In the legal profession, identical behavior often earns very different reviews, and the difference depends on the lawyer’s gender.
A lawyer consistently defends a position, appeals to higher courts, and turns down an unfavorable compromise.
If it is a man, people will say: “Principled, systematic, a person of character.”
A woman will be called: “Scandalous, uncooperative, hysterical.”
The actions are identical, and the evaluation is the opposite. I call this a double standard, and it has two causes that are worth separating.
Cause One: Gender Stereotypes
A strong, smart woman gets a ready-made set of nicknames: shrew, hysteric, troublemaker. A man in the same position gets very different words.
A familiar situation:
A man replies sharply to opposing counsel, and people say: “Good for him, he doesn’t let anyone push him around.”
A woman pushes back firmly and hears: “She’s probably PMSing.”
In court, it looks similar:
A man requests the audio recordings of hearings, and it is called: “Meticulous, checks every comma.”
A woman files a motion for them and hears: “Dragging out the case, making a fuss about her rights.”
There is a scientific description of this phenomenon. Social psychologists Alice Eagly and Steven Karau named it role congruity theory. The image of a woman is tied to warmth, the image of a leader to toughness, so a woman’s tough behavior is judged more harshly than a man’s identical behavior (Psychological Review, 2002, vol. 109, no. 3).
Words like “contentious” and “hysterical” appear when there is nothing to answer on the merits. A position built on rules and facts is hard to challenge, and the conversation moves from the topic to the person.
The other side usually works in three steps:
- A legal dispute is reduced to everyday friction: “It’s just an emotional conflict.”
- The demand is devalued: a lawful objection is called “hurt feelings.”
- The person is made to feel unjustified guilt: they start apologizing for their own persistence, and sometimes simply create inner discomfort for themselves.
These words have a second function. A convenient lawyer saves the system time and effort:
- agrees without detailed objections;
- skips asking for hearing recordings;
- puts up with violations.
The word “uncooperative” often sounds like a call to give in and stay quiet.
Public approval and disapproval work here too: the agreeable get praised, the persistent get condemned.
Through that pressure, people who disagree are pushed back inside the familiar lines, and their arguments go unheard.
Cause Two: Your Own Coat Is Closer to the Body
Simple everyday logic is at work here, and it is the same for men and women.
As onlookers, we all play Socrates from the couch: we lecture about patience and trusting the world. But when the trouble lands on us, the rules change.
Here is an example from life:
My friend has watched my years-long fight against arbitrary power and reacts the same way every time: “You need to trust the world and stop tilting at windmills.”
But when scammers went after her father, she raced to the ATM behind the wheel, breaking every traffic rule and running a red light to get there in time. At the ATM she fought with him to stop the transfer, and she shouted at the crowd to talk some sense into him. She didn’t care how she looked from the outside. Nobody was planning to trust the world at that moment.
It is easy to call someone else’s fight windmill-tilting and empty noise. For family and loved ones, persistence becomes the only reasonable behavior, and all that put-on everyday philosophy evaporates.
How Is Defending a Right Different From a Scandal?
Three criteria show the difference.
| Criterion | Defending a right | Scandal |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Facts, rules, documents, even in a raised voice | Only emotions and personal attacks |
| Goal | A result: restore the right, get an answer | The noise itself, venting irritation |
| Volume | A deliberate tool | The only content |
Sometimes every quiet method has already been tried: letters go unanswered, complaints come back with form replies. In that case a person raises the volume: publishes the facts, builds a channel or media outlet of their own, speaks loudly.
A post of mine about the courts, backed by facts from court records, was blocked by moderation. That story is in a separate note: Yandex Double Standards: Free Speech for Some.
If every word is backed by documents, this is defending a right, just done in public. Those who find it inconvenient call it a squabble.
Leave manner and politeness aside and look at the actions, the documents behind them, and the result.
What Happens When You Are Called “Scandalous”?
The hardest part begins the moment you accept that judgment as the truth.
Year after year you hear about your “difficult character” and start doubting yourself: maybe I really am too harsh? Other people’s judgments sting because many people repeat them, and everyone needs the approval of those around them. Your own effectiveness produces guilt.
A simple separation restores confidence:
- What is said about you: “difficult character,” “too sharp.” This is the judgment of people who find you hard to deal with: you press for answers on the merits. Their convenience should not be your concern.
- What is actually true: your qualifications, your precise actions, and the result you achieved. What should matter to you is the quality of your own work, and what is worth striving for is growth in the profession and the protection of your clients.
For me, the ability to act consistently, stay independent, and withstand pressure is called professional maturity.
I described how this looks in real life in the note The Building Manager Hated Me — I Sold for 30% Above Market: ten years of demands to the management company and the result when I sold the flat.
Some people care about the process: they keep looking around and forget where they are going.
Others see the goal and move up and forward, paying no attention to the “scenery.” I am one of the latter.
When assets, reputation, or the protection of your family are at stake, you need a lawyer who is willing to be inconvenient for the sake of results. Write to me: +7 (902) 899-07-58 (Telegram, WhatsApp, KakaoTalk) or send a request.