Women Lawyers Have Higher Divorce Rates, Need Loving Husbands, Researcher Says

Women in the Law

Women Lawyers Have Higher Divorce Rates, Need Loving Husbands, Researcher Says

Posted Apr 1, 2008, 06:17 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A researcher has found that young female lawyers and other women professionals have slightly higher divorce rates than their male counterparts.

Law professor Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University is the author of the study. She says her study indicates that "women can't have it all because there is a social stigma to having or being a stay-at-home spouse."

Wilson spoke with the Wall Street Journal about her findings, based on her analysis of 100,000 young professionals in business, law and medicine. She found that 10 percent of women with law degrees were divorced, compared to 7 percent of male lawyers.

Wilson’s study, which will be released next week, also found that female professionals are up to three times more likely to remain unmarried than men.

Economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, who conducted research on high-achieving women in 2001, theorizes that highly educated women have higher divorce rates than their male counterparts because they are attracted to successful men, and can’t give these men the care and support they need.

Hewlett has this advice for well-educated, high-earning women: Look for a husband who is particularly loving and supportive.

Story corrected at 1:53 p.m. April 4 to reflect that economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett theorized that successful women are not giving their mates the support they need. Paragraph added to story and lead expanded at 10:33 a.m. on April 5.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by G. William Davenport - 5 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 22 minutes ago

What a sad story!
One can speculate about this statistic. Perhaps professional women make more money, are less financially dependent on a spouse, and thus lack the monetary incentive that keeps some women from divorcing in an otherwise unsatisfactory marriage. That would not necessarily be such a bad thing if it were the predominant reason that women in medicine and law, etc. divorced more often than other women.

But is this the case? Or is there some other reason? For example, do professional women [some of them, anyway] have a “chip on the shoulder” mentality, thinking they have to prove themselves, over and over, so as to overcome a history of sexual discrimination? No spouse would want to put up with that, day in and day out. What a miserable way to spend one’s marriage—being the perpetual audience for an insecure professional’s nightly rant! That behavior is awful when men engage in it, and it cannot be enjoyable when women do it.

Of course, there likely are a number of other factors at work here as well.

What this article shows is the need for an in depth analysis of an important social problem. We need to know more, because as it is, any thinking woman who wants both a successful career and a good marriage would have to think twice—and the same would be true for any man who is thinking of marrying, or like me, is married to, a successful professional woman.
Posted by Allison - 5 months, 1 day, 14 hours, 37 minutes ago

Statistics in isolation may be interesting, but are not necessarily significant. How do these numbers stack up against the divorce rate among lawyers as compared to the general population?

What some would see as a “chp on the shoulder” might in other eyes simply be a refusal to suffer in silence. It may be that female lawyers are less willing to stay with an unsuitable mate and have the wherewithal to do something about it.

Our culture is only one generation in to the notion of successful women professionals as a paradigm rather than a curiosity. Living it is the best way to solidify the change and the gains. It is still the case that women have to display more focus and drive than their male counterparts to garner the same degree of recognition for their accomplishments, but over my career I’ve seen the needle begin to budge.

And anyway, love and support are the heart of the marital deal whichever sex you happen to be.
Posted by Anon - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 41 minutes ago

Seven percent verses ten percent divorce rate. Yes, I agree that this is a horrible problem and something should be done about it. Love is nice, isn’t it? What an incredible service this researcher has performed.
Posted by Marilyn - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 36 minutes ago

Maybe the “nightly rant” is about coming home to another 4 hours of childcare, dinner, cleaning, paying bills, doing laundry and stepping over the dog that needs walking. Not to mention taking time off when kids are sick because the male parent either won’t or can’t ask for the time from his employment.

I see younger male lawyers taking on more home responsibilities and parenting. Perhaps that’ll help the stats in another 10 years!
Posted by Brian - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 34 minutes ago

Amen to Allison’s last comment “love and support are the heart of the marital deal whichever sex you happen to be.” All the studies and resulting statistics will not tell anyone why their relationship is failing or has failed. Only an honest assesment of your personal feelings will do that. Marriage is about putting the other person before yourself (and that applies whether you are husband or wife). Is it possible that today’s professionals are getting married for the wrong reasons? Are we marrying to say “I am accomplished” and having children to say “I have done it?” I can only speak from my own experience and say being a successful professional and a decent husband and father are very difficult. Without a wife who was willing to put her own career in the wings and help me, I would not be able to do it. Likewise, I am sure a woman will have a hard time doing the same without a husband who is willing to take a professional “backseat.” Some people choose to believe you can have it all, and advertisers have been playing up that myth for many years, but the reality is everyone must choose. Choosing to be a committed spouse or parent at the expense of one’s career is not all that tough. The rewards of that role are far more satisfying. The real difficulty lies in trusting your spouse. Choosing to sacrifice your career goals will be a bitter reminder of violated trust if your spouse abandons you later in life. The only advice I can offer anyone is:
a. don’t get married until you are willing to give up whatever you want to help your spouse get whatever they want; and
b. focus on making your spouse feel like the sun rises and sets on them, because it is hard not to love someone who loves you; and
c. never give up, because wise people know the one you have is the best one for you. I have never seen a person’s professional life improve with a divorce and their personal life is a train wreck. The fact that it is forgotten years later doesn’t minimize the catastrophie of the impact.
Then, you can forget about the statistics and make your own marriage work.
Posted by Elizabeth - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 32 minutes ago

This is more simple than feminism or “chip on shoulder” mentality. Two hard-driving, career-obsessed, Type A people make a poor marriage. Women are culturally trained to choose men perceived as successful. If the woman is a lawyer, she is choosing someone too much like herself. Male lawyers are probably better at recognizing that they should choose a spouse who balances their drive (for lack of a better term). Female lawyers who also marry spouses with those balancing characteristics seem to have lasting relationships.

The real message is that anyone with ambition in overdrive should marry someone with the sense to stop and smell the roses.
Posted by Philly lawyer - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 24 minutes ago

If financial security increases the likelihood of divorcing an unsuitable mate (and I believe it does), how do we reconcile the different divorce rate of male and female lawyers that is the subject of the article (assuming that male lawyers are as likely to be financially independent as female lawyers—an assumption I am willing to make)?

The two most obvious possibilities are: (1) when financial dependence is removed from the picture, men are more inclined to stay with an unsuitable mate than are women; or (2) women, on average, are substantially more likely to BE more suitable mates than are men.

Whether or why either of these is true, I could not say.

One explanation of option 1 above is the differing perception of men and women of the consequences of divorce. It remains an anomaly in our culture for women to pay alimony and large property settlements in divorce, even if their income and wealth is substantially greater than their ex-husband’s. It also remains an anomaly for men to receive primary physical custody of children where it is contested and both parents are equally suitable. I suspect that these two scenarios will evolve, as they have begun to do already, but they are nowhere near parity today and remain huge real-life considerations.

Then there are the non-obvious reasons that I omitted for the obvious reason that I couldn’t think of them.
Posted by Houston Lawyer - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 21 minutes ago

Women don’t have a “chip on the shoulder” mentality about sexual discrimination - it actually exists in spades in the legal profession (particularly when there are people with attitudes like G. William Davenport’s in this profession). Women work their asses off, as do men, and women have the skills it takes to succeed. Sometimes, they just don’t get considered for the plumb projects and the best clients because they don’t happen to play golf with the Managing Partner and his CEO buddy. I’m very secure, successful and intelligent, and I’ve gotten very far despite the challenges, but I’ve seen the discrimination first hand many times. I’ve learned to work around it and to live with it, and I certainly don’t bring it home and rant to my husband about it.

I waited until I was almost 40 to marry because I wouldn’t settle for a man who wasn’t happy to be married to an intelligent, financially independent woman, regardless of how much money he made. My husband stays home and is the primary caregiver for our son. We have a fantastic life, with an upscale lifestyle that I provide for my family, and we are very happy. My husband is 100% supportive of me and my career. I don’t regret not marrying some pompous lawyer or other pompous, arrogant, male professional one bit. I’m happy to be a woman lawyer who did find a loving, supportive husband and who won’t be in that 10% statistic.
Posted by JVJ - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 9 minutes ago

I think the difference in statistics is likely related to the fact that it is more common for a man to have a wife who stays at home (or works less) than it is for a woman to have a husband that stays at home. Like other people have said, two people with busy careers can put a lot of strain on a marriage.
Posted by Chris - 5 months, 1 day, 13 hours ago

How can we neglect the sheer logical questions yet asked?

What is the pareto efficiency of divorce?

How many divorces should take place?

It bothers me that such a learned group of individuals as post here do not question the value of the statistics reported.

So what if 10% of women lawyers get divorces? What if the “right” number were 20% and too many avoid the problem and live in loveless marriages; with all the damage to self, children and community that entails? Conversely, what if the right number were 0% and the over-arching reason it runs at 10% is a bad reason?

The theory no divorce is a good divorce is just dated and damaging.

Furthermore, if the focus is on the disparity, why jump to the conclusion it is the women with a higher divorce rate who are deviating from the proper number?

Finally, tinkering in people’s marriages and trying to “solve” them is about as hazardous an area for speculation as a law school exam.

The rules for divorce are roughly equal; either party has just as much access to the service. This being the case, where a market has no real impediment, the system tends to sort out the proper number of transactions to take place. This is Economics 101, not pop-psychology 710.
Posted by MAA - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 48 minutes ago

Perhaps we need to rethink the role of marriage - a woman who can support herself doesn’t need the economic security that marriage represented in earlier times. If marriage is to be a joining with the intent to create a family, well, then, previous posters have already commented about the need to forgo self- interest for the family good. I’m a corporate attorney married 25 years, one child, to a criminal defense attorney, and both of us, at one time or another, have given up time and career opportunities for the other. Has it hindered individual career success and financial gain? Probably, yes. Is the life of each of us better because we are married to each other—definately, yes.
Posted by Joe Herrick of Gutterman Research - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 48 minutes ago

Amen, Chris
Posted by AttyElizabeth - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 44 minutes ago

The study looked at “young” professionals, I’m sure the divorce rate is much higher when you add another 10 years onto whatever classified as “young”.

Some men think that they can be loving and supportive when both they and their spouse have demanding professional aspirations. Things probably start out with good intentions on both sides. When the rubber hits the road, those same men become insecure and realize what they really want is a housewife ready with their slippers and dinner when they get home. Not all wives are willing to do that four hours of cleaning, childcare, etc. when they get home in the evening. God forbid they actually have a hobby outside of the house that does not involve the spouse. Things stack up, one or both parties say “This is not what I signed up for,” and life goes on.

As an undergraduate, I took a class called “Family Psychology.” There were many studies, even back then, that heralded the benefits of marriage for men versus the detrimental effects of marriage on women. Unmarried or widowed women live longer and have less health problems, whereas the opposite is true for men. Happiness in marriage did not make a lick of a difference in outcomes.

Many male attorneys do have stay-at-home type wives who are extremely supportive of their careers (and look the other way for the extracurriculars). Male attorneys married to female professionals see this and want their wives to fit into that role, which causes additional strive. I’m living that right now and it sucks.
Posted by lawyergirl - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 35 minutes ago

Isn’t the U.S. divorce rate much higher - around 50%? Doesn’t that mean lawyers—of both sexes—are actually staying married at a much higher rater than the general population?
Posted by Law Student in Madison - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 28 minutes ago

To Post #4, Marilyn:

It sounds like you need a better husband! But, I agree that younger generations of male spouses are taking on more responsibilities at home, i.e. washing dishes, laundry, etc. Maybe you should look for one of these younger men.
Posted by EllyRy - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 24 minutes ago

This is all interesting, but the article here is sort of misleading. The original article linked to above notes that female lawyers have a higher divorce rate than male lawyers, but that women without law degrees have a higher divorce rate than both, with the exception of MBAs. That means women with BAs only are getting divorced more than female lawyers.

Also, the researcher’s theory is that female lawyers don’t have time to provide the “TLC” their husbands need, not the reverse as the summary states. I’m kind of glad I read the link or I would be a lot more worried like some of the posters above.
Posted by Female lawyer - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 24 minutes ago

I think it would be interesting to see a more detailed report by age and length of marriage. Marriage takes a lot of sacrifice and compromise and that burden is must more likely to be shouldered by the woman.

It seems to me that each generation has become more selfish and self-absorbed than the one before.

Having some experience in this area - being a female lawyer, married twice and mother to a four year old. I think it is true that men in their 20’s and 30’s have a different attitude toward the responsibilities of a husband and father. Lawyers seem to be a little behind in that progressive curve.

Women of my generation chose men for their strength and ambition. Those men might have thought that they were ready to sacrifice for their wives, but when the rubber met the road, they balked. Sacrificing for one’s wife’s career is not anything that boomer men were taught. My second marriage, to a man ten years younger than I, an IT professional, is a partnership. In his mind our respective genders do not dictate our responsibilities at home, with our son, or at the workplace. He is willing to pull up stakes and move if my career takes a road that leads in that direction.

That chip on the shoulder thing really needs to get filed away, because although there are those who shun responsibility for their own lack of success, or blame others for their failures, institutional sexism and racism still exist.
Posted by Desert One - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 21 minutes ago

Horrible problem, not enough submissive husbands for all the super d duper female lawyers out there. I for one am contacting my congressman to get legislation going right now!
Posted by Renee - 5 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 10 minutes ago

I have to agree with the article. I am married to a very loving and kind school teacher and I relish the days he has off and the fact that he is home before 5:00. While we do not have any children but we do have 3 dogs and his schedule is more flexible to take them to their vet appts, walk them in the morning and evenings.
Posted by AttyElizabeth - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 53 minutes ago

The “chip on the shoulder” argument is rubbish. It is something that insecure sexist men continue to use to try to use as a tool of repression. Anyone who ever speaks up against mistreatment and injustice is declared to have a chip on their shoulder.
Posted by Philly lawyer - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 48 minutes ago

I think that a huge wild card in all of this is that cultural and gender expectations are in a state of flux right now. Traditional gender roles of career-focused male breadwinner and female child raiser and home manager were stifling and restrictive to both genders, but were widely understood and followed.

Today, there is increasing acceptance that the traditional female role was stifling and restrictive, and there is increasing acceptance that women should be equally encouraged to be the career-focused breadwinner—accompanied, of course, by huge amounts of cultural backlash and guilt tripping.

Our cultural is even further behind in accepting that the traditional male gender role is stifling and restrictive, and that men should be equally encouraged to be the child raiser and home manager. I expect similar levels of backlash and guilt tripping if men making this choice become more visible in our society.
Posted by Al DeDonis - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 32 minutes ago

They divorce more because its financially easier, plus they think themselves smarter, because they have a law degree under their wider belt.
Posted by Harold L. - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 29 minutes ago

I don’t think the “chip on the shoulder” argument is “rubbish.” It might be misnamed, but it’s not necessarily rubbish.

Women who “speak up against injustice” disrupt the normal order of most law firms, and the normal way in which men tend to interact with themselves and with their fellow workers.

Note that I’m not saying that women are wrong to be disruptive, just that by speaking up, they are interfering with the way men would normally want to do things.

Men will normally say “why do you really care; let me do the things the way I’d like to do them.” Women say “no, the way you do them is wrong, do them differently to benefit me.”

Is it any wonder that some men might be turned off, and marriages involving women like this don’t work out?
Posted by lesbolaw - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 29 minutes ago

So Debra Cassens Weiss doesn’t like to utilize lesbians or proper use of commas in her research? Clearly very credible source for you there…
Posted by Anon - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 12 minutes ago

Harold, apparently you don’t like working with women and would rather be smacking asses or whatever passes for normal at your firm. What a better alternative to performing your job duties in a respectful manner.

Normal is relative. It is a good thing that you are part of the older guard and your life expectancy is limited. The sooner that era dies off, the better. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and women staying in abusive or unsatisfying relationships were all “normal” accepted parts of culture not very long ago.
Posted by TJ McDrinky - 5 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 10 minutes ago

Only a law prof could write an article like this: Look for a husband who is loving and supportive.

No.

freakin.

way.

REALLY?
Posted by JD McTricky - 5 months, 1 day, 10 hours, 56 minutes ago

87% of all statistics are made up on the spot. But I think the essential truth remains: If female lawyers want somebody to love; if they need somebody to love; they better find somebody to love.
Posted by M - 5 months, 1 day, 10 hours, 55 minutes ago

One thing that seems to play a role in divorce rates is children. It’s very difficult to raise a child properly & if you’re a woman, you’re inevitably going to get stuck w/most of those tasks and you’re career is going to suffer somehow.

That’s why my husband & I agreed long before getting married that we would not have kids (and we’re in our 20s). We also took steps to ensure this.

I personally sought out a non-lawyer for a mate & found my husband when I wasn’t really seeking a husband. He has stuck by me & helps me keep perspective on the big picture--I think a lawyer would merely encourage fixation on things that really don’t matter in the big picture.

Had I met this man after going to law school & becoming established, I’d have insisted on a pre-nup but I figure if a non-lawyer sticks by you during law school, studying for the bar & job hunting that person will stick by you though long hours at a job as well. I suppose my desired qualities were different since I never cared about how much money one made so long as he didn’t try leeching off me.

One of those big picture things I mention is that you could lose this person tomorrow. My younger sister lost the love of her life to a heart condition in an unexpected & tragic manner (both were 21 & their son was 3 weeks old). This was right before I’d gotten accepted to law school. Something like that happening to your family (especially when there’s no close extended family) tends to change one’s perspective on the importance of brown-nosing for a career.

Since I’d personally feel like my sister did if my spouse died, I told him to let me know if he felt I was neglecting him since there’s lots of jobs but he’s my only soulmate.

I agree that not all divorce is bad. My own parents have stayed married & I feel my sister and I would have been better off not having to put up w/my father’s alcohol problems day in & day out. My mother even said she was sticking by him b/c she “couldn’t afford to leave”. People are much better off not staying in unhappy marriages.

I despise the view that marriage is disposable or shouldn’t take place without some thought beforehand, as many of these advocates will imply. These tend to be the same people who decry children being raised by single mothers but have no trouble with the mothers taking up with scumbags who abuse the kids or at minimum, contribute nothing to the well-being of the children concerned.
Posted by Happily Married - 5 months, 1 day, 10 hours, 38 minutes ago

Agree with lawyergirl (post #14). WIth half of all marriages ending in divorce among the general population, why write a study focusing on the difference between 7 and 10 percent?
Posted by sensible1 - 5 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago

To: Anon--

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

And I’m not sure, as No. 26 contends, that the author’s advice is all that obvious. An ambitious young female lawyer may think she is best suited with another lawyer or professional for a husband, when she should really open her eyes & heart to a “normal guy” who is willing to support her career and be a loving partner.

I am one of those lucky female lawyers,—I’ve had my wonderfully supportive nonlawyer average guy husband for a fantastic 20 years.
Posted by That's Hot. - 5 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago

Professor’s advice for the rest of the population: marry for money.
Posted by sensible1 - 5 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 48 minutes ago

And, regarding the comment by Nos. 14 & 29, the 50% figure is misleading. If you take out second and third marriages from the divorce statistics (second marriages are more likely to end in divorce), the divorce rate for first marriages is actually around 30-33%. Still appalling, but not half of all marriages.

I think if the study considered older lawyers as well, the statistics would be above the national average of 33%.
Posted by lawyer family woman - 5 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 32 minutes ago

There seems to be an implication in some of these comments that attorney husbands are uber-driven unloving abnormal types. I am an attorney (woman) married to a very loving, very patient male attorney who has made many sacrifices for my career. He is a normal guy and a really nice good guy. Lawyers can get married and make it work!
Posted by Sarah Brune - 5 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 44 minutes ago

William Davenport - you are cracking me up! All I can say is: please don’t let your wife read your response.
Posted by San Diego Divorcee - 5 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 27 minutes ago

Apologizing in advance, for this very long post ...

I agree, as some have said, that divorce is not necessarily a bad thing if the couple recognizes that each partner will be happier separate than apart, so these statistics should not necessarily be alarming. But they are just one more indicator of a big difference for male and female lawyers.

The practice of law, at least in private firms, currently is built around a model that requires single-minded devotion to the firm, the maximum number of billable hours, and, depending on the attorney, additional hours devoted to business development and networking. While these requirements appear on their face to be gender-neutral, in practice, they are not. Most individuals cannot meet these standards and/or will not be perceived to meet these standards, unless they have someone else to help them handle other aspects of their lives—childcare, housework, attending to elderly parents, etc. Fortunately for male lawyers, many of them have either stay-at-home wives or wives with less-demanding careers that allow the wives to take care of the majority of household matters. (Indeed, at my former firm of 100-some lawyers, almost every single one of the male lawyers had a stay-at-home wife. And the firm was no macho conservative outfit; it was generally a very progressive, friendly firm.) Female lawyers, by contrast, typically do not have stay-at-home husbands and often have husbands with equally demanding careers. If they are lucky, the female lawyers are married to men who share equally in childcare and household responsibilities. Even then, the married female lawyers still cannot give the same amount of time and “devotion” to the firm that male lawyers with no or very few household responsibilities can. And, frankly, as women, we often don’t want to give our entire lives to our firms. We would like to be able to work very hard—because it’s true that we lawyers are driven and ambitious—but also have some time left over for our families. (Yes, I know many men feel this way, too, especially younger men, but it traditionally has been far more socially acceptable for a man to see his wife and children for only one or two hours a day, so men have a lower bar for being able to feel good about themselves as good husbands and fathers.)

Unfortunately for female lawyers, women—even those with loving, supportive husbands—shoulder a lot more of the household responsibilities. At comment #13, AttyElizabeth describes the “second shift” that women come home to after work, and it’s very, very real. Some of the responsibilities are very rewarding—I love nothing more than helping my daughters with their homework, reading with them, and snuggling with them at bedtime. But some of the responsibilities are drudgery or, at best, tedious. And all combined add up to hours of things “to do” before bed. AttyElizabeth also hits it on the head when she talks about the men who start out loving and supportive equal partners but “realize what they really want is a housewife ready with their slippers and dinner when they get home.” I was married to one of those men. He was and is a great guy and a wonderful dad, and he did much more than the average guy around the house. But even he eventually decided that, in his words, it was just too hard being equal partners as busy professionals. (Please don’t anyone accuse me of being bitter. I was hurt and angry at first, but we’re good friends again now and the ink isn’t even dry on our settlement.)

What’s interesting, and sort of sad, about all of this is that we talk about “having it all” only in reference to women. Society simply accepts that men can have it all, but finds it unusual and even presumptuous if women want to have it all. This is even reflected in the Wall Street Journal article about the divorce study, in which economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett is quoted: “Suggesting that highly successful women are attracted to similarly successful men, [Hewlett] put forward the idea that such women ‘can’t summon up the TLC and support that high-earning men need.’” What about the TLC and support that high-earning women need?

Sigh ...
Posted by M loves K - 5 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 3 minutes ago

Why would any man want to be successful if that means you can’t be supportive or caring. :)
Posted by T. Obvious - 5 months, 1 day, 5 hours, 10 minutes ago

36. Ummm, because he’s a lawyer?
Posted by Panda Monium - 5 months, 1 day, 4 hours, 37 minutes ago

PLEASE UN-CORRECT THE STORY. THE ACTUAL QUOTE IS: Well-educated, highly compensated women should be targeting particularly loving and supportive men.” NOT that successful women are not giving enough TLC to their mates.

Also, note to readers, the actual story says that “women with law or medical degrees divorce LESS OFTEN than those with only bachelor’s degrees”, so all of the comments here are worthless (except comment 16 by EllyRy who pointed out the fact that Debra Cassens Weiss who wrote this story for the ABA journal can’t read.)

Women who work have it tougher than women who don’t work, end of story: it is harder to be a professional AND a mother than to be just a mother, and yes, too many men have a stick up their rears about allowing women to take the financial lead and a break from the kitchen.

Professional women are giving plenty, and they are not getting enough in return. And if people like Harold L don’t like it, they can move to Saudi Arabia where they stone women who work, so the professional offices could be all sorts of men-manly, for men only, just for men.

I want to personally thank every woman who goes to college and law school to meet a man rather than to get an education - thank her for building a bridge to the 17th century. Quit crowding our law schools, I say, why don’t you “leave in droves” before you even enter.

Look people, the fact is - professional women are here to stay and the profession is getting used to it, the market is adjusting, comprende? Based on this study, being a professional woman is actually good for the divorce rate, but how or why this is so changes every day and with every marriage.

And as for advice about looking for a more loving partner, wow, now, slow down there, genius, this is just too much too fast.
Posted by Does That Mean - 5 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 49 minutes ago

That I have to marry a weenie so he’ll be supportive? Screw that - I’d rather stay single.
Posted by Blue Lotus - 5 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 7 minutes ago

If I had to choose, I would rather have someone a little bit less successful, but more giving and caring. In the process, I will also decide to be a little bit less successful and more giving and caring.

This applies not only to my mate, but to my friends and family.
Posted by immature man - 5 months, 1 day, 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

POST #1, THIS COMMENT IS VERY IMMATURE. “being the perpetual audience for an insecure professional’s nightly rant! That behavior is awful when men engage in it, and it cannot be enjoyable when women do it.”
Posted by Anonymous - 5 months, 2 hours, 55 minutes ago

I am a female attorney, and I unfortunately believe that I cannot have it all. At work, I feel different from my all-male partners, as I have the only spouse who works full-time, and am the only mother in the group who does not stay home full time with her children. At home I feel different than other women who have less demanding careers. Finally, my husband has been both loving and supportive but also resentful of the time my career takes. He has also stepped back enough from his career that financially I am unable to slow down and try to rearrange and rebalance the issues by focusing more on my family. To say these issues stress a marriage is an understatement. If I had it all to do over again, I would have the less demanding career and marry a more ambitious man.
Posted by Judge (Ret.) Mary Libby Payne - 4 months, 4 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 45 minutes ago

Thanks for reminding me how blessed I have been to be married to a loving, supportive, wonderful man for 52+ years. We married just a few months after my law graduation in 1955. Attraction, love, commitment, unselfishness and professionalism form the process for a satisfying marriage & life! Of course a little less discrimination and a little more money might have been enhancements, but were not conditions precedent. Marriage and parenting are hard work but worth all the mutual sacrifices.
Posted by attymom - 4 months, 4 weeks, 22 hours, 32 minutes ago

While the ABA summary of this article is not the best, it does highlight the point that female lawyers do face challenges not generally recognized by the whole of society. When I first started working, as a single woman, I took note of the fact that many of the men going out after work socializing were the same ones who had stay at home wives which enabled them to go out, etc wtihout a care. I also knew that if I wanted to get anywhere in my career, I, too, needed to go out and socialize; a.k.a. drink, go to the same bars, games, etc. As life moved on, I married a lawyer. A few years later, after becominng a mother, I knew that there would be sacrifices to my career. This was a decision made- choosing family over career, in my opinion, was what it meant to bring little lives into the world. This is my priority. My husband, while supportive in many ways, was not the one to take off from work, I was. Did it piss me off? of course. But, then when he wanted to make a career decision, the timing was off when we found out we were expecting a third child. Rather than venture into the unknown, he made a career choice enabling us both to put family first. We both work fulll time, and we both contribute to the household tasks- albeit he does much less! He is not home until late at night, while I again, choose to work a modfiied schedule allowing me to work til 4 or 5. In a way, I know I am ‘stuck’ in this career path for the forseeable future. Financially, it is not the best. There are times I want to kill him, while he goes out to his extracurricular activities and I am the one worried about getting a sitter so I can attend a school board meeting! Any relationship faces challenges, but it is how we handle them that maeks the difference. It is also about sharing the same values- especially if there are children involved in the marriage. Too many people lose sight of what is truly important- it is not about how far you go in your career or how much money you make- because that can all be gone in a second. Perhaps too many people are driven by the almighty dollar to focus on relationships and family. And, since there are so many lawyers out there with, in my opinion, inflated salaries, it becomes cause and effect. Either way- I blame those women in the 60’s who ruined it for us! What were they thinking??? wanting to work???? Damn them for giving me the ability and the ambition.
Posted by disappointed - 4 months, 4 weeks, 21 hours, 44 minutes ago

Dear Attymom,

that comment about building bridges to the 17th century - that’s directed to you. “damn women who have paved the way for other women...” that’s a good one. Lady, you are an embarrassment to our profession. Also, I have mind-boggling news for you: no one is forcing you to work.

I cannot understand why so many women these day, rather than being angry about the fact that the professional world does not offer more flexible options, daycare options, and a greater tolerance and acceptance of family leave and family life, would rather hate on the fact that women have finally broken out of the bondage of mandatory stay-at-home motherhood. By what kind of twisted logic is it not a good thing to have more, rather than fewer options for how to live your life?? I am deeply disappointed and ashamed of every “attymom” out there that chooses to work, and then b****es about having a choice in the matter. You want to stay at home? Stay at home. No one is forcing you to work. But to smear the courage and hard work of those who have paved the way for women professionals - is barbarian, and makes you, yes you, “attymom” a horrible role model for your three kids.
Posted by Young lawyer mother - 4 months, 4 weeks, 20 hours, 54 minutes ago

There are some unbelievably sexist comments written here by men. I don’t believe you men would ever utter these words outloud, or god forbid write them, were it not for the anonymity of the blog. Shame on you. I don’t know the women lawyers that Davenport or Harold work with but I have never worked with or met a woman attorney with a perpetual “chip” on her shoulder or the sense of entitlement to say or even think “do that differently to benefit me”. Basically what has been uttered here is that all women lawyers that work must be unbearable wives. Bull.
Posted by SO Stupid! - 4 months, 4 weeks, 16 hours, 25 minutes ago

I am so glad this article was written! [not!] And I am so glad to hear the conclusion that we women should find a particularly loving and supportive husband. How informative and valuable! Maybe he is on never never land with Peter pad along with the jackass complete moron that provided this crap!
Posted by Kristin - 4 months, 4 weeks, 16 hours, 10 minutes ago

If we could find particularly loving and supportive husbands, we wouldn’t be divorced.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Women in the Law