The article written by Elizabeth Beaumont reveals how gender-based biases impact an individual’s behavior, which in turn spreads inequality. The author explained that there is a gendered cycle of inequality endorsed by laws and policies which undermines multiple opportunities and discriminates against one sex. Gender-based disparities result in severe legal conflicts, and when considering them in terms of justice, they are typically neglected (Beaumont, 2016). In trying to balance the situation, the researchers encountered the problem of false gender neutrality, which means that both sexes remain unequal, despite all attempts by feminists to rise to the same positions as men. The critical insight I got from reading this article is that to establish equality between men and women, it is vital not to leave females invisible since they may influence society in a way that males do.
The second study focuses on the juridical system and if gender affects employment in this field. The main difference between these two articles is that the second one presumes to conduct the experimental research while the former reviews existing literature. According to Eigenberg et al. (2012), historically, women were deprived of the opportunity to take high positions in the jurisdiction. However, surveys have shown that women’s role and gender neutrality in legal proceedings currently ensure fundamental justice. The exceptional point is that the nature of gender is complicated to comprehend since each individual bears a separate concept for this notion. Realizing how people “do gender” may define how they “do justice” not only in court but in everyday life as well. Hence, gender neutrality must be the determining factor for candidates’ selection since biological features do not fully represent personality.
References
Beaumont, E. (2016). Gender justice v. The “Invisible Hand” of gender bias in law and society. Hypatia, 31(3), 668-686. Web.
Eigenberg, H., McGuffee, K., Iles, G., & Garland, T. (2012). Doing justice: Perceptions of gender neutrality in the jury selection process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 258-275. Web.