It is because I say it is! Understand?
Patricia Sturdevant, President and Naomi Dewey, District 6 Governor on behalf of California Women Lawyers, recently complained to the Daily Journal about âgender bias inherent in yet another of the Daily Journal‘s publicationsâ (Letters to the Editor: “Top lawyers list is gender biased,” Nov. 28.).
Sturdevant and Dewey were upset that the Daily Journalâs 2011 list of the Californiaâs âTop 100 Lawyers” included only 18 women. These two women only organization operatives thought that since women are 31 percent of lawyers nationwide and predominate in many law school classes, then, women deserved more than 18 slots on the Top 100 Lawyers list regardless of competence or other qualifying factors, which represents typical feminist jurisprudence thinking, âIâm a woman, I want it, I should have it, nothing else matters, itâs your fault because you have a penis and donât shareâ.
So, it appears that on behalf of all women lawyers across America these two women only barristers âimplored âthe Daily Journal  to âmake drastic changes in the way (the Daily Journal) editorialize on top lawyers and to commit to working toward gender equality in your textual and pictorial coverage.â Please remember these women represent a women only organization, an organization that openly discriminates against men, yet they bemoan perceived discrimination for no other reason than they are women. Huh? Do you get it yet? Does this convoluted thinking make any sense to you? It is this type of narrsistic lack of reasoning that now shapes our laws. Insanity.
They conclude, âIf the Daily Journal is to survive in an increasingly competitive world, it must reflect the community it serves. This isn’t just politics, its business. We call on the Daily Journal Corp. to take immediate steps to ensure that the nomination processes for awards and honors, including the “Top 100 Lawyers,” produces accurate, relevant and representative results. To do otherwise is to cheat your readers and your shareholders of the opportunity to share in the great legal news stories that women across this state generate every dayâ.
Get it! Or, are you still thinking through it? They offer no facts, put forth no names of deserving women lawyers, and offer no evidence that those on the Top 100 List donât deserve to belong there penis or no penis. They simply believe something to be true so it must be regardless of facts in evidence. To reiterate, itâs that brain dead kind âa thinking driving decisions shaping our country and world. Absolutely terrifying.
In their gender discriminatory wisdom the Daily Journal printed a response by Mr. Al Rava, Esq. and Secretary of the National Coalition For Men entitled, Scrape the Top 100 Lawyersâ Contest.
Mr. Rava said in part,
âAs a male attorney and Secretary of the National Coalition for Men, I write to ask why the California Women Lawyers apparently never complained about The Journal‘s “Top Women Lawyers” list, which obviously excludes California’s male lawyers – based solely on gender, and which does not have a “Top Men Lawyers” counterpart?
I agree the “Top 100 Lawyers” should include more than 18 women attorneys if the additional women honorees are indeed deserving. Perhaps it is time for the Daily Journal to scrap its archaic “Top Women Lawyers” contest and devote more time to evaluating and equating women attorneys on the same level as men attorneys. Besides, certain types of traditional sex discrimination that may appear to benefit women, such as awards for only women attorneys, scientists, or soldiers, are, as Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973), “rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.”
Iâm not sure I agree with Justice Brennan but hypocrisy screams from the irrational bully pulpit of Sturdevant and Dewey. To reiterate, they represent an all women organization and mention nothing about the Daily Journalâs Top Women Lawyers contest, but bemoan and demand reform to the gender inclusive Top 100 Lawyer list because only 18 slots were filled by women. Do you get it yet? Can you hear the senselessness of the I want so I deserve rather than I earn so I should be recognized?
Fe-Me-ism for non thinkers, listen carefully and youâll hear itâŚ
NOTE: The Daily Journal is Californiaâs leading legal newspaper provider. No links are provided to the above articles since the Daily Journal is subscriber based and unavailable to non subscribers.
