tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7302245627574027504.post2399941527140938308..comments2019-05-15T23:59:20.159-07:00Comments on Feminist Legal Theory: Can we teach old dogs, new tricks?Lisa R. Pruitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16469550950363542801noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7302245627574027504.post-91533452505365706412011-09-15T21:23:01.388-07:002011-09-15T21:23:01.388-07:00I’m taken aback that this lawyer would even have t...I’m taken aback that this lawyer would even have this conversation, regardless of whether he believed what he was saying. Getting past that, I can’t help but notice that the stereotype he used is so contradictory to past stereotypes used to deny women entry into the workplace, specifically the legal profession.<br /><br />In <i>Bradwell v. Illinois</i>, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1872) (Bradley, J., concurring), Justice Bradley joined with the majority in denying a woman’s application to the Illinois State Bar. He stated, “[t]he natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” I assume Justice Bradley feels that the legal profession is one of those which a woman’s “timidity and delicacy” is unfit.<br /><br />This lawyer’s generalization that women negotiators refuse to compromise seems completely opposite to Justice Bradley’s sentiment on women lawyers. This seems to suggest that the lawyer is perpetuating the systematic discrimination against women in the legal profession. Just like Justice Bradley, it appears that he’d rather deny women entry into the profession, then tries to justify his choice on a prevailing stereotype. The tragedy is that I believe such misogyny can’t be changed. Even if you shatter a stereotype, another one will replace it, and the “old dogs” will use it to continue their misogyny.hanestaglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965742169073946895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7302245627574027504.post-84314152458251338092011-09-13T07:46:09.722-07:002011-09-13T07:46:09.722-07:00Interesting. I recently went to a job interview w...Interesting. I recently went to a job interview where I received similar feedback from an interviewer who expressed frustration with hard-charging female associates who feel the need to "out-macho" their male colleagues. This was in answer to my question about work-life balance. His "answer" was that the imbalance was driven by females having to prove themselves by pushing for longer working hours. I, like your friend, failed to stand up for myself and my sisters in the profession. Maybe we make it to easy and "comfortable" (as S puts it) for people (men) to casually make somewhat denigrating and definitely inaccurate, sweeping remarks about women. Maybe we need to make situations like that more uncomfortable...Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405719221794933465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7302245627574027504.post-54677821063155239932011-09-12T20:47:56.125-07:002011-09-12T20:47:56.125-07:00KayZee, you raise a great question that I (unsurpr...KayZee, you raise a great question that I (unsurprisingly) cannot answer. <br /><br />However, I find it interesting the gentleman felt <b>comfortable</b> and <b>compelled</b> to refocus their conversation's pleasantries on why he hates working with women attorneys in negotiations. <br /><br />First, to give a long list of (what <i>he</i> believes to be) negative characteristics he has identified as belonging to an entire class to a very member of that class has to reflect some level of comfort. Or it just shows he has cajones. What quality about this student made him comfortable with being that insensitive? Is it because the student is a female? Or perhaps it is because she is, I am assuming, young? Maybe it has to do with her being a student and not a practitioner? I suspect it is a combination of all three. As a young individual who has not yet begun to practice (inexperienced), he may have thought that she could not take his comments personally. Her gender may also have played a role. He may have felt that as a female she would understand (from personal experience?) what he meant when stating that women negotiators "want what they want” and refuse to compromise. Sadly, he may have just been oblivious to his insensitivity. I suspect, though, that it was the intersectionality of all three qualities (young, female, student) that made him comfortable insulting a woman to her face. <br /><br />Also, what compelled him to change the conversation? Did the intersectionality of this student's qualities present to him a rare opportunity to complain about something that irritates him? <br /><br />Lastly, I would like to comment on your statement: "If what Chamallas writes about the 1970s is true, the gentleman at the wedding should have learned to ignore stereotypes over forty years ago. " You noted that Chammallas believes that women's entrance in the work force and institutions of high education reflected "challenges to traditional stereotypes." Why then is this gentleman still articulating stereotypes? It may be because he failed to place himself in spaces that continued to break down gendered stereotypes. It is going to take more than just laws to break down traditional notions of gender. As discussed in class the other day, constant or continuous culture also plays a large role. Although he lives in a culture where stereotypes are being challenged, if his home life, friends, and other spaces he elects to spend his time in embraces stereotypes, then what good will the law do? The law will only force him to protect himself from liability by complying with the bare minimum of what is expected of him (we would hope).Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881258570100211982noreply@blogger.com