{"id":163500,"date":"2026-09-24T14:41:28","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T22:41:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/09\/24\/my-pamprin-moment-a-small-box-a-big-reminder\/"},"modified":"2026-09-24T14:41:28","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T22:41:28","slug":"my-pamprin-moment-a-small-box-a-big-reminder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/09\/24\/my-pamprin-moment-a-small-box-a-big-reminder\/","title":{"rendered":"My Pamprin Moment: A Small Box, A Big Reminder\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ed. note<\/u>: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at\u00a0<\/em>MothersEsquire<\/em><\/a>. Welcome Jeanine M. Donahue back to our pages. Click <\/em>here<\/em><\/a> if you\u2019d like to donate to MothersEsquire.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are moments that stay with you not because they were catastrophic, but because they captured an entire workplace culture in one small, ridiculous object. For me, that\u00a0object was a box of Pamprin.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I graduated from college in 1987 and went to work as a case assistant for a highly\u00a0respected, venerable San Francisco law firm. Our legal team included many recent college\u00a0graduates, and the women in our group wore pants to work. We were on the lower floors of\u00a0the firm, somewhat removed from the client meeting areas and power offices, so perhaps no one had yet focused on us.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A couple of months into my employment, everyone in the firm received a memorandum\u00a0stating that the partners had met and decided that women who worked at the firm were\u00a0now \u201callowed\u201d to wear pants. I was shocked. I had not been told about the prior rule, and I\u00a0had not followed it. This was 1987, for God\u2019s sake. And yet what sounds absurd now was still being treated as a workplace concession in the late 1980s and early 1990s.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That context matters. Until the early 1990s, women were not reliably permitted to wear\u00a0pants on the United States Senate floor. The \u201cpantsuit revolution\u201d sounds almost quaint now, but it is a useful reminder that institutions often defend old rules as decorum until someone forces the rule to explain itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Then came my Pamprin moment. When I passed the California Bar Exam in 1992, one of the law partners I had clerked for \u2014 a lawyer I respected \u2014 gave me a box of Pamprin with a note\u00a0that read: \u201cSo that you don\u2019t become a bitch of an attorney.\u201d He and the other male partners apparently thought this was very funny and clever. I did not. I was horrified, humiliated, and hurt.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I also did what many young women in workplaces did then: I absorbed it. I did not report it. I\u00a0did not demand an apology. I did not explain to a room full of men why the joke was\u00a0demeaning. I was new, ambitious, grateful to have passed the bar, and still trying to understand the unwritten rules of a profession that had not been built with women in mind.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That is why the Pamprin box matters more than the box itself. It was not just a bad joke. It\u00a0was a message about what kind of woman lawyer was considered acceptable: capable,\u00a0but not too forceful; smart, but not too sharp; assertive, but only if she could make\u00a0everyone else comfortable while doing it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Thinking back on the pants memorandum and the Pamprin box, I know progress has been\u00a0made. I cannot imagine a law firm today circulating a memo announcing that women are\u00a0finally permitted to wear pants. I also cannot imagine a male partner handing a newly admitted woman lawyer menstrual-pain medication as a warning not to become difficult.\u00a0Or at least, if he did, I cannot imagine the institution being able to treat it as harmless fun.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That is not because sexism has disappeared. It has not. The gender pay gap remains real,\u00a0and the numbers depend on how they are measured. The progress is incomplete, uneven,\u00a0and too often slower than it should be. But it is progress nonetheless, built on the Equal Pay\u00a0Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforcement, litigation, cultural pressure, and generations of women refusing to accept the rules as fixed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The same is true of sexual harassment law. Before the late 1970s and early 1980s, federal\u00a0law did not clearly recognize workplace sexual harassment as a legal wrong. In 1977, a\u00a0federal appeals court recognized that firing a woman for rejecting a supervisor\u2019s sexual\u00a0advances could violate Title VII. In 1980, the EEOC issued guidelines defining sexual harassment and making clear that sex-based intimidation and hostile work environments\u00a0were unlawful. That legal architecture did not eliminate harassment, but it changed what\u00a0workers could name, challenge, and prove.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Culture changed too. Some of that change came from lawyers and courts. Some came\u00a0from advocates like Gloria Steinem, who insisted that women\u2019s lived experiences belonged\u00a0in public conversation. Some came from women like Dolly Parton, who used humor, talent,\u00a0business acumen, and an unmistakable sense of self to make power look different. They\u00a0did not advance women\u2019s rights in the same way, but both helped expand the imagination\u00a0of what women could be.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Has progress been made? You betcha, as Dolly might say. But my Pamprin moment reminds me that progress is not abstract. It is measured in whether the next young woman lawyer has to decide whether to laugh off the humiliating joke; whether she can walk into\u00a0the room dressed for the work, instead of the rule; and whether she can be excellent without first proving she is not \u201ctoo much.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

That box of Pamprin \u2014 expired since 1993 \u2014 sits encased in a clear box on my desk. It is there to remind me how far we have come. I do not romanticize the workplace that produced it. But I am grateful to be old enough to remember it clearly, and still optimistic\u00a0enough to believe that telling the story matters.<\/p>\n

\n

Jeanine M. Donohue is a member of Buchalter\u2019s Litigation Practice Group and Wineries, Vineyards and Breweries Practice Group. She practices in the firm\u2019s St. Helena and San Francisco offices. With over 30 years of experience, Jeanine is a big picture strategist who quickly appreciates the 30,000 foot major issues, while also being attentive to the nuances and important details of each matter she handles. Jeanine maintains a broad litigation practice that includes insurance recovery, commercial, real estate and products liability. Since 2013, Jeanine has served as Outside General Counsel to four active 524(g) settlement trusts with over $1 billion in assets. She manages all outside trust litigation including insurance coverage litigation, bankruptcy and adversary proceedings.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\n

The post My Pamprin Moment: A Small Box, A Big Reminder\u00a0<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Jeanine M. Donohue)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at\u00a0<\/em>MothersEsquire<\/em><\/a>. Welcome Jeanine M. Donahue back to our pages. Click <\/em>here<\/em><\/a> if you\u2019d like to donate to MothersEsquire.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are moments that stay with you not because they were catastrophic, but because they captured an entire workplace culture in one small, ridiculous object. For me, that\u00a0object was a box of Pamprin.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I graduated from college in 1987 and went to work as a case assistant for a highly\u00a0respected, venerable San Francisco law firm. Our legal team included many recent college\u00a0graduates, and the women in our group wore pants to work. We were on the lower floors of\u00a0the firm, somewhat removed from the client meeting areas and power offices, so perhaps no one had yet focused on us.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A couple of months into my employment, everyone in the firm received a memorandum\u00a0stating that the partners had met and decided that women who worked at the firm were\u00a0now \u201callowed\u201d to wear pants. I was shocked. I had not been told about the prior rule, and I\u00a0had not followed it. This was 1987, for God\u2019s sake. And yet what sounds absurd now was still being treated as a workplace concession in the late 1980s and early 1990s.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That context matters. Until the early 1990s, women were not reliably permitted to wear\u00a0pants on the United States Senate floor. The \u201cpantsuit revolution\u201d sounds almost quaint now, but it is a useful reminder that institutions often defend old rules as decorum until someone forces the rule to explain itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Then came my Pamprin moment. When I passed the California Bar Exam in 1992, one of the law partners I had clerked for \u2014 a lawyer I respected \u2014 gave me a box of Pamprin with a note\u00a0that read: \u201cSo that you don\u2019t become a bitch of an attorney.\u201d He and the other male partners apparently thought this was very funny and clever. I did not. I was horrified, humiliated, and hurt.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I also did what many young women in workplaces did then: I absorbed it. I did not report it. I\u00a0did not demand an apology. I did not explain to a room full of men why the joke was\u00a0demeaning. I was new, ambitious, grateful to have passed the bar, and still trying to understand the unwritten rules of a profession that had not been built with women in mind.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That is why the Pamprin box matters more than the box itself. It was not just a bad joke. It\u00a0was a message about what kind of woman lawyer was considered acceptable: capable,\u00a0but not too forceful; smart, but not too sharp; assertive, but only if she could make\u00a0everyone else comfortable while doing it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Thinking back on the pants memorandum and the Pamprin box, I know progress has been\u00a0made. I cannot imagine a law firm today circulating a memo announcing that women are\u00a0finally permitted to wear pants. I also cannot imagine a male partner handing a newly admitted woman lawyer menstrual-pain medication as a warning not to become difficult.\u00a0Or at least, if he did, I cannot imagine the institution being able to treat it as harmless fun.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That is not because sexism has disappeared. It has not. The gender pay gap remains real,\u00a0and the numbers depend on how they are measured. The progress is incomplete, uneven,\u00a0and too often slower than it should be. But it is progress nonetheless, built on the Equal Pay\u00a0Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforcement, litigation, cultural pressure, and generations of women refusing to accept the rules as fixed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The same is true of sexual harassment law. Before the late 1970s and early 1980s, federal\u00a0law did not clearly recognize workplace sexual harassment as a legal wrong. In 1977, a\u00a0federal appeals court recognized that firing a woman for rejecting a supervisor\u2019s sexual\u00a0advances could violate Title VII. In 1980, the EEOC issued guidelines defining sexual harassment and making clear that sex-based intimidation and hostile work environments\u00a0were unlawful. That legal architecture did not eliminate harassment, but it changed what\u00a0workers could name, challenge, and prove.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Culture changed too. Some of that change came from lawyers and courts. Some came\u00a0from advocates like Gloria Steinem, who insisted that women\u2019s lived experiences belonged\u00a0in public conversation. Some came from women like Dolly Parton, who used humor, talent,\u00a0business acumen, and an unmistakable sense of self to make power look different. They\u00a0did not advance women\u2019s rights in the same way, but both helped expand the imagination\u00a0of what women could be.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Has progress been made? You betcha, as Dolly might say. But my Pamprin moment reminds me that progress is not abstract. It is measured in whether the next young woman lawyer has to decide whether to laugh off the humiliating joke; whether she can walk into\u00a0the room dressed for the work, instead of the rule; and whether she can be excellent without first proving she is not \u201ctoo much.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

That box of Pamprin \u2014 expired since 1993 \u2014 sits encased in a clear box on my desk. It is there to remind me how far we have come. I do not romanticize the workplace that produced it. But I am grateful to be old enough to remember it clearly, and still optimistic\u00a0enough to believe that telling the story matters.<\/p>\n

\n

Jeanine M. Donohue is a member of Buchalter\u2019s Litigation Practice Group and Wineries, Vineyards and Breweries Practice Group. She practices in the firm\u2019s St. Helena and San Francisco offices. With over 30 years of experience, Jeanine is a big picture strategist who quickly appreciates the 30,000 foot major issues, while also being attentive to the nuances and important details of each matter she handles. Jeanine maintains a broad litigation practice that includes insurance recovery, commercial, real estate and products liability. Since 2013, Jeanine has served as Outside General Counsel to four active 524(g) settlement trusts with over $1 billion in assets. She manages all outside trust litigation including insurance coverage litigation, bankruptcy and adversary proceedings.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at\u00a0MothersEsquire. Welcome Jeanine M. Donahue back to our pages. Click here if you\u2019d like to donate to MothersEsquire. There are moments that stay with you not because they were catastrophic, but because […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":163501,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163500","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163500","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163500"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163500\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/163501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163500"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163500"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163500"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}