to non-employment discrimination plaintiffs in federal court and employment discrimination defendants.10 For example, one study found that although plaintiffs in civil cases other than discrimination cases had a success rate of 51%, plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases won at a rate of only 15%.11 Moreover, while the research shows that both judges and juries find for plaintiffs less frequently in employment discrimination cases than cases alleging other violations, plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases do better with juries than in bench trials.12 Considering the low rate of success that employment discrimination plaintiffs have at the trial level, it is even more remarkable that the federal courts of appeals reverse plaintiffs' victories at a considerably higher rate than they reverse defendants' employment discrimination victories.13 Additionally, lower courts have created substantive doctrines out of whole cloth that makes it nearly impossible for plaintiffs to succeed.14 These doctrines, which former federal district court judge Nancy Gertner calls \"loser's rules\" and \"heuristics,\"15 are applied unthinkingly by other district courts, citing the original district courts that use these made-up doctrines for precedent. The Trump administration appointed to the Supreme Court three Justices with records that promise little protection for workers from sexually and racially hostile environments,25 one of whom had a serious allegation of sexual assault against him.26 The alignment on the Supreme Court is currently six-three, conservatives to liberals, with at least five of the six being extremely conservative. Besides Justice Kavanaugh, the Trump appointee alleged to have committed sexual assault as a teenager, Justice Thomas, who has been on the Court since 1991, allegedly sexually harassed his female subordinates when he was the EEOC. Chairman and as head of the Department of Education.27 We cannot expect this bench to protect workers from harassment sufficiently. [...]there is little hope that the lower federal courts will protect employment discrimination plaintiffs more than they have in the past. The combination of rights-limiting substantive decisions in this area of Title VII law with procedural mechanisms that have the effect, if not the design, of curtailing plaintiffs' rights to jury trials has resulted in an ever-encroaching diminishment of protection of victims who suffer harassment at work. [...]even a generous interpretation of Title VII would impose significant limitations on civil rights in the workplace, especially for the most vulnerable Americans.

The Old Realism was premised on the idea that legal scholars should go out into the field and collect data (although the original scholars often included more arguments for empirical work than actual examples of it).7 In recent years, building on the increasing influence of both political science and economics on legal scholarship, a New Legal Realism has emerged whose proponents are often skilled empi- ricists and whose focus is on how lawyers and judges in fact operate in context. 8 New Legal Realists look at lawyers and judges in context and seek to test models of judicial behavior, the most common being that judicial behavior is driven by judges' policy preferences.9 Broadly speaking, the New Legal Realism generally has a top-down feel to it: the scholars posit models based on theory and then collect data to test the model. Sociologist Kieran Healy's research on presumed consent laws and organ donations is illustrative.162 Healy examined the effects of presumed consent laws on rates of cadaveric organ donation, i.e., donations from the dead.163 The general assumption in the literature on organ donation is that presumed consent laws are crucial in inducing higher rates of donation-and the high rates of organ donation in Spain are frequently invoked in the context.164 Healy's cross-country empirical analysis, however, suggests that differences in the legal regimes cannot explain differences in behavior.

Men and boys are gendered beings who operate in a gendered context and collectively experience both privilege and harm as a result of the social construction of what it means to be a boy or a man. Their collective privilege puts men as a group above women as a group, and infuses structures, culture, and policy with masculinities because men have historically held positions of power. At the same time, gender for men and boys does not operate uniformly, and is particularly affected by intersections with race, class, and sexual orientation. Within the collective of men and boys, there are