EUGENE–A jealous husband or boyfriend kills a woman when she leaves, or tries to. Is it murder, or something less serious because his jealous rage constitutes "heat of passion"? An acquaintance follows and threatens a woman, believing that she will return his love if only he persists. A man has sexual intercourse with his date even though she says "no," tries to leave, cries, struggles.

By what standard are these perpetrators’ behaviors measured?

In deciding cases, juries must apply a standard of reasonableness to the perpetrator’s behavior. According to the authors of a provocative new book, "A Law of Her Own: The Reasonable Woman as a Measure of Man," in cases involving sex, sexism and aggression, in which women are predominantly the victims, a "reasonable woman" standard should apply. Further, this same standard should be used regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim.

Written by Caroline Forell, a University of Oregon law professor, and Donna Matthews, a Eugene attorney and 1997 UO law graduate, the book advocates that a woman-based standard be applied to the conduct of the perpetrator (primarily male) in certain legal settings in which men’s and women’s life experiences and views on sex and aggression differ and women are overwhelmingly the injured parties. The authors argue that "Explicitly holding men to a ‘reasonable woman’ standard in areas where male prerogatives have traditionally defined what is right and lawful will challenge the systematic subordination of women and the largely unexamined biases in the law."

The book, which the authors describe as controversial in legal circles, is attracting the attention of noted feminists and legal scholars.

"The biases that underpin our legal system are far more difficult to change than individual laws," says Gloria Steinem, author and social commentator. "Forell and Matthews cut to the heart of the matter by replacing the reasonable man standard with reasonable woman, a step toward a future in which laws are made by and for reasonable human beings."

"A Law of Her Own" provides the reader with a good sense of the personal dramas behind the cases and the all-to-frequent insensitive responses of courts, juries and police," says Martha Chamallas, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

The reasonable woman captured Forell’s imagination during the landmark 1991 stalking case, Ellison vs. Brady, the first case in which a court explicitly adopted a reasonable woman standard of care for hostile environment sexual harassment. Forell and Matthews began work on the book in 1997 when Matthews was in her final year of law school.

"Donna and I decided to collaborate on a book that looked beyond sexual harassment to explore the whole spectrum of injuries, civil and criminal, that women too frequently suffer at the hands of men," says Forell. "As the book’s thesis developed, we broadened our proposed standard’s application so that it would apply regardless of the gender of either the accused or the injured party."

In "A Law of Her Own," Forell and Matthews examine specific cases involving sexual harassment, stalking, domestic homicide and rape. They demonstrate how, for these kinds of harms, the current "reasonable person" standard is "a warrior code that sympathizes with and accommodates violence that derives from sexual jealousy, wounded pride and the desire to dominate another." Forell and Matthews believe that use of a reasonable woman’s standard in certain gendered contexts will elicit greater empathy for women’s experiences from society in general and from legal decision makers in particular.

"Our standard seeks to achieve meaningful equality by emphasizing that reasonable women want and demand respect, personal autonomy, agency and bodily integrity," the authors write. "Therefore, our standard should be fleshed out in jury instructions clearly explaining that a reasonable woman expects these personal qualities to be honored, and that behavior violating these aspects of a woman's humanity is legally unacceptable."

For example, the book explores an assumption under current law that a woman’s choice to become romantically involved with someone new or simply to end a relationship could understandably provoke violent behavior, making a "reasonable man" so lose control that he kills in the heat of passion.

"Under our standard, decision makers would judge the killer in terms of whether a reasonable woman would have lost control and killed in the circumstances," the authors write. "Similarly, in cases of rape and stalking, the decision makers would judge the perpetrator’s behavior in terms of whether a reasonable woman would have understood that intercourse was nonconsensual, that her behavior was placing the other in fear."

Forell joined the UO law faculty in 1978. Her expertise includes feminist jurisprudence, domestic violence, sexual harassment and torts. One of the classes she teaches each year is "Women and the Law."

Matthews practices family and employment law in Eugene. She has published articles addressing the legal treatment of women in the areas of civil rights, constitutional, and criminal evidence law.

—30—

#F-4044/Local,OrDailies,PDX,NatLaw,OrLaw,Special