Blog #25

Sexualized behavior can be used as a weapon in the workplace. Society and media as whole generally perceive males and females in different roles. Males are masculine, strong and sometimes aggressive individuals. Women can be seen as more feminine, passive, weak at times, and sexual. Men play baseball, football, and other sports. While women were brought up dancing, taking ballet, and playing with baby dolls. Keep in mind these are general statements, but for the most part many of our children in society today are molded from birth to fit the stereotypical gender norms. In Holly English book males look at female sexuality as a distraction. These women are often times thought of as inferior to their male counterparts and are seldom taken seriously. When men see a sexy attractive female that also excels in her work, in this particular case law, men tend to see women differently. Women in a sense can parlay their beauty along with their success to gain superior recognition from their male counterparts. This may help women in some ways but I believe it hinders them more than helps them. I believe that using sex as a weapon in the workplace can actually devalue the perception of women. It is still said that women have a long way to go in terms of gaining gender equity in the workplace. In fact both men and women in the field alike feel that though we have made some progress in the means to gender equity much more is still needed. What can we do to shorten the gap of fender equity? I think education and self awareness is the key. If we are aware of issues of gender inequality in the workplace we can strive to fix them. We need to be aware of the issue that way we can fix it. Hopefully more individuals can strive to improve this issue that plagues our legal workforce today.

Blog #23

Fashion is an interesting topic in regards to female politicians and lawyers. Women in a professional sense are critiqued in a much higher degree than that of their male counterparts. Prominent women as well as everyday business women find themselves constantly watching what they wear to work every single day. Our publically viewed women mostly conform to the perceived norm in regards to what they do and do not wear in public. Michelle Obama today, much like Jackie Kennedy in the 60’s is taking women’s fashion to the next level. Michelle Obama has been scrutinized of late for not conforming to the conservative first lady’s typical appearance. Keep in mind the standard for the way the first lady is supposed to dress has been set by white middle class America. People have taken the issue of Michelle Obama’s clothing and blown it completely out of proportion. Is this related to race? Or does it have a direct correlation with what other first ladies of the past have worn? I think it’s both. On a recent trip to Arizona Michelle Obama wore shorts to the Grand Canyon. Keep in mind this is Arizona and the weather was between 80-90 degrees. The media had their heyday claiming that Mrs. Obama was flaunting her legs. I don’t think this was her intent but who cares if it was. Women including Mrs. Obama are dressing differently than women of similar stature did in the past. They may not use the same conservative clothing; however they do it in a classy tactful way. Women in English’s study also found themselves trying to wear bland conforming clothing to fit in with their male counterparts. They wanted to essentially blend in not being seen as week lesser sex. I really see this as non issue. Women in the public’s view should be able to wear what they want. I find it very sad that our society has to scrutinize women for what they wear leaving their male counterparts to do as they please.

Blog #22

Sonia Sotomayor is an associate Justice of the Supreme Court and has been serving on the United States Supreme court since August of 2009. She is the third female justice and first Hispanic Justice to serve for the Supreme Court. She was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Unites States Senate by a 68-31 vote. Criticism by conservative members of congress soon followed her appointment. Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingerich claimed she was a “racist”. The basis for their comments comes from a speech Sotomayor made in 2001 where she claimed “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life”. I find this statement to be brutally honest. She seems to be using her experiences to assist in her judicial law conforming decision. If for instance a case were to come about in regards to Hispanic women; she would be able to provide a greater insight into the issue than that of her white male counterparts. She has lived similar experience to these “Latina Women” and her perspectives would provide a positive insight into judicial rulings in regards to these matter. Sotomayor’s white male opposition should step outside the box and realize that this experience will only do them good.
Sotomayor realizes that her decisions need to be made based on the law. In fact during her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee she claimed her statement was “a rhetorical flourish that fell flat”. These hearings did judge Sotomayor based on her past statements, race, and gender, which is completely wrong. However, it makes sense in the fact that gender and racial bias exist in nearly every facet of our world. Fortunately Sotomayor stood up, withstood the criticism and now practices law, her passion.