Personally, I don't see feminists fighting to correct the biases in the courts that victimize fathers
Y'know, I hear this a lot, and in my experience, it's not in good faith. First of all, feminists are not a hive mind. There are a lot of different opinions. Second, the statement is full of slippery definitions and moving goalposts. Exactly what does “fight” mean? If I say “here’s a bunch of feminists repeatedly saying such-and-such woman-favoring law is sexist and thus BS,” they’re dismissed because suddenly, new rule, mere talk doesn’t count. (Are you an MRA? Would you say you “fight” for men’s rights?) What even does “feminist” mean? Self-ID’d? Externally declared? Someone doing something feminist? What counts a feminist act? And on and on.
Apparently, it has to be: known, vocally self-declared feminists… uh, “fighting” (going to court…? I guess?) to… idek, overturn all alimony laws everywhere… specifically on the grounds that they’re sexist against men. Or else it doesn’t count. Convenient. Still, here are some examples.
• Judith Kaye, former Chief Judge of New York, known feminist. Formed a commission in 2006 to get the state to enact full unilateral no-fault divorce, for the benefit of everyone. At the time, NY was an at-fault state "requiring a finding of adultery, abandonment, cruelty, or a 1-year separation pursuant to a written instrument." Her commission's recs didn’t appear to get traction, but presumably that doesn’t matter; whether she won or not, she fought. (And FTR, the state effectively made the change 2010, so it may have had some effect after all.)
• These self-declared Feminist Law Professors. They say Alimony Should Be Gender-Neutral,* and that recent strides in that direction are not enough:
What states need are truly gender neutral alimony awards, ones that push back against the historical gender bias inherent in alimony and bring alimony into the twenty-first century.
I like this, because they’re law professors. They’re actually in a position to really affect this issue; they make lawyers of tomorrow. But hey, maybe that "doesn't count."
See also: Bad Divorce Law.
• In Orr v. Orr, the 1979 Supreme Court case that found woman-only alimony laws unconstitutional, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (noted feminist and founder of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project), Margaret Moses Young (another card-carrying feminist, literally) and the ACLU (which [vocally supports feminism and women’s rights) were on your side.
The state of Alabama had adopted a statutory scheme that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives for the stated purpose of addressing the economic disparity between men and women by providing support for needy women after divorce.
And before you say it was too long ago to matter (new rule, there's a time limit), keep in mind that this decision was landmark; it literally abolished woman-only alimony.
Again: feminist lawyers working for the vocally feminist ACLU chose to stand up, at the height of the 2nd Wave, and tell the Supreme Court that a law explicitly meant to be feminist was in fact sexist and wrong and should be overturned.
I can hear the objections now (*sigh*) but I’m sorry, if that doesn’t count, nothing does.