Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

Do those stats distinguish between leaving for another job and just leaving, period?

*The numbers do not add up to 100% because they aren't mutually exclusive (in other words, more than one reason could have been indicated).

I think it's telling that the only specified destinations (other than clerking) that are more prevalent for women than men are "non-legal corporate/business", "caretaker for dependents", and "non-profit staff". Then there's the whole "undecided/unknown/other" block.

Even clerking is consistent with this. Women are the majority of career clerks by far, and career clerking is usually very compatible with child care.

[iamgeorgebush]

Yeah... Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that sexist biases aren't one of the factors that prevent women from doing well in the legal field (and sorry if you thought my comment was douchey on the last page - I just wanted make an argument like iamgeorgebush was making by saying "oh yeah, well at my workplace this is how it was so blah" without backing it up with anything substantive).

Reg, the only time I appealed to my authority was on the 15% of equity partners being women statistic, which I later proceeded to support with data. I didn't mean to use my authority to support the rest of my argument.

But if you want data to determine the extent to which implicit, sexist bias limits the success of women in BigLaw...well, I don't really have anything quantitative. Just a bunch of anonymous associate surveys I've read which indicate that female attorneys do in fact believe these sorts of barriers exist, granted that most women do not name all the factors that I have (usually just a couple). I obviously can't post the surveys here, so yes, you're going to have to take my word for it about them. I suppose on that particular data point I am appealing to my authority, but an appeal to authority is not always a fallacy if the person actually has some expertise on the matter. The question is whether you trust that I do have this expertise!

And yes, even if you do take my word for it, it's still just anecdotal evidence. Maybe my firm is particularly rife with unconscious sexism, and the male partners at other firms are much more enlightened. But I doubt it.

The problem is that you are setting way too high a standard of evidence. We simply don't have scientific studies to show what exactly is causing women to leave. There is nothing approaching scientific rigor on the subject. But that doesn't mean we can't make educated guesses based on the evidence to which we do have access. And my argument is hardly analogous to your overwrought engineering workplace argument. My argument has at least some evidence beyond uninformed perceptions, even if the evidence is imperfect.

[20141023]

.

[iamgeorgebush]

You don't believe that recent global warming has been primarily caused by humans? Oh, boy...I give up! In the case of global warming, there is sceintific evidence!

[NYstate]

Yeah... Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that sexist biases aren't one of the factors that prevent women from doing well in the legal field (and sorry if you thought my comment was douchey on the last page - I just wanted make an argument like iamgeorgebush was making by saying "oh yeah, well at my workplace this is how it was so blah" without backing it up with anything substantive).

Reg, the only time I appealed to my authority was on the 15% of equity partners being women statistic, which I later proceeded to support with data. I didn't mean to use my authority to support the rest of my argument.

But if you want data to determine the extent to which implicit, sexist bias limits the success of women in BigLaw...well, I don't really have anything quantitative. Just a bunch of anonymous associate surveys I've read which indicate that female attorneys do in fact believe these sorts of barriers exist, granted that most women do not name all the factors that I have (usually just a couple). I obviously can't post the surveys here, so yes, you're going to have to take my word for it about them. I suppose on that particular data point I am appealing to my authority, but an appeal to authority is not always a fallacy if the person actually has some expertise on the matter. The question is whether you trust that I do have this expertise!

And yes, even if you do take my word for it, it's still just anecdotal evidence. Maybe my firm is particularly rife with unconscious sexism, and the male partners at other firms are much more enlightened. But I doubt it.

The problem is that you are setting way too high a standard of evidence. We simply don't have scientific studies to show what exactly is causing women to leave. There is nothing approaching scientific rigor on the subject. But that doesn't mean we can't make educated guesses based on the evidence to which we do have access. And my argument is hardly analogous to your overwrought engineering workplace argument. My argument has at least some evidence beyond uninformed perceptions, even if the evidence is imperfect.

Haha you're good... I have seen some surveys and a few of the things you mentioned before (like data regarding Harvard's IAT), although admittedly probably not to the extent that you have. As I've been saying all along, I totally agree that sexism plays a role in the current disproportionate female:male (equity) partner ratios. My point is that it is just one factor, and therefore I believe we'd be getting ahead of ourselves by declaring that sexist biases are the main factor holding women back from becoming partner (or making it into management in any traditionally male-dominant field, for that matter). As I mentioned on the previous page, I am taking the "agnostic" approach that it is completely possible that sexist bias is in fact the main underlying factor. However, without further evidence, I think it would be premature to declare that to actually be the case. I hate to compare this to global warming, but I kind of feel the same way about both here - although there is a lot of evidence, people can interpret it in different ways, and so it is difficult to pinpoint the "main" cause (or even all the causes) of either.

Maybe if you get a big law job you will understand what we are talking about based on experience.

[20141023]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Nothing. They all suffer from the same biases.

[NYstate]

Maybe if you get a big law job you will understand what we are talking about based on experience.

I mean, maybe... But as I mentioned before, you are making the assumption that there is something inherently unique about big law as opposed to other "traditionally male-dominant" markets where females are extremely underrepresented in management in comparison to their representation among entry- and mid-level employees.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think makes big law different from any other sort of employment in this regard?

I think the lockstep nature of biglaw makes it much easier to compare outcomes. People make partner, get deferred, get passed over, etc pretty much on the same schedule. People at biglaw who last the years until partnership generally have the same level of experience and have some partners (and clients)supporting them.

I don't know of other industries where you can make year by year comparisons.

[Lwoods]

Making partner at all firms includes a client development component. This is often the reason given when anyone is passed over for partner, but there are certain institutional biases that lead to women being passed over for that stated reason.
One is the classic reason discussed in countless articles, studies, and Sandberg's Lean In. The same actions by a woman are not viewed the same as they are when they're performed by a man. The Pantene commercial sums up this idea pretty succinctly (where a man is seen as a/the boss, a woman is seen as bossy). So the female senior associates who act "like men" are seen as "too abrasive" to work so closely with clients. (Basically Hopkins v. PriceWaterhouse for those of you who have taken discrimination).
Another reason is the lack of grooming of female associates for partner. This is improving slowly. But male partners will bring male associates on golf outings with them, for example, giving them more client exposure, and better setting them up for partner roles.

Finally, while many female attorneys voluntarily leave BigLaw for their kids, many give the same reason when they're being pushed out, as well. It's an easy way to save face, but it isn't always the real reason.

[lawschool22]

Making partner at all firms includes a client development component. This is often the reason given when anyone is passed over for partner, but there are certain institutional biases that lead to women being passed over for that stated reason.
One is the classic reason discussed in countless articles, studies, and Sandberg's Lean In. The same actions by a woman are not viewed the same as they are when they're performed by a man. The Pantene commercial sums up this idea pretty succinctly (where a man is seen as a/the boss, a woman is seen as bossy). So the female senior associates who act "like men" are seen as "too abrasive" to work so closely with clients. (Basically Hopkins v. PriceWaterhouse for those of you who have taken discrimination).
Another reason is the lack of grooming of female associates for partner. This is improving slowly. But male partners will bring male associates on golf outings with them, for example, giving them more client exposure, and better setting them up for partner roles.

Finally, while many female attorneys voluntarily leave BigLaw for their kids, many give the same reason when they're being pushed out, as well. It's an easy way to save face, but it isn't always the real reason.

I think most people (including myself) ITT are in agreement with you, and I hope you would agree that there are other, non-institutionalized reasons for the disparity as well.

The main point of this thread though, is whether or not law schools should be doing something differently to account for this. What are your thoughts on that? I feel like, as you point out, much of the problems start to come later, and are not a result of women being underrepresented at law schools.

[dresden doll]

Finally, while many female attorneys voluntarily leave BigLaw for their kids, many give the same reason when they're being pushed out, as well. It's an easy way to save face, but it isn't always the real reason.

This is very true, and something I neglected when I commented on this topic. I totally agree.

[iamgeorgebush]

Making partner at all firms includes a client development component. This is often the reason given when anyone is passed over for partner, but there are certain institutional biases that lead to women being passed over for that stated reason.
One is the classic reason discussed in countless articles, studies, and Sandberg's Lean In. The same actions by a woman are not viewed the same as they are when they're performed by a man. The Pantene commercial sums up this idea pretty succinctly (where a man is seen as a/the boss, a woman is seen as bossy). So the female senior associates who act "like men" are seen as "too abrasive" to work so closely with clients. (Basically Hopkins v. PriceWaterhouse for those of you who have taken discrimination).
Another reason is the lack of grooming of female associates for partner. This is improving slowly. But male partners will bring male associates on golf outings with them, for example, giving them more client exposure, and better setting them up for partner roles.

Finally, while many female attorneys voluntarily leave BigLaw for their kids, many give the same reason when they're being pushed out, as well. It's an easy way to save face, but it isn't always the real reason.

+1 to everything you've said.

I'd also like to add that a common reason given for passing someone over for partner is that the person lacks "sparkle" or some other ineffable characteristic. What the fuck is sparkle? I don't know, but it would be a convenient way to cover up implicit biases.

[lawschool22]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the other factors (in addition to the factor we all seem to be in agreement on - institutionalized sexism) that I outlined in my original or subsequent posts?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the other factors (in addition to the factor we all seem to be in agreement on - institutionalized sexism) that I outlined in my original or subsequent posts?

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "institutionalized sexism" here and how it's different from the other factors. It's not that "law firms are sexist, oh, and by the way a completely separate thing is that women often leave their jobs for years at a time to raise kids and it's hard to come back from that" - those things are connected. Sure, it's likely hard(er) to make partner if you drop out of a particular career for, say, 3-5 years (picking a range of intensive child-care time at random). But the fact that women drop out of the workforce to have/care for kids in the first place is about societal expectations based on gender that affect both personal and private lives. I have a hard time seeing this factor as "non-discriminatory" because if it were purely about personal choice and preference, why is it mostly women who choose this?

(You might argue it's because men and women are different and women just naturally want to be home with their kids more than men do/women are better at taking care of the kids than men are, but I don't buy that argument. Even if I were inclined to buy that argument, though, I don't think we can say these differences are inherent/fixed rather than also culturally created.)

(Note: I'm not at all saying women should/shouldn't take time off to have kids, or that they shouldn't want to; I know lots of women genuinely want to do this and value it over the years of work they're giving up, and I'm not trying to say that thinking this means you're OPPRESSED by the MAN or anything. I'm just saying that law firms, like a lot of employers, tend to operate on the assumption that their employees don't have personal lives that interfere with their 60-80 hour work weeks, and if you do have a personal life that gets in the way, your career will suffer. And that sounds reasonable enough, except that our society still tends to expect women to deal with the personal side of things more than it expects men to. A man taking off 3-5 years to raise kids will probably hurt his biglaw career to the same extent a woman would - except that he might get some cultural credit for being "caring" and "devoted" and so on - but men just aren't as likely to take that time off to begin with. Which is unfair to men, too.)

[20141023]

.

[lawschool22]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the other factors (in addition to the factor we all seem to be in agreement on - institutionalized sexism) that I outlined in my original or subsequent posts?

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "institutionalized sexism" here and how it's different from the other factors. It's not that "law firms are sexist, oh, and by the way a completely separate thing is that women often leave their jobs for years at a time to raise kids and it's hard to come back from that" - those things are connected. Sure, it's likely hard(er) to make partner if you drop out of a particular career for, say, 3-5 years (picking a range of intensive child-care time at random). But the fact that women drop out of the workforce to have/care for kids in the first place is about societal expectations based on gender that affect both personal and private lives. I have a hard time seeing this factor as "non-discriminatory" because if it were purely about personal choice and preference, why is it mostly women who choose this?

(You might argue it's because men and women are different and women just naturally want to be home with their kids more than men do/women are better at taking care of the kids than men are, but I don't buy that argument. Even if I were inclined to buy that argument, though, I don't think we can say these differences are inherent/fixed rather than also culturally created.)

(Note: I'm not at all saying women should/shouldn't take time off to have kids, or that they shouldn't want to; I know lots of women genuinely want to do this and value it over the years of work they're giving up, and I'm not trying to say that thinking this means you're OPPRESSED by the MAN or anything. I'm just saying that law firms, like a lot of employers, tend to operate on the assumption that their employees don't have personal lives that interfere with their 60-80 hour work weeks, and if you do have a personal life that gets in the way, your career will suffer. And that sounds reasonable enough, except that our society still tends to expect women to deal with the personal side of things more than it expects men to. A man taking off 3-5 years to raise kids will probably hurt his biglaw career to the same extent a woman would - except that he might get some cultural credit for being "caring" and "devoted" and so on - but men just aren't as likely to take that time off to begin with. Which is unfair to men, too.)

I'm referring to institutionalized as sexism coming from institutions such as law firms and the societal pressures and expectations that you go on to discuss, which I also hit upon. I know they are interconnected, and that was my point earlier. I think you and are on the same page. What I was trying to talk about was that there are factors other than sexist biglaw partners at play which cause these discrepancies, something that the discourse ITT was missing.

Since we are in agreement, though, on the fact that there are tons of sexist pressures on women, both from their bosses and from society at large, I would be curious about what you and others think about the other potential factors that no one wants to touch. Are you also willing to consider that a portion of the disparity results from the fact that fewer women set out to or initially, or decide later in their careers, to seek biglaw partnerships to begin with?

I'm not saying this is a huge piece of the puzzle, but I am trying to explain the entire disparityand all the factors at play, without being biased for or against any of the possible factors.

[iamgeorgebush]

I'd also like to add that a common reason given for passing someone over for partner is that the person lacks "sparkle" or some other ineffable characteristic. What the fuck is sparkle? I don't know, but it would be a convenient way to cover up implicit biases.

I don't know what it is either, but I sure hope I don't have the "sparkle"...

No BigLaw partner for you then!

[A. Nony Mouse]

I agree that it's not just sexist biglaw partners in the sense that there isn't (I hope) a bunch of old white guys sitting round a table smoking cigars saying "I don't like that Jane Smith, she does/doesn't wear tight skirts, NO PARTNERSHIP FOR HER" or even just "that Jane Smith is such a ball-breaker, but John Jones really knows how to drive a hard bargain and I think he'd be a great partner." It is sexist biglaw partners to the extent that they (like all of us) live in a society that has certain gender expectations (and expectations about running a biglaw firm) that tend to make it harder for women to stay on the partnership track, and have absorbed a lot/most of those expectations.

As for fewer women setting out to seek biglaw partnerships or later deciding not to continue - it may well be a factor, in the sense that it's one of the mechanisms by which we end up with fewer women partners (as opposed to, say, women simply getting turned down/fired). I know a number of women who were doing very well at biglaw firms who have left, generally for government work, because the schedule is so much more compatible with the way they want to raise their kids. But again, that's not in a vacuum - it's not an alternative to the influence of gender roles/expectations, it's a career choice made by people only in the context of those gender roles/expectations. So if the implication is that women don't aim for partner because they're less competitive, or they don't value that kind of success - that's possible, but again, it's in the context of a society that (to generalize) values different things in women and men.

(Also, raising kids rather than chasing partner is great. Not suggesting it's a bad decision for anyone. It's just a weird conundrum that what may be the best decision for an individual ends up looking troubling in the collective. Or not, I guess, depending on what you value.)

[lawschool22]

I agree that it's not just sexist biglaw partners in the sense that there isn't (I hope) a bunch of old white guys sitting round a table smoking cigars saying "I don't like that Jane Smith, she does/doesn't wear tight skirts, NO PARTNERSHIP FOR HER" or even just "that Jane Smith is such a ball-breaker, but John Jones really knows how to drive a hard bargain and I think he'd be a great partner." It is sexist biglaw partners to the extent that they (like all of us) live in a society that has certain gender expectations (and expectations about running a biglaw firm) that tend to make it harder for women to stay on the partnership track, and have absorbed a lot/most of those expectations.

As for fewer women setting out to seek biglaw partnerships or later deciding not to continue - it may well be a factor, in the sense that it's one of the mechanisms by which we end up with fewer women partners (as opposed to, say, women simply getting turned down/fired). I know a number of women who were doing very well at biglaw firms who have left, generally for government work, because the schedule is so much more compatible with the way they want to raise their kids. But again, that's not in a vacuum - it's not an alternative to the influence of gender roles/expectations, it's a career choice made by people only in the context of those gender roles/expectations. So if the implication is that women don't aim for partner because they're less competitive, or they don't value that kind of success - that's possible, but again, it's in the context of a society that (to generalize) values different things in women and men.

(Also, raising kids rather than chasing partner is great. Not suggesting it's a bad decision for anyone. It's just a weird conundrum that what may be the best decision for an individual ends up looking troubling in the collective. Or not, I guess, depending on what you value.)

Yeah, I think we're pretty well aligned on this. Now my next question, do you agree that this is largely not a problem that law schools can deal with? Just to get the conversation back to original topic of women as URMs.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh, yeah, to go back to the original point (and I have said this already somewhere in here) - I don't think admitting more women to law schools accomplishes anything. (In theory law schools probably contribute to some of the cultural aspects at play, but counting women as URMs for admissions purposes wouldn't make the slightest difference to that.)

[Captainunaccountable]

Men can't have children. Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.
But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them.
I don't understand how women bearing and raising a child is 'culturally fixed'. Even if it is fixed and sexist, I'd suppose it's probably a good thing as their scientific structure is predicated upon inherent gifts in so doing. In fact, women produce an abundant amount of estrogen and other chemicals for the sole purposes of nurturing their children. So if the argument is that women are 'discriminated' because of 'gender expectations' (i.e. raising their children) I'd say that the argument is invalid because they are not 'forced by society' to raise children.

[20141023]

.

[Kimikho]

Men can't have children. Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.
But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them.
I don't understand how women bearing and raising a child is 'culturally fixed'. Even if it is fixed and sexist, I'd suppose it's probably a good thing as their scientific structure is predicated upon inherent gifts in so doing. In fact, women produce an abundant amount of estrogen and other chemicals for the sole purposes of nurturing their children. So if the argument is that women are 'discriminated' because of 'gender expectations' (i.e. raising their children) I'd say that the argument is invalid because they are not 'forced by society' to raise children.

1.) No.

2.) Men can't have children, but they are sure as hell biologically engineered to make sure their progeny continues to survive.

edit: I reread that a third time, and I'll just go with no to the entire thing except "But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them." Everything else is blatantly wrong.

[Captainunaccountable]

Men can't have children. Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.
But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them.
I don't understand how women bearing and raising a child is 'culturally fixed'. Even if it is fixed and sexist, I'd suppose it's probably a good thing as their scientific structure is predicated upon inherent gifts in so doing. In fact, women produce an abundant amount of estrogen and other chemicals for the sole purposes of nurturing their children. So if the argument is that women are 'discriminated' because of 'gender expectations' (i.e. raising their children) I'd say that the argument is invalid because they are not 'forced by society' to raise children.

1.) No.

2.) Men can't have children, but they are sure as hell biologically engineered to make sure their progeny continues to survive.

edit: I reread that a third time, and I'll just go with no to the entire thing except "But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them." Everything else is blatantly wrong.

So men can be 'biologically engineered ' for something but women can't? As far as denying the truth of my second sentence; I'm sorry but you're just wrong on that front. That's some entry level science right there.
So is most of the history of our civilization as we know it predicated on falsely constructed, discriminatory gender roles? Please tell me more about this.

[Kimikho]

Men can't have children. Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.
But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them.
I don't understand how women bearing and raising a child is 'culturally fixed'. Even if it is fixed and sexist, I'd suppose it's probably a good thing as their scientific structure is predicated upon inherent gifts in so doing. In fact, women produce an abundant amount of estrogen and other chemicals for the sole purposes of nurturing their children. So if the argument is that women are 'discriminated' because of 'gender expectations' (i.e. raising their children) I'd say that the argument is invalid because they are not 'forced by society' to raise children.

1.) No.

2.) Men can't have children, but they are sure as hell biologically engineered to make sure their progeny continues to survive.

edit: I reread that a third time, and I'll just go with no to the entire thing except "But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them." Everything else is blatantly wrong.

So men can be 'biologically engineered ' for something but women can't? As far as denying the truth of my second sentence; I'm sorry but you're just wrong on that front. That's some entry level science right there.
So is most of the history of our civilization as we know it predicated on falsely constructed, discriminatory gender roles? Please tell me more about this.

Did you read the last four pages? The fact that women can be engineered to fit a specific social norm is the entire argument. Gender is a social construct. HTH.