In modern societies, it is widespread to observe that women tend to be paid less than men. Academically, there are still authors like Emilie Durkheim who supported a conservative view of women's positions in society. According to them, the issue of gender discrimination could be justified by the less dedication of women to work. Their devotions would tend not to be integral like those of the men. Then, the issue of gender discrimination raises various discussions of either the cultural or values arguments. This research, however, proposes to demonstrate that any such justification for gender segregation would have no empirical evidence in the stories of queens' governments. Thus, we start from the primary studies on the theme of segregation and power to demonstrate that the authors might agree that discrimination would incorporate shared values, and which would then be reflected in further empirical cases. Consequently, through the five ethnographic and bibliographic studies, it is shown that in the short periods of history in which women have taken power, they not only have exercised it better than men but instead have exercised them greatly, which also put further segregation justifications of segregation of gender into questionable perspectives.

This article analyzes the judiciary system’s tendency to unify multiple jurisprudences and eventual conflicts with cultural diversity. The judiciary system’s interpretation of laws is interpreted with skepticism, as they might result in derogation of the legislative prerogatives. Critics have gained strength from the actual procedure code's disposals that made compulsory judiciaries pronounce in state and national levels. The present study investigates how judicial understandings of laws could provide voices to the diversity of cases that might eventually be submitted to the Courts' analyses. The broad participation of the amicus curiae in each biding case along with the full applicability of atypical procedural agreements should be conceived as an indispensable condition to give plain social validity and maximum effectiveness to the judiciary pronunciation, especially whenever regarding the most fundamentals concepts of the democratic archetypes resembling the main ideas forecasted by the second generation of the Frankfurt Philosophical School, among whom Jürgen Habermas is considered as the field’s most influential author.  The present study uses a dialect-inductive methodology to confirm the hypothesis that both state and superior Courts must analyze various juridical divergent theses so that the bindings might not lack social effectiveness, especially by using the amicus curiae's opinion thoroughly.