So, Philo - that's the best you can do to justify your outrageous claim? The article suggests that one female magistrate erred in charging an unrepresented defendant with contempt, and was referred to a disciplinary tribunal.

Hardly evidence to support your statement that "In NSW we have women Judges and they are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law."

How was Ms O'Shane biased in favour of criminals in that case, and exactly where did she condemn the law and those who uphold it? Come on Philo, you made an appallingly egregious claim and you really must provide evidence to support it - or withdraw it.

As it stands, it looks like you are "extremely biased" against female members of the NSW judiciary - particularly if they are Aboriginal. But that's not all that surprising from a male Anglo fundamentalist Christian, is it?

CJ... sooo predictable.....
-you ask for evidence..
-evidence is provided..
-OH.. you say the evidence is weak.

Let me tranlate that into a tribal situation.

-You buy a piece of land for 5 buffaloes.
-The government decides to consider placing an airstrip on that land... making it much more valuable now...
-The person who sold you the land..suddenly finds out and says "HEyyy..those buffaloes were incredibly SMALL"....hint hint....

Patriarchy is not a bad thing.
Matriarchy is not a bad thing.
BALANCED culture is a good thing.

Looking just at 'one' aspect of our culture, and caning it in the name of some upstart wanna be ideology like unworkable marxism or socialism.. is plain shabby.
Patriarchy does not in ANY way have to mean 'inequality or injustice' it all depends on how the overall culture is structured.

Well Boaz,

Tell me honestly, did your white patriarchal status have anything to do with how you were able to marry a non-white women?

How the sister puts up with you on a daily basis is beyond my comprehesion.

Read carefully - I never claimed all women Judges in NSW are biased in favour of criminals. But we do have women who are soft on criminals, especially the stated.

Re: Comment by Philo insinuating envy of the private schooled and wealthy, absoloutely ludicrous! I am private schooled and University educated and am not impoverished. However, I am a realist and if people wish to live in denial and hide behind the cloak of religion or anything else they choose, then all power to them and may they wallow in their ignorance. I posted a comment for discussion and I am pleased that it has received such a great response. The FACT of the matter is this great country Australia was founded on a lie, racism and all other things unequal. 'Terra Nullius' in 1992 in the High Court Mabo case was found to be illegal. Not that the indigenous people have come anyway near to reconciliation except for a token piece of legislature here and there to appease them. Them the Howard government repeals part of the decision and adds his 10 point plan! The Australian Constitution is fundamentally based on inequality and racism so to deny its existence and question my comments on injustice and inequality frankly are insulting and absurd. I have empathy and compassion for the impoverished people of this country and all others globally and think that speaking of Adam and Eve when I am discussing politics is half the problem. I have not personally insulted anyone and do not expect personal insults amongst a topical debate. The fact is the system is unequal and things need to change. I thank you all again for your responses all of which have been thought provoking!

Putting this into perspective, Boaz:

>>...this 'domestic violence' thing has gone totally too far to the point of direct and specific discrimination and 'pre-judging' men.. no matter what the reason.<<

Coming from someone who believes that it is ok to beat his daughter, this is hardly an earth-shattering view.

>>Pericles... What you describe as 'unfairness' may in reality not be, but simply is perceived that way.<<

Your problem is illustrated perfectly in this statement. Your life is run on the basis that there is only one, intractable and immovable measurement, and that this measurement can be universlly and objectively applied to determine whether something is manifestly "fair" or "unfair".

For example, some people believe that being able to send their children to a school of their choice is "fair". Others, equally fervently, believe that it is "unfair" that some parts of the population should be able to exercise this choice, and that private education should not exist. Similarly, there are those who believe that it is totally "fair" that they should be allowed to buy choice in healthcare, through insurance. Others believe that this delivers "unfairness" in the system, and that it should be abolished.

"Fairness" and "unfairness" are, by definition Boaz, individual perceptions. My point was that if you discern unfairness in discrimination between men and women, this is the only occasion that you would introduce the term "sexism". It is by nature pejorative, indicating that unfairness exists. So you cannot argue with the use of the word itself, you can only argue the question of unfairness that underlies it.

Not that you care a fig about proper usage of the English language, or the clear expression of ideas. Both of these are antithetic to your chosen method of discussion, which is to throw our vague and wishy-washy concepts in order to later ground them in some kind of pop-religious cant.