Althouse: "[H]ow many of the men who were able to clerk for Judge Kozinski without having to worry about their own safety... concluded that their female colleagues fell behind because they just didn’t have what it takes..."

December 15, 2017

"[H]ow many of the men who were able to clerk for Judge Kozinski without having to worry about their own safety... concluded that their female colleagues fell behind because they just didn’t have what it takes..."

"... not because they had been effectively cut off from certain opportunities? I have heard countless people, over the years, conclude that women don’t occupy as many senior positions because they just don’t 'try as hard' as men, or have the 'ambition' to reach the highest-level jobs, or because they care too much about 'work-life balance.' Maybe sometimes. But these accusations should remind us that some doors that look like they’re open to everyone are really closed to some. And that the consequences of that reach far beyond the individual victims."

Writes Amanda Taub at "The #MeToo Moment: How One Harasser Can Rob a Generation of Women" (NYT).

25 comments:

rcocean said...: Did any women have to "Fear for their safety"? I doubt it. I thought the allegations about Kozinksi were that he asked them to watch porn or take a shower or whatever.

I don't remember reading anything about physical attacks.

Fact is, there women cared so little about the sexual harassment, they didn't mention it publicly until years afterwards.; 12/15/17, 11:07 AM
rcocean said...: Its like the women in the Judge Moore case. Evidently, Judge Moore's actions were so terrible and devastating it took them 35 years to go public.; 12/15/17, 11:08 AM
YoungHegelian said...: If it was so clear that Judge Kozinski was "robbing a whole generation of women", then perhaps some legal-beagle modern day Joan of Arc should have come forward & fought the beast on his home soil.

The concept of "For the mission to succeed, sometimes some must fall" just seems to be completely alien to the mindset of 1st world bourgeois feminism, as seemingly are most other expressions of physical courage.

Stop whining. Fight back. Immediately, right when it happens, Make a scene. Break shit, preferably over the perpetrator's head. Yes, you personally might lose something, but so will your harasser.; 12/15/17, 11:14 AM
rhhardin said...: The math and chess lotharios do the same thing, probably.

For a real test we need a field where men do better than women but there's no men in it.; 12/15/17, 11:17 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: How many women were 'robbed' by other women too weak or self-interested to put a stop to anything? And how many of those same women (Dahlia Lithwick, looking in your general direction) now want sympathy for their very weakness? Piss off, the lot of you.; 12/15/17, 11:26 AM
traditionalguy said...: I 100% agree, but again, I point out the damage a intelligent toxic narcissist man can do when he acts well enough that he gets himself into a POWER position over others. It is not just the women they go after.; 12/15/17, 11:30 AM
Rosalyn C. said...: The most blatant sexism I witnessed on the job was in a post office where a couple of fellow clerks were being trained for management. The young woman was given one or two days of training, whereas the young man was trained for about two weeks before either was allowed to supervise the shift. Not exaggerating. She was overwhelmed and he sailed through with flying colors, proving that men are better at leadership positions. Amazing how if you want to prove something badly enough you'll find a way.; 12/15/17, 11:48 AM
rcocean said...: "The most blatant sexism I witnessed on the job was in a post office where a couple of fellow clerks were being trained for management."

And when did that happen? 35 years ago?; 12/15/17, 11:56 AM
n.n said...: Judge people by the "color of their skin".

Color, sex, ethnic, etc. diversity is an institutional requirement. I wonder how many people, women and men, have been complicit.; 12/15/17, 12:34 PM
Expat(ish) said...: This judge must have had a helluva big staff to get an entire generation of women off track.

And it happened for many years, I understand, so that must have taken out multiple generations of women.

That puts him up there with Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

-XC; 12/15/17, 12:42 PM
Jupiter said...: SDaly said...
"My male friends who worked for Judge Kozinski described the same behavior directed at them, off-color jokes, porn, requirement of 24/7 availability for work and or socializing."

Well, but see, these women would have had no problem putting up with all that from another woman. It's the fact that Kozinski is male that makes it all unacceptable harassment. So just make a note; when feminists say they want "equal opportunity", what they mean is that they want all the rewarding jobs that pay well to be held by women, and men can have all the others. That's exactly what they mean, and they don't mean anything else.; 12/15/17, 12:47 PM
Kevin said...: But these accusations should remind us that some doors that look like they’re open to everyone are really closed to some.

You mean like those who didn't go to the right law schools and therefore couldn't get the chance to clerk for someone like Judge Kosinski in the first place?

Just how few people would even qualify for such a clerkship position in the first place? In a world of 7 billion people, effectively no one.

Look like they're open for everyone? HA!; 12/15/17, 12:57 PM
Big Mike said...: Heidi Bond went from a clerkship to Kozinski to clerkships with two Supreme Court justices and thence to a law professorship. I don't accept the premise of the article; Kozinski did nothing to damage Bond's career in law. Taub wants to know "How many more women would have gone on to greater things if clerking for Judge Kozinski were a truly equal-opportunity situation? And then how many other, younger women would have seen them as role models or inspirations, and gone on to greater things themselves?" But Bond went on to clerk for Sandra Day O'Conner -- please tell me Professor Althouse, what is "greater" than that for a young female lawyer?; 12/15/17, 12:59 PM
Sebastian said...: "these accusations should remind us that some doors that look like they’re open to everyone are really closed to some. And that the consequences of that reach far beyond the individual victims."

There's no evidence he robbed anyone of anything. There are no victims. But there are women who got their feelings hurt.; 12/15/17, 1:26 PM
n.n said...: How one alleged harasser could have been censured by one less voluntary victim.

Don't go along to get along. This isn't the Soviet Union, Mao's China, or some other left-wing paradise, where Pro-Choice is the established State religion.

Discover your dignity. Take responsibility.; 12/15/17, 1:43 PM
Rosalyn C. said...: rcocean said... "And when did that happen? 35 years ago?" Yes, exactly right.; 12/15/17, 2:29 PM
chickelit said...: How long now before women start asking men for reparations in a class action sort of way? We know that only women have class.; 12/15/17, 2:43 PM
David said...: Two female Supreme Court clerks as examples of closed opportunities? Hard to feel too sorry for them on a career basis.

And if one man can close the door on a generation of women, just what kind of generation is it?

We had a great influx of talented women in my law firm while I was practicing (starting 1970). They were highly valued and given great assignments commensurate with their talents and achievements. I have no doubt that on occasion being female was a detriment. Adjustments to new facts and values take some time and are imperfect. But these talented women ended up running important practice groups, handling top level cases and transactions and being part of the top management of the firm (a mixed blessing to be sure.)

We live in a diverse country with a lot of different "cultures." The culture of mysogyny and harassment that seems to pervade some corners of our politics, government and entertainment is not the predominant culture, at least in my experience.; 12/15/17, 3:07 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Blogger Big Mike said...
“Heidi Bond went from a clerkship to Kozinski to clerkships with two Supreme Court justices and thence to a law professorship. I don't accept the premise of the article; Kozinski did nothing to damage Bond's career in law. Taub wants to know "How many more women would have gone on to greater things if clerking for Judge Kozinski were a truly equal-opportunity situation? And then how many other, younger women would have seen them as role models or inspirations, and gone on to greater things themselves?" But Bond went on to clerk for Sandra Day O'Conner -- please tell me Professor Althouse, what is "greater" than that for a young female lawyer?”

That is key there - nothing can beat a Supreme Court clerkship for aspiring young lawyers, and the best way to get one is through an appeals court clerkship. Best way to become an associate at a top paying firm, and best way to get a good law school job. I think that it is (or at least was) 27 of the absolute top grads from the top schools in the country get this honor every year. And it stays with you your entire career, still impressing clients 40 years down the road.; 12/15/17, 3:14 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “I have heard countless people, over the years, conclude that women don’t occupy as many senior positions because they just don’t 'try as hard' as men, or have the 'ambition' to reach the highest-level jobs, or because they care too much about 'work-life balance.' ”

Sorry, but that is true. Statistically, a lot more males, than females, are willing to put in 60 and 80 hour weeks for years and years, maybe decades. And that is what it takes sometimes. It is plain silly to pretend differently. The trap is finding one woman or so who is willing to put in those hours for those years, and assume from that that the sexes are the same here. They aren’t - the key word is “statistically”, which cannot be refuted with individual contrary examples.; 12/15/17, 3:21 PM
Big Mike said...: @Bruce Hayden, thank you for the confirmation.; 12/15/17, 4:13 PM
jg said...: Men in authority can arbitrarily take a shine to whoever they want.
Nobody assumes fast-rising stars are only the most capable; everyone assumes that they're more importantly successful suck-ups.
How about the men and women who were left behind as the sex-pest boss gave opportunities to women who did play sexual ball?; 12/15/17, 10:23 PM
tim maguire said...: The line, for which there is a fair amount of truth, is not that women don't try as hard, but that they prioritize family over career, and so predictably don't climb as high up the corporate ladder. Men don't face the same choice, generally. For the man, prioritizing the career IS prioritizing the family.

Wanting to stay home more is socially supported for women, not for men.; 12/16/17, 6:02 AM
tim maguire said...: Do men and women face different pressures? Sure. Do these discussions ignore the pressures men face in an effort to portray women as uniquely victims? You bet! Are women "victims"? Maybe. To a greater extent than men? Maybe. Or maybe women complain more and/or are supported more in ther complaints and/or are more determined than men to seek (or demand) others' help in overcoming their challenges.

Wharever the truth, I see no attempt, least of all by feminists, to really honestly look at the relative pressures and opportunities of women and men and see where life is unequal or unfair.; 12/16/17, 6:19 AM
Kirk Parker said...: ". Or maybe women complain more "

Whoa whoa... whoa.

Tim, when I get done guffawing I'm gonna like this.

Maybe? MAYBE????

GMAFB ok?; 12/16/17, 5:57 PM