Those goshdarn women
In honour of International Women’s Day, I wanted to call your attention to a couple of articles which reflect some of the discussion about the role of women in society. First, a couple of weeks ago, Andrew Bolt served up an article stating that Victorian Attorney General Rob Hulls was promoting women to senior legal positions in pursuit of a particular agenda:
Naturally, each of the women Hulls appointed was as good or better than the men they beat for the job, and won on merit alone, just as he keeps insisting. But what’s troubling is that some say they won’t do their judging the way men do, as if the law is open to wildly differing interpretations, depending on race, gender or inclination.
Neave has in the past talked of needing to “unpick how gender biases affect what is recognised as ‘truth’ ” and also said: “Judges are required to be neutral, independent and impartial, but their perceptions of what is fair and just are inevitably shaped by their life experiences, gender, race and . . . other influences.”
She has said: “The situation of women in situations of disadvantage is more likely to be addressed if we have more senior female barristers, judges and law reformers.” Now that she is one of those judges, will she work on that agenda, interpreting the law as a woman rather than as simply a judge?
Chief Justice Marilyn Warren has been even bolder in claiming female judges do the job differently.
She says all these differences are good, of course, and has listed them: “Women identify an issue quickly, focus on it and persuade rather than dictate . . . Women provide perspective. They search out the resolutions.”
They also bring “typically feminine characteristics to the law: energy, patience, humour and insight”.
Of course, a man with a death wish might reply that if women are really so different, then surely not all those differences will be good.
Could it be that female judges are also less rational? Too emotional? Too forgiving of dangerous criminals? Less likely to follow the law?
Of course, as Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward points out today, women are hardly filling an overwhelming number of senior positions:
Despite women’s significant presence in the workforce, Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace figures show that females hold only 10.2 per cent of executive management positions (compared with 15.7 per cent in the United States and 14 per cent in Canada). Forty-two per cent of Australian companies have no women in executive management positions.
It seems as if the glass ceiling is thicker than ever. Women hold only 8.6 per cent of Australian board directorships (compared with 13.6 per cent in the US and 11.2 per cent in Canada) and 47.1 per cent of companies have no women board directors at all.
We have seen on our own site that the discussion of the position of women in society has caused a few hotspots and flareups. After so many years, it seems amazing that these issues are still so fraught. Discuss, using examples where appropriate.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Okay, but no pentecostal kissing
the rev
March 15th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Can I get the phtos of you two kissing - they’d be worth a fortune on the net!…oh we’re already on the net
March 15th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Homer, I agree - I think the Rev and I actually agree.
Rev - Dan asked us to “discuss”. I gave two examples. Only one of them was followed up. I thanked Greg because it was nice to hear a bloke saying that. I didn’t mean it to come across the way it obviously did - apologies for that.
I think it’s counter-productive to personalise it the way you have.When my indigenous mates talk about discrimination they experience, I don’t take that personally and start talking about how I’m sick of being made to feel like a redneck. Yes, you are a bloke, but believe it or not, I am quite capable of distinguishing you, my boyfriend, my brother, my father, or the many male friends I have from a chauvinist idiot who treats me like I’m subhuman…
I repeat, I have not mentioned Forge on this blog, and the only time I mentioned Forge on your blog was when I pointed out, in one tiny line, that Kim said “Father” repeatedly. I have never said you, Kim or anyone else at Forge is sexist. I merely used that as one, tiny, insignificant example/case study. I didn’t mean to imply ANYTHING else by it. Next time I will be more careful with the example I pick.
Re: the couples analogy - that’s exactly my point. We relate differently in different contexts, because we’ve been socially trained to do so. There’s nothing contrived or inauthentic about it. It *is* possible to retrain ourselves to relate to God in a variety of ways - our social systems just don’t necessarily encourage it.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:40 am
btw - what is pentecostal kissing??!!
March 15th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I think it’s when you kiss in tongues!!!!!!
March 15th, 2006 at 10:09 am
bingo
March 15th, 2006 at 10:16 am
but who does the translating? and who ensures that only 2-3 per service do it at a time?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:19 am
*laughing*
March 15th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Ned, according to your line of reasoning (255) Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so I’m guessing that you think it is OK.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Ned, Ned, Ned… according to your line of reasoning (255) Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so I’m guessing that you think it is OK.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Ah that is a good point Andy!
Bec, I think Rev is refering to the way Alan brought up Forge not you.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
This seemed appropriate for this thread…good ol’ Saltshakers makes Andrew Bolt look like…well, almost a feminist!
*cough* Now “inexperienced” is hardly a word one can apply to Neave!! And *giggle* people lobbying the government to reverse judicial appointments?! Well, if Saltshakers doesn’t want “activist” judges, then this is hardly the way to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary!!
Enjoy…
http://www.saltshakers.org.au
Saturday, March 04, 2006
11:18 AM
The Victorian Government’s appointment of an inexperienced feminist activist to it’s highest Court is a disgrace.
The appointment of Feminist activist Marcia Neave to the Victorian Court of Appeals gives us every indication of the ‘values’, or lack of them, of the Bracks Labor government. It also highlights the danger of the Bracks government’s proposed ‘Charter of Rights’
The fact that the Vic. Attorney General, Rob Hulls, changed the rules to facilitate this appointment at a time that he is passionately forcing a ‘Charter of Rights’ on all Victorians, clearly shows his desire to take power away from the people and give it to unelected, and in this case inexperienced, activist judges like Neave. This will rightly be regarded by many Victorians as inappropriate.
It is very difficult to visualize how anyone who comes from outside the court system, and with little experience of it, could ever function properly as a judge of our highest state Court.
Her disastrous recommendation to the Cain government to legalise prostitution and her recent support for homosexual and lesbian access to Artificial Reproduction Technology, IVF and adoption, are indications of her radical (anti) social agenda.
We call on the Bracks government to immediately reverse this appointment and to replace Neave with a well qualified, experienced and long serving Judge.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
[…] I have been thinking further about the "gender" of God, and in particular the title of "Creator". Over at Signposts there is an interesting discussion on this topic. One writer commented that she preferred the title of "Creator" because it was bigger than the more human construct of "father", encompassing all of creation. I think that by exploring the concept of God as "Creator" we can learn something about the interplay between our understanding of God and our construct of gender. Assuming a literal reading of the Bible, there are two starting points of interest concerning God as creator. […]