1 Quentin Bell, 1 & 2 Virginia Woolf: A Biography (New York: Harcourr Brace & Jovanovich, 1972) (“Bell, Woolf'); Phyllis Rose, Woman of Letters: A Life of Virginia Woolf (New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich, 1978); Michele Barrett, ed., Virginia Woolf: Women and Writing (New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich, 1979).Google Scholar

2 2 Bell, Woolf 205.Google Scholar

3 John Hagan & Marjorie Zatz, “Paths to Power: The Large Firm Mobility Route and the Gender Stratification of Lawyers” (unpublished paper, University of Toronto, 1989) (“Hagan & Zatz, ‘Paths to Power’”).Google Scholar

4 Drachman, Virginia, “My ‘Partner’ in Law and Life: Marriage in the Lives of Women Lawyers in Late 19th- and Early-20th Century America,” 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 221 (1989); Karen Berger Morello, The Invisible Bar: The Woman Lawyer in America, 1638 to the Present (New York: Random House, 1986) (“Morello, The Invisible Bar”); Ronald Chester, Unequal Access: Women Lawyers in a Changing America (South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, 1985) (“Chester, Unequal Access”).Google Scholar

5 Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Women in Law (New York: Basic Books, 1981) (“Epstein, Women in Law”); id., Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender and the Social Order (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988) (“Epstein, Deceptive Distinctions”).Google Scholar

6 Rhode, Deborah, “Perspectives on Professional Women,” 40 Stan. L. Rev. 1163–1208 (1988); Chambers, David, “Accommodation and Satisfaction: Women and Men Lawyers and the Balance of Work and Family,” 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry (1989); Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, “Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women's Lawyering Process,” 1 Berkeley Women's L. J. 39 (1985) (“Menkel-Meadow, ‘Portia’”); Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, with Dunlop, Mary, Ellen DuBois, Carol Gilligan, & Catherine MacKinnon, “Feminist Discourse, Moral Values and the Law–A Conversation,” 34 Buffalo L. Rev. 11, 49 (1985); id., “The Comparative Sociology of Women Lawyers,” 24 Osgoode Hall L. J. 897 (1986); id., “The Feminization of the Legal Profession: The Comparative Sociology of Women Lawyers,”in Richard Abel & Phillip S. C. Lewis, eds., Lawyers in Society, vol. 3, Comparative Theories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) (“Menkel-Meadow, ‘Feminization’”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Sandra G. Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986) (“Harding, The Science Question”).Google Scholar

8 Menkel-Meadow, “Portia” (cited in note 6); id, 24 Osgoode Hall L. J. (cited in note 6); id., Feminist Legal Theory, Critical Legal Studies and Legal Education or the ‘Fem-Crits’ Go to Law School,” 38 J. Legal Educ. 61–86 (1988).Google Scholar

9 Drachman, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

10 Hagan & Zatz, “Paths to Power” (cited in note 3).Google Scholar

11 Chambers, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 251 (cited in note 6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Rosalind Rosenberg, Beyond Separate Spheres: Intellectual Roots of Feminism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982) (“Rosenberg, Beyond Separate Spheres”); Mary Joe Frug, “The Role of Difference Models in the Study of Women in Law” (paper presented to conference on Women in the Legal Profession, Madison, Wis., Aug. 1987) (“Frug, ‘Difference Models’”); Epstein, Deceptive Distinctions (cited in note 5).Google Scholar

13 Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, “Deceptive Distinctions: Old Biases in New Frameworks” (paper presented to conference on Women in the Legal Profession, Madison, Wis., Aug. 1987).Google Scholar

14 Minow, Martha, “The Supreme Court, October 1986 Term: Justice Engendered,” 101 Harv. L. Rev. 10 (1987).Google Scholar

15 Hester Eisenstein & Alice Jardine, eds., The Future of Difference (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

16 This is not a facetious example. Social categories are politically significant. My father, who grew up in Nazi Germany, counted the low number of blonds in symphony orchestras all his life to disprove Hitler's claims that only blond Aryans could achieve good things.Google Scholar

17 Freedman, Ann, “Sex Equality, Sex Differences and the Supreme Court,” 92 Yale L. J. 913 (1983).Google Scholar

18 Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. & ed. by H. M. Parshley (1st Am. ed. 1952) (New York: Knopf, 1949).Google Scholar

19 Jean Baker Miller, Toward a New Psychology of Women (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976); Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) (“Gilligan, Different Voice”).Google Scholar

20 Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar

21 Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984); Harding, The Science Question (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

22 Elaine Showalter, ed., The New Feminist Criticism: Essays on Women and Literature (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986).Google Scholar

23 Ruddick, Sara, “Maternal Thinking,” 6 Feminist Stud. 342 (1980); Held, Virginia, “Feminism and Epistemology: Recent Work on the Connection Between Gender and Knowledge,” 14 Philosophy & Public Affairs 296 (1985).Google Scholar

24 Nell Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) (“Noddings, Caring”); Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, & Jill Mattuck Tarule, Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1986) (“Belenky et al., Women's Ways of Knowing”).Google Scholar

25 Epstein, Deceptive Distinctions (cited in note 5); Rosenberg, Beyond Separate Spheres (cited in note 12); Maccoby & Jacklin The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

26 Tamar Lewin, “View on Career Women Sets Off a Furor,”N. Y. Times, March 8, 1989, at B1–B8.Google Scholar

27 Watson, Carol, “When a Woman Is the Boss: Dilemmas in Taking Charge,” 13 Group & Org. Stud. 163–81 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Common in much recent journalism; see Jennifer Kingson, “Women in the Law Say Path Is Limited by ‘Mommy Track,’”N. Y. Times, Aug. 8, 1988; “Women in Law: The Glass Ceiling” (Special Issue), ABA J., June 1, 1988, at 49–75.Google Scholar

29 Arlie Hochschild, “Inside the Clockwork of Male Careers,”in Florence Howe, ed., Women and the Power to Change (Berkeley, Cal.: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1975).Google Scholar

30 See Littleton, Christine, “Reconstructing Sexual Equality,” 75 Cal. L. Rev. 1067 (1987); Finley, Lucinda, “Transcending Equality Theory: A Way Our of the Maternity and the Workplace Debate,” 86 Colum. L. Rev. 1118 (1986); Williams, Wendy, “Equality's Riddle: Pregnancy and the Equal Treatment/Special Treatment Debate,” 13 N. Y. U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 325 (1984).Google Scholar

31 Alcoff, Linda, “Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory,” 13 Signs 405–36 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Frug, “Difference Models” (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

33 Chambers, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 260 (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

34 Drachman, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry (cited in note 4); Chambers, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 268–71 (cited in note 6); Eve Spangler, Lawyers for Hire: Salaried Professionals at Work (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986); Stanford Law Review, Project: ”Law Firms and Lawyers with Children: An Empirical Analysis of Family/Work Conflict,” 34 Stan. L. Rev. 1263 (1982).Google Scholar

35 Ashburn, “Motivation, Personality and Work-related Characteristics of Women in Male-dominated Professions” (Washington, D. C.: National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors, 1977).Google Scholar

36 Penina Migdal Glazer & Miriam Slater, Unequal Colleagues: The Entrance of Women Into the Professions, 1890–1940 (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Regina Markell Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science: Women Physicians in American Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) (“Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science”).Google Scholar

38 Morello, The Invisible Bar (cited in note 4); Drachman, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

39 Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873); In re Bradwell, 55 Ill. 535 (1870); Chester, Unequal Access (cited in note 4); Morello, The Invisible Bar; Robinson, Leila J., “Women Lawyers in the United States,” 2 Green Bag 10–32 (1890).Google Scholar

40 See Justice Bradley's famous concurring opinion in Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873).Google Scholar

41 Epstein, Women in Law (cited in note 5).Google Scholar

42 Morello, The Invisible Bar (cited in note 4); Schwartz, M. Brandt, S., & Milrod, P., “The Battles of Clara Shortridge Foltz,” 1985 Cal. Defender 7 (1985).Google Scholar

43 Chester, Unequal Access (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

44 See Drachman, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry at 228 (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

45 Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism 232 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987) (“Cott, Grounding”).Google Scholar

46 In part so that women could be excluded from license and professional association membership.Google Scholar

47 Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (cited in note 37).Google Scholar

48 Washington College of Law was founded by two socially prominent feminists, Emma Gillette and Ellen Spencer Mussey, who were also active in the suffrage movement. They attracted to their school founders and members of the National Women's Party, among them Alice Paul (class of '22 and author of the Equal Rights Amendment). Chester, Unequal Access (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

49 Chester, Unequal Access.Google Scholar

50 Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (cited in note 37).Google Scholar

51 Chester, Unequal Access.Google Scholar

52 Barbara Harris, Beyond Her Sphere: Women and the Professions in American History (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1978).Google Scholar

53 Cott, Grounding (cited in note 45).Google Scholar

54 Epstein, Deceptive Distinctions (cited in note 5).Google Scholar

55 Epstein, Women in Law (cited in note 5); Menkel-Meadow, Carrie., “Excluded Voices: New Voices in the Legal Profession Making New Voices in the Law,” 42 U. Miami L. Rev. 701 (1987); Judith Lorber, Women Physicians: Careers, Status and Power (New York: Tavistock, 1984).Google Scholar

56 Gilligan, Different Voice (cited in note 19).Google Scholar

57 Noddings, Caring (cited in note 24).Google Scholar

58 Ruddick, 6 Feminist Stud. (cited in note 23).Google Scholar

59 Kathy E. Ferguson, The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985) (“Ferguson, Feminist Case”).Google Scholar

60 Robin Lakoff, Language and Women's Place (New York: Harper & Row, 1975).Google Scholar

61 Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (cited in note 37).Google Scholar

62 Robinson, 2 Green Bag (cited in note 39); Drachman, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

63 Morello, The Invisible Bar (cited in note 4); Kathryn Kish Sklar, “Florence Kelley and the Politics of Women's Reform” (paper presented to UCLA Women, Culture and Society seminar, Oct. 1986).Google Scholar

64 Schneider, Elizabeth, “The Dialectic of Rights and Politics: Perspectives from the Women's Rights Movement,” 61 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 589 (1986).Google Scholar

65 West, Robin, “Jurisprudence and Gender,” 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1987); Minow, 101 Harv. L. Rev. (cited in note 13); Littleton, 75 Cal. L. Rev. (cited in note 30); MacKinnon, Catherine., “Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence,” 8 Signs 635 (1984); id., ”Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory,” 7 Signs 515 (1982).Google Scholar

66 Freedman, Estelle, “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism 1870–1930,” 5 Feminist Stud. 512 (1975).Google Scholar

67 Menkel-Meadow, “Portia (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

68 Kingson, N. Y. Times, Aug. 8, 1988 (cited in note 28).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Menkel-Meadow, “Feminization” (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

70 Gail Lapidus, “Occupational Segregation and Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis of American and Soviet Patterns,”in Martha Blaxall & Barbara Reagan, eds., Women and the Workplace (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976).Google Scholar

71 M. Kamiya, “Female Judges and Lawyers in Japan” (unpub. manuscript, 1986).Google Scholar

72 Myra Marx Ferree, “She Works Hard for a Living: Gender and Class on the Job,”in Beth Hess & Myra Marx Ferree, eds., Analyzing Gender (Newberry Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1987).Google Scholar

73 Abel, Richard L., “Comparative Sociology of Legal Professions: An Exploratory Essay,” 1985 ABF Res. J. 1.Google Scholar

74 In most countries law is studied as an undergraduate subject with a long period of postuniversity apprenticeship, such as “articling” in Canada and clerking in England.Google Scholar

75 As, for example, is true in some Scandinavian countries. Jon T. Johnsen, “The Professionalization of Legal Counseling in Norway,”in Richard L. Abel & Philip S. C. Lewis, eds., Lawyers in Society, vol. 2, The Civil Law World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).Google Scholar

76 Stanford Law Review, ”Gender, Legal Education and the Legal Profession: An Empirical Study of Stanford Law Students and Graduates,” 40 Stan. L. Rev. 1988 (1988).Google Scholar

77 Barbara A. Curran with Katherine J. Rosich, Clara N. Carson, & Mark C. Puccetti, The Lawyer Statistical Report: A Statistical Profile of the U. S. Legal Profession in the 1980s (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1985).Google Scholar

78 Leona Vogt, From Law School to Career: Where Do Gradutes Go and What Do They Do? A Career Paths Study of Seven Northeastem Area Law Schools (Cambridge: Harvard Law School Program on the Legal Profession, 1986).Google Scholar

79 Chambers, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 285 (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

80 Curran, Lawyer Statistical Report (cited in note 76).Google Scholar

81 Ferguson, Feminist Case (cited in note 58); Catherine MacKinnon, “Women Lawyers–On Exceptions”in Feminism Unmodified (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

82 See Sirianni, Carmen, “Self-Management of Time: A Democratic Alternative,” Socialist Rev. 1988, at 5.Google Scholar

83 Cited in note 28.Google Scholar

84 Jill Abramson & Barbara Franklin, Where They Are Now: The Story of the Women of Harvard Law (New York: Doubleday 1986); Loden,” A Machismo That Drives Women Out,”N. Y. Times, Feb. 9, 1986, at 2F.Google Scholar

85 Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U. S. 69 (1984).Google Scholar

86 Marc Galanter & Tom Palay, “The Transformation of the Large Law Firm” (paper presented to the American Bar Foundation Conference on Ethics, Economics and Structure of Legal Professionalism, Sept. 1988).Google Scholar

87 Cf. Hewlitt, A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America (New York: William Morrow, 1986).Google Scholar

88 Working Party on Women's Careers, Equal in the Law (London: Law Society's Hall, 1988).Google Scholar

89 Littleton, 75 Cal. L Rev. (cited in note 30); American Bar Association Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession, Report to the House of Delegates (Aug. 1988).Google Scholar

90 Terence Halliday, Karen Aschaffenberg, & Mark Granfors, “Gender, Time and Structure in the American Legal Profession: Data from the 1980 Census” (presented to the Conference on Women in the Legal Profession, Madison, Wis., Aug. 1987).Google Scholar

91 Sherry, Suzanna, “Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice in Constitutional Adjudication,” 72 Va. L. Rev. 543 (1986).Google Scholar

92 Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1977); id., ”Reflections on Women and the Legal Profession: A Sociological Perspective,” 1 Haw. Women's L. J. 1 (1978); Spangler, Eve, Gordon, Marsha, & Pipkin, Ronald, “Token Women: An Empirical Test of Kanter's Hypothesis,” 84 Am. J. Soc. 160 (1978).Google Scholar

93 Epstein, Women in Law (cited in note 5).Google Scholar

94 Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873).Google Scholar

95 Barbara Allen Babcock, “Reconstructing the Person: The Case of Clara Shortridge Foltz” (paper presented to a conference on Women in the Legal Profession, Madison, Wis., Aug. 1987).Google Scholar

96 Kessler-Harris, Alice., “EEOC v. Sears: A Personal Account,” 35 Radical Hist. Rev. 57–79 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97 See Milkman, Ruth, “Women's History and the Sears Case,” 12 Feminist Stud. 375 (1986).Google Scholar

98 EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 581 F. 2d 941 (D. C. Cir. 1987).Google Scholar

99 See Joan Scott's recent call to transcend the unfortunate duality set up in the arguments of EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 581 F.2d 941 (D. C. Cir. 1987), by virtue of the legal paradigm and its oversimplification of feminist theories and women's history. The categories of choice and discrimination are not mutually exclusive but interactive and so we must transcend simple choices of “equality” or “difference.” Courts are particularly bad fora for pursuing these explanations of behavior because the structure of the legal case and expert testimony, such as in Sears, forces false polarization. Scott, Joan W., “Deconstructing Equality-vs-Difference: Or, the Uses of Post-Structuralist Theory for Feminism,” 14 Feminist Stud. 33–50 (1988).Google Scholar

100 Barbara Reskin & Heidi Hartmann, eds., Women's Work, Men's Work: Sex Segregation on the Job (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1986); Emily Abel, “The Sexual Division of Labor” (presentation, UCLA, July 1988).Google Scholar

101 Natalie Sokoloff, “The Increase of Black and White Women in the Professions: A Contradictory Process,”in Christine Bose & Glenna Spitze, eds., Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987); Elizabeth Higginbotham, “Employment for Black Professional Women in the Twentieth Century,”in Christine Bose & Glenna Spitze, eds., Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987).Google Scholar

102 Alice Kessler-Harris, “The Debate over Equality in the Workplace: Recognizing Differences,”in Naomi Gerstel & Harriet Engel Gross, eds., Families and Work (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987); Karen Brodkin Sacks, Caring by the Hour: Women, Work and Organizing at Duke Medical Center (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988); Zavella, Patricia, “Abnormal Intimacy: The Varying Work Networks of Chicana Cannery Workers,” 11 Feminist Stud. 541–58 (1985); Sallie Westwood, All Day, Every Day: Factory and Family in the Making of Women's Lives (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103 Menkel-Meadow, 1 Berkeley Women's L. J. (1985).Google Scholar

104 See, e. g., Offen, Karen, “Defining Feminism: A Comparative Historical Approach,” 14 Signs 119 (1988).Google Scholar

105 Ruddick, 6 Feminist Stud. (cited in note 23).Google Scholar

106 MacKinnon, Catherine., with Dunlap, Mary, DuBois, Ellen, Gilligan, Carol, & Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, “Feminist Discourse, Moral Values and the Law–A Conversation,” 34 Buffalo L. Rev. 11 (1985).Google Scholar

107 De Beauvoir, The Second Sex (cited in note 18); Elaine Marks & Isabelle de Courtivron, New French Feminism (New York: Schocken Books, 1981).Google Scholar

108 Belenky et al., Women's Ways of Knowing (cited in note 24); Harding, The Science Question (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

109 Williams, Wendy, “The Equality Crisis: Some Reflections on Culture, Courts and Feminism,” 7 Women's Rights L Reptr. 175 (1982).Google Scholar

110 Frug, “Difference Models” (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

111 Or reduced adaptation as was found of the women in Chambers's study, who find satisfaction by working part time for less traditional “reward,” or work in other workplaces, without much evidence of transforming either the workplace or the traditional arrangements within the family. Chambers, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

112 Perri Klass, “Are Women Better Doctors?”N. Y. Times (Mag.), April 10, 1988.Google Scholar

113 Lorber, Judith, “More Women Physicians: Will It Mean More Humane Health Care?” 16 Soc. Pol'y 50 (1985).Google Scholar

114 An interesting question here is whether oppression is necessary for a transformative vision. Are black male lawyers, also until recently excluded from the profession, more likely to seek innovation or assimilation? When other groups were systematically excluded from elite law practices (Jews and “ethnic” Catholics) they formed their own law firms, with no evidence that they modified law practice in any significant way. Jerold S. Auerbach, Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976); John Heinz & Edward Laumann, Chicago Lawyers: The Social Stratification of the Bar (Chicago: American Bar Foundation; New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983).Google Scholar

115 Ruddick, 6 Feminist Stud. (cited in note 23).Google Scholar

116 Arlene Kaplan Daniels, Invisible Careers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).Google Scholar

117 Gilligan, Different Voice (cited in note 19).Google Scholar

118 Lerman, Lisa G., “Mediation and Wife Abuse Cases: The Adverse Impact of Informal Dispute Resolution on Women,” 7 Harv. Women's L. J. 57–114 (1984).Google Scholar

119 Lenore Weitzan, The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children (New York: Free Press, 1985).Google Scholar

120 Epstein, Women in Law (cited in note 5).Google Scholar

121 Lisa Fenning, “Report from the Front: Progress in the Battle Against Gender Bias in the Legal Profession” (presented to conference on Women in the Legal Profession, Madison, Wis., Aug. 1987).Google Scholar

122 Known in masculinist language as “surrogate mother” contracts.Google Scholar

123 Tronto, Joan, “Beyond Gender Difference in a Theory of Care,” 12 Sings 644 (1987).Google Scholar

124 Blum, Lawrence, “Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for Moral Theory,” 98 Ethics 472–91 (1988); Flanagan, Owen & Jackson, Kathryn, “Justice, Care and Gender: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Debate Revisited,” 97 Ethics 622 (1987); Baier, Annette, “What Do Women Want in A Moral Theory?” 19 Nous 53 (1985).Google Scholar

125 Bender, Leslie, “A Lawyer's Primer on Feminist Theory and Tort,” 38 J. Legal Educ. 3–38 (1988).Google Scholar

126 Spiegelman, Paul, “Integrating Doctrine, Theory and Practice in the Law School Curriculum: The Logic of Jake's Ladder in the Context of Amy's Web,” 38 J. Legal Educ. rehuk cvm243-70 (1988).Google Scholar

127 Karst, Kenneth, “Women's Constitution,” 1984 Duke L. J. 447.Google Scholar

128 Spiegelman, Paul, “Court Ordered Hiring Quotas After Stotts: A Narrative on the Role of Moralities of the Web and Ladder in Employment Discrimination Doctrine,” 20 Harv. C. R. -C. L. L. Rev. 339 (1985).Google Scholar

129 Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, “Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving,” 31 UCLA L. Rev. 754 (1984); Riskin, Leonard, “Mediation in Law Schools,” 34 J. Legal Educ. 259–67 (1984).Google Scholar

130 Rhode, 40 Stan. L. Rev. (cited in note 6); MacKinnon, et al., 34 Buffalo L Rev. (cited in note 104).Google Scholar

131 Harding, The Science Question (cited in note 7).Google Scholar