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

[SemperLegal]

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.

Tell the truth: did you read the NYT article, or are you just more comfortable arguing from emotion to avoid accepting an uncomfortable truth?

[Captainunaccountable]

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.

Tell the truth: did you read the NYT article, or are you just more comfortable arguing from emotion to avoid accepting an uncomfortable truth?

False dichotomy. I didn't read the article and I'm not arguing from emotion. Since when is NYT a respectable objective periodical anyway? Never. Ill read the article now though.

[midwest17]

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.

Out of curiosity, did you actually read the book you're trying to criticize? Just from a quick skim of the introduction:

Avid readers of popular science books and articles about gender may well have formed the impression that science has shown that the path to a male or a female brain is set in utero, and that these differently structured brains create essentially different minds. There are sex differences in the brain. There are also large (although generally decreasing) sex differences in who does what, and who achieves what. It would make sense if these facts were connected in some way, and perhaps they are. But when we follow the trail of contemporary science we discover a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies, poor methodologies, and leaps of faith---as well as more than one echo of the insalubrious past.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Of course the people who run firms want to make money. The problem is with what they think will get them that money. "Best man person for the job" isn't some kind of neutral objective standard; there are objective criteria involved, but there's plenty of subjectivity, too.

Also, airlines in the 70s? (I think) made the argument that they needed to hire only young, sexy, women as flight attendants because their clientele were male businessmen and it was the best economic decision. That got shut down as - guess what? - discrimination.

[dresden doll]

Out of curiosity, did you actually read the book you're trying to criticize?

Come on now. You know the answer already.

[Captainunaccountable]

Also, airlines in the 70s? (I think) made the argument that they needed to hire only young, sexy, women as flight attendants because their clientele were male businessmen and it was the best economic decision. That got shut down as - guess what? - discrimination.

There's a big difference between the clientele of airlines and the clientele of law firms. The clientele of law firms have the right to choose whomever they want to hire. Airline passengers don't have this choice (as far as flight attendants are concerned).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also, airlines in the 70s? (I think) made the argument that they needed to hire only young, sexy, women as flight attendants because their clientele were male businessmen and it was the best economic decision. That got shut down as - guess what? - discrimination.

There's a big difference between the clientele of airlines and the clientele of law firms. The clientele of law firms have the right to choose whomever they want to hire. Airline passengers don't have this choice (as far as flight attendants are concerned).

The point was that the airlines (employer) argued that they had to, for economic reasons, hire sexy female flight attendants (employees) because their clientele liked them better. You suggested that law firms (employers) should have the right to favor men (employees) because their clientele would like male lawyers better. There's no difference - and that's been held to be illegal, unless one sex has a bona fide occupational qualification that the other sex doesn't have (say, you're hiring a wetnurse or a semen donor). And unless you expect that acting as someone's lawyer requires the use of male genitalia, you can't claim that being male is a bona fide occupational qualification in a lawyers. (An ability to pander to the prejudices of your clientele is not a bona fide occupational qualification.)

It's absolutely correct that a client has the right to shop around to whatever lawyer s/he likes. But that's not the same as law firms hiring lawyers that they will use to staff their clients' matters.

(This is all presuming you're correct that law firm clients would prefer male lawyers, which I think is an awfully antiquated assumption.)

[sasquatchsam]

I feel like this topic may have gotten a little off track and I would like to add just a couple of thoughts as to why I believe that woman are not counted as URM and perhaps why they are underrepresented as biglaw partners.

1. As so many have pointed out, women are not underrepresented in law school (or at least not to a significant degree). There are many types of individuals who are probably somewhat underrepresented but the only categories that seem to receive a significant boost are those that are significantly underrepresented. This makes sense...the URM boost should be somewhat equivalent to the degree of underrepresentation. Although schools are not typically 50/50 when it comes to the male/female ratio, the difference is not extreme.

2. I hope that we can all agree that men and women are different. Whether these differences exist because of societal pressures or genetics really makes little difference in diagnosing why women are underrepresented as biglaw partners. I think that question is somewhat off topic from the question at hand.

3. When I say that women and men are different, I am talking about in general and not in specific cases. On average, men will be less emotionally perceptive than women and women will be less aggressive and competitive than men. This is not to say that women cannot have typical "male" characteristics or that men cannot have typical "female" characteristics.

4. These differences likely play a role in determining biglaw partnership hiring. I do not know how hiring decisions are made but I would suspect that some of the typical male characteristics (competitive/aggressive/goal oriented rather than people oriented) are desirable traits in a biglaw partner. It is my opinion that men have these traits more often than women (although this does not mean that a significant percentage of women do not possess these traits) and therefore it is likely that there will be more men considered for promotion to partner than women. This does not entirely explain the discrepancy in the Male/Female ratio in big law partnerships but I think it is one factor that should be considered.

5. I do not feel discriminated against by the NBA just because I have a 0% chance of ever becoming a professional basketball player. Sometimes it is best to admit that there are certain high level positions that really do require a natural ability in order to be successful at. Professional sports is perhaps the best example but it can also include other kinds of work (including the business world). Acknowledging that one sex may not be statistically as likely to succeed at a certain task should not be seen as sexist. I will happily admit my own flaws and the fact that I am a man and fall into many negative male stereotypes. I try to work on my own weaknesses but I have long ago conceded that I will never be as good as my wife at many things. In fact, the company I work for would probably be better off hiring my wife than me because she would be much better at my job than I am...but I am working on it

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you're saying women are less likely to be good at biglaw in the same way that someone who's 5' 2" is less likely to be good at basketball - due to inherent abilities - then yes, I will call you sexist. There's nothing about being male or female that is some kind of required (or highly highly highly highly desirable) characteristic for succeeding in biglaw in the same way that height is basically a prerequisite for succeeding in basketball.

[sasquatchsam]

If you're saying women are less likely to be good at biglaw in the same way that someone who's 5' 2" is less likely to be good at basketball - due to inherent abilities - then yes, I will call you sexist. There's nothing about being male or female that is some kind of required (or highly highly highly highly desirable) characteristic for succeeding in biglaw in the same way that height is basically a prerequisite for succeeding in basketball.

No, that is not at all what I am saying at all. It was just an analogy to represent the concept that certain characteristics are required for success in certain occupations. I have no idea if that is true with biglaw or not. I just think we shouldn't write off the possibility that there could be a greater percentage of attributes that are common to men that help in being a successful biglaw attorney compared to women. I am only asserting the possibility but in no way am I asserting that I know it is true.

Basically my argument is:

In order to become a biglaw partner it helps to have a certain set of characteristics.
Men and women in general have different characteristics.
It is possible that this difference in characteristics plays a role in becoming a biglaw partner and could contribute to the disparity.

I don't mean to offend in anyway but I think having a discussion free from emotion is key in solving difficult problems such as equality in the workplace.

[sidhesadie]

If you're saying women are less likely to be good at biglaw in the same way that someone who's 5' 2" is less likely to be good at basketball - due to inherent abilities - then yes, I will call you sexist. There's nothing about being male or female that is some kind of required (or highly highly highly highly desirable) characteristic for succeeding in biglaw in the same way that height is basically a prerequisite for succeeding in basketball.

No, that is not at all what I am saying at all. It was just an analogy to represent the concept that certain characteristics are required for success in certain occupations. I have no idea if that is true with biglaw or not. I just think we shouldn't write off the possibility that there could be a greater percentage of attributes that are common to men that help in being a successful biglaw attorney compared to women. I am only asserting the possibility but in no way am I asserting that I know it is true.

Basically my argument is:

In order to become a biglaw partner it helps to have a certain set of characteristics.
Men and women in general have different characteristics.
It is possible that this difference in characteristics plays a role in becoming a biglaw partner and could contribute to the disparity.

I don't mean to offend in anyway but I think having a discussion free from emotion is key in solving difficult problems such as equality in the workplace.

There was nothing emotional in A.Nony.Mouse's response to you.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm not being emotional, I'm just disagreeing with you. (sasquatchsam, not sidhesadie)

And honestly, I'm quite prepared to write off the suggestion that men have more of the characteristics required to be a biglaw attorney than women do, since again, last time I checked, being a biglaw lawyer did not involve using one's genitalia. Beyond that, no one (here, at least) has comprehensively explained 1) what exact specific, concrete, objective characteristics are required to become a biglaw partner, 2) the specific, concrete, objective non-biological differences between men and women, and 3) how the former is connected to the latter (objectively, I mean - not how people perceive men's and women's actions differently, and not the structural barriers to success created by expectations about childrearing and so on; just literally what objective characteristics men possess that make them better suited for the job).

While we're at it, I'd love some objective evidence that men are more aggressive, competitive, or goal-oriented than women. (The same people who say women are less aggressive/competitive than men seem pretty ready to believe that women are always competing with each other over, say, sexual partners, looks, parenting, and the like.)

[Kimikho]

I'm not being emotional, I'm just disagreeing with you. (sasquatchsam, not sidhesadie)

And honestly, I'm quite prepared to write off the suggestion that men have more of the characteristics required to be a biglaw attorney than women do, since again, last time I checked, being a biglaw lawyer did not involve using one's genitalia. Beyond that, no one (here, at least) has comprehensively explained 1) what exact specific, concrete, objective characteristics are required to become a biglaw partner, 2) the specific, concrete, objective non-biological differences between men and women, and 3) how the former is connected to the latter (objectively, I mean - not how people perceive men's and women's actions differently, and not the structural barriers to success created by expectations about childrearing and so on; just literally what objective characteristics men possess that make them better suited for the job).

While we're at it, I'd love some objective evidence that men are more aggressive, competitive, or goal-oriented than women. (The same people who say women are less aggressive/competitive than men seem pretty ready to believe that women are always competing with each other over, say, sexual partners, looks, parenting, and the like.)

You are the best mod.

[stillwater]

this thread seems far too serious.

why can't we all just...get along?

[Jan 14]

(The same people who say women are less aggressive/competitive than men seem pretty ready to believe that women are always competing with each other....

Those who say women are less competitive and aggressive are wrong. Goal oriented, hard to say. Women competing against each other… gawd, they nailed that one.

[patogordo]

I'm not being emotional, I'm just disagreeing with you. (sasquatchsam, not sidhesadie)

I'm sure the perception that you're being emotional has nothing to do with your gender!

[xRON MEXiCOx]

lock this thread

[midwest17]

You are the best mod.

[redbull12]

it should

[20141023]

.

[Captainunaccountable]

(The same people who say women are less aggressive/competitive than men seem pretty ready to believe that women are always competing with each other....

Those who say women are less competitive and aggressive are wrong. Goal oriented, hard to say. Women competing against each other… gawd, they nailed that one.

Yeah, women competing against each-other is in a entirely different ballpark than is women competing against men, IMO. This certainly is not uniformly true because, as I've stated, there is a lot of variability in all of this. But that's a really moot point I may say. Let's just think about this for one moment. What group of people mercilessly have been fighting wars for hundreds of centuries? (Oh I forgot about the prehistoric barriers women faced from their husbands making them stay home with their children while they hunted, oops).
What group of people gives birth to babies and are the first ones to interact with them?
Women gain a mutual love for their babies through the process of pregnancy. To say that there isn't this natural attraction towards the offspring of women's children is just absurd. Let's stop treating women's uterus' like they're just a holding cell for premature babies and respect the institution of birth for just one second. I know, it's really hard to do this when we have abortion doctors killing living babies and when Obama votes down a bill in Chicago to provide life services to botched aborted babies.

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even 'objective' clear cut studies to demonstrate this. Just try to observe with objectivity human beings and stop trying to slap the victim status to every group of society that is not equally represented in something you deem should be equally represented.

Anyway, My question is, where is your proof that the only difference between men and women are their sexual organs? What about breasts, hip size, buttocks, etc. I've provided studies that demonstrate certain differences between the effects of testosterone vs. the effects of estrogen and how they effect the social development of children. These hormones go beyond just their sexual functions, and is demonstrated well. Let's just face it, testosterone provides drive/aggression. That is why men perform exponentially better at sports. That is why women don't play sports with men. Their are physical capacities that accompany mental states that men have more so than women.

Just because you don't find a certain segment of a population represented evenly in a given institution, doesn't mean that there are institutional/discriminatory barriers. There are exponentially more blacks playing basketball, more women doing ballet, etc. Moreover, the numbers represented in an employer's place of business does not reflect that employer's policy and or bias.

[redbull12]

(The same people who say women are less aggressive/competitive than men seem pretty ready to believe that women are always competing with each other....

Those who say women are less competitive and aggressive are wrong. Goal oriented, hard to say. Women competing against each other… gawd, they nailed that one.

Yeah, women competing against each-other is in a entirely different ballpark than is women competing against men, IMO. This certainly is not uniformly true because, as I've stated, there is a lot of variability in all of this. But that's a really moot point I may say. Let's just think about this for one moment. What group of people mercilessly have been fighting wars for hundreds of centuries? (Oh I forgot about the prehistoric barriers women faced from their husbands making them stay home with their children while they hunted, oops).
What group of people gives birth to babies and are the first ones to interact with them?
Women gain a mutual love for their babies through the process of pregnancy. To say that there isn't this natural attraction towards the offspring of women's children is just absurd. Let's stop treating women's uterus' like they're just a holding cell for premature babies and respect the institution of birth for just one second. I know, it's really hard to do this when we have abortion doctors killing living babies and when Obama votes down a bill in Chicago to provide life services to botched aborted babies.

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even 'objective' clear cut studies to demonstrate this. Just try to observe with objectivity human beings and stop trying to slap the victim status to every group of society that is not equally represented in something you deem should be equally represented.

Anyway, My question is, where is your proof that the only difference between men and women are their sexual organs? What about breasts, hip size, buttocks, etc. I've provided studies that demonstrate certain differences between the effects of testosterone vs. the effects of estrogen and how they effect the social development of children. These hormones go beyond just their sexual functions, and is demonstrated well. Let's just face it, testosterone provides drive/aggression. That is why men perform exponentially better at sports. That is why women don't play sports with men. Their are physical capacities that accompany mental states that men have more so than women.

Just because you don't find a certain segment of a population represented evenly in a given institution, doesn't mean that there are institutional/discriminatory barriers. There are exponentially more blacks playing basketball, more women doing ballet, etc. Moreover, the numbers represented in an employer's place of business does not reflect that employer's policy and or bias.

i can't wait to see what develops from this post. mind blown at ignorance.

[Captainunaccountable]

i can't wait to see what develops from this post. mind blown at ignorance.

I acknowledge that those statements were not those most coherent and thoughtful statements I've ever configured, I just had a lot of thoughts and went with it. So be it.

[midwest17]

Hey guys, I finally get it. Captainunaccountable is unaccountable to logic, reasonable arguments, scientific evidence, and morality.

[A. Nony Mouse]

i can't wait to see what develops from this post. mind blown at ignorance.

Yeah, I just can't even any more.

I'm sure the perception that you're being emotional has nothing to do with your gender!

Aaaaaaaaaaabsolutely nothing.

Also, I like the golf tournament idea. But how about instead of golf, it's a bake-off?