Radical Feminism and Law Business
Corporate law firms have always been considered as a playground for the ‘boys’ exclusively. With the rapid development of the international corporate law giants since the 1960s, it has been reported that the overwhelming majority of the partners, i.e.
90% of senior full partners and approximately 80% of full salaried partners were men. Although the amounts of the legal services provided by the ladies in the international law firms were not smaller, they were reportedly discriminated. It is important to accentuate the word reportedly, because neither the scientific studies, nor the court practice corroborated the fact that the discrimination indeed took place, and the violation of the rights justified the extensive and aggressive policy of feminism. After the ladies magazines became flamboyant with the articles about how ladies were wrongfully treated and how blatantly their promotions were deterred only because of their gender, National Woman’s party, its affiliated institutions and allies launched a set of bellicose operations against the dominance of the males “in the law firms and in the civil institutions”. The two main arguments that have been raised by the campaigners were that the young female associates were routinely sexually harassed in their offices and that the promotion from the associates to partners directly depended on the gender of the candidates. With regard to the theory of feminism, it can be recapitulated that this campaign is a clear example of the Radical Feminism, where the males are squarely blamed for violating the rights of the women.
Ultimately, the result of the campaign was positive for the global feminist movement. In particular, the United States Supreme Court upheld several decisions which bound the law firms to promote the ladies applicants. Nowadays, it is reported that all cases of discrimination have been entirely eradicated, and law business is known to be a fruitful environment for the ladies’ careers. However, I am still firmly convinced, that since neither the science, nor the initial court practice corroborated the arguments, the claims were exaggerated.