Fashion Board 11-2-03 - 12-09-03

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
This is among the types of posts that are most nauseating - the appeal to the unverifiable private message system as vindication for something. Almost as bad as the "I'm hot in real life." The fact that Paigow uses both a lot proves my point. Q.E.D.

A lot of people have told me by PM that you're hot in real life.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I'm amazed by the number of successful professional females that don't see this double standard. Sure, they should be treated exactly the same as men in the workforce. No special treatment, except for special women-only mentorship and special women-only networking. And maternity leave. And special women-only retreats. And playing the "I need to go part time or take a quarter off to spend time with my kids" card.

Fuck you.

I went to a "women only" banquet last night hosted by a committee which was formed in 1979 to address a lot of the inequalities that occurred in this particular workforce at the time. While a lot of strides have been made, there are still only two women in positions of power here, and there have been plenty of opportunities to change that balance. You're supposed to leave those events uplifted and empowered. I left the banquet feeling a little sick because it was so obvious that things haven't improved much in the power structure here since 1979. The lip service pissed me off more than the inequalities.

As for matirnity leave, last I checked, men qualify for FMLA leave as well. Do you want us to drop the plow, have the kid and then pick up the plow again like our foremothers?

Incidentally, during the banquet, a mentoring award was given, and half the nominees for the mentoring award were men, which seems about right to me.

As for the division of labor in households, so long as each party knows, going in, what the other party is expecting and wants out of the partnership, I'm not necessarily seeing a problem if one party carries the burden of breadwinner and the other party carries other burdens.

I will say that I know two women who are going through separations/divorces right now who previously did "nothing". I was shocked when I heard this because neither one of them has children. They're both in a position where they will have to generate their own incomes, and I think this is coming as a shock to them. One of them probably will go into personal training and will do very well at it, and the other wants to sell high-end luxury cars, though I'm not exactly sure how she plans on breaking into that. Their husbands, when they got married, didn't seem to have a problem with the arrangements and I think that both husbands could be described as workaholics. I don't think that they would have worked less if their wives were also working, though I think that their not being around contributed to the disintegration of their marriages.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
California deems a gift certificate to be value held in trust by the issuer for the benefit of the recipient, and therefore has not allowed any expiration dates since 1997. Go us! El Pueblo unido jamás sera vencido.

I expect that the total fucking hypocrisy of Congress vis-à-vis the Commerce Clause will eventually and inevitably result in the federal government occupying the field in order to vitiate any state consumer protection laws WRT interstate or internet commerce, so your actual expiration date is therefore technically "undetermined."

Please remind me to bring all my expired gift certificates with me on my next trip to california.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Not Me
[Re BRC:] You are definitely not a woman in real life. Sorry, dude, you have been outed.

Putting aside your own questionable veracity, that is damn funny, given that probably at least thirty of us have met her. Speaking of which, are you/me/Penske/whomever doing Friday or Saturday this weekend while we are in town?

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Though we often dress, speak, and look fabulous, and carry a party with our charms, typically, we lawyers are obsessive, idiosyncratic, not people persons, overly opinionated, etc. (oh, and apparently self-loathing.) From what I've seen and heard, mixing two of this kind is rarely a recipe for successful relationships.

But that's just me. I am, of course, willing to be persuaded otherwise through the vast anecdotal evidence culled from this board. Any takers?

Sure it can work. If neither one of you has any life outside the office, you're suited to no-one but each other. And if both of you do, and can leave the bullshit hyperaggression bigshot quotient at the office, you're suited, all other things being equal. Workaholic anal-retentive weekend worrywart and a person with outside interests-- they're doomed.

[LessinSF]

Where can I find one of these still - http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGN83EUGH1.DTL (article about Abercrombie & Fitch's catalog promoting sex, orgies, group mastubation, and contain mega-nudity being pulled by company)?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Putting aside your own questionable veracity, that is damn funny, given that probably at least thirty of us have met her. Speaking of which, are you/me/Penske/whomever doing Friday or Saturday this weekend while we are in town?

How well do you "know" her, if you know what I mean?

Not (again humming Aerosmith's "Dude Looks Like a Lady") Me.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Though we often dress, speak, and look fabulous, and carry a party with our charms, typically, we lawyers are obsessive, idiosyncratic, not people persons, overly opinionated, etc. (oh, and apparently self-loathing.) From what I've seen and heard, mixing two of this kind is rarely a recipe for successful relationships.

My brother and I, after much discussion on the matter, have decided that lawyers should get together with archictects. Lawyers are inherently uncool, but they have lots of money. Geeky, dress poorly, subscribe to things like Consumer Reports and bar journals. Architects are inherently cool, but make crap money. Dress well, have grand designs for their homes, and subscribe to things like Wallpaper. The merging of the two is a mutually beneficial arrangement. We're playing yetna this weekend. I'll let you know how it goes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
How well do you "know" her, if you know what I mean?

How about "Well enough to counsel you to go back and read what she wrote with a less skeptical eye"?

Really.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Not Me
How well do you "know" her, if you know what I mean?

I would never presume to know what you mean after your horrendous series of posts re Tiger/Elin trying to disavow what you clearly said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Architects are inherently cool, but make crap money.

Wow. Your architect friends should meet my architect friends.

My lawyer friends sound more like your architect friends than like your lawyer friends, too.

I think it's that whole "too close to the equator" thing.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
NO! No, nononononononono.

Obviously a different point than the one you were raising, BRC, and no offence intended to the Ladies of the FB, but it has been my observation that one lawyer per couple (either the man or the woman) is plenty, and perhaps too much, at that.

Though we often dress, speak, and look fabulous, and carry a party with our charms, typically, we lawyers are obsessive, idiosyncratic, not people persons, overly opinionated, etc. (oh, and apparently self-loathing.) From what I've seen and heard, mixing two of this kind is rarely a recipe for successful relationships.

But that's just me. I am, of course, willing to be persuaded otherwise through the vast anecdotal evidence culled from this board. Any takers?

But it worked so well for Tracy and Hepburn in "Adam's Rib." Then again, everything worked so much better in 1940s and 1950s Movieland. Unless you were Black. Or Edward G. Robinson.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
How about "Well enough to counsel you to go back and read what she wrote with a less skeptical eye"?

Really.

Hmmmm. I thought you were married with children. Unless you are a big cheater, I don't think you get what I am talking about.

As for me being skeptical, this from the guy who salivates (and/or rubs his crotch) over Tiger's fiance?

Not (can't get the tune out of my head) Me.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Gattigap
NO! No, nononononononono.

Obviously a different point than the one you were raising, BRC, and no offence intended to the Ladies of the FB, but it has been my observation that one lawyer per couple (either the man or the woman) is plenty, and perhaps too much, at that.

Though we often dress, speak, and look fabulous, and carry a party with our charms, typically, we lawyers are obsessive, idiosyncratic, not people persons, overly opinionated, etc. (oh, and apparently self-loathing.) From what I've seen and heard, mixing two of this kind is rarely a recipe for successful relationships.

But that's just me. I am, of course, willing to be persuaded otherwise through the vast anecdotal evidence culled from this board. Any takers?

Pick me. My anecdotal evidence rocks (so far at least). But we are both non-workaholic transactional types who enjoy our free time off a whole lot more than working. And we know what the hell the other one is talking about during work-related rants. And the internet settles all disputes, so we know pretty quickly who is wrong.

Originally posted by Not Me
Unless you are a big cheater, I don't think you get what I am talking about.

As for me being skeptical, this from the guy who salivates (and/or rubs his crotch) over Tiger's fiance?

ARe you 12?