There are a few things that need to be changed so that women can find a balance between work life and family life and so that more equality can be exercised between men and women.
First of all, more women need to pursue legal professions as well as leadership roles in law firms. And men need to allow women to do so without assuming that they’ve gotten there by sleeping their way to the top.
English suggests needs to change is childcare situations. We spoke about the difficulties in finding affordable, safe, and reasonable childcare when we read Chaudry’s book “Putting Children First.” However, the women in English’s book differ in that they have stable jobs and are not low-wage earners. If childcare came as a benefit of jobs in the legal arena, women would not have to worry about having to leave their jobs to care for sick children. There needs to be more flexibility, as I have said time and time again.
Women want to get into firms and develop their practices quickly before they have children. Part of the problem in striving to achieve career/family balance centers on the traditional career model for lawyers in which time devoted to work is an uncontested priority. There needs to be a change in the image of the “ideal lawyer.”
English sees the future as consisting of equal opportunity and representation for men and women and suggests a number of policies and practices that would enforce this. She advocates for performance reviews because if reviews are rigorous and detailed, they may alleviate some of the concern about female lawyers’ competence. There also, according to Enlgish, needs to be transparency in policies, especially when it comes to flexibility in work schedules. If policies are made, they need to be written down and shared with everyone. Additionally, if everyone is aware of flexible work arrangements, the workplace can alleviate the misunderstandings that can occur. English also argues that employees should know who gets what assignments and why, and people should be given a variety of assignments at varying skills.
About Me
- Kasey
- I will be graduating from Arizona State University in December. Even though I feel like I have made the most of my college career, I am scared about what the future holds for me. Graduate studies are in my future, but what I ultimately want to do with my life, well, that is in limbo. I want to make a difference. I want to be challenged and challenge other people. I am an alumni of Omega Phi Alpha, National Service Sorority. I served as president in my final year, and it was definitely a challenge. Now, I am helping to found an organization on campus called Running Start, which is a non-profit geared toward getting young women interested in running for political office.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Post #38
Women in the Judiciary: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1993 behind Sandra Day O’Connor. For the majority of her career, she focused on equal citizenship status of men and women. In 1970, she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. that focused only on women’s rights. Gisburg was also the first tenured woman in the Columbia Law School. Ginsburg was a unique nominee for the bench in that she had lots of experience arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court when she was a chief litigator for the ACLU. She was also unique in the during her confirmation process, she refused to answer questions about her beliefs saying that if she were to make a decision before a case came to her, she would be acting injudiciously. Ginsburg has been a major proponent for abortion rights as well as sexual equality. She has said in reference to abortion “that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”
Women in the Practice of Law: Belva Lockwood
In 1873, Belva Lockwood graduated from National University Law School in Washington, DC. Her graduation was not without uproar. Because the University did not grant degrees to women, she was kept out of practicing law for months after she graduated until she appealed the President of the United States. She was constantly faced with judges who believed she was incompetent. However, she was one of the first female lawyers in the United States and was the first female lawyer who was granted the ability to practice law in front of the Supreme Court after she pushed Congress to pass the law permitting women to do so in 1879. Lockwood was the first women to appear on official presidential ballots in 1884 and 1888 when she was nominated for the office by the National Equal Right Party.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1993 behind Sandra Day O’Connor. For the majority of her career, she focused on equal citizenship status of men and women. In 1970, she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. that focused only on women’s rights. Gisburg was also the first tenured woman in the Columbia Law School. Ginsburg was a unique nominee for the bench in that she had lots of experience arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court when she was a chief litigator for the ACLU. She was also unique in the during her confirmation process, she refused to answer questions about her beliefs saying that if she were to make a decision before a case came to her, she would be acting injudiciously. Ginsburg has been a major proponent for abortion rights as well as sexual equality. She has said in reference to abortion “that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”
Women in the Practice of Law: Belva Lockwood
In 1873, Belva Lockwood graduated from National University Law School in Washington, DC. Her graduation was not without uproar. Because the University did not grant degrees to women, she was kept out of practicing law for months after she graduated until she appealed the President of the United States. She was constantly faced with judges who believed she was incompetent. However, she was one of the first female lawyers in the United States and was the first female lawyer who was granted the ability to practice law in front of the Supreme Court after she pushed Congress to pass the law permitting women to do so in 1879. Lockwood was the first women to appear on official presidential ballots in 1884 and 1888 when she was nominated for the office by the National Equal Right Party.
Post #37
The American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession put out a report called Charting Our Progress.
The report shows that in a decade, from 1994 to 2003, the number of women in law school rose from 45% to 50%. The report also reflects an increase in the number of women in the profession in general too with the number of women lawyers having grown by 29.1%. The number of women partners rose from 12% to 16%. In the Court of Appeals, the composition of women rose from 13% to 17%, and in the Districts Courts female representation rose from 12% to 16%.
Even with all these advancements, women are still paid significantly less than men. In general, women are paid 78 cents to the dollar a man makes. Women are not represented in leadership at all levels of the workforce, and especially, as English found, in law firms. The report concludes that this is because of gender stereotypes, which Enlgish argued were a big reason why women lawyers were treated the way they were in different situations, whether it was regarding dress or communication styles or leadership styles.
The report alludes to the fact that women are seen as too emotional and not aggressive enough, however, as English found, if women tried to be strong and aggressive, they were not seen as effective leaders.
The report also speaks to the fact that law firms are not necessarily the best places for women to try to balance work and family lives. As we’ve seen in English’s study, if women seem to put too much focus on their family lives they are seen as not dedicated to their work. This goes against the idea of the “ideal lawyer” who is a workaholic and devotes their life to their work and lets nothing get in the way of it. The ideal lawyers have all the time in the world because they have no other commitments but work. They are able to work the 70-80 hour work weeks.
Both the report and English suggest similar ways in which women’s situations can be improved. They both suggest that women should be able to have flexible work schedules, be mentored, and not discriminate against employees who need to leave work for family.
The report shows that in a decade, from 1994 to 2003, the number of women in law school rose from 45% to 50%. The report also reflects an increase in the number of women in the profession in general too with the number of women lawyers having grown by 29.1%. The number of women partners rose from 12% to 16%. In the Court of Appeals, the composition of women rose from 13% to 17%, and in the Districts Courts female representation rose from 12% to 16%.
Even with all these advancements, women are still paid significantly less than men. In general, women are paid 78 cents to the dollar a man makes. Women are not represented in leadership at all levels of the workforce, and especially, as English found, in law firms. The report concludes that this is because of gender stereotypes, which Enlgish argued were a big reason why women lawyers were treated the way they were in different situations, whether it was regarding dress or communication styles or leadership styles.
The report alludes to the fact that women are seen as too emotional and not aggressive enough, however, as English found, if women tried to be strong and aggressive, they were not seen as effective leaders.
The report also speaks to the fact that law firms are not necessarily the best places for women to try to balance work and family lives. As we’ve seen in English’s study, if women seem to put too much focus on their family lives they are seen as not dedicated to their work. This goes against the idea of the “ideal lawyer” who is a workaholic and devotes their life to their work and lets nothing get in the way of it. The ideal lawyers have all the time in the world because they have no other commitments but work. They are able to work the 70-80 hour work weeks.
Both the report and English suggest similar ways in which women’s situations can be improved. They both suggest that women should be able to have flexible work schedules, be mentored, and not discriminate against employees who need to leave work for family.
Post #36
Can corporate America lure the women back into the workforce? In my humble opinion, corporate America will not get women back into the work force until they become more flexible with the fact that women are as valuable to the workforce as men.
I know that personally I do not want to work in corporate America. Even working at the labor union I worked for over the summer felt like torture. What I found interesting was the complete lack of flexibility the union operated on, even with the male employees. One of my bosses was a single dad who had two children that he had complete custody of. His son has special needs and has doctor’s appointments all the time, but my boss was constantly forced to find someone else to go to them. The reason was because of the lack of flexibility with the job. They would not let him telecommute and if he took the morning off to go to an appointment but was 5 minutes late into the afternoon portion of the workday, he either had to take the entire day off unpaid, or be laid into by the management.
Another worker had a wife who was suffering from cancer, and he was her primary caregiver. I noticed that every day he came in to work right at the start time and left as soon as he was able to in the afternoon. It was only after he was gone for a few days that it came up with my boss that his wife was very sick and the management at the union offices would not give him paid time off to be able to care for her in her final months.
I feel like this relates a lot to what women face in the corporate world and why women steer away from it. I feel like this lack of flexibility to accommodate the fact that people’s live do not revolve around work is going to continue to keep women from pursuing corporate employment.
I know that personally I do not want to work in corporate America. Even working at the labor union I worked for over the summer felt like torture. What I found interesting was the complete lack of flexibility the union operated on, even with the male employees. One of my bosses was a single dad who had two children that he had complete custody of. His son has special needs and has doctor’s appointments all the time, but my boss was constantly forced to find someone else to go to them. The reason was because of the lack of flexibility with the job. They would not let him telecommute and if he took the morning off to go to an appointment but was 5 minutes late into the afternoon portion of the workday, he either had to take the entire day off unpaid, or be laid into by the management.
Another worker had a wife who was suffering from cancer, and he was her primary caregiver. I noticed that every day he came in to work right at the start time and left as soon as he was able to in the afternoon. It was only after he was gone for a few days that it came up with my boss that his wife was very sick and the management at the union offices would not give him paid time off to be able to care for her in her final months.
I feel like this relates a lot to what women face in the corporate world and why women steer away from it. I feel like this lack of flexibility to accommodate the fact that people’s live do not revolve around work is going to continue to keep women from pursuing corporate employment.
Post #35
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a “best practices” document earlier this year with an emphasis on work/family balance, an issue we’ve been dealing with for the entirety of this class. The purpose of this document, according to Joanna Grossman, was not to antidiscrimination laws, but to encourage employers to “adopt policies that go beyond legal minimum requirements.”
As Grossman states, and apparently as the EEOC's document notes, “the care of children and other dependents is disproportionately provided by women, and even more disproportionately by women of color; men's role in parenting and other caregiving has increased, but is still vastly outweighed by women's.” We have seen this argued at length in English’s book.
Grossman bring up that “for many caregivers, inflexible workplace policies and insufficient access to leave present the biggest obstacles to their successful balancing of work and family responsibilities.” We have seen this argued in English’s book with female lawyers. The inflexibility of working hours prevent women from either being employed full-time or being mothers at all. Some women result to putting off having children until they’ve established a practice or found a job that will try to be flexible for them.
Grossman says “to make matters worse, stereotyping about caregivers is prevalent: Women caregivers are often thought to be less committed to their paid work or to be likely to be less competent because of their actual or likely role in caregiving.” This is yet another connection to English’s study. Female lawyers were seen as not being dedicated to work because of their family commitments. If women had to leave work to pick up a child from school, or stay at home to care for a sick child, they were seen as choosing placing family before work, therefore not taking work seriously.
As Grossman says, sadly “no existing law creates a special, protected status for caregivers” although there are laws that ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy like Title VII and laws that ban discrimination if someone in the family is disabled.
Grossman says that the best practices document suggests many of the same measures that English argues for in her book that will help with the family/work balance. Flexibility in work arrangements with variable starting times for work and ending times is the biggest similarity. Grossman says the best practices document cites research demonstrating “that flexible work policies have a positive impact on employee engagement and organizational productivity and profitability.” This is one of the same arguments that English made in her book.
As Grossman states, and apparently as the EEOC's document notes, “the care of children and other dependents is disproportionately provided by women, and even more disproportionately by women of color; men's role in parenting and other caregiving has increased, but is still vastly outweighed by women's.” We have seen this argued at length in English’s book.
Grossman bring up that “for many caregivers, inflexible workplace policies and insufficient access to leave present the biggest obstacles to their successful balancing of work and family responsibilities.” We have seen this argued in English’s book with female lawyers. The inflexibility of working hours prevent women from either being employed full-time or being mothers at all. Some women result to putting off having children until they’ve established a practice or found a job that will try to be flexible for them.
Grossman says “to make matters worse, stereotyping about caregivers is prevalent: Women caregivers are often thought to be less committed to their paid work or to be likely to be less competent because of their actual or likely role in caregiving.” This is yet another connection to English’s study. Female lawyers were seen as not being dedicated to work because of their family commitments. If women had to leave work to pick up a child from school, or stay at home to care for a sick child, they were seen as choosing placing family before work, therefore not taking work seriously.
As Grossman says, sadly “no existing law creates a special, protected status for caregivers” although there are laws that ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy like Title VII and laws that ban discrimination if someone in the family is disabled.
Grossman says that the best practices document suggests many of the same measures that English argues for in her book that will help with the family/work balance. Flexibility in work arrangements with variable starting times for work and ending times is the biggest similarity. Grossman says the best practices document cites research demonstrating “that flexible work policies have a positive impact on employee engagement and organizational productivity and profitability.” This is one of the same arguments that English made in her book.
Post #34
Joan Williams book, “Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It,” has many of the same arguments of English’s book, “Gender on Trial.”
Williams talks about market work and family work. “Market work” is any work performed for payment, or any paid work outside the home. “Family work” includes childcare, housework, eldercare and other forms of caring work. These terms are also discussed at length in English’s book. Williams says that in our society, women continue to perform a disproportionately higher amount of family work than men. Even though gender roles in the United States have been changing, they haven’t been changed as much as they could have.
Williams argues that Mothers who stay at home often feel they are taken less seriously by other adults. This relates somewhat to what some of the women in English’s study said about their lives. One woman in English’s study said that she felt like she had to hide that she had a full time job as a lawyer because other adults would come to certain conclusions about what type of mother she was.
Williams says that mothers who work full time often find themselves on the "mommy track," which means depressed pay rates, fewer benefits, and blocked advancement. This is absolutely exhibited in English’s book. The one woman who sat in on employment interviews said that women were not hired because they could potentially get married and have children and become less productive. She remarked that her colleagues said “she’s just getting married, how long before she has kids? When she comes back she won’t be a productive.” She commented that there “was respect for intelligence and work product for all, but there was a strong bias that when things got stressful, when life situations changed, the women won’t handle it as well as a man—that a woman would turn away from her work.” Like Williams said, employers refuse to take women seriously because of the assumption that they will eventually become mothers and “drop out.”
Williams said “Good jobs typically assume an ideal worker who is willing and able to work for 40 years straight, taking no time off for childbearing or childrearing. This ideal is framed around men's bodies-for they need no time off for childbirth- and men's life patterns-for American women still do 80% of the childcare. Not surprisingly, many mothers find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet a standard designed around men's bodies, and around the assumption that workers are supported by a flow of childcare and other family work from their spouses that many men enjoy, but most women do not.” This absolutely agrees with women in English’s study who had children. This is the whole embodiment of trying to balance work and home lives.
Willams say that women can work part-time or reduced hours in a very punitive atmosphere, something that relates very closely to what English says about female lawyers who try to work flexible schedules or part time. Not only do they risk not getting time consuming assignments, they are almost written off as not good, productive workers, punished by their co-workers as not being dedicated to work like they should be. Williams argues that If they had a choice to cut back their hours or reduce them without marginalization, women might do so more; Many mothers who are committed to being ideal workers might cut back if they had the option to do so.
Williams talks about market work and family work. “Market work” is any work performed for payment, or any paid work outside the home. “Family work” includes childcare, housework, eldercare and other forms of caring work. These terms are also discussed at length in English’s book. Williams says that in our society, women continue to perform a disproportionately higher amount of family work than men. Even though gender roles in the United States have been changing, they haven’t been changed as much as they could have.
Williams argues that Mothers who stay at home often feel they are taken less seriously by other adults. This relates somewhat to what some of the women in English’s study said about their lives. One woman in English’s study said that she felt like she had to hide that she had a full time job as a lawyer because other adults would come to certain conclusions about what type of mother she was.
Williams says that mothers who work full time often find themselves on the "mommy track," which means depressed pay rates, fewer benefits, and blocked advancement. This is absolutely exhibited in English’s book. The one woman who sat in on employment interviews said that women were not hired because they could potentially get married and have children and become less productive. She remarked that her colleagues said “she’s just getting married, how long before she has kids? When she comes back she won’t be a productive.” She commented that there “was respect for intelligence and work product for all, but there was a strong bias that when things got stressful, when life situations changed, the women won’t handle it as well as a man—that a woman would turn away from her work.” Like Williams said, employers refuse to take women seriously because of the assumption that they will eventually become mothers and “drop out.”
Williams said “Good jobs typically assume an ideal worker who is willing and able to work for 40 years straight, taking no time off for childbearing or childrearing. This ideal is framed around men's bodies-for they need no time off for childbirth- and men's life patterns-for American women still do 80% of the childcare. Not surprisingly, many mothers find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet a standard designed around men's bodies, and around the assumption that workers are supported by a flow of childcare and other family work from their spouses that many men enjoy, but most women do not.” This absolutely agrees with women in English’s study who had children. This is the whole embodiment of trying to balance work and home lives.
Willams say that women can work part-time or reduced hours in a very punitive atmosphere, something that relates very closely to what English says about female lawyers who try to work flexible schedules or part time. Not only do they risk not getting time consuming assignments, they are almost written off as not good, productive workers, punished by their co-workers as not being dedicated to work like they should be. Williams argues that If they had a choice to cut back their hours or reduce them without marginalization, women might do so more; Many mothers who are committed to being ideal workers might cut back if they had the option to do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)