Gender in law

I have always felt entitled to have a career.
The fact that I was a woman never correlated in my mind with being a constraint to achieving my goals. This is unsurprising as throughout school, university, the legal practice course (LPC) and into my training contract, women were always in the majority. As a result, I experienced fierce competition with others – both men and women.

Chambers Student’s 2014 ‘Gender in the Law’ survey corroborates my experience. Women made up two-thirds (62.4 per cent) of those enrolled on to the LLB in 2012 and, in the same year, two-thirds (63.4 per cent) of those who enrolled with the SRA
in preparation for undertaking the LPC were also women.

These figures would suggest that women actually have a better chance of securing a training contract, with a national average of 57.1 per cent of female graduates entering the profession as trainees in the same year. However, something happens to the female statistics between associate and partnership level: a drop of over one-third (33 per cent). Even worse, over 75 per cent of firms surveyed had less than 30 per cent of women in their partnership, and for 5 per cent of firms that figure was less than 7 per cent.

Soundbites and stereotypes

There are a number of generalisations that purport to explain this disparity: there are not enough positive female role models; only women promote women, and/or men keep women down; women only get ahead by behaving like men;
the difficulty of balancing a career with having
a family; an unsupportive work environment;
or, an inherently and historically sexist society.

Not only do most of these soundbites fail to go deep enough to address the roots of this complex and multifaceted issue, they also serve to further perpetuate bias and divide opinion. Furthermore, these blasé generalisations do nothing to recognise women’s autonomy to make their
own decisions about their lives and their careers without feeling the need to compromise or justify them. They do not empower women to feel entitled and to take control.

There is the expectation many women have that in their attempts to balance their career
and family; something has got to give. This is combined with an expectation that any plans or decisions to have a family will lead to their being treated differently to their male counterparts. Both of these expectations limit women’s perceptions of their own horizons before
the issues have even materialised.

Correspondingly, there is the unspoken expectation from employers that women will interrupt their career at some stage to have children. Often, there is a further expectation that when they do, they will decide that they want to work less. Many businesses have criticised the recent announcements regarding shared parental leave, which would allow parents to share leave for up to a year after their child is born. This reaction speaks volumes. It shows us that employers see maternity leave as an existing inconvenience and that making it available to more than 50 per cent of the population would be even more ‘highly disruptive’ for businesses. This expectation could be altered with an application of commercial common sense.

Commercial conversation

During my interviews for writing this piece, both men and women voiced their concerns that although there is less direct sexism in the workplace, there are still sexist thoughts, showing that the negative ramifications of bias prevail. While sexist conversations are rare, it seems that there are now no conversations at all.

Of course, it is right that employers cannot ask overtly sexist questions if the result is that they draw negative inferences, but surely there is nothing wrong with asking those questions if the negative repercussions are eradicated. The current lack of dialogue creates a gender ‘minefield’ for employers in hiring, assessing, progressing and generally managing their female employees. It also perpetuates an expectation among women that having ‘the conversation’ will mark their card, rather than being viewed as a practical, grown-up and commercial discussion.

The conversation is important for both parties. If businesses are anxious about the possibilities of shared parental leave, surely they would welcome a sensible discussion (at the earliest possible point) regarding how their employees’ career aspirations could be reconciled with family demands? While we cannot escape the physical reality that women bear children, surely it is better to embrace this and to work with it, rather than being apathetic.

Employees are a business’ most valuable
asset, and there is an increased recognition by employers of the importance of nurturing their employees’ emotional wellbeing to improve productivity. Employees have to be assured of their value to their employer as a commodity versus their own need for remuneration, so that they can feel entitled to negotiate commercially to reconcile those two elements. Such a discussion would give both parties the certainty they desire to be able to make commercial decisions and, most importantly, it would prevent employers from losing out on 50 per cent of the talent pool.

The question is, how do we create a landscape where employers and employees, male and female, can feel empowered to look beyond the stereotypes and initiate this much-needed dialogue? I remember asking at a Michelmores’ open day: “I know it is long way off, but how flexible is the firm about working hours when people have children?” It didn’t occur to me not to ask, until I revisited this memory in writing. This demonstrates to me that the expectation can be changed, the entitlement can be nurtured and the commercial dialogue can begin.

Mute males and office wives

It also occurred to me that for men who wish to spend more time with their families, the conversation is entirely ‘off the table’. Nowadays, women feel more entitled to expect that men to be more involved in what has previously been
a female domain. More than that, it is far more common for men to want to take an active role in parenting.

Although it is still more likely that the breadwinner of a household is male, increasingly this is not the case. Hopefully, government initiatives which acknowledge that it may be more financially practical for mum to go back to work while dad stays at home will help to promote a shift in expectations and attitudes. With a shift in society, as the traditional family model becomes increasingly fluid, it is right that policy and perception should adapt accordingly. If these pressures are rife for heterosexual people, then what do same-sex couples have to deal with? We must involve both genders in a continuous debate, explore our individual opinions and desires, and attempt to reconcile them to create a stronger, more cohesive workforce.

It is important to note that while there is a distinction to be made between women in the workplace and mothers in the workplace, both are important issues. We must recognise that, for women, choosing to have a family is only part of the gender problem in business, and there are much wider issues associated with gender, economics, and cultural influences that are equally as crucial to the debate.

For example, there is also the expectation that women should be homemakers. The author of Lean In, Sheryl Sandburg, and author of Give and Take, Professor Adam Grant, write captivatingly about how women are expected to undertake the ‘office housework’ and offer extra help, whereas their male counterparts are praised when they exhibit the same behaviour. Conversely, they also examine how characteristics valued in men (ie single-mindedness, determination and ruthlessness) are commonly seen as negative attributes when exhibited by women (ie domineering, pushy and selfish).

As with all of these expectations, it is just as much to do with the female perception as it is to do with the male. Women have to accept responsibility for:

(a) exhibiting behaviour they feel is expected of them; and,

(b) being biased towards behaviour they expect women should exhibit – both of which exacerbate the problem.

It had never occurred to me before writing this piece that women can often be sexist towards themselves and towards other women. It had not occurred to me that women were contributing to the problem and, most shamefully, that men are not 100 per cent to blame: they are in fact 50 per cent of the solution.

Dissembling gender

Changing stereotypical expectations also means that overt feminism can alienate men and divide women. There is an expectation that men are not interested in the problems women face in business and/or cannot understand them. There is a corresponding expectation from men that some women can be oversensitive when it comes to sexism, that they stereotype men themselves, and that they demand equality, but also expect special treatment.

Personally, my wish is not for women to be treated equally to men: put simply, we are not the same. Rather my wish is that our differences are recognised, valued equally and utilised to our greatest advantage. To be judged on my own character, strengths and achievements against society as a whole, rather than just against my gender.

Judging people’s merits based on gender does not lead to an exemplary workforce and ‘diversity at any price’ is something that should be actively avoided. The statistics clearly illustrate that it is not enough to simply get women through the door,
as this does not address the question of how we
treat women and how women behave in the work environment. Females have made up over 50 per cent of new entrants to the legal profession since 1993, yet, over 20 years later, the number of women in leadership roles does not reflect this change. The ‘trickle through effect’ will be lost if we don’t create the right working environment for women.

Active discrimination also generates its own problems, with women feeling that they have not secured a role based on their personal merits and further that they are the best woman for the job, not the best person. The key is to recognise characteristics as opposed to genders.

Let’s talk about it, sensibly

Gender in the law is too multifaceted an issue
to explain with soundbites and stereotypes. It is
not enough to simply recognise these problems.
We have to counter and dispel them through an ongoing, proactive discussion that can lead to informed change at every level. This article has transformed entirely from its inception, solely from my talking to other people – and that is the answer, talking. Everyone has a part to play in facilitating this change and, as a business is a microcosm of society, as society shifts, so will
the landscape of the workplace.

In debating these issues, it is imperative that we do not view a difference of opinion as a criticism of our own. In writing this piece, it became apparent that everyone’s opinions and biases are unavoidably affected by their own experiences, but this difference of opinion should not inhibit these conversations, or, worse, prevent us from having them at all. It is important to remember that in order to be successful, any attempts to have commercial discussions about personal issues must be approached not only with sensitivity, but with an application of common sense. We cannot afford to become too precious about sexism. It frustrates those women who want to pick their battles and it alienates both men and employers by putting them into a sexist minefield. Without a common-sense approach towards what is and what is not sexist behaviour, we fail to recognise the importance of men’s role in changing the status quo and facilitating a stronger sense of entitlement among their female colleagues. Without the male voice in this debate, we lose 50 per cent of the impetus for change, and we do them a huge disservice by writing them off as ‘disinterested’. It is the reason I consider this a piece on gender in the law,
rather than women.

#makeithappen

Employers and employees need to be made aware of the negative repercussions of the gender imbalance, while at the same time shown the benefits of changing them to create a stronger workforce not restricted by generalisations, whether they concern gender, generation, race,
or economic position. While I am sure that my utopian dream will incense some people, for
me, apathy and cynicism cannot ever be an acceptable response to such a fundamental issue.

I am not alone in this desire. There is an escalating shift in feminist trends towards attempting to encourage everyone to get involved in the gender debate by raising and discussing these issues in an open and inclusive way. #makeithappen, #likeagirl, #notjustforboys, #askhermore, #IWD2015 and #thisgirlcan are some of many. Our society has an amazing platform that our forerunners did not. We can share ideas in a split second and fan the flames from our desks. While government initiatives and policy are important, first, and on a very basic level, let’s get everyone talking about this and
let’s #makeithappen. SJ

Pippa Allsop is a newly qualified solicitor at Michelmores

@Pippa_Allsop