Daddy Bonus, Mommy Penalty

Neil H. Buchanan's recent paper, Why Do Women Lawyers Earn Less than Men? Parenthood and Gender in a Survey of Law School Graduates, reveals a correlation between parental status and salary.

Using a dataset of survey responses from University of Michigan Law School graduates from the classes of 1970 through 1996, I find that fathers tend to receive higher salaries than non-fathers (a "daddy bonus"). In addition, mothers earn less than non-mothers (a "mommy penalty"). There is also some statistical support for the inference that there is a penalty associated purely with gender (women earning less than men, independent of parenthood), another result that is unique to the literature.

Playing the Gender Card

An advertising campaign by an all-woman law firm was brought to my attention by AboveTheLaw today.  The firm is Schroder Joseph and Associates, a boutique labor and employment law firm, and the ad campaign plays squarely on gender stereotypes with taglines such as "Ever Argue with a Woman?" and "Labor Pains? Talk to us.  We're women... we get it."  The controversy is also covered here and here.

I have to admit, that I agree with some of the commentors to the ABA Journal article, the ads are funny, catchy, memorable and remarkable.  Therefore, I would say they are effective advertising. However, what are they effective at and what sort of message does the reciever of the advertising message leave with?  I'm left with the following ideas and impressions -- SJA is an all woman firm (neutral); they aren't embarrassed about that (positive); they think that this is an advantage worth advertising (negative).  My response to the idea that the firm sees this as something worth advertising is negative because I am not sure that it is an advantage.  I can't be somebody that thinks that gender diversity is good for law firms and, at the same time, think that an all-woman firm is better than others, can I?  I recognize the strengths of men and the benefits of diversity.   I would hire an all woman firm to represent my company but I don't think that I would hire such a firm BECAUSE they were all women and I don't think we as women should be encouraging that either.

I get that the ads are supposed to be funny.  I also get that the ads are intended to play on gender stereotypes.  Does a profit-making business take out ads just to "be funny"? Nope, not unless they intend for that humor to attract business.  I just don't see any other explanation for it.

What do others think?

Sex Discrimination at Hair Salons

Congressional Babes

Last week on my blog we had a short conversation about hyper-sexualized younger women, and why coming down on them is a little bit unfair. Now, the LA Times gives us this article about Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Congresswoman who is, according to the paper, is being "tested on whether her reputation will be more coquette or congresswoman."

Because Lord knows the earth would shatter if she were both a female politician and a human being.