Men: some respect please

[Kate],

I am amazed that the only type of men you have come across in the years leading up to becoming an senior associate at a City law firm are either grouches or sleazeballs!

I would have thought that among the men you interact with, you would have come across at least a few who respect your capability and treat you as a [good] lawyer - nothing more and nothing less?

As a male lawyer in the City, I can definitely vouch for the fact that there is quite a bit of male camaraderie in boardrooms and at BD events, but that doesn't mean that as soon as a woman walks into a meeting, half the men in the room think 'Oh, a woman - useless!' and the other half think 'Oh! What a tart!'.

To summarise, I think your post (while well written) makes too sweeping a generalisation. Perhaps a matter of perspective, though!

Anon -01 Jul 2009 | 14:33

Where I work (top City firm) there are more females than males on my floor. Before you put on your work hat you have to realise men are programmed to notice looks first, women seek out personality. After that point, it's all about assumptions. A guy may assume a good looking woman is stuck up and not worth making an effort with. His colleague may find a good looking woman to be of a high standard and therefore someone to know. As a man, the most awful thing to see is a beautiful woman lose her femininity and become masculine because she thinks she needs to be a man to get anywhere. You're a woman, so hold onto your feminine qualities!!! Though it must be tough for a woman to work against sterotypes in terms of beauty. Paris Hilton was asked this; she couldn't comment but she said she does have an iPod and a hi-fi.

Metallica -01 Jul 2009 | 14:34

It was hard not be distracted, but it was only very temporary (and complimentary) as my point was clearly that the size of a mortgage should not govern salary levels!
Perhaps the photo should be changed?
Hard to imagine a picture of a good looking bloke not getting a similar reaction from women though.
It was really the idea that high salaries are necessary because associates have large mortgages which probably caused me to think the article may have been tongue-in-cheek.
Your comment about the shoes does not necessarily help you make your point either!

Anonymous -01 Jul 2009 | 14:34

I'd also add that any decent professional would not (I hope) care what someone looks like at a BD event (an image of utter carnage as dozens of men charge at the finest woman to walk through the door). It is just as unnerving for a man to walk into a room of strangers as it is for a woman.
However, there must be more than two responses from men. Surely the majority of responses involve what would be considered as normal business development?
As for getting ahead in your career, I would have thought the main concern should be whether or not you are good enough at your job, not whether you are too good looking (or vice versa).

Anonymous -01 Jul 2009 | 14:34

It has simply not been the case, in my experience, that women are ‘more robust, more hardworking and more adaptable than the average man in her position’. That’s not to say that they work less hard either. As for robust... I know very few men who burst into tears when they come under a bit of pressure or are on the receiving end of some criticism. Similarly, I’ve never heard a male colleague say they wanted to be a house husband or ‘just have kids and maybe work part-time’. Offended? Good. You made sweeping generalisations in your article that effectively described the majority of men are chauvinist Neanderthals who, on average, are less able than their female colleagues. Which is nonsense.
Personally, I doubt there are more than a handful of individuals that deny women’s ability to compete successfully with men. In fact, there are several firms in the top 25 (starting with Slaughters) that have promoted more female associates than male associates in at least one round of partnership promotions in the last three years. Female law students and trainees now outnumber their male counterparts, and whilst most of them are obviously nothing more than eye candy hired to decorate otherwise dull offices, there are actually one or two reasonably bright ones out there if you’re prepared to look hard enough. I jest of course, but am genuinely disappointed by this silly article, particularly having enjoyed your previous efforts. No doubt there are some obnoxious men out there, but rather than seriously address the issues they present, your article left me with the impression that you need constant reassurance and recognition and possibly have an attitude problem arising from a sense of self-entitlement.

Unimpressed male -01 Jul 2009 | 14:35

I feel that as a man who disagrees with you, I am in a lose-lose situation. If I disagree, then I am probably guilty in your eyes, a priori, of what you are complaining of.

A misguided and self-serving article.

Tris -02 Jul 2009 | 08:06

"especially when they realise that you might be more useful to them than they are to you."

Don't make me laugh. They pay your wages. There are umpteen other firms they can go to full of identikit lawyers for the same service.

Gekko -02 Jul 2009 | 10:48

I think we (women in the City) need to rethink our approach to dressing. Too many of us go for the masculine approach, or what we are told is attractive. But masculine is dull, and attractive often means sexy in our society. Save sexy for the weekend. Let's go for powerful Monday to Friday. There's sex appeal in a powerful woman too, of course, but it does reduce the sleazy chat ups, and helps counter the eye candy factor.

Partner -02 Jul 2009 | 10:48

The solicitor provides a service to the client - objectively. They should be competent enough to deal with a client subjectivity.

Anon -02 Jul 2009 | 10:48

I am a male A-Level student with aspirations to become a solicitor in the City and while I fully understand and appreciate the views of this column I would like to point out that in the future these attitudes will eventually disappear into the ether because of the way my generation (which inevitably will be future partners) have been brought up and this male vs female 'cold war' in business will have exhausted itself.

A-Level Student -02 Jul 2009 | 10:49

The law's a male environment? Could have fooled me, most firms I've worked in have virtually no men left in them.

As for the article, very sweeping indeed. I would imagine a similar pro-male article would be lauded as the most vile thing ever written and an indictment of all things wrong in the law.

Indiana Pwns -02 Jul 2009 | 10:49

Really?

Come on, Kate, get over yourself. This is not an easy job at the best of times, so making sweeping generalisations about all menfolk in the City hardly helps. So you walk into a room and people look at you and then lose interest after a while? Welcome to the world - same happens to everyone at some point, regardless of gender or looks.

US senior -02 Jul 2009 | 16:22

I was once hiring someone for an in-house role and one of the candidates (the best one incidentally) was a rather attractive female. I mentioned to my wife that I was concerned about hiring her as I though the candidate's looks might prove a distraction for me. Wife's response - "you WILL hire that woman, and do it NOW!". I duly did as I was told, and I can report that this lawyer's looks never did distract me - even though she was very adept at using them to her (and our employer's) very best advantage.
I say "flaunt" it baby!

honest bloke -02 Jul 2009 | 17:27

What an embarrassing article. As a junior female lawyer I look forward to the day when this sort of attitude from women in the workplace goes away. At a large international firm that I spent time at there was a "women's initiative" which, amongst other things, offered additional training to women to help them with their careers/networking etc.. I couldn't think of anything more patronising. The quicker women in the workplace stop painting themselves as the victims and start just behaving like everyone else the better.

Unimpressed female -02 Jul 2009 | 17:36

Perhaps you need to sharpen your networking skills and try again!

Anonymous -02 Jul 2009 | 18:03

I feel that as a man who disagrees with you, I am in a lose-lose situation. If I disagree, then I am probably guilty in your eyes, a priori, of what you are complaining of.

A misguided and self-serving article.

Tris -02 Jul 2009 | 18:19

Zzzzzz....

Anonymous -06 Jul 2009 | 15:59

Oh dear. This is exactly the kind of sensationalist rhetoric that gives women a problem. Why are we our own worst enemies? Have we heard of "if we build it, they will come"? Can we stop bleating on about how unfair everything is, and act to change it by being focused, professional, direct and emotionally intelligent (something we pride ourselves at being better at...). So what if a few blokes find themselves perilously close to prep school regression at times. Pile through, and join the ranks of good women who have made it without selling out ANY MORE THAN MEN. Tris, I applaud you (a priori - you lawyer, you). Kate - Carrie Bradshaw, you ain't.

Undiscriminated-against female -06 Jul 2009 | 21:29