By Kathleen Parker

The headlines were immediate: All-women jury chosen for George Zimmerman’s trial.

What is the likelihood that you, a man, would face a jury of all women?

What are the chances that one-third of the jurors judging you on a charge of second-degree murder identify their hobby as saving animals?

Finally, what’s your bet that the victim in the case, an unarmed African American teenager, will receive justice from a panel that is five-sixths white?

We depend on reassuring answers to such questions, but our headlines belie our skepticism. Do we really trust our peers?

To briefly recount, Zimmerman, 29, is charged with the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a volunteer watchman, saw Martin walking through his neighborhood and thought he looked suspicious, and the rest is familiar to anyone reading this.

What makes the six-member jury interesting, other than the head-snapping reporting of its composition, is that it forces to the fore all the implications we try to avoid: Do gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and so on matter when it comes to judging one another? We like to think not. Yet, admit it: The reason the all-women jury made headlines is because it raises those very questions.

Read More Kathleen Parker: George Zimmerman’s jury of peers – The Washington Post.