Resumen : |
The argument here is that a deep coherence in law, perhaps its most absolute principle and its fundamental assumed tacit basis, is male dominance over women. This must be absolute. But in order to be absolute it must be invisible, because if it is gendered it is partial, and since it must be universal it must keep its gender covered. This imperative is fundamental and consistent. Once the specificity of its gender is exposed, gaping holes yawn; for example, the fact that women have never consented to this state, nor to the rule of its law. The government was not framed by women. Rather, it was framed without consulting women. Yet it is assumed that women consent to its government even though it does not represent women nor does it act in ways that respond to women’s harms, far less women’s situations, values, experiences or concerns. |