Introduction
"Put your best foot forward". This saying has been around for many of years but in today's day and age the follow up question on everyone's mind is "What is that foot wearing?" Louboutin, Jimmy Choo, Yves Saint Laurent, or Lavin, all designers that literally allow you to put your best foot forward. In a lucrative position such as being a lawyer in the courtroom, perception is everything. You are constantly being observed by the jurors, the judge, and even other attorneys, so being at your best is imperative. This being said, women in a male dominated field such as being a lawyer in the courtroom have to set a standard that will make them be noticed and taken seriously. But can't you do that in Calvin Klein? In my research I want to unveil the sexist standard that is put on women in terms of their appearance in the courtroom. By interviewing female law students and using "Beyond a reasonable doubt: One size does not fit all when it comes to courtroom attire for women" by Maureen A Howard I hope to show that there is an unrealistic expectation of how a woman has to dress in order to be perceived as confident and taken seriously in all aspects when in a court room.
How does fashion choice impact the assumption and credibility of a female lawyer in the courtroom?
In the courtroom is it more important to be true to yourself or to address the opinions of other courtroom officials such as, jurors, judges, other attorneys, etc.?
How does courtroom assumptions on women's fashion choice affect the female lawyer herself and the presumptions made in the court room?
By using the opinions of the future female lawyers to address these questions, it will hopefully open the eyes of these attorneys and allow for them to make a difference and possible change their habits. The double standard place upon women in power, especially those in chosen supposed male dominated fields, is ultimately holding back women's potential in the hopes of reaching true equality in all aspects including the work force. Women to this day are still paid 77 cents on the dollar in comparison to a man, with the addition of that lesser salary, they additionally have to focus on the sexism that is associated with fashion choices and how a woman is perceived based upon their appearance. Women are at a clear disadvantage. This analysis will hopefully allow for the clarity and justify the need for change that is necessary in order to create equality, at least in the terms of clothing and staying true to your own style, for women in the courtroom.
Methods
How data was collected
Interview protocol
Questions asked
Photo analysis of clothing
Analysis of research source
Category's of Analysis:
Analysis of the lawyers/ law students own clothing, hair, accessories, body type
in the courtroom and in leisure time
(may also look at how ethnicity plays into how a woman should dress)
What a female law student perceives the role of a female lawyer should be in the court room
Do you think a woman who is "put together, has it together"
Is a woman who wears more expensive clothes "Worth" more
or
Dose more attention to appearance mean less attention to work and ethic
A lawyer's relationship to the case
Is it something they are passionate about
Is the judge preferential to a certain dress... should that affect how the lawyer dresses
Is the case something that needs to be looked at in a certain light
is it an abuse case
is it a case that concerns at trial
Look at what law student thinks in terms of how she should dress
from ones own experience have they experienced anything similar to the situations discussed
how has it effected the person
if you could wear what you wanted would you
Data Analysis
Analyze Transcript
Literature Review
Using "Beyond a reasonable doubt: One size does not fit all when it comes to courtroom attire for women" by Maureen A Howard I hope to show that there is an unrealistic expectation of how a woman have to dress in order to be perceived as confident and taken seriously in all aspects when in a court room.
Howard talks about how there are different types of female lawyers. Each type of lawyer has to understand herself and her attire, in understanding herself and committing to it, the lawyer also has to understand that that means she has been typed. In being typed it implies when doing one thing you cannot do the other, committing to one type is at the discretion of the attorney but the lawyer has an audience and has to appease them. I becomes a moral dilemma between staying to oneself and their chosen style and addressing and submitting to the reality that you are judged on your appearance.
Summarise the article
Discussion
what the paper is saying how it reflects in respects to the analysis of the transcript
Conclusion
References
Alias, K. (2013, November 19). Womens Fashion in the courtroom [E-mail interview].
Howard, M. A. (2009/10). Beyond a reasonable doubt: One size does not fit all when it comes to courtroom attire for women. Heinonline Law Journal Library. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gonlr45
No comments:
Post a Comment