Was work/life balance question sexist?

August 7, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Justice Loretta Rush was asked during her interview about maintaining a work/life balance. But none of the men were asked about that issue at their subsequent interviews.

I want to give Goshen attorney John Ulmer, the commission member who asked the question, the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe he didn’t realize just asking Rush how she will balance her work obligations with her home obligations comes across as sexist. I want to believe he asked the question because she has a minor child still at home, and none of the other justices do.

But it is a sexist question, even with the best intentions.

And we’re not the only ones who noticed. Several attorneys on social media pointed out that Rush was the lone justice asked that question.

If you are a woman, having dependent children does not mean you are incapable of fully and properly completing your job. And not having dependent children doesn’t mean you still don’t have to balance your work life and your home life. You or your spouse could come down with a serious illness. You may have to take care of an aging parent. You may volunteer a lot of your free time helping out a charity.  

Rush told commission members the work/life balance issue is one that everyone faces.

“I just really became a really good time manager,” she said, explaining she uses every minute of her commute home to Lafayette, for instance. She said the balance is made easier because of her family.

When it comes to raising a child today in a household where both parents work or only one parent is present, you may have to rely on family, friends or outside help. That’s the reality of today – whether you are a mother or a father.

Rush has built a distinguished career while being a wife and mother, something that all women who work outside the home strive for. There are many women who have figured out how to juggle all the responsibilities life throws at us. Yes, there are sacrifices that working mothers have to make, and yes, there are choices that have to be made daily regarding whether to spend that extra hour working on an important business matter or making your child’s softball game. I know that working fathers also have to make sacrifices when it comes to their home lives.

I could go on and on about work/life balance, but instead, I’ll congratulate Chief Justice Loretta Rush on her new position. Hopefully, the next time the court has to choose a new chief justice, the issue of work/life balance won’t even be a question because the commission members know it is something that everyone – male or female – faces and finds a way to make work. If one has made it to the Indiana Supreme Court, then one must surely know how to find that balance.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • OMG!
    Of course a man asked such a question. He is thinking--gee if she was my wife, I might have to cook dinner or go to a school meeting or do the laundry if I want clean underwear if she gets picked as Chief Justice. OMG!
  • Not all women
    Not all women who work outside the home strive to be mothers and/or wives (or even to have distinguished careers). If you're going to take Ulmer to task for his assumptions, take stock of your own, too.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  2. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  3. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  4. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  5. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

ADVERTISEMENT