Marxists use the term "objectively"
to distinguish people's real political stance from what they say
their stance is. I suppose that 100% of male lawyers would say that
they are men. Objectively, however, 90% of them are political women.
And, objectively, 90% of female lawyers are political women, too.
A person is politically female if they support increased power for
women, and a person is politically male if they support increased power
for men. Your typical New Zealand male lawyer sees that only 39% of
lawyers are women*, and this reinforces his conditioned
response to support Feminist programmes and initiatives whenever he
comes across them. On the other hand, if he knew (as he should do, if
he was competent) that female criminals are more likely than males to
receive a sentence of community service, supervision, a community programme
-- or no sentence at all -- and less likely than males to receive a
prison sentence, periodic detention, or a monetary penalty**,
it probably would not even register in his conscious mind at all, and
he would carry on supporting Feminist causes, like the political woman
that he is.
Prima facie,
of course, this disparity in sentencing by sex is the result of 90%
of female lawyers being objectively female (Feminist) and 90% of male
lawyers being objectively female (Feminist or chivalrous).
(By the way, the same column calls me a "self-styled men's activist",
which is like calling the Pope a self-styled Catholic -- and shows that
Jock Anderson doesn't do his research. It would also have been professional
of him to have researched my many specific criticisms of the Law, rather
than just saying that I had made "rude utterances" against
it -- but I suppose that would be asking too much of such a light-weight
column.)
*National Business Review, 24 February 2006,
in Jock Anderson's "Case Load" column.
