Leaky pipeline for female lawyers

[astra_nomer]

The Boston Globe has an interesting article today about a study done by the MIT Workplace Center (yay, MIT!) the difficulties in retaining female lawyers until they make partner. While this isn't exactly about women in science, the parallels to retaining women in many professions are analogous.

Of the 1,000 Massachusetts lawyers who provided data for the report, 31 percent of female associates had left private practice entirely, compared with 18 percent of male associates. The gap widens among associates with children, to 35 percent and 15 percent, respectively -- reflecting the cultural reality that women remain the primary care givers of children and are therefore more likely to leave their firms for family reasons.

The dropout rate among women lawyers is overwhelmingly the result of the combination of demanding hours, inflexible schedules, lack of viable part-time options, emphasis on billable hours, and failure by law firms to recognize that female lawyers' career trajectories may alternate between work and family, the report found.

...

Nearly 40 percent of women lawyers with children have worked part time, compared with almost no men, even though men in the profession have more children than women, on average.

(Emphasis mine)

It seems like there's no getting around the fact that women are still expected to be the primary caregivers for children, regardless of our own career ambitions and no matter what lip service is paid to gender equality. And then employers choose not to make allowances for that and, in fact, often penalize women for demands for flexibility, hence fewer women at the upper echelons despite growing parity in numbers at entry levels.

This is why I don't believe any of the arguments about intrinsic differences between genders leading to differential career success. Social conditioning and institutional inflexibility have much more to do with it. In scientific terms, I would say that social, cultural, and institutional forces are first order effects, and intrinsic differences are second order. And any good scientist knows that dealing with lower order effects is more important.

Comments

[dcltdw]

I've seen you write multiple times on this topic, and I keep feeling like I'm not understanding your point.

To wit,
It seems like there's no getting around the fact that women are still expected to be the primary caregivers for children, regardless of our own career ambitions and no matter what lip service is paid to gender equality.

So, sure, let's assert (it's probably not too far off) that I think that a child's primary caregiver should be the mother rather than the father.

Okay, by simply saying that, I realize I am putting pressure on any couple who reads this that they should do as I say. Normally, however, I keep such opinions to myself, because I think it's pretty bogus for me to tell other couples how to internally prioritize.

Given that I normally keep such opinions to myself, I don't see what the problem is. Each couple needs to make a decision, and after deciding, one person in the couple makes the career sacrifice to raise the children.

Now, if the study had said, "the women who had children but whose partners raised the children were paid less than men in similar situations", then that would be wrong -- but I don't see that.

[narya.livejournal.com]

I think you're missing a couple of points.

First, I think it's a fallacy to assume that one parent needs to be the "primary" caregiver. My parents shared parenting duties pretty equally, and I think that's a good thing.

Second, it's also a fallacy to think that you have to give up career for kids. It is possible to do both, and it only requires a modest amount of flexibility on the career side. Again, I have my parents and many of their friends as examples.

I believe that it's a good thing for society if the people who have careers can also have kids. And given that it only requires a modest amount of flexibility, I think it's quite goofy that our culture tends to force it as a choice between the two things when it doesn't really need to be.

[dcltdw]

Sure, I'll agree with your two points in the general case. But the context of the article was work-intensive careers, and there, I don't see how it's possible to split childraising when one is working 12 hours, commuting 2, and sleeping 6.

So in that case, there's going to be an imbalance on childraising imposed by the career imbalance. That's not a judgemental thing -- hey, if people want to do that, sure, go them. Now this article says that most couples in this situation opt for the mother to do the childraising while the father does the career, and on the face of it, I don't see where the problem is.

I'm being a bit breezy here -- I bet there are *lots* of problems related to this (see above comment about probable pay imbalance), but I don't see this as being the fundamental problem.

[lokiect.livejournal.com]

I don't know, the idea that *I* might be pressured out of career (ignore the fact that I'm not in this field or family a moment) in favor of kids because several factors are stacked against me (men getting more pay, family pressure, husband not being willing to be flexible in career or his job not expecting him to need it because he's a father and not a mother) seems like a problem to me. I mean, sure, the numbers are symptoms of a problem, but expectations and social pressures do a lot on their own.

[narya.livejournal.com]

It's fundamentally hurting the law firm, the women, and our society overall to not allow their associates more flexibility.

I believe also that it's fundamentally bad for society if only women without real careers can reproduce.

When I was born, my parents both had careers that required time commitment on the level you describe (mom was tenure track faculty in a field that at the time had relatively few women and was VERY competitive due to there being many more recent phds than faculty positions; dad had a fulltime job and was also attending an MBA program at a prestigous school). What helped them out was more a basic level of flexibility in their jobs, rather than their jobs requiring less time.

[astra-nomer.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't think it's good for either parent to work 12 hour days. Men may be socialized to accept that as their duty, but I don't think it's good for their families.

And the article never says what the spouses of the lawyers did. I suspect that while the wives of the men stayed home with the kids, the husbands of the women did not make that career scarifice. That's not equity in my book. So the scenario "the mother does the childraising while the father does the career" does not apply to all these cases.

I think it's terribly unfair that "having it all" (i.e. family and career) for a woman is seen as par for the course for a man.

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

Given that I normally keep such opinions to myself, I don't see what the problem is.

So, on average, how many people do you figure -actually- succeed in keeping such opinions to themselves, without giving off any opinions, implications, hints, etc. via their behavior, attitude, and job offers?

[dcltdw]

Ha! Good question. No idea.

To go off onto a tangent, I wonder how much of social programming is purely external cues vs internal cues that someone makes up.

For instance, I know it was hard for me to overcome the programming of "duh, EVERYONE gets married!" and "duh, ALL married couples have KIDS!". And yet, I'm pretty sure a lot of that was me deluding myself, "oh my god, everyone gets married!", when in fact, there was very little external pressure of people saying/hinting/whathaveyou of "when're you going to get married?". Certainly no family or religious pressure in that regard. So it was really my own home-grown psychosis rather than an externally-applied pressure.

[csbermack.livejournal.com]

Anecdotal data!

My parents know I'm poly. Last time I went home, they asked "So, are you *serious* about any of these men?" I thought for a moment and asked, "Well, what do you mean by *serious*?"

They told me to stop playing semantic games. They meant, "Are you hoping to marry any of these men," and the idea that one could be serious about a relationship* without it leading to marriage is just impossible to them.

Hilariously, I had the same conversation, word-for-word, with an aunt the next day about a man I'd brought home with me.

I also clearly remember the moment when, at the age of 22, I realised that actually I did not have to have children. It's not like I was explicitly raised thinking I *had* to, but it never occured to anyone that I *wouldn't*.

Social programming is not just pressure, but also the realm of ideas available to you.

*Pointing out that my relationship with the married man has outlasted the average american marriage does not help the conversation. Alas. :)

[astra-nomer.livejournal.com]

Wow, good dicusssion going! I gotta run, so I might not comment more today, but keep up the good work! And keep it civil!

[dcltdw]

This -is- rather interesting. And so far, I think it's been very civil. :)

Although I'm starting to hit the point of "hmm, okay, interesting" and not having anything to say, which in a text medium, sometimes comes across as "I'm blowing you off by not responding", which I don't intend.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

When I first read your post, it really bugged me, and it took me a bit of digging to figure out why.

The part that I think we can all agree on is that we don't like that there is still this intrinsic assumption in our society that women are going to be the primary caregivers. I think we can agree that such an assumption sucks.

Furthermore, I can accept arguments that workplaces should be more flexible with respect to childcare and whatnot.

The part that bothers me is when this is framed as a women's rights issue. I think the problem isn't "women aren't allowed by workplaces to juggle both a career and a family" - the problem is "women are expected to be the primary caregiver". Work places don't let men juggle a career and family either - if you were a guy and worked part time in order to spend time with your family, I guarentee that you're not going to be tapped for promotion over the guy who is working 90 hours a week and spending no time with his family.

In some sense, I guess, this is the affirmative action argument - because women are disadvantaged by this cultural assumption, workplaces should make special allowances for them. Affirmative action has always bugged me in the same way. Shouldn't we NOT make special allowances for them, and instead try to actually fix the problem where it arises, which is the cultural assumption? (With affirmative action, it's fixing the problem in elementary schools, rather than college admissions.) The other thing that bugs me is that it feels like the fix kind of encodes the cultural assumption in it, and propagates it as a result. It's harder to see that happening in the case of childcare and workplaces than in the case of affirmative action in college admissions. If you encode in your college admissions that blacks are disadvantaged, you propagate the stereotype.

I do see the point of view that since it's too hard or it's hard to see how to fix the cultural assumption problem, we should fix the symptom instead. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do or if there's a better way.

[(Anonymous)]

"if you were a guy and worked part time in order to spend time with your family, I guarentee that you're not going to be tapped for promotion over the guy who is working 90 hours a week and spending no time with his family."

Actually, this is exactly the direction being alert to the secondary issues of gender equality leads to in my workplace (in a technical field where women are still rare). People have observed that part time workers are more diligent with their time (since we bill hourly, this matters), than people who are just hanging around at work because they don't have lives (or lives they want to devote time to) outside of it.

The way to do it is to explicitly de-gender family-friendly policies. This has worked for my employer. I have several male coworkers who are the primary caregivers, by the definition of 'if the kid gets sick, the one that stays home from work and takes kid to the doctor is the primary caregiver', and it's not uncommon to hear in meetings 'It's 5pm. I must go /right now/ to get the kids from daycare.' from a man anymore.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

This sort of thing is something I have no problems with supporting. :)

[ler.livejournal.com]

The part that bothers me is when this is framed as a women's rights issue.

When I interviewed for a job recently, the interviewing department asked whether I planned to have another kid in the next few years. It was a casual question, and not part of the official interview, but I knew that if I said yes, I would be kissing that job offer good-bye. When a male colleague interviewed for a similar position, the department was delighted that his wife was pregnant again and planning to quit her job to stay home with the kids.

We also talked about salary requirements. I said that I needed a job that would support my family. The (older) faculty man I was talking to said that it had never been the case that academic jobs would support a family. The longer we talked, the more I realized that he meant *women's* academic jobs couldn't support their families, but that it was natural for a man's job to do so. As it turns out, I took an offer which matched my salary requirements. The faculty man hired another man for a sum quite near the one I quoted (and was ridiculed for quoting).

[lokiect.livejournal.com]

I must say, I find it creepy as anything that they'd be delighted that his wife was pregnant and leaving her job. I mean, it's good for them in that it's pressure for him to do well, make more money, and support them, but it still feels creepy/slimy/manipulative/opportunistic.

[ler.livejournal.com]

They were quite jovial about it, really. "Oh, congratulations! Do you know if it's a girl or a boy" etc. I was happy for him to have another kid, and glad that he would be making enough for his wife to stay home, but sad that she "wanted" to.

I put "wanted" in quotes because I'm not sure how much she wants to leave her job, and how much she's afraid of finding a new job, in a new state, that she'll have to leave again in a year or so, while she has two small kids at home that will need daycare.

In academia, there's always the assumption that one member of the couple will take a lesser-track career (or abandon career altogether) so that the other member can get tenure. It's almost always assumed that the woman mommy-tracks while her husband tenure-tracks. When couples conform to those norms, I wonder how much of their choice was due to sexism (whether it be "women should be primary caregivers", "stand by your man", or other, more insidious forms) and how much is really their personal preferences.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

Oh, right - I'd meant to talk about this too in my comment, but forgot. Yes, I agree with you that the stuff you're talking about is properly framed as a women's rights issue (and horrible). It is slightly different from what I thought the original post was mainly talking about.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I am confused as to why men with kids do better than men without kids. It seems like kids should be more work for everyone, and even if it is not as much work for the dad in general than for the mom, it's still more work, not less. Anyone have a hand-wavy explanation for that?

[lokiect.livejournal.com]

someone posted earlier that part-time people and people with lives outside of work are more effective with their hours than people without. I could see that being a good part of it. combined with the pressure to do well to support the kids.

[visage.livejournal.com]

When I interviewed for a job recently, the interviewing department asked whether I planned to have another kid in the next few years. It was a casual question, and not part of the official interview, but I knew that if I said yes, I would be kissing that job offer good-bye.

Intriguing. At my company, it's made very clear to us that asking someone about things like "are you thinking of having [more] kids?" is begging for a lawsuit if we don't make them an offer, and thus we should NEVER EVER go anywhere near such topics.

[astra-nomer.livejournal.com]

I'm not advocating affirmative action here. I don't think "special allowances" are the answers - allowances that make life better for everyone would be the way to go. Like having maternity leave and an equivalent paternity leave plan. On-site subsidized daycare for all employees. Flex time. That kind of thing.

I agree, the thing to do would be to fix the cultural problems, but that's a much bigger problem to tackle, and company policies won't do much in the way to solve that. But if you implement family-friendly policies, that will help everyone, including the company/university/lab.

(btw, I feel like I should know you and perhaps even met you in real life, but I can't quite figure out who you are...?)

[jadia.livejournal.com]

I agree with this.

I don't know that we've actually ever been formally introduced, but I hung around at ET a bunch when I was an undergrad. I currently live with lokiect & ilai and am dating visage.

[nuclearpolymer.livejournal.com]

I will preface this by saying that I am literally a card-carrying feminist. So my question to everyone is what are and can you do to improve these problems that you are seeing? Anyone going to open a law office that taps the great potential of all those smart women who want to not work 100 hours a week?

I guess personally, I haven't done tons. I have (1) done a joint name change after marriage, thus simultaneously satisfying the both-people-have-the-same-last-name requirement and the anti-patriarchal requirment (2) try to assist the folks at work who are trying to figure out why there are so few women in top technical positions here, even though women have a relatively good showing in top management positions, and even though there is a pretty good culture and practice of flexibility/family friendliness.

#1 was easy. #2 has been frankly baffling. My best guess so far is that people pick goals based on different criteria, and some pros and cons appeal more to men or women. The goal of being a top scientist may be essentially an egotistical one, often motivated by wanting to be the best in a competitive way. The goal of being a top manager may be motivated by a mix of wanting to be paid a lot, wanting to be in charge, wanting to make the team effective. The cons of being a top scientist here include having to be able to travel and spending a lot of time outside of work improving technical skills. The cons of being a top manager include having to spend a lot of time dealing with people.

[narya.livejournal.com]

I have already noticed some movement against the philosophy that more hours is better.

For example, some commentary on this in management consulting:

That's why the firm--which doesn't bill by the hour and explicitly states that hours don't figure in promotions--launched a program called the Red Zone three years ago to spot and tame chronic overworkers. from this article (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/115/next-worklife.html?partner=rss-alert).

And this study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/351/18/1838) on medical interns concluded that there was a significant reduction in medical errors when the interns worked fewer total hours per week and fewer long shifts (duh).

This might not seem like much, but I find it interesting in that it seems to be encouraging the mentality that quality of work is what counts. I think that mentality is better for everyone, regardless of whether they have families.