Prepare for your head to explode (and if you value your sanity, don’t read the comments):
Bryan Cave sponsored a “shoe event” in Manhattan recently for its female lawyers and female clients, described in great detail in a WSJ column yesterday. Earlier this month, Skadden Arps hosted its ninth annual Skadden Women’s retreat at the Ritz Carlton in Naples, Fla., attended by some 60 women partners and 135 women clients. The same weekend, Akin Gump held a similar event in Washington, D.C., for all of its female attorneys.
These types of women-only networking events are proliferating. “There are spa retreats, conferences at resorts, evenings at art galleries and cooking demonstrations, all organized by women who want to network and socialize with clients in their own way — at least some of the time,” writes the WSJ.
These confabs raise some complicated issues. What about the male clients of female lawyers? And the female lawyers of male clients? Some women think these events perpetuates stereotypes. And some men wonder, “With all the equality women have achieved, why do they continue to have these separate events?”
Yes, it’s women who are purposely segregating themselves in law firms. They’re totally equal, right? So why the separate events?
Maybe because women only make up something like 16% of partners, despite having graduated from law school in equal numbers as men for a pretty long time now. There are many reasons for this, including inflexible workplace policies and the “second shift” phenomenon, but networking is a major problem for women in law firms. Many of the networking events are male-oriented, and male associates are often able to bond more easily with male partners over a game of golf or a Knicks game or at one of the Old Boys’ bars. These kinds of events are not explicitly segregated, but they do effectively exclude women. But because men are organizing them, these networking events are “normal” and standard fare at firms.
But when events are targeted at a more stereotypically female audience — going to bars with fancy cocktails, spa retreats, cooking classes — they raise eyebrows and offend the male attorneys who are being “left out.” Funny how that works.
Now, we can certainly take issue with the stereotyping that goes on in the female-friendly events. There are undoubtedly plenty of women who would take courtside Knicks tickets over a spa retreat. But I’m not sure I see the issue of expanding networking events to include activities which, stereotypical as they may be, will often hold greater appeal to women. The examples given on the WSJ law blog — spa retreats, conferences at resorts, evenings at art galleries and cooking demonstrations — certainly don’t require vagina ownership. They may not appeal to all male lawyers, but I wouldn’t have an issue with using them as general networking options. Let men go to some activities that they may not love or know how to do if they want to network with partners and clients. Women in law firms have been doing it for a couple of decades — the guys can take their turn.
That said, I think the women-only events also serve an important purpose. The male-oriented events are effectively exclusive, and have long played a role in making it harder for women to achieve higher positions. It’s no big secret that, in mixed groups, men tend to dominate conversation and women tend to take a back seat. Forging relationships with female partners and clients, and having a chance to commiserate and discuss shared experiences, is valuable. But, while I don’t speak for all women, I’d certainly rather do it over a steak dinner or at a rock-climbing class than at a “shoe event.”
Thanks to Meredith and Katie for the link.