Stereotypical assumptions about female vulnerability fail to justify gender-based employment restrictions

Evidence

It rests upon the implied premise, which we think false, that on the one hand, the female is viewed as a pure, delicate and vulnerable creature who must be protected from exposure to criminal influences; and on the other, as a brazen temptress, from whose seductive blandishments the innocent male must be protected. Every woman is either Eve or Little Eva—and either way, she loses …. We have only to look at our own female secretaries and female law clerks to conclude than an intimate business relationship, including traveling on circuit, between persons of different sex presents no “appearance of impropriety” in the current age, graduated as we are from Victorian attitudes. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 647

Categorization

• XREF: XREF names what this plausibly connects to; SEED sketches the article/essay angle. — connects to: Intersectionality is foundational to analyzing compounded race and sex discrimination; Protective labor laws could cost women their jobs rather than help them — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3195
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 647

Broader Connections

• Intersectionality is foundational to analyzing compounded race and sex discrimination #expands (0.55)