It was interesting to read Bill Jackson's take on the Law Society's latest statistics regarding the imbalance in the ratio of male to female partners (see [2005] Gazette, 14 July, 18). Mr Jackson's view appears to be that women really must try harder. But must they?


As someone who grew up in the 1960s, I am probably more aware of discriminatory treatment than most of my younger sister lawyers, many of whom still seem to think they can have it all - until, of course, they hit motherhood. My personal experience is that I don't find the legal profession any more or less sexually discriminating than the general population. But there seems to be a widely held assumption that all women (and men) have partnership set in their sights as their primary goal, even if it means forsaking other experiences that are of value to them. The most demanding jobs have always required individuals to make sacrifices in other areas of their lives. In a competitive market, that will never change.


The more fundamental questions for the researchers to grapple with, if they really want to make a contribution to the discrimination debate, are: Do women want to be partners? Do men want to be partners? What influences individuals most in seeking/accepting partnership? Does reaching partnership meet with individuals' expectations? What qualities do partners look for in prospective partners? Do the individuals selected for partnership have those qualities?


My suspicion is that, until men willingly take the same parental leave, cook their children's suppers and put them to bed in equality with their children's mothers, nothing will fundamentally change for the majority of women who will not put money and status before the care of their children. In which case, rather than calling for a revolution, perhaps the profession should be looking at ways of rewarding and motivating experienced lawyers other than by taking them into their brotherhood.



Julie Strange, Exeter