Jump to content
KOMODO

Gender Stereotypes on Bay Street in 2018

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, KOMODO said:

Reintegration isn't only about the work that an associate puts in when they return from leave. When Bob gets back from his year long banking secondment, partners flood his office to welcome him back and catch him up, and generally ask him to resume the work that he was doing beforehand. When Barb comes back from her leave, partners don't bother her with work or client updates because they want to "give her space" and "let her gradually sink back in". Nobody speaks to Barb about what's been going on in the group, new or different expectations for her now that she's back, or the types of files she might feel ready to take on - the onus is on her to go door to door to get her work back. Often she will find that the associates who were "covering" for her while she was on leave are still working on the files that were hers before she left, and it can be hard to get those files back without seeming like she's not a team player. 

This doesn’t really address my post. I don’t disagree with this. I just think that in your hurry to support your argument, you’re over correcting and ignoring the very real possibility that a significant number of these women came back to work in hopes of moving in house over the course of the next year or two and having more time to spend with their families. Just because you don’t want that outcome doesnt mean that other women don’t or that their decision to leave promptly isn’t self motivated instead of forced. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

This doesn’t really address my post. I don’t disagree with this. I just think that in your hurry to support your argument, you’re over correcting and ignoring the very real possibility that a significant number of these women came back to work in hopes of moving in house over the course of the next year or two and having more time to spend with their families. Just because you don’t want that outcome doesnt mean that other women don’t or that their decision to leave promptly isn’t self motivated instead of forced. 

I disagree with your characterization of what I said and I have no problem with women (or men, for that matter) choosing to exit private practice because of a desire to spend more time with their families. If people have different opportunities and choose to take one avenue over another, that's great. 

The fact is that firms are losing skilled women post-leave at a rate that is higher than would be desirable for those firms, and the loss of those women leads to people making assumptions about how future groups of women will perform post-leave. My personal opinion is that ideally we would see women and men leaving at similar rates post-leave on account of wanting to spend more time with their families (I think that would be evidence of a system in which people made decisions based on having similar choices), but that is not what we see in practice. We also know that women often face significant obstacles to reintegrating after they take parental leave. It's not unreasonable to connect those obstacles to the fact that women are leaving and try to address them. If you are saying that mothers are biologically determined to exit private practice at a rate that is higher than fathers, I disagree. I think the way that firms (and more broadly, society) treat parental leave, reintegration, and gender differences in relation to parenting is causing the imbalance.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

I disagree with your characterization of what I said and I have no problem with women (or men, for that matter) choosing to exit private practice because of a desire to spend more time with their families. If people have different opportunities and choose to take one avenue over another, that's great. 

The fact is that firms are losing skilled women post-leave at a rate that is higher than would be desirable for those firms, and the loss of those women leads to people making assumptions about how future groups of women will perform post-leave. My personal opinion is that ideally we would see women and men leaving at similar rates post-leave on account of wanting to spend more time with their families (I think that would be evidence of a system in which people made decisions based on having similar choices), but that is not what we see in practice. We also know that women often face significant obstacles to reintegrating after they take parental leave. It's not unreasonable to connect those obstacles to the fact that women are leaving and try to address them. If you are saying that mothers are biologically determined to exit private practice at a rate that is higher than fathers, I disagree. I think the way that firms (and more broadly, society) treat parental leave, reintegration, and gender differences in relation to parenting is causing the imbalance.

Okay, well the science we have certainly disagrees with you. I think it’s silly to suggest that men and women in a perfectly egalitarian society would have the exact same goals and priorities. I’ve never seen a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that this would be the case, and I’ve seen plenty of evidence that men and women, at the population level and across cultures, have different priorities and react to stimuli differently. But you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m certainly not interested in having a debate about whether or not men and women are actually different. 

None of this is to say I disagree with some parts of your argument. I’ve made posts above that are supportive of your argument. But if your argument is that men and women actually are identical in all material respects and thus should be perfectly represented at all levels of every job, and failure to achieve this perfect equality somehow reflects a failure on the part of the institution, I think you’re wrong. Part of female empowerment is having women make their own choices about their careers and priorities. That means we should be removing barriers to choice. But empowering women to choose also means we need to be comfortable with the idea that women may have different priorities than men, and therefore may have disproportionately high or low representation in certain fields or at certain levels. 

All of which is to say that I think your focus on strict equality is wrong and actually disempowering. I think the focus needs to be on giving men and women equal opportunity and choice in their professional and personal lives, not on institutions attempting to enforce your ideal gender roles on the population. And if it turns out removing barriers and empowering both genders on this matter leads to 50/50 partnerships, great. I’ll retract my comment about the priorities of men and women and science will have a great case study. But if it turns out men and women end up in a 60/40 split or a 40/60 split after they’re empowered to make that choice, that’s equally great. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Okay, well the science we have certainly disagrees with you. I think it’s silly to suggest that men and women in a perfectly egalitarian society would have the exact same goals and priorities. I’ve never seen a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that this would be the case, and I’ve seen plenty of evidence that men and women, at the population level and across cultures, have different priorities and react to stimuli differently. But you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m certainly not interested in having a debate about whether or not men and women are actually different. 

None of this is to say I disagree with some parts of your argument. I’ve made posts above that are supportive of your argument. But if your argument is that men and women actually are identical in all material respects and thus should be perfectly represented at all levels of every job, and failure to achieve this perfect equality somehow reflects a failure on the part of the institution, I think you’re wrong. Part of female empowerment is having women make their own choices about their careers and priorities. That means we should be removing barriers to choice. But empowering women to choose also means we need to be comfortable with the idea that women may have different priorities than men, and therefore may have disproportionately high or low representation in certain fields or at certain levels. 

All of which is to say that I think your focus on strict equality is wrong and actually disempowering. I think the focus needs to be on giving men and women equal opportunity and choice in their professional and personal lives, not on institutions attempting to enforce your ideal gender roles on the population. And if it turns out removing barriers and empowering both genders on this matter leads to 50/50 partnerships, great. I’ll retract my comment about the priorities of men and women and science will have a great case study. But if it turns out men and women end up in a 60/40 split or a 40/60 split after they’re empowered to make that choice, that’s equally great. 

Look out kids! A straw man is on the loose! Run for cover!

Seriously though. Unless I'm seriously misreading Komodos point, she isn't saying anything remotely similar to enforced identical outcomes. I read it as:

1. We acknowledge that societal (not biological, yo) duties impose a heavier burden on female parents than on male parents. 

2. We posit that it is a moral, social and economic good to subject men and women to equal treatment within our profession, thereby encouraging the smartest and/or most hustliest (its a word (it COULD BE a word (Shakespeare made up words, why can't I?))) to stay and excel in the highly lucrative and influential field of private practice. 

3. There's anecdotal and statistical evidence supporting the fact that private practice loses women due to a culture that favours men, and one of the primary ways this occurs is through unequal treatment of parental leave and the conscious and unconscious biases that result from that. 

4. This is a problem. 

We can discuss and argue about solutions, but step one is acknowledging that this is a problem caused by industry and societal culture. 

 

I'm also just going to lay this out there : is your argument above actually based on the idea that "science says" men and women want different things for reasons other than (1) societal expectations/conditioning and (2) lived experience with discrimination? I'm not trying to strawman you, just trying to make sure I understand. 

 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Okay, well the science we have certainly disagrees with you. I think it’s silly to suggest that men and women in a perfectly egalitarian society would have the exact same goals and priorities. I’ve never seen a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that this would be the case, and I’ve seen plenty of evidence that men and women, at the population level and across cultures, have different priorities and react to stimuli differently. But you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m certainly not interested in having a debate about whether or not men and women are actually different. 

None of this is to say I disagree with some parts of your argument. I’ve made posts above that are supportive of your argument. But if your argument is that men and women actually are identical in all material respects and thus should be perfectly represented at all levels of every job, and failure to achieve this perfect equality somehow reflects a failure on the part of the institution, I think you’re wrong. Part of female empowerment is having women make their own choices about their careers and priorities. That means we should be removing barriers to choice. But empowering women to choose also means we need to be comfortable with the idea that women may have different priorities than men, and therefore may have disproportionately high or low representation in certain fields or at certain levels. 

All of which is to say that I think your focus on strict equality is wrong and actually disempowering. I think the focus needs to be on giving men and women equal opportunity and choice in their professional and personal lives, not on institutions attempting to enforce your ideal gender roles on the population. And if it turns out removing barriers and empowering both genders on this matter leads to 50/50 partnerships, great. I’ll retract my comment about the priorities of men and women and science will have a great case study. But if it turns out men and women end up in a 60/40 split or a 40/60 split after they’re empowered to make that choice, that’s equally great. 

Again, I disagree with your characterization of what I've said, and I think it's dishonest to take something moderate that I say and make it seem like I've made an extreme statement. I am not saying that men and women are identical or that there must be strictly equal numbers of men and women at every level. I would like to see similar rates of both genders making these decisions, and I believe that if the opportunities and expectations for mothers and fathers were the same, we wouldn't see the starkly different patterns that we see today. I have no idea, and I would suggest that you are also unlikely to have any idea, what exactly would happen in terms of the ratio of women vs. men in private practice - would women represent 45, 50, or 55% of senior lawyers at big firms? We don't know because we have never experienced a system that gave them the same choices. What I do know is that based on this 2016 study, only 9.3% of women lawyers in Ontario were private practice partners, compared with 22.3% of men. I do not believe that more than double the number of men want to become partners as compared with women due to biological differences. I think the social, financial, and career implications that women vs. men face are different and I would suggest that they are the main cause of this discrepancy. 

In particular, I feel you have significantly mischaracterized my position in your last paragraph. I have not at all focused on strict equality but rather have suggested that there are subtle and overt gender-based differences in how lawyers are treated, both generally and in relation to the parental leave they take (and I've suggested that is a problem). I am not trying to "enforce [my] ideal gender roles on the population", but do the exact opposite - call for an end to some of the differential treatment based on gender that I have observed, i.e. call for an end to the enforcement of certain gender roles on the population. If you believe in giving men and women equal opportunity and choice, then that's all I'm trying to say, and hopefully we can agree that's not currently the world we live in.

Edit - my post crossed with Slightly Obsessed's post, which says the same thing I'm trying to say.

Edited by KOMODO
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some relatively recent stats from Catalyst (if I tried to step into the most recent discussion above, would that be considered mansplaining? :twisted: ) .

https://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law

Also, looking at another profession, some info re engineering (though this is about licensees, not leadership, and unfortunately not nearly as high a percentage of women pursuing engineering degrees):

https://engineerscanada.ca/diversity/women-in-engineering/30-by-30

I don't think that equality (of opportunity, of attitudes, etc.) would lead to numbers in every profession at every level closely corresponding with the relevant population, man, woman, LGBT, disability, ethnic group, visible minority, religion, etc. I am in principle not a fan of high hard quotas.

However, I do support affirmative action (with lower quotas and/or some flexibility otherwise, so it's not e.g. every new hire 100% without exception must be X). And in law, when I was more active what I observed, what I was told, what I read, and what the statistics were, together led me to conclude/agree there's a problem.

We've discussed pitfalls of anecdotal evidence. Though if say the percentage of women in leadership positions were significantly lower than the percentage in the profession, as is the case now, but tales of sexist woe were few and far between, employers and government benefits were supportive of parental and other leave, confidential private conversations showed law firm leaders as well as peers were supportive, then I might agree, hey, there's equality of opportunity and this is just how it turns out. But that's not the situation we're in.

Note, somewhat controversially perhaps, I do think that if e.g. someone takes a year off work regardless of the reason - parental leave, medical reasons, drafted into the military in their country of citizenship, leave of absence for unspecified personal reasons - that it's not unfair for them to be a year behind on the partnership track compared to those who never left and continued to work, when they return. But that's a year behind, not off the track entirely. And I'm not expressing any opinion as to whether or not such treatment would be okay as a matter of employment law!

Somewhat related, why don't more than a handful of firms (from what I've read) have part-time options? For everyone. Here's a brief story from 8 years ago - maybe something new has been tried in the interim (I think they still have that option, but haven't pursued the point). From the (brief) story, though intended to appeal to women, it wasn't only offered to women, or parents, or whatever, but was an option for anyone. Now, for societal sexist or peer pressure or other reasons maybe men would have been less likely to pursue that option, but I think offering the scope for advancement while working fewer hours and being paid less as a result, is a basic approach that if offered to all, has benefits and helps destigmatize choices re balance, even if it might be that those taking the option are more likely women/parents/etc. Especially if in terms of client development and relations the law firm sees benefits even with lower billables?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/biglaw_firm_unveils_flexible_partnership_track_intended_to_appeal_to_women_/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things have been on my mind, but I haven't had time to follow up for a few days.

First, welcome back Komodo! I've got a strange sense of time on this forum, and I know who I know. It somehow didn't occur to me that you'd been gone for so long, and I'm glad you're back, though sad it's something like this that got you posting again.

Second, I'll make the general observation that I know I was on the edge with what I posted first, but I also knew it would be fine. I mean, I was essentially offering a version of "are you really sure you experienced what you thought you experienced?" in reply to a concern about bias and discrimination. That's the kind of thing that can easily cause offence and lead to arguments. One of the reasons it didn't is because there's already a level of respect and room for dialogue between Komodo and myself. I factored that in before posting. But it's something to keep in mind both when offering opinions and when soliciting opinions. These discussions are so sensitive that they are best have with people who can confide in one another honestly. And while that's not always possible, it is preferable.

Third, and finally, the best advice defaults to "trust your instincts." No one else is really there when something happens. Sure, it's human nature to wonder "hey, did I really just see what I thought I saw?" But usually the answer is yes.

Beyond that, I don't know what the heck to say. Sexism sucks.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

A few things have been on my mind, but I haven't had time to follow up for a few days.

First, welcome back Komodo! I've got a strange sense of time on this forum, and I know who I know. It somehow didn't occur to me that you'd been gone for so long, and I'm glad you're back, though sad it's something like this that got you posting again.

Second, I'll make the general observation that I know I was on the edge with what I posted first, but I also knew it would be fine. I mean, I was essentially offering a version of "are you really sure you experienced what you thought you experienced?" in reply to a concern about bias and discrimination. That's the kind of thing that can easily cause offence and lead to arguments. One of the reasons it didn't is because there's already a level of respect and room for dialogue between Komodo and myself. I factored that in before posting. But it's something to keep in mind both when offering opinions and when soliciting opinions. These discussions are so sensitive that they are best have with people who can confide in one another honestly. And while that's not always possible, it is preferable.

Third, and finally, the best advice defaults to "trust your instincts." No one else is really there when something happens. Sure, it's human nature to wonder "hey, did I really just see what I thought I saw?" But usually the answer is yes.

Beyond that, I don't know what the heck to say. Sexism sucks.

Hi! Thanks so much!! I know, time flies. It's really nice that so many people I remember are still here! I don't mind coming back for a serious topic, and it's also given me the chance to browse through a few fun threads which brought back good memories.

No offence taken at all on the "are you sure" suggestion - totally valid and of course I will never be sure. I feel pretty confident, but then again, I have the benefit of other interactions with the person in question, body language and tone during the conversation, etc. which you guys don't have. More importantly, whether or not it was meant as I took it, the experience provided a springboard for this discussion about some of the difficult and important issues that our industry faces. I think overall this has been a pretty constructive discussion and I hope it continues so that we can keep bouncing ideas and views off of each other. I would never get to have the kinds of conversations (and frankly, challenges to my point of view) that I've had in this thread in real life, and I think it's healthy and productive to have those conversations. So I really appreciate everyone participating :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, epeeist said:

...

Note, somewhat controversially perhaps, I do think that if e.g. someone takes a year off work regardless of the reason - parental leave, medical reasons, drafted into the military in their country of citizenship, leave of absence for unspecified personal reasons - that it's not unfair for them to be a year behind on the partnership track compared to those who never left and continued to work, when they return. But that's a year behind, not off the track entirely. And I'm not expressing any opinion as to whether or not such treatment would be okay as a matter of employment law!

...

[portion only quoted]

I held this view for a long time, but have changed my position over time. I think the key here, from my (current) perspective, is that if only women take leave when people have children, then it seems unfair to say that they should be held back post-leave, because it means that child-having women will always be behind child-having men (notwithstanding that they made the same decision, namely to have a child). If leave were allocated to men as it is to women, I would have less of an issue with this line of thinking.

10 hours ago, epeeist said:

...

Somewhat related, why don't more than a handful of firms (from what I've read) have part-time options? For everyone. Here's a brief story from 8 years ago - maybe something new has been tried in the interim (I think they still have that option, but haven't pursued the point). From the (brief) story, though intended to appeal to women, it wasn't only offered to women, or parents, or whatever, but was an option for anyone. Now, for societal sexist or peer pressure or other reasons maybe men would have been less likely to pursue that option, but I think offering the scope for advancement while working fewer hours and being paid less as a result, is a basic approach that if offered to all, has benefits and helps destigmatize choices re balance, even if it might be that those taking the option are more likely women/parents/etc. Especially if in terms of client development and relations the law firm sees benefits even with lower billables?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/biglaw_firm_unveils_flexible_partnership_track_intended_to_appeal_to_women_/

[portion only quoted]

I think this is becoming far more common. Different firms call it different things, but one of the pushes that I'm seeing in the last year is towards the idea of a reduced hour target or counsel-like roles for those who want them. I think those programs are great but there are a few key things that can hinder their success, including (a) it's very secretive how much of a pay cut you would need to take to reduce your hours, so people are afraid that they'll ask and then the pay will be too low but their supervisors will already know that they don't want to work a 100% FTE; (b) firms are nervous about how resources like support, office space, etc. will work under these models, and employees are afraid that they'll take a pay cut but end up doing the same amount of work; and (c) people would rather avoid having this conversation about reducing hours and seeming like a "failure", so they just change jobs to go somewhere with fewer hour-related expectations instead. On account of (a) and (c), I tend to see these reduced-hour/reduced-comp models working best to attract laterals who are skilled but would otherwise not be in private practice (i.e. sometimes, stealing people back from in-house and government positions).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

...

I held this view for a long time, but have changed my position over time. I think the key here, from my (current) perspective, is that if only women take leave when people have children, then it seems unfair to say that they should be held back post-leave, because it means that child-having women will always be behind child-having men (notwithstanding that they made the same decision, namely to have a child). If leave were allocated to men as it is to women, I would have less of an issue with this line of thinking.

...

...Different firms call it different things, but one of the pushes that I'm seeing in the last year is towards the idea of a reduced hour target or counsel-like roles for those who want them....

[portion only quoted, omitted text includes "[portion only quoted]" comments]

Re first part, I'm also thinking of, not leave, but (thinking about non-law workplace examples), the tensions created by e.g. parents needing/wanting time off or leaving at a set time or whatever being accommodated, but non-parents not for the things they want to do. I see part of reducing stigma not only making leave available (and encouraged, in the sense of no stigma) to parents generally, but some provision for non-parents wanting the possibility of leave time even if unpaid or low-paid (i.e. maybe not a year!).

Also, what about the other way? If man A takes off a year for parental leave, then another year for medical leave, should he be credited for those two years as if he were a high-billing rainmaker, like woman B who was present and working and achieving for those two years? Should he be credited as if he were a high-billing rainmaker, ahead of woman C, who was present and doing average but not great? If woman D has a year of maternity/parental leave, with benefits topped up so earning 100%, should she be credited with the time equally with woman E who never was on leave? Etc.

Re hours and billables and rainmaking, are there lawyers with great contacts who can bring in lots of business and farm it out to other lawyers, who are in a position to negotiate, hey, I'll bring this much business, but I don't want to have to work the long hours?  I was reading this piece by Jordan Furlong recently which among other things (including disparity between compensation for women and men) noted his failure to understand why partners have high billing targets (rather than farming out the work they bring in).

https://www.law21.ca/2018/09/how-compensation-plans-are-wrecking-law-firms/

Also in terms of what he was saying about valuing or not, I'm thinking of the stereotype (or examples?) of some lawyers are aggressive and boastful and land clients who end up being not particularly happy with billings or results, other lawyers are quieter and not so good at landing the clients but better at serving them and producing results the clients like and so they stay with the firm, but compensation tends to reward the former?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 12:59 AM, BlockedQuebecois said:

All of which is to say that I think your focus on strict equality is wrong and actually disempowering.

I think this sentence got buried in your post, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for mansplaining what empowers women. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, OWH said:

I think this sentence got buried in your post, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for mansplaining what empowers women. 

 

Because only women are allowed to have views on feminism and empowerment, and a woman’s view on the topic is always correct. 

How could I forget. 

(Also not what mansplaining means, but it’s quite clear your post isn’t made in good faith so I shouldn’t expect accurate use of terminology) 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 9:02 AM, KOMODO said:

Again, I disagree with your characterization of what I've said, and I think it's dishonest to take something moderate that I say and make it seem like I've made an extreme statement. I am not saying that men and women are identical or that there must be strictly equal numbers of men and women at every level. I would like to see similar rates of both genders making these decisions, and I believe that if the opportunities and expectations for mothers and fathers were the same, we wouldn't see the starkly different patterns that we see today. I have no idea, and I would suggest that you are also unlikely to have any idea, what exactly would happen in terms of the ratio of women vs. men in private practice - would women represent 45, 50, or 55% of senior lawyers at big firms? We don't know because we have never experienced a system that gave them the same choices. What I do know is that based on this 2016 study, only 9.3% of women lawyers in Ontario were private practice partners, compared with 22.3% of men. I do not believe that more than double the number of men want to become partners as compared with women due to biological differences. I think the social, financial, and career implications that women vs. men face are different and I would suggest that they are the main cause of this discrepancy. 

In particular, I feel you have significantly mischaracterized my position in your last paragraph. I have not at all focused on strict equality but rather have suggested that there are subtle and overt gender-based differences in how lawyers are treated, both generally and in relation to the parental leave they take (and I've suggested that is a problem). I am not trying to "enforce [my] ideal gender roles on the population", but do the exact opposite - call for an end to some of the differential treatment based on gender that I have observed, i.e. call for an end to the enforcement of certain gender roles on the population. If you believe in giving men and women equal opportunity and choice, then that's all I'm trying to say, and hopefully we can agree that's not currently the world we live in.

Edit - my post crossed with Slightly Obsessed's post, which says the same thing I'm trying to say.

My apologies, I missed this post. If you feel I’ve mischaracterized your opinion, I’m sorry, it wasn’t my intention and I just have just misunderstood. Based on the post you’ve made here I think we substantially agree, and the points of disagreement I do see don’t seem worth debating (not meant in a condescending / dismissive way, they’re just quite minor). Happy to leave the discussion here, thank you for the thoughtful comments :) 

 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 8:28 PM, KOMODO said:

[portion only quoted]

I held this view for a long time, but have changed my position over time. I think the key here, from my (current) perspective, is that if only women take leave when people have children, then it seems unfair to say that they should be held back post-leave, because it means that child-having women will always be behind child-having men (notwithstanding that they made the same decision, namely to have a child). If leave were allocated to men as it is to women, I would have less of an issue with this line of thinking.

 

They made the same decision to have a child, but that would not be the relevant decision, the relevant decision is deciding to take a year off, which they wouldn’t have made the same decision about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Coolname said:

They made the same decision to have a child, but that would not be the relevant decision, the relevant decision is deciding to take a year off, which they wouldn’t have made the same decision about. 

Women require as a matter of necessity both for the baby and herself, physically and in terms of parental bond (Though this is now in live dispute and arguably also a result of the system in place and its assumptions) more time off. Why should she be penalized for that in her career when the only difference was what sex each partner happened to be born as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Women require as a matter of necessity both for the baby and herself, physically and in terms of parental bond (Though this is now in live dispute and arguably also a result of the system in place and its assumptions) more time off. Why should she be penalized for that in her career when the only difference was what sex each partner happened to be born as?

A man does not need anytime off, whereas  a woman does need to take some time off, that is true. But how much time off does a women "need" to take off though? Ive heard of women going back in as little as 2 weeks, that is very short though, so let's be generous and say one month.

After that one month the woman does not need as a matter of necessity to take time off any more than a man "needs" to take the time. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, let’s rejoin reality. This need changes with the particular family in question.

You are assuming a healthy mother and a healthy child and a healthy partner who can step in or finances that can cover the cost of childcare and the availability of childcare that will care for a child that is a few weeks old or maybe family members who are fit and nearby and willing to step in. 

Continue this whole abstract idea of “need” in the context of two weeks or a month if you want but I am pretty sure any actual parents will be rolling their eyes heavenward. As I am. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

Um, let’s rejoin reality. This need changes with the particular family in question.

You are assuming a healthy mother and a healthy child and a healthy partner who can step in or finances that can cover the cost of childcare and the availability of childcare that will care for a child that is a few weeks old or maybe family members who are fit and nearby and willing to step in. 

Continue this whole abstract idea of “need” in the context of two weeks or a month if you want but I am pretty sure any actual parents will be rolling their eyes heavenward. As I am. 

I'm not even a parent and I'm rolling my eyes heavenward (nice term by the way). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Coolname said:

A man does not need anytime off, whereas  a woman does need to take some time off, that is true. But how much time off does a women "need" to take off though? Ive heard of women going back in as little as 2 weeks, that is very short though, so let's be generous and say one month.

After that one month the woman does not need as a matter of necessity to take time off any more than a man "needs" to take the time. 

 

 

Seriously? Two weeks? I have never heard of anyone returning to work two weeks after delivery. What childcare arrangement would there be for a two week old? I also don't know any mother who is physically ready to return to work that quickly, or even in one month. My guess is that you have never experienced childbirth. Good lord.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, erinl2 said:

Seriously? Two weeks? I have never heard of anyone returning to work two weeks after delivery. What childcare arrangement would there be for a two week old? I also don't know any mother who is physically ready to return to work that quickly, or even in one month. My guess is that you have never experienced childbirth. Good lord.

what do you suggest is a more realistic timeline then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • @easttowest Do you know if there is any advantage (scrutiny-wise) between the two categories? I've applied access and am one year out from being able to apply mature as well (as I was enrolled "full-time" in grad studies while working my first few years full-time, so it delayed that 5 year out of school period). I'm not asking to try and cheat the system in any way--just trying to assess whether I have a better shot this year or next with the mature box checked off. 
    • I'm fairly certain that nothing but press statements have come out. Nothing substantive for colleges and universities to work with.  
    • They're still processing since it seems the bulk of the people Doug Ford consulted with on this are racists and alt-right members.
    • I was accepted around Jan 9/10 and neglected to post until now! cGPA: 3.85 according to OLSAS L2: 3.89 LSAT: 162 ECs: so weak someone told me not to apply to law school 🤷‍♀️ Entirely undecided about what to do about accepting offers as of right now
    • Accepted Dec 19, couldn't believe how early I heard back since I wrote November LSAT! I've no idea what this queue is. cGPA: 3.85 according to OLSAS L2: 3.89 LSAT: 162 LORs: 1 likely very good, 1.. not so great ECs: honestly so bad that someone told me to not even apply to law school, but they include: working part time during school, coaching, an international summer course, and 1 year of school cheerleading .. yikes.    High odds I'm not accepting because of how expensive this will be, but I'm pretty proud of myself anyways, and proud of all the people who worked hard to get in so far!!!      
×