MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Feminist Judgment

Filed under: Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:33 am Thu 25th February 2016

This Radio NZ article broadcast on Monday 22 Feb left our mouths hanging open. It was called ‘Feminist Judges’ and described a project funded by the Law Foundation (to the tune of $38,000) paying Elisabeth McDonald (Victoria University) and Rhonda Powell (Canterbury University) to re-write or get others to re-write judgments in a way that might be done by feminist judges. The ‘Feminist Judgments Project Aotearoa’ is part of an international movement that re-writes judgments by looking at feminist arguments that Courts often overlook.

Radio NZ opened the article by asking “How could feminism improve judicial decision-making?”, then interviewed Prof Rosemary Hunter from Queen Mary University in London who is a project leader spreading this particular piece of sexism around the world. Prof Hunter told us that the project aims to show that feminist judges could provide different reasoning and results in cases that would provide ‘greater gender justice’ that is ‘more inclusive of the full range of humanity for whom the Courts have to judge’.

Apparently, feminism could improve our handling of issues such as what should be considered public and private, voting rights (do they want two votes per woman now?), issues around corporate relationships which it’s claimed could work better if treated as similar to effective family relationships (which, through some mysterious mental gymnastics she thinks are related to feminist ideology).

When challenged Prof Hunter refused to define what feminism is, claiming that ‘one of the points of the project’ is that feminism is such a ‘broad church’ that it could lead to all kinds of different approaches to legal judgments. Sounds like typically evasive, irrational feminist thinking.

Prof Hunter claimed that the law has shown and maintains a systematic bias towards ‘a male point of view’. She tells us that the re-written feminist judgments are now being used in ‘teaching and training’ the current generation of law students, which apparently will leave them with ‘a greater understanding about being inclusive’. She hopes lawyers and judges will pick up on the new way of seeing things and incorporate that into their own work.

Your mouth may now also be hanging open.

Western justice systems are renown for sexism favouring females, especially female offenders but also female complainants who are more likely to be believed and for whom compassion and caring much more often influences judges and juries, especially if the females produce tears at opportune moments. The evidence suggests that to achieve better gender balance in our Courts it will be necessary to pay much more attention to the perspectives and treatment of men rather than women.

Of course, Prof Hunter did not elucidate us as to how feminism might actually improve judicial decision-making. She simply asserted, in various wording, that it would and provided only some hollow feminist slogans and claims in support of her assertion.

The claim that feminism is ‘more inclusive of the full range of humanity’ is one of those hollow feminist slogans. In our experience feminists have mostly been myopic, concerned only about women’s advantage and determined to undermine or repress any point of view inconsistent with their own. Feminists often loudly disrupt lectures and conferences organized by men’s groups.

MoMA intends to write to the Law Foundation asking if it will fund the ‘Masculinist Judgments Project Aotearoa’ to the same amount. We look forward to offering some ‘re-writing judgments’ work to some contributors here, if and when the money comes through, but don’t hold your breath! We might also ask if the Law Foundation would fund the ‘White Supremist Judgments Project Aotearoa’, the ‘Muslim Judgments Project Aotearoa’ or the ‘Rugby Supporters Judgment Project Aotearoa’. If one self-serving ideological perspective is seen as worthy of this kind of project, why not others?

Feminism in its various forms (all essentially ‘femaleism’) has caused enormous damage to the families, economic basis and justice systems of Western countries. The kind of femaleism that will no doubt be applied in Prof Hunter’s project continues to erode fundamental principles of justice such as the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, the right for a defendant to face his accuser, the principle that avoiding false conviction and punishment is more important than ensuring conviction of the truly guilty, and the right to get on with life after serving one’s sentence (to name just a few). That a bunch of arrogant females are still granted large sums of money to keep spreading their self-serving cancer of hollow claims, anti-male hate speech and corruption of reasoning is incredible. The results will only hasten the demise of our civilization.


  1. Totally agree:

    “Western justice systems are renown for sexism favouring females, especially female offenders but also female complainants who are more likely to be believed and for whom compassion and caring much more often influences judges and juries, especially if the females produce tears at opportune moments.”

    Females who help Crown Prosecutors gain convictions based on “false allegations” are seldom called to account and when they are it’s a weak slap on wrist.

    Comment by Jon — Thu 25th February 2016 @ 12:04 pm

  2. The poor dears, being paid to rewrite paper judgements.
    By being paid for work of perhaps little value, is just giving them bigger expectations in life, that are likely setting them up for hardship later. Champagne tastes on a beer budget? It is not a nice situation to be dropped into. Ask Dr. Ruth Herbert?

    It would be very interesting to see the justification and names of the people who signed off the expenditure?
    I am guessing that some sportsman might wait a few weeks, then Official Info Act the background. The ladies might then be left with their rewritten judgements and little or no funding?

    Good judgement is a skill of huge value, in any area.
    What value lies in a legal judgement?

    Sometimes some social values discussion?
    Often enough the real world value of the legal judgement cannot be seen, as it starts with the judge’s interpretation of the facts and in most cases there is insufficient detail to be able to be confident of what really happened. So many judgements are of precious little social value at the best of times and usually even less value. So what could ever be gained by “rewriting” judgements, when it is the real world actions and impacts that matter? And, many judgements are never able to be enforced as well. To achieve value, the process needs to be evaluated from earlier, right through, to the later impacts in the real world.

    Much more social value could be obtained by putting almost all Government programme evaluation out to multiple tenders. Then the say 3 or 5 best value for money tenderers could be paid to do the same job, so that the collective independent works could be assembled to form an evaluation that is much more comprehensive, robust and reliable.

    The cost to raise the standard for social programme evaluations would be huge. We spend perhaps $3 to maybe $30 million on evaluations, covering expenditure amounting to nearly $20 Billions.

    By commercial standards, such a R&D expenditure on expenditures that are immature – ie not well understood, is plainly stupidly high risk. For the given uncertainties and risk in social policy and educational spending, R&D expenditures of more like 1 – 5%, ie $200 million to $1 billion might be considered more prudent and lower overall risk, than spending so much on social programmes that are so poorly thought out.

    In this absence of good social research, there is a vacuum of policy ideas, that is too easily filled by party rhetoric of very dubious social value. Both parties are guilty of substituting party policy for evidence based policy.

    Calling for public submission doesn’t reliably gain evidence based policy ideas at pathetically low cost. Even when good advice is given by experienced social agencies, Government too often proceeds with it’s own poorly thought through policies anyway.

    Good research is being done in NZ in education. These skills must be funded, to broaden into social policy and justice areas.

    Disclosure of conflict of interest: I would like to work in the social policy area in the future. I do know how hard it is to do good work on a shoestring budget and how impossible on the budgets presently laid out by NZ Governments through the last 100 years.

    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 25th February 2016 @ 1:52 pm

  3. are male and female rights so separate and distinct that men need to create spaces for their own rights whereas women need to have their area for women’s rights?

    Comment by Moshe Greenough — Sat 12th March 2016 @ 2:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar