Sidebar-For the Other Half of the Human Race

Just in case anyone connects the dots.

2010-05-13T14:25:00.002-05:00

I wrote this blog anonymously. I'm still not going to reveal who I am. But, I am occasionally taking content from this blog and posting it on one of my mainstream blogs which is not anonymous. In case anyone ever connects the dots, I'm posting this here on the off chance they decide to accuse me of plagiarism. Should that day come, I'll officially claim this blog as my own. Until then, this is my CYA. Thanks. Ta ta for now.

Finito

2006-12-05T19:34:00.000-06:00

I think I'm pretty much done with this here blog. Thanks for all the good times, the laughs, the tears..

For those of you that are interested in the whole "women in the law" aspect of my blog, you might want to check out one of the blogs in my sidebar, Sui Generis, which I noticed has recently begun weekly posts on finding balance in the legal profession. Or, you might not. Whatevah.

Sayonara.

Law Firms smelling the coffee?

2006-11-20T09:02:00.000-06:00

There's a great article from Law.com that summarizes much of what I've been saying on this blog: that the priorities of Gen Xers and Gen Yers are going to change the structure of law firms as we know it. The aging dinosaur is dying a slow, somewhat painful death. Hoo-yah!

From the article, which discusses the apparently increasing number of law students who choose to have children while in law school so that they'll be able to actually see their children grow up:

Tornabene's planning isn't an exception -- law school administrators and students say such careful logic is apparently driving a parent boom among student ranks. University of California, Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law's dean of students, Victoria Ortiz, said the school doesn't keep statistics, but her staff has been buzzing about the phenomenon...

Young people, mindful of the realities of working in the legal profession, are taking advantage of the perks of academia. At the top of the list are class schedules that can be arranged to leave mornings and afternoons free for day care drop-offs and pick-ups and the option to take up to a full academic year off without missing a beat on return.

Professors and administrators understand that students juggle all sorts of responsibilities apart from schoolwork, she said, including part-time jobs and internships -- and kids.

That type of understanding seems to be rare at firms, Alon said. Attorneys who come to campus to speak with students do well answering questions about the best places to clerk to ensure a spot with their firm, but they falter on questions about how their 5-year-old feels about their 90-hour work weeks. "They're very surprised to hear questions from students about work-life balance," Alon said, adding that the advice she gets frequently is to "work really hard and pay your nanny really well."

What working attorneys and firm managers are just beginning to understand is that there is a generation entering the profession who don't plan to pay someone else to watch their children.

Amen, sister.

Why womens' bar associations are worthless

2006-11-06T22:07:00.000-06:00

According to this National Survey On Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms report and as summarized by Robert Ambrogi over at Inside Opinions:

Even women who achieve the status of equity partner tend to earn less than their male counterparts and play a lesser role in firm governance. On average, women hold only 16 percent of the seats on their firms' governing committees and make up only 5 percent of managing partners.

So, bottom line, even the women who "make it" have no power.

And that's why I've found that womens' bar associations are worthless for networking. No one that you "network" with has the ability or power to do much of anything for you. I've found that I have far more success networking at the local bar association where I interact with mostly male attorneys.

As I see it, the only women that have any "power" are judges, and even then, it all depends on the political climate. Although women solos seem to be more in the loop than women in law firms.

That's the sad but true reality. Law firms are one of the worst places that a woman could choose to work. And, as the numbers show, women are figuring that out, slowly but surely. Hence, the mass exodus from law firms.

And, I say--good riddance. Who needs the antiquated structure of law firms, which are based on archaic thinking? They're dinosaurs that are dying a slow death. The law firm as we know it is a thing of the past. It's about time.

Stereotypes and typical ratios

2006-10-21T08:09:00.000-05:00

So, someone emailed me the following Gentile jokes (I'm Jewish--half my family is Catholic, however--my mother converted to Judaism):

A Gentile goes into a clothing store and says, "This is a very fine
>jacket. How much is it?"
>The salesman says, "It's $500."
>The Gentile says, "OK, I'll take it."
>
>*******************
>
>Two Gentiles meet on the street. The first one says, "You own your own
>business, don't you? How's it going?" The other Gentile says, "Just
>great! Thanks for asking!"
>
>********************
>Two Gentile mothers meet on the street and start talking about children.
>Gentile mother 1 (said with pride): "My son is a construction worker!"
>Gentile mother 2 (said with more pride): "My son is a truck driver!"
>
>*******************
>A man calls his mother and says, "Mother, I know you're expecting me for
>dinner this evening, but something important has come up and I can't make
>it." His mother says, "OK."
>
>****************************
>A Gentile couple goes to a nice restaurant.
>The man says: "I'll have the steak and a baked potato, and my wife will
>have the julienne salad with house dressing. We'll both have coffee."
>The waiter says, "How would you like your steak and salad prepared?" he
>man says,"I'd like the steak medium......the salad is fine as is." The
>waiter says, " Thank you."
>
>*************************************************************
>A Gentile man calls his elderly mother.
>He asks, " Mom, how are you feeling? Do you need anything?" She says,
>"I'm feeling fine, and I don't need anything. Thanks for calling

************************

Funny? Sure, for the most part. But what gives with all the sexist stereotypes? Loud obnoxious opinionated women--overbearing mothers full of guilt trips--boastful women. And, where are the corresponding stereotypes about Jewish men?

Sure--as a "race" we're all stereotyped as cheap money pinchers, but why is it that there's no negative Jewish husband/father stereotype that's oh-so-funny? Could it be--oh--I don't know--that Judaism's just as patriarchal as all the other major world religions, and thus the sexism filters right on down into the "humor"?

Can you tell that that's my take on it?

And, while we're discussing sexism--as if that's something new on this blog--let's move onto the local bar association's magazine that I just received.

First, in the "In the News" section, which is based on submissions from law firms regarding new hires, promotions, etc, there are 8 men mentioned and 3 women. That ratio sounds about right for our profession, dontcha think?

And, then there's the public service ad from a State bar organization encouraging lawyers to seek help for substance abuse. It states that 1 in 5 lawyers has a problem, and then, just in case we're too stoned to put 2 and 2 together, has 5 photographs. 3 men, 1 woman, and the "mystery druggie" whose face is blacked out, but is obviously a man. So, a 4:1 ratio. Again, sounds just about f*cking right.

Stupid profession.

No posts

2006-10-04T13:00:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of posts. Life got in the way. I'll post a few times over the next few days. See you then!

Getting back on the track...

2006-09-25T19:45:00.000-05:00

Carolyn Elefant at Inside Opinions posted about a really interesting law.com come article that discussed the legal field's very recent attempt to make the return to law easier for women who chose to "opt out" for a few years. From the article:

Traditionally, it's been an arduous journey for attorneys who have stepped off the treadmill to get back on. "It's not impossible, but it can be very difficult for people who haven't kept their hand in, in some way," says Marcia Shannon, a career-transition counselor with Shannon & Manch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal-outplacement and legal-management consulting firm.

But the market may be lending a hand. With attrition rates for associates as high as ever, some lawyers are looking for ways to reach out to nontraditional pools of talent.

Both the American Bar Association and the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco are launching initiatives aimed at helping attorneys who have stopped practicing maintain their connections and ease their transition back into the profession. Two attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom started the ABA project, Back to Business Law, in New York this past spring. The goal of the pilot project is to give nonpracticing attorneys a way to keep abreast of major legal developments and to give them opportunities for informal networking. The program will soon expand to Washington, D.C. Ann Ford, the managing partner of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary's D.C. office, was so taken with the project when she read about it in May that she decided to organize a D.C. chapter.

Now that's what I'm talking about. It's nice to see that law firms are slowly but surely beginning to realize that in about 10 years or less, they're going to be shit out of luck unless they begin to get creative. Sooner, rather than later, I predict that they're not going to be able to fill the ranks with the newly graduated Gen Y-ers who seem to want more out of life than just cash--and lots of it. As I've said in the past, once the men begin to actively seek balance, then things will start look up for the other half of the human race.

Another interesting point from the article is one that I've also mentioned a few times in the past--the accounting field is an indication of what's on the horizon for law firms, and they're light years ahead of us:

Perhaps law firms should take a cue from the accounting industry.

"Law firms are using a flawed accounting system," says Williams, who, through her work for the Center for WorkLife Law and as co-director of the center's Project for Attorney Retention, has been trying to convince law firms that there are sound business reasons for them to embrace more flexibility in the workplace.

The accounting industry has come up with innovative programs to stem the tide of attrition it has been facing, Williams says. For example, one Deloitte & Touche initiative allows its employees to leave the company for up to five years while staying connected to the company and keeping their skills current through firm-sponsored training, mentoring, networking events and ad hoc assignments.

Other accounting firms have followed suit and adopted forward-thinking family-friendly policies. "The reason is that they do the numbers," Williams says. "They know how much it is costing them to churn and burn." They have realized that it is economically in their interest to retain and re-recruit the employees they have already trained, she adds. The Project for Attorney Retention estimates that the cost of replacing a second-year associate, for example, runs about $200,000.

"Law firms are driving up expenses by driving out valuable workers one after another," Williams says.

I can assure you that one thing law firm partners understand is cold.hard.cash. They're just not very good at managing it. And, they're aging dinosaurs that aren't at all comfortable with change and have a hard time spotting new trends. But mark my words, they'll figure this one out soon enough.

I have a hunch. A strong one.

Kids book blogging

2006-09-24T13:08:00.000-05:00

It's time again for kids book blogging. This week my girls picked out just 5 books from the library. When we left the kids' area and headed towards the reception desk, we had six books, but by the time we reached the desk, one of them had lost a book along the way. Pretty typical for my girls!

Here are the books for this week and the applicable male/female character ratios:

Bob the Builder-Let's Find Colors: 5:2. The boys rule, as usual. Once again, I used Wikipedia's page on Bob the Builders to ascertain the sexes of the mostly machine characters.
I Love You: 2:1 (0:0), although I'm inclined to call this book gender neutral. There was a male farmer, and a page that showed the feet of a boy and a girl. All of the animals were androgynous, with the possible exception of two ducks, who were wearing swimming caps with flowers on them--strongly suggesting that they were female, although their gender was not entirely clear. Accordingly, even though this book may have had more males than females, I'm going to tabulate it as 0:0.
When Someone is Afraid: 2:2. The main character is a little boy, and he refers to a bunch of animals. Those whose gender is unknown to him (ie. wild animals) he calls "it" or "they", but refers to his pets by their gender. The cat is a girl and the dog a boy. And, he states that when he is afraid, he calls his mommy or daddy, although his mom happens to respond in the book when he is afraid. So, even though the female is in a stereotypical role in this book, the (female) author obviously gave some thought to gender issues, and I'd call this one gender neutral.
Jimmy's Boa and the Bungee Slam Dunk: 3:3. The main character is a little girls who recounts to her mother her day at school. There is a male coach and a female dance teacher, and a little boy named Jimmy who owned a male snake. Although this book has an even ratio, it has a number of stereotypical gender roles in place (female teacher, male coach, little girl in dance class, little boy involved in sports, mother listening to child's story), it's not exactly a great example of a gender nuetral book, in my opinion.
Bitter Bananas: 1:0. The main character is a little boy, and all other characters are andrgymous baboons.

Tally for this week: 11:7.

I'm always amazed by the total each week. Even on weeks such as this one, that didn't seem as overwhelmingly male character dominated, the girls still end up trailing by quite a bit.

Overall tally: 53:27. *sigh*

Bias hurting women in science? Say it ain't so!

2006-09-20T19:35:00.000-05:00

Oh yes. It's true! As reported in the New York Times here:

For 30 years, the report says, women have earned at least 30 percent of the nation’s doctorates in social and behavioral sciences, and at least 20 percent of the doctorates in life sciences. Yet they appear among full professors in those fields at less than half those levels. Women from minority groups are “virtually absent,” it adds.

The report also dismisses other commonly held beliefs — that women are uncompetitive or less productive, that they take too much time off for their families. Instead, it says, extensive previous research showed a pattern of unconscious but pervasive bias, “arbitrary and subjective” evaluation processes and a work environment in which “anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a ‘wife’ is at a serious disadvantage.”

(Hat tip: Bitch Ph.D.)

It's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend.

I'm getting kind of tired of hearing the same old refrain over and over. Aren't you?

Top firms failing women attorneys? Say it ain't so!

2006-09-20T19:30:00.000-05:00

Oh yes, it's true! As reported here:

Dozens of the nation's top law firms are failing their women attorneys when it comes to advancement, training, work-life balance and more, according to a report released by members of the Women's Law Association at Harvard Law School....

The report found that many women believe their firms don't provide opportunities to make partner or foster an environment that values diversity and family.

But we already knew that now, didn't we?

Let's party like it's 1991

2006-09-17T16:43:00.000-05:00

Because, apparently, it may as well be. According to this article, there has been little or no improvement in the pay disparity between male and female attorneys since 1991:

According to the data for full-time lawyers, only about 5 percent of women lawyers earn $350,000 or more while 20 percent of male lawyers earn at that level. One-fifth of the women earn less than $50,000; just 8 percent of men are in this category.

No female 1990s graduate is above the $200,000-$249,000 level while almost 10 percent of the male graduates from that decade are above it.

I guess it goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

What I didn't expect.

2006-09-14T16:08:00.000-05:00

UPDATED: Here's a link to the full Hirshman article that is referred to on her blog, thanks to Feminists Law Professors.

---------------

I've been thinking about the recent Linda Hirshman post that I discussed here. Something else that she said merits discussion:

I recently wrote a piece in the National Law Journal suggesting that an awful lot of women I interviewed had gone to law school with seemingly little understanding of what it meant to work in the legal profession. (Emphasis added).

She's right in a sense--at least as it relates to me. There was a lack of comprehension on my part, but not as it related to the practice of law. I was well aware of the expectations and the workload. And, I had no problem working 70 hour weeks as an Assistant PD and as an associate in a law firm. I understood those expectations. I knew what life would be like as a practicing attorney and wasn't a bit surprised by the reality of the situation.

What I didn't comprehend was how much work and time was required to run a household that included children. Once kids and a decent-sized home are added to the mix, life becomes increasingly more complicated. Even when the tasks are equally split between two working adults, it's hard to manage.

And the reason I didn't understand this factor was because our culture--and Ms. Hirshman's brand of feminism--denigrates and dismisses this aspect of life. Caring for children and managing a home are equated with eating bon bons 24/7. I can assure you, that's simply not the case. It's hard work. And, children are a huge responsibility. As they should be.

I wish that I'd known how much time this aspect of our lives required. And I wish I'd known how important those contributions are--both to my family and to society. And I wish I'd known how inflexible many legal employers can be. And, I wish that I hadn't pulled the wool over my eyes, with the idea that I'd deal with those issues "down the road."

So, yes, there was something that I didn't fully comprehend when I was in law school. And, I still don't quite get it today--why the domestic sphere of life is dismissed as unimportant, unfulfilling and frivolous, when just the opposite is true.

I've found a manifesto that makes sense.

2006-09-13T13:00:00.000-05:00

The Feminist Law Professors blog recently highlighted what is likely to become my very own manifesto, aptly entitled "The Motherhood Manifesto: What America’s Moms Want—And What to Do About It".

From the book:

Frankly, we are at a transition point in American history. While most mothers work in this country, we simply don’t have sufficient supports in place for parents and families. To suggest that mothers just need to find the proper balance between work and family is to profoundly misunderstand the issue. The truth is that our society hasn’t caught up to support the unprecedented diversity of roles modern women take on in a single day. At the heart of the matter is the need for change.

National policies and programs with proven success in other countries—like paid family leave, flexible work options, subsidized childcare and preschool, as well as healthcare coverage for all kids—are largely lacking in America. These problems are deeply interconnected and often overlap: Without paid family leave parents often have to put their infants in extremely expensive or substandard childcare facilities; families with a sick child, inadequate healthcare coverage, and no flexible work options often end up in bankruptcy (indeed illness is one of the top causes of bankruptcy).

Bravo! My newfound manifesto. They get it. They really get it!

And there's a website devoted to the cause: MomsRising.org. Follow this link to learn what it's about.

And, there's a blog, too!. I've already subscribed.

As an aside, I plan to update my sidebar and include links to website and organizations like this one. Check back soon.

Unbelievable

2006-09-12T12:07:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Here's the link to the original Hirshman article that she refers to in her blog post. (Hat tip: Feminist Law Professors).

----------------

As I read this post from Linda Hirshman's blog, all I could think was "Give me a f*cking break."

First, her main thesis is outrageous:

Men and women should get the same access to law school-same tuition, same scholarships, etc. If, however, 10 years after graduation, the law school graduate is not working full-time at some job for which law school is a reasonable preparation, he, or more likely, she, will have to give the school back the money that it spent educating him or her over and above whatever was paid in tuition. The refunds would be put in a fund for scholarships for law students who could not otherwise afford to go to law school.

I didn't attend law school so that I could give back to society, and I don't owe anyone or any institution anything simply because I graduated from law school.

I obtained a law degree in order to empower myself. I obtained my law degree for me; not society, not feminists, not Ms. Hirshman. One of my goals was to give back to society, and that I did. I gave more than my fair share during my years as a public defender and intend to give back to society throughout my career. But, it doesn't have to be on Ms. Hirshman's regimented schedule.

And, as for her denigration of the women that emailed her regarding her outrageous assertion--don't even get me started. I can't even begin to fathom what goes on in her mind--who says this stuff about other women?

If the letter writers, who are authentic (each of them signed the letter and included the name of her firm), did read the article, it is a little scary to think that practicing lawyers can read this or any text and so completely misunderstand its content...

I read these letters and wonder whether next time I go for legal advice I might get a lawyer unable to understand a simple opinion piece or, if this last writer is telling the truth, an accountant who cannot read the opening paragraphs of Get to Work or, indeed, any non-fiction.

This woman purports to be a feminist? Selective misogyny is a more fitting description.

Kids book blogging

2006-09-10T12:02:00.000-05:00

We went to the library a bit late this week, so this post is also a bit belated. But, it's time for the weekly analysis of the ratio of boy to girl characters in the books that my kids randomly selected from the library. As usual, the girls didn't fare too well.

This week's round up:

Tiger on a Tree--3:0. Not a female in sight in this book. All main and peripheral characters were male.
You Can't Take a Balloon Into the Museum of Fine Arts--2:2. This book was just the way a book should be--and the way that the world is. It had a grandma and a grandpa and 2 grandkids, one of each sex. The peripheral characters were a good mix of each sex.
The Field Beyond The Outfield--3:1. The main character was a boy, he had a male coach, a dad, and the obligatory female--his mom. A prime example of a female character being included only when she fulfills a stereotypical "feminine" role.
No Such Thing--2:2. Two male main characters, a little boy and a boy monster, with the two female characters, their mothers, playing a supporting role.
Snow Music--2:0--A little boy who loses his male dog. There was a picture of a female deer, but it wasn't a major character. All of the boy's friends appeared to be male as well.
Three Little Kittens--2:2. The mom is, of course, female. Of the three little kittens, the pink one is--(Can you guess?)--a girl of course. She has long lashes just like her mom. The other two kittens (blue and orange) are boys.

Total for this week: 14:7. Of the 7 female characters, 4 were mothers, which doesn't even really count in my mind. But, I'll count them nevertheless, because if I don't, the numbers will be absolutely pathetic this week. Oh, wait a minute. They're already ridiculously pathetic.

Total count thus far: 42:20.

It's a sad, sad commentary on our culture, isn't it?

I'll be back

2006-09-08T19:56:00.000-05:00

Sorry posting was light over the last week. I've been a bit swamped with work.

I'll post within the next few days. I promise;)

It's a story again--where are all the female law clerks?

2006-08-30T06:15:00.000-05:00

Here we are again (h/t Feministe). The NY Times has an article on the low number of female Supreme Court law clerks this year. From the article:

Just under 50 percent of new law school graduates in 2005 were women. Yet women account for only 7 of the 37 law clerkships for the new term, the first time the number has been in the single digits since 1994, when there were 4,000 fewer women among the country’s new law school graduates than there are today.

This was discussed ad nauseam over at the Volokh Conpsiracy, among other blogs, in July by what appeared to be mostly men with a conservative bent. And, they purported to discuss the issue in such a clinical and oh-so-logical manner.

A number of commenters seemed quite set upon the idea that all of the potential female clerks wanted to opt out and have kids. Nice idea in theory, but actually pretty lame considering that most clerks are just one year out of law school, making most of them about 27 or so, and the clerkship is only one year long. Speaking as a woman with a law degree who chose to utilize my uterus, I can assure you that waiting until I was in my early 30s to use it was a-ok with me. I was more than happy to gain some experience before I cannonballed my career. I bet the rejected pool of female applicants would agree with me.

I liked Jill's take on this at Feminste:

There’s no way that the traditional boys’ network influenced this one, either — I mean, it’s not as if how much you like a person, or how much you feel you have in common with a person, impacts your hiring decisions, right? And it’s not as if how much you like someone is at all influenced by your social outings, or your potential social outings, with them, many of which — like, say, golf — are highly gendered, right? I mean, no one has ever demonstrated that having more people from underrepresented groups — women, people of color — in positions of power leads to more people from those underrepresented groups finding success in those very fields, have they?

The good ol' boy issue is one of the biggest issues facing women in the legal field, in my opinion. It's a seemingly insurmountable and unquantifiable force that makes it 10 times harder to rise through the ranks in the law firm environment where you are judged, in large part, by the business that you bring in, which is in turn based upon who you know.

And, it's an important phenomenon, and certainly helps to explain the low number of women this year in the halls of the most hallowed court in the land. I hope that this year's low numbers are just a random blip on the radar, as suggested in the NY Times article.

But, I tend to be a pessimist. Tune in next year and I predict we'll see the beginning of a sad and telling trend. One that I'm not at all happy about.

This week's library book ratios

2006-08-28T12:23:00.000-05:00

We just returned from a trip to the library, so it's time to chart the male to female character ratios. It doesn't look too good for the girls this week:

2:0--Too Much Noise--Two men and a bunch of nameless animals. The cow and hen were female (the cow had an udder and the hen is by defintion female), but they were minor, nameless characters.
9:4--Bob's A to Z Word Book--This includes the machines, based upon the gender assigned to them here at Wikipedia's entry on Bob The Builder. Spud the scarecrow wasn't counted since it's apparently androgynous.
2:0--Tough Boris--The two main characters were male, as were all of the pictured unnamed sidekicks. The parrot was assigned no gender. Nary a woman in sight.
2:0--Little Stone Buddha--The two main characters were male, as were all of the other nameless minor characters. The foxes' gender was not established.
2:0--The Custodian from the Black Lagoon--The two main characters wree male. The nameless, minor characters were a mix.
0:1--Silly Little Goose--Goose was a female, looking for a place to lay her eggs. Mnay of the nameless side characters also appeared to be mothers, since they were shown with their young, but it wasn't entirely clear.

17:5 total for this week. Wow. Now that's what I'm talking about! How do you combat that?

28:13 total thus far, since the inception of this little experiment last week.

Have the relationships of married professionals changed?

2006-08-27T10:08:00.000-05:00

As I'd stated previously, I disagree with one of the primary underlying assumptions of Linda Hirshman's new book and article from last winter: that while the public world has changed to accommodate professional women, their private lives and relationships have hardly changed at all.

The basis for my disagreement is my own experience and that of the upper middle class educated women that I know. In this post, I'll provide many examples of the various relationships and work arrangements of women around me.

First off, let me clarify that my blog, and the arguments therein, are intended to address professional, highly educated women, their career choices and the societal forces that affect their choices. Accordingly, this post focuses on the relationships of those women as well. Again--highly educated (post-graduate degrees) women.

Since I entered the workforce after law school, I've found myself surrounded by women that fit that description, in large part because I am one of those women.

So, let's start with me. I never intended to stop working, and always envisioned being the primary source of income for my family, as did my husband, a man with a bachelors degree in a field that has limited earning potential and minimal opportunities for advancement up a ladder--but also happens to be a career that is in high demand right now.

After juggling part-time schedules and seeing each other one day per week, I made an abrupt decision to leave my job, in large part due to career dissatisfaction unrelated to having kids. I took a few years off to have our next child, and am now phasing back into the legal field by working on a part-time basis while my husband works full-time.

Here are other examples of any number of couples with children (that I know fairly well to quite well) and arrangements, all of which appear to me from the "outside" to be egalitarian relationships unless otherwise noted:

Husband (H) is a lawyer, wife (W) a physician. Upon finishing her residency, he left to care for the kids while she worked f/t.
H has a 4 year degree, W is a physician. He worked on and off throughout her residency, and was the primary caregiver for their children when he wasn't working. When he was working they were in daycare. When her residency ended, they moved in order to allow her to follow her career path. His was secondary.
H and W are doctors. Both worked through their residency and kids were in daycare. She's vacillated about not practicing when their residencies ended, but seems to want to continue practicing at this point.
H is a teacher, W is a physician. Initially, she had no qualms about working and always expected to be the primary source of income. After her second child, she tried to work out a p/t arrangement with her practice unsuccessfully. She uses a nanny and is still struggling with the issue of balance. They are considering having him leave work, but it would drastically affect his pension and his tenure track, and thus negatively affect them both in the long run.
H and W are both doctors working full-time. Their kids have always been in daycare. This is one case where H doesn't seem to carry his load, and she bears the burden of childcare and housework when not at work.
H and W are both doctors. He's from Iceland. They had kids during their residencies and both planned to continue working after their residencies end--possibly in Iceland since it's far easier to manage childcare issues and work/life balance in Iceland.
H is involved in some sort of business, W became pregnant in law school and obtained law degree over time, and had another child while in law school. She doesn't plan to practice law anytime soon.
H is involved in business, W obtained law degree, had kids, and then obtained first job in a firm when the second child entered kindergarten.
H is a physician, W obtained law degree while kids were in grade school and is now a partner in a law firm.
H is a lawyer (Asst. AG) and W is a partner in a law firm. W worked part-time for a number of years while the kids were young. The kids attended daycare.
H is a lawyer (a law clerk for a judge), W is a partner in a law firm. W worked part-time for a number of years while the kids were young and utilized an au pair.
H is in sales, W is a lawyer (Asst. PD). His job situation is not exactly stable and he watches the kids when he's not employed. She works f/t, and financially, they both need to be working in order to stay afloat.
H is a lawyer as is W. They were both Asst. DAs when they met. He is now a partner in a firm, she continues to work p/t in the Appeals section of the DAs. The kids are in daycare when she works.

I think that this summary is an indication that the decisions made by professional couples regarding child care and career paths are varied and unpredictable. In my experieince, there is no set pattern evident wherein the woman abandons her career in order to care for kids, while the husband merrily waltzes down the path to professional success.

Each couple considers the various factors and comes to a decision as unique as they are that works for their family. Rarely, if ever, do I see women simply giving up on their careers. Many alter their career paths a bit for a few years, but stay in the loop and jump right back on. You'll notice that many women ended up partners in law firms, even though they reduced their hours for a few yeras. And, some men changed their career paths as well.

I think that my totally unscientific survey is evidence that Linda Hirshman's blanket statement/assumption that "private lives and relationships have hardly changed at all" is patently false.

As a result, I think that all of her conclusions that derived from that assumption are false as well, as I'll be showing over the next few weeks.

There is hope for us yet!

Maybe he's onto something

2006-08-27T09:33:00.000-05:00

Christopher Marston has created what he calls "the firm of the future"--a law firm that is based on a flat fee for services concept as opposed to the billable hours concept.
Here's an article that sums up his background and how he established his firm:

Chris set out to revolutionize the legal industry moments after graduating with a vision for creating the firm of the future. This firm would abandon traditional law practice and the billable hour, focusing on the value of services provided, rather than the cost of one’s time. After conducting thorough research on the topic of the history of law and the billable hour, and unable to find a law firm with this unique business model, it sparked the idea for a business...After months of research, Exemplar Law Partners was born in April 2005.

He's got a blog about his business venture, too.

It's an interesting concept. Only time will tell if it will ultimately be a successful and profitable venture.

But, it's creative ideas like this one--thinking outside the box--that will allow our generation to hopefully abandon the traditional billable hours model and find a better work/life balance. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Hopefully his firm will succeed. That'll show BigLaw a thing or two.

Hell has officially frozen over

2006-08-24T15:13:00.000-05:00

Linda Hirshman and I see eye to eye--at least on one point.

In this post from her blog, she responds to analogies made regarding the article discussed yesterday, "Don't marry a career women" by Michael Noer, wherein some compare her recommendation to young women to marry either an older or younger man to the recommendation made by Noer in his article.

Ms. Hirshman asserts that her actual recommendation is "Don't marry a jerk":

What these writers miss of course is that my rule is "Never Marry A Jerk" MEANING, for anyone who has been on Mars for the last eight months, someone who will not expect the female to bear 70% of the housework and child rearing, let's call him MIchael Noer. Marrying younger or older is just a stand in for the careful work that goes into not marrying a jerk.

Eureka! I think we've found common ground.

Of course, the phrase that I prefer is "Don't marry an asshole." I rather prefer that term of art, don't you?

Don't marry career women?

2006-08-23T15:23:00.000-05:00

(Updated: h/t knownunknowns ;))

I welcome you all to read this rather lovely article from Forbes, of all places, entitled: Don't Marry Career Women. From the intro.:

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

What a pathetic bunch of drivel from a magazine/website that, interestingly enough, consists of a readership that is 35% female. Way to alienate more than 1/3 of your readers.

Not exactly a brilliant business plan from a company that pegs itself as: "(O)ne of the most trusted information resources for the world’s business leaders, providing the uncompromising commentary, relevant tools, concise analysis and real-time reporting they need to succeed at work, profit from investing and have fun with the rewards of winning."

Bravo Forbes. Bravo.

Stop the insanity!

2006-08-23T07:45:00.000-05:00

Japanese workers in their 30s are so stressed out that they're taking lengthy mental health breaks, as reported here:

Japanese office workers, particularly those in their 30s, are increasingly stressed and struck by mental health problems, partly because of grueling corporate competition, a new study shows...

A report by the Mental Health Research Institute of the Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economic Development said nearly 75 percent of the survey's respondents reported having employees who take leaves lasting longer than one month, up from 67 percent in 2004.

Sixty-one percent of the polled companies said employees in their 30s constituted the largest group with mental health problems, a sharp increase from 41.8 percent in 2002 and 49.3 percent in 2004, according to the biennial survey released last month...

"As the traditional, seniority-based pay system has been largely replaced with performance-based pay and achievement systems ... colleagues have become rivals," institute analyst Kotaro Kusunoki said Tuesday.

"Office workers are also under enormous pressure because of demanding responsibility compared to little room for discretion given," he added.

Damn, that sounds familiar. And, it's not exactly cost efficient, now is it? Sounds like it's time for a change.

Turn and face the strange ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

Sexist childhoods

2006-08-22T15:28:00.000-05:00

I'm adding another regular feature to this blog--examples of the sexism inherent in our culture that my two little girls are constantly exposed to as they grow up. I am absolutely amazed at the sheer lack of female characters found in books, movies and toys. It's pathetic. Generally, the only time there are women characters is when the character plays a gender-stereotyped role, such as a mother, grandmother, or princess.

It is so damn frustrating, I can't even begin to tell you. It's an uphill battle and I'm at a loss as to how to counteract it.

Why is this important? Because little girls learn by osmosis from a very young age that they are insignificant, second class citizens. Women are an afterthought in our culture and this is evident to little girls from day one, even if they can't express this concept verbally.

On Tuesdays I'll be posting the ratio of male to female characters from the 6 books chosen by my girls at random from the library. (Either my husband or I generally take them to the library on Mondays). It's a work in progress since I've never actually kept track of the numbers. Let's see how it goes.

And, I'll occasionally be posting other examples as I encounter them on a daily basis with my girls.

Today's library books, counting only major characters with names:

2:2--Cat Heaven--I was pleasantly surprised to see that the default pronoun was "she." But, the book was written by a woman, although that doesn't necessarily mean much, I've learned.
2:3--Rude Giants--Again, another surprising ratio. Female author.
3:0--Terrific--not a female in sight. Male author.
gender neutral--Quack and Count--Just a bunch of nameless ducks getting counted, but at least they're not all boys. Male author.
3:3--The Fabulous Flying Fandinis--Can't complain about that ratio. Written by a woman.
1:0--Truck Song--The "main" character is a truck driver.

11:8 total. Not such a bad week, all things considered. But not a wash. So far, XY is in the lead.

Today's other examples:

3:1--The game Hungry, Hungry Hippos--as we played this oh-so-exciting game my older daughter informed me today that only one of hte hippos was a girl--the pink one. We then examined the names of hippos, as indicated by the stickers that I'd placed on the game when we first purchased it, without even paying attention to their content. The pink one was "Happy Hippo"--maybe a girl, but who knows? The others were "Harry Hippo", "Henry Hippo", and "Homer Hippo." Definitely boys.
5:2--Lyle, Lyle the Crocodile--I read this today to my daughter at her request. Nice ratio. Not.

Roles vs. Goals in law firms

2006-08-19T14:06:00.000-05:00

I recently promised to write about an excellent post from the morepartnerincome blog that offered an intriguing perspective on the work/life/family balance and an interesting solution.

Tom Collins' post begins with what I think is an accurate asssertion:

But if there were one thing that must change before progress is made, I think... it is “firm culture”. Law firms will not be a friendlier place for women lawyers until it is a friendlier place for everyone.

As soon as I read that, I knew I was going to like the article. He hits the nail on the head. As I've said repeatedly on this blog, both men and women at all stages of their professional careers should be accomodated, depending on their needs. It's not just a womens' issue.

He then sets forth the basic premise upon which his "solution" to the problem is based:

Not all lawyers are cut from the same cloth. Yet, given the culture in most law firms, each is judged as if they were. Within too many law firms, success depends on one’s performance against a single “work ethic” standard.

Perhaps law firms should adopt a page from the cultural notebook of commercial businesses that have made it into the circle of excellent enterprises. Excellent enterprises have accepted that there are “Seven Life Phases” into which individuals can allocate their energies and time—job, family, religion, civic activities, health, recreation and self-development. Each choice competes against all others.

Perfect! It's not just a womens' issue. And, it's not just about family and kids. It's about life choices and life phases.

He describes the various outside commitments that employees may have:

For some, when it comes to the Seven Life Phases, their job is their life. For others, religious commitments take absolute precedence over work–no work on certain religious holidays or on Saturdays, for example. Yet for others, physical activities to develop and maintain a healthy body have evolved into a fixed routine from which they will not deviate. Some change their choices over time. The arrival of children usually results in a major shift toward the family choice for most women and some men.

All valid commitments--all valid phases.

Next, he states:

The law firm must make a cultural change and recognize the Seven Life Phases as a fact of business and life. It must accept that one’s pattern of choices is neither good nor bad. How each member works is a result of their choices, and the firm should not allow attempts by some team members to judge others by their own particular choices. The only valid issue is: Given the “Role” one has in the organization, is he/she getting the job done—making a positive contribution to the organization’s purpose, goals and objectives? (Emphasis added).

Exactly. Stop judging your peers and comparing their choices to your own. That goes for all of you Hirshman feminsts as well!

Finally, he addresses the issue of successful and meaningful accomodation:

To accommodate talented and contributing individuals, management must be willing to vary the “roles”, the “organizational expectations”, available to individuals. It means that “work flexibility” has to be accompanied by “role flexibility.” To provide work hour and workplace flexibility without a matching “role” is simply a recipe for failure. And unfortunately, that conflict appears to be the norm today—law firms that have life/work balance options but still hold success in the firm to the same “job is my life” standard.

Yes, yes, yes! Lucidity at last! Someone who makes sense! Tom Collins--I love you. If I weren't already married, I'd propose right now.