And the winner is ...
It's becoming almost farcical. Members of our judiciary espouse extreme sexist comments so regularly that you would swear these people lived with their eyes and ears closed to the real world.
The latest is a comment by a Queensland Federal Industrial Court judge, Justice Jeffrey Spender. He presided over a sexual harassment case in Townsville in April, and commented that it was not unknown for a woman to "sleep her way to the top". Really?
Come to think of it, during my time at a variety of workplaces, I have seen people sleep their way through their job. Feet up, head back against the headrest of their executive chair, tie loose, dead to the world — and right at their desk too. Trouble was, most of them were men. Funny, though. They got the promotions.
Surely these judges deserve accolades for their service to the judiciary and humankind. For their fairness in assessment and judgment. Let's hold a gala event — the Judiciary Awards — and give them all gold wigs.
The prize for lack of basic knowledge of the English language is awarded to Judge Bland. When presiding over the unusual situation of a man pleading guilty to a rape charge, he commented that "no often subsequently means yes".
The winner of the prize for being able to read minds is former NSW Supreme Court Judge Jack Lee QC. Lee commented at an old boys' dinner that when he was 15, no meant maybe, maybe meant yes, and yes meant "she ain't no lady". In his opinion, if a woman on a dinner date says no at 7pm, who was to know her mind by 10pm when, at great expense to the man, she was well-fed and had half a bottle of red in her?
In the tough contest for first prize for awarding human rights to women in marriage, Justice Bollen outshone his competitors. His opinion concerning the esteemed institution of marriage? When endeavouring to convince his wife to "consent" to sex, a husband "is permitted a measure of rougher than usual handling".
And the grand prize for being able to read women's minds, even when they're unconscious, goes to Justice O'Brien. Yes, it was he who decided that because a rape survivor was unconscious at the time of the assault (her throat having been slashed by the rapist), the trauma associated with the rape was minimal.
Which prize should we award the newcomer? His undoubtedly accurate portrayal of women struggling for recognition in the workplace is surely worthy of a mention, if not a title. Grand jury prize for gender sensitivity in workplace management, perhaps?
Or maybe we should ask his female colleagues in the legal profession what they would like to give him? I'm sure they can think of an apt reward.
It makes you wonder — how many gender awareness courses will these people need? Perhaps we should give them all a free trip to the 16th century just to update them a bit.
By Kath Gelber