Amal Clooney: Too Beautiful to Be a Serious Lawyer?
Research shows that beauty can be a detriment to working women because they are perceived as "seductive yet manipulative."
May 01, 2019 at 11:37 AM
4 minute read
Talk about fortuitous timing. I was on my way to see Amal and George Clooney at Columbia Law School last week when this New York Times article popped into my in-box: “Pretty Can Hurt Women's Careers.”
In case you didn't know, Amal is not merely “pretty” but gorgeous. And, in person, I thought she was downright goddess-like. (George is OK, though not a Greek god.)
She's also a highly respected human rights lawyer. She's advocated on behalf of leaders who've lost power (including former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed) as well as those who've suffered in anonymity (such as the plight of the 6,700 Yazidi women held captive by the Islamic State and jailed journalists in places like Myanmar and Egypt).
And her latest endeavor, which was the reason for the gathering at Columbia Law, sounds damn impressive, too. It's an initiative called TrialWatch that trains lawyers, journalists and laymen to monitor trials around the world. Microsoft, whose president Brad Smith also shared the stage (but who remembers him or the other luminaries?), is partnering with the Clooney Foundation and has developed an app for the monitors to assess the fairness of trials.
Amal's work is serious and worthy, so why am I now talking about her looks? Well, it's hard to ignore. And if we're being honest, I think a lot of women find her intimidating. Not only does she look perfect, she's married to a rich and famous husband who supports her career. She's a working mom to boot.
Which brings us to the challenges of being an attractive woman. Reporting on research from Washington State University and the University of Colorado Boulder, the Times article says that attractive women in business face loads of resentment and prejudice.
Contrary to popular belief that pretty women at work are regarded as bimbos, the study finds that they are perceived as “seductive yet manipulative.” In fact, both men and women considered them “less trustworthy, less truthful and more worthy of being fired than other women.” The article says they arouse “primal feelings of sexual insecurity, jealousy and fear.”
Sexual insecurity, jealousy and fear—well, I guess that sums it up about how some of us earthly critters feel in the presence of a goddess at the office. (This doesn't happen often in Big Law, though Amal was an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell once upon a time.)
“Of all the concerns that the women's movement have brought to focus, this is the one that we've made the least progress,” says Stanford Law professor Deborah Rhode, the author of “Beauty Bias,” a book about how physical appearance affects women's lives. She says women's focus on looks “takes a toll in time and self-esteem,” and that social media has made the problem worse. “Women are less happy with their appearance today than they were 25 years ago.”
In the workplace, women are expected to look good, but not overly so, lest their credibility is called into question. “They are either too attractive or not enough,” says Rhode. “It underscores the double bind of beauty standard for women.”
So the lovely and the not-so-lovely are both judged harshly. Wait a minute. I'm not sure I buy that. All things being equal, isn't it still better to be unbearably beautiful than homely?
Of course, says Rhode. “Those who look good still have advantage than those who don't. In getting hired and promoted, it helps if you're attractive.” However, there's a limit to that advantage: At very high level jobs, very attractive women can suffer, says Rhode. But, she adds, they can downplay their sex appeal, whereas “unattractive people have fewer options.”
Her advice: “We should value people for who they are and what they do. We should celebrate Amal and husband have done for human rights.” As for comparing ourselves against Amal, “it's an impossible standard,” says Rhode. “That's not realistic, but caring about others is realistic for everyone.”
Hear that? Let it go. We should just focus on Amal's good deeds and forget about the rest of the package.
We'll work on that.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
Boies Schiller Increases Federal Clerkship Bonus to $150K Amid Hiring Uptick
Trending Stories
- 1City Bar Presents Thomas E. Dewey Awards to Outstanding NYC Prosecutors
- 2NC Solicitor General Park Withdraws His 4th Circuit Nomination
- 3Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
- 4CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
- 5FIFA Faces Legal Challenge Over Winning Saudi World Cup Bid
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250