Women Rights Movement was formed to dismantle the gender hierarchy that had been embedded in the American society. The Women Rights Movement was formed to fight for equality in the society such that both men and women would enjoy equal opportunities both at a socio-political point and economically (Dautrich 125). Women were denied their right to work and a law was enacted such that women earned a lower pay compared to the men. These were some of the things that instigated Women Rights Movement in the American society. This paper will examine how courts have progressed from gender classification laws to universal equity that encompasses all genders.
Women Rights Movement wanted the law to establish protective laws for women in the society because they were deemed as inferior to men (Dautrich 124). Given that women were below the gender hierarchy in the society, they could easily be exploited. As a result, the women rights movement in the 1970s advocated for protection laws against exploitation of women. Oregon is one of the states that implemented a law against the oppression of women in their line of work. The Muller v Oregon case of 1948 “prohibited women laundry workers from working more than 10 hours a day (Dautrich 125).” This indicates that Oregon State used legislation to protect women from being economically oppressed through working long hours with little pay. It is a paradox that though some laws were enacted for protection, some laws were enacted to restrict women from being at par with the men. The Goesaert v. Cleary court “upheld a Michigan law that banned women from tending the bar (Dautrich 125).” This law favored men over women. However, in the Hoyt v. Florida court, women were given the power to relieve themselves from jury duty legally with no fines (Dautrich 125). Though some of these laws have favored women, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause that emphasized on equality. These laws that were enacted by different courts elevated one gender over the other.
Dautrich writes that “gender classification is substantially related to an important state interest (Dautrich 126).” Gender classified laws did not encompass everyone in the society, which hindered the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Thus, the court system drew a drastic change during the Reed v. Reed where the Court in Idaho invalidated the males having preference in real estate business over the females (Dautrich 125). To implement the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the courts began to perpetuate gender equality in place of using gender classified laws that indirectly supported gender hierarchy in the society. Thus, the informal amendment process that dealt away with most gender classification laws upheld the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause that supports gender equity in the society. This form of gender equality may have been prompted in the 1920s if the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified by the US legislators.
I think that the Equal Right Amendment would have dismantled the racial hierarchy that had been placed in the society at that time. Women would have been given power to refute any form of mistreatments in that the laws would protect their rights. Given that Equal Rights Amendment was not ratified, men had the power and were the dominant figure thereby, could justify their oppression against women. Thus, I believe that if the Equal Rights Amendment law would have been ratified in the 1920s, gender inequality would have disassembled from the American society.
Works Cited
Dautrich, Kenneth. Enduring Democracy. S.l.: Wadsworth, 2013. Print.
