Do
you
think
that
the
legal
profession
is
too
feminine?
No,
this
is
not
a
trick
question.
I
am
interested
in
your
opinion
because
a
conservative
commentator,
Helen
Andrews,
asserts
that
our
profession
is
being
feminized,
to
the
profession’s
detriment.
Andrews
thinks
all
professions
are
being
feminized,
due
to
“wokeness,”
but
she
leans
most
heavily
on
the
legal
profession.
Cancel
culture
is
female,
she
says,
and
it
is
what
women
do
when
there
are
enough
of
us
in
a
given
field.
Everything
you
think
of
as
wokeness
involves
prioritizing
the
feminine
over
the
masculine:
empathy
over
rationality,
safety
over
risk,
cohesion
over
competition.
Wokeness,
says
Andrews,
is
“simply
feminine
patterns
of
behavior
applied
to
institutions
where
women
were
few
in
number
until
recently.” Qualities
that
women
see
as
positive,
Andrews
says
are
negative:
women
use
collaboration
and
consensus
to
reach
decisions,
while
men
are
not
afraid
to
engage
in
open
warfare.
According
to
Andrews,
another
failing
of
women
is
the
inability
to
compartmentalize,
something
that
men
are
very
good
at. Wokeness,
she
says,
is
an
inability
to
compartmentalize,
pointing
out,
as
an
example, the
differences
between
men
and
women
in
dispute
resolution.
When
men
are
finished
fighting
and
one
side
or
the
other
has
won,
they
are
quicker
to
reconcile
and
to
move
forward
in
peace.
Really?
Not
my
experience.
I
won’t
tell
you
about
the
sore
loser
male
attorney
who
yelled
at
me
because
he
hadn’t
received
the
settlement
check
yet
and
it
wasn’t
due
until
a
certain
date.
How
many
sore
losers
are
men?
Whereas,
according
to
Andrews,
women
are
slower
to
accept
resolution.
Who
pouts
more?
How
many
stereotypes
fit
on
the
head
of
her
theses?
Andrews
devotes
much
of
her
criticism
to
the
legal
profession
and,
as
the
older
lawyers
(of
course
men)
retire
and
die,
it
will
be
the
female
majority
in
charge
of
the
profession.
Ha!
Don’t
we
wish.
With
the
eviscerating
of
the
DEI
initiatives,
the
number
of
women
in
law
leadership
roles
will
probably
be
rolled
back
with
the
implicit
or
explicit
blessing
of
the
current
administration.
Andrews
fears
that
the
rule
of
law
will
not
survive
feminization.
Why?
She
says
that
the
rule
of
law
can
only
survive
in
a
world
where
precedent
must
be
followed
and
appeals
to
sympathies
must
be
ignored.
What
world
is
she
living
in?
Precedent
being
followed?
Please.
She
is
right
that
appeals
to
doing
the
right
thing
are
being
ignored.
How
many
Supreme
Court
cases
do
I
need
to
cite?
And
as
long
as
the
Supreme
Court
is
majority
male
and
majority
conservative,
she
has
nothing
to
worry
about.
Way
back
when
in
dinosaur
times
(e.g.,
1970)
as
more
women
started
entering
law
school
and
then
the
profession,
the
thought
was
that
women’s
impact
would
be
“minor,”
as
Andrews
puts
it.
But
it’s
not,
and
many
of
us
think
that
is
cause
for
celebration,
not
denigration.
A
workplace
where
women
have
equal
opportunity?
What
a
concept!
Contrary
to
Andrews’
theory,
many
women
have
moved
ahead
based
on
merit,
not
on
gender,
just
as
many
men
have
moved
ahead
punching
their
tickets
issued
by
the
“good
old
boys”
in
the
country
club,
the
locker
room
or
all
those
private
clubs
that
excluded
women
until
laws
forced
changes,
to
the
dismay
of
many
members.
Feminization,
to
Andrews,
is
not
something
that
has
happened
organically.
It
is,
she
says,
social
engineering.
Is
Andrews
that
naive
to
believe
that
discrimination
against
women
in
the
workplace
hasn’t
happened
and
won’t
continue
to
happen?
That
sexual
discrimination
has
been
erased
from
our
society?
I
don’t
think
that
there
is
any
woman
lawyer
in
our
profession
or
any
other,
who
wouldn’t
be
delighted
if
that
was
the
case,
but
it’s
not,
and
it’s
a
pipe
dream.
It’s
not
wokeness,
it’s
wake-up-ness.
Men
can
be
aggressive,
and
that’s
just
peachy.
Women
who
are
aggressive
are
called
by
any
number
of
unflattering
names
as
they
rise
in
the
profession.
A
little
discrimination
there?
Andrews
calls
for
the
restoration
of
what
she
calls
“fair
rules.”
and
contends
that
“Right
now
we
have
a
nominally
meritocratic
system
in
which
it
is
illegal
for
women
to
lose.
Let’s
make
hiring
meritocratic
in
substance
and
not
just
name,
and
we
will
see
how
it
shakes
out.
Make
it
legal
to
have
a
masculine
office
culture
again.”
Yes,
definitely,
let’s
return
to
that.
A
masculine
office
culture
full
of
bullying,
yelling,
and
hollering,
leering,
touching, and
other
boorish
behavior.
Women
lawyers
have
worked
hard
to
achieve.
Contrary
to
what
Andrews
believes,
it’s
not
the
feminization
of
the
profession,
it’s
the
humanization
of
it. She
admits
she
is
not
a
lawyer,
so
her
opinions
are
observational,
not
participatory.
Go
ahead,
please
walk
a
mile
in
my
lawyer
shoes
of
almost
50
years
(and
I
am
not
even
including
the
preceding
three
years
of
law
school).
I
am
a
size
7B.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].