Oviya Ravi Week 5; Moritz v. Commissioner
In 1972, there were almost 200 laws in the United States that discriminated on the basis of sex. One such law was known as the Caregiver Tax Deduction: it stated that taxpayers who were the sole caretaker of someone could deduct the expenses of that care from their taxes. However, the Caregiver Tax Deduction only applied to women, divorced people, and men whose wives were incapacitated. The law did not apply to never married men.
In 1972, Charles Moritz, a never married man who was the sole caretaker for his mother, tried to deduct the expenses of his mother’s care from his taxes.
He was denied the benefit of the law.
Upon hearing about this case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her husband Marty Ginsburg, and the ACLU decided to represent Charles Moritz in court. They argued that the law was unconstitutional because it provided single women the tax deduction but not single men, despite both being in the same situation. Ginsburg explained that the law stemmed from the idea that only women can be in the caregiver role, not men. It confined citizens to societal roles that were not always applicable.
Ginsburg wanted to give women the opportunity to step out of household roles and pursue careers and an education. This case was an opportunity to stop the law from confining people to the roles in society that the government expected of them.
Charles Moritz won the case. While a small case, it set the precedent under which hundreds of laws that discriminated on the basis of sex were overturned.
In the government’s defense, they drafted a list of all the federal laws that discriminated on the basis of sex; they were trying to prove that the law could not be unconstitutional because that would mean a numerous amount of other federal laws would also be unconstitutional. This list, known as Appendix E, became the blueprint that Ginsburg and her colleagues used to overturn all the federal laws that violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Our country has come a long way since 1972. Federal law now prohibits discrimination in workplace settings, educational programs, etc. The work of people like the Ginsburgs is the reason that everyone in this country is closer to being truly equal under the law.
Thank you for sharing this insightful post, Oviya! I enjoyed the distinctively educational and distinguished tone you employed throughout this post—it made me feel like a college student listening to their professor (in the best way possible, of course). The topic of balancing domestic labor, such as caring for young children and the elderly, has slowly become more heavily researched by sociologists in the last few decades. Specifically, many sociologists have pointed out that despite men increasingly taking part in the actual physical tasks associated with household chores, women still tend to shoulder the burden of domestic labor. This is because of a concept known as cognitive labor—essentially referring to the mental burden of organizing, managing, and delegating domestic tasks. In other words, while men may cook and clean, women are still telling them when, where, and how to do it.
ReplyDeleteMultiple studies on cognitive labor have demonstrated women are still the ones performing most of it, while men rarely tend to undertake it at all. For thousands of years, women have been seen as the most knowledgeable on how to manage a home; for this reason, men continue to look to women for guidance on domestic labor rather than taking responsibility on their own. This disparity in cognitive labor participation perpetuates the imbalance in domestic participation between men and women, even if both are evenly splitting housework.
Although there doesn’t seem to be any record of it, I know Ginsburg would have had much to say about the residual cognitive labor imbalance between men and women, as well as how to fix it. She was a brilliant legal mind who enacted a lot of great changes, and I’m glad that you brought her up in your blog post this week.
Hi Oviya, when I started reading your blog and learned it was about the laws created based on sex I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this case was sexist against a man. Whenever people talk about sexism they always focus on how women are discriminated against so I appreciate you taking the more unknown side. By doing this it really shows how there is always more to a problem than what is broadcasted. The way you broke down and explained the case was really well done and allowed me to easily understand the events of the Moritz v. Commissioners case. I found it so interesting that the same oppression that women are still fighting against, and often blame men for, is a double edged sword that is also oppressing men and I commend Ginsburg for fighting for equality for all not just women (even if it would have been easier to just focus on them). I really enjoyed your blog this week and can’t wait to see what you write next!
ReplyDeleteOviya, when I first saw your post pop up on Blogger, I specifically remember wanting to comment on yours because RBG was on the forefront of my mind at the time (I’m sure she was on everyone’s mind at some point though, since the second political cartoon was about her). I thought it was interesting that you chose this case in particular to write about, since RBG is known greatly for her achievements for women’s rights, and this case in particular was from a man’s perspective. Not to say that it wasn’t discriminatory, it absolutely was, but I feel like it highlighted the importance of addressing gender equality because of how it goes to affect both genders. Overall, I really loved your blog post, I have personal experience in caretaking as a very close family member was someone who needed it. Primarily my mother was caretaker, but my dad played a very important role as well, and this made me reflect on that.
ReplyDelete