When we were discussing Cerriere's Answer today, I thought Jessica brought up an interesting point about how women sometimes worry that they come across as "too edgy" when they speak. (Jessica, please correct me if I didn't accurately understand what you were saying). A female friend of mine here has mentioned this very issue to me on a couple occasions. She claims that female students, more often than male students, have a tendency to ask questions instead of make statements, of if they make a statement to soften it with a qualification such as "I feel like...."

Coincidentally, an article posted today on CLS' homepage mentions this as well. Professor Carol Sanger was honored at The Columbia Law Women’s Association annual Myra Bradwell Dinner, and this is a small excerpt from her speech:

“It is my sense and I hate to say, my experience, that women are still often reticent to claim and to aspire to accomplishment. To give but two minor examples, I rarely hear men in class start a question with the apology that “This may be a stupid question, but ….” And I almost never hear men turn a declarative statement into a question by tilting the sentence upward at the end.

These may not be perfect examples but they do to some extent represent a degree of lack of confidence. To claim accomplishment or authority takes ambition and somehow ambition is not ladylike.”

If there are others in the class that feel this way I think it would be valuable to hear why. Are there things that male students in particular do to perpetuate this, or is it just a product of larger social pressures that extend beyond the classroom?

-- DanKarmel - 21 Apr 2010

My own opinion is that Sanger goes a bit too far-- I do not believe such behavior necessarily reflects lack of confidence or ambition. I would say that perhaps female students speak the way they do in class because they are more aware of how nuanced the particular topic is upon which they are commenting. Why women want to provide the "correct" answer while men are satisfied with throwing out their "opinion" is surely the result of some society-ingrained process I won't try to speculate upon here. Isn't this a possibility, too?

On a final note, I have often been called out on for not being "ladylike." And yet, if I chose to behave "ladylike," say, in front of a powerful man with an eye to obtaining a job, that would be criticized. Except then I would be called a "whore" or a "slut," using my feminine prowess for evil. Whatever.

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 21 Apr 2010

From my experience of participating in and coaching mock trial for seven years I found a pretty glaring catch-22 for females as trial attorneys. Judges would criticize female attorneys for one of two things more than anything else. The first was if a woman was assertive to the extent that a man would be on a given cross-examination judges (practicing attorneys and judges) would claim she was far over the top. One judge (female) even claimed that one of my attorneys needed to "tone down the bitch." However, on the same cross a male attorney from the team who was even more aggressive would be praised for "going for the jugular." The catch-22 was that if the female attorneys "tone[d] down the bitch," they would inevitably be told that their cross was not effective, even when they elicited the same or better information, because they were too soft.

Taking these together I came to the conclusion that the circular system being played by sexism was that a women should never be aggressive, and to not be aggressive (particularly in certain situations) in the courtroom was ineffective. Thus, the sexist judge was always able to maintain (at least subconsciously if you give them benefit of the doubt) the notion that female attorneys were inevitably less effective than their male counterparts.

-- RobLaser - 21 Apr 2010