With the raffle held by the Senate to determine which judge positions will be up for election next year, out of 474 judges and magistrates in office, 224 will lose their positions, which demonstrates the lack of gender inequality in the reform of the Judiciarysaid Judge Adriana Ortega Ortiz.
In the morning conference of the judges held this Friday, the judge questioned the statement made by the head of the federal Executive by stating that with her arrival to the Presidency she did not arrive alone, but that all the women arrived.
You might be interested in: Senate establishes mechanism for receiving documentation related to judicial reform
“As judges,” she said, “we have other data (…) it has always cost us more work for women, women are overloaded with care work, we have to face all the limitations that society imposes on us, from finding a space to train ourselves, until we overcome prejudices that we do not know how to do things that we really know how to do.
“From that raffle, 224 of those 474 women came out, we got close to almost half of the women who held office at that time. Half in one fell swoop, 224 female judges who are professionalized, who came with all the work it takes to get to those spaces. Half of them go home if they do not submit to the election, where is the ‘we all arrive’?”, explained the judge.
He claimed that it was a “blind tombola” that was made in the Senate in which distinctions were made, nor was the overload of women, who face not only the care of small children, pregnancy or breastfeeding, taken into account. , but even to the attention that adolescent children demand, “my God, my life! It seems, at least for me in my experience, that adolescent children need more care than newborn children.”
He added that there are also women who take care of their parents, who have children with disabilities, women with terminal illnesses and none of those considerations were taken into account.
Ortega Ortiz mentioned that if the ruling party was committed to substantive equality, the decision would have been made that all women judges would leave in 2027, giving them two more years to adjust their life projects, “that would have been a real affirmative action.”
You might be interested in: San Lázaro resolves “doubts” of the Presidency regarding protection of a judge against judicial reform
He mentioned that the Senate made a list to exclude pregnant and lactating women; However, it is not clear where they got that list from.
“But given the low representation of women in the Judiciary, the most affirmative thing was to bring all the positions to women by 2027, we are not achieving substantive equality, at least not in the Judiciary,” she stated.
The judge also questioned that the requirements for those seeking to occupy a position in the administration of justice do not guarantee parity because educational opportunities are not the same for women, much less if they belong to historically marginalized communities such as indigenous and Afro-Mexican women.
EAM