Latham under fire for holding cooking event for female network

  • Print
  • Comments (25)

Readers' comments (25)

  • Litigateuse (2.09pm),
    Testator, testatrix. Victor, victrix. Litigator, litigatrix?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done Latham for trying to have a women's event, not so well done for having made such a clumsy mistake.
    Cooking is of course something that both sexes can do, but as any fool can see, is also traditionally associated with "women's work", so was not an ideal choice for an event centred on women's advancement. This is obvious it is depressing it needs to be pointed out.
    The idea that 'these people' (i.e. women) can never be satisfied is the sort of thing we might reasonably have expected not to hear after the 1980s. And who are the WOMEN pouring scorn? Are you trying to win acceptance from the boys?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Matt Choman, as you seem to assume any female who isn't outraged with this move must be seeking acceptance from the boys are we to presume that you've annoyed your wife/secretary/office fling and in posting with your full name are hoping she'll see this and see your sensitive side?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks Pedant. It's actually my own personal play on words because I am bilingual, I speak both English and French :-)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pedant | 20-Apr-2012 4:52 pm

    I thought it was victress (like actor/actress), not victrex.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Appalling. I would go to an evening to talk about tax law pllicy (as a senior female lawyer) but not cooking. I would got to one on pensions policies or politics but canapes! It is beyond belief. What do they think we are?

    Leave that to men. Life is too short to stuff a mushroom as Shirley Conran said. . Sexism knows no bounds in some places.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For a publication that purports to champion diversity and inclusion, this is a pretty disappointing article from The Lawyer.

    Much as The Lawyer would have us believe that handbags across the L&W client base are flapping, I suspect the reality is very different.

    Who cares what it is that those involved in a Women's Network event (which, incidentally, very often include men) choose to do? Attendees go along to Women's Network events in order - surprise, surprise - to network among their professional peers. If, in addition, they happen to make canapes, support the same football team or particpate in underwater basket-weaving, so what?

    Networks are hugely important in our professional world and shouldn't be ridiculed. The fact that the Lawyer saw fit to make a story out of this based on gender stereotype simply highlights the need for Women's Networks in the first place.

    Well done L&W - keep up the good work!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To female lawyer - I don't think this event was designed to necessarily teach female lawyers anything per se and it certaintly isn't going to detract from their prospects of being promoted. Perhaps you would have rather seen L&W send its female lawyers on a training and development course then? ..... Although wouldn't that actually be more offensive...?!

    Lighten up a little - whatever is chosen, it is going to offend someone. The fact you raise the matter simply enforces the stereotype so it persists.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A mud-wrestling training & development course would have been more appropriate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Cooking was the domain of men for centuries and continues to be dominated by male chefs. But it is enjoyed by both men and women today. So I think we can drop the sexism argument. If you, female lawyer, are so insecure that you can't even allow yourself to be seen to enjoy a creative networking evening and would rather go to a talk about tax law policy then I feel sorry for you. And if you think that sort of thinking is going to put you on the fast track to a partnership I suspect you have another think coming. And if it is, do you really want to be in a culture that encourages that sort of thinking and behaviour, breeding humourless, soul-less shells?
    Why do so many lawyers insist on denying themselves the things that just might enrich their lives and give them pleasure? It is not the making of canapes in itself that will enrich someone (although it might, and why not? Who are we to suggest otherwise?) It is the notion of getting together outside the legal context and getting in touch with your human, creative, fun side---all those things that are too easily sucked out of you when you practice law. And this goes for men as well as women. As a woman, and former lawyer, it pains me to read some of these comments. No wonder lawyers are such a miserable lot!
    I for one think that life is way too short to spend my precious spare time listening to a talk on pensions policy when I could happily be meeting new people and stuffing mushrooms. Get a life before it is too late!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (25)