# data[].attributes.body
http://www.businessinsider.com/subtle-ways-women-treated-differently-work-2014-6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jaimie Trueblood/AMC
How can you fight an enemy you can't see? That's the challenge professional women face in today's workplace.

"Discrimination today is not as in your face as it was before; it's often harder to see," says Caryl Rivers, coauthor of recent book " The New Soft War On Women." "Legally, you can't say 'I'm not going to hire you or give you this assignment because you're a woman and you can't do it,' but the old attitudes still run deep and are expressed subtly."

Both men and women hold these views but often don't even realize it. "It's hard to fight this," says Rivers, but awareness is key.

Here are 13 subtle ways women are still treated differently at work.

If women are assertive, it can be seen as aggressive. "It's a Catch-22," says Sonya Rhodes, Ph.D., a psychotherapist and author of new book " The Alpha Woman Meets Her Match." "Whatever women do at work, they have to do it nicely. But the more you back off, the more they don't take you seriously." Women have to walk a thin line between being too nice and too forceful.

When women are successful, they're often called "bitchy" and seen as less likable. In one well-known 2003 study, business students were given two identical resumes, one using the name Heidi and the other Howard. "Howard was judged as terrifically competent, but Heidi was judged as bitchy," says Rivers. When the experiment was repeated 10 years later, the woman was found to be slightly more likable but less trustworthy than the man.

Women are more likely to get lower initial offers. In another study using identical resumes, female scientists were offered a starting salary of $26,500, and men were offered $30,200. "Hiring managers will offer a slightly lower salary because they think they can get away with it," says Rhodes. And because women are often so grateful to get the position, she says they are less likely to negotiate the offer, which compounds and perpetuates the cycle of lower pay.

Women are less likely to get credit in group projects. When men and women work together, the men are more likely to get the credit - even if she did the bulk of the work and he's junior, says Rivers. It may be a combination of men being assumed more competent and women not actively taking credit for their work. "Women undersell themselves, and people undersell women," adds Rhodes.

Women are assumed to be incompetent until they prove themselves. As Linda Hudson, former CEO of security and defense company BAE Systems, recently told the authors of " The Confidence Code": "I think the environment is such that even in the position I am now, everyone's first impression is that I'm not qualified to do the job. When a man walks into a room, they're assumed to be competent until they prove otherwise." Women, however, are automatically assumed to be incompetent.

Women get promoted on performance, and men get promoted on potential. Research shows that women must prove that they are capable of succeeding in a role before they are promoted into it, whereas men may be promoted on their perceived potential. That means men often move up faster in organizations. "When a men walks in the door, he gets the benefit of male stereotypes," says Rivers.

Talkative men are seen as competent, and talkative women as incompetent. A study comparing the volubility of powerful men and women found that male leaders talk more - and with good reason. When men and women talked the same amount, she was seen as significantly less competent and less suited to leadership.

When women show anger, they are often judged as too emotional. Research shows that both men and women think women should be nice and kind and nurturing, says Rivers, and that men should be strong. When men show anger it looks like strength, but when women do the same, they are perceived as too emotional and out of control. "These stereotypes are deeply ingrained," she says.

Men get a fatherhood bonus, and women a motherhood penalty. While employers believe men will put more effort into succeeding at work once they become fathers, they believe women will direct more effort towards their kids. "The minute women become mothers, the attitude towards them changes," Rivers says. "When women become mothers, they suffer financially. Women make significantly less over a lifetime."

Women are often interrupted or ignored in meetings. Especially when there are only one or two women around the table, their voices can easily go unheard. Rhodes says it's very common that others may interrupt them, finish their sentences, or not give them the focus and subtle encouragement to continue. More frustrating is when a woman offers her idea, and no one responds. Then, a few minutes later, a man in the room presents the same idea, and only then is it heard and received well. When Beth Brooke, global vice chair at Ernst & Young, experienced this at a board meeting, she pulled the leader aside to mention it, and he hadn't even noticed that it happened.

When speaking in public, women have to take command of a room. Women presenters at male-dominated events have a harder time getting the attention of the room, says Rhodes. For example, one of her clients, a woman in her late 20s who works for a financial company, says when she stands up to give a presentation, she can't get the guys to settle down. "Women don't command that kind of attention," she says. "They have to take control."

Women may not be invited to social events. Getting together to drink, watch the game, or play sports is typically how social bonds are formed at the office and when valuable information, like who's position might be opening up or how to get in the graces of a certain boss, is shared. When women aren't included in these events, says Rhodes, it can marginalize them and limit their knowledge.

Women are judged more harshly on their appearance. In a major survey conducted by the Center for Talent Innovation and detailed in the book " Executive Presence," senior executives listed twice as many appearance blunders committed by women than men. Additionally, women were judged more harshly. For example, a woman might be seen as lacking leadership skills if she's overweight, while a man receives the same judgment if obese.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Subtle Ways Women Are Treated Differently At Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How can you fight an enemy you can't see? That's the challenge professional women face in today's workplace. "Discrimination today is not as in your face as it was before; it's often harder to see," says Caryl Rivers, coauthor of recent book " The New Soft War On Women."

# data[].attributes.body
http://dc.suntimes.com/dc-news/7/82/227733/virginia-standards-test-gender

# data[].attributes.body
http://dc.suntimes.com/dc-news/7/82/227733/virginia-standards-test-gender

# data[].attributes.body
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/laws/a/Constitution-Sex-Discrimination.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States Constitution did not mention women or limit any of its rights or privileges to males. The word "persons" was used, which sounds gender neutral. However, common law, inherited from British precedents, informed the interpretation of the law. And many state laws were not gender-neutral. While right after the Constitution was adopted, New Jersey accepted voting rights for women, even those had been lost by a bill in 1807 that rescinded the right of both women and black men to vote in that state.

The principle of coverture prevailed at the time the Constitution was written and adopted: a married woman was simply not a person under the law; her legal existence was bound up with that of her husband's.

Dower rights, meant to protect a widow's income during her lifetime, were already being ignored increasingly, and so women were in the tough position of not having significant rights to own property, while the convention of dower that had protected them under that system was collapsing. Beginning in the 1840s, women's rights advocates began working to establish legal and political equality for women in some of the states. Property rights of women were among the first targets. But these did not affect the federal constitutional rights of women. Not yet.

1868: Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution

The first major constitutional change to affect women's rights was the Fourteenth Amendment.

This amendment was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which found that black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," and to clarify other citizenship rights after the American Civil War had ended. The primary effect was to ensure that freed slaves and other African Americans had full citizenship rights.

But the amendment also included the word "male" in connection with voting, and the women's rights movement split over whether to support the amendment because it established racial equality in voting, or oppose it because it was the first explicit federal denial that women had voting rights.

1873: Bradwell v. Illinois

Myra Bradwell claimed the right to practice law as part of the 14th Amendment's protections. The Supreme Court found that the right to choose one's profession was not a protected right, and that women's "paramount destiny and mission" was the "offices of wife and mother." Women could be legally excluded from the practice of law, the Supreme Court found, using a separate spheres argument.1875: Minor v. Happerset

The suffrage movement decided to use the Fourteenth Amendment, even with that mention of "male," to justify women voting. A number of women in 1872 attempted to vote in a federal election; Susan B. Anthony was arrested and convicted for doing so. A Missouri woman, Virginia Minor, also challenged the law. The registrar's action forbidding her from voting was the basis for yet another case to reach the Supreme Court. (Her husband had to file the lawsuit, as coverture laws forbid her as a married woman from filing on her own behalf.) In their decision in Minor v. Happerset, the Court found that while women were indeed citizens, voting was not one of the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" and thus states could deny women the right to vote.

1894: In re Lockwood

Belva Lockwood filed a lawsuit to force Virginia to allow her to practice law. She was already a member of the bar in the District of Columbia. But the Supreme Court found that it was acceptable to read the word "citizens" in the 14th Amendment to include only male citizens.

1903: Muller v. Oregon

Thwarted in legal cases claiming women's full equality as citizens, women's rights and labor rights workers filed the Brandeis Brief in the case of Muller v. Oregon. The claim was that women's special status as wives and mothers, especially as mothers, required that they be given special protection as workers. The Supreme Court had been reluctant to allow legislatures to interfere with contract rights of employers by permitting limits on hours or minimum wage requirements; however, in this case, the Supreme Court looked at evidence of working conditions and permit special protections for women in the workplace.

Louis Brandeis, himself later appointed to the Supreme Court, was the lawyer for the case promoting protective legislation for women; the Brandeis brief was prepared primarily by his sister-in-law Josephine Goldmark and by reformer Florence Kelley.

1920: Nineteenth Amendment

Women were granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by enough states in 1920 to take effect.

1923: Adkins v. Children's Hospital

In 1923, the Supreme Court decided that federal minimum wage legislation applying to women infringed on the liberty of contract and thus on the Fifth Amendment. Muller v. Oregon was not overturned, however.

1923: Equal Rights Amendment Introduced

Alice Paul wrote a proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution to require equal rights for men and women. She named the proposed amendment for suffrage pioneer Lucretia Mott. When she reworded the amendment in the 1940s, it came to be called the Alice Paul amendment. It did not pass the Congress until 1972.

1938: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

This decision by the Supreme Court, overturning Adkins v. Children's Hospital, upheld Washington State's minimum wage legislation, opening the door again for protective labor legislation applying to women or men.

1948: Goesaert v. Cleary

In this case, the Supreme Court found valid a state statute prohibiting most women (other than wives of daughters of male tavern keepers) from serving or selling liquor.

1961: Hoyt v. Florida

The Supreme Court heard this case challenging a conviction on the basis that the female defendant faced an all-male jury because jury duty was not mandatory for women. The Supreme Court denied that the state statute exempting women from jury duty was discriminatory, finding that women needed protection from th atmosphere of the courtroom and that it was reasonable to assume that women were needed in the home.

1971: Reed v. Reed

In Reed v. Reed, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case where state law preferred males to females as administrator's of an estate.

In this case, unlike many earlier cases, the Court held that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause applied to women equally.

1972: Equal Rights Amendment Passes Congress

In 1972, the US Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment, sending it to the states. The Congress appended a requirement that the amendment be ratified within seven years, later extended to 1982, but only 35 instead of the requisite states ratified it during that period. Some legal scholars challenge the deadline, and by that assessment, the ERA is still alive to be ratified by three more states.

1973: Frontiero v. Richardson

In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, the Supreme Court found that the military could not have different criteria for male spouses of military members in deciding eligibility for benefits, violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. The court also signaled that it would be using more scrutiny in the future in looking at sex distinctions in the law -- not quite strict scrutiny, which did not get a majority support among the justices in the case.

1974: Geduldig v. Aiello

Geduldig v. Aiello looked at a state's disability insurance system which excluded temporary absences from work due to pregnancy disability, and found that normal pregnancies did not have to be covered by the system.

1975: Stanton v. Stanton

In this case, the Supreme Court threw out distinctions in the age at which girls and boys were entitled to child support.

1976: Planned Parenthood v. Danforth

The Supreme Court found that spousal consent laws (in this case, in the third trimester) were unconstitutional, because the pregnant woman's rights were more compelling than her husband's. The Court did uphold that regulations requiring the woman's full and informed consent were constitutional.

1976: Craig. v. Boren

In Craig v. Boren, the court threw out a law which treated men and women differently in setting a drinking age. The case is also noted for setting out the new standard of judicial review in cases involving sex discrimination, intermediate scrutiny.

1979: Orr v. Orr

In Orr v. Orr, the Court held that alimony laws applied equally to women and men, and that the means of the partner were to be considered, not merely their sex.

1981: Rostker v. Goldberg

In this case, the Court applied equal protection analysis to examine whether male-only registration for the Selective Service violated the due process clause. By a six to three decision, the Court applied the heightened scrutiny standard of Craig v. Boren to find that military readiness and appropriate use of resources justified the sex-based classifications. The court did not challenge the exclusion of women from combat and the role of women in the armed forces in making their decision.

1987: Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte

In this case, the Supreme Court weighed a "State's efforts to eliminate gender-based discrimination against its citizens and the constitutional freedom of association asserted by members of a private organization." A unanimous decision by the court, with a decision written by Justice Brennan, found unanimously that the message of the organization would not be changed by admitting women, and therefore, by the strict scrutiny test, the interest of the state overrode a claim to a First Amendment right of freedom of association and freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sex Discrimination and the US Constitution: Women's Equality & the Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States Constitution did not mention women or limit any of its rights or privileges to males. The word "persons" was used, which sounds gender neutral. However, common law, inherited from British precedents, informed the interpretation of the law. And many state laws were not gender-neutral.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/16/the-world-s-craziest-anti-women-laws.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Where in the world can a man abduct a woman, marry her, and immediately become impossible to prosecute? That would be Lebanon and Malta. Where can't a married woman get divorced without her husband's permission? Try Israel. In Russia, women are still forbidden from "hard, dangerous and/or unhealthy trades."

All these laws are still on the books despite the fact that 20 years ago, at the 1995 World Conference on Women, 189 countries signed on to a plan that would incorporate greater gender equality in their penal codes by revoking any discriminatory laws.

Women's advocacy group Equality Now has launched a campaign against 44 governments for their discriminatory laws. The report, "Ending Sex Discrimination in the Law," was released on Friday with the intention of launching a worldwide petition campaign and accompanied by the hashtag #UnSexyLaws.

There's a sliver of light shining on the deep, dark depths of law books and penal codes. The organization has been releasing similar reports since 1999, and so far made serious strides: more than half of the laws it condemned since 1999 have since been repealed or amended, from Bangladesh to Lesotho.

Still, here we are, in 2015, and these horrendous laws-an abominable selection of which are listed below-are still on the books.
Where Married Women Can Be Raped
India has been struggling to address its sexual assault problem the global outcry over a brutal gang rape and death of young student made headlines across the world in 2012. But a year later, the country added this clause into legislation-"Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape." The country has effectively legalized marital rape.

A similar law remains on the books in Singapore, where marital rape is acceptable so long as the girl is over 13 years old. In the Bahamas, rape is also not considered if there is a marriage and the girl is at least 14 years old.
Where You Can Freely Abduct a Woman
In Malta and Lebanon, crimes are literally erased once the offender marries the victim. For instance, in Malta, if a kidnapper "after abducting a person, shall marry such person, he shall not be liable to prosecution," the law says. If the marriage occurs after a trial and conviction, the abductor's sentence will immediately be wiped. Similarly, in Lebanon, crimes including rape and kidnapping, will be halted at the time of marriage. If there's divorce within five years of a felony crime, the prosecution or penalty can resume.

Similar abominable laws were overthrown in Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Peru and Uruguay, in the past decade.
It's Legal for Women to Be Beaten
In Nigeria, violence "by a husband for the purpose of correcting his wife" is considered lawful. Violence is similarly allowed if a parent or schoolmaster is punishing a child, or a "master for the purpose of correcting his servant."
Where It's Illegal for Women to Do Labor
In China, women can't "work down the pit of mines," or do difficult physical labor, or, specifically, "other work that female workers should avoid." Similar laws are repeated in books across the globe-making for a totally geographically diverse triangle. In Madagascar, women cannot be employed at night in an "industrial establishment" unless it's the family

business. And Russian lawmakers decided that "labor of females on hard, dangerous and/or unhealthy trades...is forbidden." This sweeping statement covers 456 different types of work, including driving trains, carpenting, frontline firefighting, and sailing.
Where Women Can't Drive
In Saudi Arabia, a 1990 Fatwa argues that "women's driving of automobiles" is prohibited, due to it being "a source of undeniable vices," such as men and women privately meeting and women removing their veils. Though this isn't an official entry into the law books, it's illegal for women to be given a driver's license in the first place. In December, two women were detained and then referred to trial in terrorism court for trying to drive over the border. Last week, a Saudi historian went on television to defend the ban, arguing that women who drive in the U.S. and Europe "don't care if they are raped on the roadside, but we do."
Where Men Chose a Woman's Work
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a "wife is obliged to live with her husband and follow him wherever he sees fit to reside." She also cannot appear in civil court or "sell or undertake commitments" without her husband's go-ahead. If the husband agrees but later changes his mind, he can revoke that privilege. This makes it almost impossible for a woman to open her own business, or do any above-the-table dealings independently.

In Guinea, a similar law applies to women seeking a separate profession from her husband, which is illegal if he objects.

In Yemen, a 1992 act allows that a wife "must obey him and refrain from disobedience, and perform her work around the conjugal home." She's barred from even leaving the home without expressed permission. When she does go outside it must be for "a mutually agreed job that does not conflict with Islamic law. A legitimate excuse would be for the woman to take care of her frail parents if she is the only one available to care for either or both of them." This law also allows for marital rape.

And Sudanese law stipulates that a husband has the right:

"(a) to be taken care of and amicably obeyed; and

(b) to have the wife preserve herself and his property."
Where Sisters Don't Inherit As Much As Brothers
Tunisian women are only given half an inherited estate, according to the country's law, and two daughters are allowed two-thirds of what was willed. But if there's a brother thrown into the mix, the ratio gets dramatically skewed. "Where there are any sons, the male inherits twice as much as the female," the law reads. In the United Arab Emirates, the law is almost exactly the same, with men granted double what women are allowed.
Where a Cheating Wife Can Be Killed
Egyptian law proclaims that "Whoever surprises his wife in the act of adultery and kills her on the spot together with her adulterer-partner shall be punished with detention," rather than the typically ascribed 20 years of hard labor for murder. In Syria, where atrocities against women are many in the midst of civil war, it's long been legal for a man to murder. Before 2009, a man who killed his wife, sister, daughter or mother when catching her in an "illegitimate sexual act" was exempt from punishment. That changed in 2009, and again in 2011, to stipulate a minimum sentence of five years in prison, but no more than seven.
Where a Woman Can't Get Divorced
In Israel, where marriages and divorces between Jewish citizens are under rabbinical law, women have a lesser right to leave their husbands than men do their wives. When this inequality was challenged in the Rabbinical High Court in 1995, the judges decided not to force a husband to grant his wife a divorce after six years of separation. Citing ancient Jewish law that states definitively that it can be granted "if the husband wants to divorce her," the court ruled that: "that the matter depends only on what he wants, and we should therefore grant his appeal." A judge on that case noted that it would be preferable to be a slave than a wife under Jewish law. What's more-women are not allowed to serve in these courts. Only in 2013 were they even allowed to sit on the committee that appoints rabbinic judges.

The ancient technicalities of the laws can lead to such complex traps as experienced by a woman in Jerusalem who is unable to marry her partner of 10 years because Jewish law stipulates a separation ceremony must be carried out to release her from her dead husband-and her father-in-law refused to perform the ritual. In September, the city's Rabbinical Court denied her request to remarry.

A world away, in Mali, a woman has strict guidelines for remarriage after divorce: a divorcee can only find a new husband after waiting of three months, and a widow cannot remarry before four months and 10 days after her husband's death. If the widow is pregnant she must wait until giving birth.
Where a Woman's Testimony Doesn't Count
The right of a witness to testify in a court of law seems indisputable. But in Iran, testimony must be provided by two male witnesses in a standard case. For cases where the punishment is severe, "testimony of two just men and four just women shall be sufficient." In most sections of the legislation, there must be at least double the number of female witnesses as male. In Iran, it's also illegal for women to go out in public without proper dress, and violation of this means a sentence of imprisonment or a fine.
Where Women Can't Get Children Citizenship
A child born out of wedlock to an American father and foreign mother has a trying process to gain US citizenship, with requirements including a written promise by the father to provide financial support, and a longer residency requirement than mother's. This makes it much harder for foreign women to acquire U.S. citizenship for their children. If the child is over age 18 when attempting to gain citizenship, it will only be granted if the mother already became naturalized.

This law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1998, and in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, she wrote: "The law at issue might have made custody or support the relevant criterion. Instead, it treats mothers one way, fathers another, shaping government policy to fit and reinforce the stereotype or historic pattern."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where in the world can a man abduct a woman, marry her, and immediately become impossible to prosecute? That would be Lebanon and Malta. Where can't a married woman get divorced without her husband's permission? Try Israel. In Russia, women are still forbidden from "hard, dangerous and/or unhealthy trades."

# data[].attributes.body
http://abovethelaw.com/2014/02/new-study-reveals-women-earn-much-more-than-men-in-biglaw-just-kidding/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For the past eight years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has tracked women's progress at the 200 largest firms in the nation by comparing their careers and compensation with similarly situated men. We snidely remarked last year that reviewing the most recent report was like "drinking a fifth of gin, then watching Requiem For A Dream: it's really freaking depressing."

Keeping that in perspective, we - perhaps over-optimistically - thought that in a year's time, Biglaw firms would have realized that women have a rightful place in this profession, and deserve to be treated as fairly and as equally as their male counterparts. We were clearly and painfully delusional.

Sure, the percentage of female equity partners rose from 15 percent to 17 percent, and that's great. But we've found out that an "unprecedented" number of Biglaw firms refused to participate in the survey. Was it because they're sick of surveys, or was it because firms "are generally less interested in the subject of advancing women lawyers and/or are hesitant to share, even on an anonymous and confidential basis, statistics that show that their women lawyers lag behind their male counterparts"?

Let's find out....

Vivia Chen of The Careerist provides a great summary of NAWL's 2013 Report (available on the next page):

- Men dominate lateral equity partners. About 66 percent of all new male equity partners are lateral hires, while half of new female equity partners are recruited laterally. (This is significant because "lateral hiring continues to dominate the process by which big law firms move lawyers into equity partnership.")

- Women are well-represented in lower-status positions. Women make up 47 percent of associates, 38 percent of counsel, 29 percent of nonequity partners, and 64 percent of staff attorneys.

- Women aren't making equity partner because they lack business and have high attrition rates. About 44 percent of firms say the problem is that women aren't developing business, while 38 percent say women tend to leave sooner. Another 11 percent of firms say the problem is that women lack sponsors and mentors, while 10 percent cite work/life balance issues.

- Minority female equity partner rates are pathetic. In the Am Law 100, minority women represent only 2 percent of equity partners, while male minorities hold 6 percent of equity partnerships. Among Am Law 200 firms, minority women occupy 2 percent of equity partnerships, while male minorities occupy 4 percent.

Stephanie Scharf, report author and past president of the NAWL Foundation, noted how "troubling" it was that women make up the largest percentage of plebeian positions and the lowest percentage of prestigious positions in Biglaw firms. The word "troubling" is awfully tame for this situation, don't you think?

Further to this point, as we mentioned above, while a great number of firms refused to participate in the most recent survey, even more refused to report compensation data for male and female equity partners. Why? Because "the gender pay gap found in so many past studies continues to be substantial." Lovely.

We're left wondering why Biglaw firms keep claiming that they're attempting to advance women within their firms. They claim to have written programs to promote the advancement of women, but it seems that they've yet to get with them. They've "repeatedly advised ... that they are committed to the goal of increasing gender equity," but the results of that goal are nowhere to be seen. If these firms actually gave one damn about their female attorneys - beyond touting the fact that they have real, live women working at the firm - then we'd have seen more progress by now.

We suppose the lady lawyers will have to be satisfied with these one and two percentage point achievements, which is a real shame.
(NAWL's Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms is available on the next page.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Study Reveals Women Earn Much More Than Men In Biglaw (Just Kidding!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For the past eight years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has tracked women's progress at the 200 largest firms in the nation by comparing their careers and compensation with similarly situated men. We snidely remarked last year that reviewing the most recent report was like "drinking a fifth of gin, then watching Requiem For A Dream: it's really freaking depressing."

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Prof. Starr's research shows large unexplained gender disparities in federal criminal cases
Nov. 16, 2012
If you're a criminal defendant, it may help-a lot-to be a woman. At least, that's what Prof. Sonja Starr's research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr's recent paper, " Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are...twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.

There are other studies that have shown gender disparity in criminal cases, but not as pronounced as Prof. Starr's findings. This is because she is looking at "a larger swath of the criminal justice process" in her analysis, she said. The paper states, "Existing studies have typically focused on single stages of the criminal process in isolation"-in particular, the judge's final sentencing decision. These studies compare actual sentencing outcomes after controlling for the recommended sentence associated with the defendant's ultimate conviction. The problem with this, Starr explains, is that "the key control variable is itself the result of a host of discretionary decisions made earlier in the justice process"-including prosecutors' charging and plea-bargaining decisions. Starr's research incorporates disparities found at those earlier stages, and finds that "more disparity is introduced at each phase of the justice process."

After estimating the amount of disparity left unexplained by the arrest offense and other control variables, the paper explores " why these gaps exist-and, in particular, whether unobserved differences between men and women might justify them." Prof. Starr explores several potential mitigating factors, such as the "girlfriend theory" (that "[w]omen might be viewed as...mere accessories of their male romantic partners"), the role of women as primary caregivers to their children, and the "theory that female defendants receive leniency because they are more cooperative with the government." Although each of these theories found some support in the data, they did not appear capable of explaining anything close to the total disparity that Prof. Starr found.

Prof. Starr emphasized that it is not possible to "prove" gender discrimination with data like hers, because it is always possible that two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data. Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, Starr believes that there is "pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap."

If men and women are being treated differently by prosecutors and judges, what should be done about it? Prof. Starr leaves that question to policymakers, but she does note that the solution "is not necessarily to lock up a lot more women, but perhaps to reconsider the decision-making criteria that are applied to men. About one in every fifty American men is currently behind bars, and we could think about gender disparity as perhaps being a key dimension of that problem."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study finds large gender disparities in federal criminal cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nov. 16, 2012 If you're a criminal defendant, it may help-a lot-to be a woman. At least, that's what Prof. Sonja Starr's research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr's recent paper, " Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings.

# data[].attributes.body
Girls side!

# data[].attributes.body
september 9, 2015