Blog Post #39

First, organizations must stop pretending that there is no problem to deal with; this itself creates a problem. Public statements need to be more closely related to what people actually think. Next, we need to establish common ground between men and women to construct some principles. We need a vision that will prompt both genders to work hard to change the future, not just women. They need to redefine what it means to best deliver legal services, what makes a good lawyer, the best way to manage a workplace, the best way to manage the workplace, and the best way to deal with personal and professional conflicts. The awkwardness of men and women working together needs to be relieved. They need to stop the avoidance and find ways to ease tensions. We should attempt to draw the best from feminine leadership and masculine leadership. Finally, there should be amore balanced notion of parenthood, assuming both parents will want time with the child, not just the mother. We should learn to support and embrace people who step outside stereotypical norms, instead of rejecting them.

Repost of Blog #38

In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be sworn into the US Supreme Court. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan. She went to Stanford University for a Bachelor’s of Science in Economics. She also attended the Stanford School of Law. Later she married and had three children. Her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and she was actively involved in creating awareness. When she started to pursue her career, many people were still against employing women in the field of law. She was offered a job as a secretary but she turned it down. She worked in public service as the Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952—1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from 1954-1960. Later she served as the Assistant Attorney General of Arizona. In ’75 she became the judge of Maricopa County Superior Court. In ’79 she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Then, in 1981 she joined the US Supreme Court. In 2004 she was the second most powerful woman in America. On August 12, 2009, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor of the United States, by President Barack Obama.

Jeanine Pirro was the first of many things for the state of New York. She was the first female District Attorney of Westchester County, the first Westchester court judge, the first woman to try a murder case there, and the first woman to be named “outstanding prosecutor” in the state of New York. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in three years rather than the usual four. She went to the University of Buffalo for her undergraduate and Albany Law School for her juris doctorate. Her marriage was filled with violence and infidelity. That is why in 1997 she chaired the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities, whose report and recommendations resulted in legislation passing that enhanced protections of, and safeguards for, the victims of domestic abuse.

Blog POst #38

In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be sworn into the US Supreme Court. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan. She went to Stanford University for a Bachelor’s of Science in Economics. She also attended the Stanford School of Law. Later she married and had three children. Her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and she was actively involved in creating awareness. When she started to pursue her career, many people were still against employing women in the field of law. She was offered a job as a secretary but she turned it down. She worked in public service as the Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952—1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from 1954-1960. Later she served as the Assistant Attorney General of Arizona. In ’75 she became the judge of Maricopa County Superior Court. In ’79 she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Then, in 1981 she joined the US Supreme Court. In 2004 she was the second most powerful woman in America. On August 12, 2009, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor of the United States, by President Barack Obama.

Jeanine Pirro was the first of many things for the state of New York. She was the first female District Attorney of Westchester County, the first Westchester court judge, the first woman to try a murder case there, and the first woman to be named “outstanding prosecutor” in the state of New York. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in three years rather than the usual four. She went to the University of Buffalo for her undergraduate and Albany Law School for her juris doctorate. Her marriage was filled with violence and infidelity. That is why in 1997 she chaired the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities, whose report and recommendations resulted in legislation

Blog Post #37

American bar Association points out that time will not fix the under-representation of women in the legal field and the discrimination they experience. Holly English agrees that we cannot act as though it is going away on its own; we have to keep working on clearing the gender gap. Attitudes and stereotypes that are entrenched in society and the workplace are reinforcing barriers to women. English touches on a few of these. A good example is the gender expectation that women are generally nurturing. When women act outside this, and act aggressively, people are flabbergasted, and sometimes reject her. If she does carry herself in a nurturing, passive manner than she is not tough enough for the field of law. It is all too often that women are viewed as too emotional, insufficiently aggressive, and not very serious about their jobs. Like English discussed a lot, there needs to be more room for balance between professional and personal priorities, for both men and women. The repercussions of having children are very detrimental to the career of an attorney. Working part-time makes them not as serious about their job. Working full-time makes them a suspect parent. If they cannot successfully manage the role of an employee and as a caregiver then they are considered a failure. All of these things that the American Bar Association and Holly English’s book, Gender on Trial, have recognized as problems in the corporate world add to the disparity in advancement for women. The ABA suggests a few solutions. They suggest that there be an incentive to promote women and lawyers of color, that we start having successful senior partners mentor new associates, we allow more networking, we offer a supportive atmosphere to go along with the offering of a flexible schedule, we make sure everyone gets a fair share of good assignments, and we offer a temporary suspension of the “clock” for those who want to become partner but want kids as well.In Gender on Trial, Holly English gives similar solutions. She recommends a structure mentoring system, REAL flexible work arrangements with constructed policies, rotating of work assignments, risk taking, and performance reviews so advancement is based on merit rather than politics.

Blog Post #36

In the story “Talk of the Nation,” they discussed the idea that many women were either leaving jobs in the top rungs of corporation or opting out of them all together because of the excess demand. The were expected to work 60+ hour per week, have no personal life, be on call 24/7, and to put the company ahead of their personal life. Many women are deciding that it is jus not worth, and it is not just mothers who are making this decision. Women desire to be in control of the lives, and the balance between home and work. With the jobs that have such a high demand they simply cannot do that. Women are less willing to sacrifice their personal life for professional success than their male counterparts. I feel like women have also been sort of forced to quit jobs that have less demand; Jobs that only require 40 hours per week. Companies are treating many women as though they are a waste because they are just going to leave when they start a family. Really they should not be treating the women who will decide to do this in that way but they definitely should not cast this shadow over all women in the workforce. I think it is possible to lure women back into the workforce if they can be shown that the will not just be forced out if they get pregnant and decided to start a family. Like Holly English and Joan Williams discussed, these corporations need to become more family-friendly. They need to stop reducing the pay, benefits, and workload of women who decide to work part-time. They need to make it more okay for people to take advantage of flex-time. They also need to offer more room for men to have domestic responsibilities so the burden doesn’t fall disproportionately on women.

Blog Post #35

The EEOC is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Their main job is to make sure that all of the anti-discrimination laws of the workforce are understood and properly enforced. Recently, they have been trying to promote corporations going above and beyond the bare minimum legal requirements expected of them. Unfortunately, these basic minimum requirements do not create a family friendly workplace. The current laws for family caregiver’s do protect their rights, but they do not help the caregiver out. The employer of a caregiver needs to be sympathetic to the fact that these people come to work and work, and then they go home and work. The most common caregiver is a woman, mostly women of color. As Holly English discuss in her book Gender on Trial, these are the exact people who are already disproportionately affected in the workplace. The have a tough time asserting their competence, they are constantly having to prove themselves, and then if they decide to have a family, none of the previous work they did matter. They are then, automatically put on the “mommy track” and given less pay, less benefits, and less work. Essentially this will run them out of the job. Caregiver is synonymous with “mommy track.” Women’s right and Caregiver rights clearly overlap significantly. In order to go above and beyond, these corporations need to become more family oriented. They need to welcome women having children, and not scrutinize them so much for needing time off. They also need to make it okay for fathers to take time off as well so that the woman isn’t always the one that has to leave work. Doing this will retain valuable employees and make them more loyal to the corporation. A good example of this is my personal life is when my mom had to take time of for me to have a spinal fusion. She was worried they would not understand why she needs to take care of her adult child, but they did not even ask her questions. They worked with her, and allowed her whatever time she needed. They have been sympathetic to our situation for awhile now as I am coming up on a third surgery in one year. However, my mother plans on staying with the company a long time because she feels her loyalty lies with them because of their level of compassion.

Blog Post #35

The EEOC is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Their main job is to make sure that all of the anti-discrimination laws of the workforce are understood and properly enforced. Recently, they have been trying to promote corporations going above and beyond the bare minimum legal requirements expected of them. Unfortunately, these basic minimum requirements do not create a family friendly workplace. The current laws for family caregiver’s do protect their rights, but they do not help the caregiver out. The employer of a caregiver needs to be sympathetic to the fact that these people come to work and work, and then they go home and work. The most common caregiver is a woman, mostly women of color. As Holly English discuss in her book Gender on Trial, these are the exact people who are already disproportionately affected in the workplace. The have a tough time asserting their competence, they are constantly having to prove themselves, and then if they decide to have a family, none of the previous work they did matter. They are then, automatically put on the “mommy track” and given less pay, less benefits, and less work. Essentially this will run them out of the job. Caregiver is synonymous with “mommy track.” Women’s right and Caregiver rights clearly overlap significantly. In order to go above and beyond, these corporations need to become more family oriented. They need to welcome women having children, and not scrutinize them so much for needing time off. They also need to make it okay for fathers to take time off as well so that the woman isn’t always the one that has to leave work. Doing this will retain valuable employees and make them more loyal to the corporation. A good example of this is my personal life is when my mom had to take time of for me to have a spinal fusion. She was worried they would not understand why she needs to take care of her adult child, but they did not even ask her questions. They worked with her, and allowed her whatever time she needed. They have been sympathetic to our situation for awhile now as I am coming up on a third surgery in one year. However, my mother plans on staying with the company a long time because she feels her loyalty lies with them because of their level of compassion.

Blog Post #34

Joan Williams explains that she wrote her book Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It, because the course of her career was being directed by gender and women’s issues. She explains that women have made great strides in the workplace since the 1960s but it is still fewer changes than we had hoped for thirty years ago. The book Gender on Trial, by Holly English discusses many of the ways things have not changed. Williams also explains that instead of working toward androgyny to fix the gender gap we have just expanded what is socially expectable for both males and female, but we have ended up still leaving the stereotypical differences between the two genders intact. These are the reasons why she called her book Unbending Gender. She discusses that many times people do, what she calls market work, and family work, but some women can only do one. She also touches on the fact that all mothers are marginalized whether they are stay-at-home moms, part-time workers, or full-time workers. The stay-at-home moms are not taken very seriously as they are seen as “just housewives,” so their family work is devalued by society. The women who do work are considered to be on the “mommy track” that assumes all women will get pregnant and leave. This assumption leads them to giving women less pay, fewer benefits, and not as high quality assignments. The part-time working mothers are considered not to be serious workers as English discusses, and the mothers who work full-time are questioned on their parenting. Williams discussed that women make choices to work or to not work based on the choices available to them, not based on what should be available to them. Often, corporations make it very hard for women to work part-time like discussed in Gender on Trial, so that is really not an option to them. This leaves them with having to make a decision between how important their family life is and how important their work life is to them. Williams main concern is that the ideal worker is based on a man (a person who cannot bear children) who can work for 40 years and have a family that is taken care of by his spouse, and women simply cannot live up to this model of an ideal worker. She wants us to change government benefits so that the entire workforce is covered (including part-time workers) and so that Social Security is offered for those doing important family care work.

Blog Post #33

Clearly women have made large advancements in the profession of law since the 1960s when they entered the field. When they first came they were welcomed with severe hostility and resentment. Because of this they worked hard to blend in. They dressed similar to make partners, and keep their feminine personality traits under wraps. Eventually, they were allowed to dress more feminine, and were not expected to look so serious and manly all the time. After they could dress how they pleased they started to use their sexuality to their advantage. They were able to use their attractiveness to close deals and build relationships. Now, at least for outside, it looks as though women are nearly equal in the legal profession.

While it is true they have made leaps and bound they are not even close to being equal. Women are very under-represented in the upper-levels of law firms. According to an article from the National Association of Women Lawyers, there is a large gap between the amount of low level female workers and the amount of women promoted to partner or higher positions. Only 6% of firms have women in the highest leadership positions. Women are being promoted to equity partner at a greater rate than the past but they are still only being promoted at about half the rate as men. Also, male attorneys still make far more money than female attorneys – approximately $87,000 more per year. Another problem that women do have to deal with is that there still isn’t much room for them to starts families like there is for men. We have law in place that support them starting families but it still harder for them to balance work and home responsibilities because of the hostility of co-workers (as discussed in the previous blog).

Blog Post #32

Parenthood is definitely different for female lawyers versus male lawyers. For males, parenthood is often seen as a plus because it increases stature without diminishing the legitimacy at work. Fatherhood is more strictly defined that motherhood. Men are supposed to be the breadwinner, and very committed to work, and that is why employers like when men start a family. Often, fathers are given more compensation because they are considered to be the heads of households. Women that are the heads of households do not have this luxury. However, men receive much worse backlash than women if they want to take paternity leave or reduce their hours. They will often not take official paternity leave and just ad together vacation time.

Female often experience parenthood as a negative, at least for their work life. Once a woman gets engaged or married there is the assumption she will be starting a family soon and her work life become an uphill battle. One woman told Holly English that she actually hid her pregnancy for seven months so she wouldn’t be taken off a case. Another woman told that she does not even mention she has children so that the will not decrease her workload. At larger firms, it is likely that women will not be put on big cases because of their domestic responsibilities. One guy mentioned that women are always leaving for something for their kids, but you never ever see guys doing that. A male partner said that he understands these women, mainly because they should be raising children, and the men should not. Women who work less to have a family are frowned upon. Women who maintain the same amount of work and have a family are also frowned upon. People often criticize their parenting. But no one criticizes a man’s parenting if he works a lot; probably because his role is the provider, not the nurturer. Some say that two working parents cannot give a child the amount of attention in needs and deserves, and many of the female attorneys are concerned about this too. One person pointed out that they personality that generally goes along with an attorney is not generally the personality of a nurturing mother, so they questioned how this works. One mother was worrying about how much her children were suffering by staying home alone after school until she gets home around dinner time. She explained that she doesn’t even have time to make dinner. In front of other parent, many female attorneys will down play their success because if they are successful in work they are assumed to be a bad mother.

Blog Post #31

It seems that the legal profession has even more issue with the balance of work life and home life than other professions. Many attorneys report work/life balance to be the biggest gender issue. This probably because it is likely to disproportionately affect women since they generally stay home as care takers for their children. Therefore, they are most likely to use the flex-time options. Their work responsibilities and their domestic responsibilities tend to clash.

Even though work/life balance disproportionately affects women, it does affect men as well. Many attorneys feel that there is no satisfaction for their success and the amount of hours they put in. Most firms require between 1300 and 2000 billable hours per year, which means they are working far more than 2000 hours per year. This amount of time leaves no spare time to enjoy life. Even those without kids would like fewer hours just to spend less time at work. Fathers want to spend less time at work and be more involved with their children. it is likely that reducing hours will retain talented lawyers and create a sense of loyalty.

Most companies do offer flex-time and alternative work schedules, but most of their employees resist using them. They feel that they will be looked at as unequal and as having a lack of commitment if they don’t work full time. They think that working fewer hours makes them less visible, less important, and less worthy than the full time employees. This may because firms tend not to have written policies with standard guidelines but rather they create alternative schedules as a case-by-case basis. This generally allows for the part-time people to get paid significantly less, and it normally creates a violation of their hour agreement. The way attorneys are treated while using alternative schedules has a lot to do with the attitude of their supervisor. However, most attorneys feel that they do not get as good of assignments working part-time, they lose a level of respect, and they are unlikely to make partner. One woman said that, “going part-time is like dropping out of the race.” And anther woman said, “You just cannot be as competitive.” If these women who desire to go part-time after having children do stay full-time do to fear of losing their “edge” their parenting is questioned.

Blog Post #30

Traditionally, men are expected to lead in an aggressive, ambitious, and commanding manner while women are expected to lead in a way that is nurturing and inclusive. These expectations reflect stereotypical gender roles. The man is supposed to be aggressive, in control, and the financial supporter. The stereotypical woman is supposed to be “be at home, pregnant, and barefoot in the kitchen,” as people used to say back in the day. Women are expected to take more of a domestic, motherly role. The stereotypical masculine personality traits and styles tend to go more naturally with managing people than the stereotypical feminine traits. Women are expected be very kind and supportive which tends to clash with attempting to exercise authority. People do not really perceive women as naturally having the characteristics of a leader.

Many people’s leadership style is a reflection of who they are leading. A personal example of this is that my manager at work is often very nurturing and inclusive but he also manages a staff full of women, and one man. An aggressive style may not go over to well with his staff. Likewise, people expect to be managed differently by a woman than by a man. The general assumption is that the woman will manage in a nice way, rather than an aggressive way that a man is likely to manage with. A woman who strays from this assumption is likely to be disliked and/or rejected. Many women assume that women in a leadership position will be more supportive of them because they are both women and they have a “sisterhood.” If the women does not act in this manner she is likely to be seen as cold and/r distant. Holly English’s book Gender on Trial reflects the way people respond to different types of leadership. A more feminine leadership style is likely to elicit more loyalty and better performance but people may perceive this leader as weak and take advantage of that. This leadership style is not likely to elicit as much respect as an aggressive or masculine style. However, women are often chastised if they attempt to use a more “masculine” model of leadership and act more aggressive, decisive, hierarchical, autonomous, and directive. Because of this, women feel much more pressure to lead in a “nice” way, meaning they feel they need to act collaboratively, egalitarian, supportive, caring, and down-play their authority. Some of the women the Holly English interviewed admitted to adjusting to the stereotypes and gender expectations. They felt that their natural personality was not okay, and that they had to “sculpt a work persona.” I think that they found this to be true because it is awfully hard to exercise their authority and command respect while still being nurturing. These women in positions of power walk a fine line between being too aggressive, and being too passive. Men definitely have far more room to stray from their stereotypical gender expectations. One woman said that her goal is to get the job done while still being perceived as a familiar woman. Many times, gender expectations of women force the woman to take on the identity of a mother. They end up trying to be nurturing, wholesome, enthusiastic, hard-working, unthreatening, warm, and feminine. When this role is taken on, the work place turns more into a family setting. This role includes caring about the career development of the employees, positive reinforcement, and presenting ideas in way that they are not just leaders but they are everyone’s. This means the manager will use words like “our” and “we” instead of “I” and “my.”
I would like to say that I am a bigger fan of the more feminine way of leading a staff. However, I do not have any experience with a more aggressive leader. All of the jobs I have held (which aren’t many) the staff was small and mostly women. Every office I have worked for has had more of a family bond where everyone is very close, and everyone’s input is desired. My guess is that I keep working in settings like that because I prefer to be led that way. Generally, I do not need an aggressive leader being domineering in order for me to get things done. I know I do not like this type of leadership from my days as a competitive gymnast. At one point, I did have a coach (who happened to be male) that was very aggressive. He yelled at me a lot. That did not prompt me to change what I was doing or work harder, instead it made me shut down. My other coach (a female) would give me constructive criticism and praised me when I did well and I ended up doing very well as a gymnast with her behind me. I definitely think that a nurturing leadership style evokes more loyalty, a positive attitude from employees, and better performance. However, I still do think there is a way to command respect while doing this too (my manger does it).

Blog Post #29

In law firms, the amount of minority women present below four percent. The American Bar Association reported that forty-nine percent of minority women working in private law firms were subjected to some form of harassment. These women experience more discrimination than white women and minority men. A woman said that blatant exclusion and neglect, or overt harassment were not uncommon to them in the workplace. One minority woman said that they are constantly dealing with underlying stereotypes and biases from the partners, colleagues, and clients. Often, people assume that minority women working in law firms hold administrative or secretarial positions. Another woman said that many times big clients like firms from Wall Street are shocked to see a minority woman in power, and they often do a double take. Most of the women interviewed for NPR told stories that basically their employer hired them to work with the minority customers. One African-American woman had to sit in on a meeting with a client who was ending their business because the firm didn’t employ enough minorities. Another woman was mostly used to pose for advertising. It should be examined if the female associates of a minority are actually being given real opportunities. The previous readings have reflected this because it showed a few of the ways that minority women have a much harder time than white women. Minority women, especially African-American women have to be very careful in the messages they send through their behavior and through their wardrobe. In the way they dress, they have to make sure that they come across as not threatening. They also need to make sure they do not go too far over the top if they are given the opportunity to dress casually. They really cannot dress up their ethnicity because it may come across as threatening. They have to be concerned with looking too sexy since there is a stereotype that they are more sexual in general. They must avoid making someone think they are challenging authority. There are stereotypes about how certain minorities carry themselves. If the stereotype is a good one, like being submissive, they should use it. But if it is a bad one, like being overly aggressive than they should avoid. It seems like all too much to deal with.

Blog Post #28

Sonia Sotomayor was a judge for the Second Circuit Court of appeals, and came up against some harsh criticism when she was nominated for appointment to the United States Supreme Court. However, most of the criticism came from the media and was based on few facts, anonymous quotes, or misrepresented quotes from her colleagues. One quote from a fellow juror of hers on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was misrepresented to show him saying she is stupid. The quote was, in fact, actually praising her intelligence. Most of these criticisms were based on gender and ethnic stereotypes. She has been referred to as stupid, vain, and temperamental. One person was quoted calling her, “dumb and obnoxious.” It was said that her questions in the courtroom do not ever penetrate into the heart of the issue. Someone complained that she is domineering in oral arguments. She has also been accused of just liking to hear herself talk. Another accusation is that she has an inflated opinion of herself. I am not saying this is true, but I may have an inflated opinion of myself too if I accomplished all that she did. However, her biggest criticism in on her “temperament.” Some one described her as being a “fiery Latina tempest waiting to knife and brutalize lawyers in the courtroom.” This means she is tough and a sharp interrogator. I am sure that no one would complain if a man acted this way. But apparently if she asks tough questions then she is difficult, temperamental, and excitable. Sotomayor is very well known for being aggressive on the bench, and some people label her as being “a bully on the bench.” She is no more aggressive than her male colleagues but because she is a woman, aggressiveness makes her mean, nasty, domineering, and bitchy. Unfortunately, her clear competence in the area is being looked over because people do not like her acting as aggressive as her male counterparts. People have a stereotype that they thought she would fit into, and when she didn’t, they reacted with hostility.

Blog Post #27

Female attorneys experience much negativity as a result of the legal field remaining male dominated. Women often feel they have to prove themselves, and excel over their male counterparts in order to gain respect. Holly English found some rather shocking statistics in her research for her book, Gender on Trial. She found that 60% of women feel they need to be better objectively in order to be seen as equal. 64% of women and 345 of men feel that women get less respect in the workplace. Also, 70% of women and 39% of men felt that women are treated condescendingly by their male colleagues. Unfortunately, many high level women are not treated with the proper respect by there younger male colleagues. They tend not so see the women as someone to impress because they see them as less threatening. Because of the general assumption that women lack power, people automatically assume that the male is in the position of power. This forces women to have to assert their status just to get to the starting line. Also, women tend to be under more scrutiny and they are constantly being tested. All too often, women are given either domestic or administrative tasks when they are in a group with male attorneys. They are sent to make copies, get the coffee, or serve lunch to everybody.

Many times male attorney will greatly underestimate the female attorneys. The will attempt to use scare tactics in an attempt to throw the female attorneys off track. Especially if the female counsel is young, a male opposing counsel may attempt to upset her, and make her get emotional by making rude remarks and objections. Some men try to bully and intimidate the women. Some will try to undermine the woman’s confidence by questioning her questioning skills, or saying, “Do you have a point?” Anther tactic that may be used if the woman has children, the opposing counsel may try to push the trial as late as possible so she is put in a time bind.

Blog Post #26

We do not live in a gender neutral world, and it is true that many times a female attorney is by the biased outside world more than the world inside her firm. Often, women will run into male opposing counsel that treat her disrespectfully, and test her. Or women will have clients that do not necessarily trust their judgment and acts as if they would rather have a man representing them. Sometimes, if a woman is in court with an unruly opposing counsel, she will allow a male to take over the case because the opposing counsel is unlikely to treat a male attorney in the same manner. A female attorney who told a story like this mentioned that it is what was best of the client. Most of the time this is the case. Another female attorney found that just having male supervision in the courtroom discouraged unruly behavior of the opposing counsel. One woman told that sometimes when she meets a new client she will have a male colleague sit in on the first meeting so that she can establish her credibility with him there to validate it for the clients. She said that she also is sure to use statements like, “We think,” rather than, “I think.” Some women often use this tactic to get their clients on board. Unfortunately, it is the sad truth that society often makes the glass ceiling that women experience already, even thicker. Many times looking for the support or backing of a male colleague is the right thing to do for the firm and the client but these women do have need to be concerned with the effect that doing so has on her status in the eye of her colleagues.

This points to law as a gendered organization because it still sits on several traditional stereotypes. The first being that women are the weaker gender and they cannot handle problems themselves; In essence, they need to be saved. Women having men rush in and save them appears just like this stereotype. At the same time, this depicts the man as stereotypical, and as the leader, and the one is control. It is assumed that men are the ones with the power, and unfortunately women relying on men shows just that. It may not be true, but that is how many people will perceive it.

Blog Post #25

In the legal profession there are varying views about the use of sexuality in the workplace. Some women will use their sexuality, and flirt to advance in their career. In Holly English’s book, Gender on Trial, a woman admits that she would wear different length skirts to trial depending on the judge and what she was asking for. There are some who agree that flirting is okay, as long as it is used properly. Most would say that if you are going to use your sexuality to gain in your career, you better have the credibility to back it up in order to avoid stereotypes. It is definitely not a good weapon if they are using it to make up for or hide their shortcomings as a professional. Many men say they are jealous of this advantage but they do suggest using it because it does work. A psychologist that English spoke with said that sexuality absolutely belongs in the work place as long as the person using it knows their boundaries, knows who it is appropriate to use it with, and how to read how these people are reacting to it. The same woman said that if we ignore sexuality we are just opening up a new stereotype that female attorneys are asexual. The truth is humans are sexual beings, and if their sexuality can work to their advantage why not use it? (Within reason of course.) However, this does not suggest sleeping around to move forward, but harmless flirting is okay. Also, this use of sexuality can result in more equity between the sexes.

There are those people in the legal field that consider using their sexuality to their advantage to be taboo. These people generally feel that it de-legitimizes women because it reawakens the stereotype that women’s presence in the workplace is sexual rather than professional. One woman’s concern is that women already have a hard time being taken seriously in a “man’s world,” and using their sexuality will just make them less likely to be taken seriously. Her point is that men already tend to think sexually in general, so adding fuel to their fire is just a bad idea.

Blog Post #24

Women in the legal field are expected to act just as their male counterparts do, while still maintaining their feminine qualities but not being too feminine. As mentioned before, they are caught in what we would call a double bind. If they work just as hard as their male counterparts and leave out their feminine qualities as well, they are taught to be not feminine enough for the job. In current society, people like when traditional female characteristics are brought to the business more than they did back when women first entered the field. It is not considered a bad thing when a woman acts more demure, polite, and less aggressive then men. However, it seems that these qualities are not common of female lawyers. They tend to be more aggressive, assertive, and to the point. For the purposes of the double standard they are caught in, these characteristics are likely to get them labeled as a bully by their peers. But, if these women keep the stereotypical feminine edge they will be ridiculed as well. They may be seen as too soft. Also, they must worry about coming off as too sexy. These women have t be very careful in the way they appear and how they carry themselves because the stereotype is that an attractive woman is incompetent. But an unattractive woman is looked down upon. It is important that these women strike a proper balance between how they carry themselves and how they appear to others in order to be taken seriously. Another problem professional legal women may encounter is that they are not expected to achieve as much professionally as their male peers. People tend to have a much lower expectations of women in a “man’s field.” A problem tends to arise when women in this field want to start a family – her peers may treat her differently. She may be considered unreliable because of her domestic responsibilities. She may be viewed as a bad mother if she continues to work several hours like most attorneys do. If she works less hours she is not considered to be serious because “real attorneys work 60 hours per week.”

Yes, women have made huge strides in the legal professional but they still have a ways to go if they want to reach equality.

Blog Post #23

On NPR, when Nina Totenberg was interviewing some people for her discussion “What is she Wearing?” one man said that style has always been a powerful political weapon. A persons clothing generally says a great deal about their identity, personality, and self-confidence. Women in the world of politics and law need to portray themselves in a certain light, generally one that shows them as competent but yet not aggressive or threatening. Many times women who come of as threatening are disliked by their colleagues. When women first started to enter the field men all wore identical suits and women tried to look like the men in order to blend in, in order to avoid resentment and to be taken seriously. There is an old stereotype that an attractive woman is thought to be incompetent. Back then, from 1960-1980, dressing like the men put women in a double bind. If a woman dressed in a manly manner then she was thought to be non-feminine and not being themselves. But if a woman dressed feminine they were not considered to be serious. Most women in the field felt that they were stripped of their personal identities. In the 1990s women start to drop the faux-male suit look. It started to become more important that they appear to be attractive and confident in their skills. They were rewarded for being more self-confident with greater power and control. This started to resolve that contradiction between femininity and competence. They started to have the self-assurance to dress they way they wanted and let their abilities speak for themselves. Social science research says that attractive people tend to be more persuasive than unattractive people. This change is women’s professional wardrobe also brought a casual dress movement. This lessened the differences between men and women because men too are now plagued by what to wear for what occasion. Both genders had to learn to base their outfits on the client, the setting and the location. Many women felt that the casual dress confused the hierarchy between the lawyers and staff, and female attorneys were more likely to be mistaken for a secretary. Some people felt that a professional look makes attorneys appear to be more confident and controlled.

Unfortunately, women are still judged highly on what they look like. One woman that Holly English spoke with said she actually thought she won some cases because they jury liked her appearance more than her opponents. Another woman pointed out that, more often than not, women are not credible until they prove they are. Whereas men, are credible until they prove they are not credible. Now, women have to attempt to dress feminine while making sure they are not too sexy or too boring. A woman the English spoke with for her book, Gender on Trial, said that her goal is always to not look too bland, or too flashy, jus neat and well put together so that the case will take center stage rather than her outfit. A good example of a woman who dresses more feminine while making sure she is fun without being too sexy is the first lady, Michelle Obama. She steers away from the traditional Washington DC look but still makes sure she looks like a woman of power. She has made herself appear charismatic and relatable to the public through her wardrobe. She has the ability to reflect society’s fears about women, power, gender, and race.

Blog Post #22

Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for appointment to the US Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in May of 2009. Her nomination was confirmed by the US Senate in August of 2009. She is the first Hispanic justice, and the third female justice on the US Supreme Court. Unfortunately being a minority woman brings some level of discrimination, especially for a woman of such high power. Often people deal with her on the basis of stereotypes rather than her very impressive work record. People assume that because she is Hispanic and a woman that she is a Liberal. There is also an assumption that she may not be able to put aside her personal biases and use the law objectively. “Her personal biases” means that she will judge on the side of her ethnicity or gender. But no one assumes that a white male will not be able to put aside their own personal biases for their own race and gender. Some people have said that Sotomayor has a problematic temperament, as she is often referred to as a bully on the bench. White men are assumed to be rather cool headed in comparison to women or people of color. I would assume that those who consider Sotomayor to be a bully would not react in the same way if a white male judge acted in an aggressive or assertive manner, it may actually be welcomed. Those same people definitely would not hold a white man to the same expectations of temperament. One study done by PsychologyToday.com on students’ response to female Hispanic teachers versus white male teachers found that “students appeared to be receptive to Latina professors as long as they were lenient in their teaching style-flexible, indulgent, and compassionate. When Latina professors had strict teaching styles-stern, rigorous, and authoritarian--they penalized them relative to professors who were white men.” These students saw strict Latina teachers as bullies whereas they had a neutral view male teachers with the same “temperament.” It seems that people have a set of expectation about Hispanic women such as Sonia Sotomayor that can produce hostile responses if they are violated. She has also been criticized on her ability to relate intimately because she is a “workaholic.” No one would question a man’s ability to have an intimate relationship because he works too much.