Organization initiatives that need to occur before work/life balance can be obtained and equity among men and women is gained in the legal profession varies. One of the initiatives is to form a system. “Many respondents complained that systems within organizations often were nonexistent, or poorly designed to prevent inadequacies. The value of a good system is inestimable; a host of gender issues occur because of a lack of alignment between a professed policy and actual practice.” (306) These systems can be used in many different ways. For example they can be used for performance reviews, mentoring, work assignments, flexible work arrangements, risk taking and measurements for success. Along with systems, organization initiatives include engaging in dialogue. “Organizations that seek to reconcile clashing views often employ open group debate and dialogue techniques and reach a consensus and find common ground.” (310) Two topics that require engaging in heavy dialogue would be workplace responsibility and underlying attitude. If those things are not discussed in an organization, then they can lead to many problems.
When it comes to re-imaging the future, English believes, “ We can’t get to the numerical goals without embracing new, broad ideas. One way to do that is to go back to first principles about how best to deliver legal services, who makes a good lawyer, the best way to manage a workplace, and the most effective way to deal with the intersection between personal and professional lives.” (315) I think all of these are very good points brought up by English. Both males and females in the office need to work together in order to make the environment more compatible for themselves as well as their clients. The structure of a good lawyer and the norms of a good lawyer need to be revamped too. The norms need to be set for both male and female and not just male. When you take these things and put them together, there is hope for a re-imaged future, but it is going to take a lot of time and effort and that needs to be recognized as well.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
38
Florence E. Allen was known as The First Lady of Law. Allen was born in Salt Lake City, Utah on March 23, 1884. She attended New York University School of Law and graduated with her law degree in 1913. She had many firsts in her life, but the most significant one was probably when she was the first woman appointed to a federal court, when President Franklin Roosevelt named her to be the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. She was also serve as justice to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Florence set the standards for women. It was as if she gave women the go ahead to become a part of the legal profession and make something of themselves. She was the many of first which just opened up the opportunity for other women, without Allen, who knows where women would stand today in the legal profession.
Bella Abzug was elected to Congress as a Representative from New York’s 19th district in 1971. She was born in the Bronx, New York on July 24, 1920. On the website www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org the article about Abzug by Blanche Wisen Cook, Cook states, “Abzug predated women’s right to vote by one month. A fighter for justice and peace, equal rights, human dignity, environmental integrity and sustainable development, Bella Abzug has advanced human goals and political alliances worldwide.” Although known for her labor law skills, but, “Above all, Abzug achieved splendid victories for women. She initiated the congressional caucus on women’s issues, helped organize the National Women’s Political Caucus, and served as chief strategist for the Democratic Women’s Committee, which achieved equal representation for women in all elective and appointive posts, including presidential conventions. She wrote the first law banning discrimination against women in obtaining credit, credit cards, loans, and mortgages, and introduced pioneering bills on comprehensive child care, Social Security for homemakers, family planning, and abortion rights.” says Cook.
Abzug stood up for women and fought for their rights. She opened up so many new windows for women. She opened women up to an entire different world that gave them the opportunity to go and make a life by themselves. She gave women the opportunity to not have to rely on men in order to get houses and things like that because she got women the right to have credit and things like that. She opened up new ideas for women lawyers and showed them the way.
Florence set the standards for women. It was as if she gave women the go ahead to become a part of the legal profession and make something of themselves. She was the many of first which just opened up the opportunity for other women, without Allen, who knows where women would stand today in the legal profession.
Bella Abzug was elected to Congress as a Representative from New York’s 19th district in 1971. She was born in the Bronx, New York on July 24, 1920. On the website www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org the article about Abzug by Blanche Wisen Cook, Cook states, “Abzug predated women’s right to vote by one month. A fighter for justice and peace, equal rights, human dignity, environmental integrity and sustainable development, Bella Abzug has advanced human goals and political alliances worldwide.” Although known for her labor law skills, but, “Above all, Abzug achieved splendid victories for women. She initiated the congressional caucus on women’s issues, helped organize the National Women’s Political Caucus, and served as chief strategist for the Democratic Women’s Committee, which achieved equal representation for women in all elective and appointive posts, including presidential conventions. She wrote the first law banning discrimination against women in obtaining credit, credit cards, loans, and mortgages, and introduced pioneering bills on comprehensive child care, Social Security for homemakers, family planning, and abortion rights.” says Cook.
Abzug stood up for women and fought for their rights. She opened up so many new windows for women. She opened women up to an entire different world that gave them the opportunity to go and make a life by themselves. She gave women the opportunity to not have to rely on men in order to get houses and things like that because she got women the right to have credit and things like that. She opened up new ideas for women lawyers and showed them the way.
37
In “Charting Our Progress”, they held hearings and collected data in 2003 to compare to what they had collected in 1988 and 1995. “Once again, the date revealed incremental progress- slightly higher percentages of law firm partnerships, judicial appointments, and tenured faculty positions- but brought into sharper focus the continuing disparity in advancement that women face, with an even greater disparity among women lawyers of color.” (4) Of course, men still hold the majority of leadership positions, but women are slowly trying to make their way up there. Some of the research that was found was: “from the 2003 hearings and data since 1995: the percentage of women in all aspects of the profession has grown. The representation of women in the profession grew to 29.1% of all lawyers in the United States, from 23% in 1994. Moreover, as the statistics below illustrate, women have increased their presence in law schools, in law firm partnerships, as general counsels of major corporations, and in the judiciary. From approximately 1994 to 2002: the percentage of law school entrants who were women increased from 45% to 50%; the percentage of women partners in major law firms increased from 12.91% to 16.3%; the percentage of women general counsels in Fortune 500 companies increased from 4% to 15%. (5)
In English’s book, she points out that although women have made progress, they have a very long way to go. As the report tries to stick to the positive side and only point out the good, English makes it a point to say, yes, we have made progress, but not as much as we should have and here are the things we need to do to fix it. “Despite this progress, women remain outsiders in many respects, the targets of lingering gender stereotypes that reflect positively on men but negatively on women. This is in part because the default image of a lawyer remains solidly male, dominated by men in numbers, attitudes, expectations, and assumptions.” (296)
In English’s book, she points out that although women have made progress, they have a very long way to go. As the report tries to stick to the positive side and only point out the good, English makes it a point to say, yes, we have made progress, but not as much as we should have and here are the things we need to do to fix it. “Despite this progress, women remain outsiders in many respects, the targets of lingering gender stereotypes that reflect positively on men but negatively on women. This is in part because the default image of a lawyer remains solidly male, dominated by men in numbers, attitudes, expectations, and assumptions.” (296)
36
Can corporate America lure the women back into the workforce? Well I think that all depends on one major thing, does America wants women back in the workforce? Now, a majority of people’s first reaction is going to be yes, but I think that is only because people think that is what they are suppose to say and women do not want an answer of what people are suppose to say. Of course corporate America can lure women back into the workforce, especially now since we are in a recession, but is America willing to give women the things they want in order to get them into the workforce, or are they going to just take advantage of them and get them back in not matter what? I think if America wants to lure women back into the workforce all they really have to do is make them some promises, tell them things they want to hear and boom, they are back in, but are they going to be able to keep them in? Women these days are much more powerful and independent then they were ten years ago. Yes of course they do not have as much power as they would like, but they are working on it. I think in order for America to get women back in the workforce AND keep them there, it is going to take some compromise and better understanding of women.
I think in order for America to lure women back in they are going to have to promise equality and show it. I think women are going to need higher positions and higher pay; they are going to want to earn just as much as men and be given the same tasks as men and it is not hard to find out exactly what men are paid and what they do. I also think women are going to need more respect towards motherhood and how they want to balance their family life and work life. If things like that are taken into consideration I think America can lure women back into the workforce, but if things are going to keep going the way they are going they are going to lose more women and it is going to be even more harmful to our economy.
I think in order for America to lure women back in they are going to have to promise equality and show it. I think women are going to need higher positions and higher pay; they are going to want to earn just as much as men and be given the same tasks as men and it is not hard to find out exactly what men are paid and what they do. I also think women are going to need more respect towards motherhood and how they want to balance their family life and work life. If things like that are taken into consideration I think America can lure women back into the workforce, but if things are going to keep going the way they are going they are going to lose more women and it is going to be even more harmful to our economy.
35
In the article “EEOC Recommends Employer “Best Practices” to Promote Work/Family Balance” by Joanna L. Grossman, the discuss the things companies should do in order to promote work/family balance and how important it is so recognize the difficulties women go through when trying to balance both. They also point out that not only is it mothers trying to take care of children, but it is also women trying to take care of aging parents or relatives with disabilities. In Gender on Trial, English says in order to get to an understanding between the balance of work and family, people have to stop disregarding part time lawyers and believe that they are just as good as full time lawyers. “There is a genuine confusion about how flexibility can work, for both sides. But there can’t be a real commitment to strengthening systems until the basic validity of a lawyer working different hours is accepted. So long as lawyers believe that full time is “the standard unit, and anything less than that is sub par,” there’s little motivation or zeal for revamping policies and procedures and enforcing systems rigorously.” (216) So, until everybody comes to a common understanding, people cannot move forward with the balance between work and family.
There are many reasons to consider what comes out of people balancing work and family, like part time schedules. Although part-time schedules seem to be a problem of balancing work and family, if you look at it from a positive angle you can see all the positive things that come out of it. High turnover and broad dissatisfaction in legal workplaces are causes of not being able to balance family and work life, so if schedules were more flexible that would not be a problem. Also, you would have more time to enjoy life, changing social trends, and with technology today, you could do more work at home and still be connected with the office.
There are many reasons to consider what comes out of people balancing work and family, like part time schedules. Although part-time schedules seem to be a problem of balancing work and family, if you look at it from a positive angle you can see all the positive things that come out of it. High turnover and broad dissatisfaction in legal workplaces are causes of not being able to balance family and work life, so if schedules were more flexible that would not be a problem. Also, you would have more time to enjoy life, changing social trends, and with technology today, you could do more work at home and still be connected with the office.
34
Work/life balance problems seem to constantly be a problem. In every job, people, both male and female, have to decide which life they are going to put first, their work life or their family life. Although almost everybody wants to balance both, that seems to be an impossibility in most cases. This issue hits close to home for me because I want to be a part of the legal profession after I am done with law school and I do not know if I am going to be able to balance both. I know that personally would be able to balance both because I have balanced my family, school and part-time job all through college and most of high school, but I do not know if society is going to let me balance both and this had held me back a little when deciding if I really do want to pursue my goal of becoming a lawyer and I do not think that is fair.
In the interview between Debra Levy and Joan Williams, one of the questions brought up was “It seems that many women of today leave the work force as a form of resistance to a work culture that makes it difficult to raise their children as they think best. What role did feminism play in the development of this type of work culture?” And Williams answered that, “Mainstream feminism asked women to perform like men. It did not start from where women are-caring for their children with a strong value system that dictates that desire. The movement for equality devalued mothers and the ideal of care giving in our society. But it is also true that the push for work/family balance has come from within feminism. One of the things I do is critique full-commodification feminism, which is the sense that women’s equality lies in performing as ideal workers along with men, and delegating childcare to outsiders.” This goes along with our book Gender on Trial in a way because in Gender on Trial it discusses how when women are in a profession such as being a lawyer or in the legal field, they are not expected to have babies and if they do, then they are looked at differently and looked at as if they cannot handle the work they use to. In Gender on Trial when a women lawyer has a baby, some of them take on part-time jobs and that is really not acceptable. In the end it does not work out the way it is suppose to.
This also leads to another question in the interview that asked, “Why is the ideal worker norm so damaging to mothers in our society?” Williams says it is so damaging because, “Most women with children cannot live up to a norm designed around the model of a man without childcare responsibilities.” I agree, the ideal worker norm is set to a man’s standard, not even taking into consideration a woman’s standard and especially not a woman who is a mother. This is also brought up in Gender on Trial. In the book they discuss the norm and how the norm is male, therefore leaving it almost impossible for women to ever fit that norm.
In the interview between Debra Levy and Joan Williams, one of the questions brought up was “It seems that many women of today leave the work force as a form of resistance to a work culture that makes it difficult to raise their children as they think best. What role did feminism play in the development of this type of work culture?” And Williams answered that, “Mainstream feminism asked women to perform like men. It did not start from where women are-caring for their children with a strong value system that dictates that desire. The movement for equality devalued mothers and the ideal of care giving in our society. But it is also true that the push for work/family balance has come from within feminism. One of the things I do is critique full-commodification feminism, which is the sense that women’s equality lies in performing as ideal workers along with men, and delegating childcare to outsiders.” This goes along with our book Gender on Trial in a way because in Gender on Trial it discusses how when women are in a profession such as being a lawyer or in the legal field, they are not expected to have babies and if they do, then they are looked at differently and looked at as if they cannot handle the work they use to. In Gender on Trial when a women lawyer has a baby, some of them take on part-time jobs and that is really not acceptable. In the end it does not work out the way it is suppose to.
This also leads to another question in the interview that asked, “Why is the ideal worker norm so damaging to mothers in our society?” Williams says it is so damaging because, “Most women with children cannot live up to a norm designed around the model of a man without childcare responsibilities.” I agree, the ideal worker norm is set to a man’s standard, not even taking into consideration a woman’s standard and especially not a woman who is a mother. This is also brought up in Gender on Trial. In the book they discuss the norm and how the norm is male, therefore leaving it almost impossible for women to ever fit that norm.
33
The advancement of women in the legal profession is increasing little by little. The number of women in the legal profession is very little and the progress is moving very slowly, but they believe it will get there one day. To prove this, some women have taken the steps to starting their own law firm where only women are present. In the article, “Women’s History Month: Cracking The Glass Ceiling One Client At A Time”, two high powered litigators walked away from a high-powered firm and started their own firm and their means were to break the glass ceiling. Women do not hold nearly as many high end positions as men, but they are trying and eventually they will get there. Women are working very hard towards their masters and their PhD’s and although it is not paying off now, it eventually will. In the article, “Women’s History Month: Closing In On Office Gender Gap” by Rebecca Spitz, she states, “Continuing a trend that started in the 1980’s, women are taking on a larger role in the working world. “Increasingly as women have become more educated they’ve wanted to earn salaries to contribute to the family,” says Sheila Wellington, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business. “As opportunities open up, women have wanted to be part of that upward movement.”
Although advances like starting their own businesses and raising the numbers of female attorneys in firms and higher positions in firms are being made, women still face a lot of challenges as well. Women need to put themselves out their more, they need to bargain for more and in the end they will most likely get it. A lot of women are taken advantage of simply because they are women; they are not given everything they should be given because people do not think they deserve it or can handle it and that needs to change.
Although advances like starting their own businesses and raising the numbers of female attorneys in firms and higher positions in firms are being made, women still face a lot of challenges as well. Women need to put themselves out their more, they need to bargain for more and in the end they will most likely get it. A lot of women are taken advantage of simply because they are women; they are not given everything they should be given because people do not think they deserve it or can handle it and that needs to change.
32
Parenthood seems too differ greatly when attached to women lawyers vs. men lawyers. When parenthood is looked at with women lawyers, it is looked down upon, it seems as if they believe that it is impossible for women to do. In English’s book, it states, “A Southwestern attorney, now thirty-eight and with two children, recalls the exact moment she was transformed from successful attorney to mother: I hid my first pregnancy for seven months, because I was afraid I would be taken off the docket. At the very last minute I said, “Guess what, I’m having a baby next month.” The head of the management committee sat me down, shaking his head with amazement, and said, “I can’t believe you’re pregnant. You seemed so professional.” It wasn’t said in a mean way-it was a shock. “How you can do that?” he seemed to say. The mistake, on the one hand, was acting like a man and then, on the other, acting like a woman- wait, you were being a guy and then acting like a girl.” (228) Men cannot seem to meld the roles of mother and lawyer, they do not see it possible, especially men lawyers who have wives and children because there wife does not work.
When it comes to men lawyers are parenthood though, it is looked greatly upon. According to English, “By contrast, the role of fatherhood has always meshed neatly with the image of the driven career man. If conventional wisdom says that motherhood is a minus for working women, fatherhood is a plus. It enhances men’s stature without tarnishing their legitimacy in the workplace.” (238)
The traditional values of motherhood impact women lawyers because they do not have the choice to leave work and be with their children because they are looked down upon. When their child is sick or needs to be picked up from school, the women cannot always just pick up and leave because they have a job to get done and it effects them deeply.
When high-powered female lawyers have children, they are viewed as suspect parents because to other people, they do not approach motherhood the way mothers should. They are not nurturing, loving mothers because they cannot be because of the demands of their jobs.
When it comes to men lawyers are parenthood though, it is looked greatly upon. According to English, “By contrast, the role of fatherhood has always meshed neatly with the image of the driven career man. If conventional wisdom says that motherhood is a minus for working women, fatherhood is a plus. It enhances men’s stature without tarnishing their legitimacy in the workplace.” (238)
The traditional values of motherhood impact women lawyers because they do not have the choice to leave work and be with their children because they are looked down upon. When their child is sick or needs to be picked up from school, the women cannot always just pick up and leave because they have a job to get done and it effects them deeply.
When high-powered female lawyers have children, they are viewed as suspect parents because to other people, they do not approach motherhood the way mothers should. They are not nurturing, loving mothers because they cannot be because of the demands of their jobs.
31
As with many jobs, there is a huge problem with balancing work/family in the legal profession, but it seems to be an even bigger issue in the legal profession. This is a huge issue for working mothers. When you are in the legal field, it is very time consuming, therefore leaving little time for people to spend with their families. It is a huge issue for women and men, but more so women because of motherhood. You have sick children, ballet recitals, soccer practices and many other childhood experiences that parents do not want to miss out on, so why should parents miss out on them simply because they are a part of the legal profession. These people also have child care to worry about and the time they need to pick their children up by and who can watch them and how much it is going to cost.
Solutions that were proposed for this issue were flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares and so on and so forth, but these never seemed to work out. Lawyers that took on these alternatives and were “part-time” employees were looked down upon because they were part-time and so it seemed as if they could not have as much responbility because they could not take it. they are treated differently by the full-time attorneys because they are seen as not good enough. In English’s book it states, “The “real lawyers” staunchly resist changes to the proven success formula, charging that alternative schedules are inequitable and that part-timers lack commitment. These tensions make the part-timers feel resentful for the lack of respect they get from their colleagues, but also guilty about “slacking off” on the job.” (195)
This discuss affects me personally a lot because I want to become a lawyer, I have wanted to become one since I was in high school. I constantly think about the situation I am going to be put in when I want to have a family and I know I really want to have a family, so this is something that honestly keeps me thinking about whether I want to become a lawyer or not because I am not sure if I am going to be able to balance the two and get recognition for what I do in both areas.
Solutions that were proposed for this issue were flexible work schedules, reduced hours, telecommuting, job shares and so on and so forth, but these never seemed to work out. Lawyers that took on these alternatives and were “part-time” employees were looked down upon because they were part-time and so it seemed as if they could not have as much responbility because they could not take it. they are treated differently by the full-time attorneys because they are seen as not good enough. In English’s book it states, “The “real lawyers” staunchly resist changes to the proven success formula, charging that alternative schedules are inequitable and that part-timers lack commitment. These tensions make the part-timers feel resentful for the lack of respect they get from their colleagues, but also guilty about “slacking off” on the job.” (195)
This discuss affects me personally a lot because I want to become a lawyer, I have wanted to become one since I was in high school. I constantly think about the situation I am going to be put in when I want to have a family and I know I really want to have a family, so this is something that honestly keeps me thinking about whether I want to become a lawyer or not because I am not sure if I am going to be able to balance the two and get recognition for what I do in both areas.
30
1)
When it comes to conventional views about leadership styles disadvantaging women and advantaging men, men are expected to lead in an aggressive way, so when people think about leadership, they think about aggressiveness and women are not suppose to be aggressive, they are suppose to be nurturing. Also, leadership requires people to relate effectively with opposing counsel and clients and this can be a tough area for women because a majority of the time, opposing counsel and clients and male and therefore the women are looked down upon because men do not want to be controlled by women; they do not want a woman as their leader. Leaders are expected to have the masculinity about them because leaders need to me aggressive, decisive, hierarchical, autonomous, directive and cool.
2)
From the book, English states, “And research suggests that managers draw their style more from the gender composition of those they lead; that is, they tend to act masculine and task-oriented in male-dominated environments and supportive and people-oriented in female-dominated environments.” “In actuality, most of the women I interviewed said that at some point they had made some adjustment in their ordinary manner or personality because of gender expectations. They tended to accept the dictum that women can’t be too aggressive or too passive, and created detailed methods for walking that fine line. These women assumed that they can’t just be themselves, and that they must sculpt an acceptable work persona that doesn’t offend entrenched norms.” (117) To have to act like a male in order to feel like you deserve leadership is ridiculous. In certain places women are picked to become leaders because they possess different qualities then all the other men that have led before her and they should take that into consideration. Leadership is not a male quality, it is a quality everyone can have.
3)
These expectations relate to stereotypes because people think leadership is a male thing. People stereotype leaders as aggressive males. Women are not seen to have the qualities of a leader simply because the qualities consist of being a male. In the first video that say the we see women in so many prominent places, that we miss the places that they are missing and we forget to even look in certain places because the stereotypes that have been put on them.
4)
Positive outcomes of female leadership would be a different outlook on things. Whenever people discuss women and leadership, they discuss the glass ceiling. In the second video, the woman says that women have not broken the glass ceiling, it has been cracked, but not broken and the progress on breaking it has stalled. Women have pushed themselves to get places and they have taken the extra step to get all the extra qualifications under their belts like experience and higher education; they have done their share to prepare, but they are not getting anything out of it. Businesses are not giving them the opportunity to use it, so they say in the second video that there is all this talent that is not being used. Women bring a different experience and different skills to management. Women have a unique way of thinking to them that men just do not have. They also bring a different agenda to the table. In the second video they discuss that women bring different issues to the table, they bring up minimum wage and early childhood development; they bring new talent to the table. Women also bring different creativity to the table.
Negative qualities that females bring to the table would be typical female behaviors that bring problems to any situations such as moodiness and things like that. Some females are very stubborn and set on their own ways, but males are like that as well. Males can bring the same negative qualities to the table as well, but that is why, in the second video, they makes it a point to say that shared leadership between female and males is a very good thing. You do not need just one or the other, you can have both, but in order for that to happen, we need more females.
5)
I prefer shared leadership between males and females because I believe that both genders bring very different and unique things to the table. Women have certain qualities to them than men do and when you bring the two together, I think it brings out the best in both.
When it comes to conventional views about leadership styles disadvantaging women and advantaging men, men are expected to lead in an aggressive way, so when people think about leadership, they think about aggressiveness and women are not suppose to be aggressive, they are suppose to be nurturing. Also, leadership requires people to relate effectively with opposing counsel and clients and this can be a tough area for women because a majority of the time, opposing counsel and clients and male and therefore the women are looked down upon because men do not want to be controlled by women; they do not want a woman as their leader. Leaders are expected to have the masculinity about them because leaders need to me aggressive, decisive, hierarchical, autonomous, directive and cool.
2)
From the book, English states, “And research suggests that managers draw their style more from the gender composition of those they lead; that is, they tend to act masculine and task-oriented in male-dominated environments and supportive and people-oriented in female-dominated environments.” “In actuality, most of the women I interviewed said that at some point they had made some adjustment in their ordinary manner or personality because of gender expectations. They tended to accept the dictum that women can’t be too aggressive or too passive, and created detailed methods for walking that fine line. These women assumed that they can’t just be themselves, and that they must sculpt an acceptable work persona that doesn’t offend entrenched norms.” (117) To have to act like a male in order to feel like you deserve leadership is ridiculous. In certain places women are picked to become leaders because they possess different qualities then all the other men that have led before her and they should take that into consideration. Leadership is not a male quality, it is a quality everyone can have.
3)
These expectations relate to stereotypes because people think leadership is a male thing. People stereotype leaders as aggressive males. Women are not seen to have the qualities of a leader simply because the qualities consist of being a male. In the first video that say the we see women in so many prominent places, that we miss the places that they are missing and we forget to even look in certain places because the stereotypes that have been put on them.
4)
Positive outcomes of female leadership would be a different outlook on things. Whenever people discuss women and leadership, they discuss the glass ceiling. In the second video, the woman says that women have not broken the glass ceiling, it has been cracked, but not broken and the progress on breaking it has stalled. Women have pushed themselves to get places and they have taken the extra step to get all the extra qualifications under their belts like experience and higher education; they have done their share to prepare, but they are not getting anything out of it. Businesses are not giving them the opportunity to use it, so they say in the second video that there is all this talent that is not being used. Women bring a different experience and different skills to management. Women have a unique way of thinking to them that men just do not have. They also bring a different agenda to the table. In the second video they discuss that women bring different issues to the table, they bring up minimum wage and early childhood development; they bring new talent to the table. Women also bring different creativity to the table.
Negative qualities that females bring to the table would be typical female behaviors that bring problems to any situations such as moodiness and things like that. Some females are very stubborn and set on their own ways, but males are like that as well. Males can bring the same negative qualities to the table as well, but that is why, in the second video, they makes it a point to say that shared leadership between female and males is a very good thing. You do not need just one or the other, you can have both, but in order for that to happen, we need more females.
5)
I prefer shared leadership between males and females because I believe that both genders bring very different and unique things to the table. Women have certain qualities to them than men do and when you bring the two together, I think it brings out the best in both.
29
After reading the article by the NPR news, it seems as if a few of the reasons why so few minority women stay with law firms are because of exclusion, neglect and overt harassment. Other things include racist stereotypes, set to different standards, and ‘token’ stature at a firm. From the article, an Asian attorney states, “I had a managing partner call me into his office when I was a fourth-year [associate]. He introduced me to the client who was Korean and he tells him that I’m Koran, too. He says, ‘She eats kim chee, just like you.’ He said to me, ‘Talk to him.’ I looked at the client and said, ‘It’s a pleasure to meet you. I’m sure you speak English better than I speak Korean.’ The client’s face was so red. Then the partner left a message on my internal message systems, and he was speaking gibberish, trying to sound like an Asian speaker. I called every partner on my floor and said, “You need to come and listen to his.’ I played that message 10 times. Ten times.” After I read this article, I was appalled. I cannot believe that people would really say these things in front of other people.
In the readings, reasons for minority women to leave the firm were kind of the same as the articles, but varied a little. One of the reasons they left was because of “battered woman syndrome” which was when the male attorney would talk the woman attorney up to everyone and then use them during the weekends and time you were suppose to have off. He would abuse people in the beginning, but give them good feedback in the end which led you to keep doing what you were doing. Another thing was that they would call them into meetings and conference calls where they had no purpose and just make them sit there. The things that seemed to keep minority women from staying in law firms in the book seemed to apply to all women and not just minority women, but either way, they are all pretty horrible things. The similarities seemed to be that no matter what the situation was, women were be degraded by the men and it was even happening in front of the clients.
In the readings, reasons for minority women to leave the firm were kind of the same as the articles, but varied a little. One of the reasons they left was because of “battered woman syndrome” which was when the male attorney would talk the woman attorney up to everyone and then use them during the weekends and time you were suppose to have off. He would abuse people in the beginning, but give them good feedback in the end which led you to keep doing what you were doing. Another thing was that they would call them into meetings and conference calls where they had no purpose and just make them sit there. The things that seemed to keep minority women from staying in law firms in the book seemed to apply to all women and not just minority women, but either way, they are all pretty horrible things. The similarities seemed to be that no matter what the situation was, women were be degraded by the men and it was even happening in front of the clients.
28
Sonia Sotomayor’s behavior was characterized as different then a man in many different ways. She was also characterized as being a minority and not being able to perform as well as white people. According to Jamison Foser and his article, “Where does Sonia Sotomayor go to get her reputation back?”, “Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor has been the subject of the harshest criticism.” She was criticized as not being smart enough and having a temperament. It was also said that she was kind of a bully on the bench. It was also said that she has a reputation for not being a hard worker, but if that were the case, then how did she get to the position she is in now?
Many of these traits that people are pointing out about Sotomayor are traits that if held by men would be acceptable. People are treating her very unfairly one because she is a female and two because she is a minority. In Foser’s article, he states, “As Hutchinson [American University law professor Darren Hutchinson] explains, the descriptions of Sotomayer as too temperamental are quite consistent with a clear double-standard in how men and women are portrayed in the media: A persistent and ubiquitous gender stereotype portrays smart and aggressive women as domineering, mean, nasty bitches. This stereotype explains much of the negative treatment that Hillary Clinton received during her presidential campaign. […] For Sotomayer, 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.” The competency between a man and a woman greatly differs in American society and it only differs because people do not think that women can handle what men can handle and it is sad. When compared, Sonia Sotomayor has the same traits as almost all the men in the Supreme Justice Court, the only thing different about her is that she is female, so her traits are looked down upon.
Many of these traits that people are pointing out about Sotomayor are traits that if held by men would be acceptable. People are treating her very unfairly one because she is a female and two because she is a minority. In Foser’s article, he states, “As Hutchinson [American University law professor Darren Hutchinson] explains, the descriptions of Sotomayer as too temperamental are quite consistent with a clear double-standard in how men and women are portrayed in the media: A persistent and ubiquitous gender stereotype portrays smart and aggressive women as domineering, mean, nasty bitches. This stereotype explains much of the negative treatment that Hillary Clinton received during her presidential campaign. […] For Sotomayer, 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.” The competency between a man and a woman greatly differs in American society and it only differs because people do not think that women can handle what men can handle and it is sad. When compared, Sonia Sotomayor has the same traits as almost all the men in the Supreme Justice Court, the only thing different about her is that she is female, so her traits are looked down upon.
27
The competency gap that remains between men and women lawyers still exists to most people. Women believe that they have to work much harder than men to get their foot in the door and prove themselves. “An American Bar Association poll taken in 1983 revealed that 38% of women lawyers said they believed they had to work harder to prove themselves. By 2000, that figure had zoomed to 60%. A survey conducted in 2002 by the New York State Bar Association showed similar figures. Forty-four percent of the women overall agreed with the perception that “female layers have to work harder than male lawyers to get the same results.” For private firms and in-house women, the numbers were higher still: 50% and 57% respectively. Although the figures for public interest lawyers (34% of those females said they had to work harder) and for the judiciary (39% of the female judges concurred) were lower, they were still significant.” (77)
Consequences that women experience as a result of the legal profession remaining male dominant are you have a negativity about you for being a women, you are looked at as odd, they don’t face female opposing counsel, women are associated with unsuccessful performance, women are assumed to lack power and therefore are not taken seriously, and they get less respect and are seen as less threatening, and less important. One more thing is that women are more likely to get administrative or housekeeping tasks.
Strategies that male lawyers engage in an attempt to win a case against a woman lawyer are bullying and intimidation. “A male trial associate reports that, although he tests everyone in the litigation arena to try to unnerve them, he has a working assumption that women are easier to bully and that he can knock them off their stride more easily than a man. For instance, if he has information about a woman’s child care responsibilities, he will try to push depositions and their timing to the last minute, knowing that it creates a time crisis for women.” (84)
Consequences that women experience as a result of the legal profession remaining male dominant are you have a negativity about you for being a women, you are looked at as odd, they don’t face female opposing counsel, women are associated with unsuccessful performance, women are assumed to lack power and therefore are not taken seriously, and they get less respect and are seen as less threatening, and less important. One more thing is that women are more likely to get administrative or housekeeping tasks.
Strategies that male lawyers engage in an attempt to win a case against a woman lawyer are bullying and intimidation. “A male trial associate reports that, although he tests everyone in the litigation arena to try to unnerve them, he has a working assumption that women are easier to bully and that he can knock them off their stride more easily than a man. For instance, if he has information about a woman’s child care responsibilities, he will try to push depositions and their timing to the last minute, knowing that it creates a time crisis for women.” (84)
26
The role that males play in assisting women lawyers is basically women need the male attorneys to deliver messages to different people because of many reasons, but most of the time it is simply because they are females. English says, “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 board. A powerful female partner in Washington, D.C. reports: Sometimes clients don’t listen to anybody, or they won’t listen to me. Sometimes I’ll draft a guy to say the same thing I did. If it’s a $150 million case and I’m not sure this person’s listening, I’ll go get someone else, I’ll get some reinforcement. It could be gender, it could just be brain damage. It doesn’t always do the trick. It is better to have somebody male to reinforce it. And I do it, because I don’t want anyone to say the advice wasn’t taken because I didn’t do this. I do risk management. People are no gender neutral in society, and if you can get two people to say it, who cares? When we have to deliver a message, sometimes that’s based on gender.” (86)
Another reason women turn to men to assist them is for validation; a lot of time clients want a male to validate what the female just said to them. Women also turn to males to assist them when they are stuck in sticky situations with other male colleagues. This role of men being the ones that women turn to in order to deliver messages and talk to clients so they will listen and things like that points to the law as a gendered organization because, “This reveals the tension between a world that is not “gender neutral” and a workplace that aspires to be. Although these anecdotes make clear that sometimes skeptical clients or bullying opposing counsel require that women utilize male backing, and that women believe this is the right thing to do for the client or case, the pivotal question is whether this dynamic lowers a women’s status in the eyes of her colleagues, who may hesitate to refer cases to her, advance her to partner, or work with her on important matters.” (88)
Another reason women turn to men to assist them is for validation; a lot of time clients want a male to validate what the female just said to them. Women also turn to males to assist them when they are stuck in sticky situations with other male colleagues. This role of men being the ones that women turn to in order to deliver messages and talk to clients so they will listen and things like that points to the law as a gendered organization because, “This reveals the tension between a world that is not “gender neutral” and a workplace that aspires to be. Although these anecdotes make clear that sometimes skeptical clients or bullying opposing counsel require that women utilize male backing, and that women believe this is the right thing to do for the client or case, the pivotal question is whether this dynamic lowers a women’s status in the eyes of her colleagues, who may hesitate to refer cases to her, advance her to partner, or work with her on important matters.” (88)
25
Pros and cons of using sexualized behavior as “a weapon in the arsenal”. In “Gender on Trial”, Holly English states, “Along with legal protection to fend off advances, the other side of the coin is that females are allowed more space to decide affirmatively how they want to assert their sexuality, if at all. For instance, some women use flirting or charm to facilitate relationships with colleagues and clients and to advance their careers. A male in-house lawyer describes how his female boss interacted with a company client: The man was obviously smitten by our boss, who’s an attractive woman. Instead of failing to use all her weapons in her arsenal, she leaned in close to listen to him, touched him on the arm, went on a major charm offensive. It was an effort to close a deal. She has the credibility-academically and professionally- to overcome stereotypes.”
Women know the power they have over men and they know they can use themselves to get closer to men and to get what they want in certain situations. Pros to that is just being able to get your way and being able to get out of situations you do not want to be in and being able to get into situations they do want to be in. Another pro that comes out of this is confidence and success.
Some people think some cons that come out of this are sliding down a slippery slope. “It de-legitimizes a woman by reawakening the stereotype that a woman’s mere presence is overwhelmingly sexual rather that professional.” says English. Some women believe that there is a time and placing for flirting in the office and sometimes it is completely inappropriate; they say it all depends how the man acts on it. If he starts it then you can continue it, but if not then don’t do it. You see sexualized behavior used as a “weapon in arsenal” all over television as well and it is shown as a good thing and something that women should do because it gets them places, especially in the movie Erin Brokovich.
Women know the power they have over men and they know they can use themselves to get closer to men and to get what they want in certain situations. Pros to that is just being able to get your way and being able to get out of situations you do not want to be in and being able to get into situations they do want to be in. Another pro that comes out of this is confidence and success.
Some people think some cons that come out of this are sliding down a slippery slope. “It de-legitimizes a woman by reawakening the stereotype that a woman’s mere presence is overwhelmingly sexual rather that professional.” says English. Some women believe that there is a time and placing for flirting in the office and sometimes it is completely inappropriate; they say it all depends how the man acts on it. If he starts it then you can continue it, but if not then don’t do it. You see sexualized behavior used as a “weapon in arsenal” all over television as well and it is shown as a good thing and something that women should do because it gets them places, especially in the movie Erin Brokovich.
24
The person I informally interviewed in regards to the gender expectations and stereotypes was a current female law student, Sam, who is a Latino and is a part of many different organizations at the law school she attends, one of those organizations being for minorities. When it came to joining that group though she says that she felt very obligated to join it because she was a Latino, she felt pressure from many different people in her life, especially her family and teachers at school. Although she does enjoy the organization and she has become the secretary, as of now she wishes she would not have done it because it is so time consuming, especially since she has a job as well.
When it comes to gender expectations and stereotypes in the law field, women are not expected to be as good you could say. They are not set as high of expectations, they are not given as many important jobs says Sam. She has been to a few law firms to observe this and she works at a firm as well. She says there are many more male partners in the firms she has visited and the women do not seem as proactive. The males seem to be running the show. Another thing Sam noticed in the law firms were the male lawyer’s expectations for the female lawyers to make the phone calls and do the run around for them. At law school, Sam says there are many more male teachers as well and they are more open to men then they are to female students. The women at the law schools are also expected to join more groups and be more sociable in class and out of the class. They are expected to me more nurturing when they go outside of school and participate in extracurricular activities and they are also expected to organize these extracurricular activities.
When it comes to gender expectations and stereotypes in the law field, women are not expected to be as good you could say. They are not set as high of expectations, they are not given as many important jobs says Sam. She has been to a few law firms to observe this and she works at a firm as well. She says there are many more male partners in the firms she has visited and the women do not seem as proactive. The males seem to be running the show. Another thing Sam noticed in the law firms were the male lawyer’s expectations for the female lawyers to make the phone calls and do the run around for them. At law school, Sam says there are many more male teachers as well and they are more open to men then they are to female students. The women at the law schools are also expected to join more groups and be more sociable in class and out of the class. They are expected to me more nurturing when they go outside of school and participate in extracurricular activities and they are also expected to organize these extracurricular activities.
23
Working in a law firm and being a woman, I pay really close attention to fashion in the firm and in the court house when we make our occasional visits and the fashion between the firm and the court house is very different. When I joined the firm, there was no specific dress code given to me, just a dress code about casual Fridays and how we cannot wear holy jeans and leggings and things like that, but nothing about everyday business wear. I knew though from observation what I could wear and could not wear and what was appropriate and what was not appropriate. In our firm, we can wear a lot of different things, just as long as there is not too much exposure, but when going to the court house it is very conservative and that is very understandable. All the men in the courthouse wear pantsuits and women wear some kind of suits. Almost everybody in our firm dresses appropriately, but there has been multiple occasions where some of the female lawyers are wearing really short dresses or they are just dressed really sloppy, especially one lawyer in general. I think it is good for there to be a variety of options of clothes for women to wear, but I think bottoms should almost go to the knees, cleavage should be minimized and no spaghetti straps or tube tops.
I think that lawyers should be known for their cutting-edge fashion sense. Women lawyers our very important people in our society and I think they deserve to have a fashion sense as well. I know I take bold moves and wear fashionable things to work and I get complimented on them. They aren’t scandalous or anything, they just aren’t your typical boring outfits you normally see people in a law firm wearing. In the article, “The Fashion Law of Politics: Obama-Style”, I loved how they brought Michelle Obama’s daring fashion sense. I love how she has taken a stance and stepped out of the traditional fashion sense of the first ladies.
I think that lawyers should be known for their cutting-edge fashion sense. Women lawyers our very important people in our society and I think they deserve to have a fashion sense as well. I know I take bold moves and wear fashionable things to work and I get complimented on them. They aren’t scandalous or anything, they just aren’t your typical boring outfits you normally see people in a law firm wearing. In the article, “The Fashion Law of Politics: Obama-Style”, I loved how they brought Michelle Obama’s daring fashion sense. I love how she has taken a stance and stepped out of the traditional fashion sense of the first ladies.
Blog # 22
Sonia Sotomayor is only the first Hispanic justice and the third female justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was born in Puerto Rico and raised by her mother and these are all things people paid close attention to when evaluating Sonia Sotomayor’s qualifications in becoming the Supreme Court of the United States.
When it comes to the qualifications people look at when it comes to picking the Supreme Court of the United States, gender and race are qualifications that are closely looked at. You can easily see that when looking at the number of Hispanic and females who have been on the Supreme Court of the United States. Because Sonia Sotomayor is Hispanic and a woman, when she was first being considered for Supreme Court Justice, people automatically assumed that she was a liberal.
After researching different articles on the internet I came to find some really disturbing things. One of the first articles I came across was titled, “Sotomayor: Passive Human Pinata for Mexican Obama and GOP” and it showed a cartoon of Sotomayor being hung like a piñata and Obama hold a bat saying, “Now, who wants to be first?”. According the article, which was written by Megan La Mamita Mala, states that, “The above is an editorial cartoon circulated by Creators’ Syndicate that appeared in The Oklahoman’s Tuesday editions. It depicts President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Sonia Sotomayer, as passive, docile human piñata, hanging from a tree while a cartoon Obama in a Mexican sombrero invited GOP elephants to take a hit. This cartoon was very, very racist and sexist. It was very degrading to Sotomayor’s and it hurt a lot of people. Even some of the GOP members asked for an apology. There were many other articles out there, including other articles by Mala, but this one really got my attention.
When it comes to the qualifications people look at when it comes to picking the Supreme Court of the United States, gender and race are qualifications that are closely looked at. You can easily see that when looking at the number of Hispanic and females who have been on the Supreme Court of the United States. Because Sonia Sotomayor is Hispanic and a woman, when she was first being considered for Supreme Court Justice, people automatically assumed that she was a liberal.
After researching different articles on the internet I came to find some really disturbing things. One of the first articles I came across was titled, “Sotomayor: Passive Human Pinata for Mexican Obama and GOP” and it showed a cartoon of Sotomayor being hung like a piñata and Obama hold a bat saying, “Now, who wants to be first?”. According the article, which was written by Megan La Mamita Mala, states that, “The above is an editorial cartoon circulated by Creators’ Syndicate that appeared in The Oklahoman’s Tuesday editions. It depicts President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Sonia Sotomayer, as passive, docile human piñata, hanging from a tree while a cartoon Obama in a Mexican sombrero invited GOP elephants to take a hit. This cartoon was very, very racist and sexist. It was very degrading to Sotomayor’s and it hurt a lot of people. Even some of the GOP members asked for an apology. There were many other articles out there, including other articles by Mala, but this one really got my attention.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)