Beyond the “usual suspects”: Women judges, feminist adjudication, and Asia Pacific

Abstract

Women often struggle to belong in the legal community. Based on sexist presumptions about their decision-making abilities, professionalism, and knowledge, women are less likely to be seen as authoritative “jurist” figures.1 Thus, intuitively, when a woman judge joins the bench, she is disproportionately burdened with the expectation of contributing towards a gender-conscious judiciary: an expectation often not imposed on male judges. The typical assumption is that adding more women judges automatically makes the judiciary more gender conscious. Melissa Crouch’s excellently edited recent volume, Women and the Judiciary in the Asia-Pacific, attempts to problematize this assumption. The book does so through two powerful academic choices: first, the use of the conceptual framework of thick and thin feminization of the judiciary; and, second, the exclusive focus on a hitherto under-explored geographical area of Asia Pacific. In this essay, I identify the potential and the limits of both these approaches. In so doing, I make two arguments. First, within the categories of thick and thin feminization, feminist reasoning must be more deeply acknowledged, and upheld, in the system of adjudication. Second, while the project is Asia-Pacific focused, the rich diversity of political contexts in the region makes the project relevant to the larger field of comparative gender and judging. Finally, I conclude by commenting on the India chapter and argue that it should have paid more attention to the intersectionality of women’s oppression through gender and caste.