Neurodivergent women in 'clouded judgment' unconscionability cases-an intersectional feminist perspective

Title: Neurodivergent women in 'clouded judgment' unconscionability cases-an intersectional feminist perspective
Creator: Murphy, Brooke
Relation: Adelaide Law Review Vol. 39, Issue 1, p. 37-64
Relation: https://law.adelaide.edu.au/adelaide-law-review#volume-39-number-1-2018
Publisher: Adelaide Law Review Association
Resource Type: journal article
Date: 2018
Description: Feminist legal scholars have discussed the impact of gender and class stereotypes on the judgments in Louth v Diprose. However, a significant aspect of Ms Louth’s identity is missing from these discussions: her neurodivergence (or mental illness). This article analyses the stereo typical treatment of women through the lenses of gender and neurodivergence in ‘clouded judgment’ unconscionability cases. This analysis is focused on the comparison of the use of stereotypes in Louth v Diprose and Williams v Maalouf. Each case allows vastly different outcomes for the neuro divergent female parties, but both cases reinforce prejudicial stereotypes. The article concludes with a discussion of how a myopic focus on a singular category of identity can hinder the creation of decisions that are more mindful of intersectional realities.
Subject: feminism; feminist perspective; neurodivergence; mental illness; women; gender; clouded judgment
Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1404045
Identifier: uon:35257
Identifier: ISSN:0065-1915
Language: eng
Reviewed

		Thumbnail	File	Description	Size	Format