Thus, I was delighted when I began reading THE GENDER LINE: MEN, WOMEN AND THE LAW by Nancy Levit. This scholarly work, written by a law
professor, seeks to engage the possibility that biology and culture simultaneously construct gender. Levit states early in the book that her first aim is to
expose the ways gendered behaviors are carefully cultivated. The social segregation of the sexes is justified by the idea that there are inherent biological differences that are meaningful. It is Levit's contention that there are very few biological differences, but she quotes Martha Minow to say that it is the significance we give those differences that do exist that "makes all the difference" (p. 3).

Writing in a style easily accessible to undergraduates, Levit develops this argument in Chapters 2 and 3. The most compelling aspect of this argument is the suggestion that biology is never distinct from social development. As she writes, "Any biological cause is developmentally dependent on external conditions including nutrition, stimulus and other aspects of the environment.. Research finding biological differences between the sexes cannot be disaggregated from the conclusion that environmental influences may shape these biological differences" (p. 29). This discussion contains several astute observations. Noting that differences are publishable while similarities are considered non-findings, she argues both the popular media and the scholarly community perpetuate the argument that gender is a biological rather than a cultural construct. She details the extent to which socialization into gender roles occurs throughout the culture reviewing norms in infancy, early childhood, adolescence, the home, the workplace, sports, education and language. This is a thorough and sensible discussion and effectively makes the point that culture may shape biology as well as biology influencing socialization patterns.

Chapter 3 is entitled "How Courts Enforce Gender Separatism." There is a nice review of the standard complement of U. S. Supreme Court decisions regarding sex

Page 598 begins here

discrimination decided between 1873, when the Court upheld a state law prohibiting married women from practicing law (BRADWELL v. ILLINOIS
1873), and 1971, when the Court first struck down a sex-based classification for violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (REED v. REED 1971). Levit's argument is that on the whole, the high Court has used the biological argument selectively to reinforce traditional stereotypes. This argument is bolstered by an analysis of more contemporary opinions, including MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY (1981), where the high Court upheld a statutory rape law that imposed criminal liability on males but not females and GEDULDIG v. AIELLO (1974), which upheld a policy excluding coverage of pregnancy related disabilities from a comprehensive health insurance plan.

The most in-depth scrutiny is reserved for the Supreme Court's decisions in U. S. v. VIRGINIA (1996) and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS (1991). These cases also contribute to the second and, as it turns out, the primary aim of the book, which is to explore the ways men are harmed by gender constructions and stereotypes. Ultimately, then, the bulk of the volume is devoted to developing the argument that societal constructs of
masculinity harm men in ways and degrees not appreciated fully by feminist scholars. This "feminist failure to understand the burdens of masculinity" (p. 77) has hampered efforts to promote gender equality. Too often policy goals have been framed in terms of acquiring the benefits reserved to men. Yet, and as explicated through the examples of Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and Johnson Controls, what constitutes a benefit is naively understood. For example, in the JOHNSON CONTROLS case, the issue was usually framed in terms of economic discrimination. Women were denied access to higher paying jobs that required exposure to lead unless they were not capable of bearing children. The U. S. Supreme Court was asked to decide if female sterility is a bona fide occupational qualification within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and held that it is not; the barrier to employment impedes equality on the basis of sex. Yet, despite
evidence that the exposure to lead also threatened their reproductive systems, Levit notes that male employees could not opt out of high lead exposure jobs. She contends that the male named plaintiff in the case never had his concerns addressed.

Similarly, at issue in U. S. v. VIRGINIA was whether women were entitled to admission to VMI under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The state of Virginia, of course, argued that separate but equal was constitutionally permissible and the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VMIL) afforded a comparable educational experience for women. Justice Ruth Ginsburg's majority opinion details all the ways in which the separate facilities were unequal. VWIL offered fewer degrees, the number of faculty with Ph.D.s was markedly lower and overall, VMI had greater resources. So, the inequality between institutions indicated sex discrimination. Whether separate but equal is inherently unequal was not addressed by the high Court. Interestingly, as Levit notes, there is no
mention of BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954) anywhere in U. S. v.VIRGINIA. She concludes that perhaps we are not ready for the gender equivalent of BROWN (p. 88).

Page 599 begins here

However, Levit is clear in her argument that the admission of women to VMI does not connote any kind of meaningful equality. Noting that the state
of Virginia relied upon Carol Gilligan's research to suggest gender differences allowed single sex education (prompting Gilligan to file an amicus curiae brief to say her views were being distorted), Levit is suggesting that both sameness and difference approaches to gender equality are problematic. The sameness approach, of course, means that women can now attend VMI where according to Levit they can be treated as poorly as men. As she writes, "we should have been protesting the barbarism of this educational approach all along" (p. 95). The reason we as a society do not presumably is because we have yet to confront the oppressive elements of masculinity.

Although this is a reasonable thesis around which to write a book, it is not as explicitly connected to the first objective as one might hope. So my initial delight became a hint of disappointment. This is not the book I was led to believe was being written in the introduction. I did not learn how to respond to those saying "just you wait" when I indicate that to date, no innate differences between my son and daughters have been observed. However, I did develop some insight on how to respond to the inevitable clamors of "boys will be boys" as he grows up. I was further provoked to consider the possible challenges males may face if they resist traditional constructions of masculinity. To this point, Levit's approach does challenge conventional feminist thought and criticism. Some of her examples, as when
she discusses the JOHNSON CONTROLS case or as will be detailed below sexual harassment of men by men, are powerful. In other instances, though, the
argument is not as compelling.

For example, Levit argues that all separation on the basis of sex perpetuates sexism as sex segregated organizations seduce people into thinking that the separation of the sexes is appropriate. Therefore, the Boy Scout and the Girl Scouts should not be sex-specific. Sex specific policies, such as "ladies' night" at bars, would become illegal. Although this discussion seems to flow logically from the preceding case analysis, it does not resonate as powerfully. That may suggest just how difficult it is to deconstruct gender as we want to think it is okay for 10 year old girls to have their own space in a Girl Scout troop, for example. Alternatively, I wonder if discussions of how long men should wear their hair in theworkplace run the risk of trivializing issues like the effects of lead exposure on
fertility and the economic opportunities that accompany assuming that risk. More likely, the discussion does not resonate because the author does not adequately explicate how integration and the demise of sex-specific policies will transform the construction of gender. Although I am sympathetic to her stated objectives, I would have liked to have the implications of the observations developed more fully.

This theme of the burdens of masculinity is pursued further in Chapters 4-6. Chapter 4 details how men are disadvantaged by legal doctrines that reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. Institutional structures and cultural norms perpetuate male aggression. Although women are frequently victimized by this aggression, often overlooked is the extent to which other men are victimized as well. Men are drafted into combat, are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system

Page 600 begins here

than are women and are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than are women. Men have generally had a much more difficult time alleging sexual harassment than have women. Levit nicely details the harassment many men experience at work usually perpetrated by other men. Foreshadowing the majority opinion in ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. (1998), she argues it is bogus to suggest that this isn't sex based as the harassment is about conforming to traditional constructions of masculinity. (after the book went to press ONCALE was decided by the U. S. Supreme Court. Although this may date the paperback edition of the book, asking students to explain why a unanimous Court decided ONCALE as it did in light of Levit's critiques of the legal system could
generate stimulating classroom discussion.)

According to Levit this legal support for masculinity also precludes men from caring, nurturing roles. She suggests that the theoretical literature depicts mothering as activity exclusive to women. Certainly, the suggestion that men have been denied part of their humanity by being discouraged from expressing emotion and spending time caring for others, especially their children, has been made before and is well worth considering in light of her thesis. Oddly, though, feminist theory is held responsible for this exclusion. Although there is no doubt feminist theory has not concentrated on the disadvantages masculinity pose to men and while Levit acknowledges in the early stages of the women's movement, energy needed to focus on the plight of women, the tone of this argument seems misplaced.
Too often there is an assumption that feminist theorists and activists wield the power to either reconstruct or deconstruct gender independent of the larger
culture. Moreover, this argument seems to ignore writers as varied as Sara Ruddick (1995), Susan Moller Okin (1991) and Jean Bethke Elshtain (1993) who
have long argued that men and all of society would benefit if the traditional division of labor between men and women were deconstructed and shared more
equitably. Certainly, popular culture even seems to be reflecting this idea to some extent where men are encouraged to play more active roles in the
raising of their children.

Thus, Chapter 5 is easily the least satisfying of the book. Entitled "The "F" Word: Feminism and its Detractors," it suggests that the women's movement must take some responsibility for the negative connotations associated with feminism. Noting polling data indicating that most people support the textbook definition of feminism but decline to so label themselves, Levit argues it is the construction of the image of feminism that has been problematic. Also some of that image, according to Levit, is because feminists engage in a politics of anger and take an antagonistic stance toward men. Yet, later in the chapter she suggests the
villainization of feminism is only partially self-inflicted and largely undeserved. It is never entirely clear how this discussion of feminist theory and politics
informs the aims of the book except to suggest that men have been ignored. That observation certainly could have been made more concisely.

Having observed that feminism and feminist legal theory in particular have ignored the obstacles the social construction of masculinity pose for men, Levit further notes that sympathetic treatments of the challenges posed by masculinity are left to popular culture. Chapter 6 then details popular treatments of masculinity as represented by various strands of the "men's movement." She describes a wide array of

Page 601 begins here

groups ranging from the Promise Keepers characterized as part of the evangelical men's movement to the men's rights groups to the pro-feminist men's groups (the smallest branch of the men's movement). She offers more and less sympathetic analyses of these movements in the context of her overall argument. Observing that these movements are exclusive in that they are men-only and that to varying degrees they assume male superiority, she also suggests that these movements allow
men to see reconstructive possibilities in their roles writing that "men are rightfully resentful about being locked into social roles of breadwinner, protector and provider" (p. 182). The movements are depicted in a way that suggests that these men are aware that constructions of masculinity impede their humanity and seek the deconstruction of gender. I am not convinced that is the case with much of the men's movement. Nor do I think that the extent to which men have organized is a response to the women's movement and that the women's movement should accordingly temper its approach and objectives as Levit intimates. The strength of this discussion is that Levit does suggest that analyses of gender should be relational rather than oppositional (pp. 184-185). Advocating a vision beyond male/masculinity and female/femininity is one of the greatest contributions this work makes to our body of knowledge and one that I think that will stimulate thought and discussion among undergraduates. Although the vision and how to achieve it could be better articulated as will be noted below, the book does set an agenda worthy of consideration.

Chapters 6 and 7 allow Levit to develop the book's third aim, which is to argue that feminist legal theory needs to turn its attention to "issues of relational justice." (p. 7). After documenting the men's movements, Levit reviews the major strands of feminist theory (liberal, cultural and radical) and the limits of their depictions of men. Liberal feminism promotes gender blindness implying that maleness is the norm and that women should have access opportunities afforded to men. Cultural feminism is portrayed as suggesting that differences are essential without considering that gender may exist on a continuum. The limit of radical or dominance feminism is seen as being the emphasis on the class-based oppression of women rather than the individual experiences of women.

It seems as though the book is running out of energy and vision by the time it develops this theme of relational justice. Although advocating this vision is laudable, a clearer articulation of how to realize it would have strengthened the analysis. Although the goal is to reconstruct images of gender, ultimately Levit retains the categories of masculine and femininebut does not want them to be sex specific. Dismantling the gender line does not mean sameness but that attributes and behaviors are no longer gendered. Rather, feminine and masculine qualities can be retained but not attached to a particular sex. This seems to weaken dramatically the previous argument about the ways in which traditional constructions of masculinity are harmful to men. In the context of the VMI discussion, for example, it is clear that allowing girls to attend and to embrace that culture is not the kind of equality to which Levit aspires. Yet, by the end of the volume, it seems to
be the best for which we can hope.

It seems insufficient to suggest that allowing men to opt out of being masculine is adequate to affect the kinds of social changes she seems to support. It is not clear to me that ending sex segregation will

Page 602 begins here

encourage men to reject traditional constructions of gender. For example, Levit is highly critical of "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" arguing it should be
"Take Your Child to Work Day." Yet it is never clear how this shift will deconstruct masculinity and promote gender equality as opposed to perpetuating a status of quo of sex and gender inequality. Moreover, it is never clear why or how men and boys will opt out of being masculine. Although they may have a level of self-awareness that accepts that there are oppressive elements of masculinity, it seems to me that this condition may be offset by the power and privilege that accompanies being a male in U. S. society. Levit never directly engages male privilege, which in my view is a serious omission.

Levit goes on to say that the law is ill equipped to effect change so the key to realizing her vision is to change socialization patterns. This is particularly unsettling in light of all that has come before. Given the insights as to how gender is constructed and perpetuated, the suggestion that change will only occur when children are raised differently seems naive. Early in the volume, she does a powerful job of detailing the power of the media, peers, sports, and the workplace, in constructing gender. She also argues that stereotypes frequently outlive their usefulness. Deconstructing or dismantling such influences would presumably require a catalyst. If law and policy cannot provide the impetus for change, one is left feeling pessimistic within the context of Levit's analysis that meaningful change is likely.

In sum, the volume contains many powerful insights in its analysis of gender construction, the functions they have and continue to serve. The book
is at its best in detailing the ways in which men are harmed by these constructions. For these reasons, I think the book would be appropriate for undergraduates taking a Gender and the Law course. Although the book is not as powerful in its prescriptive capacity, its limitations could nonetheless provide an opportunity for lively and meaningful class discussion.

REFERENCES:

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1993. PUBLIC MAN, PRIVATE WOMAN: WOMEN IN SOCIAL AND
POLITICAL THOUGHT, 2nd edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Okin, Susan Moller. 1991. JUSTICE, GENDER AND THE FAMILY. New York: Basic
Books.

Ruddick, Sara. 1995. MATERNAL THINKING: TOWARD A POLITICS OF PEACE: WITH A
NEW PREFACE. New York: Beacon Press.

CASE REFERENCES:

BRADWELL v. ILLINOIS, 83 U. S. 141 (1873).

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U. S. 483 (1954).

GEDULDIG v. AIELLO, 417 U. S. 484 (1974).

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, 499 U. S. 187 (1991).

MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, 450 U.S. 464 (1981).

ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U. S. 75 (1998).

Page 603 begins here

REED v. REED, 404 U. S. 71 (1971).

UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).