Abstract

Our objective is to analyze the relationship between gender and jurisdictional action in the State of Pará Court of Justice, mainly composed of judges, regarding the effectiveness of women's human rights. We seek to problematize the hypothesis of a “different voice,” recurrent in research on women in the legal profession. After all, may the greater presence of women in the judiciary bring a different perspective? The methodology used is qualitative, having as a privileged instrument of data collection semi-structured interviews with the judges of the organ. We conclude that the jurisdictional performance of the interviewees is influenced by an androcentric reading of the principle of impartiality, which suppresses any signs of difference, whether from the judges themselves or from the people under their jurisdiction. These results point to the need to rethink not only the male culture imbricated in the legal profession, but also the foundations capable of serving as a solid theoretical basis to ensure gender equality (and other markers of social differences) in the judiciary system.

Keywords:
Democratization of the justice system; Women's rights; Difference argument