I informally interviewed a local lawyer who specializing in litigation. The lawyer I interviewed was a female; which I originally thought would give me a lot of insight into gender expectations and stereotypes. Ironically, her answers and perspectives were very different than the readings.
The first question I asked her was about any stereotypes when it comes to female lawyers. She believed that there was no negative stereotypes for women lawyers. She mentioned that some clients think female lawyers are better than men. She felt it was not a bad assumption but I think it could be perceived as a negative stereotype. If clients expect females lawyers to be better than male lawyers then female lawyers must live up to higher expectations.
I asked her the basic question of do you think law is a male dominated field and she said no. She pointed out that more women are graduating from law school than men, which is something that I Found when conducting the second interview paper.
I asked her if there was gender equality in law, relating to pay and opportunities. She made a bold statement that there is gender equality in everything. A specific quote I would like to include for this blog that was very surprising to me under the context of this class was:
“If women make less money than men in certain industries, its because they make certain choices about their career such as taking time off for children, etc.”
It seems that in this class we learned all about gender equality towards female in the work place. I guess I assumed that a female lawyer would believe there was gender equality. I thought she would agree with the readings and give me a firsthand experience that had happened to her. But on the other hand she believed wage inequality came from women taking time off for kids, or in other words societal norms that women must fulfill. I believe I would not have been as surprised if this was coming from a male. Overall, her answers negated what we learned in class and her answers surprised me.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Blog 23
The 2008 presidential election took over the media for many reasons. For me personally, I followed the election very closely because it was my first chance to be able to vote. But the candidates were also monumental for race and gender norms. The Republican Party vice presidential nominee was a female, Sara Palin. I personally believe her nomination had to do with the fact Hilary Clinton was a preliminary Democratic Presidential Nominee. Also, the Democratic presidential nomination was half-Black. So not only were women and a minority involved in the election, the fashion sense of the women was a highlight in the media.
I realized how critical the media was on women through this campaign; usually the media does not comment much on what the male candidates wear. The only other political female I can think of whose fashion sense has been a focus of the media was Jackie Kennedy Onassis, although in the NPR listening they said Dolly Madison was the first style icon. Marjorie Margolies, a former politician, says “Women are viewed in a very different way, with regard to their dress, than men are.” This shows how much more women are scrutinized than men. It seems like a another social standard women must live up to.
The NPR story explains that the first ladies usual dress very conservatively, but Michelle Obama seems to be a little more bold. Her style is referred to as “refreshing” and “progressive” while some do not approve. They pointed out that she wears dresses more than normal pant suit. Fashion experts recommend to wear color, a nice neckline, and that pearls are always classy.
"Most people remember what you wear and your tone over what you say," says Margolies which I can relate to in my life, although I am not a politician. I always dress up for presentations in classes and I will make my group members do so as well. I think my mentality, and possibly what political groups think as well, is that if the audience is not really listening or understanding the message then at least the presentation is pleasant.
I realized how critical the media was on women through this campaign; usually the media does not comment much on what the male candidates wear. The only other political female I can think of whose fashion sense has been a focus of the media was Jackie Kennedy Onassis, although in the NPR listening they said Dolly Madison was the first style icon. Marjorie Margolies, a former politician, says “Women are viewed in a very different way, with regard to their dress, than men are.” This shows how much more women are scrutinized than men. It seems like a another social standard women must live up to.
The NPR story explains that the first ladies usual dress very conservatively, but Michelle Obama seems to be a little more bold. Her style is referred to as “refreshing” and “progressive” while some do not approve. They pointed out that she wears dresses more than normal pant suit. Fashion experts recommend to wear color, a nice neckline, and that pearls are always classy.
"Most people remember what you wear and your tone over what you say," says Margolies which I can relate to in my life, although I am not a politician. I always dress up for presentations in classes and I will make my group members do so as well. I think my mentality, and possibly what political groups think as well, is that if the audience is not really listening or understanding the message then at least the presentation is pleasant.
Blog 22
There was much speculation that Sonia Sotomayor would be a nominee for the Supreme Court since Barack Obama took presidency. Another major candidate in initial nomination was Ken Salazar. Since her official nomination in April 2009, Sotomayor was supported by the Democratic Party. On the other hand the Republican Party were highly critical of her. A popular quotation that Sotomayor was highly criticized for “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a white male who hasn’t lived that life” from previous speeches. For this quotation she was called a racist and her qualification for the Supreme was a popular media topic. Sotomayor retorted and said that she meant that someone with a socio-economic background other than a white, middle class male would be more beneficial. But she her integrity was being questioned, Senators questioned whether she had let past life experiences influence her decisions.
On the other hand, Sam Alito made a statement “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who have been discriminated against, because of their ethnic background, or because of religion, or because of gender.” But he was not criticized for making a false statement. Alito is blatantly making a claim that he considers his past life experiences- ironically the same thing Sotomayor was being questioned for. The Color lines video makes a good point, what kind of racism could have Alito or anyone in his family experienced being white, upper class?
It is apparent that Sotomayor’s speech is more scrutinized than Alito; these could be due to race and gender. The American Bar Association was unanimous in supporting her nomination to the Supreme Court. In the end, All Democratic votes when for Sotomayor while only one Republican supported her. She is also the first Hispanic to be on the Supreme Court. She followed suit of Sandra Day O’Connor, first woman on the Supreme court, and was the third woman to do so. It is apparent any decisions she makes will be scrutinized that anyone else on the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Sam Alito made a statement “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who have been discriminated against, because of their ethnic background, or because of religion, or because of gender.” But he was not criticized for making a false statement. Alito is blatantly making a claim that he considers his past life experiences- ironically the same thing Sotomayor was being questioned for. The Color lines video makes a good point, what kind of racism could have Alito or anyone in his family experienced being white, upper class?
It is apparent that Sotomayor’s speech is more scrutinized than Alito; these could be due to race and gender. The American Bar Association was unanimous in supporting her nomination to the Supreme Court. In the end, All Democratic votes when for Sotomayor while only one Republican supported her. She is also the first Hispanic to be on the Supreme Court. She followed suit of Sandra Day O’Connor, first woman on the Supreme court, and was the third woman to do so. It is apparent any decisions she makes will be scrutinized that anyone else on the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)