This article makes me want to stab something. Registration is required, so I’ll excerpt most of it here. It’s one attorney’s take on what “woman lawyers” (am I the only one that hates when the word “woman” is used instead of “female” in these situations?) can learn from Hillary, and the moral of the story seems to be that Clinton should teach us to take our sexist knocks. The “lessons” Clinton has taught us:
Stereotypes are tough to shake, and they can help and hurt women lawyers. The rap on Clinton, almost from the beginning, was that she was too tough and played hardball — a not altogether undesirable attribute in a president. But then she had her misty moment in New Hampshire, and all of a sudden she’s back in the hunt.
In that case, being warm helped Clinton, but had warmth and likeability been the gist of her campaign, she would have been sunk. Obama has been able to be likeable from the get-go because, as a man, he doesn’t have to prove his toughness.
Women lawyers should follow suit. They don’t have to be likeable or warm or nurturing to get the job done. In fact, for most of them, that would work against them — and their clients’ — interests. But, when the timing’s right, a bit of femininity doesn’t hurt. In fact, it can work greatly to women lawyers’ advantage.
I don’t begrudge women who use sexist stereotypes to get what they need — I personally laugh when I’m nervous, so I was never able to get our of any traffic tickets by shedding a few tears (in fact, I suspect my lack of feminine propriety — exhibited by laughing in the officer’s face — got me extra-screwed), but I can’t blame the ladies who get out of speeding fines by crying a little bit. I can’t blame female lawyers for working with what they have when they’re at a disadvantage to begin with, and when sexism usually works against them.
I can, however, suggest that it’s not a great solution to sexism. Individuals have to do what they have to do, but it’s not great as a collective feminist strategy. And branding “having feelings” as “femininity” doesn’t sit quite right with me.
Being thick-skinned is invaluable.If women lawyers think they have it bad putting up with sexism and, sometimes, outright discrimination, they don’t know the half of it. Clinton has been called every foul, vile and profane name ever invented. Thousands of hours of hate-filled talk radio have been dedicated to ruminating on every aspect of her character, marriage and physical appearance. The amount of criticism heaped upon her over the past 16 years would leave even the toughest women lawyers curled up in the fetal position.
Now, whether lawyers think the criticism leveled against her is founded or not, they have to admire her perseverance in the face of it. In the midst of all that, to be able to get up every morning and convince herself that not only does she deserve to be a U.S. senator but that she also has every right to be president is, frankly, awe-inspiring.
That’s something women attorneys should remember the next time they feel shortchanged by a colleague or don’t get deserved appreciation. At least Rush Limbaugh has no idea who most women lawyers are and saves his attacks for the high-profile targets.
You ladies think you have it tough? Ha! You could be Hillary Clinton — so shut it.
I agree with the author that perseverance is important. She’s right that thick skin is certainly helpful for women in the public sphere and in any profession. But again, this is not a good collective strategy. This is not something that female lawyers, as a group, should be embracing as a solution. When female lawyers feel shortchanged, the solution is not to think to yourself, “Well, at least Rush Limbaugh isn’t talking about me!” And I can guarantee that Hillary Clinton didn’t get ahead by brushing off nasty, sexist attacks and concluding that because someone somewhere is worse off, she has no justification for being angry or responding accordingly.
Appearance matters. I hate this one, but it’s true. By most accounts, Clinton excels in this area. She’s always pulled together. She’s attractive but not so much so that she risks being objectified. Clearly, a lot of thought goes into everything she wears. The good news for women is that although being attractive helps, it’s not really about having a pretty face. It’s about looking polished and professional: nice clothes, good hair and all those other things that go into looking well-groomed.
But remember when she showed just a teensy bit of cleavage? It nearly shook the earth off its axis. These are the risks of trying to pull off a look that is attractive but not sexy.
Back here in the real world, take heed: well-made, flattering suits = good; figure-hugging, cleavage-showing suits = not so good. Always be pulled together and look polished and be grateful for the lack of television cameras.
Yes, she did use the term “good hair.”
I’m a white girl with relatively manageable hair, but even I understand what that’s code for. “Good hair” means straightened, soft hair. It means no braids, no Afros, none of that “unprofessional” hair that grows naturally on some women. It means hair that conveys “whiteness.”
And “not looking sexy” means no tits and no ass — which is easy when you don’t have big boobs or a fat ass, but not so much when you have one of those bodies that, by its very existence, screams “sex” to some people. If I go into work wearing a fitted turtleneck, no one will care. If a woman who’s a D-cup does it, though, she’s showing off her body. “Dressing sexy” is also very much in the eye of the beholder, and for a lot of women, a suit that fits also means a suit that reveals the fact that they have breasts and hips — a no-no for people who cannot take the physical presence of women in the workplace. For women who are considered conventionally attractive — or in many cases, women who are simply young — it’s not the clothes that inspire accusations of being too sexy, it’s the woman’s simple existence.
All of these suggestions are, on their face, reasonable band-aid solutions that many individual women already use just to get through their days. And that’s good and fine — we’ve gotta do what we’ve gotta do, and I don’t fault individual women for taking the necessary steps to succeed.
But when stuff like this is published as a guide for female lawyers as a class, it does a real disservice to all of us. It completely ignores the broader context of sexism as an institutional and social norm, and instead turns it into an individual problem necessitating individual solutions. Women can react, one by one, to sexism until the cows come home, but it’s not going to make one lick of difference until we work on repairing the bigger picture and the broader issues. Articles like this suggest otherwise — that the negative effects of sexism in your life aren’t systematic, but rather reflective of some failure on your part to adequately follow the rules of response.
Even more disturbing: This piece was passed onto me by a young associate who tells me it’s being passed around in various firms as being “right on.”