Where Have All the Women Gone
NYT has an article titled, "Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?" by Timothy L. O'Brien (in case you want to lexis it) (HT: How Bashful). I'll get around to reading the article sometime today, but I want to hear from the women of Boalt. Are you going to gun for partnership? Do you feel like you have a legitimate shot? And a number of related questions that are implicit.
Labels: Legal Culture, OCIP/Employment
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:11 AM
31 Comments:
My favorite line was that the problem is "biases, not discrimination." And how exactly do you think biases are causing trouble? Probably that bias is what leads to women being treated differently, huh? So, discrimination. Guess what, guys? Even if the people doing it aren't trying to be evil, it's still discrimination. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's not an explicit policy anymore, but when female associates are underappreciated, encouraged less, and isolated more than men, that's discrimination.
6:42: I didn't read the article, but it isn't hard to discern the difference between bias and discrimination, and you dear (lady?) have missed the point.
Discrimination requires that one discriminate between 2 or more things. The definition implies a conscious choice on the part of the discriminator. Bias on the otherhand can be, and usually is compleatly subconscious. Bias is hardwired into all of us in the form of many of the simple heuristics we use to navigate the world.
Thank God for biases if we didn't have them, we would be able to accomplish very little, and in all likelihood would have become extinct already. (I'm not saying that all biases are good, only that some are.)
The Anonymous Lawyer has something to say about this.
http://anonymouslawyer.blogspot.com/
So maybe I'm the only one who's actually read the article, but it doesn't really matter as it doesn't inform my opinion.
I have the same thought here that I did when I read in ethics about how law firms fail to retain minorities: white males are idiots. I mean, who but a total tool would sacrifice their entire lives, their health, and the wellbeing of their family for money? Especially when the alternative is also a job that pays six-figures and provides for a very comfortable, upper middle-class lifestyle but that provides time to see your children, maintain a positive relationship with your spouse, and, I don't know, do something with your life OTHER THAN WORK (e.g., government work for litigators, in-house for transactional attorneys, small firms for everyone).
My favorite part of the article is when it talks about how she and her husband (also a law firm partner) have been pro-active in managing their workloads to make time for their family. Yes. One of them, ONE of them, is able to be home to have dinner with their children most nights, MOST nights. They also have hired help to be there at other times, do chores, and they get help from their relatives. Uhm, yeah, that's what every woman should aspire to. This is a serious problem, please people, we need to work on this, how can we make more women want lives like that?
Discrimination is not the only reason women do not make partner. Most American workplaces, although they are now open to women, are still designed for men. There's a book for women professionals called "Play Like a Man, Win Like a Woman." The title is revealing: to succeed in the workplace, you have to play like a man. If we could redesign the professional environment from scratch, with women in mind from the beginning, I bet the requirements to make partner (particularly, the denigration of parental leave and part-time work) would be different. As it stands now, it makes sense that women choose other legal career paths than the partnership-track.
In response to stacita’s 2:14 comment of “Why should anyone have to choose? Why can't we be successful at both [work / partnership AND family]?” The answer is clear, you have to choose; you can’t have both. No one can, not men, not women. If you want to earn six figures – or maybe a partner’s seven – working in big law, then you can’t have time to pick your kids up from school. It’s that simple. The hours demanded of big law partners (and partner track associates) are such that there is little time for other pursuits. If you want to make a high six or seven figures AND have a family, then don’t be a corporate lawyer. Don’t complain because only women have to make that choice. Men do too, and personally, I would never want to be partner because I realize the sacrifices I’ll have to make are too large.
This reminds me of a great Svetlana from the Sopranos quote. "That's the trouble with you Americans. You expect nothing bad ever to happen, when the rest of the world expects only bad to happen, and they are not disappointed.” Men (and women) partners at big law know the sacrifices required of them and don’t complain why they can’t have everything. They’re Svetlana’s “rest of the world.” Women that want a rewarding family life and a rewarding career as a big law partner are the “Americans.” Their expectations are unrealistic. The only difference between men and women in the big law environment: men are more willing to forgo family for money and partnership.
The best comment I've heard from a female partner about balancing is this: if you're going to be both a mom and a lawyer, you're never going to be as good as you'd like at both. You'll operate at 80% capacity in both roles. This is not due to any particular deficiency in those of us with X chromosomes, but rather due to the limitations of a 24 hour day and the disproportionate parenting responsibilities borne by women.
I'm willing to accept this anticipated lack of fulfillment, and also to gun for partner, because I think I will be more fulfilled if I do, and I think my kids will benefit from growing up with a mom who is active in her professional, community, and family lives. That's what my mom did, and I am glad for it.
All of this presupposes, of course, that I can become partner at all. My gender will be a barrier to me making partner, but not in the ways the article suggests. My gender will be a barrier because the men in charge of law firms are disinterested in who I am as a "woman", so in order to fit in I will have to engage in a little masquerade.
Let me explain. I find that when I'm socializing with male law students I simply deny my female-ness. When I'm with guys at law school, I have intellectual conversations, I joke about mainstream news and popular culture, etc. But I don't ever talk about my emotions. I don't talk about my relationships. I know that if I did, I would be consciously alienating myself from guys. This is disappointing on a social level because having conversations like these is necessary for me to develop a real, intimate rapport with someone I consider a friend. The rapport between men seems to be created based on conversations and interactions that have none of the characteristics of the intimate conversations between women.
So when I'm with guys in law school, I choose to shut up about those things, to save them for female friends (or non-law school male friends), and talk about the things the guys want to talk about. It happens that I don't mind; I am comfortable with this binary existence.
But not every woman is, and the fact that women are not in leadership positions in big numbers means that there is an institutional intolerance for and devaluation of those kinds of conversations, for the development of those rapports. And this matters because the development of those rapports is essential to the successful cruise down the partner track. At some point, it's not surprising women flee for kinder, gentler pastures.
I demand to know who 8:40 is. I want to know if I have conversations with you in which you "mask" your true self. To think that my male shallowness might think that I have a real relationship with you, when in reality it is a total sham. It is destroying my world as we speak. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
On the other hand I really respect your ability to mask in your daily interactions. You clearly are on the road to success. You are a better person than most of the women at Boalt. (Not all) I just thought that you should know that and be proud.
I think facts are always helpful in these types of discussions. So, here are some facts to give us all a little more info on a topic that is usually filled with personal anecdotes.
To put it simply, women begin their firm careers earning substantially less than their male colleagues; they continue to take more time out from their careers to take care of children than men; and fewer women are represented in the highest echelons of the legal profession.
New studies have shown that the retention of female lawyers has become a serious concern. In 2000, the ABA and NALP Foundation began a ten year longitudinal study called, “After the J.D.” Their national survey of nearly 5,000 attorneys produced its first results in 2002, offering a glimpse into the experience faced by young lawyers just two years into their legal careers.
The research has shown what many experts had thought. Female attorneys face vast gender discrimination even at the beginning of their careers: “Women attorneys who start at the same salary as their male counterparts are earning substantially less than the men only two years into their careers and are exiting from the practice of law earlier as well.” Plus, “women are being discriminated against in compensation, partnership, firm governance, committee assignments, and client development in all law practice settings, despite a multitude of attempts at change.” This data that shows that women are not faring well in practice at law firms. Hence, it is no wonder why women attorneys are choosing to change career paths or leave the workforce completely, and are not becoming partners in law firms proportional to the numbers we would expect based on entering associate classes.
The data show that the differences in compensation are significant. Among the associates who had been in practice for two years, the median salary for female attorneys was $66,000, averaged over all law practice settings. For male attorneys, the median salary was $80,000. In the largest law firm setting, firms with over 250 attorneys, there was a $15,000 gap between the median salaries of men and women attorneys! In almost all practice settings, men out-earned women. These differences likely play a large role in female attorneys’ personal evaluations about whether they feel valued in their jobs by their supervisors specifically and by the partnership generally. And, they likely play a large role in these women’s decisions whether to stick with law firm practice. Of course, if there are so many signs showing women that they aren’t valued the same as men, why are they going to stick around and try to become partner?
The interesting policy question is how we can work with the economics and practices of law firms, without harming clients, to improve the well-being and retention of female attorneys. If we are ever going to make change, we've got to think in terms of how law firms work and create change with that in mind. We can't give up.
angel may be the smartest person to ever post on this blog.
Angel, how well does the study control for variables that could explain the difference? I'm just wary of claims of salary differential when I see different anecdotal evidence. For example, I don't see any room for salary discrimination where I'll be working this summer - they have lockstep compensation and no bonuses - everyone makes the same, no matter what.
I worry about controlling for other factors where, for example, you cite to the study:
Among the associates who had been in practice for two years, the median salary for female attorneys was $66,000, averaged over all law practice settings. For male attorneys, the median salary was $80,000.
I assume/hope they controlled for factors like hours billed and employment market. Both of these would explain a lot of salary gap. It says it does not control for practice setting, instead it averaged over them. Are there more men than women in some practice settings? I have my hunches. And are they compensated differently? Yes. But why are there gender disparities in those practice areas?
Again, I don't know anything about the controls, but:
In the largest law firm setting, firms with over 250 attorneys, there was a $15,000 gap between the median salaries of men and women attorneys!
This finding is exactly what you would expect if you lump in the partners and associates. The partners, being mostly men as we have concluded, would skew up the median male salary. It seems very important to me that the data specifically focus on what (if I were a woman) I would find galling: that an equally (or less) qualiied peer attorney was making more money than me for no good reason. I would not be comparing to the firm medians, I'd be looking at what the other people in my class make, based on the number of hours they work.
Monetary compensation seems like one of the easiest places to check for discriminatory bias. The other points you make - assignments, committee jobs, etc. - are all muich harder to quanitfy. But with the take home money, it seems like we could really home in on the effect.
If you could, I'd like it if you could link to the report or include some more of the information on the survey design, controls used, etc.
Uh yeah I vote for Tom as the smartest person ever to post on this blog...minus the whole four minutes late to evidence debacle.
Anon 8:40:
I appreciate your perspective on playing the man's game and adjusting accordingly to the expectations of the male world.
Note that men have to play this game to a certain extent as well: since the appearance of masculinity, ambition, and toughness are so important, men often have to guard against revealing other sides of their personalities. Admitting that something made you cry, or that you have pursuits other than golf, beer, and chasing tail is a risky proposition--like you say, better to save it for your non-law friends!
I learned a lesson in this very early in life: when I was 4, my sister once asked me if I wanted her to paint my finger nails. I thought it would be fun so I said yes. Then the other boys at the pre-school saw it. Mistake! The point of this tangent is that gender roles confine all of us to certain modes of action and expression. I do recognize, however, that this is more difficult for women in law, as well as for non-white male heterosexuals. Being a white male heterosexual myself, it's far easier to "play" the role.
Finally, it's good of Tom to note that Angel's statistics, while illuminating, are not "facts" per se without a better understanding of where the data come from. Please, Angel, post a link to the study.
What often gets lost in this whole debate is a simple fact: men and women are different. And while men still run the show, men win. While I relish the thought of some typical male behaviors (exemplified by Jungle Cat's ramblings) someday being forced into the "masked" category, its going to take the sacrafice of many a woman's happiness for it to happen, many years from now. Given men's naturally agressive behavior we will likely never be treated or paid as equals. (However, I think 8:40 is hanging out with the wrong men - my men friends here at Boalt are quite sensitive and I never mask my behavior! - perhaps she is I.P. track?)
earlier blogger asked, why should women have to chose?
this question masqerades as feminist in spirit, when in reality it only reflects how deeply ingrained the idea that women ultimately belong in the domestic sphere is. this question springs from shock: it's preposterous to the asker that a woman wouldn't (want to) have a baby. just b/c they are capable of squeezing 'em out dosen't mean women--all, most, or some--are fated to do so. asking the question grounds only one argument: women should win the same title, compensation, and prestige of being partner w/o having to put in the same number of hours (read dedication) to the job. it seems even those brimming with girl power view reproductive ability to be simultaneously a handicap (which we must appeal to male partners to excuse) and a necessary--if not sufficient component to a woman's sense of fulfillment or accomplishment.
To begin with, here is the link to the “After the JD” study by the ABA and NALP. http://www.abf-sociolegal.org/NewPublications/AJD.pdf.
After looking at it quickly, just now, I didn’t see any explanation of controlling for certain factors that Fletcher mentioned. I think his points are well taken. They make the point that we need to do better research in this area to understand what these discrepancies are and why these discrepancies exist.
However, as my prior posting stated, the salary difference of $15,000 is based on the associates who have been at firms for just 2 years, so it doesn’t include the partners, which would skew the numbers.
Sorry the posting is short. But, I wanted to get the information out there.
My dear 5:22, my behaviors have been forced into the masked category. Why else do you think I ramble anonymously instead of under my true name. It would be far more amusing for everyone to know from whom my exagerations emanate, but somehow I think it would tarnish my reputation as a sensitive man.
"...women should win the same title, compensation, and prestige of being partner w/o having to put in the same number of hours (read dedication) to the job."
Whoever said that women wouldn't work the same hours? Since when does dedication equal billable hours? I don't expect to be handed partnership, but I do expect that I'll actually be given a fair opportunity to make partner, just as everyone should.
As for 4:20's comment about family and partnership, how many male partners do you know who do NOT have a family at home? Nearly all of them are married with kids, and most of those have stay-at-home wives. Maybe the stay-at-home wife aspect has to do with the fact that many male partners are older and at that time, it was more common for a woman, once married, to quit her job, if she had been working. They have the luxury of knowing that someone else is taking care of the kids. Most women who are married with kids do not have the same luxury -- how many stay-at-home dads do you know?
These comments aren't to berate men who choose to become more active with their families -- far from it. And I did meet several female partners during interviews who had kids & had stay-at-home husbands. But I'm afraid that, until the day comes in which husbands start to pick up the sick kids at day care instead of assuming that their wife will leave her job to do so every time, nothing will change in any corporate/academic environment, and no matter how many women go to law school, med school, business school, etc., women will be vastly underrepresented in positions of power in their fields.
And, not every woman wants to have kids. That's true. But I would guess that nearly every person in authority, when hiring a married woman "of a certain age" thinks, in the back of his or her mind, that the married woman will soon be having kids, so why give her the big case if she'll be out on maternity leave soon anyhow. It's this kind of insidious bias that is the hardest to combat, because it may be unconscious and usually isn't spoken aloud. If you think it doesn't exist, think again. I was asked during a call-back if I was married and when I was born (really dumb as the older, male interviewer clearly could have estimated my age from when I graduated from college).
Why is it that, although you want to know whether women at Boalt are gunning for partner, you are all so quick to shoot down anyone who shares their thoughts on the issue? Guess nothing will change anytime soon...
I really don't know about Tom being the smartest person to post on the blog but I think he is definitely the earliest. 6:43 am?!
Anon 11:39,
Early bird gets the worm.
And Angel, thanks for posting the link to the survey. I'll try to post any further comments to a new thread.
Wow, bedtime!
I just ran across this blog somehow. A couple points:
1. The NYT article didn't mention a statistic that I'd really like to see, which is what percentage of lawyers selected for BIGLAW partnership in the last three years have been women. In California it seems from articles I've seen that the percentage of partners recently elected who are women is around 40%. This is much better than the statistic the NYT article used, which was total percent of all partners who are female. This number is a bad indicator because it includes all the old male attorneys who graduated law school when women were not attending in large numbers.
2. Many of the arguments women make regarding this issue tend to blame men or law firms. I think women have to at least admit that some women voluntary decide before joining a law firm that they don't want a career in law. They want to have kids and stay home or work part-time. There's nothing wrong with this. Some women would want this regardless of any childcare options their firm provided. If only 20% of women attorneys follow this path then that means you can't argue for 50-50 partnership equality. At best you can have 40-60. I don't think I see many people, including the NYT author, include an honest argument about this. Instead, people just ignore it as if no one knows this actually occurs in real life.
3. Women could have it worse. They could be ethnic minorities who are grossly underrepresented compared to women. At least most major law firms have some women partners. Most don't have any minority partners, maybe one or two at most. I hate how women use these articles to justify their own future failure. If you can't have the attitude to succeed then you're failure is your own fault, not societies or mens. The fact is that law firms are going out of their way to recruit women. You should at least try billing lots of hours and doing good work for a few years before you develop the attitude that the entire world is out to screw you over. Attitude is king and women do not have it so bad that they can't succeed at most large law firms.
2:31 was truly savage. He/She had a point though.
To respond to 10:44:
Employers are not allowed to ask questions about one's family, or one's family plans including whether or not a woman has the intent of getting pregnant in the near future. Despite this prohibition, it is an incredibly relevant inquiry that I think an employer has every right to know. Lets face it women; you ARE biologically different, and the choice to get pregnant is a choice to impair yourself mentally, physically, and emotionally for a substantial amount of time.
For at least two years you will not be as productive if you make the choice to become pregnant. Until women can contract their right to become pregnant away, employers are and should have your potential pregnancy in the backs of their mind when they are hiring you. Is it fair? Probably not;is it rational and efficient? Definitely.
This is 8:40 p.m. Jungle Cat, tell me who you are and I'll tell you whether my relationship with you is superficial. I doubt I know you.
I am compelled to respond to the last post.
8:38 a.m. has such an incredibly limited view of efficiency and such a screwy conception of pregnancy, it's mind boggling.
First, most working mothers I know take a maximum of six months, not two years off.
Second, is it efficient to hire anyone other than the best person for the job merely because they might be absent for six months? Is it efficient to assume you know something about a woman's ability to work or longevity/duration based merely on her gender-based capacity to bear a child? Is it efficient to hire women who conceive of their lives as a bifurcated choice between children or profesional fulfillment? If the woman in question wants to have children, is it efficient to have an unhappy lawyer in your firm?
And perhaps most importantly, is it efficient (or rational) to desire a corporate culture in which family is totally devalued?
This is a great discussion, but I want to ask this. Are any of my male colleagues willing to take an extended amount of time off (6 mos or two years or whatever) to raise a family to allow the wifey to work?
Regarding Armen's question: Hell yes! I've been waiting for someone to ask me to be a stay-at-home dad! I don't care about being a partner and so I don't give a damn about partnership track. In fact, if the money is rolling in from somewhere, I'm not sure I care about working at all. So I don't really relate to this struggle to work more. Does this make me lazy? Alas.
Armen, FYI your credibility as moderator plummets when you refer to a female spouse as "wifey".
Shut the fuck up. Get over it. (How's that for credibility?)
9:43,
I based the 2 year figure not just on time taken off from work, but on the time during pregnancy that one's productivty will suffer, and on the time after birth during which the infants endless demands will severly cut into your efficiency. If anything 2 years is an overly optimistic time period.
I don't really disagree with you that all of the other concerns you cited should be important to an employer. I only mean to suggest that it is relevant to consider a potential employee's likelihood of pregnancy in making a holistic evaluation of the value that the potential employee will add to an organization.
Don't forget to thank your mother for her choice to impair herself when she chose to have you....
Wow, this is a great flashback to 1967. Very progressive, really. 4:20 PM, 2:31 AM, and 8:38 AM could use a reminder of Justice Brennan's words in Frontiero: "Romantic paternalism...put[s] women not on a pedestal but in a cage."
Also, I wouldn't stay home. But that's not really what's important, is it? What's important is that no one--either from my firm or my family--would ever expect that I would. That's the attitude that counts.
Welcome to Bay Area Lawyer We are your free directory of San Francisco Bay Area lawyers who provide free or paid consultations to local residents in need of legal advice or services. If you have a legal question, or in need of legal advice on any subject then let us become your number #1 online source for legal help in the Bay Area.
Post a Comment
<< Home