‘New feminist materialisms’

This review essay discusses and contextualizes four recent publications in and on ‘new feminist materialism’. The discussion of the three edited volumes and one monograph demonstrates what the new feminist materialism wants to provoke in different (inter)disciplines, and the contextualization is aimed at dealing with the question of what is ‘new’ in new feminist materialism. Ultimately, the essay boils down to exploring the theoretical tools that scholars from diverse (inter)disciplinary fields, continents and generations have developed for dealing with agential matter rather than (gendered) passive matter. The contextualization exercise wants to show how the new materialism is not a paradigm shift or a rewriting of, for instance, the linguistic turn. These two seemingly opposite epistemological tools are both grounded in an epistemology of recognition, whereas the new materialism wants to move away from such linguisticism. Experimenting with the tool of the ‘quantum leap’, the essay ends with openings for future (epistemic) research on and of the material turn.     

‘She Said,He Said’: Credibility and sexual harassment cases in Australia

Feminist research and theory show how substance and process of law are substantially affected by its patriarchal context. Accordingly, a number of Australian studies have identified how gendered myths and other factors impact on the assessment of victim credibility in sexual assault hearings. In this article we look at sexual harassment cases in Australia lodged under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) between 2000 and 2006 and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Discrimination Act from 2001 to 2005 to see if similar variables to those in rape cases play a role in the perception of witness believability. We find that credibility is more likely to correlate with being Anglo, very young, a rational (masculine) demeanor/presentation in giving evidence, corroborative witnesses and legal representation. In addition, respondents' counsel in federal harassment hearings or respondents themselves in correspondence to the ACT Commissioner, just as defence barristers in rape trials, attempt to make the victim appear as an incredible witness through highlighting evidentiary inconsistencies and/or delayed reporting. Also evidence about sexual history or behavior that evokes an image of provocation may be adduced. We identify a varied response to these myths and to measurement of credibility by the individual ‘gatekeepers’ — the Federal Magistrates, judges and the ACT Discrimination Commissioner.