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

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

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?

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

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

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?

(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!

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

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

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.

Is motherhood the new feminism?

"Women do not have to sacrifice personhood if they are mothers. They do not have to sacrifice motherhood in order to be persons. Liberation was meant to expand women's opportunities, not to limit them. The self-esteem that has been found in new pursuits can also be found in mothering."

--Elaine Heffner


I love this quote. And, I despise Linda Hirshman's view of feminism, which is the antithesis of this quote. For that reason, I'll be addressing what I call "Hirshman feminism" over the next few weeks by dissecting this article that she published last November and that sets forth the basic premise of her recent book, Get to Work.

Let's begin with his quote from the 4th paragraph of the article:

Why did this happen? The answer I discovered -- an answer neither feminist leaders nor women themselves want to face -- is that while the public world has changed, albeit imperfectly, to accommodate women among the elite, private lives have hardly budged. The real glass ceiling is at home. (Emphasis added).

I could not disagree more wholeheartedly with this "observation", which is really a baseless conclusion, upon which her entire thesis is based.

As I've repeatedly stated on this blog, I don't think that the world outside of academia has changed much at all in terms of "accommodating" women, and in particular women who choose to start a family. In my mind, that's the problem that needs to be solved.

Likewise, I think that many of the men of my generation are far more liberal and willing to enter into egalitarian relationships than their fathers were. Although there are certainly issues of inequality within some relationships, I truly don't think that that's the primary impetus behind women leaving their professional jobs.

So, why are our conclusions so different? Is it simply a difference in life views and experiences, or is there something else at work? What gives?

I'll try to figure out the answers to those questions and will address all of Hirshman's idiotic arguments in the weeks that follow. Should be fun!

I should have known that it was our fault.

No wonder we earn less than men, dollar per dollar. It's not sexism. It's our own fault. We women are just suckers for a sad story.

At least, that's the explanation, according to this article:

Women in America earn less than men, a disparity that provokes plenty of discussion and debate. But a new study found that women themselves may be partly responsible for the pay gap.

Women professionals tend to charge less than men for the same work out of concern for relationships with clients, according to the study to be released this week at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management...

According to U.S. government statistics, overall, working women earn roughly 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Nice theory. But, how many women are actually in control of their own pay scale and the rates that they charge?

Notice how the article focuses on women veterinarians and mortgage brokers. Clearly, some women professionals likely have more control over how much they're paid than non-professionals. But, I would argue, and I think quite correctly, that the majority of women workers are paid on either an hourly basis or earn a salary that is determined by their bosses. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

Thus, the "conclusion" reached in the first sentence of the article is a completely baseless generalization. Until one determines what percentage of working women actually have a say in how much money that they earn as a result of fees that they set for their services, this particular study has little, if any, bearing the lower pay scale that women are subjected to in this country.

But, it's nice to see that the media has no problem spinning the story like crazy. I'm dizzy already.

Interesting stuff.

There's a great series of posts on the alleged gender differences in cognition over at the Pure Pendantry blog. It's not exactly light reading, but interesting nonetheless. Bottom line--the alleged disparities are far smaller than the popular media has recently alleged. In some cases, they're non-existent.

So, if that's the case, or if there's even a good argument to be made that that's the case, then why are women so few and far between inthe sciences? Could it be, oh, I don't know, sexism and the refusal to accomdate women and families as they enter their baby-making stage? That's what I'm thinking, but I suppose that's not exactly a big surprise.

Is "part-time" ever really "part-time" in a law firm?

There's a great post over at Conglomerate about "part-time" schedules at law firms and whether they're really part-time in practice. From the post:

In the law firm context, I have had many friends try part-time schedules only to declare them a myth. They take a cut in pay, but the work keeps coming, as do the hours. Perhaps its because the assignment of work is not centralized. Maybe it's because the person negotiating the deal is not the person parcelling the work. Maybe it's because 80% of everything is still everything. Do attorneys in these negotiations just hear the words "reduced hours" and nothing else, while managing attorneys just hear the words "reduced pay" and nothing else? In my experience, the attorney ends up very jaded and cynical and the firm ends up swearing never to make special deals anymore. Everyone feels abused.

That's exactly what I've seen occur when people are offered part-time schedules at reduced pay. I don't think that the intent is to abuse the part-time employee or take advantage of him/her (usually her). It always sounds great in theory, but never seems to translate well in practice. Maybe one day that will change.

Quote this

My all time favorite Breakfast Club quote:

John: Hey, how come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up, it'll be anarchy.

It gets me every time.

So what about the men?

In my last post, I left open the issue of men and husbands and how they fit into the family/work/life balance for professional women. And, I suggested that those that blame the "lazy" or "uncooperative" men for the problems faced by professional women are missing the point.

And, I stand by that. It's not an issue of uncooperative husbands/fathers. It's a societal value system that is at the root of the problem. In most professional fields, including the legal field, there is an absolute failure to acknowledge that life exists outside of the office. Work is considered the end all and be all of life--rather than a means to an end. Somehow, the idea that work isn't supposed to engulf one's life has been lost in interpretation over the years.

The fact that most employers fail to acknowledge that their employees have lives and families outside of the office is a problem for all employees, not just the women. Those that suggest that the husband should tow the line while his professional wife works 24/7 are completely off base. The problem we face right now is that the one partner working while one is at home is the status quo that is necessary in order for one to succeed in most professional fields--science, medicine, academia, the law. And therein lies the problem.

It is inherently unfair to require so much time and commitment from employees at all stages of their life--so much so that the employee's spouse is required to work a reduced schedule of some sort so that life will be manageable for the couple. (I'll post about this next--there's a great post from another blog that suggests a formula for companies that would allow them to balance employee's outside commitments at different stages of their lives with their jobs.)

And, this doesn't just apply to people with kids. Most people will need time off at some point in their lives to care for an ailing spouse, parent, sibling, etc. or in order to tend to their own medical needs. And, people should not be penalized for doing so.

And yet, when a parent attempts to work a reduced schedule for a few years, s/he's absolutely penalized for doing so. As a result, professional couples are forced to do a cost/benefits analysis at some point after becoming parents that many times results in the woman stepping off her career track. And one of the main reasons for that is that the man would be penalized even more than the woman if he altered his career path in order to care for the children. Another reason is that the man, as a result of the sexism inherent in our culture, is more likely to be successful (and make more money) in his chosen career than the women, simply by virtue of his sex. So, many couples that are financially able to do so make a mutual decision to have the woman jump ship for a few years.

In some cases, it's because the man is a sexist pig. But, I would submit that in most cases, that has little, if anything, to do with the decision.

As an example, I offer you exhibit one: me.

My husband (let's call him "Joe") is less educated than I am and has only a bachelors degree. But, he chose a career that offers him far more flexibility than I did. And, his personality is far more "flexible" than my own. Joe is incredibly laid back--he's a walking gumby. And, he's an intelligent, wonderful, liberal, open minded man.

Right now, Joe is currently the primary source of income in our household. And, he cleans our bathrooms, helps with dusting and vacuuming, cooks 1/3 of the time (on the days that he's home), bathes our kids and puts them to bed on the nights that he's home. And, I manage our money 100%. I completely control our finances since he's just not good at it. And, he's fine with that.

Joe was our first child's primary caregiver until I left work. And he did a great job at it and was perfectly content. I made the decision to leave. And it was a really hard decision and a difficult time for me. But, he supported me 100%. His words when I told him that I wanted to leave my job were "I'll do whatever makes you happy. That's all I want--for you to be happy. If you're happy, then I'm happy." He's the best. I love Joe.

And, I'm now working part-time, on my own terms, which has made our life far more hectic, given that we're not putting our kids into childcare aside from our eldest being in pre-school 3 half days per week. My husband has shouldered much of the added burden, since he watches the kids while I work. And he's done so happily. He understands that I can only be out of the loop for so long and supports me, just as he's always done.

I wasn't forced out of my job by a resentful, sexist husband who didn't carry his share of the workload. I left because I wanted to. And, it was a temporary blip on my radar.

Why is it so hard for some of you to believe that other successful, intelligent women with advanced degrees like myself aren't in a similar situation? Why are you so sure that professional women are choosing to leave professional jobs because their cavemen husbands made them do it?

Doesn't it make sense that women who are independent, intelligent, driven and thus empowered, generally choose good, supportive mates? Do you really think that by virtue of society's inherent sexism that we, the privileged, over-educated, savvy, intelligent professional women have all been rendered incapable of making good choices for ourselves? That those of us that have attained that which women have been striving for all these years are still mindless zombies who have succumbed to the patriarchal hierarchy? That we're all really married to Al Bundy? Really?

C'mon. Give us a bit more credit! And, give the guys that chose to marry ambitious, opinionated, outspoken, intelligent women like myself some credit, too. They deserve it.

Visiting boobs

My "Boobs" post resulted in a ridiculous amount of traffic from those searching Blogger for "boobs". I'm not sure if it was the type of traffic that I was hoping for, but it was still pretty cool!

The funniest thing about all of the traffic: the most popular outgoing link. Skim through my blog roll on the left and see if you can guess what it was.

If you guessed "Barely Legal", then you get a gold star.

It's kind of sad that they didn't get to see what they looking for. Kind of. But not really.

Quote this

In addition to occasionally featuring Breakfast Club quotes, I'll also be featuring quotes that are more relevant to this blog, including quotes by women lawyers, quotes about men by women, quotes about feminism and quotes about lawyers and the law in general. So, you can look forward to a few "Quote this" posts each week.

Here's today's quote:

• When we talk about equal pay for equal work, women in the workplace are beginning to catch up. If we keep going at this current rate, we will achieve full equality in about 475 years. I don't know about you, but I can't wait that long. --Lya Sorano

Based on my experience on this earth thus far, I'm inclined to think that she's correct. We've got a long way to go, baby.

As far as I can tell, we've got a lot of lip service about equality in our culture, but not a lot of equality in reality. Women are treated as equals while we obtain our educations, but once we emerge from the hallowed halls of our undergraduate and graduate institutions, all of the egalatarian talk disintigrates into thin air. Our biological clocks run smack dab into the middle of our career ladders with nary an ounce of acknowledgment of this problem or support from society as a whole, let alone from our colleagues or superiors. It's our problem and ours alone.

And those few women who have made it to the top at the expense of their marriages, families, children and psyches have no helpful advice for the rest of us and tend to be the least sympathetic to our plight.

They'd rather that we do as they did--have one kid or no kids. Cart the kids that we do have off to day care in their PJs at 5:30 am, and leave it to the day care to change them into clothes and feed them breakfast. Pick them up at 6:30 pm, or better yet have a nanny pick them up, since neither parent can get off of work before dinnertime. Hire someone to prepare meals on a daily basis, since there's no time for that, nor is there even time to order take out, since no one's home before 7 pm. Hire someone to run errands, since there's no time for that--even on weekends, since no one actually has an entire weekend off these days. Send out the laundry and dry cleaning. Hire someone to clean the house. Hire someone to do just about everything that can't be done from within the confines of a law office.

And once your kids are in grade school, the only thing that changes is the nanny gets them off to school and cares for them upon their return home in the afternoon. And, when the summertime comes, send your kids to sleepover camp for the entire summer. And when they get older--too old for a nanny--just hope to high heavan that they don't spend the countless hours alone in your huge empty home banging the cute boy next door after smoking a few joints. And, if they do, pray that they use protection. And look forward to holding their hand in rehab (and sinking a lot of dinero into it, too) a few years down the road.

And, make sure that you take your Paxil, your Zoloft, your Ambien and whatever drugs you need to make it through the day and night.

Yep, I want to be just like you you women partners who advise me to "take a deep breath." Just kill me now.

(As for those of you who might pipe in with "What about the husband? Where does he fit into all this?" He does fit in, and he's struggling along with his wife. I'll address that more fully in another post, but let's not blame this issue on husbands. It's a societal and cultural problem and is quite complex. Uncooperative husbands are the least of it.)

Another female partner weighs in

And, surprise, surprise--she's no more helpful than the last one.

In a recent article, Ms. Wu tried to explain to all of us hapless and harried women attorneys how to rise to the top of the crop, just like she did. And, her advice boils down to the following: 1) you have to work hard--really hard--and be extremely driven 2) men and women can work equally hard, but men admittedly have some advantages by virtue of their sex, so you've got to work harder than them 3) when you decide to procreate, try to get your firm to allow you a flexible schedule, although many of them suck at that--and if you do work a reduced schedule, your male counterparts will most certainly sail on by you up the partnership ladder 4) if you find that you've hit a wall and are frazzled beyond belief as a result of trying to balance work and family, here's her oh-so-helpful advice: take a deep breath.

Yep. Take a deep breath ladies. That'll do it everytime. Why didn't I think of that? And, all of that other "advice". Wow. Earth shattering. So, let's sum up--I should work really really hard, but ask for a reduced schedule even though it's not likely a feasible option, and if I happen to get a reduced schedule, I should expect to have my career side tracked and then some. Oh, and when that happens, I should take a deep breath. Got it.

And, then she says: "At the very least, if you can find a way to work as a contract lawyer, do that." As if a career track that doesn't involve clawing your way to the top of BigLaw is shit on her shoe. (As an aside, why is it that all of the articles about women and the law assume that partnership in a law firm is the end all and be all of life? Carolyn Elefant has a great post from a while back on her blog, My Shingle, about that issue.)

And so it goes. Yet another article from one of the rare women partners willing to sacrifice her soul at the alter of BigLaw purporting to tell all of us misguided, frazzled lawyer-moms how to do it, too. Thanks, Ms. Wu. For nothing.

Boobs, boobs, and more boobs.

And, no, I'm not talking about partners in law firms. I'm talking about the ones that we women have attached to our chest. They've been the talk of the feminist blogosphere lately as a result of this magazine cover and the harsh critical reaction that it elicited from a bunch of prudes with no sense of comfort with their own bodies or with one of the inherent functions of boobs (hat tip: Pandagon):

God forbid that the curve of a woman's bare breast be featured on a magazine cover. It's not like we haven't seen that before on any random men's magazine cover each and every month.

But I loved the take on this issue from Pharyngula, wherein he posited that perhaps those opposed to the cover would prefer to see this photo of his bare chest on their coffee tables instead:

Oh, yeah baby! That's the stuff!

And, as for breastfeeding and our culture's hang ups, don't even get me started. What am I supposed to do when my kid has to nurse and I happen to be in a public place--erect a tent in order to avoid putting those around me who can't comprehend the basic purpose of breasts at ease?

And, pumping at the office? Fahgeddaboudit! How many of you have pumped at the office? Anyone? How about any litigators? Can I tell you what a nightmare it is when you have an all day deposition in another firm's office and your boobs become so engorged, you can hardly stand it? What are your options? Pump in their public rest room during the 1/2 hour lunch break? And how about trials? Yeah right. Not happening.

I managed, but just barely. How did I do it, you ask? I have 5 words for you: Medula Pump in Style Breastpump. It cost as much as a small island, but let me tell you--it was worth its weight in gold!

Sex, lies and videotape (without the sex)

Sorry to disappoint you.

According to this strangely pathetic and extremely funny video, that BigLaw firm, Kirkland Ellis, would like you to believe that they offer lots and lots of work/life balance--in the form of a quick bite of dinner with the family before returning to work. And they'd like you to believe that they didn't either dope up the associates in the video or offer them ridiculous bonuses in exchange for the blantant and stilted lies on the video.

After viewing the video, the one thing I do believe is that they're in dire need of a new marketing group.

He's not bitter

Here's an eBayer who tells it like he sees it--even if it has nothing to do with the amp that he's selling (hat hip: Dave Barry's hysterical blog):

I JUST BOUGHT A PRINCETON REVERB, WHICH I DEARLY WANTED, AND TO STOP WW4 FROM STARTING UP IN MY HOUSE, I HAVE TO GET RID OF AT LEAST ONE THING....SO..I VOTE FOR THIS ONE.,BLUE BEETLE 110 COMBO..ALL TUBE..EL84 AMP...10 INCH SPEAKER..KINDA A RARE AMP BUT VERY COOL..MADE IN EUROPE.......SELLING IT NOT BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT, JUST BECAUSE WOMEN HATE AMPLIFIERS,,,AND THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU GO TO GIGS WITHOUT THEM...AND THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU TAKE THEM TO GIGS AND THEY DONT HAVE ANYONE TO TALK TO,,,,AND THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU PLAY RECORDS AT HOME WHILE THEY TRY TO WATCH THE SCOTT PETERSON FIASCO ON TV..THEY HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT US, BASICALLY....THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU PLAY A GIG FROM 9 TO 1 IN THE VERY CROTCH OF MISSISSIPPI AND SHE KNOWS THE GIG IS 100 MILES AWAY AND YOU FLY HOME ON DARK ROADS IN RECORD TIME AFTER THE MISERABLE GIG AND GET HOME AT 3:15AM AND SHE SAYS, IN A HUFF.. 'WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?..'....THEY HATE OUR CLOTHES...THEY HATE OUR HAIR,,THEY SAY IT'S NOT THE 60'S ANYMORE...,,THEY HATE WHERE WE LEAVE OUR SHOES...THEY HATE THE KIND OF CAR WE WANT TO BUY...THEY HATE THE WAY WE TREAT A BAR OF SOAP.....THEY HATE FOR US TO WATCH ANYTHING ON TV THAT FEATURES A BALL SHAPED OBJECT .. ....THEY WANT US TO TELL THEM HOW GOOD THEY LOOK TO US AND HOW MUCH WE DESIRE THEM, BUT IF WE LOOK AT ANOTHER WOMAN, FOR A SECOND, THEN WE'RE JUST MALE SCUM... IF WE DO SOMETHING BAD ONCE IN OUR WHOLE LIFE (and get caught at it), SUDDENLY ITS SOMETHING WE DO 'ALL THE TIME'...THEY HATE THE CUT OF OUR JIB..THEY HATE GOATEES...THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU WALK LIKE YOU HAVE A CLUBFOOT WHILE YOU'RE IN A STORE WITH THEM....WHERE WAS I,?..,..OK..THIS AMP IS TINY BUT REALLY REALLY SOLID AND HEAVY...I MEAN SOLID...I MEAN HEAVY...ITS LIKE A HUNK OF IRON....IT IS PLENTY LOUD TOO...ITS NOT JUST FOR PRACTICE ..IT DOESNT SOUND LIKE A FENDER,.,HERE IS THE HARMONY CENTRAL LINK TO READ ABOUT IT... http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Guitar+Amp/product/George+Dennis/Blue+Beetle+15+Watt+110+Combo/10/1 FREE SHIPPING...just please pay for the amp if you buy it...oh yea..the handle is broke...everything else works fine..REVERB WORKS..CHANNEL SWITCHING WORKS..THE SPEAKER IS WHATEVER COMES IN THE AMP, I CAN'T SEE THE NAME ON IT....ITS GOOD TO GO.....fooTswitch included....SOLD WITH NO RESERVE..SO NO RETURNS PLEASE..THIS IS AN AUCTION, THIS IS NOT SEARS.....GUARANTEED TO WORK

______________________________________________________

Yep. The dude has issues. Serious ones.

And, he obviously needs to find someone else. It shouldn't be hard. I know tons of women who love it when a guy walks around the store with them acting like he has a club foot. Don't you?

Showing my age

I'm gonna show my age and start a new running feature on this blog--Breakfast Club quotes. Yep. It's totally off topic. And, I'm a loser. So the hell what.

Accordingly, today's quote is perfectly appropriate:

Andrew: We're all pretty bizarre. Some of us are just better at hiding it, that's all.

You can call me bizarre. You can call me a loser. Whatever.

I'm the blogger and I call the shots. You just read;)