Other Issues

Call for Submissions: Gender Diversity: Have we solved the problem? If not, where do we go from here?

Ms. JD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:24:57 -0500

The ABA Commission on Women in the Profession announced their 2008 Video/Essay Competition:

Put your video and writing skills to work! Create a 3-minute YouTube video and/or craft a 6-page essay to tell us what you think about Gender Diversity: Have we solved the problem? If not, where do we go from here?

Open to young lawyers and law students, winners will receive $500 and award winning entries will be posted on the Commission's website.

Entries must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. Central Time on December 31, 2008.

Click here for more information and contest rules.

Questions? Contact Barbara Leff at leffb@staff.abanet.org.

Working Moms as Role Models: Part I -- Role models for our kids?

Peg — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:46:30 -0500

A long while ago I wrote a post about the idea that working moms are role models for their children and about the judging that goes on between women including the battles being fought in the, so called, "mommy wars". Well, I have some updates and some additional insight on the issue that I'd like to share.

First, I was recently amazed at the fact that my 5 year old daughter is completely oblivious to gender roles. I now think that this is partly due to the fact that I am a lawyer and have always worked full-time. I now think that my decision to work is impacting the way that she looks at the world and that I am a role model -- at least a model for a woman that chooses to make similar choices.

Call for Papers: Applied Feminism: How Feminist Legal Theory is Changing the Law

jlwallace — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:00:02 -0500

The University of Baltimore School of Law is hosting their Second Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference in 2009. The conference, which will bring together law students, legal academics, practitioners and activists, "will look at discrete areas of the law and ask how feminist legal theory operates or could operate to expand existing law, create new law, or combat contractions in the law."

This conference will address these issues from the perspectives of activists, practitioners and academics. The conference will provide an opportunity for participants and audience members to exchange ideas about the current state of feminist legal theory by looking at how those theories are being actualized in practice and in specific areas of the law. From the conference, we hope to further the discourse about the future of feminist legal theory and its practical applications to the law.

Is Toe Cleavage Unprofessional?

lawblogger — Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:37:51 -0500

Over at Women Lawyers Back On Track, there's an interesting post on something I admit I never even considered: is it unprofessional to wear shoes that show "toe cleavage"? As reported by the Memphis Daily News, a group of 16 judges and attorneys met at the Tennessee Supreme Court to discuss a dress code for attorneys. The meeting "included an impromptu modeling of shoes to determine if either pair represented 'cocktail shoes,' and if they did, whether they were inappropriate or disrespectful to the courts. It also included questions about how much arm is too much for a woman to show." The meeting was "the result of some judges being offended by too-short skirts, too much cleavage or too much arm being shown, and running shoes being worn in the courthouse." Judge Kay Robilio stated that "it's not as if sexism is dead" and that a woman's attire can play into the problem: "it’s important for a woman’s message to get through intellectually. And it’s important from my perspective that no one’s attention be diverted from the power of representation, which has to have its credence in a well-reasoned argument.”

The meeting resulted in this proposed dress code: “All attorneys should wear appropriate attire. Men shall wear coats, ties, slacks and appropriate footwear, which does not include athletic shoes or shoes without socks. Women shall wear professional and conservative attire, such as dresses with jackets, suits or pantsuits (with appropriate tops), and appropriate footwear, which does not include cocktail shoes or sandals or athletic shoes.” Nicole Black pointed out that her "favorite part of the rule is that the attire for women is specifically described as 'conservative.' For some reason, men need not dress 'conservatively'. Presumably 1970's style leisure suits would be perfectly appropriate for men to wear court."

New Talk Conversation Announcement: What is the role of the courts in making social policy?

Ms. JD — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:12:26 -0500

New Talk is a new online forum designed to tackle tough policy issues directly, with ongoing commentary from leading experts and policymakers on the frontline of said issues. The next question to be addressed by New Talk is, "What is the role of the courts in making social policy?" The conversation begins Tuesday, July 8th and runs through Thursday, July 10th.

Experts scheduled to participate in this next conversation include: Michael Traynor, President, American Law Institute; Lord Hoffman, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary; Kenneth Feinberg, Principal, The Feinberg Group; Theodore H. Frank, Director, AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest; Mark Geistfeld, Crystal Eastman Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; and Phillip Howard, founder of Common Good and New Talk.

Ms. JD encourages its readers to participate in the online conversation! Log on to www.newtalk.org to post your comments alonside the experts' dialog as the conversation unfolds. Ms. JD also encourages its readers to continue the discussion on Ms. JD after the conclusion of the New Talk conversation.

Ms. JD has, therefore, created a General Discussion forum post especially for this purpose. The forum topic can be found under the General Discussion category, entitled 'What is the role of the courts in making social policy?" So debate away!

I am a Feminist Because ...

jessie — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:01:33 -0500

I am a Feminist because I believe in gender equity. While acknowledging that there are real and perceived differences between men and women, I don't believe these differences justify disparities in their treatment.

I think it's important to explain why I am a Feminist because a lot of people associate Feminism with other values - with extremism, with elitism, with activism, with exclusivity, with anger. There are famous Feminists who have visibly advanced those values: abolitionists, prohibitionists, suffragists, etc. Many were brave and pioneering. Many were controversial. Many made mistakes. I know that I invoke their memory when I adopt their label. But "Feminist" is defined not just by its past usage but by those who presently identify themselves as such. I'm proud to share responsibility for the continued evolution of the term.

For me Feminism is not a cause, it's a perspective. I do not think there is a single issue of public or private concern that does not impact women. But not everyone who considers these issues thinks about their gender-specific effects. My Feminism helps inform how I view war, poverty, sickness, politics, education, business - you name it. It is not the only perspective I carry with me - I'm also young, Western-educated, a former artist, an attorney, etc. - all my experiences color my viewpoint.

I know that others don't share my perspective despite sharing my label. I know that others don't share my label despite sharing my commitment to gender equity. I'd be interested to hear from the full spectrum. How do you define Feminism? How do you identify yourself?

Here's another perspective to help get you started.

The Giggle Monster

sintecho — Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:06:07 -0500

In my continual search to find the newest advice for professional women, I randomly came across this old post at On Phara entitled Channeling Barbie: Career Advice for Professional Women, and then immediately googled John McKee, the guy who is cited heavily in the post. Just so you're oriented as to the messenger, I'll start with John McKee, self-styled as "one of America's leading executive coaches" and author of Business Woman Web: How to Use Gender Bias to Ensure Your Career Success. Red flags, anyone? In addition to advocating using gender bias rather than eradicating it, McKee answers the question "people ask [him] all the time, 'Why is a man writing a book about women in management?'" His answer? "We need more women leading more of our largest corporations in this country. For at least 10 reasons, it is important that men start helping to change the current and frankly unacceptable situation whereonly about 5% of these organizations have female CEOs." Though I whole-heartedly agree that men are a needed ingredient in improving the situation, I think a huge symptom of the problem is that his approach is to take the lead in bossing women around to the top of the corporate ladder with questionable advice that is pretty much summed up in his tagline.

Now for his insight, as quoted by On Pharma:

Don't "giggle." Why? McKee has "never heard a CEO giggle." Also, women "laugh 126 percent more often than men. And unfortunately, this laughter is not relegated to personal life." Um, apparently McKee doesn't realize lawyers work so much that work becomes part of their personal life. Also, why is it unfortunate to laugh in the workplace? These questions unanswered, McKee asserts that he has in fact "heard many women giggle a bit just after saying something, and it diminishes the impact of what they have said."

At this point, I'm wondering what the difference is between a laugh and a giggle.

Shoes, Clothes, and Law, Oh My

Manamana — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:35:53 -0500

The Wall Street Journal has joined the hoary conversation on women’s professional apparel with a trifeca of articles/blog posts: first, with a profile of Lehman Brother’s CFO Erin Callan; next, with a follow-up post on The Juggle blog that specifically commented on Callan’s choice of shoes in the photo accompanying the profile; and now on the Law Blog, which picked up on comments that split on whether female lawyers indeed need to wear uncomfortable professional outfits in the courtroom.

And as regular Ms. JD readers know, this is indeed something that consumes a great deal of time and mental anxiety for female lawyers and law students (I’ve posted in the forum about it here; sintecho has written about long v. short hair here; and a paralegal has written about her sartorial quandaries here).

All of this leads to one simple conclusion: a lot of people have strong opinions on whether appearances matter, particularly for women. Past that, good luck finding any consensus. I’m not going to hide the ball on my position, since I have always thought that (1) appearances matter a lot; (2) there are absolutely wrong choices to make; and (3) finding the right balance between what is appropriate, comfortable, and something you like is one of those juggling skills that only come with a lot of practice, some keen observations, and a good sense of self. As a huge fan of Go Fug Yourself and Jezebel’s Snap Judgments and the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly, I’m not afraid to stick with the notion that the message you send with your clothes and appearance will often precede you, and may even ensure that what comes out of your mouth (or from your briefs) can both be discounted or augmented by your appearance.

Personally, and (I think) in light of my relative youth, background, and brand new J.D. (a whole other post!), I go conservative.

Gen Y and the Blame Game

Manamana — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:21:25 -0500

The New York Times’ Lisa Belkin—she who graced us with the oversimplifying phrase “opt-out”—is a good writer, and she frequently touches on subjects that I find personally compelling. This is largely because she’s one of the few mainstream media writers writing about the working life struggles that I face or will face, and which I spend a lot of time thinking about. (Why she has been cosigned to the Styles Section, rather than, say, the Business Section, and what message that sends about the valuation of issues relating to working women and men vis-à-vis their personal lives, is worth a whole other post.) Still, while I appreciate that she is talking about various issues that I think are extremely important, I always feel as though her articles leave me feeling unhappy or unsatisfied because she has left out important points or only presented a narrow side of the story.

Today’s column, Prepping Children for the 9 to 5, is no exception. In it, she talks about the effect that parents can have on their children’s attitudes and expectations about work. For the record: this is a great topic, and one that is probably deserving of much more study and discussion. I’m sure that if you scratched the surface a little, most people will reveal that their thoughts, expectations, and aspirations about work are heavily influenced by their parents’ experiences, and their interpretation of their parents’ experiences. I, for example, realized very early how frustrating it was for my mother to give up her career to stay home with me and my two brothers, even though she made this choice willingly and wanted, at some level, to be a SAHM.

But where Belkin lost me is when the article took a turn and indicted an entire generation—my generation, Generation Y—for being self-absorbed, unwilling to work hard, and easily dissuaded. The anecdotes used are particularly telling: one is about consultant running into a friend who quit his job because it interfered with his social life and he had to work weekends. The other is a quote from another consultant, who said “This generation has been spoon-fed self-esteem cereal for the past 22 years. They’ve been told it’s all about them—what they want, what they are passionate about, what they find fulfilling.” And while Belkin does allow that the “sharply different attitude toward work” of Gen Y is “probably their parents’ doing,” there is not much else to counter this image of Gen Y-ers as fragile, self-centered creatures who will quit or give up at the slightest sign of difficulty.

[More after the jump]

Ms. Stiletto, Meet Ms. Rubber-heel

SDevlin — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:42:47 -0500

I understand the stereotypical female shoe fetish. I understand the draw to higher arches, slimmer heels, pointier toes, shinier patent leather. In a profession where office dress is often highly regulated, a woman's shoe is where she expresses both her power and her femininity. When, Ms. Stiletto, a powerful female professional, marches into a room in a 5 inch black pointy-toed stiletto, you can almost hear the click of the heels say "I am woman, hear me roar."

Ms. Stiletto, I highly admire you and your shoes, but I am not one of you. I've tried, but my feet hurt and my balance is lacking. With my one-inch high, thick, rubber-heeled, square-toed shoes, my feet thank me at the end of the day. I'm able to glide around a large office, bound up or down the stairs with ease and without a loud clack.

However, Ms. Stiletto, when I enter silently into a room, I see you glancing at my feet. I can see your judging eye. The men in the room rarely notice my shoes, but you do. They are not the ones thinking that I am too unconfident or timid to wear a bolder, "girlier" shoe. This is girl-on-girl judgment, and I'm standing up against it. I am standing up to say that my thick, low-heel diminishes neither my femininity nor my position as a viable professional.

[More after the jump]