Despite imprtnt dvncements, the lw cnsistently hs limited wmen's rights when cmpred t thse ccrded t men. The rticle tht is being nlyzed pplies feminist redings f rhetricl thery nd the lw t help explin the rech nd idelgy f legl lnguge prctices tht perpetute structurl nd ttitudinl brriers t gender equlity. In unmsking legl discurses f pwer used t mrginlize the sttus f wmen wrkers, the uthr fcuses upn the Supreme Curt's tretment f wmen in series f cses ddressing wrker rights nd ccuptinl freedm. In ding s the fcus is cntended t the pint tht Curt decisins invlving wmen's ccuptinl freedm cntribute t the cntinued subrdintin f wmen in the wrkplce.
The first .prt f the rticle, which ges fter the intrductin prgrph, refers t the thereticl review f feminist reding f rhetric nd lw. Here McDrmn stresses tht feminist rhetricl redings f the lw is ne useful wy t expse structurl inequities in the rgumenttin f the lw. Such perspective is drwn frm nd embrces feminist rhetricl thery nd feminist legl studies, bth f which shre cmmn purpse nd ssumptins. The uthr gives the exmple f Cheris Krmre nd sme uthr uthrs' pinins wh minly rgue tht the purpse f ny feminist perspective n cmmunictin shuld be t questin clssifictin schemes t fcilitte mre uthentic prtryls f the experiences nd cncerns f wmen.
Ultimtely, this prt cncludes tht by integrting the structure f legl rules with the lnguge used t express them int ne nlyticl methd, it is pssible t exmine the discurse tht curts hve used t justify cntinued restrictins n wmen in the wrkplce.
nther issue mentined in the rticle refers t Perpetuting Gender Discrimintin: The Supreme Curt n Wmen's Wrkplce Rights. Here the uthr shrtly mentins the rigins f wmen's wrkplce rights litigtin nd lgiclly cmes t discussing current ;itigtin issues.
The mjr prt f the rticle is devted t discussin f rhetric f prtectin nd the first wve limittins n ccuptinl freedm. Legl justifictins fr excluding wmen frm the wrkplce initilly rested upn perceived bilgicl limittins nd the cnstructin f superir femle mrl essence. Decisins estblishing, mintining, nd extending this psitin emplyed sexism nd steretypes in crfting vcbulry f beneficent exclusin. Prhibitins n vrius ccuptins were presented s physicl necessities, determined by nture, nd required fr bth the physicl nd mrl well being f the species. Three cses, Brdwell v. Illinis (1873), Muller v. regn (1908), nd Gesert v. Clery (1948), re illustrted in the rticle t reflect the pprch nd grund the dminnt perspective f wmen's legl rights nd identity.
fter discussing three cses mentined in bve the uthr mves n t speking f the dptin f Title VII, EEC guidelines, nd the PD, guidelines fr the wrkplce. Thse were ltered in t lest three significnt wys. First, there ws shift frm fcusing exclusively n the infirmities f wmen r n pregnncy t new emphsis n the vulnerbility f the ptentil fetus. Secnd, number f mle-riented stndrds were dpted t further the prtryl f femles s physiclly "inferir" rther thn simply different. Finlly, mny emplyers selectively utilized