It is easier to disintegrate an atom than a Prejudice
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Gender stereotypes refer to the social and cultural construction of men and women based on their different physical, biological, and sexual functions, which assign attributes and roles that each must fulfill (women as caregivers, men as providers...). The act of stereotyping is of social origin and is constructed through observational learning, then it is integrated into our perceptual fabric to the point of not being aware of it, so we do not diagnose it as a problem that requires legal or other remedies.
Prejudices are irrational cognitive illusions, perceived as absolute truths, that follow pre-established social patterns and determine how we should be, instead of recognizing who we are. We stereotype to define the difference that facilitates our understanding of a simpler model and to make a more manageable "script of identities," but these myths are pillars of discrimination and when they penetrate the judicial system, they distort it, perpetuating social asymmetries between men and women.
The lawyer Mercedes Formica (1913-2002), promoter of the first reform of the Spanish civil code in 1958, to eradicate the figure of the "deposit of the married woman" and other reminiscences of the "imbecilitas sexus," in a social context in which women were slaves of customs, society, religion, and the power of their husbands or fathers, said: "The Law is a trap set for us women to fall into. Judges are swayed by appearances."
Institutional gender stereotyping is, nowadays, a Human Rights issue identified as a form of discrimination in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)[1], in the Istanbul Convention [2] and other international tools that insist on the adequate training and qualification of people who operate in the judicial system. Spain, moreover, has already been condemned by the UN, precisely for this reason, (Communication No. 47/2012 of the CEDAW Committee - Ángela González case -), with an express recommendation to provide training in gender and against stereotypes in the judicial field.
The case of Ángela González is that of a victim of gender violence who had filed 51 complaints before courts and police stations against her ex-husband, for very serious threats, aggressions, and attempted kidnapping, and also to avoid unsupervised visits of the common daughter of the marriage. But her complaints were not attended to, and her daughter Andrea, with only 7 years old, was murdered by her father with a shot. The story of Ángela is surely the most tragic description of the violence that institutions exert against victims of male chauvinist violence.
Despite this, Spain still does not include CEDAW in the syllabus of opposition to access the judicial and fiscal career.[3]
The Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations entitled Gender Stereotyping as a Violation of Human Rights, considers that the application of these harmful stereotypes may constitute a violation of rights and recalls that international Human Rights law imposes on States the legal obligation to eliminate discrimination against women and men in all spheres of their lives. Therefore, States are obliged to adopt measures to address gender stereotypes in both public and private life and to refrain from stereotyping.
In the State of Michigan (USA) in 1989, an interesting study was carried out on how gender stereotypes influence those who exercise the judicial function, to the detriment of women. Among the results obtained, it was found that in those cases in which women had prioritized their professional life, before judicial disputes over the custody of their children, there was a judicial tendency to grant it to the male parent who showed a minimum interest despite the fact that the mother had been the main caregiver for years, considering women with brilliant professional lives were less suitable for care.
In 1983, in Brazil, María da Penha, a biopharmacist, was the victim of a double attempted murder by her then husband and father of her 3 daughters, in her own home. The aggressor, Marco Antonio Heredia Viveiros, an economist and university professor, shot her in the back while she was sleeping. This is how she described the event:
I woke up suddenly, with a loud 'bang' inside the room. I opened my eyes. I haven't seen anyone. I tried to move, but I couldn't. I immediately closed my eyes and only one thought occurred to me: My God, Marco killed me with a shot!.
María did not die but was left paraplegic. Subsequently, the same aggressor tried to electrocute her in the bathroom and although he was convicted twice, he was released after appealing. In 1998, fifteen years later, and without a final judicial resolution, María went to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which in its Resolution of April 16, 2001, held the State of Brazil responsible for omission, negligence, and tolerance of domestic violence against Brazilian women due to unreasonable judicial delay and among the recommendations includes:
Training and awareness-raising measures for specialized judicial and police officials so that they understand the importance of not tolerating domestic violence(...)
