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

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
$alty
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:26 pm

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

Postby $alty » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:18 am

$alty wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:If they were overt we wouldn't need to be speculating about them. They would be on display for everyone to see.


lol


sorry that was kinda mean.

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

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

Postby Captainunaccountable » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:18 pm

dresden doll wrote:
midwest17 wrote: At the very least, our baseline intuition about the degree to which genetics (rather than a multitude of subtle things about upbringing) impacts personality, etc is a VAST overestimate.


Which is why Delusions of Gender should be required reading for everyone, everywhere.


Please tell us more about how groundbreaking and monumental this one sided, obviously biased, book is. The book clearly presumes what it sets out to prove. On that basis alone, it's garbage. Moreover, all this book does is tell people exactly what they want to hear. And it is working pretty damn well apparently.

As to the testes studies, the brain was deemed to play a role because afterwards they compared the two groups by surveying their wives and watching them play with their children.

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

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

Postby midwest17 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:47 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
midwest17 wrote: At the very least, our baseline intuition about the degree to which genetics (rather than a multitude of subtle things about upbringing) impacts personality, etc is a VAST overestimate.


Which is why Delusions of Gender should be required reading for everyone, everywhere.


Please tell us more about how groundbreaking and monumental this one sided, obviously biased, book is. The book clearly presumes what it sets out to prove. On that basis alone, it's garbage. Moreover, all this book does is tell people exactly what they want to hear. And it is working pretty damn well apparently.

As to the testes studies, the brain was deemed to play a role because afterwards they compared the two groups by surveying their wives and watching them play with their children.


Fails to consider that bias does not necessarily imply inaccuracy.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22835
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:51 pm

Of course this also affects/disadvantages men. No one has said it doesn't and in fact, I've already pointed out that it does.

My main issue is that the self-selection issues you raise aren't separate from cultural biases. Women self-select because of cultural biases. Cultural biases aren't limited to "I don't like bossy women so I'll pass over Jane Doe, even though I love it when Jack Jones does the exact same thing" - they're a lot broader/subtle/complicated, and run through all of society, not just law firms, and are shared by women and men. Absolutely no one has suggested this is remotely simple - no one has remotely said "this is teh men's' fault!!"

(This above is to lawschool22.)

Also, lol at the idea that because you (different poster) disagree with a book it's one-sided.

User avatar
patogordo
Posts: 4827
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

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

Postby patogordo » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:52 pm

But men have no incentive to maintain the status quo, amirite? Or maybe they're just more innately rational and resistant to bias due to their large testicles.

AGrafton
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:38 pm

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

Postby AGrafton » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:58 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

General perception:
Authoritative, competitive, driven male = leader
Authoritative, competitive, driven female = bitch

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

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

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:02 pm

AGrafton wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

General perception:
Authoritative, competitive, driven male = leader
Authoritative, competitive, driven female = bitch


See, I hate when people say that is the "general perception" as if it pervades all workplaces.

That's not the general perception. Yes, there is a minority of men who feel that way (whether they know it or not). But the vast majority of men work with authoritative, competitive, driven, strong, smart females every single day, and appreciate those qualities immensely.

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

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

Postby Captainunaccountable » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:04 pm

midwest17 wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
midwest17 wrote: At the very least, our baseline intuition about the degree to which genetics (rather than a multitude of subtle things about upbringing) impacts personality, etc is a VAST overestimate.


Which is why Delusions of Gender should be required reading for everyone, everywhere.


Please tell us more about how groundbreaking and monumental this one sided, obviously biased, book is. The book clearly presumes what it sets out to prove. On that basis alone, it's garbage. Moreover, all this book does is tell people exactly what they want to hear. And it is working pretty damn well apparently.

As to the testes studies, the brain was deemed to play a role because afterwards they compared the two groups by surveying their wives and watching them play with their children.


Fails to consider that bias does not necessarily imply inaccuracy.


Yeah, but here's the thing: there is not a single concession in the entire book to the other side. Any knowledgeable professional authority on the subject acknowledges that nurture is not the only factor to be considered when studying this topic. And when an author goes in with a bias (thereby presuming the truth of her conclusion), I think it necessitates, to a certain degree, inaccuracy. That is not how science operates. Science is inherently empirical & objective to its conclusions. Some re-hash of 20th century feminist vomit under the guise of 'science' surely isn't fooling me.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22835
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:05 pm

Good thing science is so objective it's never been used to argue that particular races or sexual orientations are inherently inferior.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

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

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:08 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Of course this also affects/disadvantages men. No one has said it doesn't and in fact, I've already pointed out that it does.

My main issue is that the self-selection issues you raise aren't separate from cultural biases. Women self-select because of cultural biases. Cultural biases aren't limited to "I don't like bossy women so I'll pass over Jane Doe, even though I love it when Jack Jones does the exact same thing" - they're a lot broader/subtle/complicated, and run through all of society, not just law firms, and are shared by women and men. Absolutely no one has suggested this is remotely simple - no one has remotely said "this is teh men's' fault!!"


I agree with you that the cultural biases are subtly pervasive, and that they affect the decisions we make, even if we don't always realize it. At first I thought you were trying to make a different point (and one that I think several ITT have tried to make), but after clarifying your stance I think we're in agreement for the most part. I don't think cultural and societal gender biases affect every decision we make, nor do they explain every reason for some of the disparities between men and women in the various positions we have in society. But yes, gender differences do affect many many facets of our lives, whether we realize it or not.

In response to your earlier question, this is the distinction I was trying to make when I brought up "sinister" and other words in that vein. I just wanted to say that there was more going on than men deciding not to admit women to partnerships on the basis that they were women, or they didn't like their "style." And I think we agree on that. There are other factors, and yes some may be affected by broad societal biases among gender, but there are still many factors at play that make this a complex issue not easily solved.

AGrafton
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:38 pm

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

Postby AGrafton » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:34 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
AGrafton wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

General perception:
Authoritative, competitive, driven male = leader
Authoritative, competitive, driven female = bitch


See, I hate when people say that is the "general perception" as if it pervades all workplaces.

That's not the general perception. Yes, there is a minority of men who feel that way (whether they know it or not). But the vast majority of men work with authoritative, competitive, driven, strong, smart females every single day, and appreciate those qualities immensely.


Agree, general perception is too broad. I should have said, "in my years of management experience in the medical field"

User avatar
TheMostDangerousLG
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am

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

Postby TheMostDangerousLG » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:46 pm

Oh wow, can't believe I didn't see this thread sooner. Two thoughts:

1) I am glad to see that there are a lot of smart, enlightened individuals on TLS with intelligent and nuanced arguments to make regarding the issues of sex, gender, societal norms, and institutional biases.

2) Holy crap, I want to murder some of you. Which is weird, because I'm a female, so I'm naturally inclined to want to bake you cookies and then go braid my hair.

Seriously, this thread simultaneously gives me hope and a deep dread for the future.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

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

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:51 pm

TheMostDangerousLG wrote:Oh wow, can't believe I didn't see this thread sooner. Two thoughts:

1) I am glad to see that there are a lot of smart, enlightened individuals on TLS with intelligent and nuanced arguments to make regarding the issues of sex, gender, societal norms, and institutional biases.

2) Holy crap, I want to murder some of you. Which is weird, because I'm a female, so I'm naturally inclined to want to bake you cookies and then go braid my hair.

Seriously, this thread simultaneously gives me hope and a deep dread for the future.


I hope I'm in category 1? I don't want you to murder me. You do have a gun in your tar. :lol:

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

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

Postby dresden doll » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:10 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:As to the testes studies, the brain was deemed to play a role because afterwards they compared the two groups by surveying their wives and watching them play with their children.


I think it'll be more entertaining if you tell us more about not-double-blind studies that base conclusions in re: brain chemistry off of observing play behavior . Or post more abstracts that summarize basic conclusions without noting study limitations (which would undoubtedly be found in the actual text).

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

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

Postby dresden doll » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:15 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:Some re-hash of 20th century feminist vomit under the guise of 'science' surely isn't fooling me.


No,you prefer to be fooled by abstracts of studies that have drawn what are almost certainly tentative conclusions about brain chemistry from play behavior. The sample may not be large, the limitations may not be known from the abstract, and the study as a whole may not be double-blind, but you'll be damned before you decide that all that doesn't raise to the level of "objective scientific truth" about women's inherently superior nurturing capabilities.

By the way, when you expressed that objective scientific truth, I expected you'd link to something you'd actually read, not to abstracts of studies you managed to google on the fly. But I guess that it's in line with presuming a book (which I'm also guessing you haven't read) is garbage because "it presumes what it sets out to prove" (translation: doesn't agree with me and therefore can't be right).

User avatar
chneyo
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:46 pm

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

Postby chneyo » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:29 pm

...
Last edited by chneyo on Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

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

Postby Captainunaccountable » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:21 pm

You do realize that the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is one the foremost biomedical research publications in the world, right? That is why I chose publications from their website. The first two studies I provided contained more than just the abstracts, and I was able to find more from the last study from further research online. I'm not going to take the time to critique every methodology proposed in the study. Also, Please tell me about the amazingly perfect, unblemished methodology used in your beloved book.

Look, maybe I overgeneralized a tad in the initial argument I proposed. What I can say though is that there is a strong connection between the biochemical structure of women and their ability to better perform nurturing duties. Obviously, this is hard to prove because what people think of as traits good for nurturing are apparently less obvious than I may have thought. As A. Nony Mouse suggests, cognitive empathy may actually make women better suited for a law environment cause they can manipulate? I mean sure, maybe, but why suggest an inherently good, obviously beneficial trait should be used in this sense. The ability to connect and understand human beings is a good quality in nurturing and that is why that connection is strong.

And I have actually read plenty about my purported statements but that doesn't mean that I can recall their whereabouts on demand. Especially given the fact that you're going to attempt to tear apart any and every study I provide anyway, even if it is provided by one of the foremost biomedical research publications in the world.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

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

Postby dresden doll » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:34 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:And I have actually read plenty about my purported statements but that doesn't mean that I can recall their whereabouts on demand. Especially given the fact that you're going to attempt to tear apart any and every study I provide anyway, even if it is provided by one of the foremost biomedical research publications in the world.


When you make a statement and call it "objective scientific truth," you're saying a whole hell of a lot. And I, for one, think you should be able to prove it. If you can't, consider using more qualified and measured language when you comment on gender differentials in the future.

No one is questioning the credibility of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (although I realize your argument becomes a whole hell of a lot easier if you imagine that that's the crux of the problem). We're merely challenging the notion that you've actually managed to link to the studies that prove women's inherently superior nurturing capabilities. As far as I can tell none has; indeed, none has even attempted to do so.

Also, Delusions of Gender is primarily a critial review of countless studies. How well it succeeds is, I think, apparent from the critical acclaim it has received. At any rate, it behooves you to read it before dismissing it as "feminist vomit."

Learn to avoid hyperbole or risk having your statements picked apart. It's that simple.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

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

Postby dresden doll » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:38 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:The book clearly presumes what it sets out to prove. On that basis alone, it's garbage.


You do realize that many scientists commence their work with a hypothesis which they then go on to test for accuracy, right?

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

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

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:42 pm

dresden doll wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:The book clearly presumes what it sets out to prove. On that basis alone, it's garbage.


You do realize that many scientists commence their work with a hypothesis which they then go on to test for accuracy, right?


Not that I am supporting anything else captain is saying, but I don't think that's quite what he means. The flaw captain is referring to, "presumes what it sets out to prove," is when you use your conclusion as a premise to support your conclusion. Sort of a circular logic-type flaw. The classical description of the flaw is "begging the question."

User avatar
SemperLegal
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:28 pm

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

Postby SemperLegal » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:14 pm

Anyone who doesn't realize that a whole mess of implicit biases*, institutional obstacles**, and unfair, genderfied pressures*** interact to force women out of the workplace on every step of the career path is either seriously deceiving themselves or has never worked a day in their life.

This effect is often (imprecisely and linguistically-incorrectly) called patriarchy. It not only hurts women and men, it also has considerable transaction costs by clouding economic decisions with emotion . (e.g. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/ ... blogs&_r=0, --LinkRemoved--)

If you think that the idea of Patriarchy is merely feminist vomit and you avoid thinking logically about its implications, merely because of a few Jezebel posters, then you are being willfully blind.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Implicit Bias: Beliefs that alter the way you perceive data. There is a famous study from Harvard that was adopted by the Administrative Office of the Courts that pretty much rebuts any theory that this is rare. This effects women by preventing their strong suits from being acknowledged. As hackneyed as it is, the men=assertive, women=bitch meme is true. Think about all the "alpha" things people like in men, and picture the girl in class next to you doing this. Additionally, imagine how much outrage there would have been if Hillary Clinton was secretly forcing Podesta to finger her under the desk. Do you really think we would have forgiven and forgot as quick as we did with Bubba?

**Institutional obstacles: The drag created by the fact that culture progression has to work its way up the chain. If 100% of law students were women, it would still be 8-10 years before most partners were females, and 20-25 years before must firm leaders were female. Since partner selection committees are mostly male they are likely to either criticize a woman for not taking time off, or penalize her for taking a few years off, rather than accept that being a mother is no more an obstacle to being a good, dedicated lawyer than being a father is, even if you take maternity leave.

***Unfair Gender Pressures: Most people have an urge to reproduce with someone they care about. However, see what happens when a male asks for paternity leave. If his job isn't in jeopardy (and it probably is) society treats him as a joke and questions his masculinity. It is just so much easier for the woman to take the career hit, so she does. Additionally, females are supposed to be "nurturing" and "intuitive," so they are often dinged for having bad interpersonal skills, even though this entire industry is filled with "Aspie" (god I hate that word) men who can't be brought in front of clients.

User avatar
kershka
Posts: 630
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:45 pm

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

Postby kershka » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:11 pm

TheMostDangerousLG wrote:Oh wow, can't believe I didn't see this thread sooner. Two thoughts:

1) I am glad to see that there are a lot of smart, enlightened individuals on TLS with intelligent and nuanced arguments to make regarding the issues of sex, gender, societal norms, and institutional biases.

2) Holy crap, I want to murder some of you. Which is weird, because I'm a female, so I'm naturally inclined to want to bake you cookies and then go braid my hair.

Seriously, this thread simultaneously gives me hope and a deep dread for the future.

Best post ITT. I was here on page one but I am also despairing over some of the comments. There are a lot of intelligent and nuanced arguments being made and there are also some comments that leave the same taste in my mouth as those constant threads where men try to decide what law school to attend based on the "hotness" of the women and express disbelief that any attractive women go to T14s. *sigh*

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

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

Postby Captainunaccountable » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:32 pm

SemperLegal wrote:Anyone who doesn't realize that a whole mess of implicit biases*, institutional obstacles**, and unfair, genderfied pressures*** interact to force women out of the workplace on every step of the career path is either seriously deceiving themselves or has never worked a day in their life.

This effect is often (imprecisely and linguistically-incorrectly) called patriarchy. It not only hurts women and men, it also has considerable transaction costs by clouding economic decisions with emotion . (e.g. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/ ... blogs&_r=0, --LinkRemoved--)

If you think that the idea of Patriarchy is merely feminist vomit and you avoid thinking logically about its implications, merely because of a few Jezebel posters, then you are being willfully blind.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Implicit Bias: Beliefs that alter the way you perceive data. There is a famous study from Harvard that was adopted by the Administrative Office of the Courts that pretty much rebuts any theory that this is rare. This effects women by preventing their strong suits from being acknowledged. As hackneyed as it is, the men=assertive, women=bitch meme is true. Think about all the "alpha" things people like in men, and picture the girl in class next to you doing this. Additionally, imagine how much outrage there would have been if Hillary Clinton was secretly forcing Podesta to finger her under the desk. Do you really think we would have forgiven and forgot as quick as we did with Bubba?

**Institutional obstacles: The drag created by the fact that culture progression has to work its way up the chain. If 100% of law students were women, it would still be 8-10 years before most partners were females, and 20-25 years before must firm leaders were female. Since partner selection committees are mostly male they are likely to either criticize a woman for not taking time off, or penalize her for taking a few years off, rather than accept that being a mother is no more an obstacle to being a good, dedicated lawyer than being a father is, even if you take maternity leave.

***Unfair Gender Pressures: Most people have an urge to reproduce with someone they care about. However, see what happens when a male asks for paternity leave. If his job isn't in jeopardy (and it probably is) society treats him as a joke and questions his masculinity. It is just so much easier for the woman to take the career hit, so she does. Additionally, females are supposed to be "nurturing" and "intuitive," so they are often dinged for having bad interpersonal skills, even though this entire industry is filled with "Aspie" (god I hate that word) men who can't be brought in front of clients.


No one is arguing that there aren't biases in the labor market. I've only suggested that just because women choose to take care of their children instead of pursue a career doesn't mean that a particular job market/society or whatever is 'sexist'.

Maybe you ought to direct your argument more towards the population and culture as a whole. Serious entrepreneurship and business does NOT discriminate, because, as you say, it's a disincentive for economic productivity/expansion. When you see advertisements by At&T with little Latino children and black families, this isn't because they're political, it's because they're trying to reach more of an audience, to make more money. This ideal applies across a variety of spectrum and it's readily apparent. I'm not suggesting that women are less apt for a BigLaw job, but honestly Law Firms are not interested in discriminating against anyone on the basis of religion/creed/race/gender etc. (for the pure purposes of doing so) or politicizing in any regard, they're trying to make money, get more clients, etc. This does not apply uniformly in every law firm, but BigLaw, for sure.

The whole idea though is that people should be discriminated against based on their perceived ability to do well. Whatever qualifies as 'doing well' in the eyes of the employer will be used regardless of whether or not it offends anyone. The discrimination serve a purpose in the long run.

User avatar
SemperLegal
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:28 pm

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

Postby SemperLegal » Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:53 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:
SemperLegal wrote:Anyone who doesn't realize that a whole mess of implicit biases*, institutional obstacles**, and unfair, genderfied pressures*** interact to force women out of the workplace on every step of the career path is either seriously deceiving themselves or has never worked a day in their life.

This effect is often (imprecisely and linguistically-incorrectly) called patriarchy. It not only hurts women and men, it also has considerable transaction costs by clouding economic decisions with emotion . (e.g. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/ ... blogs&_r=0, --LinkRemoved--)

If you think that the idea of Patriarchy is merely feminist vomit and you avoid thinking logically about its implications, merely because of a few Jezebel posters, then you are being willfully blind.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Implicit Bias: Beliefs that alter the way you perceive data. There is a famous study from Harvard that was adopted by the Administrative Office of the Courts that pretty much rebuts any theory that this is rare. This effects women by preventing their strong suits from being acknowledged. As hackneyed as it is, the men=assertive, women=bitch meme is true. Think about all the "alpha" things people like in men, and picture the girl in class next to you doing this. Additionally, imagine how much outrage there would have been if Hillary Clinton was secretly forcing Podesta to finger her under the desk. Do you really think we would have forgiven and forgot as quick as we did with Bubba?

**Institutional obstacles: The drag created by the fact that culture progression has to work its way up the chain. If 100% of law students were women, it would still be 8-10 years before most partners were females, and 20-25 years before must firm leaders were female. Since partner selection committees are mostly male they are likely to either criticize a woman for not taking time off, or penalize her for taking a few years off, rather than accept that being a mother is no more an obstacle to being a good, dedicated lawyer than being a father is, even if you take maternity leave.

***Unfair Gender Pressures: Most people have an urge to reproduce with someone they care about. However, see what happens when a male asks for paternity leave. If his job isn't in jeopardy (and it probably is) society treats him as a joke and questions his masculinity. It is just so much easier for the woman to take the career hit, so she does. Additionally, females are supposed to be "nurturing" and "intuitive," so they are often dinged for having bad interpersonal skills, even though this entire industry is filled with "Aspie" (god I hate that word) men who can't be brought in front of clients.


No one is arguing that there aren't biases in the labor market. I've only suggested that just because women choose to take care of their children instead of pursue a career doesn't mean that a particular job market/society or whatever is 'sexist'.

Maybe you ought to direct your argument more towards the population and culture as a whole. Serious entrepreneurship and business does NOT discriminate, because, as you say, it's a disincentive for economic productivity/expansion. When you see advertisements by At&T with little Latino children and black families, this isn't because they're political, it's because they're trying to reach more of an audience, to make more money. This ideal applies across a variety of spectrum and it's readily apparent. I'm not suggesting that women are less apt for a BigLaw job, but honestly Law Firms are not interested in discriminating against anyone on the basis of religion/creed/race/gender etc. (for the pure purposes of doing so) or politicizing in any regard, they're trying to make money, get more clients, etc. This does not apply uniformly in every law firm, but BigLaw, for sure.

The whole idea though is that people should be discriminated against based on their perceived ability to do well. Whatever qualifies as 'doing well' in the eyes of the employer will be used regardless of whether or not it offends anyone. The discrimination serve a purpose in the long run.



This is where you are wrong. It's correct that they aren't saying "Let's discriminate against women and minorities," that is why its called IMPLICIT bias, not overt bias. However, as the NYT article shows women, even when they out perform men, are passed over for finance and law jobs because of intangibles and likability, that are subconsciously stemming from gender stereotypes and sexism. How often is "fit" or "culture" used to justify a personnel decision that goes against the quantitative figures, and how often is that cited to keep white men out of the E-Board? Promotions aren't done by computers, but by people who trust their instincts, and intuitive sense of character. However, that intuitive sense of character is hardwired to prefer people with similarities.

Also, is your stance really that ATT can't have an institutional obstacle against women and minorities because they are willing to take their money? That is patently absurd. Customer =/= Boss

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

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

Postby Captainunaccountable » Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:28 pm

I understand what you are saying with AT&T, but the point is that it is best man for the job because its economically advantageous. Perhaps the commercial example didnt get that across as well as I would have liked. Also, perhaps it's not just their capacity/ potential to be a good lawyer at play. Maybe clientele want more male lawyers. Or perhaps there is another business decision, I mean an explicit discrimination for which it is advantageous to have a male as opposed to a female. As I say, in general, this discrimination doesn't help anyone. I suppose there could be a PR type of decision at play. I will accept implicit biases exist, but to say that that is why there are SO few women in big law (assuming there are just as many qualified females) would be kind of absurd too. Many other male dominated professions have managed to integrate females into their work.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests