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.
Post #33
The glass ceiling is still there, even though women have advanced as much as they have. As Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney argues in a recent book, “rumors of women’s progress have been greatly exaggerated.” Even with women finding great leadership roles in government, like Condoleeza Rice serving as Secretary of State, and Hillary Clinton being a major player in the 2008 Presidential race as well as Sarah Palin being nominated for Vice President, women still are not represented or advancing as quickly as they have been represented in the workforce.
A lot can be attributed to the balance women must find between work and family lives. But even disregarding family, there are other factors that contribute to the lack of advancement of women in legal careers.
Despite the fact women are getting more college degrees and PhDs than men, they’re still only making about 78 cents on the dollar than men make.
“There is a wage gap in every profession, in every job,” Sheila Wellington, a professor at NYU's Stern School of Business says. “We're talking about everything; factory workers, business people, lawyers, teachers, it’s just there.” Wellington argues that, “Women negotiate less than men. Women are offered less than men, they don't bargain; that's one of the theories. Women take time out of the workforce and they're penalized for it. But there are also studies when women who do not time out of the workforce, and they still earn less.”
Women are starting their own business, like the female lawyers shown who left highly competitive firms to begin their own practice. Even with starting their own practice they’re not making a lot, taking huge pay deductions after going off on their own. The interesting thing I found was that one of the partners talked about how many lawyers who either have been laid off or who are seeking employment elsewhere are asking them, women, for advice in beginning their own firms.
Women are more than 50% of the population, however, they are not represented as such in Congress and especially, when it comes to the legal profession, on the Supreme Court. Only 17% of Congress is female, and only 2 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court are female.
A lot can be attributed to the balance women must find between work and family lives. But even disregarding family, there are other factors that contribute to the lack of advancement of women in legal careers.
Despite the fact women are getting more college degrees and PhDs than men, they’re still only making about 78 cents on the dollar than men make.
“There is a wage gap in every profession, in every job,” Sheila Wellington, a professor at NYU's Stern School of Business says. “We're talking about everything; factory workers, business people, lawyers, teachers, it’s just there.” Wellington argues that, “Women negotiate less than men. Women are offered less than men, they don't bargain; that's one of the theories. Women take time out of the workforce and they're penalized for it. But there are also studies when women who do not time out of the workforce, and they still earn less.”
Women are starting their own business, like the female lawyers shown who left highly competitive firms to begin their own practice. Even with starting their own practice they’re not making a lot, taking huge pay deductions after going off on their own. The interesting thing I found was that one of the partners talked about how many lawyers who either have been laid off or who are seeking employment elsewhere are asking them, women, for advice in beginning their own firms.
Women are more than 50% of the population, however, they are not represented as such in Congress and especially, when it comes to the legal profession, on the Supreme Court. Only 17% of Congress is female, and only 2 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court are female.
Post #32
Males and females have always been held to different standards when it comes to parenting. Although gender roles within the family are changing now, with it being more accepted for men to be more directly involved with parenting, women are still seen as the one who should be raising the children. Male and female lawyers are also held to different standards when it comes to parenting.
Women are still the parent who is held most responsible for children. The mother is seen as the nurturing parent, there to raise and mold children into good people. They are the ones given maternity leave. If a child is sick, the mother is the parent expected to stay home with them while they recover.
This can definitely come into play in whether or not a woman is even hired by a firm or not. One woman in English’s study said that she felt as though many young women were prevented from being hired by her firm because conclusions about her future—getting married and becoming pregnant and having children—were made. 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.”
This has had a huge impact on women who are seeking careers in law. Women are forced to decide between having a career or a family first because they can both come at the same time. One woman who hid her pregnancy for 7 months was confronted with strong animosity by her employers and was labeled as being unprofessional for becoming pregnant.
Women lawyers who are partner in firms are accused of not being good moms because they are supposed to be completely dedicated to their work. It is a situation of you either can be a good lawyer or a good mom, never both, because that’s just too much and no one can do it.
Women are still the parent who is held most responsible for children. The mother is seen as the nurturing parent, there to raise and mold children into good people. They are the ones given maternity leave. If a child is sick, the mother is the parent expected to stay home with them while they recover.
This can definitely come into play in whether or not a woman is even hired by a firm or not. One woman in English’s study said that she felt as though many young women were prevented from being hired by her firm because conclusions about her future—getting married and becoming pregnant and having children—were made. 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.”
This has had a huge impact on women who are seeking careers in law. Women are forced to decide between having a career or a family first because they can both come at the same time. One woman who hid her pregnancy for 7 months was confronted with strong animosity by her employers and was labeled as being unprofessional for becoming pregnant.
Women lawyers who are partner in firms are accused of not being good moms because they are supposed to be completely dedicated to their work. It is a situation of you either can be a good lawyer or a good mom, never both, because that’s just too much and no one can do it.
Post #31
Women in all careers are forced to balance work and family, but in the legal profession it is even more difficult.
In English’s book, a female partner in a law firm says, “Questions of consistency, of reliability are still alive. Most women try to balance both family obligations and work obligations. So a woman might ask one of the people who works with her to assist her, to cover a meeting for her. Her male colleagues would say that’s her responsibility. To certain people that would be read as, she had to take her kid to school or be at the important cupcake party.” A woman’s dedication is questioned when she has to leave work or dedicate some of her time to her family.
As a result, women want to get into firms and develop their practices quickly before they have children or put off having children until they are older because they have to work constantly. Women are forced to choose between which facet of their life to put on the back burner and which to go full speed ahead into.
Flexible work arrangements are extremely important in order to help female lawyers balance their work and family lives. Many of the respondents in English’s study said that the solutions to this problem—flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares, etc.—rarely work out. One recruiter English interviewed said “life stinks for all these lawyers, and it becomes nearly impossible to function competitively once you’ve had a kid if you’re a woman.”
Part time work or flexible schedules are an option and have been proven to help women who must find balance, but when a female lawyer takes on a part time law position, she almost disappears from the practice. English reports that almost 95% of all law firms offer part-time positions, but only around 3% of lawyers take advantage of them. The majority of men and women who did not take flexible schedules said that they thought if they took a part time schedule, they would not be able to advance in the firm.
Flexible schedules have not worked out because most people think that how people work on alternative schedules is not fair. There is all around hostility to change.
In English’s book, a female partner in a law firm says, “Questions of consistency, of reliability are still alive. Most women try to balance both family obligations and work obligations. So a woman might ask one of the people who works with her to assist her, to cover a meeting for her. Her male colleagues would say that’s her responsibility. To certain people that would be read as, she had to take her kid to school or be at the important cupcake party.” A woman’s dedication is questioned when she has to leave work or dedicate some of her time to her family.
As a result, women want to get into firms and develop their practices quickly before they have children or put off having children until they are older because they have to work constantly. Women are forced to choose between which facet of their life to put on the back burner and which to go full speed ahead into.
Flexible work arrangements are extremely important in order to help female lawyers balance their work and family lives. Many of the respondents in English’s study said that the solutions to this problem—flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares, etc.—rarely work out. One recruiter English interviewed said “life stinks for all these lawyers, and it becomes nearly impossible to function competitively once you’ve had a kid if you’re a woman.”
Part time work or flexible schedules are an option and have been proven to help women who must find balance, but when a female lawyer takes on a part time law position, she almost disappears from the practice. English reports that almost 95% of all law firms offer part-time positions, but only around 3% of lawyers take advantage of them. The majority of men and women who did not take flexible schedules said that they thought if they took a part time schedule, they would not be able to advance in the firm.
Flexible schedules have not worked out because most people think that how people work on alternative schedules is not fair. There is all around hostility to change.
Post #30
Society, because it has a masculocentric distribution of authority and power, has constructed the idea that females are inferior to males. This social construct has led to the formation of stereotypical gender roles. If something is considered masculine it is recognized by relating to strength, competition, aggressiveness, logic, power, and risk taking, where as femininity is related to empathy, emotional expression, maintaining relationships, and downplaying intellectual achievement and career ambition.
As English says, “It is widely believed that a traditional, masculine profile of confidence is a baseline requirement for success in the legal profession.” Therefore, lawyers who act in a direct, authoritative, self-promoting, instrumental and interpersonally dominant manner are seen as being effective. Being direct exhibits authority and dominance, and when people demand attention in this way, it demonstrates leadership competence. English also point out that there is the assumption that many men come into the workforce with lots of confidence while women are more likely to hang back, timid and unsure, while women actually feel like they have a lot of confidence.
According to this one study done by Forsyth, Heiney, and Wright, the perception of those following a leader, not actual behavior that creates biased evaluations for leaders. Because men and women are perceived to act differently as leaders, with men being more dominant and authoritative and women being more collaborative, when a woman takes on more masculine traits she is seen as not as effective of a leader than if she were to keep feminine characteristics. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.” In other words, when women take a more masculine form of leadership style, there is a discrepancy between leadership expectations and social role expectations and as a result of this discrepancy, women are often perceived negatively.
This has definitely been reflected in English’s study. When men exhibited more reserved, quiet, styles of communication within a law firm were seen in a unfavorable manner. One recruiter said “Quiet, reserved men are perceived as lightweights and are marginalized except in a certain type of practice.” One lawyer said that a quieter male colleague had tremendous value when it came to writing a good brief and pointed out that he thought the colleague tried to hide from social situations. However, this is completely different than perceptions of female lawyers who exhibit masculine leadership styles. Men who exhibit “female” characteristics like these men are still seen as effective workers. When women try to act more directly and exhibit confidence, they actually break themselves down by self-deprication, apologizing for putting forth a strong stance on something. Women who do take on more “masculine” forms of communication are seen as ineffective. Women are seen as only being able to be quiet and reserved, not strong and forceful, which they absolutely can be.
As a result, one of the lawyers suggested, women aren’t given the same opportunities as men. She says, “they play a research role and background role, they’re not going to court, their names are not on the briefs.” Another woman said she felt as though male partners look at females and think “sure we’ll introduce them to the clients, sure they can arrange the schedule, but oh, to go right it out with the other side, let’s send the guy.”
In the past I have always strived to hold leadership roles in whatever organizations I have been a part of. In high school I was editor-in-chief of the school newspaper in both my junior and senior years. At Arizona State, I held multiple leadership roles in my sorority, not only acting as a judicial officer as Standards Board Chair, but also as President during my junior year of study. Because I tend to lean toward what are considered masculine forms of communication and leadership, I was constantly seen as the “bad guy” and my authority was questioned multiple times when I tried to enforce rules. I expected punctuality, order, and loyalty, I seldom questioned tradition, I am rules-oriented, I always took a detailed and thorough approach to most situations, and I expected people to play their roles and follow the rules just like me.
I believe that because I exhibited more masculine traits in my communication and leadership, I was faced with animosity because I was breaking from the norm of female personality traits and methods of communications in a leadership role. My sorority sisters did not see me as being an effective leader because their perception of the types of communication styles I should have employed were opposite than those I did use. Because I consider my leadership style more masculine, I was perceived negatively, and did not gain the respect I should have.
As English says, “It is widely believed that a traditional, masculine profile of confidence is a baseline requirement for success in the legal profession.” Therefore, lawyers who act in a direct, authoritative, self-promoting, instrumental and interpersonally dominant manner are seen as being effective. Being direct exhibits authority and dominance, and when people demand attention in this way, it demonstrates leadership competence. English also point out that there is the assumption that many men come into the workforce with lots of confidence while women are more likely to hang back, timid and unsure, while women actually feel like they have a lot of confidence.
According to this one study done by Forsyth, Heiney, and Wright, the perception of those following a leader, not actual behavior that creates biased evaluations for leaders. Because men and women are perceived to act differently as leaders, with men being more dominant and authoritative and women being more collaborative, when a woman takes on more masculine traits she is seen as not as effective of a leader than if she were to keep feminine characteristics. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.” In other words, when women take a more masculine form of leadership style, there is a discrepancy between leadership expectations and social role expectations and as a result of this discrepancy, women are often perceived negatively.
This has definitely been reflected in English’s study. When men exhibited more reserved, quiet, styles of communication within a law firm were seen in a unfavorable manner. One recruiter said “Quiet, reserved men are perceived as lightweights and are marginalized except in a certain type of practice.” One lawyer said that a quieter male colleague had tremendous value when it came to writing a good brief and pointed out that he thought the colleague tried to hide from social situations. However, this is completely different than perceptions of female lawyers who exhibit masculine leadership styles. Men who exhibit “female” characteristics like these men are still seen as effective workers. When women try to act more directly and exhibit confidence, they actually break themselves down by self-deprication, apologizing for putting forth a strong stance on something. Women who do take on more “masculine” forms of communication are seen as ineffective. Women are seen as only being able to be quiet and reserved, not strong and forceful, which they absolutely can be.
As a result, one of the lawyers suggested, women aren’t given the same opportunities as men. She says, “they play a research role and background role, they’re not going to court, their names are not on the briefs.” Another woman said she felt as though male partners look at females and think “sure we’ll introduce them to the clients, sure they can arrange the schedule, but oh, to go right it out with the other side, let’s send the guy.”
In the past I have always strived to hold leadership roles in whatever organizations I have been a part of. In high school I was editor-in-chief of the school newspaper in both my junior and senior years. At Arizona State, I held multiple leadership roles in my sorority, not only acting as a judicial officer as Standards Board Chair, but also as President during my junior year of study. Because I tend to lean toward what are considered masculine forms of communication and leadership, I was constantly seen as the “bad guy” and my authority was questioned multiple times when I tried to enforce rules. I expected punctuality, order, and loyalty, I seldom questioned tradition, I am rules-oriented, I always took a detailed and thorough approach to most situations, and I expected people to play their roles and follow the rules just like me.
I believe that because I exhibited more masculine traits in my communication and leadership, I was faced with animosity because I was breaking from the norm of female personality traits and methods of communications in a leadership role. My sorority sisters did not see me as being an effective leader because their perception of the types of communication styles I should have employed were opposite than those I did use. Because I consider my leadership style more masculine, I was perceived negatively, and did not gain the respect I should have.
Post #29
Nationally, only 4 percent of law firm partners are minorities; even fewer are minority women.
According to NPR news reports, minority women leave law firms in droves because of a combination of the regular discrimination they feel as a result of being women, and also the discrimination they endure because they are women of color. The NPR article says “Many of the women shared tales of discrimination that led them to leave their firms, where they said exclusion, neglect and overt harassment are not uncommon.”
According to an American bar Association study, 44% of minority women reported being passed over for a desirable assignment as opposed to 2% of white men reporting the treatment. 62% of minority women reported that they were excluded from networking opportunities as opposed to 4% of white men. 31% of minority women reported that they felt they were given unfair performance evaluations as opposed to less than 1% of white men. The study also showed 49% of the minority women also reported that they had been subjected to demeaning comment or other types of harassment.
One of the lawyers recalled being called into the office of another attorney who was meeting with a Korean client. The partner wanted her to speak in Korean with the man, and when she did not, the partner left her a phone message of him speaking trying to sound Asian. Another lawyer, who was Native American said that she had people make comments like calling her chief or Pocahontas.
Other minority female lawyers pointed out that they felt like they had been brought into meetings or taken to functions as token minorities. One woman said “I felt like an exotic animal. I was always asked to attend functions and award ceremonies, speak to law students of color and pose for advertising publications. However, I never had contact with partners in power other than at these events. Law firms would do well to examine whether their associates of color are given real opportunities to interact with the power structure of the firm.”
According to NPR news reports, minority women leave law firms in droves because of a combination of the regular discrimination they feel as a result of being women, and also the discrimination they endure because they are women of color. The NPR article says “Many of the women shared tales of discrimination that led them to leave their firms, where they said exclusion, neglect and overt harassment are not uncommon.”
According to an American bar Association study, 44% of minority women reported being passed over for a desirable assignment as opposed to 2% of white men reporting the treatment. 62% of minority women reported that they were excluded from networking opportunities as opposed to 4% of white men. 31% of minority women reported that they felt they were given unfair performance evaluations as opposed to less than 1% of white men. The study also showed 49% of the minority women also reported that they had been subjected to demeaning comment or other types of harassment.
One of the lawyers recalled being called into the office of another attorney who was meeting with a Korean client. The partner wanted her to speak in Korean with the man, and when she did not, the partner left her a phone message of him speaking trying to sound Asian. Another lawyer, who was Native American said that she had people make comments like calling her chief or Pocahontas.
Other minority female lawyers pointed out that they felt like they had been brought into meetings or taken to functions as token minorities. One woman said “I felt like an exotic animal. I was always asked to attend functions and award ceremonies, speak to law students of color and pose for advertising publications. However, I never had contact with partners in power other than at these events. Law firms would do well to examine whether their associates of color are given real opportunities to interact with the power structure of the firm.”
Post #28
Now a Supreme Court Justice, the media perceived Sonia Sotomayor as being “too temperamental and aggressive”, “dumb, lazy, temperamental” and “fiery Latina tempest waiting to knife and brutalize lawyers in the courtroom.” This was all before she was even nominated for the Supreme Court. And these perceptions of her were used to argue that she would not be a good, let alone effective and competent, Supreme Court Justice nominee.
These descriptions of Sotomayor are consistent with a clear double standard in how men and women are portrayed in the media and in American culture in general.
I actually wrote a lengthy paper on how women who employ what society deems as male characteristics when they hold leadership positions are constantly seen as first of all not credible, and second of all, not effective leaders.
Thanks to gender stereotype, males are supposed to be strong, competitive, aggressive, logical, powerful, and risk takers while women are supposed
There is this implicit agreement than women cannot be good leaders when they take on these masculine characteristics. When women go so far as to break the mold by taking on more masculine forms of communication, they are seen as deviant, different, and in essence wrong. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.”
“For Sotomayor, being a sharp interrogator and requiring lawyers to be ‘on top of it’ are negative qualities. These traits are not negative in most men, certainly not white men.”
“A persistent and ubiquitous gender stereotype portrays smart and aggressive women as domineering, mean, nasty bitches.”
One comparison that I particularly found interesting was when Sotomayor was compared to Justice Antonin Scalia:
“In Scalia, toughness is positive; in Sotomayor, it is nonjudicial. If Scalia asks irrelevant questions, he is just being a dutiful ‘law professor’ trying to hold the attention of his class. If Sotomayor does the same thing, she is just interested in hearing herself talk. When Scalia duels harshly with litigants, the ‘spectators’ watch in amazement. If Sotomayor asks tough questions, she is seen as difficult, temperamental, and excitable. The disparate treatment is too dense to deny.”
These descriptions of Sotomayor are consistent with a clear double standard in how men and women are portrayed in the media and in American culture in general.
I actually wrote a lengthy paper on how women who employ what society deems as male characteristics when they hold leadership positions are constantly seen as first of all not credible, and second of all, not effective leaders.
Thanks to gender stereotype, males are supposed to be strong, competitive, aggressive, logical, powerful, and risk takers while women are supposed
There is this implicit agreement than women cannot be good leaders when they take on these masculine characteristics. When women go so far as to break the mold by taking on more masculine forms of communication, they are seen as deviant, different, and in essence wrong. When a female in a position of authority or power exercises communication traits normally associated with men, they are seen as domineering and controlling or even ineffective, which is not the stereotypical thought of how a woman “should act.”
“For Sotomayor, being a sharp interrogator and requiring lawyers to be ‘on top of it’ are negative qualities. These traits are not negative in most men, certainly not white men.”
“A persistent and ubiquitous gender stereotype portrays smart and aggressive women as domineering, mean, nasty bitches.”
One comparison that I particularly found interesting was when Sotomayor was compared to Justice Antonin Scalia:
“In Scalia, toughness is positive; in Sotomayor, it is nonjudicial. If Scalia asks irrelevant questions, he is just being a dutiful ‘law professor’ trying to hold the attention of his class. If Sotomayor does the same thing, she is just interested in hearing herself talk. When Scalia duels harshly with litigants, the ‘spectators’ watch in amazement. If Sotomayor asks tough questions, she is seen as difficult, temperamental, and excitable. The disparate treatment is too dense to deny.”
Post #27
There is a gap between the competence that is assumed between male and female lawyers as an effect of the image of a lawyer as being male. This image of a lawyer as being male is of course reflected when we look at the gender demographics of the law profession.
According to English, only 15% of partners in law firms are female, 5% of managing partners at law firms are women, and 12.2% of general counsel in Fortune 500 companies are female.
Women have to continually keep proving themselves as good lawyers to establish competence and credibility.
Women are seen as not being as competent as men in the law profession. A lot of it has to do with men not only dominating the field in numbers but also with credibility. As discussed in the previous blog, women constantly have to seek approval and help from male colleagues so that they are seen as credible and competent. However, there are other things that play into the supposed lower competency of women as lawyers.
One thing is that women have other responsibilities outside of work that possibly prevent them from working the long irregular hours that a career in law can demand. If women need to leave work to pick up a child at school, they are not able to log as many billable hours as men. If they have commitments outside of the law firm they are seen as not putting 100 percent into their job. They are seen as not being dedicated, when in reality, they are as dedicated to their job as their male peers.
One of the lawyers in English’s book said “there’s a perception that the woman will not produce as much either through billable hours or through relationships as the male and there is a perception that men are going to be more predestined to be workaholics than females.”
Another lawyer said that he would prefer to not hire women because “they haven’t had the commitment to the job and the ability to do things that are unpleasant without complaining… they never had any fire in the belly about either becoming a great lawyer or doing great things or being the best you can be, or going as far are you could in the profession.”
The competency gap is also brought into the courtroom. One of the male lawyers said that he took advantage of a woman who he knew had kids. He would try to push depositions back to later hours in the day to force her to have to reschedule because she needed to pick her children up at school. This would just draw out a court case. It gap is also exhibited when big high profile cases are assigned. Women end up not getting assigned to them because they will take lots of time and dedication that women, especially if they have family to take care of, supposedly cannot provide.
According to English, only 15% of partners in law firms are female, 5% of managing partners at law firms are women, and 12.2% of general counsel in Fortune 500 companies are female.
Women have to continually keep proving themselves as good lawyers to establish competence and credibility.
Women are seen as not being as competent as men in the law profession. A lot of it has to do with men not only dominating the field in numbers but also with credibility. As discussed in the previous blog, women constantly have to seek approval and help from male colleagues so that they are seen as credible and competent. However, there are other things that play into the supposed lower competency of women as lawyers.
One thing is that women have other responsibilities outside of work that possibly prevent them from working the long irregular hours that a career in law can demand. If women need to leave work to pick up a child at school, they are not able to log as many billable hours as men. If they have commitments outside of the law firm they are seen as not putting 100 percent into their job. They are seen as not being dedicated, when in reality, they are as dedicated to their job as their male peers.
One of the lawyers in English’s book said “there’s a perception that the woman will not produce as much either through billable hours or through relationships as the male and there is a perception that men are going to be more predestined to be workaholics than females.”
Another lawyer said that he would prefer to not hire women because “they haven’t had the commitment to the job and the ability to do things that are unpleasant without complaining… they never had any fire in the belly about either becoming a great lawyer or doing great things or being the best you can be, or going as far are you could in the profession.”
The competency gap is also brought into the courtroom. One of the male lawyers said that he took advantage of a woman who he knew had kids. He would try to push depositions back to later hours in the day to force her to have to reschedule because she needed to pick her children up at school. This would just draw out a court case. It gap is also exhibited when big high profile cases are assigned. Women end up not getting assigned to them because they will take lots of time and dedication that women, especially if they have family to take care of, supposedly cannot provide.
Post #26
Men play a huge role in assisting women lawyers in establishing credibility in their jobs in the form of male backing. English says that, “women sometimes find that they need male colleagues to step in to grapple with unruly opposing counsel or endorse their advice to clients to get them on boards.”
One of the women said that if a client is not on board with what she is advising she goes to a male employee for reinforcement, and she also believes that it is better that she go to a male as opposed to a fellow female. Another said that she has to go to a male partner for validation when dealing with clients. If she suggests something, she always makes a point to say that she has already talked to her male partner about it, thinking that this will ensure her clients’ approval.
Sometimes female lawyers have to deal with opposing counsel that tries to discredit her. One woman said that an opposing attorney was really obnoxious to her and sarcastic with her until she had her male colleague sit in on a deposition. As soon as there was male supervision, the opposing counsel did not act negatively towards her.
Some women expressed that they felt like male backing was essential in their day-to-day working. However, just by turning to male colleagues, these women are diminishing their credibility because it almost seems like they are not smart enough or strong enough to handle everything on their own.
This absolutely plays into the idea of law firms as gendered organizations. If women have to constantly answer to men to establish credibility, there is a hierarchy built into the organization. Like I argued in a previous post when we were discussing prisons, Britton said that gendered organizations employ agency. Agency includes “all the interactions in which workers are involved that intentionally or not, invoke gender or reproduce gender inequality, as well as processes of identity construction through which individuals come to see themselves as ‘appropriately’ gendered through their work.” Essentially this involves men and women working in their own gender-based interest. In the case of law firms, the gender based interest means women constantly seeking the approval and support of male colleagues.
One of the women said that if a client is not on board with what she is advising she goes to a male employee for reinforcement, and she also believes that it is better that she go to a male as opposed to a fellow female. Another said that she has to go to a male partner for validation when dealing with clients. If she suggests something, she always makes a point to say that she has already talked to her male partner about it, thinking that this will ensure her clients’ approval.
Sometimes female lawyers have to deal with opposing counsel that tries to discredit her. One woman said that an opposing attorney was really obnoxious to her and sarcastic with her until she had her male colleague sit in on a deposition. As soon as there was male supervision, the opposing counsel did not act negatively towards her.
Some women expressed that they felt like male backing was essential in their day-to-day working. However, just by turning to male colleagues, these women are diminishing their credibility because it almost seems like they are not smart enough or strong enough to handle everything on their own.
This absolutely plays into the idea of law firms as gendered organizations. If women have to constantly answer to men to establish credibility, there is a hierarchy built into the organization. Like I argued in a previous post when we were discussing prisons, Britton said that gendered organizations employ agency. Agency includes “all the interactions in which workers are involved that intentionally or not, invoke gender or reproduce gender inequality, as well as processes of identity construction through which individuals come to see themselves as ‘appropriately’ gendered through their work.” Essentially this involves men and women working in their own gender-based interest. In the case of law firms, the gender based interest means women constantly seeking the approval and support of male colleagues.
Post #25
English says in her book Gender on Trial that the dynamics of the workplace have drastically changed. Before, women were only present in the workplace in small numbers and usually as support staff, so when sexual harassment occurred women were punished. Now, women are professional peers, and sexual harassment is actually punished.
I think that the heightened response to sexual harassment has forced both men and women to be more conscious and aware of how they use their sexuality in the workplace.
However, it is almost accepted that women are innately more sexual than men and use their sexuality as “a weapon in the arsenal” to gain an edge.
There are pros and cons to this.
On one hand, women can use their sexuality as a means of power over individuals. Women can dress in a way to emphasize their attractiveness and in a way that flatters them so they seem more confident and professional. Women can also use their sexuality in front of men to gain favor, telling them that they like their tie or suit. So, women can use their sexuality to gain power. One of the lawyers in English’s study said she wore short skirts on the days when she knew she was in front of a particular judge because if she did, she normally got what she wanted.
However, when women overly use their sexuality, it can be seen as they are using it just to get ahead in the workplace or a way of sending incorrect messages to clients. One lawyer said that there are women who get ahead by being overtly sexual at work, but that it is not a longterm career strategy and makes it so that some women are not taken as seriously. Another lawyer said that there was a bad type of flirting that women were engaging in to compensate for shortcomings and that it was used to get to the top without showing that a woman could get there substantively. She also pointed out that there is this image out there of women who use flirtation and sexuality to get where they want to be.
I think this whole sexualized image of a female lawyer is definitely played up in the media. Just look at the movie Legally Blonde. Elle Woods is given her internship by a professor who is working a high profile case because the professor thinks she is sexy and he makes sexual advances on her. When one of her peers sees this, Elle’s credibility is automatically questioned. Another media portrayal of women being overly sexualized I think comes into play in the show Law and Order. Have you ever noticed that the woman who works for the District attorney is a tall, slim, blonde-haired woman?
I think that the heightened response to sexual harassment has forced both men and women to be more conscious and aware of how they use their sexuality in the workplace.
However, it is almost accepted that women are innately more sexual than men and use their sexuality as “a weapon in the arsenal” to gain an edge.
There are pros and cons to this.
On one hand, women can use their sexuality as a means of power over individuals. Women can dress in a way to emphasize their attractiveness and in a way that flatters them so they seem more confident and professional. Women can also use their sexuality in front of men to gain favor, telling them that they like their tie or suit. So, women can use their sexuality to gain power. One of the lawyers in English’s study said she wore short skirts on the days when she knew she was in front of a particular judge because if she did, she normally got what she wanted.
However, when women overly use their sexuality, it can be seen as they are using it just to get ahead in the workplace or a way of sending incorrect messages to clients. One lawyer said that there are women who get ahead by being overtly sexual at work, but that it is not a longterm career strategy and makes it so that some women are not taken as seriously. Another lawyer said that there was a bad type of flirting that women were engaging in to compensate for shortcomings and that it was used to get to the top without showing that a woman could get there substantively. She also pointed out that there is this image out there of women who use flirtation and sexuality to get where they want to be.
I think this whole sexualized image of a female lawyer is definitely played up in the media. Just look at the movie Legally Blonde. Elle Woods is given her internship by a professor who is working a high profile case because the professor thinks she is sexy and he makes sexual advances on her. When one of her peers sees this, Elle’s credibility is automatically questioned. Another media portrayal of women being overly sexualized I think comes into play in the show Law and Order. Have you ever noticed that the woman who works for the District attorney is a tall, slim, blonde-haired woman?
Post #24
One female law student I encountered while in Washington DC had a really in depth conversation with me about her experiences in law school. She said that when people met her and found out she was in law school, they almost automatically thought she was in law school for family law, when in reality she was focusing on international law. She also pointed to how professors treated her in undergraduate studies when she voiced that she was going on to law school. She said that the overwhelming majority were extremely supportive of her goals in becoming a lawyer, saying it would be nice to see more women in the profession, and wished her good luck because it was going to be a difficult three years. In her first year of law school she found that she was actually one of many women in her class as opposed to so many reports and so much input she’d gotten that said she would be lost in a sea of men. She also found that in her classes, many of the women were much more competitive with each other as well as with their male counterparts when it came to class discussions and exam scores. She attributed this to the overall feeling she got from her female classmates that they needed to prove that they were just as good, if not better, than the male law students in their classes. She also encountered a lot of challenges from her professors, who seemed to favor the men in classes, constantly calling on them over women. She has characterized law school as a proving ground, where the work is hard, and so much time is spent perfecting arguments and papers because she feels like she needs to prove that she can get through law school and get a great job offer.
I think a lot of the concerns people have with women lawyers are seen in the article on our blackboard site with Sanda Day O’Connor. “As the court's first woman, she got a lot of letters of encouragement -- and also plenty of messages from detractors who questioned whether it was appropriate for a woman to serve in the nation's highest court.”
I think a lot of the concerns people have with women lawyers are seen in the article on our blackboard site with Sanda Day O’Connor. “As the court's first woman, she got a lot of letters of encouragement -- and also plenty of messages from detractors who questioned whether it was appropriate for a woman to serve in the nation's highest court.”
Post #23
In her study, English points to the fact that getting dressed in the morning is easy for men. All they have to do is put on a suit and tie, and slick their hair back, and they are ready to go.
However, “Women really are the ones who still have the burden of getting up in the morning and putting something on that is, for whatever reason, responsible,” says Marjorie Margolies, a former lawmaker who now helps women prepare for leadership roles in politics and advocacy (The Fashion Laws Of Politics, NPR: 11/12/08)
This is what you see in Washington, DC: Black, grey and navy, with sensible pumps and some haircuts that have come from the halls of the National Portrait gallery. Washington, DC is not the center of style, and we all know it.
Female politicians and lawyers are not seen as legitimate if they stray from this sense of conservative style. English points to the fact that if women wear a blouse or top that has a lower neckline, they are automatically pegged as using their sexuality to get further in the workplace. If a woman wears a skirt-suit instead of a conservative pantsuit, she is being too provocative. First Lady Michelle Obama has been widely criticized for her sense of style while the majority of women I’ve spoken with see her outfits and fashion sense as refreshing and reflective of what they would like to wear or do wear. Women have to look put-together, with their hair pulled back in a tight little bun because long hair worn down is seen as too provocative. Why do women have to wear a certain outfit or their hair a certain way to prove that they are professional, intelligent and capable? Why does it matter?
Today's female politicians, and lawyers, also have to look stylish, but not too stylish, or they're dismissed as indulgent. I think that is why there has been so much said about Michelle Obama having bought the majority of her wardrobe in stores that the common middle class woman could buy from. Women cannot wear flashy jewelry, or they’re seen as indulgent, so many women in DC are seen sporting the good-old-fashioned string of pearls around their neck.
As seen on the NPR website, wardrobe pieces are even checked against stage lighting like before Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention.
However, “Women really are the ones who still have the burden of getting up in the morning and putting something on that is, for whatever reason, responsible,” says Marjorie Margolies, a former lawmaker who now helps women prepare for leadership roles in politics and advocacy (The Fashion Laws Of Politics, NPR: 11/12/08)
This is what you see in Washington, DC: Black, grey and navy, with sensible pumps and some haircuts that have come from the halls of the National Portrait gallery. Washington, DC is not the center of style, and we all know it.
Female politicians and lawyers are not seen as legitimate if they stray from this sense of conservative style. English points to the fact that if women wear a blouse or top that has a lower neckline, they are automatically pegged as using their sexuality to get further in the workplace. If a woman wears a skirt-suit instead of a conservative pantsuit, she is being too provocative. First Lady Michelle Obama has been widely criticized for her sense of style while the majority of women I’ve spoken with see her outfits and fashion sense as refreshing and reflective of what they would like to wear or do wear. Women have to look put-together, with their hair pulled back in a tight little bun because long hair worn down is seen as too provocative. Why do women have to wear a certain outfit or their hair a certain way to prove that they are professional, intelligent and capable? Why does it matter?
Today's female politicians, and lawyers, also have to look stylish, but not too stylish, or they're dismissed as indulgent. I think that is why there has been so much said about Michelle Obama having bought the majority of her wardrobe in stores that the common middle class woman could buy from. Women cannot wear flashy jewelry, or they’re seen as indulgent, so many women in DC are seen sporting the good-old-fashioned string of pearls around their neck.
As seen on the NPR website, wardrobe pieces are even checked against stage lighting like before Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention.
Post #22
Sonia Sotomayor now sits on the United States Supreme Court. She is a woman, a minority, and a judge. As soon as we all heard that a prominent "liberal" Justice was going to be retiring and stepping down, everyone was questioning whom Obama would nominate to fill a seat on the highest court of the land. Many people, including myself, were hoping for Latino/Latina representation on the Court and other just wanted a woman.
Then came the day when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a nomination that didn’t really come out of left field seeing as she was amazingly qualified and had a great record.
However, as soon as the public and media saw a Latina Woman nominated for the Supreme Court, thoughts and opinions fueled by racism and sexism arose about her future performance as a Justice.
Many people questioned Sotomayor based on her race, the fact that she was Puerto Rican, Latina. People believed this would mean if a case involving illegal immigration were to be brought to the Supreme Court, she would be soft on immigrants seeing as her parents moved to the States from Puerto Rico before she was born.
While at Princeton, Sotomayor was a loud advocate for minorities, and some people were scared that this passion for minority justice would go too far.
In a Los Angeles Times article about Sotomayor, a former clerk to Justice Thomas said “It is perfectly appropriate for people to bring their life experience to their judging, but there's a difference between having that perspective and being able to put one thumb on the scale to benefit one group over another.”
None of the faculty at Yale Law School was Latino, one was black, and two were women. Sotomayor didn’t like this. And after becoming a judge in New York some time later, Sotomayor has also been quoted, as saying it was "shocking" that there were not more minority women on the federal bench.
It is apparent through her years as a federal judge, however, that her personal sentiments have not shown up in the hundreds and hundreds of cases she’s decided.
Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court specialty, said he had reviewed 50 appeals involving race in which Sotomayor participated. In 45 of those cases, a three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim -- and Sotomayor never once dissented, he said (LA Times, 31 May 2009).
Then came the day when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a nomination that didn’t really come out of left field seeing as she was amazingly qualified and had a great record.
However, as soon as the public and media saw a Latina Woman nominated for the Supreme Court, thoughts and opinions fueled by racism and sexism arose about her future performance as a Justice.
Many people questioned Sotomayor based on her race, the fact that she was Puerto Rican, Latina. People believed this would mean if a case involving illegal immigration were to be brought to the Supreme Court, she would be soft on immigrants seeing as her parents moved to the States from Puerto Rico before she was born.
While at Princeton, Sotomayor was a loud advocate for minorities, and some people were scared that this passion for minority justice would go too far.
In a Los Angeles Times article about Sotomayor, a former clerk to Justice Thomas said “It is perfectly appropriate for people to bring their life experience to their judging, but there's a difference between having that perspective and being able to put one thumb on the scale to benefit one group over another.”
None of the faculty at Yale Law School was Latino, one was black, and two were women. Sotomayor didn’t like this. And after becoming a judge in New York some time later, Sotomayor has also been quoted, as saying it was "shocking" that there were not more minority women on the federal bench.
It is apparent through her years as a federal judge, however, that her personal sentiments have not shown up in the hundreds and hundreds of cases she’s decided.
Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court specialty, said he had reviewed 50 appeals involving race in which Sotomayor participated. In 45 of those cases, a three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim -- and Sotomayor never once dissented, he said (LA Times, 31 May 2009).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)