I have great respect for Matthis and his story, most cases he rules fairly, but most court shows are guilty of some biases. In Matthis' case, he is sometimes sexist in his rulings. When a man owes a woman money, it's almost always assumed that it was a loan. When a woman owes a man money, it's almost always assumed as a gift from the man unless he has mountains of evidence. This is a problem with society not just the judges personally, but they should be above these kind of biases and I feel most of them are guilty of it.
Even when a woman has no evidence that a man owed her the money as a loan, they will say something very sexist such as 'Don't you think you owe it to her to man up'
I guess being a man means any time you help someone else out it's supposed to be for free..
Even when a woman has no evidence that a man owed her the money as a loan, they will say something very sexist such as 'Don't you think you owe it to her to man up'
I guess being a man means any time you help someone else out it's supposed to be for free..