One for All and All for One?

Since our class discussion of whether pushing the equality of men and women was a correct strategy, I have continued to ponder the wisdom of this route. Reflecting upon much of what we have discussed about women in the legal profession, I can barely imagine what it would have been like being a woman in any profession 40-50 years ago. Nonetheless while many things continue to stay the same, I also think we fail to sometimes see how far we have come.

A good example of this is found in the show Mad Men (which I truly love). Perhaps it is the clothes, the characters, or the dialogue; but for me, the real draw of the show is seeing how much has changed but also how much has stayed the same. It should come as no surprise that last weekend, as I sat on my couch with a glass of wine watching Peggy Olsen being degraded by her boss Don Draper, that I started yelling at the screen fuming that he dared to speak to a woman that way. What might surprise you, however, is that a few minutes later I cried as Peggy and Don, both individuals cornered into a box that barely contains them, found a mutual understanding in the innocuous gesture of holding each other’s hand after a long night of defeat.

The two characters have much to lose - one is a man who is pretending to be someone else, and the other is a woman trying to balance her femininity with a masculine career. But the commonality struck between the two of them in the final scene is perhaps indicative of what we seek as feminists– an understanding and way to have equal standing. Much has been said about what equality actually means, but in essence isn’t it something that requires mutual understanding?

My contention isn’t so much that things are perfect and that women are on an equal footing, but rather that putting down what we have achieved so far only limits the movement. The law is an gauge of how our society evolves, and in the case of gender equality, the mere fact that legislation like the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Pay Act exists serves as a reminder – whether prescient or not – that our society does value this type of equality. Moreover, if we didn’t have judges and lawyers – both women and men – deciding cases like Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, I believe that the Peggy Olsen of today would still be a secretary forced to listen to sexual insults without much choice. Denying the work that women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in the past de-legitimizes what equality women do have right now. To me, it fails to capture the many rights that I have today that people like Peggy Olsen did not.

Laws such as Civil Rights Act are pieces of paper, but they are pieces of paper with force that reflect this concept of mutual understanding. We might not yet have come to the point where there is absolute understanding (reflected in the fact that some court precedent does exist to deny our equality), but it is enough to demonstrate that men and women are on a more equal standing than any other time in our short history. Nevertheless, I maintain that this is not necessarily a time to rest, but since we are on a more equal footing a time to push for laws to intertwine with the societal value of equality in a more tangible way.

Mom was right... again.

As a woman, I've been fortunate in many ways. I was born at a point where I have benefited from the hard work of the women who pioneered the feminist movement. On a personal level, (most of) the men in my life have been nothing but supportive.

My pursuit of a stellar professional career was a given for my father. He would have it no other way. In fact, he still harbors delusions of my earning a Nobel prize or a Supreme Court appointment (no problem Dad)!

However.

I have had problems seeing eye to eye with certain guys on the issue of violence against women. One of the biggest fights I had with my first (ex) boyfriend was about my "paranoia" regarding walking alone in a dark parking structure, at night. I argued that this was anything but paranoia and being an adult male, he could not possibly understand concern about sexual assault. He (condescendingly) argued that we lived in a safe area and I was being ridiculous.

He was wrong.

A couple of years after this (infuriating) conversation, I was walking alone at night to meet up with a friend in the safe city of La Jolla. As I was walking across my apartment complex to meet up with her, a man came out of the shadows. He yelled, in a cold voice I will never forget, "what the hell are you doing?!" I took one look at his cruel, terrifying face and started to walk away. Quickly.

He followed me.

I yelled out to my friend and once I reached her, I was lucky that he stopped pursuing me. As we walked towards the main road, I looked back. He was just standing there. Staring at us.

Not a big incident, right? But I wonder what would have happened if I was alone. I had an instinctively terrible feeling the moment I made eye contact with him. I was shaken, but also angry. How dare he make me feel unsafe near my own home! I was sure that my instincts about him were correct. I decided to look him up.

California has passed laws (collectively called Megan's law) which require authorities to make information about registered sex offenders available to the public. I went online and found the website where you can find registered sex offenders in your neighborhood. With pictures.

Sure enough, in no time at all, I stared back at the face of the man who followed me (6ft, 200 lbs). Apparently one conviction for sexual assault was not enough.

That year, again in safe La Jolla, a woman was tackled between two cars and raped. By the library on campus. At 8pm. In summer when it was still light outside.

Nobody was around. So much for "safe" areas.

The point of my post is not to make women feel like victims, but to make them aware of what can happen even in places that are considered very safe. Don't let fear rule your life, but remember common sense (i.e. my mother's) advice:

• Be aware of your general surroundings at all times.
  
• Don't take a cab alone at night (if possible).
• Carry pepper spray.
• Avoid walking alone at night (unlike me).
• Don't give rides to strangers. Even well dressed/handsome ones (horrible case emailed curtesy of my mom).
• Watch out for your friends, especially at parties or clubs.

As for the ex-boyfriend... luckily now I met someone who buys me pepper spray on his own initiative (brownie points with mom too!), rather than talks down to me for worrying about my safety. It's not that I want men to be super protective, I just appreciate the fact that he takes my concerns seriously.

While Megan's law is a very helpful tool, I hope that the California legislation will continue to pass laws that combat violence against women. Even simple fixes such as more street light in cities (Davis!!) helps reduce this type of crime.

Hopefully with more education and better legislation, women will have less to worry about in the future.

A woman's worth: the long road toward equal pay for work of equal value

There has long been a worldwide effort to establish equal pay for comparable worth. While studying European Employment Law last semester in Dublin, Ireland, my eyes were opened to the fact that the European Community (EC) and countries like Australia have required both public and private employers to base salaries on equal pay for work of equal value. These requirements have been in place for almost two decades now. In a fact sheet on wages of various occupations published by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, new analysis shows that men out-earn women in nearly every occupation for which data are available.

As a woman who has been in the workforce for over 40 years, I have seen the incremental improvements in my wage gap, but I never stopped to calculate what that amounted to in real terms, until I dug a bit deeper into recent data and found some startling commentary.

Weary of the prospect of getting paid less than my male counterparts in the legal profession, I decided to evaluate the current state of equal pay for equal or comparable work. Many would argue that seniority, reduced hours for child care, and maternity leave account for the difference in pay that a man gets compared to a woman. But studies do not support this argument. The large wage gap between men and women is more likely due to significant differences between wages paid for traditionally "men's jobs" and those paid for "women's jobs." Comparable worth is a tool in the struggle to bring women's economic positions up to the level of men's.

In the United States however, comparable work policies have lagged seriously behind. Even though national conferences for mayors and governors have given a token nod toward women by passing resolutions supporting the notion of comparable worth, we have a long way to go sisters! Roughly 20 states have begun to make comparable-worth salary adjustments for their employees.

The gender wage gap and occupational segregation – men primarily working in occupations by other men, and women primarily working with other women – are persistent features of the US labor market. During 2009, median weekly earnings for female full-time workers were $657, compared with $819 per week for men, a gender wage ratio of 80.2 percent (or a gender wage gap of 19.8 percent). Women’s median earnings are lower than men’s in nearly all occupations, whether they work in occupations predominantly done by women, occupations predominantly done by men, or occupations with a more even mix of men and women.

Economist Evelyn Murphy, President of The Wage Project, estimated in an article that over a lifetime (47 years of full-time work) this gap amounts to a loss in wages for a woman of $700,000 for a high school graduate; $1.2 million for a college graduate and $2 million for a professional school graduate. (Source: Census Bureau reports and data, Current Population Reports, Median Earning of Workers 15 Years Old and Over by Work Experience and Sex. 
Updated September 2009)

In a briefing paper on the best and worst economies for women, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research states that,

While women's wages have risen in all states, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, since 1989, the typical full-time woman worker does not make as much as the typical man in any state. At the present rate of progress, it will take 50 years to close the wage gap nationwide.

So, it has been more than depressing for me that not only will I not see the gap closed during my work life, but I might not see the gap closed in my lifetime. It’s not all bad news, though. One of the first bills that President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. See prior post. The Fair Pay Act takes effect retroactively, however, employers may still be slow to increase the salaries of female employees until the lawsuits begin to fly. This will take courage on the part of women, but the groundwork has been put in place.

There are also comparable-worth lessons we can learn from the successes of not only our foreign neighbors in Europe, but in the U.S. as well. I rarely think of Minnesota as a bell-weather state when it comes to public policy, but in the equal pay for work of equal value, they most certainly are. As early at the mid-90’s, it was the only state requiring all its localities to develop and implement a comparable-worth/pay equity plan for their employees. Over thirteen hundred local governmental bodies participated. See, Incomparable Worth by Steven E. Rhoads, Cambridge University Press 1993.

As the UC Davis Law class of 2011 graduates, each of us will embark on a new career as lawyers. Each of us, male and female, will have an opportunity to practice not only law, but also leadership. I believe that because of our training and understanding of the operation of government, lawyers should shoulder a greater responsibility than other citizens taking leadership roles in our respective communities. We will be the generation of leaders that makes the wage gap disappear.

Women Wednesdays

Going forward, every Wednesday I will put up a quote I believe to be powerful and relevant. Please feel free to comment and/or add your own quotes to add to "Women Wednesdays."

This week's quote is by Clare Boothe Luce (born Anne Booth) who was a politician and writer, and was known for her strong commitment to the advancement of women.

"Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, 'She doesn't have what it takes.' They will say, 'Women don't have what it takes.'"

Man Up in the work place

"Stop being such a dude!"... "Stop being so girly!" Both of these statements have been said to me many times, used in their respective context. If I act aggressively or utter a curse word, I am often told I should act more lady-like. If I become emotional, I'm told to "man up." While it may be obvious that I would be offended by statements of this nature, I recently read an article by Sharon Meers in which she suggested that to have a better and more efficient working environment, women should act more like "men."

In her article, Meers explains that women, including tenured professors and leaders in business, medicine, and law, have a tendency to follow societal standards, which put them in positions where they are overlooked or dismissed. Meers explains, women professionals tend to:

... tilt our heads and smile encouragingly because we've been socialized to think this is the polite thing to do. And we wait patiently for our turn to speak. And don't retaliate when interrupted.

As a result, we lose our voices in the discussion and the value which comes with a different perspective or, in some cases, the correct analysis. Thus, it is we women who perpetuate the norms which cause unhappiness and tension between men and women and cause inefficiency in the work place, when women cannot forcefully offer their opinions and solutions. To alleviate this tension, Meers suggests that women act more like men by being aggressive and taking control.

Meers article offers compelling ideas and solutions to women being overlooked in the workplace, including the idea that to be heard you have to demand an audience and the idea that to change a stereotype you have to act in its opposition. However, I find Meers' analysis and solution incomplete. There is a clear discrepancy in the way males and females are treated in professional environments, but should the solution really be for women to act more like men?

I acknowledge that to be heard you must demand an audience. But Meers suggestion that women resort to "male" tactics, which include behavior like interrupting and having no shame in expressing your opinion, even when you are ill-prepared for the discussion, ignores a bigger issue: that even when women bring compelling arguments and opinions they must resort to "male" tactics to be heard.

I can appreciate the argument that, to destroy gender stereotypes, females must adopt traits that are often associated with men, so that it becomes a gender neutral trait. However, I don't agree that becoming a man in a "man's world" will help produce a better and more efficient working environment. This solution not only perpetuates the value we place on the male opinion and character traits, but completely overlooks the problem we are trying to solve.

We want women to be heard, not simply because we are women, but because we are intelligent people and can offer valuable perspectives, opinions, and solutions. Aggressive or not, we should be concerned that being an expert in your field is not good enough and you can and often will be ignored because of your gender.

Although Meers' solution may offer a more immediate response to women feeling overlooked and dismissed, another solution may be to revamp working environments so that well-reasoned opinions and substantive arguments are highly valued, regardless of whether they are presented by a woman or man. When it comes to efficiency, especially when it comes to the bottom-line in businesses, it may be better to shift the focus away from gender. The problem isn't that women aren't aggressive enough, but that businesses and our society are willing to ignore well-reasoned opinions and solutions to maintain gender-based societal expectations.

Men's Place in the Abortion Movement

Originally I intended to write this blog about queering domesticity, and using queer models to revisit gender based domestic roles. I aimed to ultimately steer the conversation towards unlearning masculinity and the responsibilities of feminist men in redefining gender power structures. However, this morning prior to posting, I was witness to (yet again) an anti-abortion demonstration, of the variety with incredibly graphic billboard sized photos. So, still with the aim of addressing men's roles in restructuring the gender hierarchy, I will be using abortion rights as my vehicle.

I will be clear from the beginning, I think there is only one place for men in the abortion rights movement, and that is as supporters of people's rights(namely women) to make their own reproductive choices about their bodies. I realize that this is a heavily politicized position, but it is my deep and genuine value none the less. As a feminist man, it is my responsibility to encourage other men towards valuing what I visualize as actions working to eradicate, or in the least address, misogyny in their lives. One of those crucial steps towards addressing oppression is asking men to step out of the abortion rights debate except as passive supporters. Unless you are a transgendered man who can become pregnant, or an otherwise man identified person who would possibly need to seek an abortion, I do not believe you should have an active voice in the rights debate about abortion.

This morning, the overwhelming majority (9 of 10) of the persons protesting against abortion were white men over 50, people very incredibly unlikely to have ever had to make reproductive choices about their body regarding abortion. I was completely frustrated by this expression of misogyny. I protested back to the men holding the graphic signs that men have no place the reproductive rights struggle.

The last abortion rights action I was involved in was a pro choice queer response to a large nationwide pro life rally that was happening in San Francisco in 2007. People often question why queer people should have a voice in the reproductive rights struggle, just as I challenge the way that men take up space in the abortion rights debate. I counter with a reminder that many queer people can and do become pregnant, and many have and will seek abortions. Most men however, can not become pregnant and should not be participating in deciding the rights of those who can.

People with more rights, or more access to rights, decide the privileges of others with less rights all the time. This is one of the foundations, though I realize a heavily generalized one, of social and political oppression. I hope this is one of the injustices we all seek to remedy as we become lawyers. An important key to dismantling the effects of the patriarchy, or other oppressive social power imbalances, is to ask those who have unfairly had power to step away from those processes that do not affect them and allow those whose bodies, privileges, etc,are affected to have autonomous governing of their identities.

I realize asking the government to allow only those who can become pregnant to control legal access to abortion is incredibly impractical if not actually impossible. But what I do think is right and responsible and possible to actualize everyday is to ask men to remove themselves from the frontline of the abortion debate. Even though we can not change the gendered political structures of legal abortion controls, we as men can practice feminist ideals in our personal political choices by allowing those who would need abortions to have the privilege and the responsibility of being the primary vehicle of the movement for those reproductive rights.