I am a Feminist Because ...

I am a Feminist because I believe in gender equity. While acknowledging that there are real and perceived differences between men and women, I don't believe these differences justify disparities in their treatment.

I think it's important to explain why I am a Feminist because a lot of people associate Feminism with other values - with extremism, with elitism, with activism, with exclusivity, with anger. There are famous Feminists who have visibly advanced those values: abolitionists, prohibitionists, suffragists, etc. Many were brave and pioneering. Many were controversial. Many made mistakes. I know that I invoke their memory when I adopt their label. But "Feminist" is defined not just by its past usage but by those who presently identify themselves as such. I'm proud to share responsibility for the continued evolution of the term.

For me Feminism is not a cause, it's a perspective. I do not think there is a single issue of public or private concern that does not impact women. But not everyone who considers these issues thinks about their gender-specific effects. My Feminism helps inform how I view war, poverty, sickness, politics, education, business - you name it. It is not the only perspective I carry with me - I'm also young, Western-educated, a former artist, an attorney, etc. - all my experiences color my viewpoint.

I know that others don't share my perspective despite sharing my label. I know that others don't share my label despite sharing my commitment to gender equity. I'd be interested to hear from the full spectrum. How do you define Feminism? How do you identify yourself?

Here's another perspective to help get you started.

The Giggle Monster

In my continual search to find the newest advice for professional women, I randomly came across this old post at On Phara entitled Channeling Barbie: Career Advice for Professional Women, and then immediately googled John McKee, the guy who is cited heavily in the post. Just so you're oriented as to the messenger, I'll start with John McKee, self-styled as "one of America's leading executive coaches" and author of Business Woman Web: How to Use Gender Bias to Ensure Your Career Success. Red flags, anyone? In addition to advocating using gender bias rather than eradicating it, McKee answers the question "people ask [him] all the time, 'Why is a man writing a book about women in management?'" His answer? "We need more women leading more of our largest corporations in this country. For at least 10 reasons, it is important that men start helping to change the current and frankly unacceptable situation whereonly about 5% of these organizations have female CEOs." Though I whole-heartedly agree that men are a needed ingredient in improving the situation, I think a huge symptom of the problem is that his approach is to take the lead in bossing women around to the top of the corporate ladder with questionable advice that is pretty much summed up in his tagline.

Now for his insight, as quoted by On Pharma:

Don't "giggle." Why? McKee has "never heard a CEO giggle." Also, women "laugh 126 percent more often than men. And unfortunately, this laughter is not relegated to personal life." Um, apparently McKee doesn't realize lawyers work so much that work becomes part of their personal life. Also, why is it unfortunate to laugh in the workplace? These questions unanswered, McKee asserts that he has in fact "heard many women giggle a bit just after saying something, and it diminishes the impact of what they have said."

At this point, I'm wondering what the difference is between a laugh and a giggle.

Shoes, Clothes, and Law, Oh My

The Wall Street Journal has joined the hoary conversation on women’s professional apparel with a trifeca of articles/blog posts: first, with a profile of Lehman Brother’s CFO Erin Callan; next, with a follow-up post on The Juggle blog that specifically commented on Callan’s choice of shoes in the photo accompanying the profile; and now on the Law Blog, which picked up on comments that split on whether female lawyers indeed need to wear uncomfortable professional outfits in the courtroom.

And as regular Ms. JD readers know, this is indeed something that consumes a great deal of time and mental anxiety for female lawyers and law students (I’ve posted in the forum about it here; sintecho has written about long v. short hair here; and a paralegal has written about her sartorial quandaries here).

All of this leads to one simple conclusion: a lot of people have strong opinions on whether appearances matter, particularly for women. Past that, good luck finding any consensus. I’m not going to hide the ball on my position, since I have always thought that (1) appearances matter a lot; (2) there are absolutely wrong choices to make; and (3) finding the right balance between what is appropriate, comfortable, and something you like is one of those juggling skills that only come with a lot of practice, some keen observations, and a good sense of self. As a huge fan of Go Fug Yourself and Jezebel’s Snap Judgments and the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly, I’m not afraid to stick with the notion that the message you send with your clothes and appearance will often precede you, and may even ensure that what comes out of your mouth (or from your briefs) can both be discounted or augmented by your appearance.

Personally, and (I think) in light of my relative youth, background, and brand new J.D. (a whole other post!), I go conservative.

Gen Y and the Blame Game

The New York Times’ Lisa Belkin—she who graced us with the oversimplifying phrase “opt-out”—is a good writer, and she frequently touches on subjects that I find personally compelling. This is largely because she’s one of the few mainstream media writers writing about the working life struggles that I face or will face, and which I spend a lot of time thinking about. (Why she has been cosigned to the Styles Section, rather than, say, the Business Section, and what message that sends about the valuation of issues relating to working women and men vis-à-vis their personal lives, is worth a whole other post.) Still, while I appreciate that she is talking about various issues that I think are extremely important, I always feel as though her articles leave me feeling unhappy or unsatisfied because she has left out important points or only presented a narrow side of the story.

Today’s column, Prepping Children for the 9 to 5, is no exception. In it, she talks about the effect that parents can have on their children’s attitudes and expectations about work. For the record: this is a great topic, and one that is probably deserving of much more study and discussion. I’m sure that if you scratched the surface a little, most people will reveal that their thoughts, expectations, and aspirations about work are heavily influenced by their parents’ experiences, and their interpretation of their parents’ experiences. I, for example, realized very early how frustrating it was for my mother to give up her career to stay home with me and my two brothers, even though she made this choice willingly and wanted, at some level, to be a SAHM.

But where Belkin lost me is when the article took a turn and indicted an entire generation—my generation, Generation Y—for being self-absorbed, unwilling to work hard, and easily dissuaded. The anecdotes used are particularly telling: one is about consultant running into a friend who quit his job because it interfered with his social life and he had to work weekends. The other is a quote from another consultant, who said “This generation has been spoon-fed self-esteem cereal for the past 22 years. They’ve been told it’s all about them—what they want, what they are passionate about, what they find fulfilling.” And while Belkin does allow that the “sharply different attitude toward work” of Gen Y is “probably their parents’ doing,” there is not much else to counter this image of Gen Y-ers as fragile, self-centered creatures who will quit or give up at the slightest sign of difficulty.

[More after the jump]

Ms. Stiletto, Meet Ms. Rubber-heel

I understand the stereotypical female shoe fetish. I understand the draw to higher arches, slimmer heels, pointier toes, shinier patent leather. In a profession where office dress is often highly regulated, a woman's shoe is where she expresses both her power and her femininity. When, Ms. Stiletto, a powerful female professional, marches into a room in a 5 inch black pointy-toed stiletto, you can almost hear the click of the heels say "I am woman, hear me roar."

Ms. Stiletto, I highly admire you and your shoes, but I am not one of you. I've tried, but my feet hurt and my balance is lacking. With my one-inch high, thick, rubber-heeled, square-toed shoes, my feet thank me at the end of the day. I'm able to glide around a large office, bound up or down the stairs with ease and without a loud clack.

However, Ms. Stiletto, when I enter silently into a room, I see you glancing at my feet. I can see your judging eye. The men in the room rarely notice my shoes, but you do. They are not the ones thinking that I am too unconfident or timid to wear a bolder, "girlier" shoe. This is girl-on-girl judgment, and I'm standing up against it. I am standing up to say that my thick, low-heel diminishes neither my femininity nor my position as a viable professional.

[More after the jump]

Is there an issue with calling yourself an "esquire"?

Are you, like me a few days ago, unaware of the debate raging on the proper use of the title Esquire? Among the issues: can you call yourself Esquire? can you use the title outside of a legal context? can the title even apply to women?

My journey into these (mostly boring questions) started when I found this conversation on Google answers about potential issues with women lawyers putting "Esquire" after their names, with the question being whether there was something inherently male about the term. The Illinois Bar Association has a Q&A by Gertrude Block explaining that Esquire was first recorded as a title in 14th-century England, when "it meant 'shield-bearer' and referred to a county gentleman aspiring to knighthood, who could gain that rank by apprenticeship to a knight." The United States, however, prohibited titles of nobility in Article I, Section 9(8) of the Constitution, and the title of Esquire instead came to identify occupation, namely "a justice of the peace or an associate judge, and finally was expanded to include lawyers."

[More trivia after the jump!]

Irresponsibility, according to Obama

My dad sent me a text message tonight. And here's the conversation:

Dad: did you just hear Obama call you irresponsible?

Me: Eh?

Dad: For not getting your child health care

Dad: Debate

Dad: Cnn

Me: ah! no cnn, glad to hear I'm irresponsible

Dad: he is just too high and almighty for me

How to Avoid Crying at Work [Part 1 of 3]

Last week I linked to a lively discussion of crying in public. In a comment, CM asked how to prevent crying at inappropriate moments. Sintecho asked me the same thing a couple weeks back. So I've rounded up a bunch of bona fide face-savers plus a myth to debunk. From research and my all-too-personal experience, here are twelve ways to avoid tears at work.

· Focus on your breathing
· Take a step back
· Cauterize your tear ducts
· Distract yourself with pain
· Use props
· Let yourself get angry
· Try behavioral modification
· Do it for somebody else
· Forge ahead
· Just ignore it
· Deflect with a white lie
· Be honest and direct

Different situations call for different techniques. An explanation of when, how and why each technique works (or doesn't) follows after the jump...

Wonder what damage your high heels are doing?

Thanks to Lisa at Sociological Images: Seeing Is Believing, you can see all the damage your work shoes are doing to your feet--in gory, glorious detail. [Hat tip to LawGeek.] Here's a direct link to the full-size image, so you don't have to go blind squinting at your screen. Those stilettos are going to give you enough health problems to deal with already.

P.S. Here's a hint for healing that heel-related pain!

Five Tips for Commuting While Pregnant (and Afterward)

If you missed it, on Friday the Wall Street Journal Juggle blog asked readers to comment on commuting while pregnant. What resulted was a long, long thread of horror stories (from pregnant women forced to stand for long subway rides while fellow passengers feigned sleep) punctuated with a few friendlier tales and lot of people admonishing each other to be more courteous. If you are looking for commiseration, head to the Juggle blog. If you are looking for solutions, just scroll down! I read through the thread to glean tips for Ms. JD readers.

Five tips for commuting while pregnant (and afterward):

1. Carry plenty of plastic bags. The smells on the subway can set off your morning sickness like nothing else. And even if you have a car service, you might need them.

2. Don't be afraid to stare people down on the subway, rubbing your pregnant belly and looking as pathetic as possible. It may be the only way you get a seat.

3. Don't hesitate to politely say, "Excuse me, I'm pregnant. May I share this seat?" A number of passengers explained that they don't want to assume a woman is pregnant and risk insulting her by offering up a seat if she's merely overweight.

4. Use the benches reserved for handicapped and elderly passengers. Those are for you, too. If you feel shy about asking for a seat, know that you're even more in the right to ask for one of these.

The middle three tips all apply after the baby is born, too, when you're carrying a babe-in-arms. Or a babe-in-stroller, as it were. Which brings me to the last tip...

5. Shop carefully for a stroller that folds up compactly. Many passengers complained about deluxe, monster strollers that block subway aisles. After you have the baby, you will obviously have to make your own judgments about what you need. If you can find a more compact stroller, though (or ask for one as a baby shower gift), you may be better off--and find your fellow travelers a little friendlier.

Got any more tips? Leave 'em in the comments. Happy commuting!