SYMPOSIUM
PREFACE
Continually Re-Thinking: What Would
Mary Joe Frug Do? (A Preface to
Symposium Discussions)
MARTHA MINOW*
Only by continually re-thinking who we are and why we are
making the choices we make can we free ourselves from the belief
that our selves are constructed by our sexual identities.
~Mary Joe Frug1
* Morgan
and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.
Mary Joe Frug, Re-reading Contracts: A Feminist Analysis of a Contracts Casebook, 34 AM. U.
L. REV. 1065, 1140 ((1985) [hereinafter Frug, Re-reading Contracts].
1
For a remembrance written by her son, see Stephen Frug, Attempts: Mary Joe Frug,
19411991, STEPHEN FRUG BLOG (Apr. 4, 2011), http://stephenfrug.blogspot.com/2011/04/maryjoe-frug-1941-1991.html.
269
270
v. 50 | 269
3 Mary Joe Frug, Rescuing Impossibility Doctrine: A Postmodern Feminist Analysis of Contract
Law, 140 U. PA. L. REV. 1029 (1992) [hereinafter Frug, Feminist Analysis of Impossibility Doctrine].
4
Id. at 1029.
See LIBBY S. ADLER ET AL., MARY JOE FRUGS WOMEN AND THE LAW (4th edition 2008);
MARY JOE FRUG, POSTMODERN LEGAL FEMINISM (1992) [hereinafter FRUG, POSTMODERN LEGAL
FEMINISM]; Mary Joe Frug, A Postmodern Feminist Legal Manifesto (An Unfinished Draft), 105
HARV. L. REV. 1045 (1992); Symposium, For Mary Joe Frug: A Symposium on Feminist Critical
Legal Studies and Postmodernism (pts. 1 & 2), 26 NEW ENG. L. REV. 639, 26 NEW ENG. L. REV. 1173
(1992).
5
6 See Laura Barnett, The Conversation: Why Is There So Much Misogyny Online?, GUARDIAN
(May 4, 2012, 3:58 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/04/conver
sation-misogyny-online-abuse.
7 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015); Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
8 Phillip Weiner, The Evolving Jurisprudence of the Crime of Rape in International Criminal Law,
54 B.C.L. REV. 1207, 122021 (2013); see Statistics, RAINN, https://www.rainn.org/statistics (last
visited Apr. 19, 2016).
2016
271
9 Frug, Re-reading Contracts, supra note 2, at 1138 (I want to caution readers not to freeze
this analysis into a rigid, prescriptive, analytical formula for eradicating gender.); id. at 1139
([L]iterally applying my analysis of the gender-related aspects . . . to every legal texts one
reads would foster rather than challenge the constraints gender ideas have over our lives.).
Thus:
272
v. 50 | 269
shortcut.).
12 FRUG, POSTMODERN LEGAL FEMINISM, supra note 5, at 126 (Style is important in
postmodern work.); Alison Diduck, Review: Postmodern Legal Feminism, 49 FEMINIST REV. 119,
119 (1995) (reviewing MARY JOE FRUG, POSTMODERN LEGAL FEMINISM (1992)) (Both this style
and her ideas are intensely personal and engaging, which ultimately makes this collection an
inspiring read.)
13 Frug, Feminist Analysis of Impossibility Doctrine, supra note 5, at 1042 (comparing
impossibility doctrine and divorce and annulment law).
14
Id. at 1044.
Frug, Re-reading Contracts, supra note 2, at 107074 (introducing the feminist reader, the
woman-centered reader, the reader with a chip on the shoulder, the innocent gentleman
reader, the reader who is undressed for success, the individualist reader, the civil libertarian
reader, and the undeserving (or insecure) male or female reader. The rest of the article
considers how people situated in these multiple points of view might perceive materials in the
contracts casebook).
16 Id. at 1111.
17 Id. at 113540.
18 Id. at 10361140 (explaining why as a professor in a position of relative power, Frug had
reluctance to push some of her own scholarly ideas in the classroom).
15