여성 지도자들은 남성중심적 문화가 지배적인 정치영역에서 영향력을 확보하기 위하여 많은 노력을 기울여 왔으며, 여전히 부족한 수준이긴 하나 오늘날 여성의 정치적 대표성은 세계적으로 점증하고 있는 추세에 있다, 그럼에도 불구하고 2016년 한국과 브라질에서 여성 대통령 탄핵 사태를 중심으로 불거진 일련의 젠더 관련 이슈는 정치권에서 또 다른 성차별 논란을 촉발시켰다. 대통령으로서의 정치적 실정에 대한 비판보다는 성차별적 비난으로 가득했던 양국의 탄핵 과정을 어떻게 설명할 수 있을까? 본 연구는 Glick과 Fiske (1996)가 제시한 양가적 성차별주의 (ambivalent sexism) 개념을 분석틀로 활용함으로써 한국과 브라질 여성 대통령의 탄핵을 둘러싼 정치적 과정 속에서 양가적 성차별주의가 어떻게 만연했는지 비판적으로 검토한다. 궁극적으로 본 고는 양가적 성차별주의의 전형적인 특징이 양국 여성대통령의 탄핵 과정에서 현저하게 두드러졌으며 여성에 대한 차별은 여전히 여성의 정치적 리더십을 방해하고 전통적인 남성 중심의 성 역할을 강화하는 방식으로 오늘날 사회에 상존하고 있음을 주장한다.

On the evidence for the impeachment, in literature, four problems are in discussion. At first, whether a hearsay evidence is admissible for impeachment, although it is not admissible in view of the hearsay rule. Second, whether the oral evidence of the defendant in trial is impeachable, and whehter the defendant's pre-trial statements protocol of the police is admissible for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. At last, whether the authentification is required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. For first problem, though a hearsay evidence is not admissible according to the hearsay rule, it is admissible for impeachment. The hearsay rule is operated only where pre-trial statement is produced for asserting the truth of the statement. Because impeachment is not asserting the truth of the pre-trial statement, but swaying the crediblity of the oral evidence in trial, hearsay rule is not operated when the evidence is produced for impeachment. For second problem, the oral evidence of the defendant in trial can be impeached for the appropriate way of truth-finding. In practice, the prior inconsistent statement of the defendant can be often used for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. § 312 ② of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. Because of the provision, some say that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible for impeachment when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. But the Court admits the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol although the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment, and it is with me on that. For the last problem, the majority in literature and the Court are with the opinion that the authentification is not required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. In this point I cannot agree with the Court. The requirement of the authentification is essential for producing all the evidences. It is a different rule from the hearsay rule. In my opinion, It could be said that the majority and the Court confuse the difference. It should be said that a hearsay written statement cannot be used for impeachment when it is not authentifcated.