I can't help but think that Rob's example of the female judge's comments point to a vicious cycle. As a lot of people have been discussing, there is a perceived problem of how to balance femininity with aggressiveness. The women that succeed in the law often tend to be the aggressive ones that play 'the man's game' well, and as such once they get to the higher levels they look for other women who do the same. Thus, only the women who play the game can climb the ladder, even once other women are already there, because the women that are there are looking for the same aggressive qualities which allowed them to succeed.

To me, the problem is why the 'right' amount of aggressiveness is the standard. In contracts last semester, we talked about the idea that the law does not need to be such an adversarial system, but could be more cooperative, a model promulgated by feminist legal scholars. The question then becomes why there is an assumption that the man's way of doing it is what the woman needs to emulate (as others have discussed, a difficult thing to do), and how to overcome that presumption. How to do it I have no idea- it seems like the law fits into Veblen's primitive society, where some work becomes men's work and others women's work (with law, like any other fighting, traditionally being men's). How do we turn what was considered 'men's' work into gender-neutral work, where the tendencies of one gender are as acceptable as the other? And even if we could level the playing field as lawyers so that 'going for the jugular' was not necessarily the expectation, how would litigators overcome the jury's tendency to find the aggressive male norms more persuasive than the cooperative female norms because of wider societal expectations? (FYI- I know plenty of women will say they do not meet these norms, but I'm just using the limited knowledge I have of feminist legal scholarship so please correct me if I'm wrong)

-- RorySkaggs - 22 Apr 2010

Jess Hallett, that comment makes me want to puke too. I have heard some iteration of it so many times, and it makes me highly uncomfortable. I attended a firm event earlier this semester and realized about ten minutes into a conversation with a partner that he was hitting on me. Talk about gross. To call such treatment undermining is not even to begin to capture the way I felt. I'm not investing time and (gargantuan) sums of money in my education to be treated like a sexual object, especially not in a professional setting. But maybe I'm naive. Even in Lawyerland, female appearance gets a lot of attention. Robinson describes both the DA and the young lawyer he bumps into on the street with reference to their appearance.

Both Jessicas: the playing field has certainly changed. My mom began her law career in the late 70s/early 80s. She is a trial attorney, and has some war stories that I find shocking. Judges would refer to her as "Missy" or "Honey" and call her by her first name rather than "Counsel." She had to wear a skirt or a dress to court, never pants, and these absurd ruffly tie thingies. She fought tooth and nail for respect and to succeed, and she did. I know for a fact that her adversaries have called her "bitch," or worse. But now they are scared to go up against her, and most of her cases settle. I think she was up against far greater gender-related challenges than I am, but those challenges were visible and she wasn't afraid to confront them. How do you tackle the subtle discrimination from a man who treats a professional event like a place to pick up women? Is it even discrimination if it helps you get a job? Ugh. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

I would also like to note that I feel weird and creepy even mentioning that interaction with the partner, even though I know for a fact that I'm not at fault in the situation. I still feel implicated in a troubling way - that's a hard feeling to shake, and I don't know whether it's societal or personal to me.

-- CarolineFerrisWhite - 21 Apr 2010

I'm just realizing the irony in saying "I really don't know how to answer the initial question about why women may answer with less certainty, but..."

Jess, I agree that there's a weirdness to the fact that when women were just entering into a field they may have gotten more support for doing something that seemed unusual, but may still face new difficulties when they are no longer a minority in the field. I wonder if that has to do with (some) men not seeing women as a "real" threat when they're outliers, but then undergoing a shift in attitude when women are a consistent presence and thus persistent competitors in a field that's already very competitive.

-- JessicaHallett - 21 Apr 2010

I really meant what I said yesterday - I'm glad it has been reopened on the wiki. I am guilty of including the qualifying "I'm not sure if this makes sense" in my comments very often. I'd like to think it's because I understand how complex issues presented in class are and because I am being sensitive of using my classmates' time (in a sense), but my gut tells me it's because I'm a woman.

Jessica, your retelling of a conversation between you and the lawyer made want to puke. Probably due to the fact that I've heard that sort of thing so many times.

Back to our conversation yesterday -- I would think that ten or twenty years ago a very successful female attorney would be afforded even more respect than she is now (i.e. because she MADE IT). Our law school class is split almost evenly between men and women. I think the sheer number of women in the profession may make these issues even more difficult, in the sense that there are more women out there with whom to be compared. (eh?)

-- JessicaCohen - 21 Apr 2010