Posts
In Rumors of Our Progress Congresswoman Maloney raises the poignant question of whether or not we can truly call our current political and social situation progress. Defining progress is an interesting endeavor in itself which I think requires some reflection. Ultimately progress is a relative term, and when defining progress we need to consider the context and how fast we can truly expect change to happen.
One example of a situation in which we have not seen much progress seems to be in the legal profession - an issue which we have discussed in class on a few occasions.
In the book Congresswoman Maloney mentions the "Maternal Wall" and details the story of Dawn Gallina and the RAOC (An acronym which I am definitely going to start adopting in my day to day life) that ruined her career at a law firm. Dawn Gallina's story took place in 1996 -- however it is quite apparent that not much has changed.
While reading through some blogs today I stumbled upon a story of a New York law firm that has a shockingly bad record with dealing with mothers -- you can read about it more here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/kl-gates-closed-to-associate-mothers/
I definitely recommend at least looking at the facts of the story they listed.
Despite all of our conversations and readings -- I was still really shocked by this incident. The Above The Law blog seems to have treated the issue with a fairly flippant tone. It almost sounds as though the only recourse they feel they have is to just make light of the situation, if that is even possible. The blog Jezebel has a post about this as well entitled "When The Mommy Track Leads Out The Door" http://jezebel.com/5558387/when-the-mommy-track-leads-out-the-door
I wonder if it is fair to treat these very serious incidences with such tones? Doesn't the use of the word "mommy track" diminish the importance in some way? What are the practical things that we can do to ensure progress? Although I am not involved in the legal profession and am in no real position to comment on its inner-workings, it seems as though we must be able to find some way to change things? But how? What do you all think?
Ultimately, I guess this is just another example of why we definitely need to carefully heed Congresswoman Maloney's calls for us to question our current standards of "progress".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Alex- I can’t believe that normal people subject themselves to reading Above The Law! When I was an associate at my firm, that was the lifeline for my peers and I on happenings in the legal world (layoffs, salaries, etc.) They’ve even posted some gems on my old firm! So, I am very familiar with their content, and yes, you are right- they are flippant, sarcastic, etc. But that is their tone generally- it was not reserved just for this issue. I’d even venture to say that you need to be pretty sarcastic and flippant to cover the madness that goes on at these places.
As I’ve said in class, the big law firm is not a mom friendly place. Sure, diversity committees and the like are lovely (in theory!), but at the end of the day these are businesses that must meet the needs of very demanding clients. Clients at big law firms expect their attorneys to be “on-call” 24/7, and if you aren’t, then you will be fired. Moreover, if you have a brief to get filed, a court appearance, a deal closing, etc. you have to be there regardless of whether Baby has a fever, was up all night screaming, and needs to go to the pediatrician. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what the solution is. I wish I did. I do know however, that the change must start at the client level. If clients tell the firms that they want X number of women, or minorities, or moms staffed on their matters, then the partners will listen. If the clients say that firing moms is unacceptable, then the firms won’t. But when the clients themselves engage in the same behavior, the big law firms believe that they are free to do the same.
Comments on other matters- (I have no idea how to start a new post- only how to comment- someone please tell me how on Thurs. night!)
I am not a fan of the Maloney book. I think it is preachy, and partisan. The whole book can be summed up in 1 sentence- all of the ills against children and women are George W. Bush and the Republicans fault. I also think that she only gives very superficial treatment to all of the issues that merit more of an in-depth analysis. For example, the chapter on violence was overly-simplistic. I also dislike Maloney’s over-reliance on statistics. Statistics by their nature can be easily manipulated, and I venture to guess that I can find almost as many statistics that negate her statistics.
On “Super Tuesday”- wow! As a Republican, I am very excited about many of the candidates that won yesterday. As a woman, I think it is incredible as well. I was even cheering for Blanche Lincoln- good for her that she stood up for what she believes in and voted her conscience on many issues even though they did not endear her to her party. She will likely pay the ultimate price in November, but last night was a big victory for her.
What I think is going to be interesting to watch is how these women campaign. Stay tuned!
Ilana -- I guess I forgot to mention the fact that my "reading through some blogs" sometimes comes in the form of recommendations from the many, many lawyers in my family... I gotta admit, I probably would not have ever read Above The Law if it weren't for it being specifically sent my way.
Post a Comment