Gender Bias and Employment Discrimination Law - Case Study Example

Gender Bias and Employment Discrimination LawIn the real world setting, normally a majority of what we can do is recognise differences in outcome. A male is selected for hire over a female; fewer females reach tenure track positions as there is a huge gap in publications (Krieger, 2004). Bias might be suspected in a majority of cases, but the challenge in using outcomes to confirm it is that the differences might be because of a number of potential factors (Krieger, 2004). We can conjecture that maybe women are less concerned in these fields.

Maybe women have a lifestyle, which lead them away from various roles that are considered manly. In a real world setting, when many variables lead to an outcome, it is considerably impossible to assess them and tell which is causative. The only way do this would be a randomised and controlled study/experiment. This means coming up with a situation where every variable other than the one of concern is considered equal; then the differences in outcome can, for sure, be accredited to one factors, which differs (Krieger, 2004).

If it is gender bias that we are concerned with, then that would imply distinguishing reactions towards two identical humans- identical in lifestyle, intelligence, competence, goals and many other factors - which the one distinction between them, which one is a male and the other is a female. This is exactly not a situation, which exists in our actual, real world. Practically, this fact makes is easier for females to internalise unfair criticisms as valid. If your work is discarded for a clearly bad reason, such as, it is because I am a woman, then you have no other way, but to dismiss the one who rejected them as biased, and; thus, not worth taking seriously.

I consider using experiments to tell which positions are fit for men and which are fit for women is positive route to follow. At least we know that a study has been conducted by experts so the findings are reliable and the recommendations they give can be applied and the outcomes will be effective. However, I also feel that people should be allowed to hold various positions, not because of whether their bodies meet the physical and mental requirements, but due to their requirements. For instance, the women presented in the case study, she was very much willing and committed to working as a firefighter and furthermore, she did her work very well till the government decided to introduce new requirements that needed hopefuls to pass various physical tests in order to hold various positions that are considered manly.

I think what should be regarded first is the willing of the woman to work in that field and then the tests come later. However, roles such as being a soldier require people to be more physically fit than just wanting to work in that field. This is because of what their job involves and it requires them to be more physically fit. Therefore, women should also accept that some positions also require them to be physically fit in order to perform the task effectively, but they should also be accepted in some fields such as firefighting if they show the willingness (Krieger, 2004).

This will at least make men seem considerable to these women.ReferenceKrieger, L. H. (2004). The intuitive psychologist behind the bench: Models of gender bias in social psychology and employment discrimination law. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 835–848.