UK: How feminism could improve judicial decision-making

Article here. Excerpt:

'Can judges be feminists? Should judges be feminists? On one view the answer is easy: no. We don't want our judges to be activists. We don't want them to promote their own political agendas. We want them to do their job. We want them to apply the law.
...
The Feminist Judgments Project offers a vision as to what the law might look like if there were (more) feminist judges, and in doing so, challenges our thinking about law and judging. More than 50 academics, practitioners and activists have come together to produce 23 alternative feminist judgments in a series of key cases in English law.

In R v A (No 2), for example, instead of rules restricting the use of sexual history evidence in rape trials being overturned by an all-male House of Lords (itself the subject of a legal challenge by the Fawcett Society), the feminist judgment by Clare McGlynn upholds the restrictions, challenging the assumption at the heart of the case: that a woman who has agreed to have sex with a particular man is – simply by virtue of that fact – more likely to do so again at another time.'