Most laws written by men "to protect women" actually tend to do the opposite which is oppress and harm them. Think the laws barring certain foelds of employment, restrictions on abortion or birth control. This is especially true when men claim a magic invisible imaginary sky daddy tells them to do this to protect women.
The same can be said of men dictating the proper role or behavior for women.
From The Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-supreme-court-abortion-20160207-story.html
Feb. 10, 2016
History holds a lesson for the Supreme Court, the brief warns: Be skeptical of laws protecting women that are written by men.
nation's past is littered with such statutes, say the historians who
filed the friend-of-the-court brief, and the motives were suspect.
protected women from "the embarrassment of hearing filthy evidence" as
members of a jury, a sheltering instinct that resulted in female
defendants being judged by panels composed only of men.
Some shielded women from having to work nights as pharmacists in hospitals - but not as low-wage custodians.
Some barred women from working as bartenders - jobs coveted by men - but not as cocktail waitresses.
brief is filed by professors from across the country in the court's
upcoming abortion case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt. The brief
urges the justices to examine the intent of Texas legislators who say
they approved new restrictions on abortion providers as health
safeguards for the women undergoing the procedure.
"Any new law
that claims to protect women's health and safety should be scrutinized
carefully to assess whether its ostensibly protective function actually
serves to deny liberty and equal citizenship to women," said the brief
filed by 16 historians, 13 of whom are women.
It is part of an
avalanche of amicus briefs filed by both sides in the case, which will
be the court's most important look at abortion rights in decades.
the attempt at persuasion, like many of the others, is representative
of a specialized brand of legal brief that aims to school the court not
about law but about life.
"Brandeis briefs" are long on history
and science and short on detailed legal citations. The first of its kind
was filed in 1908 by lawyer Louis D. Brandeis, who eight years later
became famous as the first Jewish Supreme Court justice.
Last month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
discussed the importance of the revolutionary brief at - where else? -
Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., at a ceremony marking the
centennial of his Supreme Court appointment.
"was unlike any the court had yet seen. It was to be loaded with facts
and spare on formal legal argument," Ginsburg said. The facts consumed
98 of the brief's 113 pages.
"The aim of the Brandeis brief was to
educate the judiciary about the real world in which the laws under
inspection operated," Ginsburg said.
Continue reading at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-supreme-court-abortion-20160207-story.html