Workplaces are structured to lose the women along the career ladder and colleagues’ and bosses’ attitudes do usually not alleviate the loss, was a hot topic of discussion in a room of 80 women at the Society of Women Lawyers’ (SOWL) annual conference in Delhi on Saturday.
In a panel discussion moderated by Fidus Law Chambers founder Shwetasree Majumder, Amarchand Mangaldas strategy head Padmini Rathore, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages senior vice-president legal Shukla Wassan, and IP Gurus partner Sujata Chaudhri described the hurdles faced in retaining women in the workplace.
One audience member said, citing a survey, that while women associates in India outnumbered the men at the entry level, the ratio of women dropped starkly from the middle rungs and fell to less than 15 per cent, in the average partnership or at other top levels.
Structural problems
According to audience and panel feedback, work hours, systems of billing, structures of the work-day, lack of infrastructure conducive to working mothers, lack of sensitivity amongst male colleagues and stereotypical perceptions attached to women and their attire, were particularly to blame.
Rathore recounted her experience of having resigned from the law firm where she was retained when she had a child, because of the lack of a crèche facility at office. Fortunately, fairly soon she was made an offer from Amarchand where the presence of the crèche in Delhi made a “big difference”.
She also appreciated the concept of “flexi hours” for working mothers, but criticised the lack of a system that quantifies the work contributed in each hour. A member in the audience seconded her opinion that without a fair measuring system, flexible hours can be a mechanism of conveniently undervaluing employee’s efforts.
The existence of “all-boys clubs” could be another dampener to the careers of women. A common practice where men spend many office hours unproductively and make this up by working late nights, can put female colleagues who finish their work within office hours on the back foot.
It can be a similar disadvantage for female lawyers who choose to avoid staying late for after-work drinks and socialising.
Sexual harassment
Majumder asked the panel if each of their workplaces was equipped with measures to keep sexual harassment in office at bay. While all three panellists concurred that detailed manuals defining conduct within the ambit of harassment existed, Chaudhri highlighted the fact that most employees had little awareness of conduct befitting the description.
“Asking you if you’re married or not, your plans of marriage, or even your after-work-day plans fall within sexual harassment,” she explained, adding that sexual harassment can be both covert and overt.
She also noted that at a US law firm where she was previously a partner, some employees were even unaware of the existence of a chapter on sexual harassment in the manual on office regulations.
Stereotypically female
The discussion also turned to stereotypes surrounding women, right from their life-choices to their attire.
Rathore narrated how women faced a variety of job-related stresses different from men, such as being afraid of telling their boss about being pregnant or suffering the uncomfortable vibe created by male colleagues “not sensitive enough” to refrain from cracking indecent jokes in the company of female co-workers.
Majumder and Wassan noted how being dressed in neutral coloured clothing and wearing minimal-to-no make-up was conducive to maintaining the perception of “a serious lawyer”. On top of that, streaks of grey hair – as evidence of age and experience in the profession - evened out the perceived disadvantage of being a woman lawyer.
However, when senior litigators spoke in favour of conservative dress codes for court and business, some members in the audience were quick to take objection. Specifically, the condemnation of “sleeveless shirts” as “unprofessional” or “inappropriate” attire was the subject of charged discussion for a while.
One law firm partner argued that women wearing sleeveless shirts and short skirts to work posed no hurdle to them successfully “billing clients at $500 an hour”, and “running one of the best law firms for the last 20 years”.
Comments
I am told that, if you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are really good looking (short skirts etc.), you will get out of it, if you and your senior(s) are on same page.
They do not understand that temptations must be overcome.
If so many women are wearing short skirts and running up the corporate ladder, where do they all disappear to? Why are most of the people at the top still male? And why are they the kind of male that gets away with treating recruitment of associates like the purchase of geishas for the office.
People like you don't understand that rape is not about the victim's clothes. And discrimination isn't about the victims' clothes either. Ignoring a smart woman's work and focusing on her looks isn't particularly good for her.
Please add that if a guy sneezes or refrains himself from doing so in presence of a woman, shall also be construed as sexual harassment.
“Majumder asked the panel if each of their workplaces was equipped with measures to keep sexual harassment in office at bay”
Yes Ma’m, all offices have NSG commandoes equipped with pepper spray stationed inside the office …
In the same of informal bonding, let us let bosses force young female associates to come drinking with them after work and then to get a little touchy-feely and more under the shield of their drunkenness. Let us let men ask personal questions so that they can decide whether the female associate is a 'respectable' 'family' person who must be left alone, or whether she is one of those loose single free-for-all women whose duty in and out of the office is to please her boss who is now too fat and ugly to get attention from any pretty young woman who he can't compel to come smile at him every evening.
Let us never tell the creepy men or their friends who egg them on when they cross the line. And let us definitely never ever tell the women when the line can be considered to have been crossed, and what they can do about it.
Because it is the poor men who are discriminated against and harassed...and that's why you never see them in the upper rungs of the profession. It is completely dominated by pepper-spray wielding female commandoes.
Right!! All the "poor young victims" of molestation are so dumb and timid that these so called MONSTER SENIOR PARTNERS, all they think of is pawing these "delicate" and "ignorant" babies, when clients are troubling them with stringent deadlines!! And these law school graduate women are so innocent and they feel so PAINED that we can see them DRINKING IN TEARS in the parties!!! AM I RIGHT LAW SCHOOL/LAW FIRM GRADUATES?? THESE OTHERWISE LIBERATED WOMEN WOULD NOT MIND WALKING AROUND IN SKIMPIEST OF CLOTHES, BUT WILL ACT LIKE "SUFFERING COWS" WHEN ASKED FOR A DRINK!! It seems you are not exposed to a real law school or you would know that WOMEN right at student level go out "willingly" and "happily" to drink with their male buddies and even share abuses and lewd jokes with them!! Though all is in good humour!! This is what we should call the GREAT FEMINISM HYPOCRISY!! And Most of the poor men in law firms are not those lecherous wolves like you are painting them to be!! Most of them are struggling with work life balance, client pressure, and making money ( since in most of the cases, they are the sole bread winners of the families, unlike the "vulnerable women" who already are married to some investment banker
Aww...has somebody been having trouble getting women to talk to him. Wonder why :D
"[i]It seems you are not exposed to a real law school... "[/i]
You could not be more wrong about that. On the other hand it seems that you "are not exposed" to a real education.
[i]"or you would know that WOMEN right at student level go out "willingly" and "happily" to drink with their male buddies and even share abuses and lewd jokes with them!! Though all is in good humour!! This is what we should call the GREAT FEMINISM HYPOCRISY!! "[/i]
Because these cows don't understand that they are common property right? If you go out with one man, you must go out with all. If you drink with one, you must drink with all. If you wear skimpy clothes, men have a right to feel you up. How dare these cows try to exercise choice about who they want to hang out with!
See why no woman wants to go out with you? (Yes, yes who asked her... She HAS to go out with you)
[i]And Most of the poor men in law firms are not those lecherous wolves like you are painting them to be!! Most of them are struggling with work life balance, client pressure, and making money ( since in most of the cases, they are the sole bread winners of the families, unlike the "vulnerable women" who already are married to some investment banker[/quote][/i]
Am sure all the decent men in firms do not identify with the lecherous ones. Interesting that you think that either all men must be lecherous or that none must be lecherous. Covering up one's tendencies eh?
And of course all these chicks who turn you down ought not to have jobs should they? They are just taking away what is rightfully YOUR job. In fact they wouldn't act so smart with you (or turn you down) if they had to worry about getting you to marry them instead of running around beating you to promotions, would they. They wouldn't be refusing to get married or leaving abusive husbands (oh sorry, these don't exist either do they?) or providing for their parents or braving widowhood.
The Taliban would love you. The Khap Panchayats would too.
In the same of informal bonding, let us let bosses force young female associates to come drinking with them after work and then to get a little touchy-feely and more under the shield of their drunkenness. Let us let men ask personal questions so that they can decide whether the female associate is a 'respectable' 'family' person who must be left alone, or whether she is one of those loose single free-for-all women whose duty in and out of the office is to please her boss who is now too fat and ugly to get attention from any pretty young woman who he can't compel to come smile at him every evening.
Let us never tell the creepy men or their friends who egg them on when they cross the line. And let us definitely never ever tell the women when the line can be considered to have been crossed, and what they can do about it.
Because it is the poor men who are discriminated against and harassed...and that's why you never see them in the upper rungs of the profession. It is completely dominated by pepper-spray wielding female commandoes.
Secondly, sexual harassment can be from woman's part as well. One of my client's brother-in-law was offered a promotion by his female boss in exchange of a weekend holiday at Nainital.
http://americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202552979733
But I should add that male bosses who encourage such boorish conduct by favouring such female associates over other more competent ones - be it in promotions or increments or reduced workload - are even BIGGER culprits. Unfortunately, this is the sad reality in many of India's best law firms.