The Courts and Gender Discrimination

One of the most fascinating aspects of gender discrimination cases in the courts is how fighting for men’s rights has often paved the way for women’s rights. Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood this well and I was fascinated to learn about her past before she was a Supreme Court justice. As a lawyer, she strategically took on cases where men were disadvantaged by gender laws, knowing that eliminating gender-based legal distinctions would ultimately benefit women as well. For instance, one of her landmark cases, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975), involved a male widower who was denied Social Security survivor benefits that a female widow in his position would have received. By proving that gender-based laws harmed men in many of her cases, Ginsburg was able to deconstruct the pillars that upheld discrimination against women too.

The shifting of gender roles has also played a major role in breaking down legal precedents, such as the male-only draft. Traditionally, men were expected to serve in the military while women were exempt, reinforcing outdated notions of men as protectors and women as dependents. However, as women have taken on more roles in the workforce and military, the justification for a male-only draft has weakened.

I found it somewhat ironic, yet significant, that men were the ones to file the lawsuit to end the male-only draft, after reading the writ of certiorari in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. As a female who is almost of legal age, I personally would not want to be forced to register for the draft when I turn 18. However, the lawsuit highlights how gender equality works both ways; if women want equal rights, they must also face equal responsibilities. The courts continue to play a crucial role in defining what true gender equality looks like, and it is interesting to see society challenge our lawmakers to rethink outdated gender bias.