A woman reports domestic violence and faces skepticism, intrusive questions about why she did not leave sooner, and minimal consequences for her abuser. A man accused of sexual assault sees his career destroyed before trial while evidence standards seem to shift based on who is believed rather than what can be proven. A mother loses custody because she works long hours while a father gains it despite a history the court deemed insufficiently documented. A non-binary person navigates family law systems built entirely around binary gender categories. Gender shapes every aspect of how the justice system handles intimate violence, sexual offenses, and family disputes, but whether that influence represents necessary protection, harmful bias, or both simultaneously depends heavily on perspective.
The Case for Better Protection of Victims
Advocates point to systemic failures that leave victims, predominantly women, without adequate protection or justice. Domestic violence reports are often dismissed or minimized. Sexual assault prosecutions have conviction rates far below other violent crimes, with victims subjected to traumatizing court processes that put their behavior on trial. Police frequently fail to enforce protection orders. Family courts grant joint custody or unsupervised access to documented abusers, prioritizing parental rights over safety. Bail and sentencing for intimate partner violence remain lenient compared to stranger violence, treating these crimes as lesser offenses. From this view, the justice system was built by and for men, with domestic and sexual violence handled as private matters rather than serious crimes. Believing victims, lowering evidence barriers in some contexts, and prioritizing safety over abstract fairness principles may be necessary to address centuries of inadequate protection.
The Case for Due Process and Presumption of Innocence
Others argue that the pendulum has swung too far, with accusations of domestic violence and sexual assault now treated as presumptively true before investigation. Men face life-altering consequences from allegations alone, losing jobs, custody, and reputations without trial. False accusations, while statistically rare, do occur and can destroy innocent lives. Family courts, some argue, systematically favor mothers in custody decisions while treating fathers as secondary parents or potential threats by default. Lowering evidence standards or shifting toward "believe victims" approaches, while well-intentioned, undermine foundational justice principles. From this perspective, protecting victims cannot mean abandoning due process or treating entire categories of people as presumptively guilty. The system must be able to distinguish true claims from false ones without predetermined outcomes based on gender.
The Family Law Divide
Family courts face impossible pressures: protect children while preserving parental relationships, believe abuse claims while preventing false accusations from being weaponized, divide assets fairly while accounting for gendered economic disparities, and make life-altering decisions with limited time and incomplete information. Different judges in different jurisdictions apply vastly different standards. Some see systemic bias against mothers who work or against fathers seeking custody. Others see courts failing to protect children from abusive parents or enabling vengeful ex-partners to manipulate the system. Nearly everyone involved finds the process inadequate, though they disagree about why.
The Question
If the justice system simultaneously fails to protect victims adequately and sometimes punishes the accused without sufficient evidence, does that mean we need entirely different approaches to intimate violence and family disputes? Can we design systems that take allegations seriously while preserving due process, or are those goals fundamentally in tension? And when gendered patterns are clear but individual cases are complex, how do we avoid either ignoring systemic problems or prejudging individual situations based on demographics?