Jump to content
DarklyDreamingDexter

How much will having anti mainstream views affect hiring likelihood and career in general?

Recommended Posts

Can you publicly support the PPC/ Maxime Bernier?

Can you disagree with feminism?

Can you go against the mainstream or will you be shunned from the law community for not supporting the feminist narrative?

Edited by DarklyDreamingDexter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DarklyDreamingDexter said:

 I firmly believe that men and women have sexually dimorphic brain regions and hormonal profiles, on average. I am a strong believer in the underlying sexual nature of reality, and how sexual strategies drive human behaviour. I do acknowledge some fluidity to gender and gender roles, but I don't believe it is nearly as amorphous as some would have us believe.

What do you mean by this part? Could you expand on your view of gender roles? This sticks out as the most problematic part to me.

29 minutes ago, DarklyDreamingDexter said:

Will I likely be fired? Will female bosses and managers think I'm a sexist pig for writing about how aiming for 50% representation on corporate boards is a misguided endeavour

I think it depends on the basis of your argument. If you are arguing for not taking gender into account when creating corporate boards and instead advocate for meritocracy, I think that would be fine. I am still in law school but I have heard lots of lawyers make this argument so I very much doubt it would negatively impact your career. 

 

As for discussing the positives of Trump or being a conservative generally, if you look at the political discussions on this board, you can see that quite a lot of lawyers lean conservative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you edited your post... you aren't going to get helpful answers that way. The answers to your second and third questions are yes, of course. I have no idea what the perception of the PPC is in the legal community so I won't comment on that.

 

What I wanted you to expand on in case I was overreacting and misinterpreting your words were your gender role comments. If you are writing blog posts about "biological differences" that mean women should be at home with the family instead of having careers, then yes, people are going to rightfully give you shit and not want to work with you on account of you being sexist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarklyDreamingDexter said:

Can you publicly support the PPC/ Maxime Bernier?

Can you disagree with feminism?

Can you go against the mainstream or will you be shunned from the law community for not supporting the feminist narrative?

It may surprise you, but much like people, Lawyers come in all different shapes, sizes and forms. 

  • You may get brownie points with some
  • You may get permanently black listed by others. 

....... Use your judgement as to what you wish to bring up with different people, that ability to know when to use your discretion to problem solve is kind of key to being successful.... 

My advice,

  • If your default approach to social situations is to bring up divisive topics like religion, politics, etc........ you're probably doing it wrong. 

There is a difference between having different views (albeit even non-mainstream views) and being the sort of person who opts to shove that fact in everyone else's face at every opportunity.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreamer89 said:

My advice,

  • If your default approach to social situations is to bring up divisive topics like religion, politics, etc........ you're probably doing it wrong. 

There is a difference between having different views (albeit even non-mainstream views) and being the sort of person who opts to shove that fact in everyone else's face at every opportunity.

This is excellent advice. OP, you would be wise to take it and run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal practice has a lot of people with strong opinions. Some of those strong opinions are more-or-less in the mainstream, others aren't. The difference between those whose strong opinions cause them problems and those who don't is not the relative location on the political spectrum. It's whether or not they can recognize that their opinions aren't relevant the very large majority of the time, and almost never in legal practice.

Almost universally, lawyers who do not understand the above also fail to recognize why their opinions are causing problems for themselves, for their clients, for their colleagues, and for the environments in which they work. Liberals with strong liberal views cause problems, start arguments, and insist that if they were expressing more conservative views it wouldn't have the same effect. Conservatives do the same, only citing the relative treatment of liberals. My personal explanation for this strange attitude, where folks from both sides feel simultaneously that their views are not received fairly, is that to strong conservatives relatively centrist views (which it is true, are not frequently challenged) seem liberal, and to liberals relatively centrist views seem conservative. Which has both sides screaming bloody murder that the world isn't fair to their own dissenting views.

But really, the problem that both have isn't a lack of fairness. It's that they don't realize, and can't accept, that no one else wants to hear it. If you think your wife should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and you find a wife who also wants to live that life, then no one will stop you from going to work every day and coming home to your own Leave It To Beaver fantasy in the evening. The only thing you need to learn is to shut the hell up about it while you are doing your job, and in other professional settings.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, whereverjustice said:

You'd be surprised.

I was in court in a medium-sized city a couple of weeks ago for a routine matter on consent. I wasn't expecting anything special to happen; the court was making its way through the list, I was barely paying attention, when a tort issue came up between a female plaintiff and male defendant. What caught my attention was the judge's question:

"Before we proceed any further, defendant's counsel must acknowledge that the protection of women's rights are the most important thing in the law, much more important than any male entitlement."

I was pretty shocked, but the defendant's lawyer - a highly esteemed member of the local bar with lots of family law experience - coolly rose and replied:

"Your Honour, who is responsible for the protection of our fundamental rights in Canada?"

The arrogant judge gave a Soros-like smirk and replied, "The Attorney General of Canada - who is a woman, as it always should be."

"Wrong. It's been 58 years since John Diefenbaker created the Bill of Rights. If Jody Wilson-Raybould were responsible for protecting our rights, we would all be in internment camps by now."

The judge was visibly shaken, dropped his gavel and copy of The Rights Revolution. He stormed out of the courtroom (and nobody stood) showing the same childish rage that left-wingers display when they demand 'equity' in the legal profession. There is no doubt at this point that the judge wished he had sought power by running as a PPC candidate in the next election rather than some unelected unaccountable sunshine list public sector appointee.

The lawyers, the court clerk, the court reporter, and the interpreters all donated to Maxime Bernier that day and bought copies of Twelve Rules for Life for themselves and all of their friends, family, and colleagues. An owl named "enforced monogamy" flew into the room and perched on the Canadian flag, shedding a tear on the ((gold fringe)). O Canada was sung several times with the godly 1926 lyrics, and the Duke of Edinburgh himself showed up and declared that there are only two genders.

The judge and the entire Canadian Judicial Council were removed by Order-in-Council the next day, they all had to move to northern Manitoba and died because they refused to use fossil fuels for heat.

So you'll be fine, OP.

Legit thought some one hacked WJ’s account. Still getting over the shock.

Send whiskey. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DarklyDreamingDexter said:

Can you publicly support the PPC/ Maxime Bernier?

Can you disagree with feminism?

Can you go against the mainstream or will you be shunned from the law community for not supporting the feminist narrative?

Maxime Bernier is/was a lawyer, so draw your own conclusions.

The law community does not "support the feminist narrative." I don't even know what that is. I don't think there is one feminist narrative. I am a woman and a lawyer and I would call myself a feminist, but I do not agree with carceral feminism or rape exceptionalism. I don't agree with a lot of the tactics and goals of #metoo. I am pretty upset at what's happened to Kareem Hunt. There are gaps in feminism between white women and others. There are people who want to go back to second-wave feminism and people who feel that that is irrelevant. Many different views of feminism can be found in the legal profession, just as anywhere. If you read the threads here on abortion, #metoo, teaching sexual assault, fathers' rights etc you'll see a variety of opinions and perspectives. The legal profession also has plenty of sexism, so clearly not everyone is a committed feminist.

It is also rare that anyone would be discussing feminism in the legal profession, at least in my experience. It may come up in social conversations with good friends but it certainly is not mentioned in court, in light chit-chat around the courthouse, in professional communications etc. When we are working, most of us are focused on our jobs and not in discussing controversial topics. We don't walk into a courtroom where there is a busy docket and start ranting about feminism or politics. In general, as a criminal lawyer, my personal opinion is irrelevant to most things and the more I can separate myself from what I'm doing, the better for my client and my professional reputation. 

Don't come into the profession with something to prove, determined to have a chip on your shoulder about all the liberal feminists and determined to expose all the unfairness. Come into the profession prepared to do your job and do it well, getting good results for your clients and treating everyone you deal with respect. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, providence said:

Maxime Bernier is/was a lawyer, so draw your own conclusions.

The law community does not "support the feminist narrative." I don't even know what that is. I don't think there is one feminist narrative. I am a woman and a lawyer and I would call myself a feminist, but I do not agree with carceral feminism or rape exceptionalism. I don't agree with a lot of the tactics and goals of #metoo. I am pretty upset at what's happened to Kareem Hunt. There are gaps in feminism between white women and others. There are people who want to go back to second-wave feminism and people who feel that that is irrelevant. Many different views of feminism can be found in the legal profession, just as anywhere. If you read the threads here on abortion, #metoo, teaching sexual assault, fathers' rights etc you'll see a variety of opinions and perspectives. The legal profession also has plenty of sexism, so clearly not everyone is a committed feminist.

It is also rare that anyone would be discussing feminism in the legal profession, at least in my experience. It may come up in social conversations with good friends but it certainly is not mentioned in court, in light chit-chat around the courthouse, in professional communications etc. When we are working, most of us are focused on our jobs and not in discussing controversial topics. We don't walk into a courtroom where there is a busy docket and start ranting about feminism or politics. In general, as a criminal lawyer, my personal opinion is irrelevant to most things and the more I can separate myself from what I'm doing, the better for my client and my professional reputation. 

Don't come into the profession with something to prove, determined to have a chip on your shoulder about all the liberal feminists and determined to expose all the unfairness. Come into the profession prepared to do your job and do it well, getting good results for your clients and treating everyone you deal with respect. 

 

You're posting in good faith about feminism to a Jordan Peterson fan. It's wasted effort.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see OP edited their post, but who the hell “disagrees with feminism” in 2018. Disagree with certain radical parts of feminism? Sure. I’m sure even @Rashabon and @providence do that. But disagree with the entire idea that men and women should have equal rights? That’s fucking crazy. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I see OP edited their post, but who the hell “disagrees with feminism” in 2018. Disagree with certain radical parts of feminism? Sure. I’m sure even @Rashabon and @providence do that. But disagree with the entire idea that men and women should have equal rights? That’s fucking crazy. 

Tiny little men with inferiority complexes who think Jordan Peterson is a God because he told them the same thing their moms (who they resent) told them (clean your room).

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I see OP edited their post, but who the hell “disagrees with feminism” in 2018. Disagree with certain radical parts of feminism? Sure. I’m sure even @Rashabon and @providence do that. But disagree with the entire idea that men and women should have equal rights? That’s fucking crazy. 

Look at Starling’s quoted text in their first response for an idea of what it looked like pre-edited. 

As someone who read OP’s first post, I wish it hadn’t been edited. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to this question very much depends on where you work. My firm’s management actively wants to portray a feminist image and advocates for more women in law and on boards. We have an initiative for placing our female lawyers on boards, but not the males. I’d say a feminist focus is true of many of the bigger firms now - it’s very en vogue. So, coming out publicly to not support those values - probably a career limiting move.

Despite that, I wouldn’t say that lawyers individually are overly feminist. And I see much of the critique of contemporary feminism coming from my female colleagues. 

From a general standpoint on feminism. I do think we need to take away its silver bullet. That is, validating every practice of the contemporary feminist movement with traditional feminism’s underlying principle of equality between men and women. The dangerous corollary is that those who oppose any feminist initiative therefore do not support equal rights (the silver bullet - the straw man). I think we can give most critics a little more credit, in that they likely oppose current practices in “feminism” rather than the pure underlying principle that men and women ought to enjoy equal rights and opportunities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, leafs_law said:

The answer to this question very much depends on where you work. My firm’s management actively wants to portray a feminist image and advocates for more women in law and on boards. We have an initiative for placing our female lawyers on boards, but not the males. I’d say a feminist focus is true of many of the bigger firms now - it’s very en vogue. So, coming out publicly to not support those values - probably a career limiting move.

Despite that, I wouldn’t say that lawyers individually are overly feminist. And I see much of the critique of contemporary feminism coming from my female colleagues. 

From a general standpoint on feminism. I do think we need to take away its silver bullet. That is, validating every practice of the contemporary feminist movement with traditional feminism’s underlying principle of equality between men and women. The dangerous corollary is that those who oppose any feminist initiative therefore do not support equal rights (the silver bullet - the straw man). I think we can give most critics a little more credit, in that they likely oppose current practices in “feminism” rather than the pure underlying principle that men and women ought to enjoy equal rights and opportunities.  

People like the OP tend to say "I disagree with feminism". If they want to be more accurate and limit their disagreement with an actual part or wave or radical group of feminists, then I won't do that. If they're ignorant and careless enough to disagree with feminism as a whole, I'll rightly shame them every time for advocating against equal rights between women and men - because that is what links the entire movement together. As providence said, there are so many different variations and factions of it, that to reduce the whole movement into one means you necessarily are claiming an issue with the one core that unites all of it - the underlying principle.

And I have no problem being very explicit about how stupid, backwards, and ridiculous it is to call for unequal rights between men and women in the 21st century. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rashabon said:

You're posting in good faith about feminism to a Jordan Peterson fan. It's wasted effort.

For whatever it's worth, you and Dexter would be exhibits "A" and "B" (in no particular order) in my illustration of how extreme views from both sides of the spectrum imagine that they are treated unfairly, by looking to the centre and perceiving it as liberal (if they themselves are strongly conservative) or as conservative (if they themselves are strongly liberal).

Jordon Peterson isn't a neo-nazi. He isn't outside the overton window. I don't happen to agree with much of what he says, but defining anyone who agrees with him as outside the range of acceptable discourse only demonstrates that you have a skewed idea of exactly where the range of acceptable discourse is located.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leafs_law said:

The answer to this question very much depends on where you work. My firm’s management actively wants to portray a feminist image and advocates for more women in law and on boards. We have an initiative for placing our female lawyers on boards, but not the males. I’d say a feminist focus is true of many of the bigger firms now - it’s very en vogue. So, coming out publicly to not support those values - probably a career limiting move.

Despite that, I wouldn’t say that lawyers individually are overly feminist. And I see much of the critique of contemporary feminism coming from my female colleagues. 

From a general standpoint on feminism. I do think we need to take away its silver bullet. That is, validating every practice of the contemporary feminist movement with traditional feminism’s underlying principle of equality between men and women. The dangerous corollary is that those who oppose any feminist initiative therefore do not support equal rights (the silver bullet - the straw man). I think we can give most critics a little more credit, in that they likely oppose current practices in “feminism” rather than the pure underlying principle that men and women ought to enjoy equal rights and opportunities.  

Conversely, people need to stop saying “I disagree with feminism” as a blanket statement in response to a specific position or issue they don’t like. You can believe men and women have biological differences that should be respected, which seems to be the thrust of the post OP deleted,  without rejecting feminism as a whole.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, providence said:

Conversely, people need to stop saying “I disagree with feminism” as a blanket statement in response to a specific position or issue they don’t like. You can believe men and women have biological differences that should be respected, which seems to be the thrust of the post OP deleted,  without rejecting feminism as a whole.

Yeah, I agree with you and pzab on this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Diplock said:

For whatever it's worth, you and Dexter would be exhibits "A" and "B" (in no particular order) in my illustration of how extreme views from both sides of the spectrum imagine that they are treated unfairly, by looking to the centre and perceiving it as liberal (if they themselves are strongly conservative) or as conservative (if they themselves are strongly liberal).

Jordon Peterson isn't a neo-nazi. He isn't outside the overton window. I don't happen to agree with much of what he says, but defining anyone who agrees with him as outside the range of acceptable discourse only demonstrates that you have a skewed idea of exactly where the range of acceptable discourse is located.

Well, I think it depends what we mean by “acceptable.” Someone who strongly agrees with most of Jordan Peterson isn’t “acceptable” to me in that:

-I would think that their views are incompatible with being employed in my office

-I wouldn’t date/get romantically involved with them 

-I could be their acquaintance/casual friend, but not a close, trusted friend

However, I believe they have the right to participate in society and general dialogue. I would engage in good-faith conversation with them. I wouldn’t see them as a social outcast or irredeemable person. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, providence said:

Well, I think it depends what we mean by “acceptable.” Someone who strongly agrees with most of Jordan Peterson isn’t “acceptable” to me in that:

-I would think that their views are incompatible with being employed in my office

-I wouldn’t date/get romantically involved with them 

-I could be their acquaintance/casual friend, but not a close, trusted friend

However, I believe they have the right to participate in society and general dialogue. I would engage in good-faith conversation with them. I wouldn’t see them as a social outcast or irredeemable person. 

I assume this is because someone who agrees with Peterson on human rights legislation definitionally doesn’t understand human rights legislation? 😂

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Either way, avoid the term "poly marriage" in your interview. Oh, and check the Ontario Reports, and the OBA classifieds:  https://www.oba.org/Publications-and-Resources/Job-Board The first posting on the OBA classifieds is for a 0-2 year call for a criminal position.  Mr. Confente has struck me as a reasonable man in my run-ins with him, although I can't speak to his virtues as an employer. 
    • Hey guys my stats are shown. What would be my chances for osgoode and other Ontario schools? Also, it is all full course load except for the last year where I took 9 courses during the year, instead of the usual 10
    • I don't want to be too affirmative with my comments because at the end of the day, it's still an educated? guess at best. Anyways, I definitely wouldn't put so much weight on your ps, it really is going to a small factor. If an 3.75 l2 and 164 didn't get you in then either look to your cgpa or improving your lsat. I would also double check that your l2 is correct. You can possibly call Queens and ask what they calculated your l2 as. 
    • Yes but you don't see the people that didn't get in with similar stats. I made the mistake of reading way too much into stats in the accepted threads and I thought I was in with my 161. If you're okay with that slim chance and have other options then of course that's fine. For me I only wanted law school and so my mistake really hurt me. 
    • I certainly hope so - I ain't getting any younger!
×
×
  • Create New...