Opinion What a common gendered phrase says about the persistence of sexism in law
The saying, ‘The law is a jealous mistress’, was coined at a time when women were valued primarily for their beauty, sexuality and reproductive role. Those days are in the past, just as this aphorism should be
It is time to bid farewell to the patriarchal framing of the legal profession, which has lingered for far too long. 
-
Share -
-
-
At a recent international conference hosted by Dr Rajendra Prasad National Law University (NLU), Prayagraj, the aphorism, “The law is a jealous mistress”, was used by some eminent speakers to illustrate the demanding and uncompromising nature of the legal profession to aspiring legal minds. This occurred on Women’s Day, a coincidence which heightened my discomfort with the use of such a gendered metaphor with patriarchal overtones in the 21st century. It served as a reminder that the legal profession, despite progress, remains shadowed by gendered assumptions that require thoughtful critique and revision. The vexation caused by the use of this expression prompted me to deconstruct the outdated patriarchal narratives within legal discourse.
While the aphorism conveys the idea that the legal profession demands undivided attention, total commitment, and intense devotion, the way it is expressed is deeply rooted in patriarchal undertones. It reflects a deeply sexualised and patriarchal understanding of the legal profession, where success is framed in terms of dominance and control over a feminised and emotional object. The term “mistress” reflects a male-centric view of the legal profession; it assumes that the lawyer is a man, and the law is likened to a possessive, demanding female partner. This reinforces traditional gender roles where men are seen as the active agents (lawyers) and women as passive or demanding objects (mistresses). “Mistress” implies a relationship of secrecy, imbalance, and moral ambiguity. Associating law with a mistress not only reinforces negative stereotypes about women but also implies that the law is something to be “conquered” or “possessed” rather than an equitable, intellectual pursuit. It reinforces the idea that women, and by extension, feminine qualities, are inherently possessive and demanding, perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
The authorship of the saying has been the subject of controversy for quite some time. It is believed to have been first coined by Lord Justice Maule in the 19th century, who reportedly remarked, “The law, like a tavern, is a jealous mistress and requires a long apprenticeship before she yields her favour”. However, the origin of the phrase has also been attributed to various other figures, including an obscure lawyer who allegedly invented it as an excuse to avoid escorting his wife to a concert. Among the names often linked to the phrase are Daniel Webster, the American lawyer and statesman; Sir William Blackstone, the renowned English jurist; and even Lords Mansfield and Denning.
In October 1926, the Colorado Bar Association issued an appeal to ascertain the true authorship of the phrase. Several responses were received, each offering different theories regarding its origin. Ultimately, M Eugene Culver claimed to have traced the phrase to a discourse by the US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, which was published in the Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story (1852). This attribution has been verified through a copy of the book available in the library of NLU, Prayagraj. The address, which was titled “Value and Importance of Legal Studies”, was delivered on August 25, 1829, when Story was inaugurated as the Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University. It goes: “The student, therefore, should at his first entrance upon the study weigh well the difficulties of his task, not merely to guard himself against despondency on account of expectations too sanguinely indulged, but also to stimulate his zeal by a proper estimate of the value of perseverance. He who has learned to survey the labor without dismay has achieved half the victory. I will not say, with Lord Hale, that ‘the Law will admit of no rival, and nothing to go even with it’; but I will say that it is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favors, but by lavish homage.”
Though this quote has been repeated over and over in the legal world, it has not been universally accepted. In an article published in 1927 in the Virginia Law Review, Eugene Angert established that the law is not a jealous mistress. “But freed from all fear of arousing the jealousy and losing the affection of the mistress of the law, we may flirt with art and music and literature; we may contract entangling alliances with the siren of politics and form Platonic friendships with every hobby that fits our fancy.”
The aphorism was coined at a time when women were valued primarily for their beauty, sexuality, and reproductive roles. The feminist movements, which pushed for increased access to education and legal reforms, have reshaped this narrative. Women are now increasingly recognised for their intellect, leadership, and decision-making abilities, asserting their agency in legal, political, economic, and social spheres. Today, women have emerged as formidable advocates, judges, and legal scholars.
most read
It is time to bid farewell to the patriarchal framing of the legal profession, which has lingered for far too long. Let the saying, which has brought moral ambiguity to the noble profession, no longer endure as a rhetorical relic, receiving undue reverence. By laying this phrase to rest, we affirm a progressive and equitable understanding of the dedication and commitment that the law demands.
The writer is Senior Professor and Vice-Chancellor, RP National Law University, Prayagraj
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
