Do we NEED a woman on the high court? (1 Viewer)

[Meldrum]

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that everyone has the potential to earn the same ammount.

 

[neo o]

Yes but law girls aren't really girls. Never see other law girls as potential sex objects. Makes work very hard.

With one girl in particular, it's particularly hard . Going on your logic though, since she came first in economics, fair game would probably be the CEO of the Macquarie Bank or the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I prefer to learn the hard way Asquithian and if that makes my work very hard - all the better.

 

[Meldrum]

hmmm....

no

Bah? Bah-glah? Bah-glah-bahbah?

Hard work can glaze over any genetic gift.

 

[Meldrum]

Really?
Am I just being naive?

Damn my upper-middle-class non-sensibilities.

 

[katie_tully]

no, its natural for women to be that way, cos they feel over the years they have been dicriminated against. I lot of my female teachers are likt that, they are whingin about female rights and so on.

Teachers are stupid. The end.

I don't believe feminism has any relevance today. Whilst I appreciate female pioneers, I feel as though there isn't as much discrimination between sexes anymore. Especially now that older CEOS are dying/retiring and younger people are moving up the ranks.


We have been discriminated against. In the past. I don't feel that now though, and I wouldn't let the fact that we were 30 years ago persuade my judgement now.

 

[katie_tully]

What the hell? Do you read through your rabble before you post?

Teachers are people who never grew up enough to leave school. Most. Not all.

 

[santaslayer]

With respect, that is a pretty silly argument. You're considering that females are going to let their gender influence their decision making. But there are SEVEN males on the current bench! The exact same argument can be said about them - they are letting their men's perspective influence everything.

Moonlight, it wasn't meant to be an argument at all...just a random statement/observation of what MIGHT happen with a female judge's decision.

Also, yes, I still believe that one's gender will be significantly influential in their judgements. I can't see why it won't, unless you can point me in the right direction.

You cannot do anything (as of yet) to correct the problem of the masculine perspective because there are no females 'fitting' (please, I used correct punctuation on the word 'fitting', so don't flame me) of the job. That cannot be helped. Even then, females will still be a minority on the bench in the short-medium term. You can't allow females onto the bench JUST BECAUSE they are females. That brings me back to the same conclusion in my previous posts: Merit instead of gender.....next thing you know, they're going to want homosexual, aZn, euthanasia...blah blah representatives from a cross section of society on the bench.


EDIT: There SHOULD be AzN judges..!!!...

 

[samuelblayden]

I think we should

 

[townie]

i think we need an independant body to appoint judges, or at least more transparancy

i think a fair compromise would be to have a 'shortlist' that attempts to contain all kinds of judges i.e. black, white, male, female, conservative, liberal etc.

then make a selection from that list, there at least a woman has been recognised, and while may not get it if not meretious enough, she's in with a chance

pps just realised, dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix, a phoenix risses from the ashes? hmmm?

 

[santaslayer]

i think we need an independant body to appoint judges, or at least more transparancy

i think a fair compromise would be to have a 'shortlist' that attempts to contain all kinds of judges i.e. black, white, male, female, conservative, liberal etc.

then make a selection from that list, there at least a woman has been recognised, and while may not get it if not meretious enough, she's in with a chance

QUOTE]

I do too. An independent body would be most appropriate.

Having a shortlist though, is the same as appointing a female judge for the sake of it- it's just 'cosmetic', to make it look good. The 'unworthy' candidates wouldn't even be mentioned in their decision making.

 

[Meldrum]

But having a shortlist leads to all sorts of corruption in the selection process, similar to the election of the Californian Supreme Justices which lead to the rigging of the Bush election.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You cannot do anything (as of yet) to correct the problem of the masculine perspective because there are no females 'fitting' (please, I used correct punctuation on the word 'fitting', so don't flame me) of the job. That cannot be helped. Even then, females will still be a minority on the bench in the short-medium term. You can't allow females onto the bench JUST BECAUSE they are females.

I didn't say that they should be chosen just because they were women. But there are women fitting of the job.