Justice strives for fairness and equality, yet sexism persists in the legal profession. In 2016, the French blog "Paye ta Robe"—echoing "Paye ta Schnek," which documents street harassment—emerged as a platform for female lawyers to share daily humiliations from male colleagues fixated on their appearance rather than expertise, or who dismissed their suitability for a "man's job." A recent University of Arizona study confirms these biases in courtrooms, examining how anger expressed by male versus female lawyers is perceived. Researchers found that an angry male lawyer is viewed as "powerful," while a female counterpart is labeled "hysterical."
To test this, the study staged a mock murder trial featuring three female and three male actors portraying lawyers who displayed anger in their arguments. Observers rated the persuasiveness of each performance.
Results were stark: Both male and female observers described the male lawyers as "powerful," "authoritarian," "competent," and "convincing." In contrast, female lawyers were deemed "hysterical," "annoying," and "ineffective." Lead researcher Jessica Salerno, a psychologist at the University of Arizona, explains: "A good lawyer is expected to exhibit traits traditionally linked to men—like anger, aggression, and power. Men are praised for this, but women are penalized. Participants rated the anger levels as equal between genders, yet men were seen as more convincing, with observers saying they'd hire them without hesitation. Women faced the opposite reaction."
These findings highlight real career obstacles for women lawyers, especially in persuading juries. While progress is underway, it's frustratingly slow. This is injustice at its core.
