Perspectives on Female Partnership Levels in Big Law

[craigfeldspar]

I was looking for anecdotes/perspectives on the progression of female partnership levels in Big Law in Canada? Specifically, I want to know if Jordan Peterson's estimation of why there aren't more Female partners / C-suite Executives, is an accurate one?

 

 

[easttowest]

“No” is perhaps too general, but considering what it is answering, it should suffice. 

[WhoKnows]

[efrefgg]

16 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

This seems to be the only popcorn gif used by the people on this forum. I believe we would benefit from greater popcorn diversity; there are probably hundreds of wonderful GIFs and images that none of us have seen yet, just waiting to be discovered.

See, for example, this brilliant masterpiece I just found on Google Images:

[Pantalaimon]

[KOMODO]

So if we try to strip away some of the craziness that makes it hard to listen to him, he's basically saying:

1. There is no easy answer for women balancing work and childcare obligations.

• I agree with this. I'm a super dedicated biglaw lawyer and it got way harder when I became a mom. Where women suffer a disadvantage due to childcare obligations, it can be improved by providing better parental leave benefits to men. A few Bay Street firms are starting to do this and it's great. 

2. People in executive positions, including law firm partners, work insanely hard.

• True. Very few people realize what it really means to work those hours until they've tried it, especially in the context of continuing to try and do it over the long term of years and years when you have other options and other important demands on your time, including family obligations.

3. Only men like to work this hard / only men care about compensation as a means of "winning" / only men are professionally competitive.

• Nah, I wouldn't say that. Some of the most ruthless and competitive partners I know are women. I just think there are fewer of them because (a) until very recently, very few men had childcare responsibilities equal to those shouldered by women; and (b) until relatively recently, many clients with purchasing power were men who preferred to give their work to other men.

4. Female law firm partners tend to have high earning male spouses, so the money isn't as important to them.

• I'm torn on this one. Obviously it's not always true, obviously there are female partners who are single or in same sex relationships or have low earning spouses, but I wouldn't be surprised if on average female law firm partners had high earning spouses. Maybe that allows them to feel more freedom in terms of exit options. But also usually your lifestyle inflates with earnings, so I would guess that many dual-high-earning-households spend enough that they still feel like they both need to be high earning. I think the more important point lately is that you can leave big law and still be really high earning.

5. Women struggle to justify why they're working so hard after a certain point, and find it hard to be fulfilled only by work.

• Yes....but I think everyone is struggling with this, especially lately. 

[easttowest]

29 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

So if we try to strip away some of the craziness that makes it hard to listen to him, he's basically saying:

1. There is no easy answer for women balancing work and childcare obligations.

• I agree with this. I'm a super dedicated biglaw lawyer and it got way harder when I became a mom. Where women suffer a disadvantage due to childcare obligations, it can be improved by providing better parental leave benefits to men. A few Bay Street firms are starting to do this and it's great. 

2. People in executive positions, including law firm partners, work insanely hard.

• True. Very few people realize what it really means to work those hours until they've tried it, especially in the context of continuing to try and do it over the long term of years and years when you have other options and other important demands on your time, including family obligations.

3. Only men like to work this hard / only men care about compensation as a means of "winning" / only men are professionally competitive.

• Nah, I wouldn't say that. Some of the most ruthless and competitive partners I know are women. I just think there are fewer of them because (a) until very recently, very few men had childcare responsibilities equal to those shouldered by women; and (b) until relatively recently, many clients with purchasing power were men who preferred to give their work to other men.

4. Female law firm partners tend to have high earning male spouses, so the money isn't as important to them.

• I'm torn on this one. Obviously it's not always true, obviously there are female partners who are single or in same sex relationships or have low earning spouses, but I wouldn't be surprised if on average female law firm partners had high earning spouses. Maybe that allows them to feel more freedom in terms of exit options. But also usually your lifestyle inflates with earnings, so I would guess that many dual-high-earning-households spend enough that they still feel like they both need to be high earning. I think the more important point lately is that you can leave big law and still be really high earning.

5. Women struggle to justify why they're working so hard after a certain point, and find it hard to be fulfilled only by work.

• Yes....but I think everyone is struggling with this, especially lately. 

Thank you for an excellent answer.  

To use your framework, my issues with the video are that he applies 5 only to women (as if men don’t leave BigLaw because it’s a lot of work and they could do other things too), ignores the role men play in exacerbating 1, and hand waves away 3(a) and (b) at the very beginning of his answer, preferring his thesis. 

 

[Mountebank]

2 hours ago, easttowest said:

my issues with the video are that he...ignores the role men play in exacerbating 1...

Well, I don't think any of us want to hear Jordan Peterson talk about insemination!

[Jaggers]

I would respond to a post about gender and pay (which is a topic I know a lot about) but not when it's started with a Jordan Peterson video.

[Hegdis]

I have frequently noted that Komodo has far, far more class than I do. This is just yet another confirmation. 

[KOMODO]

9 hours ago, Hegdis said:

I have frequently noted that Komodo has far, far more class than I do. This is just yet another confirmation. 

You're too kind!! ☺️

[Cool_name]

If you think he is explaining why there are less women partners in law, then you missed the bigger point he was making. 
 

The real point he is making is that asking why there are fewer women partners in law is the wrong question because it starts from a premise that being a partner at a big law firm is some ideal people should be working towards, which he posits it is not. 
 

I’m not at a big firm, but it strikes me that most lawyers at those firms eventually agree with him about the undesirability of being partner by self selecting out of big law partnership.

If we accept big law partnership isn’t an ideal, then the question becomes not why are there less women partners, but why are there so many more men making the irrational choice to work 80 hour weeks as a big law partner.

 

[Hitman9172]

10 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

 

If we accept big law partnership isn’t an ideal, then the question becomes not why are there less women partners, but why are there so many more men making the irrational choice to work 80 hour weeks as a big law partner.

 

Because who doesn't want to have the corner office and be feared and respected by the 200 people in the metropolitan area who practice their niche area of law. 😆

[easttowest]

29 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

If you think he is explaining why there are less women partners in law, then you missed the bigger point he was making. 
 

The real point he is making is that asking why there are fewer women partners in law is the wrong question because it starts from a premise that being a partner at a big law firm is some ideal people should be working towards, which he posits it is not. 
 

I’m not at a big firm, but it strikes me that most lawyers at those firms eventually agree with him about the undesirability of being partner by self selecting out of big law partnership.

If we accept big law partnership isn’t an ideal, then the question becomes not why are there less women partners, but why are there so many more men making the irrational choice to work 80 hour weeks as a big law partner.

 

We understand the point. 

 

First, I don’t think we can just accept that big law partnership isn’t an ideal. It may be. It may not.   

Second, it’s very silly to say that it’s just some number of “insane men” who want to do that job. What does that even mean? What about all the female big law partners currently doing that job? 

Third, even if it’s only “insane” people who want to do it, given that there are currently many female big law partners, you can’t then limit the people who will do it to only men, as he has done. 

And so if both men and women want to work hard and become partners, you do have to look at why women make the choice not to, or have that choice made for them, and you do have to consider KOMODO’s point set out above.

[GGrievous]

49 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

The real point he is making is that asking why there are fewer women partners in law is the wrong question because it starts from a premise that being a partner at a big law firm is some ideal people should be working towards, which he posits it is not. 

I think it's simpler than that. Women don't know what they want, and they make poor choices that lead to anxiety and depression. So they need men who have their lives together so well that they become addicted to benzos to tell them. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Barry

[Cool_name]

35 minutes ago, easttowest said:

We understand the point. 

 

First, I don’t think we can just accept that big law partnership isn’t an ideal. It may be. It may not.   

Second, it’s very silly to say that it’s just some number of “insane men” who want to do that job. What does that even mean? What about all the female big law partners currently doing that job? 

Third, even if it’s only “insane” people who want to do it, given that there are currently many female big law partners, you can’t then limit the people who will do it to only men, as he has done. 

And so if both men and women want to work hard and become partners, you do have to look at why women make the choice not to, or have that choice made for them, and you do have to consider KOMODO’s point set out above.

If you understand the point then you are being intellectually obtuse and purposefully non-responsive. 
 

35 minutes ago, Barry said:

I think it's simpler than that. Women don't know what they want, and they make poor choices that lead to anxiety and depression. So they need men who have their lives together so well that they become addicted to benzos to tell them. 

That is a strange response given that he is saying there are more crazy men then women.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Cool_name

[CleanHands]

Nothing wrong with hard work and long hours. Plenty wrong with giving that to BigLaw.

[CleanHands]

 

[easttowest]

17 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

If you understand the point then you are being intellectually obtuse and purposefully non-responsive. 
 

I understand the point and think he’s wrong about it, for all of the reasons I set out. 

Is that better?

[Eatable Bran]

JP is an edgelord who relies on logically inconsistent arguments that have a  large emotional appeal (to some). 

Starting a conversation about diversity in partnership and the wage gap with a JP video is about as cringey as it gets, and an immediate turn-off to engage with.  

[SlytherinLLP]

Ah yes the classic JP trigger point. Get over it and engage with the substance. 

@KOMODO whose perspective is actually relevant and informative was able to disagree/agree as appropriate. 

 

[craigfeldspar]

Thank you to all who have contributed to the discussion, those who have added substance (@KOMODO) and even those who've been clowning ( @CleanHands this is utterly delicious), I appreciate it. 

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

 

To those who have stonewalled the discussion, I ask - if we cannot have a respectable conversation about this topic here, then where? 

I didn't start this discussion to provoke, I legitimately have no opinion on the subject matter as I have yet to join the profession. So my only data point is that JP video. Where else could I find more accurate/appropriate data points on the topic?

 

[GGrievous]

26 minutes ago, craigfeldspar said:

I legitimately have no opinion on the subject matter as I have yet to join the profession. So my only data point is that JP video. Where else could I find more accurate/appropriate data points on the topic?

I'm sure people are open to having a conversation about it, but you can't just post a JP video and expect that to just happen. If your only data point is that video then I will assume you haven't even done a basic google search (I'm not saying that to be a dick but that's just the first place I'd go). I'm sure some good articles will come up, and if you bring some good points to discuss there are experienced and smart people here (e.g. @KOMODO ) that will engage. You also could have taken the opportunity to ask them some follow-up questions so I don't know what more you're looking for here. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Barry

[SlytherinLLP]

5 minutes ago, Barry said:

I'm sure people are open to having a conversation about it, but you can't just post a JP video and expect that to just happen. If your only data point is that video then I will assume you haven't even done a basic google search (I'm not saying that to be a dick but that's just the first place I'd go). I'm sure some good articles will come up, and if you bring some good points to discuss there are experienced and smart people here (e.g. @KOMODO ) that will engage. 

I almost missed the fainting couch reading their post - the horror!!

[Hegdis]

Listen there is a troll playbook and OP, you are following it. Exhorting everyone to be “reasonable” when you post bait is transparent. You may have recently discovered this formula but my friend, I see it all the time. And I see right through it. 
 

Komodo has injected a level of discourse here that elevates this discussion such that it’s worth keeping around. Just know that your clutching of pearls and singling out of “reasonable” posters versus “unnreasonable” along with the slightly injured air is tiresome.