Young Lawyers in Love

Pursuant to a Boston Globe (oh how I despise that rag) article decrying the percentage of female lawyers leaving the industry http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/05/02/many_female_lawyers_dropping_off_path_to_partnership
I will get around to commenting on the summary eventually:
http://www.womensbar.org/images/WBA/EC report summary.htm

In the meantime, in resonponse to another's post on the Boston Globe boards, I wrote:

A thoughtful and incisive post:
"...[T]he absence of female [leaders]...is all about the billible hour. ...Neither my husband nor I wanted the children to be raised by their nanny, so we ... decided that I would stay home.
There are a limited number of hours in the day, and most of the moms I know cho[o]se to spend as many of them as possible taking care of their families... [M]others will be unable to [commit fully to a career] without putting their families second."

Why do men prefer (i.e., derive greater satisfaction and choose) to provide via income (which translates, e.g., to mortgage and tuition payments), while women prefer direct caregiving?
The answer is irrelevant. Apparently, the fact is that in a significant percentage of two-earner families with children, wives prefer that their husbands remain in the workforce. For most families with children (even non-traditional or same-sex arrangements), AT LEAST ONE head-of-household must work, and oftentimes--if the opportunity is there--the person in the role of wife decides that the person in the role of husband is the one that must work. Oftentimes, the husband is DEEPLY GRATEFUL for the sacrifices made by the wife, and sometimes even REDOUBLES his efforts to prove that the wife made the right choice.

What do G-d, gut, Darwin, and other The Powers That Be indicate? Wives, when you see a stay-at-home Dad lounging around on the park bench sipping Starbucks while his offspring play nearby, what is your gut reaction? Is it ever "GET TO WORK, LAZYBONES?" (It is for me, I am surprised to admit.)

Another important question in this "equality" debate: Ladies, would you hire a male babysitter? Would you drop your children off at an all-male-run daycare facility? How about a stay-at-home dad's home daycare? If not, then ask yourselves, why not?

Equality of outcome belies individual preferences. It is not just that some women CHOOSE to stay at home, clearly (given that some could hire nannies) some women PREFER (and prefer at great cost) to raise their own children. Why?

So, those women who read this law report (or the currently hyped "gender wage gap") and are outraged, please also explore your own honest reactions to the world around you.

In a world without men, we likely would have no gasoline (*I* am not going to work on a North Atlantic oil derrick, THAT'S fer shur!), no Alaskan crab legs, a lot less lobster, fewer diamonds, much less coal, and so forth (and, yes, I anticipate the "yes, but we'd have a cleaner/softer/fluffier world" comments...).

Why are their fewer law partners? Because 100-hour weeks SUCK (and I do not exaggerate the hours), and men are too macho (or stupid) to refuse them (or to refuse to go down the mine or onto the lobster boat or into battle or on the beat).

As others have posted, I would have liked the survery to include the smaller boutiques for a better sense of what women ARE doing outside the realm of big law or big biz.