string(0) ""
array(4) {
["txt"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_datas"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_thumbnail"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_media"]=>
string(0) ""
}
Justifying gender equality on the bench
| Subtitle | why difference won't do |
| Magazine Title | Feminist Legal Studies |
| Volume | 11 |
| Magazine Year | 2003 |
| Magazine Number | 1 |
| Pages | p. 1-24 |
| Language | English/Engels |
| Description | The case for gender equality on the bench would seem too uncontroversial to require justification. Yet the practical realities of the slow progress of women towards equality of participation both quantitative and qualitative in the judiciary testifies to the continuing need to argue the case for change. To date, the primary rationale for promoting gender equality has been that women will bring a unique contribution to the bench as a result of their different life experiences, values and attitudes. Such arguments derived from difference theory have had a strong appeal since they appear to give legitimacy to the undervalued attributes traditionally associated as feminine while also promoting the merit principle by claiming to improve the quality of justice. However, this article argues that difference theory arguments are theoretically weak, empirically questionable and strategically dangerous. Instead, it argues for the adoption of a rationale for gender equality based on equity and legitimacy: that equal participation of men and women in the justice system is an inherent and essential feature of a democracy without which the judiciary will lose public confidence. |
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/11653/art225389
