This paper reflects on Wendy Williams' essay "The Equality Crisis," published in The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory. The paper examines Williams' argument that U.S. courts uphold laws designed around the majority — white American males — and that lasting gender equality is more achievable through state and federal legislatures than through the judiciary. Drawing on Williams' legal case examples, including the military draft exemption for women and statutory rape prosecutions, the paper explores how the court system has historically treated women as inferior or fundamentally different from men. The paper concludes that women's increased participation at the legislative level is essential for achieving genuine legal equality.
This paper reflects on The Equality Crisis by Wendy Williams. Specifically, it examines key arguments from the essay and considers how they relate to women's studies and the law. Women still have a long way to go to reach true equality with men, and one contributing factor is a court system that continues to apply different standards when judging men and women.
Williams' essay raises startling and disturbing points about the law as it relates to women, and many of them are difficult to refute. The author argues that court systems uphold laws as they relate to the majority — white American males — rather than minorities. She therefore believes that the best venue for achieving change, especially for women, is not the courts but the legislatures of the states and the nation.
This argument is compelling. Court systems are still led primarily by men, women remain a minority among judges, and judicial decisions reflect that imbalance. There appears to be more opportunity for progress in state and local legislatures, at least at the outset of the legal process, because more individuals participate in those decisions and legislators tend to listen to their constituents rather than simply applying the existing letter of the law. Legislatures can create new laws and therefore produce more substantial and lasting change, while judges and courts are largely bound to uphold the laws already on the books.
Williams cites several cases that illustrate how the law judges women as inferior or fundamentally different from men. Two prominent examples are the military draft law, which does not permit women to be drafted, and statutory rape law, which historically prosecutes men for sexual activity with underage women but does not prosecute the women themselves. These cases suggest that the court system still views women as inferior and categorically "different" from men, maintaining a double standard with respect to male and female behavior.
Women are still treated as weak and subservient under the law, making gender a persistent dimension of legal decision-making — even as many judges, lawyers, and criminal justice professionals deny it. Both cases Williams highlights are directly tied to sexuality: Will female soldiers engage in sexual relationships with male peers? Are young women presumed to be sexually non-aggressive? The courts have clear, if unstated, assumptions on these questions. It appears that women are regarded as dangerous because of their sexuality and therefore in need of close legal regulation.
"How biological difference wrongly shapes legal treatment"
"Women's gains and continued gaps in legal equality"
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.