(summary) The current composition of the STF consists of only one minister, and only two other ministers have, in the course of its 134 years of history, been part of the institution. Lula appointed another man to the court last week. This brutal gender disparity directly affects the fundamental decisions women make, as evidenced by the countless barriers in the abortion debate, and reflects the global resurgence in the feminist movement.
In September 2023, shortly before leaving the Federal Supreme Court, then-President Rosa Weber voted to decriminalize voluntary termination of pregnancy (abortion) in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
The trial was suspended after a prominent request from Minister Luis Roberto Barroso. In October, Barroso did what Weber had done two years earlier: before retiring, he argued that women who terminate pregnancies at 12 weeks should not be penalized. He declared that “women are free and equal beings, who enjoy independence and self-determination to make their existential choices.”
On the same occasion, a preliminary decision taken by Barroso allowed nurses and technicians to assist in performing abortions in cases permitted by law, extending to them the reservation of non-punishment that the Penal Code already guaranteed to doctors in these cases. Two days later, there was already a majority against the proposal, a group formed by Gilmar Mendes, Cristiano Zanin, Flavio Dino, Cassio Nunes Márquez, André Mendonça, Alexandre de Moraes, Dias Toffoli and Edson Fascin. Although it’s obvious, it’s important to highlight: all men.
On the 5th of this month, the President and First Vice-President of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops, Cardinal Jaime Spengler and Dom João Justino de Medeiros (both men), met with the President of the STF, Edson Fachin (also a man), to request the annulment of the votes in favor of abortion discrimination by Rosa Weber and Barroso.
At the moment, there is only one minister in the STF, Carmen Lucía. She alone carries the symbolic and institutional weight of representing the female voice in the main institution of the Brazilian judiciary. In times of undeniable decline, this is extremely important.
American historian Rebecca Solnit reminds us that “the right to speak, to be heard, to be heard is a kind of wealth.” However, when there is only one woman speaking in such a powerful state, this “wealth” runs the risk of being an exception, or worse, a privilege granted only to fulfill an empty ritual. As the old saying goes: “One swallow does not make a summer.”
In the 134-year history of the Brazilian Supreme Court, only three women have ever held office there: in addition to Weber and Carmen, Ellen Gracie. In this context, gender underrepresentation is not simply a reflection of exclusion in the country’s decision-making bodies, but rather a chronic symptom that affects the most diverse spheres of Brazilian society.
Moreover, the lack of diversity in leadership positions, especially in the Strategic Task Force, reveals institutional and social dysfunction that has a direct impact on women’s fundamental rights and carelessly silences agendas that require critical interventions, based on the needs and vulnerabilities of the Brazilian female population, including the rise of gender-based violence and the exploitation and abuse of underage girls.
Back to Solnit: “The world is changing. Silence is what allows people to suffer without healing, what allows lies and hypocrisy to grow and flourish, what allows crimes to go unpunished. If our voices are essential aspects of our humanity, then to deny a voice is to be dehumanized or excluded from one’s humanity. The history of silence is central to women’s history.”
Last week, HBO Max premiered “Angela Diniz: Assassinada e Condenada,” which revisits the tragic story of a Brazilian socialite who was brutally murdered by her boyfriend, Doca Street, in December 1976.
In the first trial, in 1979, Duca Street lawyer Evandro Lenz e Silva used the controversial thesis of “legitimate defense of honour” to justify the crime as an act “committed out of love”. The killer was sentenced to only two years in prison, to serve his sentence freely.
The partial acquittal and the rhetoric used by the defense sparked outrage: feminist activists adopted the slogan “He who loves does not kill” and rallied across the country to demand justice. Social and legal pressure led to a new trial in 1981, when Duka Street was finally sentenced to 15 years in prison for murder.
This case became a landmark in the Brazilian feminist movement, symbolizing resistance against sexist arguments that attempted to normalize violence against women.
Our rights were not guaranteed, as many women thought. After a few years, it seems that the struggle has weakened and become limited to the intellectual elite. Little by little, not only in Brazil, but all over the world, women are taking steps backward.
In 2014, American intellectual and feminist bell hooks warned: “We are already seeing significant losses in reproductive rights. We are seeing a rise in violence against women. The workforce is working every day to reclaim sexism.”
It seems that no one heard her. Ironically, women’s collectives grew (groups of women writers, translators, etc.), but the spotlight was placed on their members and not on women’s rights and struggles.
Perhaps this is because, hooks said, some “opportunistic women praise the success of the feminist movement, but tell us that the movement is no longer necessary, ‘because all women have improved their lives’; and this despite the fact that we are in a world in which women have become the majority among our nation’s poor, where single mothers suffer from illness…”
Some contemporary women’s collectives have excluded colleagues with discordant voices, colleagues on the fringes… and none of this helps the cause, which is much greater.
On Black Consciousness Day, President Lula appointed a new STF minister: a conservative white man, Jorge Mesías, who had already held that regulation of abortion procedures, in situations permitted by law, could only be done through Congress. What does this mean? Let Congress decide whether or not it is as conservative as it is.
Last week was really a setback. The president also banned the use of neutral language in official documents. Ban is censorship. Language changes because society changes.
Dilma Rousseff liked to be called president, and was ridiculed, and that’s worth remembering. There are those who say that neutral language complicates the communication process that should be simple and that many people do not understand it.
In fact, these changes are not easy to understand and there has not been much discussion about them. The neutral language remained restricted to one group, and this seems to relate to a society that was dividing itself into small spheres that spoke only to its own members – and sometimes did not allow “foreigners” into them.
There are those who defend these measures, claiming the necessity of concession and settlement. But, from coincidence to coincidence, the government that climbed the Planalto slope with the indigenous people, the blacks, the women and even the caramel (a typical Brazilian dog) was no longer recognized by the government.