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.

Unit D - Blog 32

If you are a parent in law, you are looked at differently; women more so than men. The natural and apparent assumption, not only in law, but in every field is that a child is going to come first to a mother. For a father, this is not the same. Traditionally mothers have been the caretakers while fathers are the breadwinners. Our society structure allowed for men to be at work long hours and to worry about paying the bills and putting food on the table. Mothers obviously were on the other side of that and it was their responsibility to stay at home and raise children. It is now becoming a norm that mothers work, but they are still expected to raise the children. In the law field it is assumed that if a woman has a child there is a good chance she will have to leave work and won’t be able to put 100% into a case. For male lawyers that have children, it is assumed his wife will take care of those issues rather if she works or not. These assumptions make it very difficult for mothers to have respect from their peers.

On the other side of the fence there is the mother that values her job and really doesn’t let her children affect her performance. This type of woman lawyer will still be “committed” and work the long hours, but will then receive criticism on being a good mother. It is a double edged sword. I found it interesting that many mothers were secretive about having children in order to keep the respect from their peers. One mother even hid her pregnancy for eight months, and when she announced her pregnancy she got a wow type reaction that she didn’t let it affect her. Outside of the office the mothers that work long hours and that are high-powered have to then be concerned with perceptions from other mothers that think they aren’t raising their kids properly or giving them enough attention. I couldn’t believe that one mother wouldn’t tell other parents outside of work that she was a lawyer because they would judge her parenting.

Unit D - Blog 31

Men and women both agree that large time commitments are necessary when becoming a lawyer. This causes many issues when it comes to a work and life balance, but even more so when children are involved. When individuals get into law, they know that it is going to be long hard hours, and not a lot of time for extended periods off and short hours. In my opinion it is something that lawyers take pride in. They know they aren’t going to receive a bunch of recognition for their accomplishments. They are in it for the pride and money. They put energy and long hours into passing the bar and representing clients. It gives them a sense of status as a hard worker and being committed. For any type of lawyer, family or not, it is difficult to have a work life balance.

There are several “solutions” that have been suggested, but many of them have their pros and cons. The mainstream suggestions include flexible scheduling, reduced hours or working part-time, telecommuting, and job sharing. Many of these seem more practical with the amount of technology our society still has, but they really aren’t considered to be practical at all in the field of law. Due to that strong culture of commitment and long hours, many lawyers aren’t very accepting of their peers and colleagues who opt to use these alternatives. Lawyers that do go this route, often women, are not considered to be “real lawyers.” Some peers become resentful because they don’t reap the same benefits, and it is considered to have a lack of commitment. A quote from one lawyer, who was female, said that you “can’t dabble in law.” They will also later feel guilt. They are aware of the same values and culture of commitment and know that they are going outside the box of the traditional law structure and it bothers them. This work life balance is why there is such a high turnover with lawyers. The ones that are “committed” and work the hard hours get burnt out. The lawyers that go with alternative work schedules don’t feel welcome or capable and leave. This system will be a really hard field to break into based on the tradition of law.

Unit D - Blog 30

A conventional view about male leadership would be that men have the experience in powerful positions and that they have the proper education and knowledge to succeed in these positions. They also have statistics to back up the notion that they are successful in leadership roles. Women don’t have these experiences and statistics to compare because they traditionally haven’t had the opportunities to make these statistics. However, in the youtube.com video, Does Gender Matter, there are some strong statistics that say women are an advantage in leadership roles. One statistic noted was that Fortune 500 companies that have more women in leadership roles have 34% more profits than ones without. Women also have statistics that prove they have the same educational background and qualifications, but are only a minute amount of women in leadership positions. Whelan points out in the Shared Leadership video that sexism still exists, but it is now much more subtle. Men will benefit because they are more likely to hire like individuals to themselves, that being men. Whelan also points out that another disadvantage, which is also an advantage, is that there are a few women in notable leadership positions such as Hilary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, which in some ways takes attention away from the positions that don’t have a enough women inclusion.

Some gender expectations frame the types of leadership behavior for women. The framework for men is already there and it has been there for a very long time, but for women it is forming and there is a lot of influence from gender stereotypes and socialization. As previous areas of research have shown us, there are implications of “gendered” behaviors that trickle into the workplace. In Shared Leadership Whelan suggests that women will bring a different type of performance and skills. They will be strong at working in teams and building relationships. These are because gender affiliations with nurturing and care giving. There are also notions that women will address issues outside of just their own. Because they are a minority, they will be able to relate to other minority issues and address them. Wheman suggests that child care issues and education would be an issue that they would surface because those issues have been neglected in the past and are likely more important to women. Basically with women there will be new issues brought up and there will be change. With men we can only anticipate the consistency that history has shown us.

When women get the chance and actually are in leadership roles consistency, there will be many positive outcomes. First, diversity is great because it gives us new perspectives. As Whelan suggests, issues that have been ignored or swept under the rug by male leadership will be brought to the table and addressed. It will be a norm for women to be an equal part of society and we won’t lose focus on the issues because someone different is in that role. I liked that Whelan said that women being in leadership role won’t be to just benefit women, it will be to benefit everyone. This is my favorite stance on movements. This is the stance that Martin Luther King Jr. took. He wanted equality and everyone to benefit from equality, he didn’t want his people to become the advantaged, he wanted them to be the equal for a better society. This is what Whelan is saying too. It will be shared leadership, not women dominating leadership roles. It will give men new perspectives on leadership styles that they can adopt, and men will teach women their styles and it will be combined. She believes that if shared leadership happens everything will improve from the economy, to democracy, and other issues that haven’t been addressed. I agree too. Women are over half of our population, but we only use a small percentage for leadership roles. We haven’t been using a large chunk of our potential, and with more people to choose from, there will likely be better results.

I am neutral on which leadership style I prefer. I guess the type I would favor is shared. I have had both male and female supervisors and bosses, and each had similarities and differences. My previous manager was a man and he had an intimidation factor that he was able to use with his leadership. For me that intimidation factor really helped develop me. When he gave me tough feedback, I took it serious. With my manager before that, who was a female, there really wasn’t an intimidation factor, but she helped develop me nevertheless. I got into heated conversations with both of them, and neither one backed down. My female manager developed me by working with me more often. My male boss just left me alone and gave me feedback to either change or keep doing what I was doing. I really do like the shared leadership style. I think it makes you more universal to different work environments and teaches you different leadership styles as opposed to just one narrow type.

Unit D - Blog 29

Turnover is very high when it comes to minority women in law firms. There are many reasons for this. White women have to battle with being different as law is nontraditional for females. Minorities have to deal with the different treatment as a female, but also the difference of being a minority. The percentage for women is low, but for minority women is even lower at four percent. Minority women have to deal with the implications by men that they are not competent enough and the double standards. When they say something it means one thing or isn’t acceptable, but when a man, especially a white man says it, it is totally valid. This is similar to Sotomayor when she was labeled aggressive it was perceived as negative, but when a white man was described this way it was positive. It is a battle for women to have to deal with these institutionalized inequalities and they have to deal with it on a daily basis. For women and minority women, the question is if it is worth dealing with a discriminatory environment regularly, or moving on to somewhere in which they are valued and don’t have to deal with hostility. On NPR the stereotypes of male professionals assuming that an African American female is automatically assumed to be a secretary, and that they have to deal with the looks on the faces of successful men when a women of color carriers themselves in a way that shows they are in charge. During the interview the lawyer stated that dealing with the biases and stereotypes really wasn’t worth it, especially considering the amount of hours. So the answer really is that it’s not worth it for them to stick around. The interviewee also stated that companies that really value diversity make strong efforts to retain and recruit a diverse organization.

Unit D - Blog 28

This article illustrated that the exact same descriptions and terms used to describe a man and a woman can mean two totally different things when interpreted by the media and society. Jeffrey Rosen wrote an article about Sotomayor that later proved to be completely distorted from the truth and discredited. However, even though he had a sneaky and dishonest approach, he did influence others to share his notion. Terms such as temperament, domineering, inflated opinion of self, and bully are all terms that the media used to describe Sotomayor because she is smart and aggressive. Foser points out that when men are smart and aggressive that they have positive affiliations through the media. When Foser and Hutchinson point out the true double standard, it really demonstrates with solid evidence that the media can portray a man different from a woman using the same words. It is flat out discrimination. I notice this same type of discrimination in sports relating to race. White quarterbacks are similar to the amount of white male chairs on the Supreme Court. These quarterbacks are described as smart and strong leaders. When commentators speak about black quarterbacks, they often use terms such as talent, athleticism, and god given ability. These terms are rarely ever used to describe a white quarterback, and you almost never hear a black quarterback as being referred to as smart or good decision maker. They both are performing the same task, and many of the same base skills are needed, although everyone has different strengths at those skills. It is the same thing with Sotomayor. She went to Princeton and Yale and completed the same type of education as her peers and competition, but she isn’t considered to be smart, just like the black quarterback. She is referred to as the “cookie cutter” candidate because of her diversity. It is pretty ridiculous. This type of hidden prejudice is in language everywhere. Since I’ve become a justice student I have paid attention to it on the radio, television, work, school and everywhere else and I notice it everywhere. Just listen for key terms when people talk about gender, race, religions, sexuality, etc. and you will notice that words have different meanings and situations are considered different depending on whom the subject is.

Unit D - Blog 27

Women are still clawing into the field of law, and because of this they are viewed as inferior based on the history of women in the field, and women not having education as available in the past. The easiest solution to overcome these perceptions is to compensate with hard flawless work, which will prevent skepticism. This is very comparable to Jackie Robinson being the first African American to play in major league baseball. He was handpicked by the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers for many reasons, but the most important was that he had enough athletic ability to perform at a level that they wouldn’t be able to question that. Women in law are doing the same thing; they are performing at a level that can’t be questioned. Many women prefer to do it themselves because they don’t want to be questioned as not being able to do it themselves by their male counterparts. Some women even talked about strategies to avoid giving men the ammunition to question them such as leaving talk about their family and children out of their work environment. I found the part about building relationships very interesting. English points out that there are cultural gender topics such as football and sports, and stogies and golf, which help build relationships between men, and women often don’t have those same opportunities to build relationships. There is also the concern of sexism. English suggests that men and women will likely work with the same sex to avoid awkwardness and not leave room for sexual misinterpretations. Another strategy that women use to capitalize in the courtroom is the underdog route. Women go into the trial or case over prepared and won’t miss a beat and wait for a moment to jump out and prove their competency. I don’t think they should have to do that, but they do. It works too. This is a strategy often used in sports. A losing team will get complete excessive preparation and come out and stomp a top team because the opposition is expecting a lower performance and it catches them off guard. Overall, women have found ways to combat these gender inequalities and have to do these things for the time being to neutralize the playing field. Hopefully this won’t have to happen in the future and these strong workers will have proved to men that they are capable and there won’t be any question.

Unit D - Blog 26

Males that assist female lawyers are treated almost as equals, even when they are junior to the female managing partner. I found it remarkable that there is such an obvious indifference the way these female lawyers described their treatment. The example of the body language differences is likely the first way they experience. The manager partner stated how the client would naturally face the male and makes strong eye contact and turns his chair towards the male assistant, but when she stated she was the manager partner, their entire demeanor would change and they wouldn’t even make eye contact. The sad part about it is that most of the individuals that are displaying these behaviors don’t even notice that they are doing it. The most degrading example discussed in Gender on Trial was when they were at meetings and they would expect a senior female to order food and take care of those types of arrangements. The things I found most stunning about these instances was that the dialogue implied that they performed these tasks even though they didn’t think it was right, or if it frustrated them. As far as workload, some examples the book listed is that women in senior positions would have to perform paralegal tasks. I have a friend that used to be a paralegal for a male lawyer and the entire reason she quit was because of the amount of workload she had over the other paralegal who was a male. When I first started working with her about six months ago and we were discussing out previous work experiences I asked her why she left her job as a paralegal. Her answer was that the last firm she worked for she was treated terrible and had an outrageous work load. She went on to say that she had to do all kind of daunting tasks like getting coffee and reorganizing the office. The last area discussed in Gender on Trial was how males acted during interviews. Again, this demonstrated poor body language and eye contact towards the female. I found it interesting that the female partner’s notes were almost completely opposite of the male partner’s notes. The main trend I have noticed in all of the materials pertaining to lawyers and politicians is the lack of credibility they have as far as being smart and intelligent. It seems that they are always questioned on their intellect no matter how much education they have completed, and how much they have proven it. English points out that a lot this questioning and these inequalities come from the older males, but these are the types of behaviors that learned by the next generation or wave of men in those fields. I agree that there has been progress, but if all of these behaviors are still accepted, they are going to continue.

Unit D - Blog 24

I interviewed a woman name Tiffani who previously was a law student and paralegal. Tiffani left the field of law last year primarily because of the way she was treated by her male counterparts. Many of her answers to me interview seemed as if they were straight out of the book Gender on Trial. While she was a law student she said that most of the upper division teachers were male and the lower division teachers were female. During Tiffani's experience she said that women generally filled the roles as assistants and paralegals, and that men were almost always the managers or managing partners. When asked about the dress code and fashion expectations Tiffani stated, “Women were expected to wear suit jackets and those who wore skirts, nylons and closed-toe shoes. Skirts must be below the knee and not too fitted. I learned quickly to not draw attention to myself; not to wear too much make-up or even slightly revealing clothing. Those who did were immediately criticized and her abilities questioned.” Later in the interview when talking about her experience with other females in the field she brought up fashion and looks again when she stated, “I saw many female attorneys that had let their appearances go, in order to be perceived as tougher or more experienced..” I then asked her about some of the gender issues she faced and she stated said, “I definitely experienced a lot of doubt when it came to my decisions and I felt I had to support my arguments more so then my male counterparts with case law and legal rulings.” At one point she also pointed out that there were leadership stereotypes, similar to English's ideas. One example used was, “some believe women were stronger at building relationships with clients and teams in class.” and “... men naturally possess stronger in analytical skills.” I then asked Tiffani if gender was responsible for her leaving the field and she stated, “es. If I was argumentative, my was emotional state was questioned, while male attorney were perceived as savvy litigants. Then if I didn’t agree with my male counterparts, I would endure jokes about my personal life and menstrual cycle. If I had no emotion or reaction to comments, my sexuality was questioned. I was often referred to as a liberal because I felt all people were entitled to fair experience in the legal system. If my argument was validated, I was told it was because I was pretty or that I must have made sexual advances toward my opponent. As a result, I signed everything with only my first initial and last name, so my audience is unaware of my gender when reading my research.” While discussing other women that she worked with in the field she brought up the issue of being able to have a family and work life balance when she said,”It was difficult for many women to balance a home life and work life because they felt more obligated to spend more time at home with their children. As a result, many did not have children, multiple failed marriages or some chose not to marry at all.” The last question I asked Tiffani was her thoughts on why the field is so lopsided. She responded, “I believe males are encouraged more and believed to be more academic than women. Most in the field believe females are not capable of defending themselves against an attack, be it physical or intellectual. There is a belief stemming from the early 20th century, men are unable to detach their emotions from a wounded female as they would a male in battle. I think this notion transcended through time as women were incapable of serving in these positions, rather than the truth; men couldn’t handle seeing dead women. Actually, in certain respects this works to the advantage of the women in legal careers because men lessen their expectations and may be less prepared in ligations involving women. Also, women are more likely to attempt conflict resolution, rather than be combative and escalating violent situations.” One part of her answer that stuck out to me was when she said that men may not be as prepared because of their expectations of women. This is right in line with Enlgish's “under dog” strategy that women have used in the court room. The interview with Tiffani totally validated nearly all of the issue themes that English pointed out.

Unit D - Blog 25

Sexualized behavior has many pros and cons. Being sexual can have benefits, rather if it is at work or not. Many women can exploit this to get ahead, some men are able to as well, but it is much more affiliated with women. Is it right to flirt and be sexual to gain advantage over others? No. But many people do. If women have the opportunity to use it as a weapon, then that gives them an easier opportunity to get to places they have struggled to get to because they are women. I don’t think it is ethical, but it certainly happens. I was trying to think of analogies when considering this topic and the one that stuck out to me the most wasn’t in the work place. The most common and exploited use of sexualized behavior as a weapon is at the bar. I can’t tell you how many conversations I overhear at ASU and bars where girls are talking about talking or flirting with a guy to get a free drink. I have even had female co-workers that I have gone out with and had them flirt with a dude to get a drink, and then they hand it to me. This is a pro because they are saving money. You can relate that to work and say that this type of behavior would be beneficial because they would earn more pay, or have lower work expectations, etc.

The cons are pretty obvious. It is demeaning to women. It isn’t ethical to gain advantages based off or looks and sexual behavior. In one of my classes I learned about the “myth of meritocracy.” Meritocracy basically means that the individual with the most merit, and most deserving based off of performance and accomplishment, will be the individual that will receive the benefit, or position. This is called a myth because our society doesn’t work off of that. There are individuals that can have sexual influence, there are prejudices, biases for friends, and many other things that influence who will receive the benefit and reward of positions and promotions.

The strategy of sexualized behavior in the media is everywhere. Hospital and doctor shows usually display sexual affairs between doctors and nurses. These reality TV shows where many women are fighting for one man’s love, and vice versa, are always about the contestants trying to get their 12 seconds of fame. These shows have now transformed into who is really there for the cause, not there for the fame. This type of thing is all over the media from dramas, to reality, and everything in between. These media examples are what socialize this type of behavior as acceptable.

Unit D - Blog 23

The politics behind fashion for women lawyers and politicians all go back to the early part of our society’s structure. Obviously the roles for men and women are far more different then they were in 1776 when our country was established, but the transformation of those gender roles have progressed slowly. Women fashion traditionally has been conservative and “lady-like.” Our society now is a lot more radical, including fashion. As our society has included women more in roles of lawyers and politics, they have also socialized the dress apparel. When you see a woman politician in the paper, or a female lawyer in a movie they are dressed “appropriate.” The socialization of women fashion in these fields is to have bland fashion. A suite and slacks and less make-up appeal. This type of dress style is still the social norm, but I think we are currently witnessing the transformation of it. While researching Sonia Sotomayor, I came across an article in Latina magazine in which Sotomayor was attending a White House event. Obama and the rest of the staff set dress guidelines for her at this event. This included neutral nail polish and size restrained earrings. Sotomayor painted her nails anyway and had her large red hoop earrings on, but the fact that this was something that was attempted to be regulated is ridiculous. First Lady Obama seems to be part of the new wave that is initiating some of this transformation. The dress she wore on election night basically became famous because it was so non-traditional for a first lady. With the dress came much attention to her black culture as well. On NPR they talked about “black style” and if it is consistent with white standards when referring to Obama’s style. They go on to say her dress was “odd” and “fantastic,” and that it’s as odd and as fantastic as it was to see a black family in the white house. There were also implications that she may have more scrutiny of her fashion and style because of her cultural background and Mrs. McCain may have had more room to dress differently because she wouldn’t have been under as big of a micro-scope, and that a much “more traditional person” could get away with dressing different than the norm. The next area that NPR discussed had to do with the sexual aspect of women’s fashion, and Obama in particular. They referred to her as having “sex appeal” with her style and that “she shows off her curves.” With these phrases they are pointing out that these traits are unusual when analyzing the women in politics dress. The other notable thing from that radio show was when they pointed out that First Lady Kennedy was the last politician to dress like this. That shows that 45 years ago was the one example of non-traditional fashion in politics, and it didn’t stick. I am interested to see what type of influence Obama and Sotomayor will have on transforming the socialization of women’s fashion in non-traditional fields.

Unit D - Blog 22

After reading about Sonia Sotomayor, I am very surprised that I had no prior knowledge of who she was. I am not a big news guy, but still can’t believe I have no background knowledge of this woman. The main reason I am so surprised is the way she is represented in the media. Several articles on Sotomayor refer to her status as celebrity like. Obviously she is going to receive added attention as she is only the third woman to have a chair on the Supreme Court. O’Connor had the same type of effect on the public and media for being the first, just like many other diverse individuals who were amongst the first.

Sotomayor also brought a lot extra added attention with some of her statements such as, “I want to up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.” She also said during a speech the she her cause is “to inspire young Hispanics, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process” referring to the process of joining the Supreme Court. One other phrase during her early career on the Supreme Court included “wise Latina.” All these statements opened up talk for the media and many of them exploited the remarks. In my opinion, she will be questioned on her rulings because of her diversity. However, many of the current judges get questioned on if they have a bias for race and gender. It will happen no matter if it’s a male, female, white, black, Hispanic, etc. That is how our structure has been socialized. The system has never had anything but white males, and now that it has changed, society acknowledges those differences and they will be questioned on topics of this magnitude. Is it right? No. But that is the way it has played out. Sotomayor has not gone back on her comments and I think she will stick to her words. If she remains strong to her words, she won’t be able to be questioned.

Other areas of the material that I researched did have a lot of gender and race implications. I read an article from Latina magazine that emphasized Latino affiliations such as the types of food she cooks and types of earrings that Latina’s are known to wear. This article also scoped in on cooking and fashion while telling her story. More news type magazines made several gendered statements that included stereotypes. One statement said, “Women appreciate collaboration and negotiation, we’ve had to learn to negotiate just to run our families.’’ Another stated, “Men take too many risks, they’re too aggressive, there’s not enough concern about families.’’ These are some of the implications that the media is saying will affect her judging ability.

Overall, the media will continue to stay current with her because it is something our society has seen very little of, a women in the Supreme Court, and a Hispanic one at that. Sotomayor refuses to do interviews with the media, which will help prevent more exploitation. If she stands true to her bold statement as a new Supreme Court Chair, then she will prove that it’s not about gender or race, it’s about justice.