Good letter about female lawyers in The Times today - this balances the sad story about the SJB partner who died

[pasturesnew]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6735283.ece

Sir, Vanessa Lloyd Platt (?The stress and strain of being a female lawyer?, times2, July 30) may think women lawyers with children are overly burdened, but in practice that is not so. We earn decent money, can pay for domestic help with cleaning and laundry, have the sense and financial power to ensure that we do not marry sexist men or tolerate inequalities at home, have much more control over our lives than if we worked on a factory production line and have intellectually satisfying and fascinating work.

In my 25th year as a lawyer, and a mother of five with two daughters going into the profession, I have always worked full time and consistently it has been fun both when I worked in a leading City firm and now with my own law firm. Nothing is as stressful as being at home with three children under 5 all day.

Successful lawyers have money, choice, power and control and it is lack of these that causes most stress. Pity the mother on the minimum wage queueing for a bus at 5am to clean for a living, not the privileged few. If we do not like the heat we can always get out of the kitchen.

'Nothing is as stressful as being at home with three children under 5 all day. '

Totally disagree with that. I don't find it particularly stressful at all, quite the opposite. Some aspects of parenting small children are stressful, but mostly I find it enjoyable. It's nothing compared to the stress of my last job.

Absolutely, policywonk, there will never be equality for women until men can share childcare responsibilities. I'm sure many men would like to be more involved in the day to day of their children's lives but in most workplaces it is taboo for a man to do just that and continue his career.

This is true, men suffer from being pigeon-holded at work too. I do know some men who work 4 day weeks to share childcare with their wives who also work 4 day weeks though so hoepfully things are changing.

I suppose it depends how you define 'share childcare responsibilities'.

I think quite a lot of people actually enjoy working full time or have to work full time and can't see why they should be condemned for doing so (not saying you are but I think there is starting to be a subtle implication that it is not the ideal situation). Just because you work full time doesn't mean you can't share childcare responsibilities in some way or another I think.

Also true e.g. if both parents equally could take the day off to look after a poorly child or do the drop-off / pick-up with nursery or childminder, go to parents' evenings, and just generally if both parents equally care about how their children enjoy the childcare then this is sharing the responsibilities.

I don't think that most of my male colleagues share the responsibilities though, even where their wives work, as they don't really do any of those things (except for parents' evenings I think) and their wives do. I don't think that's the job, I think that's my male colleagues being old-fashioned / lazy.

Excellent article by Alice Thomson: her thinking on work and motherhood gets ever more refined.

The letter in the OP is from someone who "belongs to the older generation of women who had more to prove" (in the words of Alice Thomson). That's fine, but we need to look to the future, not the past.

God I can't bear Alice Thomson. She is a humourless old trout who takes herself way too seriously.

She writes about serious matters! In a non-aggressive way (and you could take a few tips there, moondog!).

foxinsocks, I'm not saying at all that women should be condemned for working full-time, and I don't think I have made a subtle implication at all that it's not ideal. My points were simply in relation to research that indicates a majority of women do want to work, but their preference would be for decent part-time work.

I also think there is a big difference between a standard full-time working week of 35-40 hours, and full-time working week of the kind expected in the City where 60+ weeks are normal. It is very difficult (and I know, I have worked in such an enviornment) to meet the demands of a family/home life when working those kinds of hours, especially when they're unpredictable, require frequent travel, and working overnight at short notice.

I remember being shocked over ten years ago by the several pages of ads for plastic surgery that regularly appeared at the back of Marie Claire -feminism lite only went so far.

superficially the Alice Thomson article seemed sensible enough - though there was a glaring omission - no suggestions of men/fathers learning to compromise/work more flexibly.

I think Alice Thomson was very clear on her position on fathers! You might not agree with her, but she made the point.

do you mean the one casually throwaway sentence at the end of that article - "most mothers won?t let fathers dominate the nurturing role" Anna?

I don't agree that it is throwaway: it is very strategically placed right at the end of the article.

From a pure reading of that sentence, yes it does have the word 'father' in it, but it is still a statement about mothers, rather than fathers.

If Alice Thomson (and that name does not mean anything to me) has a clear view on fathers' role, it is not in that article that she states it.

Insofar as we are talking about girls' ambitions, I agree with both the OP's link as well as Alice Thomson in the second link.

The key is for our daughters to have a balanced view of going for it full tilt, as well as recognising the biological imperative that has always made it more complex for women to achieve in the timescales and environment of the workplace.

I am sceptical, though of Alice Thomson's observation that our young ladies are now generally on a high achieving perfectionistic bent. I would expect it in an academically selective all girls' school, but cannot see it as the norm in a comprehensive. As per her last paragraph, I think many women still automatically opt for homemaker/pt worker role once they have children and I include myself in that category.

I think the view stated in the OP's link is less well known and bears publicising: that a high earning ft job makes it easier to balance a family (with the ability to afford high quality childcare) and a high octane career - if a high octane career is what floats your boat.

It is definitely less common, and all the more notable when I see it done, and done well. But it is a viable option to go for.

But blueshoes,are you really balancing family life if you have a high octane career that means you work 75 hours a week, even if said career means you can afford to pay for 2 Norlands nannies and a housekeeper? It's fine if you're happy with that situation, but some women, and perhaps the lawyer from SJB falls into this category, don't feel that they have achieved the right balance.

I worked in a City environment where working all the hours God sends was common while working on a transaction. It was not compatible with having a balanced family life IMHO- it's just not possible if one is away from home for 14 hours a day. Yes, there is less guilt if one can afford high quality as opposed to poor childcare, but it doesn't help with the feelings of guilt/anxiety if one actually wants to spend more time at home with one's children oneself.

(And I'm still not saying women who work FT should feel guilty for doing so, just that some women- myself included- feel (or felt in my case because I gave up work- there was no possibility of PT)that one can't balance the needs of the family and themselves working those kinds of hours.

I agree completely with your point, Fayrazzled. You can buy all the gold-plated domestic and childcare in the world if you earn enough money, but that will never, ever be any kind of satisfactory substitute for actually being with your children, if that is what you want. You cannot work and simultaneously see your children.

Fayrazzled, the thrust of my concern is that young women should have a balanced view. In other words, feel free to aim high but be aware that you might end up shooting lower (career-wise) to reach the balance of family and work life that is unique to you at any point in your life.

No young woman would know what is the satisfactory balance of life for her until she crosses that bridge.

You and I would not be happy working 75 hours a week with frequent travel, and I cannot think of many men who would be either. That is just the stereotypical example of a high octane City career. Outside and even within the City, there are lots of medium-octane jobs, say in the £50-80K mark which is family friendly, that you can downgrade to from a £150-250K full on 75hr City job.

It is not easy to find these jobs, they are often not advertised externally, and need to be chiselled out by careful research and networking. But any bright young thing who post-baby applies her ferocious focus to finding that elusive pt medium octane job would get there at some stage.

I can only speak as an ex-City lawyer but I know that in law, it can be done.

Even the commentator in the first link said she went from a leading City firm to owning her own law firm, presumably for more control over her hours (amongst other things). I would bet good money that her fabulous experience and training, pedigree legal background and contacts in her previous City job would have helped greatly for her to make that bold step.

I personally would rather my dd shoot for the stars at the outset (as you did) and then adjust expectations career-wise downward at a later stage. This is contrasted with starting with a mummy job and finding that her childcare options are unsatisfactory because of the low pay, resulting in her having to give up work completely. Thus aiming for a mummy-friendly lifestyle is a self-fulfilling prophecy that too many women unwittingly find themselves in.

If my dd wanted to then give it all up to become a SAHM, that is also available to her. She does not need additional training or experience to do that.

Hence, I would not cut down my dd's ambitions, beyond mentioning that she might have difficult choices ahead of her if she does decide to have children - but that would be obvious anyway from my choice and countless other women around her. Who knows, she might even enjoy 75 hr weeks ...

Ah yes Ali and Kerala I know who the letter writer is too. Good on you letter writer if you are reading this - points well made.

That can't be her real name can it? She is recently divorced so I assumed it was a pseudonym.

She posts a lot on a legal chat board I lurk on (not under the same name she used here but it is so obviously her if you read more than 3 posts and have a passing knowledge of MN). I admire her a lot but my experience of being a mother and lawyer is nothing like hers.

I am 30, and shortly to qualify having taken a fairly long and part time route through my legal studies. I currently work in a high street firm and at the mo it suits very well. It has advantages in terms of personal development - I see clients, alone, run files myself, but I must hasten to add am thoroughly and competently supervised. I am not a glorified photocopier!

The case of that partner at SJB was tragic (that firm seems to have issues though so it may not be a "feminine" issue as such - their PEP earnings have gone into freefall according to the trade press) though, there is little that can be usefully said about the specifics of that.

Excellent post blueshoes - I totally agree.

Apart from anything else, women can only really have true choices if they have good earning power - whether they choose to earn at that level throughout their adult life or not.

I would also far rather my daughters (and son!) aim high and get themselves in a position to earn good incomes - it's always easier to adjust downwards than to lack the skills and qualifications to get a good career in the first place.

I also agree that not all fathers want the 75 hour a week jobs anyway - it's not simply a gender thing but a life style choice. But if they do, good for them, and if a mother wants it, good for them.

At the end of the day, it's the people who don't have a choice I feel sorry for - and the fewer qualifications and skills you have, and the lower your earning potential, then quite frankly, the fewer choices available to you.

Just read blueshoes' post properly.

The choice is not between a "mummy" job and being a City/MC lawyer. If law, for example, is your thing, there is more to life than Chancery Lane. Most lawyers in this country don't even work in London.

My pay upon qualification will be chicken feed compared to city salaries, but I manage to work full time and be home by 5.45. Never work late, never work weekends, and always meet my chargeable hours and billing targets. Plus said chicken feed salary will be a good 30% over the national average salary.

Googled and I'm sure it is her real name. I feel bad if we've outed a regular who maybe wouldn't want to be outed?
I think it's important none of us mention her posting name on here (not that anyone has).

Yes you're right I think grammer - I've just looked her up and that is the name of a real lawyer.

I assume that Times letter was written by the usual person who posts this kind of tosh on MN. It completely misses the issue of the case in point.

Ms Bailey was probably suffering from undiagnosed PND. Most likely undiagnosed because she was a coper and got on with things rather than seeking professional help.

Having 'help' doesn't overcome the guilt that most working mothers have - not being at home when you should be and not doing a good a job as you'd like to at work.

All very well to encourage someone to quit a job they love but that is hardly the point. Like many jobs it takes years to achieve success as a lawyer and to suggest that it is easy to walk away is complete rubbish imo.