Read on Twitter
Seeing takes on Twitter today explain why we should all be okay with the pay gap in Bay Street partners because they all make so much. I get the instinct, but it’s the wrong response to ignore inequality in the elite because, after all, they’re elite.
THREAD
1/?
THREAD
1/?
Firstly, obviously, it is unfair to expect women to be okay with unequal pay for equal work. Full stop.
Secondly, and perhaps more relevant: like it or not, the so-called elite have a disproportionate impact on the rules of society & profession...
2/?
Secondly, and perhaps more relevant: like it or not, the so-called elite have a disproportionate impact on the rules of society & profession...
2/?
... In this case, we’re talking regulatory rules of the LSO, donation budgets of large firms, or even access to politicians setting legal aid funding (since so many such politicians come from these firm). Is it fair? Perhaps not. Is it reality? Yes.
3/?
3/?
Representation means that more representative causes are selected for pro bono appeals, that more inclusive rules are put forth, that organizational culture improves, and also - that people will donate and spend money differently than has been the case to date.
4/?
4/?
Here’s a (UK) example. Few progressive advocates take up the cause of fighting the patriarchal rules of succession for hereditary peerages (Lordships), because - could you get more elite?
That’s why, of 92 hereditary peers voting in the UK House of Lords, only 1 is female.
5/?
That’s why, of 92 hereditary peers voting in the UK House of Lords, only 1 is female.
5/?
The ramifications of inequity at the elite are enormous. Equality for everyone means that this enormous equality has to be addressed.
6/6
6/6
(If you haven’t seen the excellent article inspiring this discussion by @robyndoolittle and @christinedobby, see https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-female-partners-earn-less-than-male-colleagues-at-big-law-firm/)
