Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 167–181 | Cite as

The Law Becomes Us: Rediscovering Judgment

Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley (eds.) (2010): Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice, Hart, ISBN: 9781849460538
  • Margaret DaviesEmail author
Book Review

Introduction

Thirty years ago, when feminist legal theory was in its infancy, it might have been difficult to imagine women and feminists occupying en masse the most privileged, senior and interior positions available in the common law. It might have been even more difficult to imagine a large number of such feminists putting feminist theory and scholarship into practice in the constrained environments of the superior court. It would undoubtedly have been hard to imagine this making a significant difference to law in general, which has often appeared to be so widely oppressive to women in its doctrines and practices. Feminist legal thought from the 1980s does suggest that these imaginative leaps might have been difficult. An early focus on liberal equality and the inclusion of women into the profession and into public life gave way in the 1980s to a more complex and extensive account of the doctrinal, structural, and cultural reach of male dominance (Rifkin 1980; Dalton 1988, 4–8)....

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mary Heath, Justice Jayne Jagot, and Kathy Mack for their very helpful comments, conversation, and references.

References

  1. Ashenden, Samantha. 2010. Judgment—Re N (a child). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 89–95. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  2. Auchmuty, Rosemary. 2010. Judgment—Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No. 2). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 155–169. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, Nicola, and Marie Fox. 2010. Judgment—Sheffield City Council v E. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 351–362. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  4. Backhouse, Constance. 2003. The chilly climate for women judges: Reflections on the backlash from the Ewanchuk case. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 15: 167–193.Google Scholar
  5. Bano, Samia, and Pragna Patel. 2010. Judgment—R v Zoora (Ghulam) Shah. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 278–291. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  6. Bankowski, Zenon. 2007. In the judgment space: The judge and the anxiety of the encounter. In The universal and the particular in legal reasoning, ed. Zenon Bankowski, and James MacLean, 25–40. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Berns, Sandra. 1991. Integrity and justice or when is injustice mandated by integrity. Melbourne University Law Review 18: 258–276.Google Scholar
  8. Berns, Sandra. 1999. To speak as a judge: Difference, voice and power. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  9. Bibbings, Lois. 2010. Judgment—R v Stone and Dobinson. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 234–240. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  10. Bridgman, Jo. 2010. Judgment—R v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, ex parte Glass. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 369–380. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Carr, Helen, and Caroline Hunter. 2010. Judgment—YL v Birmingham City Council. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 318–328. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  13. Chinkin, Christine. 2001. Women’s international tribunal on Japanese military sexual slavery. American Journal of International Law 95: 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conaghan, Joanne. 2010. Commentary on James v Eastleigh Borough Council. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 414–419. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  15. Cornell, Drucilla. 1992. The philosophy of the limit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Cover, Robert. 1983. Nomos and narrative. Harvard Law Review 97: 4–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalton, Clare. 1988. Where we stand: Observations on the situation of feminist legal thought. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 3: 1–13.Google Scholar
  18. Davies, Margaret. 1996. Delimiting the law: ‘Postmodernism’ and the politics of law. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, Margaret. 2008. Feminism and the flat law theory. Feminist Legal Studies 16: 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies, Margaret. 2011. Feminism and the idea of law. feminists@law 1F.Google Scholar
  21. Derrida, Jacques. 1981. Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Limited inc. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Derrida, Jacques. 1990. Force of law: The “mystical foundations of authority”. Cardozo Law Review 11: 920–1044.Google Scholar
  24. Diduck, Alison. 2010. Judgment—In re G (children) (residence: same-sex partner). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 102–113. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  25. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s empire. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  26. Edwards, Susan. 2010. Commentary on R v Zoora (Ghulam) Shah. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 273–277. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  27. Ehrlich, Eugen. 1922. The sociology of law. Harvard Law Review 36: 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feenan, Dermot. 2009. Editorial introduction: Women and judging. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Grear, Anna. 2010. Judgment—Porter v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 174–183. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  31. Hale, Brenda. 2010. Foreword. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  32. Harding, Rosie. 2010. Judgment—Wilkinson v Kitzinger. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 430–442. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  33. Harris-Short, Sonia. 2010. Judgment—Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 64–82. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  34. Hastings, Geraldine. 2010. Judgment—Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 139–148. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  35. Horton, Rachel, and Grace James. 2010. Judgment—Mundon v Del Monte Foods. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 401–413. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  36. Hunter, Rosemary. 2002. Border protection in law’s empire: Feminist explorations of access to justice. Griffith Law Review 11: 263–285.Google Scholar
  37. Hunter, Rosemary. 2010. An account of feminist judging. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 30–43. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  38. Hunter, Rosemary, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley. 2010. Feminist judgments: An introduction. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 3–29. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  39. Hutchinson, Allan. 1987. Indiana Dworkin and law’s empire. Yale Law Journal 96: 637–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huxtable, Richard. 2010. Commentary on Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 134–138. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  41. Klare, Karl. 1998. Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism. South African Journal on Human Rights 14: 146–188.Google Scholar
  42. Llewellyn, Karl. 1931. Some realism about realism—Responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Review 4: 1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mackenzie, Robin. 2010. Judgement—R v Brown. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley, 247–254. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  44. MacKinnon, Catharine. 1983. Feminism, Marxism, method and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs 8: 635–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Majury, Diana. 2006. Introducing the Women’s Court of Canada. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 18: 1–25.Google Scholar
  46. Malik, Maleiha. 2010. Judgment—R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 336–345. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  47. McDermont, Morag. 2010. Commentary on YL v Birmingham City Council and Others. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 311–317. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  48. McGlynn, Clare. 2010. Judgment—R v A (No. 2). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley, 211–227. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  49. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1988. Feminist legal theory, critical legal studies, and legal education or, the “fem-crits go to law school”. Journal of Legal Education 38: 61–85.Google Scholar
  50. Monaghan, Karen. 2010. Judgment—EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 449–458. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  51. Mulcahy, Linda, and Cathy Andrews. 2010. Judgment—Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer Plc. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 189–204. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  52. Munro, Vanessa, and Sangeeta Shah. 2010. Judgment—R v Dhaliwal. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 261–272. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  53. Rackley, Erica. 2002. Representations of the (woman) judge: Hercules, the little mermaid, and the vain and naked emperor. Legal Studies 22: 602–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rackley, Erica. 2005. When Hercules met the happy prince: Reimagining the judge. Texas Wesleyan Law Review 12: 213–232.Google Scholar
  55. Rifkin, Janet. 1980. Toward a theory of law and patriarchy. Harvard Women’s Law Journal 3: 80–95.Google Scholar
  56. Roach Anleu, Sharyn, and Kathy Mack. 2009. Gender, judging and job satisfaction. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roach Anleu, Sharyn, and Kathy Mack. 2011. Opportunities for new approaches to judging in a conventional context: Attitudes, skills and practices. Monash Law Review 37: 187–215.Google Scholar
  58. Sheldon, Sally. 2010. Commentary on Evans v Amicus Healthcare. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 59–63. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  59. Stone, Julius. 1959. The ratio of the ratio decidendi. Modern Law Review 22: 597–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thornton, Margaret. 2007. “Otherness” on the bench: How merit is gendered. Sydney Law Review 29: 391–413.Google Scholar
  61. Wightman, John. 2010. Commentary on Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 184–188. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations