babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » GG blasts law profession

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: GG blasts law profession
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 28 February 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds like our GG gave Osgoode some harsh words about systemic discrimination in the legal profession....

quote:
The Governor-General told an audience of lawyers and law students that the male-dominated rules of the legal world have "wrought havoc on women," obliging many to work equally hard for a fraction of what male colleagues make.

"It is not surprising to me that many women find it distinctly uncomfortable after a certain number of years to continue to live within a world which basically grants them certain privileges from the height of a masculine world," Ms. Clarkson said at a ceremony where she received an honorary degree from York University's Osgoode Hall Law Schoool.

She cited the example of male lawyers in the 50-54 age bracket, who, she said, earn 94 per cent more than women the same age.



Click!


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
animal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1890

posted 28 February 2003 11:13 AM      Profile for animal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. Go Adrienne!

I especially love how the article starts off, quoting her saying the profession was "built by men, for men, in a man's world."

Anyone have personal experience to add? This should be an interesting discussion!


From: the boreal forest | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 28 February 2003 06:39 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Law firms are not family oriented. It is equally as difficult for a man to become partner in a law firm if he puts his family before his law practice.

In labour law, particularily union side firms, there are many women partners who make the same money as their male colleagues unfortunately many of them have the same views on work as the male partners.

In more tradional families the male lawyer goes to the office and works 50 to 70 hours a week and his spouse takes care of the family. To me that has always been a bad thing for everyone the man, the woman and especially the children.

I can remember a partner in the law firm I articled with telling me that the most important thing to remember was that no matter what, the client's needs always come first. No matter the time of day or nite a large client would take precedence over any family event. I didn't agree with that philosophy when she told it to me ten years ago anymore than I do now. I suspect that this individual's view changed a couple of years ago when she became a mother even thought she has a stay at home spouse. She accepted a judge's position which is defined hours not unlimited client access which allows her to be with her wife and family.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 01 March 2003 11:56 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When going from private legal slogging to the benefit sinecure of a government job becomes an act of smug victimhood for women lawyers:"It is no coincidence that many women[lawyers] leave private firms in their late 30s and take government jobs that provide generous maternity benefits, she said. On the one hand, the government gets highly trained lawyers," Ms. Dumont said. "On the other hand, they almost immediately go off on maternity leave."

The penthouse pauper audacity of Queen Adrienne and her court in advancing this nonsense is not surprising but is a grim indication that the field of conferring and expecting unfair advantage based on being female is still an unhealthy influence on Canadian public policy.

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: Barry Stagg ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 02 March 2003 04:45 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The penthouse pauper audacity of Queen Adrienne and her court in advancing this nonsense is not surprising but is a grim indication that the field of conferring and expecting unfair advantage based on being female is still an unhealthy influence on Canadian public policy.

*Applause*

I am glad to find out that not only another rabble-rouser, but in particular a Torontonian one, thinks like I do.

I cannot have said it better myself, kudos to Barry Stagg!


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 March 2003 04:51 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
field of conferring and expecting unfair advantage based on being female is still an unhealthy influence on Canadian public policy.
Where's the unfair advantage? Please explain.

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 02 March 2003 04:57 AM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Barry and Gir, you can shake each other's hands and congratulate yourselves on tilting at the windmill of female oppression.
Clearly, females in this country have all the benefits, and enjoy exalted status, especially in the law profession. I'm sure there are millions of women willing to spend more than ten years to get their law degrees simply to grab a lucrative maternity benefit.
For cryin' out loud...

From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
animal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1890

posted 02 March 2003 09:15 AM      Profile for animal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmm. This *is* turning out to be an interesting discussion.

Barry and Gir, please do educate us ignorant, naive females as to where this unfair advantage can be found! You know, just in case I consider going into law, I want to make sure I know how to beat all the poor, disadvantaged males to a sorry pulp.


From: the boreal forest | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 02 March 2003 09:52 AM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The unfair advantage is in conferring any advantage based on gender. However, the Clarkson effluvium is mere polemic in any event, a gratuitous attack on a straw man issue. If lawyers expect to be granted special status based on gender then they should forego the private sector, where the majority of the profession, men and women, work on even terms in small firms where the cosy little arguments about benefit packages are just fantasies. Escaping to a government job is an old tactic, hardly exclusive to women but which needs to be called what it is: An individual fleeing the market and grabbing a guaranteed civil service salary.

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: Barry Stagg ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 02 March 2003 10:52 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Barry and Gir: Y'all clicked an acceptable use policy when you registered here. Y'all're also in the feminism forum, which is a place where discussions are framed from a pro-feminist point of view. If you can't handle that, you'll soon find youself banned.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 02 March 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re:"discussions are framed from a pro-feminist point of view"

Free speech and democracy in action or should it be achtung.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 02 March 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wenn Sie Deutsches sprechen möchten, können wir. Das ist nicht gegen die Richtlinien.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 05 March 2003 10:29 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought so.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca