More on Lawyers (Yes, I meant it to be read aloud)

From http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=64&nav=messages&webtag=bc-general&tid=1019,

ExiledbyHVMA wrote:

Men have for centuries (if not millenia) relied on a dedicated and hardworking wife to raise a family while they competed to succeed in their professional careers. Even a strictly 40-hour-per-week job gives little time or flexibility to raise children, especially in a day and age when young children cannot safely play on their own after school at a neighbourhood park.

For family-oriented women to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, the professions, they need the exact same support at home that men have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the father of their children.

But how many women are willing to commit themselves to being primary, or sole, breadwinner? How many professional women are actually looking to marry, and start a family with, a man "on the daddy track," someone for whom money and work is less important than raising children and keeping house.

These men exist, by the thousands. But what professional women wants--let alone seeks out--such a partner? How many would genuinely respect a husband willing to take on such a critical--but so long belittled--societal role?

Let's also not forget how hard it would be for such a women to "explain" what her husband does. Would this situation perhaps even cloud her chances for promotion?

We are trapped in our past by a market-driven workplace that rewards singular dedication. There is a way out, but it requires both men and women to reassess and reward the role of "home-maker."We may have to wait another century (or perhaps millenium) before our society can make this leap.- a former, stay-at-home father of two boys

Reply
Posted by anonymous_bosh on 10:41
For family-oriented women to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, the professions, they need the exact same support at home that men have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the father of their children.

While your argument makes sense on the face of it, you answer yourself the begged question of why this does not happen (i.e., professional women want professional men). Let me put the question another way: For family-oriented men to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, childbirth, they need the exact same support that women have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the other parent of their children."

My point? Demand and expect all you want, but men will not bear children. Similarly--and for whatever reason--women want their offspring to be competitive among children (even if "competitive" is not defined along, e.g., sports or academic lines); in other words, they are seeking competitive genetic material.

How many [professional women] would genuinely respect a husband willing to take on such a critical--but so long belittled--societal role?

Belittled? Belittled by WHOM? Are MEN going around belittling the mothers of their children? Their own mothers? Please direct me to this belittling, for I haven't seen it. So far as I can tell, the stereotypical male view of motherhood is emedded in such phrases as "my mother was a saint." Belittled you say?

We are trapped in our past by a market-driven workplace that rewards singular dedication. There is a way out, but it requires both men and women to reassess and reward the role of "home-maker."

Trapped? Funny, I do not FEEL trapped--nor, apparently, does my full-time wife and mother of and to our children. I asked her last night whether I had "forced her out of the workplace" (as some feminists contend) and whether I was "oppressing her freedom of choice." When she stopped laughing she reminded me to stop reading online boards and to focus on furthering my career in order that she could better provide for the family. She also reminded me that, as a former lawyer, she had written all contracts to her benefit, that I was not getting out of our marriage alive, and that I was darn lucky to be allowed in her very presence, not to mention her bed. Funny thing is, I agree completely.

But before I go looking around for my next promotion and pay increase, I must ask: you, O Tantalus, state "there is a way out," but then fail to elaborate. Perhaps you could rectify the oversight?

Signed,
A proud and grateful contributing member of a successful family unit with a consciously applied but ultimately traditional division of labor enjoying all the current and (so far as one can project) long-term familial and financial satisfaction enabled by such a structure (and who would like to be considered among acquaintances by my stage-name, Nada Weiner).

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.