Chief Justice Sian Elias attacked the boys’ club in the legal profession in a speech which is starting to cause a good deal of comment around the place. “Gobsmackingly good” was one comment from a woman lawyer.

Her Honour says that she became a judge because she wasn’t getting enough work as a woman lawyer, even though she was a QC with a good reputation.
“I am very conscious that I accepted appointment to the bench in 1995 at the urging of male colleagues, whose view (based on their lack of success in recommending me for briefs) was that I would never get instructed in the cases I aspired to lead. I went on the bench to practise law.” This is a startlingly honest comment from the country’s top legal judge.

The speech was to a conference of women lawyers in Australia in mid June, and is posted at the department of the courts website, but not a lot of people know that. See http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/speeches-and-papers

She draws attention to the structure of firms which she says suits men rather than women. “Young women with family responsibilities cannot keep up with ridiculous billing hour requirements or demonstrate commitment by working unhealthy work hours. Nor should their male colleagues, but they seem more willing to do so. And if they are, the chance for a shift in the legal culture recedes and accommodation for others is resented as favoured treatment. Those who obtain it are said to “lack commitment,” Dame Sian says.

In contrast Hillary Clinton’s loss to Barack Obama in Democratic Party Presidential race has turned bitter for some who believe that Hillary should have been supported by all women who care about their gender.

“If not now, then when” is one catch cry. The underlying message is that a woman should be President before a black.  That’s an interesting, even a provocative call, and it’s becoming the new test of feminism.

She was a serious contender and therefore, regardless of other considerations, should have won the nomination and gone on to take the Presidency.

Obama raised more money, won more contests and got more delegates. One reason he was more electable was that the religious right, the conservatives and the Clinton haters would have gone all out to beat her. (Hillary is Satan, conservative talkback host Don Imus labeled her).

And what’s wrong with electing a representative of a repressed and exploited minority; isn’t that a triumph for democracy?  They don’t matter, the pro-Hillary argument runs. Hillary is a woman and it’s time to have a woman. End of debate. It’s an ideological position; an assertion of faith and belief.  It’s politics defined by gender.

It’s women supporting women because they are women, not because of their specific policies and personal values, or taking account of factors like their appeal to the electorate, the stance of their opponents, or the personal strengths and weaknesses of the candidate concerned. I am not taking sides, just observing what others say and believe.