Thinking about gender and judging

Kenney, Sally J.

doi:10.1080/09695950802461837

Cited by 38 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, women judges are more likely to be different to, and to disagree with, each other than their male colleagues (Belleau and Johnson 2007, 6 In re Goodell, 39 Wisconsin Reports 232 (1875). 7 See, e.g., Feenan (this issue); Kenney (2006Kenney ( , 2008, Palmer (2001) (US); McCormick and Job (1993), Johnson (2005, 2008) (Canada); and more generally Schultz and Shaw (2003). 8 On the extent to which Gilligan's work has ''come to define the feminist approach to gender and judging and hampers our ability to theorise effectively about difference'', see further Kenney (2008, p. 87) and also Rackley (2007a).…”

Section: Defining Differencementioning

confidence: 97%

Detailing Judicial Difference

Rackley

2009

Fem Leg Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In January 2004 Baroness Brenda Hale became the first woman to sit on the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Five years on, she has brought to her judicial role a lightness of touch that belies her increasingly significant impact on the court's jurisprudence. Early forecasts that she would be ''just a bit different'' from her male companions have proved prophetic. However such assessments have stemmed primarily from a focus on her decision-making on a case-by-case basis. But what of her jurisprudence as a whole? This paper considers arguments for a more sustained and coherent methodological approach to analyses of Baroness Hale's (and other judges') jurisprudence as a framework through which to better understand and explore the potential of judicial difference and to better inform current debates about increasing judicial diversity in England and Wales.

show abstract

Section: Defining Differencementioning

confidence: 97%

Detailing Judicial Difference

Rackley

2009

Fem Leg Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That women judges haven't been as different, or different in the ways that were originally hypothesised by some feminist legal theorists (Gilligan 1982;Menkel-Meadow 1985;Sherry 1986) is a recurring theme in the literature in this field (e.g. Kenney 2008Kenney , 2013Hunter 2008). But the arrival of women judges nonetheless ''puts us on notice; it encourages us to both look for-and more importantly-find difference'' (Rackley 2009, 16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

‘A Particular Disappointment?’ Judging Women and the High Court of Australia

McLoughlin¹

2015

Fem Leg Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines whether the gender balance on the High Court of Australia has disrupted the gender regime. In so doing it considers the first lead judgments of the three women judges who sat concurrently on the High Court of Australia between 2009 and early 2015. The High Court has adopted an interesting informal practice of welcoming new judges whereby the newest member authors the lead judgment and their judicial colleagues offer a one-line concurrence. The way in which judicial authority is conferred in these judgments is reminiscent of the space in political spheres where an incumbent has their first opportunity to set out their identity and agenda in a speech free of the noise of dissent or debate; the 'maiden' speech. In that space the price an incumbent pays for comity is conformity. This article contends that the first judgment is a useful way of situating a discussion about women judges' contributions vis-à-vis difference by querying the extent to which the woman judge can ever shake-off her status as the maiden bound to conform for the sake of comity.

show abstract

“…Hunter 2008;Kenney 2008). In this special issue, Beverley Baines argues that the introduction of the concept of 'contextualism' by Justice Bertha Wilson into Canadian Supreme Court jurisprudence in one appellate case is consistent with feminist legal methodology, even if Wilson did not self-identify as feminist.…”

Section: Women Judges Making a Difference?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there remain a number of theoretical and normative problems with some of the 'difference' studies (Malleson 2003;Kenney 2008). The studies are often poorly theorized with reference to gender and judging, ignoring socialisation and structural variables.…”

Section: Women Judges Making a Difference?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Introduction: Women and Judging

Feenan

2009

Fem Leg Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thinking about gender and judging

Cited by 38 publications

References 23 publications

Detailing Judicial Difference

Detailing Judicial Difference

‘A Particular Disappointment?’ Judging Women and the High Court of Australia

Editorial Introduction: Women and Judging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About