In honor of International Women's Day, I thought I'd post a short gender studies history lesson.
Within Western traditions, the conventional standard for judging behavior has been "a reasonable man." Thus, to determine whether a homeowner who shot a burglar used appropriate force, the court would ask, "What would a reasonable man do if someone broke into his home?"
The reasonable man standard prevailed in early sexual harassment cases. For example, in Rabidue vs. Osceola Refining Company (1986), the majority opinion of the court was that behavior that might offend many women was "an everyday occurrence ... (that) is natural, acceptable, and part of the fabric of society's morality." (Pollack, 1990, p. 65). In Rabidue, male perceptions were declared to be the generic standard for social conduct. Dissenting from the majority opinion in Rabidue, Judge Damon Keith asserted that differences in the conditions of men's and women's lives may lead them to perceive events in distinct ways and, specifically, to find different behaviors intimidating and offensive (Forell, 1993). Although Judge Keith's opinion was the minority in Rabidue, he inaugurated judicial awareness of the reasonable woman standard.
A few years after Rabidue, the appropriateness of the reasonable man standard was rejected in a trial involving the question of whether pinups in public areas of a workplace created an offensive working environment. In this case, the judge ruled that although nude and near-nude photos of women might not offend a reasonable man, they could well be offensive to a reasonable woman.
Gendered Lives, Julia T. Wood
Judge Damon J. Keith:
Another reason to put Damon Keith on your personal hero list:
U.S. v. Sinclair -- U.S. v. District Court for Michigan 321 F. Supp 1074 (1971) -- The "Keith" Decision
This is Judge Keith´s most famous decision, and won him national attention. He was judge in a criminal trial for radical members of the "White Panther Party" accused of bombing the Ann Arbor, Michigan offices of the CIA. In the course of the trial it came out the federal government had tapped the phone lines of at least one defendant without obtaining a prior warrant. The Attorney General claimed this action was justified by the need for "national security." Judge Keith decided that:
"The contention by the Government that in cases involving "national security" a warrantless search is not an illegal one, must be cautiously approached and analyzed. We are, after all, dealing not with the rights of one solitary defendant, but rather, we are here concerned with the possible infringement of a fundamental freedom guaranteed to all Americans....
An idea which seems to permeate much of the Government´s argument is that a dissident domestic organization is akin to an unfriendly foreign power and must be dealt with in the same fashion. There is great danger in an argument of this nature for it strikes at the very constitutional privileges and immunities that are inherent in United States citizenship. It is to be remembered that in our democracy all men are to receive equal and exact justice regardless of their political beliefs or persuasions. The Executive branch of our Government cannot be given the power or the opportunity to investigate and prosecute criminal violations under two different standards simply because an accused espouses views which are inconsistent with our present form of Government....
Such power held by one individual was never contemplated by the framers of our Constitution and cannot be tolerated today."
Judge Keith ordered the government to turn over its tapes to the defendant. After Judge Keith´s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, the government responded by dropping the charges.
http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/decisions.html#Sinclair