Tuesday, May 13, 2008

If women are competent to be jurors, is it because they are LESS emotional than men?

Justice Charles L. Guy of the New York Supreme Court thinks so. His point is that women's emotions — while perhaps more numerous than men's — are less deep. He admits that it would be hard to prove this, but — as the NYT paraphrases:

The doctors say that women are less sensitive to pain than men, but that, if true, may be because the women, having more pain to bear than men, have learned through the ages to endure it better, to accept it as the course of nature.

The emotionality of women appears to be aroused within narrower limits than those of men — personalities interest them more than generalities, and when the persons do not interest them some of them can be what to men seems strangely, even brutally, callous.
Hey, I like "Guy" as a name for a guy who has so much to say about the difference between guys and ladies, and I'm feeling strangely, even brutally, callous toward him. Still, I can see this is helpful toward the rights of women. He's saying, don't worry that women are too soft and sympathetic. If they aren't interested in you, they'll be just as happy as men to send you to the electric chair.

The Times notes that Guy had nothing to say about the conventional worry that the courtroom will wreck women's "delicacy and refinement." Neither the Times nor Guy says anything about how it might be a good thing to try to get some delicacy and refinement onto the jury. It's all about women and men being equal these days, and only unenlightened folk get twisted up thinking about how we are different.... except that part about us women being shallow. Somehow that was okay.



rhhardin said...

What's wrong with shallow?

Ron said...

"delicacy and refinement" lack gravitas, perhaps?

Trooper York said...

Well the OJ jury proved that theory wrong didn't it?

John Stodder said...

Pseudo-science, ever popular.