Author granted license

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Document Type

Book Chapter

Publication Date

12-7-2012

Editor(s)

James E. Fleming and Sanford Levinson

Publisher

New York University Press

Language

en-US

Abstract

This book chapter explores evolution and morality by considering the appeal to nature, and in particular to how evolution has shaped female and male brains differently, to explain evident sex differences and the persistence of sex inequality. It uses as illustrative the popularizing accounts of male and female brains found in Louann Brizendine, The Female Brain and The Male Brain, and the portrayal in such accounts of fundamental male and female differences in human mate selection and parenting. Drawing on the work of scientist and philosophers, the chapter critiques these accounts for engaging in an increasingly popular “neurosexism.” Such neurosexism has historical antecedents in law and social thought, e.g., earlier views of how women’s lesser and distinctive brain capacity constrained their ability to participate equally with men in the professions or politics or the like. The chapter then considers the relevance of claims about female and male brains and sex differences rooted in evolution to ongoing issues of law and policy, such as the form that marriage should take (whether it should be open to same-sex couples and whether it is ideally egalitarian) and governmental responsibility concerning work/family conflict. It concludes by noting a striking pendulum swing on the question of gender differences as fixed or malleable: in the wake of the recent economic recession, dubbed the “man-cession,” there is a noteworthy shift away from skepticism about feminist social engineering in the area of gender roles in the home and the workplace and toward calls for men to “adapt” to new economic and social conditions, for society to reimagine masculinity, and for the U.S. to look to how other nations have encouraged this adaptation. will show that the right to silence and the Fifth Amendment are not the same. Indeed, the result and reasoning of Salinas demonstrate that the Fifth Amendment does not afford an individual, who has neither been indicted, nor arrested, nor temporarily detained by police, a right to remain silent in the face of police interrogation.

Find on SSRN

Included in

Family Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.