Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

NCFM Secretary Al Rava letter to the editor published in California’s Daily Journal re “Top 100 Lawyers” list

December 14, 2011

It is because I say it is! Understand?

Patricia Sturdevant, President and Naomi Dewey, District 6 Governor on behalf of California Women Lawyers, recently complained to the Daily Journal about “gender bias inherent in yet another of the Daily Journal‘s publications” (Letters to the Editor: “Top lawyers list is gender biased,” Nov. 28.).

Sturdevant and Dewey were upset that the Daily Journal’s 2011 list of the California’s “Top 100 Lawyers” included only 18 women. These two women only organization operatives thought that since women are 31 percent of lawyers nationwide and predominate in many law school classes, then, women deserved more than 18 slots on the Top 100 Lawyers list regardless of competence or other qualifying factors, which represents typical feminist jurisprudence thinking, “I’m a woman, I want it, I should have it, nothing else matters, it’s your fault because you have a penis and don’t share”.

So, it appears that on behalf of all women lawyers across America these two women only barristers “implored “the Daily Journal  to “make drastic changes in the way (the Daily Journal) editorialize on top lawyers and to commit to working toward gender equality in your textual and pictorial coverage.”  Please remember these women represent a women only organization, an organization that openly discriminates against men, yet they bemoan perceived discrimination for no other reason than they are women. Huh? Do you get it yet? Does this convoluted thinking make any sense to you? It is this type of narrsistic lack of reasoning that now shapes our laws. Insanity.

They conclude, “If the Daily Journal is to survive in an increasingly competitive world, it must reflect the community it serves. This isn’t just politics, its business. We call on the Daily Journal Corp. to take immediate steps to ensure that the nomination processes for awards and honors, including the “Top 100 Lawyers,” produces accurate, relevant and representative results. To do otherwise is to cheat your readers and your shareholders of the opportunity to share in the great legal news stories that women across this state generate every day”.

Get it! Or, are you still thinking through it? They offer no facts, put forth no names of deserving women lawyers, and offer no evidence that those on the Top 100 List don’t deserve to belong there penis or no penis. They simply believe something to be true so it must be regardless of facts in evidence. To reiterate, it’s that brain dead kind ‘a thinking driving decisions shaping our country and world. Absolutely terrifying.

In their gender discriminatory wisdom the Daily Journal printed a response by Mr. Al Rava, Esq. and Secretary of the National Coalition For Men entitled, Scrape the Top 100 Lawyers’ Contest.

Mr. Rava said in part,

“As a male attorney and Secretary of the National Coalition for Men, I write to ask why the California Women Lawyers apparently never complained about The Journal‘s “Top Women Lawyers” list, which obviously excludes California’s male lawyers – based solely on gender, and which does not have a “Top Men Lawyers” counterpart?

I agree the “Top 100 Lawyers” should include more than 18 women attorneys if the additional women honorees are indeed deserving. Perhaps it is time for the Daily Journal to scrap its archaic “Top Women Lawyers” contest and devote more time to evaluating and equating women attorneys on the same level as men attorneys. Besides, certain types of traditional sex discrimination that may appear to benefit women, such as awards for only women attorneys, scientists, or soldiers, are, as Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973), “rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.”

I’m not sure I agree with Justice Brennan but hypocrisy screams from the irrational bully pulpit of Sturdevant and Dewey. To reiterate, they represent an all women organization and mention nothing about the Daily Journal’s Top Women Lawyers contest, but bemoan and demand reform to the gender inclusive Top 100 Lawyer list because only 18 slots were filled by women. Do you get it yet? Can you hear the senselessness of the I want so I deserve rather than I earn so I should be recognized?

Fe-Me-ism for non thinkers, listen carefully and you’ll hear it…

NOTE: The Daily Journal is California’s leading legal newspaper provider. No links are provided to the above articles since the Daily Journal is subscriber based and unavailable to non subscribers.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to NCFM Secretary Al Rava letter to the editor published in California’s Daily Journal re “Top 100 Lawyers” list

  1. Drew Baas on December 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM

    In the U.S. in 2011 there are 1,682 abuse shelters for women, 5,000+ abuse shelters for animals, and 0 abuse shelters for men. N.D.V. Hotline, N.C.A.D.V., and A.S.P.C.A.
    In the entire U.S. there is only one DV shelter that serves men also.

    Good men, and women have dedicated their lives to create places that can help stop this epidemic. So, when I am asked again "Where have all the good men gone'" I don't have to point to a grave yard…

    If all of my FB friends gave $20 we could provide a home, food, employment, and love for 5 people.. If my FB friends gave $100 we could build a village to save 75 people per unit. NOT per day,but for a lifetime! As, we are disallowed by law to receive federal, and state funds, what we do is all on our own. Scratched from the earth, and built by our own hands.

  2. DrewBaas on December 14, 2011 at 2:13 PM
    • Harry on December 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM

      Great idea. Good luck with this Drew.

  3. Marc on December 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

    Thank you, Al!

  4. Kratch on December 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM

    "NOTE: The Daily Journal is California’s leading legal newspaper provider. No links are provided to the above articles since the Daily"

    Was this an incomplete sentence? Since the daily ….

    I'm assuming you meant to say it's a paid subscription paper, based on their registry page?

  5. Ray2447 on December 14, 2011 at 11:59 AM

    Did The Daily Journal forget to show special privileged, pampering treatment to low performing female lawyers? :-/ How un-chivalrous of them! How dare The Daily Journal think that just because female lawyers are liberated and "can do anything better than a man," that they are not entitled to special rights (unequal treatment) under journalism and under law.

    The overt sexist prejudice (against women and men), and hypocrisy, in such addled thinking as that shown by "California Women's Lawyers" stinks to high heaven, in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.