English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

A widely-held opinion is that, in a court of law, women almost always lose – and so do labor unions. But when three disfavored groups petitioned to a judge, the male union member lost his case. Arguably women and children have suffered the most and longest legal disabilities under state law. Until mid-twentieth century, women were unable to hold or inherit property, bring lawsuits, or manage their own business affairs. Nor were they able to testify against their husbands in any trial. There were few, if any, laws against marital assault – or even rape, until the 1960’s. Their civil rights in employment, public accommodations, education and military service were not legally established until the last quarter of the 20th century. Children remain legally incompetent to enter contracts, bring suit, make family decisions, or enjoy the franchise. Only when their acts are deemed criminal are they treated the same as adults. In family law and domestic abuse cases, courts have historically favored husbands and fathers over mothers and offspring. Child-support enforcement has been traditionally law. But in a case demanding the cooperation of union pension fund managers in child support collections, a court forced to choose among three less favored parties, traditional hierarchies were altered, institutional discrimination trumped ordinary common law preferences.

Women and Children First, but Only if the Men are Union Members: Hiring Halls and Delinquent Child-Supporters