After a read of Margaretta Midura’s 2013 article dubbed John v. Jennifer, A Battle of the Sexes, it is impossible to remain disinterested in the impact of gender on one’s employment opportunities. Perhaps one’s academic prowess does not necessarily give him or her automatic ticket to success. On the contrary, the employers that one seeks to impress with good grades and a university degree might harbor prejudices that will create another hurdle based on the sexes. That is what Midura implies in John v. Jennifer. According to the author, in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, “some people claim that women are biologically less capable than men in quantitative fields” (Midura 34). The given claim revolves around the findings of one Corinne Moss-Racusin who, alongside some colleagues in Yale University, sent out applications of a fictional student to research universities in the United States (Midura 33). For the purpose of the study, half of the requests bore the name of a woman while the other half that of a man; surprisingly, despite the assumed equality of male and female students in science classes, the results revealed an often overlooked tendency of lecturers favoring men (Midura 33-34). Case in point the graph that represents the findings from Moss-Racusin’s study: the respondents showed favoritism towards the male applicants where the variables of competence, “hireability,” and mentoring were concerned (Midura 34). In the end, Margaretta Midura’s John v. Jennifer suggests the inclusion of a “third party check system” to ensure that every student has access to the support of the academic advisors (Midura 35).
John v. Jennifer highlights a battle that has been going on for centuries now, and the saddest part is societies are yet to find a concrete solution to the same. From the conception of the Union and for the better part of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century prejudice defined the United States and it is as though the country cannot rid itself of its past mistakes. First, there is an assumption that women are “biologically less capable” than their male counterparts are in all spheres of society (Midura 34). In that sense, the physical abilities come into play when employers consider hiring people in the scientific field, and that is where their reasoning has flaws. As opposed to menial labor where one has to do the heavy lifting, science as a subject involves the mind; as a result, academic results are a better qualification than physical appearances are in the "science, technology, engineering, and mathematics" fields (Midura 34). Interestingly, while the analysis that this paper has given thus far shows the illogical reasoning that plagues working industries even today, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shows the criminal nature of the same. With a particular interest in the section that deems unlawful for one “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual” based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” Corinne Moss-Racusin’s findings suggests multiple lawsuits in the making (Title VII). Accordingly, even the social expectations of what a woman ought to do in the home and the office are unlawful. That is so because of such traditions encompass the conclusion that “women choose to avoid the lifestyle” that comes with working in the scientific fields (Midura 34). There has been A Battle of the Sexes since before the creation of the United States and people execute gender-based prejudices subconsciously every day; thus, even the law has a hard time preventing such instances.
Works Cited
Midura, Margaretta. "John v. Jennifer, A Battle of the Sexes." Yale Scientific (2013): 33-35.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1964,
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
