|
|
|
National Observer Home > No. 62 - Spring 2004 > Editorial Comment Feminism Today: Female Barristers Complain Wrongly AgainAmongst feminists, whose influence in many areas is on the wane, women barristers stand out for the frequency and plenitude of their complaints. National Observer is a strong defender of equal opportunity for men and women, consistently with the right of employers to select freely which persons they wish to employ. But altogether another thing is the attempt by female barristers to be briefed preferentially, by reference to their sex, and not by their abilities. Of course, women barristers deny that this is their aim. Generally they complain - wrongly in fact - that they are the objects of unfair discrimination. Thus recently complaint was made in view of the fact that of forty-six names of barristers who had received substantial work from the Commonwealth "only two appear to be female".1 But does this really mean that anti-women barrister policies have been adopted? Or does it rather mean that the approximately fifteen per cent of barristers who are women are widely viewed as less able, on average, than their male colleagues? Of course to suggest this is most politically incorrect to a high degree. But political correctness must give way to fact. The feminist illusion that both sexes are identical is now discredited. Amongst other things, men and women differ hormonally and in particular in aggression levels. Indeed, even within each sex there are wide differences. Some men are more ag- gressive or forceful; others are quieter and more restrained. At the Bar, those who succeed most - there are exceptions - are in the first category, not the second. And as between the sexes the same tendency is visible. On average (for there are aggressive women too, and unaggressive men), male barristers are more likely to present their case forcefully and with a determination to win. It is not surprising that many solicitors and clients select barristers by reference to expectations that they will succeed. Indeed, it is a solicitor's duty to select on this basis and not by reference to sex or any other matter that detracts from the prospects of the client's success. In short, this is the reason why women barristers are, in many jurisdictions, briefed less often than men. There are, of course, exceptions. A woman may have a reputation of effectiveness; and a man may be regarded as relatively ineffective. But generally female barristers are regarded as less effective than men, on substantial grounds. Similar experiences apply in regard to the selection by silks of junior barristers to assist them. Generally male juniors are chosen by silks - again with exceptions, especially where a particular woman barrister is an especially good researcher (research being a particular duty of junior barristors acting with a silk). Of course, some silks select particular female juniors on this basis, but others do so to show their political correctness or to have the benefit of female company, sometimes notoriously so. Political correctness requires that analyses such as this should not be made.2 For feminists truth is not a criterion, but often an additional provocation. Many of the members of Bar Councils or of such bodies as the Law Council of Australia have sought their positions for their own professional advancement (such as for appointment as judges or magistrates) or are otherwise peculiarly susceptible to political correctness, particularly at the hands of plangential women barristers who do not forget real or imagined injuries; and perhaps whilst not admiring them one should understand the reasons for their pusillanimity.3 Ambition in the legal profession commonly leads to a disregard of principles. 1. The Financial Review, 20 August 2004 (letter on behalf of the Women Barristers Association of Victoria). 2. The proponents of political correctness are not, it seems, generally filled with liberality and kindness. On the contrary, there are personal attacks by them on others who point out errors in their reasoning: see, for example, the regrettable role of Katherine Towers and Chris Merritt, as discussed in National Observer, 2004,Issue 59, at page 68 (footnote). 3. Privately most barristers express similar views to those set out in these Editorial Comments, and are critical of illegitimate attempts by female barristers to obtain preference. However, current pressures to comply with political correctness generally lead them to agree publicly with female barristers' complaints. National Observer No. 62 - Spring 2004 |
