In the vast majority of cases brought before a male judge, the judge favors the man, no matter what a woman says or does (tag defo needs some work but I think the article is good)

(Karen, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, BA from UC Berkeley, JD from Georgetown, “Gender Bias in the Courts: Social Change Strategies” https://heinonline-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/HOL/Page?lname=&public=false&collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geojlege4&men_hide=false&men_tab=toc&kind=&page=1) //GB

Problems identified by gender bias studies fall into three rough categories: courtroom conduct, evidentiary perception, and legal interpretation. In the first category, studies find that male judges and lawyers treat female judges, judicial candidates, attorneys, parties and witnesses differently and worse than they treat males. 15 Responses to the Maryland surveys, for example, indicate women lawyers may be referred to informally, either by their first name or by an inappropriate term, such as "dearie."' 6 They may see their arguments dismissed as unpersuasive before getting a fair hearing.' 7 They may be ignored or treated disrespectfully. 8 Sometimes they are subject to unwelcome sexual joking, advances and even touching by judges and by lawyers. 19 Male lawyers may act hostilely to women who are candidates for judicial appointments.20 They may take advantage of female attorneys and witnesses in the courtroom by subjecting them to inappropriate or demeaning forms of address, argument or examination. 2'

The second category of gender bias problems arises from evidentiary perception or misperception. Judges may hear evidence about experiences which women have and, quite simply, not understand it. They may be unable to see past their own stereotypes about how women and men are;22 they may be unable to perceive as real or true experiences which are more common for women than for men;23 they may be unable to accord the same credibility to a woman's testimony as they would to a man's.

A striking example in the Maryland study involved a woman who was seeking temporary protection from continued domestic violence. At the hearing on her petition, she testified that her husband had threatened her life with a gun. The judge rejected her request for help. The woman paraphrased for the Maryland Committee what the judge said:

I don't believe anything that you're saying .... The reason I don't believe it is because I don't believe that anything like this could happen to me. If I was you and someone had threatened me with a gun, there is no way that I would continue to stay with them. There is no way that I could take that kind of abuse from them. Therefore, since I would not let that happen to me, I can't believe that it happened to you.

Similar evidentiary misperceptions occur when a judge finds himself unable to separate the individual woman or man before him from his stereotypes of how women and men behave. Such a judge may decline to consider a father a serious candidate for custody,26 just as he may decline to find fit for custody a divorced mother who works or one who is sexually active.27 Judges can also find it difficult to accord women the same credibility they accord men. In the Maryland surveys, for example, judges responded that they never require more evidence for a female litigant to prove her case than for a male litigant. However, over a fifth of female court personnel who observe courtroom proceedings and two-fifths of female attorneys responded that judges always, often or sometimes do exactly that.2

The third category of gender bias problems is legal interpretation, that is, when judges interpret legal authority that is not itself gendered in ways which favor men over women. A telling example comes out of the Maryland statute providing for temporary protection from domestic violence. Under the law, a judge can order an abuser out of the home for a limited period of time. 29 The judge also can provide for custody of minor children, for counseling, and so on.3 0 The statute's catch-all clause allows judges to order "any other relief as necessary."' 31 When a victim of domestic violence asks a judge to invoke this clause to order temporary financial assistance to cover rent and food during the month when the primary breadwinner is out of the home, the typical response is no.32 Judges often say they lack authority to provide such relief, despite the permissive language of the statute.33 The beneficiary of this restrictive legal interpretation typically is male34 and an adjudicated abuser of a female member of his household. 35 What the judge is awarding him should be called a battering bonus.

A second example also involves money. In Maryland, courts are empowered to order that child support payments begin as of the date the payee's petition was filed,36 which can be anywhere from six weeks to six months before child support is awarded by a court. Rarely, however, do judges do that.37 When pressing for an explanation, the Maryland Committee was told that judges did not want to start the father out in debt.38 Of course, what is overlooked by this explanation is the fact that the custodial parent, usually the mother, is left solely responsible for the child's support between the time of the petition and the time of the award. Not only is she likely to be "starting out" in debt, but she is constitutionally entitled to be burdened with child support only to the extent of her proportional share of the economic resources of both parents.3 9 Judicial concern for the financial situation of the noncustodial parent, usually a man, effectively places an extra and illegal burden on the custodial parent, usually a woman. 40