individual human beings and is based on the desire to promote equal opportunity. Employ- ing the concepts of rationality, rights, and equal opportunity, this school makes arguments similar to those against racial discrimination. It asserts that women are just as rational as men and therefore should have equal opportunity to make their own choices. This school challenges the assumptions of male authority, and it seeks to erase gender-based distinctions recognized in the law, thus enabling women to compete equally in the marketplace. It has caused legislatures and the courts to change many discriminatory laws. Its approach works, pro- ponents argue, because it speaks the language the legal system understands. In addition, this approach attracts nonfeminists who agree that non-sex-specific legal solutions are preferable to sex-specific la ws. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, first as an attorney and later as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, has exemplified supporters of this liberal feminist approach. Another school of feminist legal thought focuses on the differences between men and women and celebrates those differences. Deeply influenced by the research of psychologist Carol Gilligan, this group of feminist thinkers observes that men and women speak in different voices. Women emphasize the impor- tance of relationships, co ntexts, and reconcilia- tion of conflicting interpersonal positions, whereas men emphasize abstract principles of rights and logic. The objective of this school is to give equal recognition to women’s moral voice. Proponents seek changes in the existing conditions so that the law will recognize women-valued relationships such as that be- tween mother and child. In stressing this different voice of caring and communal values, this school of feminism criticizes possessive individualism, which, it is claimed, is integral to the maintenance of women in stereotypical roles. Like the liberal feminist school of thought, radical feminism focuses on inequality. But radical feminism views women as a class, not as individual human beings. It asserts that men, as a class, have dominated women, creating gender inequality. This inequality is the consequence of a systematic subordination rather than irratio- nal discriminatio n. Thus, heterosexuality is a social arrangement in which men are dominant and women submissive. For radical feminists, gender is a question of power. Therefore, this school is not satisfied with creating legal categories that promise equal opportunity and fair treatment. It sees these as false categories that mask the entrenched power of the male- dominant structure. What is needed, argue radical feminists, is an abandonment of tradi- tional approaches that take maleness as their reference point: Sexual equality must be con- structed on the basis of woman’s difference from man, not a mere accommodation of that difference. Radical feminists have targ eted sexual and domestic violence. They view PORNOGRAPHY as an instrument of sexual subordination rather than as a creative expression deserving FIRST AMEND- MENT protection. In the 1980s law professor CATHARINE A. MACKINNON and writer ANDREA DWORKIN proposed that women be permitted to sue pornographers for damages under civil rights laws. Though their viewpoint has not been accepted by the U.S. courts, their work changed the nature of the debate over pornography. Current Issues in Feminist Jurisprudence Whereas the different camps of feminists in legal theory have focused upon different agendas, feminist jurisprudence has changed the way legislators and judges look at issues. By asking the “woman question,” feminists have identified gender components and gender implications of laws and practices that are claimed to be neutral. Moreover, this school of thought has brought needed changes in the law to protect certain rights of women that have not been protected adequately in the past. One of the most pressing issues in women’s rights is the protection of women from domes- tic violence. According to some statistics, as many as four million women per year are the victims of domestic violence, and three out of four will be the victims of domestic violence in their lifetimes. Led by women’s groups and other supporters outraged by these numbers, Congress enacted the Violence against Women Act as Title IV of the VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103- 322, 108 Stat. 1796 [codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 and 42 U.S.C.A.]). The act provides programs for research and education of judges and judicial staff members geared to enhance their knowledge and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE 409 awareness of domestic violence and sexual ASSAULT. Moreover, it funds police training and shelters for victims of domestic violence, increases penalties for perpetrators of domestic violence and RAPE, and enhances privacy protec- tion for victims. One of the most controversial aspects of the act was a provision making gender-motivated crimes a violation of federal civil rights law. This provision was struck down as unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S. Ct. 1740, 146 L. Ed. 2d 658 (2000). Feminists have remained determined to provide greater protection for women against domestic and other violence. Feminist jurispru- dence has also focused on eliminating SEXUAL HARASSMENT in the workplace, another issue that has caused a major debate in the United States. Sexual harassment, which includes unwanted sexual advances and requests for sexual favors, as well as verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create hostile or offensive work environment, has been a major issue in women’s rights because of the effect it has upon women in the workplace. Persons, usually women, who are the victims of sexual harassment may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. Feminist advocates support a broad inter- pretation of the types of advances that consti- tute sexual harassment. To many feminists, sexual harassment represents the domination men seek to exert over women and should be strictly prohibited. The issue has caused contro- versy because in some cases it is difficult to determine whether sexual advances are wel- comed or not. Moreover, some cases have arisen because an employer or supervisor has told a dirty joke or displayed a sexually explicit photograph to a female employee. Women’s groups maintain that sexual harassment laws should be liberally construed, even in these types of cases. With most law schools teaching the subject, feminist legal analysis holds a significant place in U.S. law and legal thought. Several promi- nent U.S. law schools, including those at Yale University and the University of California at Berkeley, produce scholarly journals devoted specifically to feminist legal theory. Commen- tary by feminist legal analysts is commonplace in U.S. media, and the views of many feminist scholars are sought when new laws are considered and drafted. Although feminists point out that much work remains to ensure equality among men and women, the work of these individuals has sparked revolutionary change in the U.S. legal system. FURTHER READINGS Becker, Mary, Cynthia G. Bowman, and Morrison Torrey. 2006. Cases and Materials on Feminist Jurisprudence: Taking Women Seriously. Eagan, MN: West. Hayman, Robert L., et al., eds. 2002. Jurisprudence, Classical & Contemporary: From Natural Law to Postmodernism. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Cengage. Jackson, Stevi, and Jackie Jones. 1998. Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York Univ. Press. Taylor, Betty W., Sharon Rush, and Robert John Munro. 1999. Feminist Jurisprudence, Women and the Law: Critical Essays, Research Agenda, and Bibliography. Littleton, Colo.: Fred B. Rothman. CROSS REFERENCES Equal Protection; Ireland, Patricia; Sex Discrimination; Women’s Rights. FENCES Enclosures co mposed of any substance that will present an adequate blockade around a field, yard, or other such expanse of land for the purpose of prohibiting intrusions from outside. A landowner is entitled to construct a fence along the boundaries of his or her property, but statutes may regulate the building and mainte- nance of fences. The la ws of some states make provisions for the establishment of fence districts to erect and maintain fences. Fence districts are sometimes given the authority to LEVY taxes to absorb the costs of building and maintaining the fences. Generally a landowner has the right to construct a partition fence on the border of the property adjoining his or her land. Owners of adjoining land may enter into agreements setting forth their rights and liabilities regarding the erection, maintenance, and repair of parti- tion fences. State statutes so metimes govern landowners’ obligations with respect to such fences. Such statutes differ from one jurisdic- tion to another regarding what lands come within the scope of their regulation. Some of these statutes apply solely to agricultural lands, whereas others also control fences between urban lots. Unless otherwise provided by statute or agreement to the contrary, both parties share equally the duty to maintain the entire partition fence. Neither may allege that the other was GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 410 FENCES neglectful. Various statutes permit a landowner to construct or repair the partition fence in its entirety upon a failure of an adjacent owner to build or repair his or her portion. Subsequently, the one owner may bring an action against the neighbor for a contribution toward the expense s incurred. Generally recovery is limited to half the expense of the fence. Some fence statutes provide that the amount recoverable from a defaulting property owner is made a LIEN on that owner’s land. Theoretically, the ideal location for a partition fence is along the boundary line between adjacent lands. Practically, substantial compliance with this requirement is adequate. An equal and reasonable amount of each owner’s property may be used for construction of the structure. A partition fence built on the boundary is deemed the joint property of adjacent land- owners. For this reason, a property owner may not eliminate a partition fence without first obtaining the neighbor’s consent. The laws of some states make removal of a partition fence by an owner of adjoining land contingent upon formal notice to other landowners. A landowner may bring an action for whatever damages are suffered if a fence has been improperly removed or destroyed. The standard for measuring damages for such removal or destruction is its value at the time, which is determined by replacement costs minus depreciation for age and use. A property owner who causes injury to livestock through negligent maintenance of a fence will be held liable for resulting damages. A land owner who erects a barbed wire fence is not automatically liable to one whose livestock suffer injury. If, however, a barbed wire fence is so negligently maintained as to become a trap for passing livestock, the owner will be held liable for injuries even if the fence is entirely on his or her own property. A landowner who leaves barbed wire on the ground without protection after erecting a fence is liable to the owner of the adjacent land for injury to that owner’s livestock. If someone builds a fence on another person’s land without any authority to do so, the landowne r may remove or destroy such fence. An individual may not, however, remove or destroy a fence on ano ther individual’s land. A number of states impose criminal penalties on an individual who unlawfully fences the land of another. CROSS REFERENCE Adjoining Landowners. v FENWICK, MILLICENT VERNON HAMMOND Millicent Vernon Hammond Fenwick repre- sented New Jersey’s Fifth District in Congress from 1975 to 1983. A woman who defied conventional political labels, she distinguished herself as an outspoken crusader for HUMAN RIGHTS . Fenwick was born February 25, 1910, in Manhattan, to a wealthy and prominent family. Her father, Ogden H. Hammond, was a successful financier. Her mother, Mary Picton Stevens Hammond, descended from a distin- guished early American family whose forebears included a colonel in the Revolutionary Army. The family was committed to public service. Fenwick’s father carried out this commitment by serving two terms in the New Jersey House of Representatives and later as Calvin Coolidge’s ambassador to Spain. Her mother was on a mission of mercy to establish a hospital for WORLD WAR I victims in Paris when she perished in the 1915 sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania. Fenwick’s formal education was fragmen- tary. She attended the Foxcroft School, in Virginia, until age 15, when she left school to accompany her father to Spain. While there she briefly attended a convent school. After she returned to the United States she took courses at Columbia University’s extension school. In the late 1930s Fenwick studied philosophy with Bertrand Russell at the New School for Social Research. In part because of her travels, she was fluent in Spanish, French, and Italian. She fell in love with a married businessman named Hugh Fenwick, who divorced his wife to marry her in 1934. The union did not last, and in 1938 Fenwick found herself divorced with two small children and facing her ex-husband ’s considerable debts. The Depression had devas- tated his assets, and Fenwick was forced to find a job in order to pay her creditors and support her children. She worked occasionally as a model for Harper’s Bazaar before joining the writing staff of Vogue magazine, where she worked for 14 years as a writer and editor. WE MUST HAVE GOVERNMENT , BUT WE MUST WATCH THEM LIKE A HAWK . —MILLICENT FENWICK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FENWICK, MILLICENT VERNON HAMMOND 411 In 1948 she published Vogue’s Book of Etiquette, which sold more than a million copies. Fenwick’s financial situation had improved dramatically by the time she left Vogue in 1952. She had always been interested in politics, and decided to expand her public service activities by running for the Bernardsville, New Jersey, Borough Council. She won a seat and served for six years, from 1958 to 1964. Her concern for CIVIL RIGHTS was reflected in her decision not to run for reelection to the council. Instead, she accepted an appointment to the New Jersey Advisory Committee to the U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS . She was the committee’s vice chair from 1958 to 1972. By the mid-1960s, Fenwick was also vice chair of the New Jersey Republican State Committee and was, by her own admission, longing to run for the New Jersey Legislature. However, at the time, she lacked the assertive- ness to call attention to her accomplishments. Although she was anxious to be a candidate, and felt she had the qualifications and experience to win, she was reluctant to openly seek the candidacy. Instead, she hoped some one in the party would suggest that she run. She was passed over and was left to co ntemplate how to handle the next election. In 1969, she shed her modesty and asked for help from the Republi- can organization; she was elected that year, and began her term in 1970. Fenwick quickly established herself as an advocate of civil rights, consumer interests, prison reform, and conservation. In the legisla- ture, her quick wit and sharp intellect became legendary. When she proposed an EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT for women, a male colleague rose and said, “I just don’t like this amendment. I’ve always thought of women as kissable, cuddly and smelling good.” Fenwick replied, “That ’s the way I feel about men, too. I only hope you haven’t been disappointed as often as I have.” In 1972 Fenwick resigned from the state ASSEMBLY to become director of New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs. She embraced the job wholeheartedly, visiting supermarkets to check on the accuracy of labels on canned goods and talking with ordinary consumers about their problems and concerns. She unnerved the Millicent Fenwick. AP IMAGES ▼▼ ▼▼ Millicent Vernon Hammond Fenwick 1910–1992 19001900 19501950 19751975 20002000 19251925 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ 1929 Stock market crash led to Great Depression 1910 Born, New York, N.Y. 1915 Fenwick's mother died in the Lusitania sinking 1914–18 World War II 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1948 Authored Vogue's Book of Etiquette ◆ 1938–52 Worked as associate editor and writer at Vogue magazine 1958–64 Served on Bernardsville, N.J., Borough Council 1970–72 Served in N.J. General Assembly 1958–72 Served as vice chair of the N.J. Advisory Commitee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ 1982 Speaking Up published 1975–83 Represented New Jersey's Fifth District in U.S. Congress 1983–87 Served as U.S Ambassador to U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization 1992 Died, Bernardsville, N.J. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 412 FENWICK, MILLICENT VERNON HAMMOND Bureau of Professional Boards by insisting that members of the general public be included on the boards in order to ensure impartial regula- tion of professional conduct. In the spring of 1974 Fenwick left her post with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs to seek the Republican nomination for the House of Representatives from the Fifth District. She carried the primary by a mere 83 votes but won the general election by a comfortable margin. She was 64 years old when she took her seat in the 94th Congress in 1975, but she quickly proved that she had all the vigor and commitment of any of her younger colleagues. She assumed assignments on the Committee on Banking, Currency, and Housing and on the Committee on SMALL BUSINESS,a favorite area of interest. During her tenure in the House, she regularly worked 12 to 14 hours per day and gained a reputation for diligence and commitment. Fenwick earned respect in Congress through her support of equal opportunities, individual rights, and workplace safety. She worked tirelessly on behalf of poor people and advocated prison reform, strip-mining controls, reduction of military spending, urban renewal, campaign spending limits, GUN CONTROL, and restrictions on CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Perhaps her proudest achievement was being the lead sponsor of a resolution calling for the creation of the Helsinki Commission, charged with monitoring the 1975 Helsinki human rights accords. She also serve d as a member of the commission. Fenwick was a staunch feminist and strong supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment. Yet she was wary of a “women’s agenda.”“What after all would we think if men all got together and kept doing things that were supposed to be in the interest of men?” she once commented. She disliked women’s organizations and was opposed to AFFIRMATIVE ACTION quotas. Fenwick felt that the women’s movement had made a serious mistake by advancing the notion that women must pursue a career, and she defended those who chose the more traditional roles of wife and mother. In spite of her frequent support of liberal causes, Fenwick was a loyal Republican who favored calling on the state as protector and benefactor “only as a last resort.” When asked what made her a Republican and not a Democrat, she said she was a Republican because deep down she did not trust government. Fiercely independent and outspoken, Fenwick was nonetheless charming and gra- cious. A former aide once described her as the Katharine Hepburn of politics. Fenwick was also noted for her own unique style—she was an unabashed pipe smoker. Her unconventional and idiosyncratic personality inspired the Lacey Davenport character in Garry Trudeau’s Doo- nesbury cartoons. Asked what she would want on her tombstone, Fenwick replied, “I suppose the hope of furthering justice is really my main thing. That and the feeling that we’re all in this together and somehow we’ve got to try to work out a just and a peaceful society.” Fenwick died at home in Bernardsville, New Jersey, on September 16, 1992, at the age of 82. FURTHER READINGS Lamson, Peggy. 1979. In the Vanguard: Six American Women in Public Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Schapiro, Amy. 2003. Millicent Fenwick: Her Way. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. Stineman, Esther. 1981. American Political Women. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Women in Congress, 1917–2006. 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. House Committee on House Administration, Office of the Clerk. Available online at http://wome- nincongress.house.gov/ (accessed July 23, 2009). FEOFFMENT Total relinquishment and transfer of all rights of ownership in land from one individual to another. A feoffment in old England was a transfer of property that gave the new owner the right to sell the land as well as the right to pass it on to his heirs. An essential element of feoffment was livery of seisin, a ceremony for transferring the possession of real property from one person to another. Feoffment is also known as enfeoffment. FERAE NATURAE [Latin, Of a wild nature or disposition.] Animals that are wild by nature are called ferae naturae, and possession is a means of acquiring title to such animals. The mere chasing of an animal ferae naturae does not give one party the right to title against another party who captures it through intervention. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FERAE NATURAE 413 If, however, a wild animal is either killed or caught in a trap so that the capture is certain, the individual who traps or mortally wounds it acquires a vested right to possession and title that is not defeatable by another’s intervention. Animals ferae naturae differ from those that are tame or domesticated, or domitae, in which an individual can have an absolute PROPERTY RIGHT . FERES DOCTRINE A doctrine that bars claims against the federal government by members of the armed forces and their families for injuries arising from or in the course of activity incident to military service. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1950, in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S. Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152, that the federal government could not be held liable under the statute known as the FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT (28 U.S.C. A. §§ 1291, 1346(b), (c), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2402, 2671-80) for injuries to members of the armed forces arising from activities incident to military service. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows persons intentionally or negligently wronged by a government employee to sue the government for their injuries. The Supreme Court’s decision barring suits involving injuries to members of the armed forces became known as the Feres doctrine. The doctrine remains in force, as the Supreme Court has rejected attempts to overrule the decision. Feres involved a suit brought by the executor of a soldier who had died when his barracks caught fire. The executor charged that the United States had been negligent in housing the soldier in barracks whose defective heating system was known to be unsafe. First, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that such a suit could be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which had waived the government’s traditional immunity from claims in many circumstances. Noting that the statute said that “[t]he United States shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances” (28 U.S.C.A. § 2674), the Court concluded that the relationship between the government and members of its armed forces is “distinctively federal in character.” Therefore, it would be anomalous to have the government’s liability depend on the law of the state where the soldier was stationed. Second, the Court observed that in several enactments, Congress had established a “no-fault” compensation plan that provides pensions to injured members of the ARMED SERVICES . Commenting on the Feres doctrine in United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110, 75 S. Ct. 141, 99 L. Ed. 139 (1954), the Court emphasized that discipline and “[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors” might be affected if suits were allowed under the Tort Claims Act “for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty.” This view became one of the bedrock justifications for the doctrine in the years followin g Brown. The U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that the Feres doctrine “cannot be reduced to a few bright-line rules,” but rather “each case must be examined in light of the [Tort Claims Act] as it has been construed in Feres and subsequent cases” (United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52, 105 S. Ct. 3039, 87 L. Ed. 2d 38 [1985]). The doctrine does not bar a claim arising from an independent injury committed by the government after a soldier has been discharged (Brown). In Brown, an injury suffered by a veteran during treatment at a Veterans Admin- istration hospital for a prior injury that he had sustained during military service was not barred by Feres. The Court distinguished Brown from Feres on the ground that in Brown, the second injury did not arise from or in the course of military service. The doctrine did apply, however, to a suit involving the death of a soldier w ho was off the military base on authorized leave when he was kidnapped and murdered by a fellow soldier with a known history of violence (Shearer). The mother of the murdered soldier charged that the Army had been negligent in failing to warn the other soldiers that the murderer was dangerous and in failing to restrict the mur- derer’s movements while his discharge was being processed. The Supreme Court denied her claim under the Feres doctrine on the ground that the suit would require a civilian court to second-guess military decisions that are directly involved in the management of the armed forces. If such suits were allowed, “com- manding officers would have to stand prepared to convince a civilian court of the wisdom of a wide range of military and disciplinary deci- sions.” As a result, military discipline would GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 414 FERES DOCTRINE suffer the detrimental effects that the Feres doctrine was designed to prevent. The doctrine also applies to third parties seeking indemnity from the federal government. In Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666, 97 S. Ct. 2054, 52 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1977), an injured NATIONAL GUARD officer brought a suit against Stencel, the manufacturer of the ejection system in his fighter aircraft. Stencel then filed a CROSS-CLAIM against the United States for indemnity (reimbursement for damages that it might pay to the officer), alleging that any malfunction of the ejection system was due to faulty government specifica- tions and components. The Supreme Court held that the same reasoning that prevented a member of the armed services from recovering under the Tort Claims Ac t would limit a THIRD PARTY from recovering in an indemnity action. The Feres doctrine was challenged in two cases decided by the Supreme Court in 1987. The doctrine had long been criticized as unfair to service members. In United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 107 S. Ct. 2063, 95 L. Ed. 2d 648, the United States was sued for injuries sustained by a service member as the result of the negligence of air traffic controllers, who are civilian employees of the federal government. On a 5–4 decision, the Cour t reaffirmed the application of the Feres doctrine. The Court noted that civilian employees may also “play an integral role in military activities. In this circumstance, an inquiry into the civilian activities would have the same effect on military discipline as a direct inquiry into military judgments.” In United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 107 S. Ct. 3054, 97 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1987), the United States was sued not only under the Federal Tort Claims Act but also directly under the Consti- tution. The Court rejected this attempt to circumvent Feres. It affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit because of the principles set out in the Feres decision. FURTHER READINGS Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate. 2003. The Feres Doctrine: An Examination of this Military Excep- tion to the Federal Tort Claims Act, October 8, 2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ senate/pdf/107hrg/88833.pdf; website home page: http://www.access.gpo.gov (accessed July 23, 2009). Maser, Mark G. 2002. “Feres Doctrine—United States Courts of Appeals Consistently Hold that Members of the Armed Forces Are Barred From Bringing Suits Against the Government When Service Members are Injured Incident to Military Sponsored Sports and Recreational Activities.” Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law 12 (summer). Seidelson, David E. 1994. “From Feres v. United States to Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.: An Examination of Supreme Court Jurisprudence and a Couple of Suggestions.” Duquesne Law Review 32. Turley, Jonathan. 2003. “Pax Militaris: The Feres Doctrine and the Retention of Sovereign Immunity in the Military System of Governance.” George Washington Law Review 71, no. 1 (February). FERGUSON, COLIN See INSANITY DEFENSE “Colin Ferguson” (Sidebar). v FERRARO, GERALDINE ANNE As the first woman candidate for vice PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in a major party, Geraldine Anne Ferraro expanded opportunities for wom- en in national politics. Her place on the Democratic ticket as Walter F. Mondale’s running mate in 1984 broke a gender barrier that had lasted for more than two hundred years. Although Mondale and Ferraro lost to RONALD REAGAN and George H. W. Bush, Ferraro proved herself a capable and dynamic campaigner. Her selection came on t he strength of a highly visible three terms in the House of Representatives, from 1978 to 1984, during which she cham- pioned liberal values, wrote legislation aimed at establishing economic eq uity for women, and oversaw the drafting of the Democratic Party’s 1984 presidential platform. Charges that she had violated congressional rules on financial disclosure hampered her run for the vice presidency, and controversy over business investments helped sink a Senate campaign in 1992. She later headed the U.S. delegation to the UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS Commission. Ferraro was born August 26, 1935, in Newburgh, New York, the fourth child of a tight-knit, prosperous family. But the family’s prosperity did not last. When Ferraro was eight, her father, Dominick Ferraro, an Italian immi- grant and successful restaurant and dime-store owner, died of a heart attack. Two of Ferraro’s brothers had preceded him in death. Bad investments left her mother, Antonetta L. Corrieri, nearly broke. The three surviving family members—Ferraro, her mother, and a brother— moved into a small apartment in the Bronx. Ferraro’s mother supported them by crocheting and managed to give Ferraro an education at the GOVERNMENT CAN BE MORAL —AND IT MUST BE MORAL — WITHOUT ADOPTING A RELIGION .LEADERS CAN BE MORAL —AND THEY SHOULD BE MORAL —WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR MORALITY ON OTHERS . —GERALDINE FERRARO GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FERRARO, GERALDINE ANNE 415 exclusive Catholic school for girls, Marymount. The bright girl excelled, and a scholarship to Marymount College followed, where Ferraro earned a bachelor’s degree in English in 1956. For the next four years, she taught in Queens public schools by day and took classes at Fordham University Law School by night. The next two decades laid the groundwork for Ferraro’s political future. She earned her law degree in 1960, married, and set aside her ambitions in order to raise children. Occasionally, she did part-time law work for the very successful real estate business run by her husband, developer John Zaccaro. But her main outlet for professional development was mem- bership in local DEMOCRATIC PARTY clubs. She worked on the state senate campaign of her cousin Nicholas Ferraro. When he later became DISTRICT ATTORNEY for Queens County, he made her an assistant district attorney. It was 1974, and Ferraro, at the age of 39, had her first full-time job. Assigned to the Special Victims Bureau, she prosecuted cases of RAPE, CHILD ABUSE, and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE so disturbing that she lost sleep at night. Even though she won praise for her fairness and persuasiveness in court, she was frustrated. She earned less than her male colleagues simply because she was a married woman. By 1978 she was more liberal in outlook than before, and politics beckoned to her. Ferraro ran for the U.S. House of Repre- sentatives. The Ninth Congressional District was a conservative, blue-collar section of Queens, and it was hardly surprising that the local Democratic machine did not support this liberal feminist. Her Republican opponent, Alfred A. DelliBovi, a three-term assemblyman, hammered at her political inexperience. But she won anyway, on a platform of law and order, support for labor and senior citizens, and neighborhood preservation, which she summed up in the campaign slogan, Finally a Tough Democrat. She had help—her cousin’s connec- tions and her husband’s wealth, which in time would come back to haunt her. Meanwhile, she set about making good on her promises and opened a plain storefront congressional office. Geraldine Ferraro. BRIAN ACH/WIREIMAGE/ GETTY IMAGES Geraldine Anne Ferraro 1935– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1935 2000 1975 1950 ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ❖ 2001 Disclosed 1998 diagnosis of multiple myeloma (blood cancer) 2008 Served as fundraiser in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign; forced to resign after making controversial statement about Barack Obama 1999 Joined public relations firm Weber McGinn 1998 Defeated in Democratic primary for U.S. Senate; Framing A Life: A Family Memoir published 1994–96 Served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission 1992 Ran unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate 1988 Appointed fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics 1984 Nominated as first woman candidate for vice president of a major party on Democratic ticket 1978–84 Served in U.S. House of Representatives 1981 Cosponsored the Economic Equity Act 1974–78 Served as assistant district attorney of Queens County 1961–74 Worked as full-time homemaker with part-time legal practice 1960 Received J.D. from Fordham Law School 1935 Born, Newburgh, N.Y. 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 416 FERRARO, GERALDINE ANNE Ferraro quickly scaled Capitol Hill. In just two terms, she transformed herself from a meat-and-potatoes politician into a congressio- nal leader. The change was accomplished by party loyalty: She voted with the Democratic Party 78 percent of the time in her first term and even more often in her successive terms. But she did not forget her own philosophy. By 1981 she cosponsored the Economic Equity Act, a bipartisan measure aimed at increasing women’s economic righ ts, which has been reintroduced in Congress several times. She took personal leadership of two sections that provided women with greater access to private pension plans and individual retirement accounts. Ferraro’s personal style—tough yet compromising—won her a rep utation for play- ing by the rules. In a short time she came to the attention of the most powerful Democrat in Congress, Speaker of the House Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. The Speaker liked her politics and hard work, and her reward was key assignments that traditionally went to older, more seasoned leaders: an appointment to the Budget Committee in 1983; a position helping to draft rules for the Democratic National Convention; and the biggest prize of all, chair of the 1984 Democratic platform committee, drafting the party’s positions in the forthcoming election. An extraordinary career leap, the chair of the platform committee meant real power and extra visibility. The moment was ripe for even more success. Man y Democrats wanted a woman nominated to the presidential ticket. Some viewed the issue as one of fairness; others thought it would capture women voters. By spring 1984, as Mondale emerged as the clear favorite for the presidential nomination, party leaders began urging him to pick Ferraro. The Woman’s National Democratic Club endorsed her. O’Neill followed suit. By June, members of the National Women’s Political Caucus argued that an analysis of voting trends showed that a woman on the ticket would be a winner. The cover of Time magazine pictured Ferraro and the other leading contender, San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein, under the heading “And for Vice President Why Not a Woman?” In terms of strategic advantage, Ferraro offered more than her gender. She was an Italian American Catholic from the East with working-class roots, an identity that her sup- porters thought would give the Democratic ticket regional and ethnic balance. But objec- tions came from some party members who viewed her as a pork barrel politician, too brash to be widely popular and, worse, inexperienced. The Mondale-Ferraro campaign faced a tremendous challenge in offering an alternative to an appealing incumbent. President Reagan enjoyed great popular support, buoyed by love of his personal style and the economic recovery that had begun in 1983. The Democrats stressed negatives: Reagan’s economic policies were built on huge federal defic its, they charged, which would force him to cut SOCIAL SECURITY benefits and raise taxes in a second term. Reagan responded that the United States was “standing tall” again in the eyes of the world and warned that Mondale and Ferraro would return the nation to the high inflation and unemployment that had plagued the presidency of JIMMY CARTER. In speeches, Ferraro gave as good as she got. She blasted Ronald Reagan’s penchant for tailoring facts to fit his positions, as constituting “an anecdotal presidency.” Because the Demo- crats were reaching out for their traditional base of organized labor and the underprivileged, she seized on opportunities to present the Repub- licans as the party of the rich. One opportunity came after GEORGE H. W. BUSH made a point about taxes by asking if his audience knew what wins elections; he pulled out his wallet and said the election came down to who puts money into it and who takes money out. Ferraro told a crowd of supporters, That single gesture of selfishness tells us more about the true character of this administration than all their apple pie rhetoric. There’s nothing in George Bush’ s wallet that says we should care about the disadvantaged. There’s nothing in his wallet that tells us to search for peace. There’s nothing in his wallet that says in the name of humanity let’s stop the arms race. But the voters did not respond. Democratic Party polls showed that Ferraro’s negative ratings increased as she attacked Reagan. Mon- dale, hurt by an image of weakness, was doing no better. Reagan won by a landslide, with the greatest electoral vote margin in history, even capturing 55 percent of women voters. Ferraro’s candidacy had changed history, but she had some regrets. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FERRARO, GERALDINE ANNE 417 Ferraro’s chief complaint was the Repub- licans’ charges about her and her hu sband’s finances. As far back as 1979, the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) had ruled that she violated the law by borrowing money from her husband for her first congressional race; she repaid it. The issue was revived in the 1984 race, along with new charges that she failed to disclose fully her family finances under the Ethics in Government Act (2 U.S.C.A. § 701). The newest accusations arose when the Washing- ton Legal Foundation, a conservative group, filed a complaint against her with the JUSTICE DEPART- MENT and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. She then admitted owing back taxes amounting to $53,459, blamed them on simple errors, and paid up. Yet not until after the election did the investigations in the Justice Department, Congress, and the FEC come to an end. Although Ferraro was cleared of any wrong- doing, the inquiries hurt her political career. She later claimed that the Justice Department, under Reagan appointee Attorney General EDWIN MEESE III , bul lied her into dropping plans to run for the Senate in 1986. She waited until 1992 to mount a Senate race in New York. The charges of corruption resurfaced just as she was leading a three-way race for the Democratic nomination. Ferraro denied the allegations, calling them anti- Italian slurs. But her opponents exploited the charges and she lost the nomination to New York Attorney General Bob Abrams. After her defeat, in addition to being the managing partner of a New York law firm, Ferraro occasionally surfaced in national politics in the mid-1990s. She worked as a lobbyist for the American Association for MARRIAGE and Family Therapy, arguing that family therapy should be covered under any NATIONAL HEALTH CARE system. In 1994 President BILL CLINTON appointed her as ambassador to head the U.S. delegation at the fiftieth annual meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Among other issues, she raised concerns about the treatment of women in the former Yugoslavia. Ferraro served on the commission until 1996. After she stepped down, she served as a commentator on CNN’s Crossfire, a political debate program. She also served as a partner in the consulting firm CEO Perspective Group, which advises corporate executives. She ran unsuccessfully for the Senate again in 1998, losing in the New York senatorial primary to Representative Charles Schumer. After the defeat, she announced that her political career was over. In 2001 Ferraro disclosed to the New York Times that she was battling multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer. She was diagnosed with the rare form of cancer in 1998 and was one of the first patients to be treated with the controversial drug, thalidomide. Her cancer went into remission. Ferraro testified before Congress about her illness and continues to speak publicly in a variety of engagements. In 2008 Ferraro became the center of controversy during the Democratic primaries while she served as a fundraiser in Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president, when she suggested that BARACK OBAMA was doing well against Clinton because he was black. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position” she was quoted as saying to a small California newspaper. As a result of the comments, she was forced to resign from Clinton’s finance committee. She later praised Republican John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, although she stated she would be voting for Obama. FURTHER READINGS Ferraro, Geraldine. 1985. Ferraro: My Story. New York: Bantam Books. “Ferraro Steps Down from Clinton Campaign.” 2008. CNN. com. (March 12) Available online at http://www.cnn. com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index. html(accessed November 25, 2009). “Geraldine Ferraro Battling Blood Cancer.” 2001. Houston Chronicle (June 19). Available online at www.chron. com (accessed June 26, 2003). Goldman, Peter, and Tony Fuller. 1985. The Quest for the Presidency 1984. New York: Bantam Books. Humbert, Marc. 1998. “Ferraro Loses New York Senate Bid.” Washington Post (September 16). Kornblut, Anne E. 2009. “When Young Women Don’t Vote for Women.” Washington Post. December 27. FERRY A specially constructed vessel to bring passengers and property across rivers and other bodies of water from one shoreline to another, making contact with a thoroughfare at each terminus. The landing place for a boat. A right or privilege to maintain a vessel upon a body of water in order to transport people and their vehicles across it in exchange for payment of a reasonable toll. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 418 FERRY . Died, Bernardsville, N.J. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 41 2 FENWICK, MILLICENT VERNON HAMMOND Bureau of Professional Boards by insisting that members of the general public be. research and education of judges and judicial staff members geared to enhance their knowledge and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE 40 9 awareness of domestic violence. of Vogue magazine, where she worked for 14 years as a writer and editor. WE MUST HAVE GOVERNMENT , BUT WE MUST WATCH THEM LIKE A HAWK . —MILLICENT FENWICK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD