Unit D - Blog 39

The main initiatives that need to occur are ones that don’t involve gender. English clearly states that her views of the future would include traits of personality and leadership, not about gender differences. To obtain these initiatives the first thing that would have to change is the culture of law. Law has many gender issues engraved in the structure. English shares views with Whalen regarding leadership. They both believe that there should be shared leadership traits. Men and women should combine their “gendered” traits to expand their leadership qualities. Another aspect of structure that English feels very strongly about is job and life satisfaction. She believes that this is feasible one day. This book clearly illustrated that current jobs in law as essentially having no work life balance unless you wanted to be alienated and less compensated. English’s summary of these issues really hit home with me when she clearly stated that it wasn’t just about women and men in law; it was just about law, and doing it right. If lawyers spent as much time and effort on executing their jobs to the fullest, and less time on focusing on gender issues, and on who’s committed and who isn’t, then everyone will benefit. English’s whole point is to find common ground between male and female, not scope in on the differences. Her strongest points of her conclusion were when she stated that it shouldn’t be uncomfortable for men and women to work together. Lawyers shouldn’t have to worry about rumors of sexual affairs when working with an opposite colleague. Social networking should be a place where men and women can exist and have common ground. The ultimate solution is to combine our knowledge and abilities to deliver a great product through our personalities.

Unit D - Blog 38

Myra Bradwell was one of five women lawyers in the United States in 1870. Bradwell was married to a judge, who had previously practiced law after passing the Chicago Bar Exam. After learning law under her husband, she passed the test for admission to the Chicago Bar, but was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1869, then later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bradwell was already a notable female in the history of law by just passing the Chicago Bar alone, but she later made more historical impact. During her denial by the U.S. Supreme Court a noteworthy remark was made by a member of the courts that was as follows, “The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many occupations of civil life....The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign office of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator." This just shows the outrageous discrimination during those times in America. Nearly fifteen years later the decision was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court and she was approved and licensed to practice law, and made her the first women to practice law in the state of Illinois. Some of the reason for the initial ruling was because it was not a social norm for women to practice law. Also, had they approved it, it would have opened the window for other women to practice law. This later proved to be true, but only few went through that window. This was significant in history because it was groundbreaking. She was amongst the first to break the gender barrier in law. After those initial barriers are broke, it really does open opportunities for others. One other thing I found notable about Bradwell was that she was a mother of four children. She did however lose two of her children, but nevertheless, she was able to pass the bar and becoming a lawyer while being a mother. Something that even 130 years later still seems to be impossible, or at the least challenging.

Unit D - Blog 37

Many of English’s findings are similar to the ones of the American Bar Association Commission. The first comparable area that was noted was the gender stereotyped behaviors which the Charting Our Progress article uses examples of “insufficiently aggressive, uncomfortably forthright, too emotional, or not as serious as men about their careers.” These are all stipulations or suggestions that English and the subjects or her studies have pointed out. This article later uses terms such as “too boxy, too aggressive, not aggressive enough, too emotional, or too strident.” to describe women in law. These weren’t the same exact terms used in Gender on Trial, but the same concepts of gender discrimination. The next notable part was the sexist terminology that research proved to be more likely in smaller towns. The writing claimed that judges and bailiffs would use the words “honey” and “baby” when calling on female lawyers. The next area that Charting Our Progresses examines is the access to traditional business networks, which the article refers to as “informal networks men have with one another.” This is also practically out of English’s writing. English gets a little more specific when she talks about the golf course, sports, and cigars though. The next topic went to the all so popular work life balance. This article points out that flexible scheduling is very available to lawyers, but that lawyers were afraid to use those benefits because of fear for the possible consequences it would have on their careers. The following sentence explains that they would be perceived as “less seriously committed.” That term committed is used again. That last area of controversy discussed was the issues for the “multicultural” women. They had are parallel to English’s notions that often had to prove and establish their competency. Overall, I think this document was essentially a shorter and more brief version of Gender on Trial.

Unit D - Blog 35

The EEOC recommends “best practices” for employers to adopt for their organizations. These best practices aren’t new laws and aren’t required, they are only suggested. Several times throughout the text, the term work/life balance was used. English uses these same terms while addressing these same issues. This entire document was completely consistent with all of the issues that English points out in Gender on Trial. The EEOC recommendations were also applicable to men as well. One of the laws under these recommendations allows for men to not be denied leave time when women are allowed to have these same benefits at that organization. One big difference in the terminology used on the EEOC document compared to Gender on Trial was the term “caregiver.” However, this term was used in the book Putting Children First. Also, the EEOC and Putting Children First both addressed the care giving of elders and not just children. The EEOC document clearly states that there is not any legal obligation to follow their “best practices”, but that there suggestions are higher than the minimum legal requirements. Towards the end of the best practices they explain that having a better work life balance increases efficiency. This was pointed out in the material during Putting Children First, but seemed pretty absent during Gender on Trial. In fact, the perception was almost opposite when it came to flexible scheduling in law. The current lawyers suggested that work quality and efficiency would decrease, not increase. I don’t think many law firms would adopt these practices as they are only recommendations. In fact, I think that many of the laws that are considered to be minimal requirements may even cause a lot of firms to be in liable situations. These best practices appear to me to be pretty gender equal. The EEOC points stereotypes that Gender on Trial also did that “men are thought to be ill-suited for caregiving and thus not in need of parental leave or a flexible work schedule”, and that “Women caregivers are often thought to be less committed to their paid work or to be likely to be less competent because of their actual or likely role in caregiving.” This is nearly identical to the perspectives that are clearly displayed in Gender on Trial. It seems that law is the extreme and is really a great example to show that there are gender inequalities and there is a poor sense of work life balance. If you think about all of these same concepts can be applied to any nontraditional job for women, but law paints a bright picture of what is really going on.

Unit D - Blog 36

Yes, corporate America can lure women back into the workforce. In some ways we already are, but not enough. As NPR states, women are just as capable. Statistics show that women are attending college at higher rates than ever, and more women are currently receiving a college education. Another topic NPR points out is the challenge for females to balance their lives, and obviously they are referring to the balance of work and family. This was very apparent during Unit B, and there were several solutions that Unit B showed us this semester. Flexible scheduling has become a more and more discussed topic, but it is also beginning to happen more often at organizations. This is one thing corporate America can use to lure women in. The amount of technology and the abilities to work from home are very realistic ways of encouraging women to rejoin the workforce. Another part of NPR that stuck out to me is when they mentioned the mom would prefer to be at their children’s school play. During Unit B one speaker pointed out the guilt factor of having to miss those types of things. Flexible schedule would eliminate some of this guilt and allow them to balance both worlds. The next area that this radio show explores is the sacrifice that has to be made in order to hold a career. They state that women are more likely to sacrifice their career for family, and men likely wouldn’t. The biggest area to explore while considering this would likely be wages. The ratio of salary between men and women is still lopsided and women take that into consideration when deciding rather to join the workforce, and sacrifice their family time for mediocre wages, when their husband can go out and make more money and allow that time. If women made the same wages men do for the same roles, then their likely would be more stay-at-home dads and somewhat of a balance in society. With all these things considered, I think we can lure women back in, and we are.

Unit D - Blog 34

It has been pretty common in all the materials we have studied all semester long that work and life balance is a problem. Early on in the semester it was related to parents finding childcare while working. It then went onto women working in non-traditional roles, the differential treatments in law enforcement type positions, and now we are studying the work life balance issues of law workers and politicians. Joan Williams looks at the work life balance issues of every type of job, and all of them have the same theme: it is difficult for mothers to balance work and life. With that being said, I do want to note that it isn’t just mothers, but jobs with tedious workloads and hours, and fathers that has strong parenting values outside of our society’s norm. Women are now a strong part of the work force, but still are considered to be a liability because of pregnancy. In the New York Times article Deonarian was strong evidence that women become a liability when they are pregnant. Pregnancy isn’t anything new, but in the work force it is fairly new. Clinton passed new welfare reform in order to expand the workforce. It worked as far as expansion goes, but opened the eyes to a lot of issues with balance work and parenting. Some major issues that arise when considering work life balance have to do with children. The development of a child is compromised when both parents, or the only parent, are working full time. There is also this issue obtaining high paying more desirable jobs, which also is elevated when children come into the picture. Williams reflects on the structure of our society’s work habits. She points out that we still follow the structure of the “ideal worker” which is the 40 hour a week job, the men traditionally have worked, and states that because of this structure they have “immunity from family work.” Basically what she is saying is that the way our society is formed is for people to work much longer than probably necessary. She notes that in Europe they have more flexible schedules and fewer hours. English, and others constantly discuss flexible scheduling and other work structure alternatives, but many of them have negative consequences on their careers. If society continues to look down and not give these new alternatives a chance, then we will continue to have this structure that doesn’t allow a work life balance for parents, and only allows for one parent to work. In the New York Times article there are examples of employers not being very understanding, even though they try to come off as that in the beginning. Even in Gender on Trial, many firms will offer flexible scheduling, but when someone chooses to use it, they are looked down upon by their peers and superiors. The only individuals that seem to flourish in the current structure are either women without children, or men with or without children, and I guess for the limited instances, the women that have stay-at-home husbands. Men are starting to break away from this notion of the “ideal worker” and use maternity leaves and flexible scheduling to be part of their children’s lives. English notes that a lot of men noticed the lack of time with their fathers and don’t want that for their children. These men are also feeling the effects of using schedule alternatives to allow a work life balance. In the end, until we break out of tradition and accept alternative scheduling, or come up with something, then this will continue to be an ongoing issue for our society.

Unit D - Blog 33

The advancement of women has many challenges. They have obstacles with being in a nontraditional field for women, the challenges of overcoming stereotypes of being female, and then they have to worry about parenthood if they go that route. Women lawyers first have to work their butt off to gain credibility from their peers. They can’t slip up at all because they are under high scrutiny. Once they establish themselves as capable of performing to the same level as men, and by establishing themselves I mean outperforming men to be considered capable they then have to deal with the obstacles of gender stereotypes. If during any of this they decide to have children they are labeled and aren’t considered to be “real lawyers.” If they use any type of alternative scheduling or non-traditional work structure, then they are questioned for their commitment. During all of this they have to find ways to be included. They aren’t golfers and cigar smokers, and culturally don’t have sports knowledge and background that men do, so it is difficult to team build and find common ground with the people that are important for their career advancement and development. Basically the women that have advanced have had to outperform their peers and put in the long hours. They don’t have a work life balance, which both men and women in the field acknowledge is part of the job, or it is the reason they have been driven out of the job. There are very few exceptions for mothers that have advanced. The ones that have advanced have, in what society would label it as, compromised being a good parent. The women lawyers that have advanced without children are still questioned by their peers, and viewed differently by the older generations. Whelan talks about the pipeline of women getting their foot in and it will open the doors to higher positions, but this hasn’t helped. The women that have advanced have had to battle and fight odds to get there.