To consider retraining as a barrister?

[princessglitter]

I am a teacher in middle management with a fairly secure, reasonably satisfying career. I have always dreamed of a career in the law. Originally I considered becoming a solicitor, doing a conversion course and going down the LPC route.

However, at the last minute, I lost my nerve and pulled out of my college course. The idea of that amount of debt was horrifying to me.

I trained as a teacher, but has always felt unfulfilled if I'm honest. As I've got older, the idea of retraining as a barrister has become more appealing, but I am acutely aware that so many fall by the wayside. I have secured a mini-pupillage this summer, which I am extremely excited about. I am also going to apply for vacation schemes at solicitors' firms to enable me to make an informed decision.

I do have a strong academic background and an Oxbridge 2.1 - but I know that that alone will not be enough.

Am I unreasonable to take a risk (with my husband's support) and consider a career in the law? Possibly as a barrister, but I intend to research this thoroughly with some real experience in both areas and different specialisms.

Nope, not always the women who get saddled with it - I have been a SHAM, my brother has been a SAHD. If you mean 'saddled with housework', no again - we are a family team, we share it, all 4 of us.

And what kind of power do you mean? I have the power to mould and educate children - the future of this country - every day. Initially I had this power for just my own children, now I have it for whole classes of children. It is a much greater and worthwhile power than I had in my old job (of which I am sure that you would totally approve as it ticked all your 'narrow success' boxes) of ensuring that more of product or service x was bought each day yielding more profit.

xenia, if, as you claim, you are genuinely interested in persuading more women into work can I give you some advice? stop patronising and belittling the exact people you seek to/need to persuade. Time and again you do it. ("Only a housewife would presumably come out with such a point." "May be the mediocre who would never really hack it at work use the marriage/baby excuse to explain their lack of future success." "talk innanely to another rather thick mother"). Precisely because some of your points are interesting, some are valid, and some are at least arguable, everytime you belittle and patronise other women it is, to use your own terminology a petit mort for equality. Rather than "help(ing to) ensure women do not take second place all the time" you actively alienate and antagonise.

For the sake of the equality you claim to seek to promote give it a rest or change your tactics.

Have you ever condidered Xenia that some don't actually crave a position of power?

xenia-I don't know how you can have such a high-powered job and be so dense!

Minipie-good point!

Women must cast aside forever wanting to be powers behind thrones. Let me be the power behind the throne. let women have more chance to rule. Less this sexist nonsense about the hand which rocks the cradle rocking the crown. It's what has kept women down all these years. Get back to work.

Xenia oh do shut up. Prat.

Xenia steady up on the rhetoric, even if you have had a hard day on the several internet forums I gather you zealously frequent.

Doesn't it strike you as ironic that the very women you berate so passionately, the SAHMs, appear on this forum at least to be vastly more intelligent than yourself and vastly better able to parry questions (rather than ignore them or fudge them completely as you do). And that their own experience or that of their offspring appears to contradict the dire consequences you predict of women not exercising their option to go out to or remain at work.

Your take on this is really quite sad.

we're banging our heads against a brick wall. she just doesn't get it.

I am powerful as I have made a choice in what i do

Coccyx I couldn't agree more.

Xenia's stance is in arguably more sexist and discriminatory - she seeks to belittle the very choices that many many women have made (and which many others would love to be able to make if money permitted). It is the existence of the freedom to stay at home if one wishes or the freedom to undertake paid employment/maintain or pursue a career that feminism should surely be about. By suggesting that all women should 'get out and work' Xenia is advocating the removal of a fundamental freedom for mothers do as they wish in their lives. This is as terrible a position as that which existed previously of women being fired fir falling pregnant/not hired whilst of childbearing age- equality of opportunity and freedom to lead ones life as one deems right was denies albeit in the the opposite way.

Hi priincessglitter. I've only read the first and last page. Definitely "Go for It".

The time is going to pass anyway and you don't what to look back in years to come and regret not doing it.

You can always go back to teaching if it doesn't work out.

Had to look back at your post to make sure I was in the right place as the thread seems to have morphed into a SAHM verses mums in the paid work force.

Maybe that should be don't WANT to look back

Pioppy, it's a freedom engrained nito them by sexist upbringing and those who have power not wanting to give it up to women. It is like the freedom some women say they exercise to wear the burka or be married off at 15 to an old man. They do not realise they are caught in a sexist trap and feel they are exercising freedoms but all they are doing is perpetuating sexist patterns to be chief cook and bottle washer in domestic service whereas they would in reality enjoy it a lot more if they had interesting work and children as most adults choose to haev in the UK.

Xenia,

The problem is, you have only EVER seen this from one side of the fence. You have never experienced the alternative, as you have always gone back to work when your children are very tiny.

(I am doing you the honour of assuming that you are who you present yourself as being - what is your church, by the way?)

As a woman at least as educated and intelligent as you, I have lived on BOTH sides of the fence - I have had interesting work and children AND I have been a SAHM.

Therefore, I know what I am talking about and can describe it accurately from both sides, which you cannot. I have lived in both worlds. They have different values, but neither set of values is wrong - the only thing that is wrong is asserting without knowledge or experience that your world is the only right one.

Xenia even from my own parochial world I can look around in the professions that I'm familiar with and I see a great many women at the top of the hierarchy or on their way there, unencumbered by the pernicious sexism that you claim exists.

Merit talks these days, not gender. Perhaps you work on your own too much.

Interestingly, I've still got the welcome letter from the MC firm which took me on over two decades ago and I can see from the list of entrants that year that there were only half the number of women taken on then compared to now. The spread of universities has changed little; the number of female entrants has soared.

You're stuck in a time warp and I believe it's a smokescreen for dissatifsaction with your own life. There are far more pressing political and moral issues than this redundant one and girls will get where they want to, provided they have sufficient merit, even with the grinding handicap of a mum who gave up work and the educational stultification of not attending a school such as NLCS.

I agree that women are doing much better and I'm really pleased about that but they are still no where near 30% of board positions, not even at 20% of equity shares in accoutancy and law firms but 60% of entrants and they are not even that well represented in Government.

I'm terribly hopeful but one reason women are not in positions of power is because they give up work to look after babies, largely because it is rare they earn £100k and their husband £20k. When it's that way round the man might well stay home. Most women marry up. I think it's the biggest reason they downgrade their career later. That's not going to change for quite a time.

Well I'd have been a pretty dim high achiever when I was on 100k to have married a chap on 20k Xenia. I gave up work because I wanted to - because I loved my baby more than my job.

Yellowstone - I don't particularly want to get involved in this debate again but I can assure you that sexism is alive and well at the top of law firms. By way of example here are some choice quotes from equity partners (from some very top firms) - either said to me or colleagues...

"When will you bloody women realise you can have a career or children - but not both"

"You want to work a 4 day week - don't you think that demonstrates a lack of commitment?" (even though I'd volunteered to be on call the 5th day - and always was - and had no client complaints!) ...

Or one of my colleagues who suggested that because one of the female assistants put in an application for flexible working that it was a great opportunity to renegotiate her salary down. That one got squashed fairly quickly but it shows the mindset.

Or the fact that client events and partner meetings are almost inevitably organised to start at 6pm or 7pm - so having to give up yet more family time. Never mind the constant need to justify the fact that you have to leave the building at 5.30/6/6/30 - despite IT meaning that you are now contactable 24/7. And of course - if you do work reduced hours HR somehow think your secretary has nothing to do on those days - so allocate her time to someone else - so she has to 5 days of your work in 4 - as of course you do....

As for marriedinwhite just .... call me radical but I thought most people got married these days because they rather liked them - not because of the size of their salary! I also think you've rather inadvertently helped Xenia's argument - that you're really only interested in a bloke to support you financially - which I find rather tragic (and while we are here - having a cup of tea with a High Court Judge is not the same as actually being one)...

i guess that makes me dim.

No offence was meant the comments were for Xenia. I met my DH 23 years ago and married for love and at that time I funded him through the early years in chambers. The comments about a high court judge were made to emphasise that even if one works as a non high flyer, or not at all, one can still have considerable influence and possibly also more opportunity to get the ear of those in power (and I am now actually management grade in public sector, have retrained and taken an MBA and earn a healthy salary but not a fab salary by Xenia's standards). Apologies - no offence meant to anyone - merely trying to help Xenia see the other side of the fence.

I don't believe that that's the universal or even general or even predominant mindset amongst men at the top kansas, sorry.

And what do you base your belief on Yellow?

Experience and people around me, kansas.

Kansas, Yellow, my experience is that the men at the top of law firms are not sexist per se - i.e. they don't think that women are any less good at the job just because they are women.

However they judge everyone - male and female - on how good they are at conforming to the current set-up. Which is, of course, a male set up and one which tends to suit men (particularly men with SAH wives). They are very unwilling to consider any changes to the status quo and the existing way of working. They also tend to admire, and promote, mini-mes - who are of course male. In that sense they are sexist.

I think the bigger problem is (a) lots of women (and actualyl men if they had a chance but their wives tend not to let them) would rather be at home not working - and yes with babies it's harder than work but once the chidlren are 3 - 10 etc it is of course much easier and when they are at full time school you get our pay back time of no work and time to do not much (b) women as shown above want men who earn more. I like mw married a long time ago for love and we always knew I would earn more. Lots of people who meet at university do so and may be on a par then but even then they are choosing not to marry the man who works in the university kitchens so it's still in a sense an ecnoomic choice.

Roll on a year or two and when theyr'e 25 and perhaps more in a marriage market and they tend ot marry a man who is a bit older. If they're working hard he is likely to be met through work. he might be a partner or nearly there of 35. He is rarely the office junior. As long as women earn a lot less than men when you sit down to have the conversation - do we both work full time or should one work part time it will always be the sensible economic choice that women stop work as they marry up and men tend to marry someone younger who earns less. If you reverse that as in my case then the woman carries on and also if she loves her career and wants to be full time then of course they may well both carry on working.

I don't think it is engrained sexism as much as that fact that leads to women not getting to the top. I don't think it's due to differences in the female brain and plenty of women adore rising above others and are competitive. I want and hope I am the best in the UK at what I do . That is not unusual among women although sexist press likesly to suggest women just want to be lovely dovey in the home kissing the baby.

Flexible working will affect people and they all know it and given the flexibility usually means your husband leaves all childcare to you and all domestic stuff and you get shafted at work there is a huge incentive to giev flexible working a miss and just carry on as a full time worker. I don't think my older ones (early 20s) would say there were any problems with my having worked. Indeed because I did they graduated without student debt. Now I suppose had I married someone earning £1m a year that would not be an issue because he coudl have paid.