THE GENDER BIAS IN THE FALLACY OF APATHY AND MYTH OF IMPARTIAL LAW

Abstract

Traditional legal theory often claims that the law is neutral and fair, equating justice with the absence of emotion. This supposed impartiality hides biases and allows social inequalities to continue under the guise of objectivity. Gender, race, and class are frequently ignored in legal reasoning, which perpetuates rather than corrects injustice. This paper critiques legal indifference, showing how the law’s appearance of neutrality sustains inequality. It argues for a legal approach that considers human experience as central to achieving real equality. Using a critical theoretical method, the study focuses on gender as a disadvantaged group. Legal doctrines, case law, and scholarly writings are analyzed to show how dispassionate reasoning masks power relations and structural disparities. Findings indicate that legal indifference does not remove bias; it hides it, turning equality into a formal promise rather than reality. Emotional detachment in law reinforces existing hierarchies and harms marginalized groups. The paper concludes that the idea of impartial law is a fallacy. To achieve substantive equality, legal reasoning must recognize lived experience and social context. A critical, empathetic perspective can break the illusion of neutrality and support fairer outcomes for all.