Women: Truly The Fairer Sex

Now let???s turn on to the arguments made in the article.

The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel

First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn???t it precisely judges??? job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination ???victim????) Doesn???t author know that ???significant??? percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called ???victims???) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.

It may suggest female moral reasoning???if such a thing exists???might be contagious.

Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party doctrine (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some ???gender committee??? about her male colleagues ???resistance??? to rule in favour of ???victims???? Or are these female judges using their ???sex appeal??? or some ???feminine attributes??? to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?


It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks.

Doesn???t he have a right ???not to hire???, as opposed to ???refuse to hire??? underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges??? offices?

Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren???t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of ???a woman President in their lifetime??? at the expense of the first black President? Wasn???t it actually white men, who weren???t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaoe the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn???t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?

And whose ???article of faith??? is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too ??? yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn???t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.

If I actually believed the theory that women apply an "ethic of care" rather than an "ethic of rights" when ruling from the bench, I would take that as an argument why women should be EXCLUDED from judgeships rather than requiring their inclusion. Judges are not philosopher kings, it is their duty to apply the law, not bend the law to suit their personal consciences. Fortunately, I believe their are plenty of women jurists capable of upholding the rule of law.

If women were a fairer sex; feminists would be up in arms about the fact that women are a world-wide minority among restaurant chefs and people who got drafted to go to wars. Gender is a strong factor; but should neither be the most important factor nor the only factor in filling important public posts. Merit should be the most important factor. Otherwise; it would undermine the achievements of the appointee and be counter-productive in the sense that the public perceives that the person got the post simply because of affirmative action.

This is rich, even in an economic downturn. The whole "battle" of the sexes thing is so trite. But while we're on the subject, allow me a few observances. Does the same thing apply when a man cheats on a woman he is called a cheater. But when a woman cheats it's because her husband or boyfriend isn't meeting all of her needs. Here's one. A friend was seeing another woman when his present girlfriend saw him in the car with this woman. To make a long story short, a high speed chase ensued. The pursuing girlfriend caught the attention of a patrol car. He pulls her over by having to cut her off, forcing her car to the shoulder. She cursed the cop was combative and completely out of control. She was handcuffed, arrested and charged with several moving violations as well as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, interfering with a police officer and assaulting a police officer. Several of the charges were ultimately dropped to misdemeanor status. But to this day she accepts no responsibility for her actions. Of course, it's all his fault. There's an old joke. "Why do women need men? ans: Without them who would women blame for all of their problems? Men see things in a more right or wrong absolute nature. Women rationalize their way through life. To make rulings from the bench through a rationale takes the blindfold off of lady liberty. A very dangerous proposition.