Sunday, December 13, 2009
Blog #26
A 1995 study from the California Bar Association addressed the issue of gender bias in the law. It clearly points out the ongoing presence of bias from acceptance of stereotypes about women to the limitation in career advancement based on gender. Their survey showed that 85% of women lawyers surveyed perceived subtle but pervasive bias but 76 % also responded they would still choose to become lawyers. Two thirds felt they were not accepted as equal by their peers. Interestingly, the more women that worked in particular firm the greater the sense of fairness. It may be when more women are employed at a particular workplace less is attributed gender. Sandra Day O’Connor noted in her last book what a relief it was when Justice Ginsberg arrived at the court; when O’Conner was no longer the only woman the sense that all she did that was different was because she was a woman diminished. In the California study 62% of female lawyers believed that they did not have much opportunity for advancement as male lawyers. Some attributed gender bias to female layers not being part of the old boy network. A full 65% said they did not make any career changes due to these perceptions of negative bias. Interestingly, the sense of bias come from many directions. 76%noted that bias from opposing counsel, 64% noted it from clients, 48% from superiors and 43% from peers. The other data that really provides blatant evidence of gender bias is the sheer number of women who have advanced to levels of partner and to judge or professor or Association leads. Clearly the pipeline theory of putting more women in the pipeline at the bottom level has not caused as much advancement up through the ranks as would be expected if this theory were true. The truth is career development is not just a matter of years in place working hard. There is a great deal to the support and direction of supervising staff, which for the legal field is occupied by men. Guidance to young lawyers focuses on several point that help this development. One is to develop meaningful relationship. This suggests time and effort spent to know people of power inside and outside of the law. Interestingly, when it comes to the business world it seen as equally bereft of women in positions of power. Another suggestion is to find mentors; clearly a step more easily established by males because o f sheer numbers. In one study from the University of Calgary, there was a statistically significant difference in outcomes of satisfaction when mentors for women were women. That relationship building had a different dimension when it was a mentor of the same sex. Still surveys have also shown that many women prefer male bosses. Women employed expected a female boss to be more sympathetic and when the boss was demanding they felt betrayed. Women accepted the hierarchy form men and tolerated their yelling and bad behavior; there just wasn’t an expectation of befriending from their supervisor when he was male. It is simply a fact of the time that men do influence and can assist female lawyers in career advancement because they are holding the seats of power in more numbers, and overcoming the pervasive prejudice is necessary to equalize the opportunities for advancement for women.
Blog #39
English’s “re-imagining the Future” outlines several organization initiatives that need to occur before work/life balance can be obtained and equality among men and women is gained in the legal profession.
She starts by pointing out that the “expectation gap” is to be narrowed down. This can be done by offering a “realistic assessment about the status of gender issues in the profession, tempering disappointment of any perceived lack of progress with the realization that stereotypes don’t disappear overnight, and that one generation is a short time for major social change”. This means to not dwell on the problems, but more so to look upwards, toward the future and those changes cannot be instant and take much time. She also points out that this re-calibrated understanding shouldn’t be an argument for abandoning efforts to influence change that are already in effect, but rather address the question of how change can be pursued profitably. This means that we should ignore the leaps made in the past, but to alter them into being more effective. There is a need of a common set of principles to bracket discussion. This is because it is hard to talk about victims without pointing out the “bad guys”. The final and what I believe the most significant technique that needs to be articulated is the vision of the future. Usually these visions have been displayed in numbers. She exemplifies this as being “more women partners, more women general counsel, and more women in leadership.” But this goal does not need to focus strictly on women because it may alienate men. The benefits need to be produced for both genders.
English describes that these new goals cannot be adjusted until the first principles about how best to deliver legal services (who/what 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) are addressed.
I very much agree with her idea that a different, more flexible view of “commitment” to work during a person’s life span should be re-evaluated. “Rather than viewing every new lawyer as a potential lifer, working day in and day out, this vision assumes from the start that there may be times in people’s lives that they need to expand and contract their work schedules.”
She starts by pointing out that the “expectation gap” is to be narrowed down. This can be done by offering a “realistic assessment about the status of gender issues in the profession, tempering disappointment of any perceived lack of progress with the realization that stereotypes don’t disappear overnight, and that one generation is a short time for major social change”. This means to not dwell on the problems, but more so to look upwards, toward the future and those changes cannot be instant and take much time. She also points out that this re-calibrated understanding shouldn’t be an argument for abandoning efforts to influence change that are already in effect, but rather address the question of how change can be pursued profitably. This means that we should ignore the leaps made in the past, but to alter them into being more effective. There is a need of a common set of principles to bracket discussion. This is because it is hard to talk about victims without pointing out the “bad guys”. The final and what I believe the most significant technique that needs to be articulated is the vision of the future. Usually these visions have been displayed in numbers. She exemplifies this as being “more women partners, more women general counsel, and more women in leadership.” But this goal does not need to focus strictly on women because it may alienate men. The benefits need to be produced for both genders.
English describes that these new goals cannot be adjusted until the first principles about how best to deliver legal services (who/what 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) are addressed.
I very much agree with her idea that a different, more flexible view of “commitment” to work during a person’s life span should be re-evaluated. “Rather than viewing every new lawyer as a potential lifer, working day in and day out, this vision assumes from the start that there may be times in people’s lives that they need to expand and contract their work schedules.”
Blog #38
Sandra Day O’Conner way the first female appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. She has made many significant contributions during her profession.
Abortion has been a very hot topic that she contributed to. In 1974 she voted against a measure to prohibit abortions in some Arizona hospitals. O’Connor generally dissented from 1980s opinion which took an expansive view of Roe v. Wade; she criticized that decision’s “trimester approach” sharply in her dissent in 1983’s City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. She is reported as criticizing Roe in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: “…I dispute not only the wisdom but also the legitimacy of the Court's attempt to discredit and pre-empt state abortion regulation regardless of the interests it serves and the impact it has”
She is also widely criticized by her own conservatives. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that, although O’Conner “has voted reasonably well" from a conservative standpoint, her tendency to issue very case-specific rulings. This is very strong compliment.
Bella Abzug was elected to Congress as a Representative from New York’s 19th district in 1971. She has dedicated much of her efforts as a labor lawyer and the House Abzug has enlarged her advocacy for civil rights and women’s rights such as introducing legislation banning discrimination against women seeking credit. “Abzug opposed the war in Vietnam, called for complete withdrawal of troops and organized Women’s Strike for Peace.”
Abzug served the state of New York in the United States House of Representatives, representing her district in Manhattan, from 1971 to 1977. For part of her term, she also represented part of The Bronx as well. She was one of the first members of Congress to support gay rights, introducing the first federal gay rights bill, known as the Equality Act of 1974.
Abortion has been a very hot topic that she contributed to. In 1974 she voted against a measure to prohibit abortions in some Arizona hospitals. O’Connor generally dissented from 1980s opinion which took an expansive view of Roe v. Wade; she criticized that decision’s “trimester approach” sharply in her dissent in 1983’s City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. She is reported as criticizing Roe in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: “…I dispute not only the wisdom but also the legitimacy of the Court's attempt to discredit and pre-empt state abortion regulation regardless of the interests it serves and the impact it has”
She is also widely criticized by her own conservatives. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that, although O’Conner “has voted reasonably well" from a conservative standpoint, her tendency to issue very case-specific rulings. This is very strong compliment.
Bella Abzug was elected to Congress as a Representative from New York’s 19th district in 1971. She has dedicated much of her efforts as a labor lawyer and the House Abzug has enlarged her advocacy for civil rights and women’s rights such as introducing legislation banning discrimination against women seeking credit. “Abzug opposed the war in Vietnam, called for complete withdrawal of troops and organized Women’s Strike for Peace.”
Abzug served the state of New York in the United States House of Representatives, representing her district in Manhattan, from 1971 to 1977. For part of her term, she also represented part of The Bronx as well. She was one of the first members of Congress to support gay rights, introducing the first federal gay rights bill, known as the Equality Act of 1974.
Blog #37
In the report, Charting Our Progress, by the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession outlines several difficulties for women within the profession. Some of these hurtles include gender stereotypes where women report having been referred to as “honey” or “baby” which they fear disadvantage them. English differs in the belief that this is being dealt with more in “chatting up the Wives”. Here she states that “All the talk about sexual harassment, along with widespread fear of lawsuits and story making, causes second-guessing and worry. As a result, many people take affirmative steps such as making strategic alliances so that rumors don’t swirl.” (English, 63) Referrals to law firms that are dominated by male workers are also a problem that still exists. The networks of law firms that are dominated by or equally employ women are not as tight-knit as compare to the male counterparts.
“Schedule creep” is developing into several different problems such as the amount of billable hours asked of lawyers. English considers this “Death by Part Time”. (English, 201) The technology trap now allows lawyers to work at home but also may take time away from home activated such as childrearing and the “Sandwich Generation” is a term used to describe that need of women to care for children and elderly family members. English also talks about these problems of conflicting roles. (English, 228)
This is considered a female obligation. Also the report tells of how “Current data indicate that more and more firms are allowing part time schedules, but women testifying in the 2003 hearings still reported that choosing the part-time option posed professional risks”. Some of the major problems are the simple fact that the barriers faced include the need to repeatedly establish female competence. English uses this as an example in “Getting Beyond Nice”. (English, 128) And now there has developed a “generation gap” in which senior women in the firm had become a part of the “good-old-boy network, rather than railing against it.”
“Schedule creep” is developing into several different problems such as the amount of billable hours asked of lawyers. English considers this “Death by Part Time”. (English, 201) The technology trap now allows lawyers to work at home but also may take time away from home activated such as childrearing and the “Sandwich Generation” is a term used to describe that need of women to care for children and elderly family members. English also talks about these problems of conflicting roles. (English, 228)
This is considered a female obligation. Also the report tells of how “Current data indicate that more and more firms are allowing part time schedules, but women testifying in the 2003 hearings still reported that choosing the part-time option posed professional risks”. Some of the major problems are the simple fact that the barriers faced include the need to repeatedly establish female competence. English uses this as an example in “Getting Beyond Nice”. (English, 128) And now there has developed a “generation gap” in which senior women in the firm had become a part of the “good-old-boy network, rather than railing against it.”
Blog #36
In the Talk of the Nation story in course materials, the glass ceiling is explored. The question discusses was: Can corporate America lure the women back into the workforce? Due to this material I believe the answer is yes, but in an unexpected way. They main issues contributing to women moving out of the workforce was discussed as being the loss of women’s values and control of the workplace. This began to effect women differently than men because women were just not willing to give up on family obligation as some men were. The top job available that women are involved with are becoming more and more unpredictable. A women spoke about how she, her husband and several friends attempt to vacation in Alaska, during which she was consistently needing to be tied into her work life and this had a huge impact on what was supposed to be her vacation time. Amount of actual work in being increase and women must decide whether to prioritize work life over the home life. Also the hazing rituals were discussed such as how the United States work a ridiculous amount more of hours that do out European counter-parts. Not only is this taking away from the family life of women, but more and more men are becoming concerned about the amount of time this takes them away from home. NPR explains that women are just opting out of the glass ceiling rather than try to break it. IT suggests that more women are now choosing to divide up their career around their childrearing. They discussed how women go to school and then begin their career paths, later taking time out of their career in order to raise their children. Then the women go back to work after the children have left the home to peruse their goals. This in effect is not so much breaking the glass ceiling, but more so leaving it, to return when they are more advantaged to break it.
Blog #35
The EEOC Recommendations article outlines the legal treatment of caregivers. They discuss the sex-based disparate treatment of female caregivers, the Pregnancy Discrimination, the discrimination against male caregivers, discrimination against women of color, and the unlawful caregiver stereotyping under ADA; hostile work environment harassment. The article suggests that it does not account for caregivers.
They state that “The notion of "caregivers" comprising a special class of employees is of relatively recent origin. What separates these employees descriptively from others is that they, in addition to doing paid work, are also engaged in significant care giving outside of the workplace.” Most importantly they discuss how care giving is not equally distributed across workers. Not all workers have the same responsibilities or needs of other caregivers.
The “Best Practices” Document adds several points. It suggests that particular workplace policies will not only help employers avoid violating existing law, but also promote better work/life balance for employees with such responsibilities. “Part of the EEOC's justification for prompting employers to exceed legal requirements in this regard is research showing that family-friendly workplace policies enhance productivity and aid in employee retention, both components of lowering employer costs.”
The best practices document is grouped into three categories: general; recruitment, hiring, and promotion; and terms and conditions. Within each category, it suggests specific policies that promote work/life balance. This helps to explain how thoroughly the “Best Practices” would affect the balance.
One of the biggest problems outlined in the readings is the factor that many of the persons not considered major care givers are feeling shafted. They often feel that the part-time workers are very difficult to deal with and oftentimes do not bear their fair share of the work. They find themselves resent the people who are taking advantage of this type of leave and wish they would do the same for their own personal reasons- not necessarily for care giving. As these individuals feel it is unfair, the individuals who attempt to take advantage of the opportunity feel that they are scrutinized. They are seen as not being committed or as “nickel and diming” and not sufficient in their work.
They state that “The notion of "caregivers" comprising a special class of employees is of relatively recent origin. What separates these employees descriptively from others is that they, in addition to doing paid work, are also engaged in significant care giving outside of the workplace.” Most importantly they discuss how care giving is not equally distributed across workers. Not all workers have the same responsibilities or needs of other caregivers.
The “Best Practices” Document adds several points. It suggests that particular workplace policies will not only help employers avoid violating existing law, but also promote better work/life balance for employees with such responsibilities. “Part of the EEOC's justification for prompting employers to exceed legal requirements in this regard is research showing that family-friendly workplace policies enhance productivity and aid in employee retention, both components of lowering employer costs.”
The best practices document is grouped into three categories: general; recruitment, hiring, and promotion; and terms and conditions. Within each category, it suggests specific policies that promote work/life balance. This helps to explain how thoroughly the “Best Practices” would affect the balance.
One of the biggest problems outlined in the readings is the factor that many of the persons not considered major care givers are feeling shafted. They often feel that the part-time workers are very difficult to deal with and oftentimes do not bear their fair share of the work. They find themselves resent the people who are taking advantage of this type of leave and wish they would do the same for their own personal reasons- not necessarily for care giving. As these individuals feel it is unfair, the individuals who attempt to take advantage of the opportunity feel that they are scrutinized. They are seen as not being committed or as “nickel and diming” and not sufficient in their work.
Blog #34
Joan Williams addressed many of the issues discussed in English’s book “Gender on Trial” in her question and answer of her book. The goal of her book was to “unbend gender” which she describes as referring to two different trends. The first trend is that in this country there has been unbending and unyielding; there had been “a lot less changed than we had hoped for 20 or 30 years ago. The sendond she describes as the extent of the things that have changed, “changed have been achieved not by moving toward androgyny, but by widening out the range of socially acceptable masculinities and femininities-preserving ‘la difference’ between men and women”.
She clearly separates “market work” and “family work”. She defines “market work” the work that is done for pay and “family work” which includes childcare, housework, eldercare and other forms of caring work. English defines this “family work” as care giving in general.
Williams discusses some of the emotional challenges faces by women who are stay-at-home moms, women you re-enter the work force after having children immediately and women who attempt to accomplish both. She states that even the mothers who stay at home often feel they are taken less seriously by other adults and feel they are viewed at “just a housewife”. She talks about how mothers who work full time often find themselves on the “mommy track” which mean depressed pay rates, fewer benefits, and blocked advancement. So the mothers, whether employed or not, suffer as a result of the current system. She points out that this even affects non-mother because many employers refuse to take them seriously because of the assumption that they too will eventually become mothers and “drop out”.
According to Williams, most people, when assessing their choices, choose the choices they have, not what they should have. This in effect causes them to become involved in a “false choice”. If they had a choice to cut back their hours or reduce them without marginalization, they might, but many women who are at home might add paid work to their lives, if they had a real choice to do so.
The “ideal worker” has been defined as a person who does a good job, that typically are willing and able to work full time for 40 years straight, taking no time off for childbearing or childrearing. This is a very biased view because it is “framed around men’s bodies”. Men are unaffected by the standards and women desperately are. If women and men were supposed to be considered “ideal workers” than they typically child would be raised without their parents “from 8am to 6, 7, or 8pm. This would then effect whether or not the children of a family would be raised correctly to societies standards.
If women attempt to work part time while raising a family, this disadvantages them greatly as talked about in English’s book. Here there are many testimonials about how other workers feel they are unfairly treated compared to the part-time workers or feel that these workers are not working as hard as they are within their designated time periods.
She clearly separates “market work” and “family work”. She defines “market work” the work that is done for pay and “family work” which includes childcare, housework, eldercare and other forms of caring work. English defines this “family work” as care giving in general.
Williams discusses some of the emotional challenges faces by women who are stay-at-home moms, women you re-enter the work force after having children immediately and women who attempt to accomplish both. She states that even the mothers who stay at home often feel they are taken less seriously by other adults and feel they are viewed at “just a housewife”. She talks about how mothers who work full time often find themselves on the “mommy track” which mean depressed pay rates, fewer benefits, and blocked advancement. So the mothers, whether employed or not, suffer as a result of the current system. She points out that this even affects non-mother because many employers refuse to take them seriously because of the assumption that they too will eventually become mothers and “drop out”.
According to Williams, most people, when assessing their choices, choose the choices they have, not what they should have. This in effect causes them to become involved in a “false choice”. If they had a choice to cut back their hours or reduce them without marginalization, they might, but many women who are at home might add paid work to their lives, if they had a real choice to do so.
The “ideal worker” has been defined as a person who does a good job, that typically are willing and able to work full time for 40 years straight, taking no time off for childbearing or childrearing. This is a very biased view because it is “framed around men’s bodies”. Men are unaffected by the standards and women desperately are. If women and men were supposed to be considered “ideal workers” than they typically child would be raised without their parents “from 8am to 6, 7, or 8pm. This would then effect whether or not the children of a family would be raised correctly to societies standards.
If women attempt to work part time while raising a family, this disadvantages them greatly as talked about in English’s book. Here there are many testimonials about how other workers feel they are unfairly treated compared to the part-time workers or feel that these workers are not working as hard as they are within their designated time periods.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)