ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Willem DeDonis - 1 month, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 29 minutes ago

   Yes, the women should not be mistreated. It is good to have women working in the law firm with the men, but it is not good to discriminate against the women if they are pregnant.  Many men also do not look attractive when they get fat beer bellies too.  No one is discriminating against men when they are bald either.  I believe in equality of the sexes.  No discrimination against women or men.

2. Posted by mike rotch - 1 month, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 35 minutes ago

   I realize there are still inequalities in employment to this day, which white middle class america pays for on a daily basis (do you really think its the rich that suffer from, for example ,affirmative action programs?), but every time a female or minority attorney is fired or demoted there is a lawsuit and a preconceived notion that it was wrongful.  Perhaps at times it is due to job performance.

3. Posted by JS - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 56 minutes ago

   Please, do not respond to post #2.  Say the name aloud and you will realize that this is the same person (or same type of person) who uses the same first name and the last name of “hunt” to make inflammatory posts.  Ignore the poster.  This poster is merely attempting to get under others’ skins.  Please do not reward this childish behavior.

4. Posted by Equality for all - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

   I agree with Willem, equality of the sexes.  Equality means that there should not be discrimination in hiring, promotions and firing.  In a law firm It also means that if someone’s production falls off or their hours are less than everyone else’s, they should not receive a promotion or they should be terminated, regardless of their situation.  Everyone should be on track for Partner from the beginning, but if someone takes a break for any reason, or starts working part time for any reason then it is only right and fair to everyone else with their eye on the ball for that person to be out of the race.

5. Posted by mike rotch - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 42 minutes ago

   JS - “same type of person”.  I consider that statement derogatory, racist, sexist, and narrow minded.  Get a personality and a sense of humor.

   No one should be guaranteed or is entitled to a partner track.

6. Posted by Bar-1 - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 37 minutes ago

   There were not many examples in the article about exactly what the female attorney was doing right or wrong at the firm. But clearly, if she is coming in at 9:30 and leaving at 5:30, gimme break. I don’t understand why women who can’t keep up with their colleagues (once they have children) scream discrimination when they get called out for not working as many hours as they are required. It is true, you can’t have it all. Make smart decisions about your career and family life. Stop whining when and filing frivilous lawsuits because you made a bad career choice that does not suit having children while still working.  The reality of the lawfirm business model does not change just because you decide you want to have a baby.

7. Posted by Anonymous - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 30 minutes ago

   The article contains the quote, “She claims she was treated differently than male lawyers at the firm because of her gender and her status as a mother, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports in a separate story.” So being treated differently from men is wrong, she asserts.  Does that mean she believes that women ARE the same as men, which is obviously untrue?  Or that despite their physical differences (advantages?) they are to be treated no differently in any way?  So wanting to accommodate a woman who is pregnant, or has just returned from childbirth, is wrong because men don’t get pregnant and give birth?  Isn’t the real issue how to avoid a knee-jerk view—and court/commission rulings—that “different is wrong” and instead find a way to allow for “fair” treatment that IS and OUGHT to be different?  If that ISN’T the real issue, do we get back to that old silliness about needing to have unisex bathrooms?

8. Posted by MS - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 19 minutes ago

   There shouldn’t be such a thing as a “bad career choice that doesn’t suit having children while still working.” People always make the argument that it’s the woman’s choice to have children and the woman’s choice to go back to work. Whatever happened to the man’s say in having children? In most relationships, it is the COUPLE’s decision to have children, not just the woman’s. I would like to ask all the men out there who make these kinds of arguments if they are married and whether they wanted to have children with their wives. There is nothing wrong with women wanting to have careers and children - how else can couples afford to have children these days unless both parents are working? Besides, the legal profession should be and can be one of the best career choices for women with children - with all the advances in electronics, it is easier for attorneys to work from home. Firms should be willing to give women that option. Then women can make their hours and spend time with their children. Let’s face it, if men had children, there would be longer paid maternity leave and bonuses just for making it into the office at all.

9. Posted by Balanced Lawyer - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 19 minutes ago

   In response to Post # 4, I think it’s a bit Neanderthal to assume that if someone “starts working part time for any reason,” “that person [should] be out of the race” for partner.  It’s completely understandable that a person working part-time may be on a different track for partnership, but to deny them the opportunity completely seems a bit unfair.  Besides pregnancy and having children, many people (at some point in their legal careers) do not meet the billable hour requirements for a variety of reasons.  Should those people also be denied the opportunity to compete for partnerhship?  Not to belabor the point, but your view of this issue seems to be that if you don’t meet the billables, you’re out!  Sadly, I think that is a harsh and (thankfully) antiquated viewpoint.

10. Posted by Marc H - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

    These articles are almost always thin on the facts, but the quote from the partner in Ms. Verdrager’s firm appears to cite (1) poor quality work, and (2) not putting in as many hours as expected.  Those are the type of things that any associate would get criticized for.  Maybe in some firms, new mothers have carte blanche to do bad work or to work as little as they want, but in this case, it doesn’t sound like discrimination.  Offering her a two year demotion may have been perfectly reasonable.  Admittedly, I am a guy and I’m not an employment lawyer.

11. Posted by No Sympathy - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

    Sorry, but I just don’t have any sympathy for her, or for any other woman who gets pregnant. Yes, I’m a woman. Women have known for thousands of years what causes pregnancy, how to avoid it, and what to be prepared for during and after the pregnancy. Her pregnancy didn’t make her a sloppy worker.

12. Posted by 222 - 1 month, 4 weeks, 58 minutes ago

    So #9, does that make poster #11 a neanderthal also even though its a woman.

13. Posted by Lawyer and Mom of 2 - 1 month, 4 weeks, 57 minutes ago

    To No Sympathy - I would be willing to bet that you live alone..

14. Posted by Bast - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 16 minutes ago

    "Being a mother doesn’t make you a sloppy worker. “ You’ve obviously never had to get up 10 times in the middle of the night, and never had to pick up your kid from school b/c he/she got the flu, and never had to spend a little extra time in the morning with your child because they’re sad and need your help. 

    I’m all about expecting women and men to perform at the same level, but this society functions because women reproduce and typically are the primary care-givers.  Law firms have to accept that as a fact of life and roll with it when the need arises.

    Plus, there are plenty of reason why people’s work gets temporarily sloppy:  they fall in love, the get depressed, they’re hung over, they experience the death of someone close to them ... but somehow those reasons are not seen as a disease.

15. Posted by AttyElizabeth - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 8 minutes ago

    No one can have it all - whether you are male or female.  “Having it all” would mean not having to work, or maybe working 3-4 hours a day, showing up whenever you want to (or working from home), having a large paycheck with automatic raises regularly deposited into your checking account each month, reliable childcare that magically appears when you’re feeling a little overwhelmed so you can engage in hobbies and “self-development”, and a partner in the house who is fully supportive and never makes you feel guilty when you ignore them to pursue your own happiness.  Everyone would love you all the time, regardless of how you treat them, back you on every decision you make, regardless of how ill-conceived it is, and you will always feel beautiful. 

    People should really watch less television, because I don’t know where in the real world they get the notion that you can work less and produce lower quality work, and still be promoted on the same schedule as your co-workers who work more and have better work products.  If you can’t keep up or don’t want to go with the program, you should find another job, regardless of your gender or how many (if any) children you have.  Stop putting such pressures on yourself to keep up with fiction, because the fictions will keep changing, and realize that motherhood does not equal a free ticket until your children are grown and out of the house, at which point you can blame menopause.

16. Posted by 3L - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 1 minute ago

    Regarding the name in comment #2, and the similar name of Michael Hunt used in these postings—I actually went to high school with a Michael Hunt, who did call himself Mike. An unfortuante choice by his parents, but some people really do have that name. Now, the name in #2, maybe not so much—but we shouldn’t assume

17. Posted by Bill Dershar - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 3 minutes ago

    Interesting posts.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am NOT in favor of unisex bathrooms.  I’ve been in some places where it would be an embarrassment to walk in within 35 minutes after some of the men came out.  All that beer and pretzels doesn’t ferment well after 12 hours in the gut.  The women would leave the firm in droves were they forced to use the dumper after the guys came out.

18. Posted by Elvin Hayes - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 59 minutes ago

    http://www.rotch.com/

    Mike must be heir to the Rotch family fortune.  He may be a twerp, but the guy’s got bucks!  Therefore, we must at least listen to the guy,

19. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 10 minutes ago

    I agree with Bill (#17).  Women should NOT have to share a bathroom with men.  I had 3 brothers older than me and I had to go to school or a friend’s house to use the bathroom many days.  It is not a good smell. It is awful.  I recommend that we keep ladies rooms and mens rooms and not have unisex bathrooms.

20. Posted by Left private practice - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 34 minutes ago

    I think the real issue here is the insane number of face time hours the senior partners still require of associates.  Private practice (particularly at a big firm) would be a completely manageable and rewarding career if we could get rid of the “fraternity mentality” at the top.  Partners abuse associates because they were abused.  80-90% of my late nights and weekends spent at the office were a result of the partner’s procrastination or simple lack of thought towards others.  Efficient productivity isn’t rewarded, nor is the idea that great briefs and memos can be written in advance of the due date, often from home.  Therefore, those that can meet these insane demands are those that have an incredible support system at home.  Usually those people are men who have stay-at-home wives.  Typically, these men also prefer work to family, or they don’t have a choice to pick family over work due to financial constraints.  Most women, however, do not have a stay-at-home husband.  Even if that were an option, I would bet that most women would not trade family time for a demanding, successful career unless, like most men, they had to stay there for financial reasons.  The legal profession needs to realize that balance is not only desired by its newer members, but also achievable.

21. Posted by sensi - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 44 minutes ago

    I am appalled by what is an obvious lack of understanding in these posts about the seriousness of this issue.  Male lawyers AND female lawyers without kids often judge women with children more harshly than others, and even assume without any evidence that those women are less dedicated and competent.  With half of all law school grads being women, shame on those who don’t or won’t view this as the pressing issue that it is.

22. Posted by Ava - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 11 minutes ago

    What always amazes me is how no one ever seems to focus on the fact that giving kids a good start in life is just as important as important to society (if not more important than) the work we perform for clients.  How do all these people with nice law firm jobs think they got there?  Somebody gave birth to them, and then raised them.  In fact, for most people older than 35 or so, their mothers probably stayed home to deal exclusively with family matters.  That’s just not an option for most people these days.  And even where it is an option, why should women be forced to choose between family and work?  Personally, my family could get away without two incomes, but I chose to attend university and law school, I’m a good lawyer, and I love my job.  I’m not willing to squander my education or my talent just because I also decided to have kids, and I don’t think I should have to.  Nor should I be considered inferior to my male colleagues just because, through no choice of my own, I happen to be a female, and if my family is to reproduce, my uterus will need to be involved. 
    It’s true that there are times (usually hectic mornings) I can’t be in the office as early or as late as others, but that phase of really needy childhood doesn’t last long, and I figure I’ll be back to my old routine in a couple of years.  Plus, I figure that the time women need to take off to have and be with their kids is probably about equal to the time it seems most older men (at least those I work with) need to take off for their own health problems. 

    Try to remember how important moms are not only as workers, but also as the people responsible in large part for the next generation, and give us the break we deserve.

23. Posted by H. V. Baxendale - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours ago

    In the practice of law, there are some areas that require long hours, no interruptions, and physical presence.  There are other areas that work with shorter hours, early daily departure, telecommuting, and flexibility for leaving to attend personal/family matters.  Those who cannot do the first cannot “move to the nuisance” and demand change for their needs. I, a male, would not commit to such employment.
    I think the trap is that childless women assume they can handle motherhood and the first type of job, and then find the reality that both men and women know:  few can manage it.  The requirements can be softened some, but when the battle is raging, there is no substitution for long hours and physical presence.
    Also, law practice is a human endeavor.  We’re not assembling TV’s or stuffing envelopes.  Those who work at the office (in areas of law like the first one) do better and succeed better. Reality.

24. Posted by HV Baxendale - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes ago

    The discussions here demonstrate two opposing views of women’s rights: 
    1.  Women and men should be treated equally with no distinction due to gender.
    2.  Women and men should be treated differently to address their different needs that are peculiar to their gender.
    These two policies cannot exist in the same system.  Yet those addressing the issue seem to have the same goal--allow women to succeed as well as men--without seeing that they are fighting against each other, and effective change becomes elusive.

25. Posted by CF - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 13 hours, 45 minutes ago

    I think what most disgruntled individuals fail to remember is that babies do not spontaneously appear unless you are The Virgin Mary. Two parties are involved in creating a baby (usually a man and a woman), so this is not just a woman’s problem. You never see any male partners/ associates worrying about their jobs when their wives are expecting so why should women have that burden all by themselves?

26. Posted by BG - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 9 hours, 30 minutes ago

    It is well documented in the scientific research that women who are mothers are perceived to be less productive and competent when in fact they doing work equal in quality and productivity to other workers.  Discriminating on the basis of an employee’s caretaking responsibilities is illegal.  Check out the new EEOC Guideline on this.  I also recommend the Center for WorkLife Law for the latest information.  My own view on the problem is that law firms should accommodate women attorneys who have children in order to protect their own investment in talent.  But if they don’t or won’t, more women should leave the firms, open their own law practices, and vigorously compete with the existing male dominated law firms on fair and equal footing.  Technology makes this option more possible than ever. Women’s attempts to change the firms and to succeed within them hasn’t been particularly successful, as many studies show.  It’s time for some good old fashioned competition. Women can create whatever working circumstance they want if they have the vision and courage to practice independently by themselves or with other like minded attorneys.

27. Posted by epc - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 1 hour, 55 minutes ago

    Discrimination against women after childbirth is pervasive in many industries.  Generally, it is sneaky and unless the victim documents everything, it can be difficult to prove.  Tape recorded conversations, where legal, and copies of all emails help make the case much easier.  While the reality is that female attorneys “may” be able to go and start their own practice, they shouldn’t have to - I thought that we decided that segregation was not constitutional?

28. Posted by BG - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 4 minutes ago

    Of course women shouldn’t have to open their on practices to succeed in the law, but the laws protecting them from discrimination are weak and are weakly enforced.  Strengthening the laws under this US Supreme Court is unlikely, unless Ruth can write the decision on her own.  Look at the Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision, ugh. .  So, being pragmatic we have to figure out another way to solve this problem.  Too many talented women are not reaching their full potential as attorneys and are leaving the profession.  This is bad for everyone.

29. Posted by Lita Weewee - 1 month, 3 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Why would anyone want a unisex bathroom? I don’t even share that kind of intimacy with my husband.

30. Posted by ABC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 45 minutes ago

    While it is true that law school graduate numbers are approximately split between men and women, it is also true that there are way too many law schools cranking out way too many attorneys. Law is a capitalistic enterprise, the blather of certain academics, poiticians, and social activists to the contrary notwithstanding. Law firms are free to employ lawyers who make the most money for them. If we are talking about private for profit law firms, they are businesses, not social experiments. If a lawyer, for any reason whatever, is not producing as much money for the firm as the firm requires, that firm is free to remove that lawyer completely or reduce that lawyer’s pay.

31. Posted by Barbara Gallios - 1 month, 3 weeks, 4 days, 22 hours, 2 minutes ago

    A law firm can’t fire or reduce the pay of a disabled attorney, that would be a violation of the ADA, which also appies to pregnacy and childbirth. That’s just one of the many employment laws firms must adhere to. Yes, law firms can act like the lowest of the low, but talented women don’t have to work for those law firms.  For women attorneys who are mothers and who are frustrated with the status quo, some actions they can take are to join www.momsrising.org., join a local professional association for women attorneys, go solo, move to a small firm or a more civil large firm, try starting a women’s initiative group within your law firm, and research options that other industries have used to deal with the changing nature of the work force, such as using a career lattice approach for managing today’s nontraditional workforce.  For really bad situations contact an attorney who specializes in Familly Responsibility Discrimination Law (FRD).  That’s my area of practice in California (www.barbaragallios.com)

32. Posted by Tamara - 1 month, 3 weeks, 4 days, 19 hours, 54 minutes ago

    I knew when deciding to read the comments to this article that I shouldn’t have even begun, yet I did.  I think that sadly, there are firms and people who openly discriminate against women who have children.  However, as a quite happy woman who does not want to have children, I also don’t want to be discriminated against because I DON’T have children.  It is no more fair that people, whether they be men or women—I have male colleagues who really split the time responsibilities with their wives—can spend less time in the office, perform less work, and think that they can climb the same ladder.  I support the idea of parallel tracks to partnerships for people who make the decision to have kids, and for that decision to affect their work.  No reason you can’t achieve the same status, but to sue your way to the top is just as underhanded as sleeping your way to the top.

    You made your choice, and it is valid as YOUR choice.  I made mine, and if I work harder and/or better, I expect to be promoted accordingly and not bypassed by some lady who got her feelings hurt because she couldn’t work 8-5.

33. Posted by Willem DeDonis - 1 month, 3 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 56 minutes ago

    I must get a male point of view here re unisex bathrooms.  Granted they are stylish, but I don’t like them, not only because I have to go and am embarrassed if a lady should go in after I come out, but also because I think the ladies feel the same way.  No one really wants to know what the last user’s poop smelled like.  I think this goes for both sexes, and can serve to override our impressions of that person.  I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t want to be remembered for the way my poop stunk!

34. Posted by Anthony Fazzone - 1 month, 3 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 47 minutes ago

    This all boils down to some men getting p/o’ed when women get treated on a “soft track”.  Yes we know that women have babies and “cause” them to occur (immaculate conception aside), but it’s hard for a guy busting his hump 70-80 hours a week to sit back and act “stylish” as some “bellie” gets coddled and is working part-time (20-30 hours) .  This becomes even more acute “inhouse” where it is not politically correct to speak up when the “bellies” try andhave it all.  So let’s call a spade a spade and stop dicking around the bush already!

35. Posted by That Lawyer Dude - 1 month, 3 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 37 minutes ago

    There is no reason a woman/or man cannot have both a good family relationship and a career in law. The opportunities exist if the party’s both want it.

    Before allowing oneself to be recruited, Women should ask what the firms “Stated Policy” is as to the hiring and advancement of Women who are or chose to be mothers. There are many firms that would not be willing to reallyh work with people who make a choice to have both a career and a life.

    Secondly, women have to be realistic as to what the decision to have a child means to both them and the firm. A baby is a time consuming matter. If you are the kind of person who can forego being with and raising your child, and can focus the way you did before you became pregnant that is a rarity but ok you can have one path. If you want more time with the baby and you still want to work, you have to be realistic as to what you can do and when you can do it.

36. Posted by ABC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 16 minutes ago

    The author of post #32 says in part: “Yes, law firms can act like the lowest of the low, but talented women don’t have to work for those law firms.” First, why is it the “lowest of the low” to expect all employees to perform as those of similar rank in the firm? Does “equal” mean “equal” or does it mean “equal” only when that does one some good and “equal = special” when when “equal” is less advantageous to one than “special”? Next, some few large, profitable, and, as a result, very bureaucratic law firms may have the resources and the political/social inclination to allow “special” treatment for politically favored group(s). “Talented women” who can get jobs with the very few firms who fall into this category are certainly free to do so. Presumably job vacancies at these firms are quite limited. But most law firms do not fall into this category of firm. The breakup of many large-ish and not so large lawfirms within the last two decades demonstrates that economic survival is much more important to most law firms than politically correct social activity. Employee policies that assist the firm in acheiving that survival seems far more likely than policies that don’t.

37. Posted by Problem solved! - 1 month, 3 weeks, 3 days, 19 hours, 49 minutes ago

    When my husband and I decided to start a family, we talked ad infinitum about changes we were both willing to make for our family. He decreased the amount of time he travels, and works from home most of the time. I left the big firm, took a 15% pay cut, and went to work for the government. We both see our kids every morning and every night. You were smart enough to survive law school and pass the bar. You’re smart enough to find the balance that works for your family.

38. Posted by NakaEsq - 1 month, 3 weeks, 3 days, 8 hours, 11 minutes ago

    I work for a 700+ lawyer law firm and am a single parent of an elementary school aged child.  I moved away from my entire family to take my job, so I have zero familial support. 

    One of the biggest challenges for me is that I cannot get to the office early nor can I stay late because I have to get my child to and from school. 

    However, I try my hardest to make sure noone can say I’m not pulling my weight.  I work seven days a week.  I often bill 10 -12 hours on the weekends.  I may get up at 4 am to bill a few hours before my child wakes up...or stay up at night billing hours after my child goes to bed.  It’s the price I pay for wanting to make it in a big firm. 

    Women must face the fact that men expect associates to be the typical associate:  no life, so that you are available 24/7.  Women must be careful about the decisions they make because too many other commitments will interfere with the ability to do this job well. 

    Note that I do not have a boyfriiend/spouse nor do I have a social life.  :)

39. Posted by William Debner - 1 month, 3 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 1 minute ago

    #39 has it tough; I would gues most single women don’t go to this length to bust theiir gut.  It is tough to raise a child on your own, especially if you have a responsible job.  It would be much easier for this woman to get a job in the government, where she could work an easy 9-5 job and still have time to have a social life as well as raise her kid.  But she has elected to go the large law firm route; presumably for bigger bucks, prestige, etc.  She has agreed to pay that price.  Many others just expect to coast their way to partnership.  That would be wrong.  I wish good luck to #39.  Hopefully she will meet someone exciting, perhaps even at work, to make her life more fulfilling.  Life is more than making a lot of money.  She may well want to reconsider a cushy government job, where there are great benefits, great hours, though less overall cash.

40. Posted by Interested - 1 month, 3 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

    Just a thought, but why should a company/firm and individuals without children have to subsidize other people’s decisions to have a family? If the woman is expected to stay home, that is her problem for marrying a guy with a 1950’s mentality. Two people can’t have highly demanding jobs, spend as much time as they want/need at home, and produce at the level required for their job. That is why the one with the biggest paycheck works his/her tail off, and the other must balance work/life and make concessions. Even if daycare gets out at 7:00pm, unless you have unlimited sick days for your kids, or you can take off whenever your spouse goes out of town, if just isn’t going to work. And the firm shouldn’t have to pretend that you are just as valuable a contributor (separate from whether you are as a person) as the person not making excusing centered around their own choices.

41. Posted by associate - 1 month, 3 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Raising the children that you chose to bring into this world is far more important than ANY job.  A job is just a job.  A child is a person that YOU are responsible for.  It’s a very demanding job, and I am so glad that I am able to sacrifice my time and efforts to work the hours necessary to allow my wife to raise our son instead of some 6 dollar an hour daycare worker that would just plop him down in front of a tv for 10 hours a day.

    I can’t imagine trying to be the primary caregiver and working as a large firm attorney.  Somehow, I can’t see working 117 hours (latest motherhood survery) per week together with working 70 hours per week as an attorney.  Considering that there are only 168 hours in a week, I think it would be hard to work 187 hours per week.  How exactly do you sleep -19 hours per week?  There’s probably a reason that primary caregivers are seen as working less hours than their conemporaries.

42. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 1 month, 3 weeks, 2 days, 3 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I’ve reread all the posts and conclude that there are some jealous MEN out there because not all the women are slackers.  There are a few women who want true equality, and are equally peturbed when other mommy-track women try to gain partnership and related status when they clearly aren’t doing equal work.  I agree that would not be right for a mommy-tracker tried to usurp a job from a hardworking non-childbearing WOMAN.  The men, however, are another story.  They have been given so many advantages over the years over WOMEN that they should not be heard to complain if a mommy-track lawyer wants to be equal to them, even if they aren’t doing as much work.  Because they are bearing children, the MEN should know that they must understand that, and that carries with it the price of being politically correct.  After, all, haven’t we all accepted affirmative action by now?  No one thinks twice when the firm brings in a crop of minoritiies.  Why should WOMEN be treated any differently when they do less work?  We cant be UNFAIR on this.

43. Posted by associate - 1 month, 3 weeks, 2 days, 34 minutes ago

    Ellen, #43

    Are you seriously saying that you approve of the “good ole boy” system where some people are allowed to advance despite doing less work simply because of who they are?  Because that sounds eerily similar to allowing women with children to advance despite doing less work simply because they are women.

    Discrimination is wrong.  Period.  Whether that be based on religion, gender, or sex.  However, it’s not discrimination if you’re not advancing someone because they don’t make you as much money as another someone.  That’s good business, and you know that if you owned the business and it were your money, you’d agree.

44. Posted by ABC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 4 minutes ago

    #43 No, we all have not accepted affirmative action. Affirmative action is merely discrimination by another name. It should be outlawed.

45. Posted by Li Yuan - 1 month, 3 weeks, 3 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I think woman should get break for having baby.  Men make woman have baby.  Not good to discriminate against bellie for baby is inside.  Next time, partner should not have sex with woman.