Feminist challenges to the constraints of law : donning uncomfortable robes?

Legal judgment writing mobilises a process of story-telling, drawing on existing judicial discourses, precedents and practices to create a narrative relevant to the specific case that is articulated by the presiding judge. In the Feminist Judgments projects feminist scholars and activists have sought to challenge and reinterpret legal judgments that have disadvantaged, discriminated against or denied women’s experiences. This paper reflects on the process of writing as a feminist judge in the Australian Project, in an intimate homicide case, R v Middendorp. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler on intelligibility, iterability and the communality of violence and vulnerability, this article argues that feminist judgments necessarily require some uncomfortable compromises with unjust gendered institutions. While ‘donning the robes’ may be an uncomfortable process, a feminist re-articulation of the law’s carceral power serves to unsettle and challenge some aspects of gendered oppression, even though it cannot unsettle the operation of the institution. The article concludes that effective feminist interventions by members of the judiciary may require donning robes that are not entirely comfortable in order to persuade and advocate for change.

Tax and equality in 1972: The case of Lodge v FCT

This paper is part of a larger project described at http://www.law.uq.edu.au/australian-feminist-judgments-project as follows: This project draws its inspiration from two significant recent developments in law and feminist scholarship. The first has been the emergence in Canada and the UK of feminist judgment-writing projects, in which feminist academics, lawyers and activists have written alternative judgments in a series of legal cases, imagining the different decision that might have been made by a feminist judge hearing the case. The second has been the incremental shift in recent years in the number of women judges and Magistrates presiding in courts and tribunals throughout Australia. As part of this project, a group of scholars will write alternative feminist judgments. This paper is one of the alternative feminist judgements. The case used for this discussion is Lodge v Federal Commissioner of Tax [1972] HCA 49. In that case, a woman, earning income by way of commission in her occupation as a law costs clerk, which she carried out at her home, claimed to deduct from her assessable income child care fees that enabled her to devote time and attention to her work. The High Court held that no right to a deduction had arisen. It found that, although the purpose of the expenditure was for gaining assessable income, it did not take place in, or in the course of, preparing bills of cost. Further, the expenditure was of a ‘private or domestic’ nature. This seminal taxation decision, which prevents deductions for childcare, has broad financial ramifications for workers in the home and those with childcare responsibilities. It designates childcare duties as ‘private’, notwithstanding the need for these in order, particularly for women, to work in the public sphere.

U v U [2002] HCA 36: Commentary

This commentary offers a feminist analysis of relocation cases through the lens of U v U [2002] HCA 36, and with reference to the re-written judgment for the Australian Feminist Judgments project. First, the commentary considers the gendered nature of relocation cases, and analyses aspects of the reasoning and outcome of U v U that are of concern from a feminist perspective. Second, the commentary discusses how the re-written judgment addresses these concerns, thereby offering a feminist judgment on the issue of relocation in family law.

The implementation of feminist law reforms: the case of post-provocation sentencing

In 2005 the Australian State of Victoria abolished the controversial partial defence of provocation. Part of the impetus for the reforms was to challenge provocation’s victim-blaming narratives and the defence’s tendency to excuse men’s violence against intimate partners. However, concerns were also expressed that these narratives and excuses would simply reappear at the sentencing stage when men who had killed intimate partners were convicted of murder or manslaughter. This paper analyses post-provocation sentencing judgments, reviewing cases over the 10 year period since the reforms in order to determine whether these concerns have been borne out. The analysis suggests that at the level of sentencing outcomes they have not, although at the level of discourse the picture is more mixed. While sentencing narratives continue to reproduce the language of provocation, at the same time, post-provocation sentencing appears to provide opportunities for feminist judging – picking up on the spirit of the reforms – which have been taken up by some judges more than others.

Feminist Disability Theory: Domestic Violence Against Women with a Disability

Women with a disability continue to experience social oppression and domestic violence as a consequence of gender and disability dimensions. Current explanations of domestic violence and disability inadequately explain several features that lead women who have a disability to experience violent situations. This article incorporates both disability and material feminist theory as an alternative explanation to the dominant approaches (psychological and sociological traditions) of conceptualising domestic violence. This paper is informed by a study which was concerned with examining the nature and perceptions of violence against women with a physical impairment. The emerging analytical framework integrating material feminist interpretations and disability theory provided a basis for exploring gender and disability dimensions. Insight was also provided by the women who identified as having a disability in the study and who explained domestic violence in terms of a gendered and disabling experience. The article argues that material feminist interpretations and disability theory, with their emphasis on gender relations, disablism and poverty, should be used as an alternative tool for exploring the nature and consequences of violence against women with a disability.