It's a Man's Game. Except When it Isn't.

When I made the decision to go to law school, and later when I made the decision to enter private practice as a litigator, I understood that I was stepping into some interesting territory as a woman. Sure, plenty of women go to law school, and plenty of women maintain very successful private practices. Heck, my graduating class was 51% female. But despite those facts and statistics, I also knew that the law was truly one of the last bastions of the old boys. Especially business litigation. I knew that many cases settled and deals struck either on the golf course or the steak house. I knew that my male collegues had wives who took care of the home and secretaries who took care of the office. I knew that some of my "partners" would never actually view me as such, simply because of my gender. I knew all that.

Despite that relatively clear-eyed view of my profession, I was dumbfounded when my gender became a central component in a case strategy. Let me explain. I'm working on a case where my main adversary is a notorious woman-hater. He just can't help himself. He's absoultely one of those guys who will always see smart women as a threat. If you de-feminize yourself enough he may accept you because this validates his idea that litigation is a man's game. If, however, you still embrace your feminity despite the fact that you work in a professional frat house (and I do) then he'll constantly demean you, harrass you, and for example, address questions and insults only to your breasts. For real. This fact is especially depressing because this guy is in his fifties. I mean, I expect it from the old farts who still rely on their secretaries to bring them coffee in the morning and turn on their computers, but not from someone even younger than my own father. Anyways, my client was about to have his deposition taken, and my partner on the case decided that it should be my job to defend that deposition. Normally that kind of task would both thrill and terrify me. I would be thrilled at the chance to go head-to-head with a more experienced litigator and show my stuff, and terrified at the possibility of getting beat pretty badly.

Not so here. No, I told that I was chosen for this task not because I'm a great lawyer, or because I could handle this legendary jerk of an opposing counsel (all of which are true, of course). Nope, I was chosen because I'm the woman on the file. And that fact alone. I was chosen because opposing counsel would be so distracted at the fact that a woman was sitting across the table from him objecting to his questions and defending the hell out of her client that he'd be off his game. He would be so distracted by my very presence as a woman that he'd forget to ask questions and instead of attacking my client (which is what he should be doing during this proceeding), he'd be attacking me. That's right. I was sent in as a diversion and a distraction. And got paid to do it.

Wow. What a complicated place to be in. Had my partner simply told me that I got the assignment because I'm good and could do the job, I'm sure I would have come to my own conclusions about any effect my gender had on the proceedings. To his credit (and his fault), he was completely candid about why I was sent on the front line. It was never because I'm a good lawyer and was always because I'm a woman who happens to be a good lawyer. My partner did say that if I sucked as a lawyer I most likely wouldn't have gotten the assignment because we could not be sure we'd keep the tactical edge. Hmmm.... backhanded compliment anyone?

The sad truth is it worked. And boy was I pissed. I was pissed at opposing counsel, pissed at my partner, and pissed at myself. Being pissed at opposing counsel is easy, and almost not even worth the effort or all that fun. He did spend hours on end baiting me, insulting me, and letting me know how to do my job. He behaved exactly as planned. But for my partner to use me as strategy, to subject me to that kind of degradation and attack for some intangible strategic edge?! The only reason he would do that is if he was pretty confident it would work, and to have that kind of confidence he must know just exactly what kind of ass our opposing counsel is (who, by the way, is an old friend of his-- they go waaaay back). And to let it happen, well that's all on me.

I suppose I could have refused. I could have turned on my heel and stomped off in an indignant huff. I could have let him know that manipulating institutional misogyny for the benefit of our client might be effective advocacy, but it is shitty personnel policy. Because it is. But at the end of the day I capitulated, knowing that my gender, at least in this case and at this moment, was another tool in my toolbox and I had been enlisted to use it.

If there's an upside to this story I suppose it is that the strategy worked and that in some twisted manner I was an agent of that strategy rather than a victim of it. I was attacked for over eight hours that day when it should have been my client, and our case is stronger for it. And I suppose my partner's strategy in coming clean with me about how and why I got the assignment made me more prepared for the assault than had he kept his true rationale hidden. Who knows, but I can't help but wonder if women in other professions find their "status" as a woman something that is manipulated either as asset or a liability depending on the task at hand. I can honestly say that this was the first time in my professional life (that I'm aware of, anyways) where I was given an assignment specifically because of my gender. Now that's some messed up affirmative action.