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.
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.