Then clothing doesn't matter nearly so much.
I can't finish reading the linked article, sorry. Pantyhose, pantyhose, skirts, no pants, awful, pantyhose, legs, show legs, skirts, pants bad, pantyhose discreet yet legful, pants bad, etc.
What is with the fucking names? Legally Attractive and Fabulous Nuisance, or whatever? I cannot take these people seriously.
I gather the article goes on to address these matters, but I can't even imagine how people are willing to live in that environment.
The problem would be solved if they'd just let us go back to wearing wigs and robes at work. I do my part by wearing my bathrobe and a Rod Blagojevich wig every single day.
||
You guys, my youngest sister--who got engaged to her girlfriend about two months ago--has just set a date for their wedding, and it's a month from now. Under other circumstances, I'd suspect someone was pregnant.
Also, their wedding invitations are through Evite. I just got Evited to my sister's wedding.
|>
I just got Evited to my sister's wedding.
See, gay people really are ruining marriage.
Seems fair. Heterosexuals are apparently ruining the legal profession.
Maybe they just want to get married quickly, before the LORD strikes them down in righteous anger.
6: If they can make Evite not suck in the process, I'd call it a net win for society. But I don't see why we should expect that to happen.
Are law firms really like this? Where? I mean, I'm working in one right now, wearing a cotton shift and a hoodie. I'm pretty sure I've never worn pantyhose.
I'm reminded of the sign hanging outside of M's uncle's living room (he's a pre-Vatican II priest, who got kicked out of the official church and now holds mass in his house), which gives the dress code rules for his church. Under "Women," there's a list of like twenty or so complicated multi-part instructions, including admonitions such as "shirts must have necklines no lower than two inches below the collarbone" and "skirts may not have slits of more than three inches or slits that extend above the knee" and "hair should be combed back and pinned and/or covered with a veil."
Under "Men," there are two rules: no shorts, no tank tops.
Under "Men," there are two rules: no shorts, no tank tops.
So naked would be ok?
13: He got kicked out of the church. You'd just be hanging in some dude's living room. Nekkid.
5: it's a month from now
Kids these days. I got a call from my aunt a couple of days ago asking for my mailing address so that my cousin could send me a wedding invitation to his wedding on May 15th. When? A month from now? I can't make that. "Oh, he figured that, since you're out of state, but he did want to send you an invitation. It's a small thing anyway."
Ha! Okay, that's cool. You guys are funny, but okay, so what do you want for a present?
||
I'm sure this affects some people here: No more masturbating to the guy from Type O Negative.
|>
10.1 -- What do you wear to court?
What do you wear to court?
I had jury duty yesterday. Does that count? Regardless, I wore a Boba Fett helmet and my academic robes.
I left my tam and hood at home, obviously. It's not like it was a formal occasion or anything.
Is the problem that (some, many, most) law firms actually are ridiculously restrictive about what potential or actual female associates should wear (we're talking mostly about associates here, right?), or is the problem that the Chicago Bar Association held what sounds like a useless event at which sexist and classist comments were made? I can't entirely tell from the feministe or ATL posts, though it sounds like "both" is a strong possibility.
17: I wear a suit, sure, but not pantyhose or necessarily a skirt suit, and I've never given any thought (or heard any comments) about whether my shirt is too brightly colored or patterned. I think I usually wear a t-shirt under my suit jacket?
As I type this, I'm realizing that the last time I went to court I wore a thrift store plaid jacket and a pencil skirt. I'm sure it's quite possible that other people notice and comment on my slobbishness. Oh well.
17: I wear a suit, sure, but not pantyhose or necessarily a skirt suit, and I've never given any thought (or heard any comments) about whether my shirt is too brightly colored or patterned. I think I usually wear a t-shirt under my suit jacket?
As I type this, I'm realizing that the last time I went to court I wore a thrift store plaid jacket and a pencil skirt. I'm sure it's quite possible that other people notice and comment on my slobbishness. Oh well.
Do you also wear the same outfit two days in a row, jms?
I confess that last week I wore the same jeans on Wednesday and on Friday, without washing them in the interim.
It's jeans, you can wear them several days in the row without washing them.
24: I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Depending on the activities one's engaged in, wearing jeans many times between washings seems completely acceptable.
However, I may have been attempting a joke in 23, I confess, rather than inquiring about your actual outfit habits.
What's too bad about that article is that every time I've ever been in court I've worn a muumuu, and nobody has ever said a word. Obviously it's a little different at 3AM, and yes the alarm went off, but that's hardly a "word", is it?
It's definitely not shocking that women are treated unfairly wrt appearance. I have the luxury of playing on the other team here -- no, not because I'm male, but because virtually all of my law interviewing experience over the last 15 years has been on the hiring side, not the looking for a job side. For any biglaw associate position, you're going to have, what, at least a dozen well qualified candidates. On paper, any one of them would do. You're going to have to work with whoever it is, every damn day, maybe, hopefully, for years and years. So you're kind of frantically looking for some kind of clue about what they're really like. Are they driven, but not too driven. What kind of judgment do they have. Do they understand that it's not, and never is going to be, about them. Are they going to tell me when I'm full of crap. Can they destroy the client in a mock cross, and then have a nice lunch with her afterwards. Do they love it.
I wish I'd known about the hoop earrings.
Seriously, I can't remember anything that any interviewee wore, probably because they were all more or less alike.
At my old law firm, the female senior partner wore denim pantsuits, various skirt suits and pants with blouses and a contrasting jacket. The only other female partner wore very elegant, high fashion dresses that clung. [Do not, BTW, think this was a sexist law firm, what with only two female partners. It was a queen bee law firm: The senior partner wanted to be the only female partner, but was pretty much forced into partnering #2, as #2 was a rainmaker who threatened to leave if no partnership was in the offing. Otherwise, the attorneys were predominantly female and the two male named partners were regarded as being a result of gender affirmative action. ]
My divorce attorney wore black skirts with brightly coloured power jackets. That was her uniform; her subordinates pretty much wore Fashion.
Not shocking. Also not the life most lawyers are living. Bar association events are a mixed bag at best.
re: 27
I've worn a muumuu, and nobody has ever said a word. Obviously it's a little different at 3AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXEOESuiYcA
There were people on some blogs sharing accounts of going to archives around the world recently, and a few who'd been to southern European archives reported having to meet dress codes just to be admitted.
I have to admit that no one at my firm jobs ever hassled me about (or commented on my) clothing, and it's always been slovenly business casual (khakis and some kind of sweater/knit top, peculiar cotton dresses with no pantyhose in summer) or pants suits over a stretchy t-shirt for court. On the other hand I was never very successful. Maybe it was the clothes.
"Slovenly business casual" is pretty much how I dress. Khakis and dress shirts, nearly all blue. I wear pants until they get a coffee stain or the butt smells funny when I check in the morning. I wear shirts for two days in the summer, three or four in the winter.
OP: I'm not that outraged. Law, like sales or PR, is a profession in which one's appearance can be instrumental. The hiring firm need not endorse extremely gendered dress codes, but it would be ill advised to disregard them entirely. Of course this doesn't apply to the 80% or whatever of legal work that is entirely written, but the workshop may only be reflecting a hiring culture that is itself reflecting the Dreaded Patriarchy.
Thankfully I just wear jeans and a t-shirt or shirt to work. But I couldn't imagine wearing the same t-shirt or shirt two days in a row.
36: I wear a t-shirt underneath my dress shirt. Those get worn once and washed.
no one at my firm jobs ever . . . commented on my) clothing
Well, not to your face . . . . And, of course, our dress code was famously lax. [LizardBreath has described the dress code at the firm where we worked together as "no thongs as outerwear and nothing currently on fire".]
Yeah, I don't really have any experience at all in the law firm world, but you have to be blind not to see the dysfunction in such long lists of ways that women cannot dress.
Back when I was a young courtroom prosecutor (hurm, hurm, back when the earth was young & Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs around the Garden of Eden, #getoffmylawn), we used to mock the attorneys who came into court wearing the same suit every day (and laugh as it became rattier and rattier throughout the months and years), but it was completely gender-agnostic. Well, there was one attorney who insisted on coming to court wearing an over-sized sweater and colorful tights at least once a week, and someone may have remarked once about her need to find a suit. But I think that was because I had a little crush on her.
But otherwise, yeah, purely gender-agnostic. :)
Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs
Can we please keep that stuff on the steatopygia post?
40: Wait, Adam and Eve were robots???
That would explain so much!
Actually, when I was young, I had a temporary job typing in the rules for a court. I remember being shocked by the rule that the lawyers had to stay seated unless they had a real reason to stand-up. I expected that they always stood when speaking, like on the TV. There was a dress code, but the only part of it I remember was for men: No hats and you have to wear a real tie (not one of those western string things).
42: In NC, standing and sitting rules are a bit different than what folks see lawyers doing on TV. In NC, you must stand whenever you address the judge, when delivering your opening statement and closing argument, and (perhaps obviously) when you have asked to approach the bench or the witness with some exhibit or document. Otherwise, YOU MUST SIT -- when examining a witness, when questioning potential jurors, etc.
I remember being a bit disappointed when I couldn't pace back & forth in front of the jury while grilling a defense witness. Which is why I always came up with some exhibit I wanted the witness to see or hold -- there's no rule about how long it takes you to walk up there, or walk back, and only once did a defense attorney ask the judge to ask me to sit down. It was usually worth it just to be able to give the jury a little shrug as I went back to my seat.
Good times!
That's right, they were allowed to stand for opening and closing.
43: you could get a little hand puppet, and make that pace back and forth.
38 is wherein lies the rub. We get the "dark skirt suit with nylons etc." message often enough in law school or bar association events. I don't know many partners, however, who would ever openly say that skirt vs pants influences their hiring or promotion decisions. So we're left with this uncertainty -- is it *really* okay that I am going slovenly business casual? Or is this secretly impacting my odds of advancement?
46: Clarence Darrow did that all the time.
46: "hand puppet" should be "robot", no?
I dislike ties intensely. Their main function is to signify that you do not do manual labor, as a tie constantly gets in the way and is sometimes quite dangerous - management at Caterpillar used to (and still may) be required to wear clip-on ties since if they get caught in rotating machinery a regular tie will break your neck.
50 is why I only wear cravats when breaking rocks.
if they get caught in rotating machinery a regular tie will break your neck.
That's why you never see dinosaurs wearing ties either.
I suppose this is a good thread in which to announce that I'm heading to Barry O's old law school (or at least that's how they sold it to me) in Cambridge in the fall, in a muumuu.
Social norms do a lot of the work in enforcing dress codes for men. Women have a lot more options, and therefore are subject to a lot more explicit rules.
I worked with a woman in an office job who wore brightly colored thongs and pants whose tailoring made her choice of underwear public knowledge. I have to admit, I didn't mind this, but she probably could have used some advice on professional deportment.
Men, on the other hand, seldom need to be told not to wear visible thongs or low-cut shirts.
Yesterday, I got back from court, to be informed that my pants had a huge rip in the back of them.
We dress casually here if you dont have court.
But, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, many women wear clothing that is far too casual. It isnt uncommon to see a female lawyer in pants and just a short-sleeve shirt or some similarly casual outfit.
I dont see too many women showing extreme cleavage or too short skirts.
45: Oh, right -- prosecutors = Nazis. I see what you did there.
I'm actually a little disappointed in the ToS, NCP. He calls bog standard commenters nazis all the time; you'd think he could take it to another level for an honest-to-god prosecutor. Maybe a space nazi?
Wow Bave! Congratulations! (I think).
But, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, many women wear clothing that is far too casual.
Far too casual for what?
ugh. The whole thing makes me hate. men wear some tightly circumscribed (you do get to choose the color of the piece of cloth hanging on your chest!) expensive uniform. And then women get to pick that, or a version with some femininity/sexuality (which turn out to be the same).
you have system where your work quality is so undifferentialable that decisions can still get made on this, but lots of money hangs in the balance.
Everyone should be issued orange scrubs.
53: nice! Good for you, and good for the MA commentariat! Do let us kids know if you want advice on where to live or where the action is (hint: not in Massachusetts).
Awesome, Bave! Does this mean I can have your old job?
yoyo you can wear those frilly blouses and caftans if you want. Don't let anybody tell you different.
57: Agreed. Aim higher, people -- anything short of calling me a Republican should work.
Oh, dear -- that comment (45) said bye-bye and went bye-bye. Um, BYE-BYE to you, comment 45!
60:
Far too casual to be representing someone in court.
53: Congrats to you, although you're entering a Harvard Square that has been almost completely neutered of its history -- Elsie's! The Tasty! The motherfucking Bow and Arrow!!!!!
All gone. Sigh. #getoffmylawn
Anyway, like I said, congrats. :)
Congratulations Bave!
NCP: Dinosaur fucking Robo-Nazi!
In my view, the basic rules are this:
Men: pants, long sleeve shirt, tie, jacket, some version of dress shoes.
Women: same thing, minus the tie, and you can add in a skirt, and eliminate the jacket if you have a long sleeve shirt.
I think our prosecutor may be, at the very least, unfit. Also, the head DA is the brother of one of the (unindicted) owners of that private juvenile prison by Philly that was paying judges to keep the place full. (Just to be clear, they were paying to convict children, not just to assign those convicted to the private prison.)
Thanks, all.
62: I will probably need advice on where to live, but I really was planning on moving to Massachusetts. Is that a problem?
63: If you want it, I can help you get it. But let me try to talk you out of it first. (Hint: It's driven me to law school.)
35, 60: One part of why this annoys me -- on gendered and gender neutral grounds -- is that the law is supposed to be about rights and responsibilities, not salesmanship or packaging.
Bave, congratulations. Also, please convey my condolences to any family/romantic partner, etc. as applicable in your situation.
BYU, the Saudi Arabia of the mountain west. From "Dress and Grooming standards".
Women
A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
The road to hell is paved with bare shoulders and cameltoe.
75:
Sure, but that certainly doesnt mean that the fancier or more formal outfit is more persuasive.
Often, a jury suit isnt your best suit.
Plus, the law is only one component. The facts are rarely clear. They are packaged, highlighted, hidden, etc.
the law is supposed to be about rights and responsibilities, not salesmanship or packaging
But the law is really about rhetoric, no? Including visual rhetoric.
The law is an ass. So you should make sure your ass is completely covered when appearing in court to avoid competition.
71 is correct, but the real problem is that women's clothing is far more diverse than men's. A skirt can be Hasid-conservative or Aly McBeal-sluttish, and a shirt can show distracting amounts of cleavage or be church-lady prim. That's where the detailed rules about so many inches below the knee or such and such a neckline come in. Much better to just mandate burqas for everyone, male and female. Let them choose fancy prints if they want. I'll be the guy in the Hello Kitty print burqa.
62: I will probably need advice on where to live, but I really was planning on moving to Massachusetts. Is that a problem?
No, as you'll be working too hard to care where the action is.
79: In reality, yes, of course. But here in my happy place everything is different. (Of course, I get all particular about fonts, margins, and various other forms of written packaging. But in my happy place there is no hypocrisy in that.)
81:
Eh, the rules really arent that hard to follow. There are certainly some judges, clients, and other lawyers who demand things that others would find acceptable.
You are not at a club and you are not in your living room. In the courts in which I practice, you do have a fair amount of choice in your clothes.
The whole thing makes me hate. men wear some tightly circumscribed (you do get to choose the color of the piece of cloth hanging on your chest!) expensive uniform.
Having a work uniform is kind of nice. No coordinating to be done, the city picks up the dry cleaning tab, etc.
84: Wow. Just, wow.
Get help. Today.
Congratulations, Bave! And good luck. It's quite a ride.
NCP the general idea is to ignore those comments, as they will shortly get deleted and he almost certainly is mentally ill.
90: Yeah, I see that now, thanks! Silly me.
Yay Bave!
When will you be moving here? And do you by any chance play the piano? I have a friend who might be subletting his very cheap 1-bedroom place for the year. But he has a piano in it, and it's a small enough place that if you weren't making use of the piano it would be quite annoying to have it taking up that much space.
wow, it's been a while since I've read anything by the ToS. It seems like he has degenerated even further...
86: Did you follow the links? If you believe the speakers at that bar event, the rule for women are more complex -- make-up, but not too much make-up; no ponytails, but hair worn down can't be a "distracting" style; apparently diamond or pearl stud earings, no slutty hoops...
I stand by my previous contribution regarding tie-wearing.
no ponytails,
Really? I think of ponytails as brisk and efficient (I mean, as long as there is only one and it is in the back.)
My hair is in a ponytail right now, but for a guy that sends a different set of messages.
My hair is in a ponytail right now
Mine too!
My hair is in a ponytail right now, but for a guy that sends a different set of messages.
Nostalgic for the days of playing dungeon's and dragons?
[Sorry, couldn't resist.]
An increasingly large amount of my hair goes down the drain of the shower.
What about tiny little hoop earrings?
I suppose if I brushed it before I showered I could save-up a ponytail worth of hair very quickly.
As long as we're wishing for an end to silly dress codes, we might as well wish for a ponytail too.
102: Those will clog the plumbing. Don't let them go down the shower drain.
re: 96
There always seem to people like that around; rushing to give vapid lists of the minutiae of what's 'u' and 'non-u'. Does it really reflect genuine standards, deviation from which leads to consequences for the career?
An increasingly large amount of my hair goes down the drain of the shower.
Wait awhile. This tapers off eventually.
I like it when guys with long hair pull it back into a bun. It strikes me as artistic and indifferent to gender norms in a really attractive way. Do that, guys!
96: Well, they're complicated because we have more options. Myself, I'd rather not have the options, but a man dressing for court has almost none: his rules are simple because they're "Wear exactly this uniform, in a narrow range of colors and patterns." Our rules are more complex because we're freer to choose different things to wear.
Oh, the link answered my question:
You know what they say - 'the bigger the hoop, the bigger the ho'
I don't think tiny hoops could possibly clog a drain. Are you sure someone wasn't flushing tampons or condoms again?
108: Doesn't that just scream "fast food employee?"
Damn, I can't help thinking that's racially coded.
Certainly class-coded, at least.
92: Moving mid- to late-August, and I do play the piano, sort of. (I'm probably having to sell my beloved but unused pedal steel.) I'll email you.
108: Doesn't that just scream "fast food employee?"
I do like a tidy hairnet as well.
As for the whole skirts vs. pants shit, if Hilary Clinton can run for President and then globetrot as Sec of State in a series of pantsuits, then by damn I can wear pants too.
111: You can flush baby-wipes. Or at least I managed it a couple of times. The first time I accidentally tossed one in the bowl, I was worried, but it went through.
re: 109
I suppose in the case of formal business dress, yeah. It gets more similar for men with 'business casual',* when the rules are vague and stupid.
* the advocacy of which should be punishable with some sort of physical pain...
Hilary Clinton's choice of pantsuit colors, on the other hand, I may not emulate. She does seem to prefer blacks and grays when not actively campaigning, mind you.
Having a work uniform is kind of nice.
Word.
Our rules are more complex because we're freer to choose different things to wear.
Also, some people just really get off on enforcing arbitrary rules. Cf. grammar scolds.
Congratulations on your admission to Secret Kenyan U, Mr. D. My brother is looking for a roommate, and he's ~1 mi from SKU, so do let me know if you have trouble finding a place. The Boston rental market is, as you might imagine, heavily influenced by the school calendar, so the best time to look is May-Sep.
"You know what they say - 'the bigger the hoop, the bigger the ho"
No, I had not known that that was what they say. Damn, I can't help thinking that's racially coded.
Neither had I, and while it might be racial, I think the hoop in this case is metonymic.
If I had found work at a firm that required all employees to wear ranger hats, I might have never quit the law. Really it was the appeal of spending long work hours sporting a toque that drew me into baking.
I'm not in law, but just regarding professional clothing in general, I tend to be a bit... random? Right now I'm wearing black, pressed pants that would be fine for my own wedding, black shoes that would only be average at best even after being vigorously polished, and a striped shirt which I think probably looks nice on the outside but I know just how many loose threads and stuff it has.
I don't actually mind neckties, though. I wear them about half the time, more or less at random.
Also, congratulations Bave. Good luck.
I'm not in the law but I have flushed a cloth nappy down the toilet -- and it didn't block up anything (though it took £60 for the plumber to inform us of this fact; I was too scared to vigourously test the toilet).
Apparently toilet paper block Greek toilets -- very narrow pipes -- so you just deposit your dirties into a bin beside the loo.
Apparently toilet paper block Greek toilets -- very narrow pipes -- so you just deposit your dirties into a bin beside the loo.
Old news, bub.
131 was me. And holy crap, I've been hanging around this dump nice place for at least six years.
I encountered a number of toilets in Brazil with instructions not to flush paper. They use bidets, which makes it less odd, but still a little inconvenient. I'm hoping the Japanese TechnoBog thing takes off in the US. It's terribly civilized.
On my first encounter with a bidet I thought it was a urinal, so I pissed in it, went to flush, and it pissed on me. Very distressing.
Congrats, Bave. There is a fair amount of university-owned housing available to law students, and if you are considering that I can provide some information.
By contrast, the moment the less established concept of "business casual" comes into play, you see the same proliferation of arcane rules for men: shirts must have collars, shoes should be leather and one color, trousers should be creased, etc. etc.
Some people just really get off on enforcing arbitrary rules.
138.2: I've never admired your willingness to take unpopular stands more than I do now.
You wear a suit and a tie. The suit should fit you and not be too flashy or fashion-forward.
And if you expect anybody to comment on the gently-rolled lapels or subtle nailhead of your new suit, brother, you are out of luck. Philistines, the whole profession.
This thread reminds me of the summer when I wore the same jeans to the office every day, hoping that they would fire me.
Putting used TP in the bathroom trash would probably get you fired, excepting in Greece.
After that initial failure, you upped the ante by starting to comment on unfogged.
And it worked like a charm.
I wore the same jeans to the office every day, hoping that they would fire me.
Apo might suggest a surer route to getting fired.
* I am aware that Stanley wasn't really shocked by the teabagger thing.
Has Unfogged really come to this? O, Standpipe, my Standpipe.
Congrats, Bave.
My secretary announced yesterday that she's quitting to go to law school as well. Couldn't talk her out of it either.
145: As I said when one partner gently commented about it, "[S]ome days you guys are lucky I feel like wearing pants at all."
146: It is possible that one of those commas was superfluous.
150: Relax. I'm sure noone here is going to enforce some arbitrary rule on you.
I'm looking forward to telling my boss; I have no idea what they're going to do without me around here (although Jackmormon would probably be an improvement on me, so there's that).
I am a bit sad to be entering a profession where I don't get to wear jeans, sneakers, and a casual shirt to work every day.
re: 153
It's OK, by the time you finish law school we are all going to be eating each other in dark fetid ruins anyway.
Congratulation's, Bave! See you in Greater Boston!
we are all going to be eating each other in dark fetid ruins
The future is all underground sex grottoes, all the time.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one celebrating International Unfogged Archives Day.
Hmm. This comment has gained comic value in the interim.
we are all going to be eating each other in dark fetid ruins
Cheer up, ttaM. I'm sure that volcanic cloud will lift any day now.
I wonder if there's a group blog by transgendered lawyers who have confronted this issue from both sides. There must be, surely.
Congratulations, Bave. The Unfogged coöp is going to be so well lawyered up that it would be a shame not to get into some low-level organized crime.
I'm sure that volcanic cloud will lift any day now.
The last eruption of that volcano went on for two years. So, you know, don't hold your breath.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one celebrating International Unfogged Archives Day.
138 made me wonder what percentage of total comments express Knecht's love of breasts.
162: I'm game! I'll be happy to help any way I can. I figure my best spot would be building the gadgets used by the ninjas to break into places, but I'm open to anything that doesn't involve getting shot, stabbed, or set on fire.
I figured there'd be an interest in stuff like unlicensed distilling and pot-growing, but yeah, gadget-building, hacking, whatever. From each according to their* ability, to each according to their need.
*Singular 'their' used here to conform to site standards.
some low-level organized crime
The Al-Aqsa Jaywalkers' Brigade will be meeting to plot strategy next Thursday.
167: I'm really keen on the Ninjas. Maybe pot-crapping Ninjas or something. Smoke their shit if you want to get high, give them shit if you want to DIE!
My name is togolosh and I can't stop thinking about ninjas. REAL ULTIMATE POWER.
164: Probably out the same as the percentage of the internet bandwidth used for the same purpose.
Don't Think of a Ninja is Luntz's forthcoming book.
174: Shoulda been criminal, not civil.
174: That case is going to be hard to defend, at least morally. Legally they may walk, but I hope not.
I was thinking last night that we need a financial services industry Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Spill the beans and you won't go to prison, just be banned from handling other people's money unless you're working a cash register. Getting the extent of the corruption out in the open is more important to me at this point than punishing the guilty. Trying to hold all the guilty to account simply isn't practical.
Trying to hold all the guilty to account simply isn't practical.
That's what they said about making a sandwich that uses meat patties for a the bun.
On the subject of fashion, back in the 60s and 70s everybody was wondering how the long haired guys would look when they got old, and here we are and there's quite a lot of long grey hair around and, apart from the bald geezers with pony tails glued to the back of their necks it mostly seems OK-ish...
This afternoon I saw a guy who must have been pushing 50 with a full on Mohawk. He looked a complete fucking prat.
Shoulda been criminal, not civil.
Shoulda been mobs torching their headquarters and chasing executives through the streets.
179: As usual, you are correct, sir. Sadly, in that particular revolution, I'd probably be next up against the wall... :)
Cheer up, ttaM. I'm sure that volcanic cloud will lift any day now.
It damn well better.
re: 178
My Dad had the baldy head with the long grey ponytail for years. A couple of times he explicitly told me he kept it long because everyone says you have to cut it short once it starts receding, and sod doing what everyone says. He doesn't have it anymore.
it would be a shame not to get into some low-level organized crime.
A massive copyright violation scheme would be good.
182. My shop steward at work had a baldy pony tail for years. After he cut it off, membership rose significantly.
(correlation!=causation)
A massive copyright violation scheme would be good.
Oh, yeah. See, we already know how to do it!
That's what they said about making a sandwich that uses meat patties for a the bun.
Presumably, you're referring to this, which I'll link to for everyone else's benefit and in case it hasn't been elsewhere linked to on the blog.
187: I was referring to that and now I feel lazy for not providing the link.
152: Had I stayed in my state job, Bave, I could still be practicing law in jeans and a t-shirt. Don't lose hope!
And, um, Knecht? Your expression of appreciation for fitted blouses is actually the kind of thing that makes professional dress fraught for women. See, before I would have made that fashion choice thinking simply that it was sharper than a boxier dress shirt. Now... So it's one more opportunity to be ogled.
it's one more opportunity to be ogled
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
190: And successful communication has apparently occurred.
187: Which actually looks like this.
192: My point was, they can do it, not that they can do it well. Same thing applies to prosecuting investment bankers.
194: Then people could see the outline of my belly button.
192: I was kinda hopeful out for an apo review, like you did with that Hardee's gutbomb awhile back.
Uh, "hopeful out"? Combination of hopeful/holding out, is what that is. Back to mowing the foot-tall grass for me. Ugh.
198: To figure out, a priori, how much gaping to expect, you'd need to use the cosine.
I think at this point we can just stipulate that men want to be ogled more and women want to be ogled less. It certainly makes a good default assumption.
I will review the KFC Double Down. Just probably not until next week.
174: Gold Man-sacks not the only villains touched by the long arm of the law today: Blackwater former president, general counsel, executive vice president and two others indicted on weapons charges.
202-3: Both, right? This is for science.
203, 205: I assume he meant "fried".
I've never gotten grilled chicken at a fried chicken place. That violates God's laws.
Gold Man-sacks
I'm pleased to see this has caught on.
I had a double down earlier this week. It's surprisingly good if you put it in a bun, which KFC will give you at no cost if you ask for one. As-served, it's less appealing. Who wants to hold greasy slabs of chicken in their bare hands? If I'm going to get so messy eating lunch that I need a wet-nap afterwards, I'd better be eating a pile of ribs.
So how is the cooking going, Brock?
I had chips and salsa for dinner last night.
(And chocolate covered almonds, and beer.)
(I didn't want to give the impression that the meal wasn't well-rounded.)
(I didn't cook any of it, in case that wasn't clear.)
This is nosy, but do you manage to get home from work for dinner, and eat with Mrs Landers and the kids? Or do they eat food separately from you, as you forage?
(More generally, to answer your question: I haven't really given it much effort, yet.)
214: it's a mix. If something is being cooked, I'll usually make a point to make it home. But that's usually only once or twice a week. They often forage. And if they're foraging, I'll sometimes work later, since I can as easily forage by myself.
Maybe tonight you could bring home Double Downs for the whole family.
Last night, my wife cooked asparagus and Chicken Marsala. I ate so much that when I peed at lunch, I still smelled the asparagus. I love that stuff.
bring home Double Downs for the whole family
I don't think they sell a tofu verison, so I'm the only person in my family who would eat one.
But not very interested in a Double Down.
192: Wow, that looks horrible. And yet...
Yes, probably.
Although I'm solo parenting with Hawaiian Punch tonight, and it's easier to make something we can just share on the kitchen floor. Like, I eat my dinner and she plays with magnets and comes over for a bite when she wants one. That's the easiest parenting.
So maybe I'll make some beans and rice or a sandwich or something. Or oatmeal.
That's the easiest parenting.
This is the easiest parenting. But you can't get one of those to eat a Double Down either.
225: Are those more or less creepy than Real Dolls? I vote for more creepy.
It depends what you're buying them for.
Is it creepier to have sex with a RebornBaby or to force-feed a RealDoll a Double Down?
I know we've marvelled at the creepiness before. But still:
The nostrils are also opened so the baby can breathe and also gives a lifelike baby finish.
Eyuck.
a lifelike baby finish
I guess they mean covered with snot.
230: Why do you hate Life, heebie?
I'm not a big fan of cinnamon.
"I don't like board games" would have also been acceptable.
A car can be blue!
I'm outtie to get Shorty.
This line creeps me out even a bit more than usual (from a different site).
My God, the "reborning community", and there's like a jillion places selling them (those are just the 'A's ).
Shortie is like a melody
(I heard that on the radio, probably in a different context.)
bring home Double Downs for the whole family
I'd like to make a case that we, moving forward, refer to the Double Down in the plural as Doubles Down. It lends an air of quiet dignity to the sandwich.
||
So, a question for the mineshaft: Mrs. Landers went through with the nose-piercing I'd mentioned a while ago. (I can't find the relevant comments now, though, so I can't really recall how much detail I gave then.) Anyway, I'm mostly "meh", but don't personally care much one way or the other. But I don't have a great sense for how much, exactly, other people tend to be bothered by this sort of thing. Especially boring, old, conservative people. I've heard plenty of stories of people taking flak for facial piercings (and visible tatoos, etc.), but I don't have a great sense of whether those are just the reactions of a few cranky old weirdos, or if that's fairly widespread sentiment. (My hunch is that it's fairly widespread, sadly.)
Making all this more concrete: we are supposed to go to a fancy charity-event thingy sponsored by my work next weekend. (For the record, in case anyone doesn't know: I work for a stodgy corporate law firm.) And I'm somewhat concerned about the first impressions that might be made, particularly among a few senior partners in my department who I know will be there. It's not that I'm especially concerned about what my colleagues' opinions of her might be, so much as that I'm still new enough to be very much in the first-impression-forming stage myself with a lot of people, and I suspect that that any impressions they form of her will bleed off on me. (I assume it goes without saying here that anyone who forms a negative impression of someone based solely on a nose-piercing is being small-minded, bigoted, petty and just generally wrong. That's beside the point.) A few months from now, this wouldn't be an issue, because she could just pull the piercing out for the evening. But she can't right now, since it's still healing. So I'm wondering if we'd be better gracefully backing out of the event entirely. That feels cowardly, to me. But I'm torn.
Complicating factor: Mrs. Landers really wants to go to this thing, and will be sad if I tell her we're not going, and would be pissed if I tell her we're not going because I'm concerned that some co-workers would find her piercing inappropriate.
So, people who have more experience with this sort of thing (and with people's reactions to this sort of thing) than I do: what say you?
|>
Not that I have a lot of experience with this either, but assuming we are talking about a small stud in the side of nose I would think there shouldn't be much trouble. That seems to be a common enough thing these days where it shouldn't be too shocking. Now if she went with the bull ring that might raise a few more eyebrows.
Small stud, yes. And, to be clear, I can't imagine anyone would be shocked by it (or faint, or say anything, or say "you won't believe what I saw..." to friends or family later). You're right, they're fairly common (among certain demographics, but still very uncommon among others, which is the worry.)
I'm more concerned just about the formation of subtly negative impressions, perhaps even unconsciously.
I think it's going to be a matter of personality. And dumb luck: who knows what the wife of some senior partner is going to think, much less the senior partner who at least knows more or less why they thought you would be a good addition to the outfit.
So, how good is she at charming older strangers?
That seems to be a common enough thing these days where it shouldn't be too shocking.
I may be jaded by too much time with my parents, and with other old and stodgy UMC people, but this, not at all.
244.last: reasonably good, I think.
I'm not sure how to interpret the rest of 244, especially in light of 245 (which I agree with).
It'll probably be fine. I can spin out a ton of scenarios where it isn't, but I don't see that as helpful. I don't like the idea of hiding who you are (which is, at worst, the kind of guy who couldn't talk his wife out of a damn fool thing -- only relevant in that an element of your job is talking people out of damn fool things). If she can charm the important people, then negative impressions (if any) formed by the others are of no moment.
re: 241
Imagine this conversation: "Honey, I know you wanted to go, but I was afraid that people would look down on me because of you."
You don't want to have this conversation. You don't want this to be the conversation you would have if you were being honest. So go. If the one thing that ultimately stops you from becoming a partner in this particular firm is the fact that your wife has a stud in her nose, you do not want to be a partner there. (And, while such places surely are out there, I suspect that there are fewer of them than you think.)
And all the CharleyCarp has said.
I agree. Go. Nasal studs are pretty common, even among young people in fairly conservative social sets. For most people, it will barely register, and if they do notice and think it's freaky, it's the kind of freaky that will make Brock seem more interesting.
(Not to say that you aren't interesting, Brock, but you seem to worry about what will happen if you actually appear on someone's radar here.)
Brock, can you discuss this with her? Not to suggest that the two of you shouldn't attend the event, but to say that these are going to be stodgy, conservative, etc. people, who might be startled by a nose-piercing, and you're new there, so first impressions, etc. So she might want to try to be especially charming. Can you discuss it just for matrimonial health, get it out on the table?
If the stud she currently has (for healing purposes) isn't just a tiny diamond thing, she could always disarmingly note, if anyone seems to be staring at her nose, that this is for healing purposes, and she wishes that the gathering had been a few months hence, when she'd switched to the discreet thing she'll prefer, but what can you do?
Brock, can you discuss this with her?
Of course, but I'm trying to solidify my thoughts here first. FWIW, I was initially pretty waffly but leaning against going. 248 seems right, but is somewhat tangential. I think I disagree with 249. And if I didn't know better I might think 247 was written by someone strongly interested in my not going, as a deliberate effort to dissuade me. So I'm still basically undecided.
248 seems right, but is somewhat tangential.
Sorry (seriously). Could you restate your concern?
And again, I don't think anyone (or not many people, at least) would think of it as "shocking" or "freaky". Slightly edgy, is all.
254: So it would make a better impression not to attend than to bring a partner who has a piece of jewelry that might be perceived by a couple of people as "slightly edgy"?
253: definitely don't apologize, I appreciated the comment. A more complete response:
Imagine this conversation: "Honey, I know you wanted to go, but I was afraid that people would look down on me because of you."
You don't want to have this conversation. You don't want this to be the conversation you would have if you were being honest. So go. If the one thing that ultimately stops you from becoming a partner in this particular firm is the fact that your wife has a stud in her nose, you do not want to be a partner there. (And, while such places surely are out there, I suspect that there are fewer of them than you think.)
I definitely don't want to have that conversation, which is why I'm running through this whole exercise. I'm not sure what your next sentence ("You don't want this to be the conversation you would have if you were being honest") means, exactly. And while I agree about the partner business, that's something of a straw man--that would indeed be an outrageous overresponse, and would indicate it wasn't a place I was interested in working. I wouldn't expect that sort of overreaction.
I don't know. I'm probably overthinking all of this; I'm tired.
255: that's exactly the question I'm trying to answer.
(except "might be perceived by a couple of" should be replaced with "would very likely be perceived by certain")
Brock, you should go and take your wife and the nose stud. It's a charity-event thing, it's not appellate argument -- even if the crowd is stodgy and conservative, the nose jewelry won't be inappropriate. To the extent that anyone will notice this and use it to help form an opinion of you, it's more likely to be that young associate Brock turns out to have a charming young wife with (very, very mildly) edgy jewelry -- i.e., that you're young, glamorous and interesting -- rather than anything negative.
257: Clearly I don't understand how law firms work. I simply cannot imagine telling my partner that I'm not going to attend a work function because, if I bring her, someone might be very mildly interested in a dot on her nose, and that is an unacceptable outcome to me. Do people who have same-sex partners ever manage to work in the law, or does the mild interest their partners raise prevent their careers from flourishing? Or if they brought a partner who was a different race from themselves? Too mildly interesting for the legal profession?
If the question you are trying to answer is would make a better impression not to attend than to bring a partner who has a piece of jewelry that would be perceived as "slightly edgy"? I think the answer has to be attend. You don't expect any big adverse reaction. If they won't care, why should you? And professionally, I you are better off being the guy with the interesting if slightly edgy partner than the guy who never comes to social events or comes alone when he does.
257: If that's the case, if not attending would be very bad, then you should attend, and have a conversation with Mrs. Brock about your concerns in which you make clear, if she doesn't know already, that the inevitable conservative types are jackasses but must be mollified through charm. And you're totally having an anxiety attack over this 'cause you want to make a good impression on them and you know how they are but what can you do? So hopefully she can help by being completely charming: team effort.
This double life that you lead has to be stressful. Does Mrs. Brock know that?
There's a simple solution. Ostentatiously eat some obviously rotten food, and no one will notice your wife's jewelry.
Do people who have same-sex partners ever manage to work in the law, or does the mild interest their partners raise prevent their careers from flourishing?
I am sure that this is an issue for many people, especially in conservative areas. On the other hand, the first law firm I worked for was (I say with all false modesty) generally considered to be one of the most elite, hard driving, big New York law firms and we had openly gay partners. Indeed, one of the very best partners I worked for started her time as an associate as an out lesbian, had a public partnering ceremony with her partner, left her partner for a male associate and still made partner because she was such a great lawyer. One story like this does not mean that there is not anti-gay bias, even in New York, but I think it says that things are perhaps not as bad as you might imagine.
If someone looks askance, say "You think that's shocking? You should talk to our neighbors."
This isn't like some Woman's World function, is it? Because that was a pretty bad movie.
264: That's my point. Other people somehow manage to survive in firms with issues slightly more substantial than a tiny accessory. Is it a narcissism of small differences thing? Like, because Brock is trying so hard to present himself as an establishment tool, a piece of jewelry could destroy that image? Part of me wants to say that if introducing a wife with a nose ring is so anxiety-causing that you're thinking of staying home, the problem is anxiety itself. But another part of me wonders if the legal profession maintains a double standard wherein you can possibly survive if you're gay, or trans, or non-white, but not if you're a white guy whose wife isn't Stepford. I just... find it implausible that things are so much harder for white guys than for everyone else.
260: There's a comment upthread somewhere to the effect that the restrictions on women's clothing alluded to in the OP are a function of the desire for attorneys to be without personality. No quirks, nothing discernible to distinguish them from the crowd, from being just functionaries.
Sorry I can't seem to find that comment.
I remember, when I was rather younger and even stupider than I am now, wondering briefly whether my beautiful, charming, vivacious then-girlfriend would be too much -- too beautiful, of course, but also too academic and wisecracking -- for the partners at my first law firm and their wives at the first somebody's-house-in-Connecticut function to which we were invited. I was a fool to wonder -- in five minutes, she was as firmly ensconced in the affections of the hostess and the other wives as if they had known her for years.
Briefer: a genuinely significant significant-other can't make one look worse and will probably make one look better to people who already think well of one. Not applicable to affiliations of a more temporary nature.
If that's the case, if not attending would be very bad,
It would not--that's the flip-side here. (Although 261 strikes me as correct.)
Here's another way of presenting the issue, that might help clarify (and also, I think, usefully distinguish it from the same-sex or interracial example): if this were three months from now, there's no question she'd take out the stud to attend the event. None at all. I can predict with 99% certainty she'll be the only person there with a facial piercing of any sort. Not that there's anything wrong with being unique, but I'm sure a lot of people will wonder why she didn't just take it out. You know, it's fine that she has it, but why wear it tonight? Is she trying to make a statement of some sort? And the answer, "it's new, it can't be taken out yet" is perfectly reasonable, and would probably satisfy anyone who heard it. But I can't imagine that's going to be the opening line at every introduction. (And it would probably be even more awkward if it were.)
But another part of me wonders if the legal profession maintains a double standard wherein you can possibly survive if you're gay, or trans, or non-white, but not if you're a white guy whose wife isn't Stepford
I'm a white guy with a non-Stepford wife (she generally refuses to associate with white people, meaning that none of my partners have even met her). I survive. Things like having the perfect, charming mate are not unimportant, but their importance often is overrated.
because Brock is trying so hard to present himself as an establishment tool, a piece of jewelry could destroy that image?
This is right, as is 268.
I received a lot of comments at my last firm for growing a beard in the winters, which was viewed as vaguely unprofessional. I basically told people to piss off, but didn't start growing the beard (or telling people to piss off) until I'd been there a few years, and people knew me a little better. I didn't grow the beard this year precisely because I was moving to this new job; I doubt I'll grow it next year either. It's somewhat similar.
I can't imagine that's going to be the opening line at every introduction.
Solution: get a highly visible tattoo.
No one would ever ask your wife why she didn't take out her nose stud. The only possible comment I can imagine, at all, being made by fashion-conservative types is some guy pulling you aside then or at work and raising his eyebrows at you with a smile.
I only meant to quote the bit before the comma in 272. The part after the comma is what's in dispute.
No one would ever ask your wife why she didn't take out her nose stud.
Of course not. That's my point.
Erm, my point is they'll be left to wonder.
OK, so other than the possibility that a few people might remember having met your wife and think about her, what are the things you're afraid of happening to you? Will you be denied something you need at work? Or will someone tease you? What level of repercussions are you experiencing anxiety about?
my point is they'll be left to wonder
But I don't think they will. Most people who would find a nose piercing unacceptably edgy likely would not consider the question, being generally unfamiliar with piercings.
Relax. Enjoy the party. Take pleasure from the fact that some percentage of the people who find the piercing edgy will think you are a stud who would do kinky things like have sex with the curtains open so that the neighbors can see. They will secretly envy you.
Brock, why not treat it as exactly what it is: she would have removed the stud if the gathering had been several months from now, but she couldn't now.
Probably no one will or would actually raise the question at the gathering, at least directly, but there could, I suppose, be the odd side glance.
Would it be completely outside possibility to have at hand a remark like, "Whew, my wife and I were both a little nervous for this first function we've attended, especially since she's just gotten her nose pierced and has to keep the stud in for healing purposes! Meanwhile, there's a lot to get used to here in [place] that we've moved to. Any tips?"
280.last strikes me as a pretty awkward thing to say.
I am convinced, however, that I was overthinking this. So thanks.
(But for the record, to "Will you be denied something you need at work?", that's the worry, yes. A lof of what I 'need' at work is the support and confidence and mentoring of more senior colleagues. I don't think it would be consciously denied by anyone, but these things are complex.)
280.last is a line, an actor's line. Not something you use in front of the faces of a group of people, with your wife standing there. Rather something to be potentially offered offhand when you and some other person are standing casually side by side at the bar, or whatever. Word (explanation, about the stud) will get around from a few dropped remarks like that on your part. To be dropped *only* if someone says something about your wife.
I frankly wouldn't do any of that myself, but that's because I don't live a life in which conformity is crucial.
Would it be completely outside possibility to have at hand a remark like, "Whew, my wife and I were both a little nervous for this first function we've attended, especially since she's just gotten her nose pierced and has to keep the stud in for healing purposes! Meanwhile, there's a lot to get used to here in [place] that we've moved to. Any tips?"
Yes, that would be insane.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "Brock work persona" might already be slightly pushing the envelope in several respects (these things can be subtle and are very dependent on individual work situations) and given that and his newness to the job I can understand the impulse to ask. (Of course, this might not be the best group of people to get inside the Ohio River Valley law firm mindset.)
I am pretty fucking conventional, but at my workplace am regarded as something of a hopeless eccentric. It has "worked"* so far, but I suspect it will contribute to me getting the bum's rush out a year or two earlier than would have otherwise been the case (or maybe it will prolong my stay, not ever really knowing is half the fun!).
*Not something I cultivate since it is driven by unintentional aspects of my personality, but I do step back and monitor from time to time and try to adjust at the edges.
I think I'm unusually concerned about things like this because my job performance qua job performance is so abysmal. (Thanks, unfogged.) Ao my image (and credentials!) as an establishment tool is more or less all that I have going for me.
You guys are sounding pretty grim. And here I'd been thinking of leaving the self-employed used bookselling business to join the makers of money.
287: Did not mean it to sound that way. I know people with much more transgressive lifestyles than mine at my place of work, they're just smarter more disciplined at keeping it under wraps and presenting an anodyne personality while at the workplace.
287: We have an opening. You could both get away from used books and not make money.
288 is a good restatement of my initial concern. I'm just trying to be smarter more disciplined than JP.
more disciplined than JP.
Don't strain yourself trying getting over that bar, Brock.
289: The making of money is the central incentive, sadly, though I don't need an ungodly amount of it. I am actually beginning to think about this. The book business is, despite the fact that many people apparently adore and lust after books, falling apart in general.
292: I'm not much help there. Have you considered selling sponsorships for the books? Brinks Home Security Presents: Crime and Punishment.
It's not that I can't imagine someone being put off by the piercing, but I think anyone that rigid, you're going to lose them some other way you haven't thought of, if you see what I mean. So I wouldn't bother worrying -- it's either harmless or hopeless.
293: Huh? I wasn't asking for help with the book business -- it's a deeply depressing topic. You have no idea how many books we throw away. I may ask for help if/when I leave the book business.
294 seems sensible, but is it an absolute statement, or does it depend on the relative innocuousness and commonness of the peircing in question? (Someone upthread mentioned a bull-ring--would that change anything, in your mind?) Because that was more or less my original question in this thread, and it's the thing I don't feel particualrly well-suited to judge. (I'm not always as initimate as I should be with the prejudices of conservative old men.)
295: I wasn't asking for help with the book business
I couldn't think of anything helpful, so I went with what came to mind.
What sort of non-book business are you thinking of getting into, parsimon?
It depends on the innocuousness of the piercing. Something much weirder, I'd cover up (that is, I'd stay home), but a nose stud is close enough to mainstream that anyone bothered enough by it that it affects how they treat you is going to be so rigid that they'll notice something else weird about you that you forgot to cover.
But I wouldn't say the same about, say, a big lip ring. That, at a new job in the Midwest, I'd hide.
298: I don't know yet, so it's premature to mention it; this is really as yet a regretfully considered notion. It must not involve the requisite wearing of pantyhose.
299: Huh... I wouldn't think of a lip ring as less mainstream than a nose stud. (Maybe you mean something more extreme than I'm thinking when you say "big".)
Maybe Mrs. Brock can offset the awful affront of the nose ring by expressing her libertarian convictions. Or she can affect a foreign accent and pretend to come from a culture where nose piercings are universally accepted.
I think we need some Harrison Bergeron style handicapping of commenters here. I was about to make a libertarian joke, but then I got called away by the baby, whose incessant demands regularly interfere with my vital work on the Internet. I come back, only to find that I've been pwned. It's an outrage against all values liberals hold dear.
301: Huh. Maybe my judgment's off. But my personal ranking of piercings is (1)one hole in the earlobes, totally innocuous; (2) nose stud, additional or non-lobe ear piercings, just barely edgy; (3) lip, tongue, eyebrow, ear piercings stretched for plugs detectably edgy -- I probably wouldn't worry in NY, but off the coasts I would; (4) and on up from there.
I wouldn't think of a lip ring as less mainstream than a nose stud.
Huh. I would. Small nose studs are pretty common, at least around here.
Speaking as a respresentative of the stodgy old white guys, I think 305 has the hiearchy of edgyness right.
305: I'm reading correctly that you would put a nose stud on par with a non-lobe ear piercing? It's possible I'm off-base, but that strikes me as crazy.
I'd barely rank a non-lobe ear piercing differently than an in-lobe ear piercing (if at al). I see things more like:
(1) holes in ears, so long as they're not excessive or stretched for plugs, etc; (2) nose, lip, tongue, eyebrow piercings with simple studs or rings; (3) any of (1) or (2) above, but stretched for plugs or otherwise unusually large or noticeable; (4) and on up from there.
There's not a right answer, of course -- we've been in different social circles, and maybe things are ranked differently among the people you hang around with.
310: I'd say there is actually a right answer, based on the frequency of the various practices, although that answer no doubt varies from social circle to social circle. But it's an empirical question.
(Which was why I kept bringing stodgy old white men into the conversation.)
Go. It's 2010. The president is black and all the culture that doesn't look like a Bruce Sterling novel looks like a J.G. Ballard novel, and we're hoping it doesn't get to one of his short stories.
312: Well, you got an answer from a self-proclaimed stodgy white guy, although as a old hippie I don't know if Idealist counts.
Old hippies definitely don't count.
That rules out Charley Carp too. Do we have any older men who weren't hippies?
Lip/tongue/eyebrow piercings are definitely more transgressive than a nose stud.
It seems that one can buy clear or flesh-coloured studs (could you take one out and replace it immediately during the healing period?). Also there is various advice on the internet on how to hide nose studs.
I'm just wondering how this conversation would be going if I'd posted the exact same question on a conservative message board somewhere. Somehow, I don't think it would be identical.
I suspect my parents' level of mildly-scandalized-ness would roughly be in accord with LB's hierarchy, but they probably aren't as old or stodgy as the people we're talking about.
Also there is various advice on the internet on how to hide nose studs.
Yes, but I think we're still at the preliminary question of whether anything like that is either necessary or advisable.
Nose stud is definitely more mainstream than lip ring. In that I've seen people over age 25 with them. Well over 25, in fact.
I did mention that it flashes like a little christmas light, right? And whistles when she exhales.
She could cover it up by wearing a gimp mask.
I dunno -- I don't see why conservatives would rank piercings differently (like, Idealist and Apo and asilon and I could all be wrong about the comparative transgressiveness of various piercings, but I don't think that's due to our politics. After all, Idealist is a wingnut). I suppose you might get more "Cover any hint of transgression" from conservatives, but if we're talking about the very minor kind of transgression represented by a piercing, and about conservatives who hang out on the internet, I doubt the difference would be huge.
320 - oh, I thought your only choices so far were to tough it out, or not go at all. If she could swap her current stud for a clear one, would you be okay with that? Can't you just ask her nicely? Part of the joy of marriage is putting up with one's neurotic partner, surely?
326: Well, right. Clearly it's a worry, so if it can be easily hidden or minimized, why wouldn't you?
Did not mean it to sound that way. I know people with much more transgressive lifestyles than mine at my place of work, they're just more disciplined at keeping it under wraps and presenting an anodyne personality while at the workplace.
PHONIES
Oh, I think those are the only two options at this point, yes. (Not positive.)
Whoa -- so, speaking of paranoid, I just walked in the door on this lovely Sunday afternoon with some falafel for dinner, and I see there's this guy hanging out near the stairwell of my building, just standing there. (It's a small building, no lobby, just a stairwell near the garbage cans.) I've never seen this guy before--white guy with a shaved head, looks right at me and says "How are you today?" in a not-entirely-pleasant way. I say fine, and head up the stairs. Guy's still standing around, so I figure he's doing maintenance or something? Then he follows me up the stairs, getting faster and faster until he's one step behind me as I reach my apt. door. I turn and look at him, and he waits, watching me unlock the door, staring at me. I let myself in, and after I shut the door, I hear him go into the apartment next door where a woman lives.
Jesus fucking Christ. The lesson here is either that this guy needs to learn how not to completely freak someone the fuck out, or that I need to stop going to thriller films that feature long scenes of rape, torture, and murder of lone women in their apartments.
I'm sure you could find a conservative board somewhere and go and ask them?
Personally, if I were your wife, and you told me that me wearing my nose stud would cause you to fret all night, I'd be happy (well, maybe not happy, but I'd roll my eyes and do it) to investigate less visible alternatives. I'd be really pissed off (as you realise) if you said you'd rather not go.
Clearly it's a worry
Clearly, yes, although I might be giving the impression that it's a more significant worry than it actually is, because continuing this conversation is allowing me to put off marking up a bond indenture.
(Not to give the impression that this conversation hasn't been useful and informative; it has.)
330 is weird. Hard to tell, since you're the narrator, if the guy was being very creepy or if you're just paranoid, but the behavior as described sounds very creepy.
332 - get to work! You've got more to be concerned about than your wife's nose!
330 - maybe he recognised you from a previous visit and assumed you would have recognised him? (Trying to look on the bright side.) Sounds unpleasant. Do you know the woman next door? Can you say to her, "jeez, your visitor freaked me out the other day"?
Since there are lawyers here, I wonder if any of you can answer this: various news articles are claiming that it is the legal responsibility of airlines to pay for accommodations and meals for people with canceled flights due to the volcano. One other stranded person I talked to asked the airline, which (as I would have expected) laughed at him and told him that if he read that in the BBC he should ask the BBC to pay for his meals.
I know from experience that it's hopeless to try to get anything out of the airlines, but is it actually their legal responsibility, or are the news media just confused?
The woman next door is the one I've mentioned here before who has had creepy boyfriends who bang on her door for hours at a time in the middle of the night demanding to be let in, which esp. worries me because she works as a high-level prosecutor. Never seen this one before.
I wouldn't call that paranoia, AWB. That sounds seriously scary.
336 is not to say that I would not be worried for her sake on the abusive-bf front alone, but add to that the fear that someone is coming to kill her for work she's done, and I don't like it one bit.
335: My understanding (may be US only) is that the airline is *not* responsible in the case of force majeure events, which this surely is.
But I did find what is probably the same BBC story which says (in the context of this event):
If a flight is delayed, there are strict European rules in place, which mean that the airline is obliged to provide assistance at the airport. This includes supplying meals and refreshments, along with accommodation if an overnight stay is required.
But other sources (including earlier BBC stories) say that the same exclusion is in effect in Europe.
335 etc:
If it's a flight from or to an airport in a EU member States that is cancelled or seriously delayed, it would seem that the airline has to provide assistance even in case of force majeure - force majeure only saves them from additionally having to pay compensation. (See Art. 5 and 6 of the EU regulation here)
(Disclaimer: IAAEuropeanL, but this is not legal advice blabla)
Back to lurking
341 was me (not that it matters)
I wouldn't want to be stranded by the volcano, but when I think about the amount of travel people I know do for the sciences, I sometimes wonder if I should have stuck with that. On the other hand, I'm going to drive about 1500 miles this week, so there's that.
I didn't mean in 247 to suggest you not go. You should go. It'll be fine.
And if you see anyone giving her a funny look, just tell them that you have a bunch of friends in New York City who think it's perfectly fine, no big deal at all. That'll convince them.
Seriously, it's a cultural/class marker, and your sense that she'd take it out if she could is probably a sound read of the class/culture of which your firm thinks of itself a part. Even so, if she charms the PTB, a catty remark from someone or other isn't going to do you any harm.
How stodgy/white are the clients?
I'm having a hard time not wondering what decade we're in at this point. CC is right, of course, that this is a cultural/class marker, but the cultures and classes are mixing it up a lot more than they once did. Is the firm able to roll with the punches, as it were, move into this century wherein the occasional woman has a pierced nose?
It's entirely possible I'm projecting my own stodgy whiteness onto the firm. (Not entirely, but...) I realized I have a similar reaction thinking about it in a variety of contexts. "What will the neighbors think?" (Or replace "neighbors" with people at church, or grandma, or teachers at school, etc.) Most of those situations couldn't even arguably end up having negative consequences for me, so they don't worry me in the same way, but my gut reaction is broadly similar.
318: I'm just wondering how this conversation would be going if I'd posted the exact same question on a conservative message board somewhere. Somehow, I don't think it would be identical.
Probably not. My very first foray into casual internet discussion groups, 15 years ago or so, involved my revealing that I don't shave my legs. (I was, stupidly I realize now, attempting to defend the practice.) I was excoriated in quite ugly terms, and retreated in shock. I think it was an AOL board.
Is the firm able to roll with the punches, as it were, move into this century wherein the occasional woman has a pierced nose?
Law firms can be pretty traditionalist/conservative in weird ways. As a data point (in addition to the beard data point I gave above), I hesitate to wear brown shoes with any of my suits, even though they obviously look better with most blues and greys (which would be: all of my suits). Because there's a bizarre old-fashioned notion that black shoes are more "professional". (All of this only applies to men. I have no idea what women wear on their feet.) And even times I've found myself in a large conference room wearing brown shoes, I've noticed that I'm literally the only man wearing non-black shoes in the room. So I mostly stopped. I'll probably pick it up again more once I'm a little more comfortable in the place (around the time my beard returns), but for now, it's a little too nonconformost.
(And I would hope that you can understand why, if traditionally-styled brown dress shoes strike me as non-conformist, I might be a little concerned about a nose stud.)
(I should note that 348 did not apply at my former firm in Boston.)
ecause there's a bizarre old-fashioned notion that black shoes are more "professional".
More formal, surely, but I've never heard that black shoes are more professional. I suspect that the problem is that most men are uncomfortable wearing brown shoes with blue suits, despite the advice of the A Suitable Wardrobe guy et al.
It's not whether they're living in a century where occasional women have piercings. It's whether they're living in a century where our set has piercings, and even if so, whether the fact that some of them do is not a harbinger of the end of civilization as we know (and run) it.
348. last: I understand your concerns. I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't dismiss them. The fact is, your wife decided to pierce her nose, which is cool, and either you discuss this with her -- your concerns -- or you buck up and deal at the firm's gathering.
I feel like I'm hectoring you, which isn't my place, but really, talk to Mrs. Brock about this.
More formal, surely, but I've never heard that black shoes are more professional.
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. Black is considered more conservative and traditional; many people view brown as too "fashion-forward" for a professional office environment. Save it for the nightclubs, etc.
No man wore brown shoes at my old outfit, except when business casual. Well, I have a couple of different pairs of brown cowboy boots that I wore, but, really, only very very rarely when dressed up. Then I'd wear black boots.
Nose-piercings are the new black.
(Of course, no one should judge what is fashionable or appropriate from my appearance/behavior. You all know this, of course.)
355 weirds me out. I thought brown shoes were conservatively appropriate for men with almost anything but a black or dark grey suit. I mean, really conservatively. But you didn't see them in your Biglaw firm?
It's entirely possible I'm projecting my own stodgy whiteness onto the firm. (Not entirely, but...) I realized I have a similar reaction thinking about it in a variety of contexts. "What will the neighbors think?"
Wait, Brock -- you definitely shouldn't have sex in front of the partners at the charity gala.
358: I would guess that in NYC, that's true, even in law firms. And up and down the coasts generally, although I don't think that was true 30 years ago. The interior of the country hasn't really caught up yet.
356: The new brown, surely, unless you're really trying to upend the sensibilities of our set.
360 (cont.): (But, even in NYC, most people would still advise black shoes for, say, a law firm interview, even with a navy suit. So, your "I mean, really conservatively" might be slightly off. But for daily wear, sure, brown is probably fine.)
No, I meant I thought brown shoes were old-school appropriate, exactly not fashion-forward.
358 -- Grey or blue suits take black shoes.
There's a simple solution. Ostentatiously eat some obviously rotten food, and no one will notice your wife's jewelry.
Heh. I was thinking along the same lines but was going to suggest Brock off-handedly share the anecdote of recently exposing his young child to cartoon dinosaur-robot secks from the internetz. The piercing would be the furthest thing from anyone's mind.
But men's fashion confuses me more than anything but women's fashion, so I may simply be wrong.
364: I wear brown shoes with grey suits all the time. Different shades of brown, depending on the grey (charcoal, silver, etc.).
367: and this looks much better than black shoes, I agree. (And doubly-so in the case of navy suits.) But a lot of people don't view that as appropriate professional-office dress.
Grey or blue suits take black shoes.
I would have agreed with this, just in terms of the color family.
Grey and brown seems weird. Not that Flippanter isn't dashing, I'm sure. (And god knows I myself dress like a slob -- it's the self-employed thing.)
Not that Flippanter isn't dashing, I'm sure.
parsimon, that's insane. Do an image search for "grey suit brown shoes", and look through some of the results.
I suspect all this stuff ultimately just serves to justify whatever impression of you people we're already inclined to have.
We have lingered in the chambers of the judge
With lawyers clad in blue suits, shoes not brown
Till human fashions makes us all dress down.
371: Um. Well, if I were dressing myself in grey or blue, I wouldn't don brown shoes to go with. Okay? I have no doubt that it works fine, and as I've said, I'm not a fashion maven myself, and rarely dress formally.
370 makes me smile.
I didn't know the no-black-with-brown rule until college. Someone saw me wearing brown Dickies™ with a black t-shirt and gently mocked my fashion transgression. I think those colors look great together but mentally noted the rule in case I need to care about it at some point in the future..
|| advice needed: I have decided that I should become acquainted with the music of Pearl Jam. Where should I start? |>
I can't begin to imagine what might have occasioned 377.
377: I have no idea, but I think you're abusing the pause/play convention. That's properly OT. It's almost like you're wearing brown shoes instead of black.
I also agree that nose studs are less transgressive than both nose rings and other facial piercings. I think it says "I have batik cloth for table cloths at home".
I posted a surprised reaction a newer Pearl Jam song awhile ago. But just listen to Ten. That's the only one worthwhile, in my book. Unless you want to sing my made-up lyrics to "Better Man" from Corduroy:
She wants to make some toast and eggs,
But she can't find the butter, man.
White shoes are the most common footwear at my current firm.
Same reason as all those Huey Lewis earworms.
Far be it from me to dictate the laws of fashion, but if a man wants to adopt a "conservative" style (with the term "conservative" serving as a shorthand for something like "bland; unremarkable; unmarked by evidence of quirkiness or signs of individuality"), I don't recommend brown shoes.
Batik is great. You don't see it much.
I say, gown and powdered wig, or you're a nudist.
Batik is great. You don't see it much.
You must not know people with the right kind of nose piercing.
I think it says "I have batik cloth for table cloths at home".
Exactly! But we don't! That's what makes it so transgressive.
377: I think the lead singer is named Ed.
Uh-oh, Brock! Nose studs might also say "We look askance at vaccinations" and "We have drippy candles". Abandon all hope!
Or, we have askance candles and drippy vaccinations.
387: I guess not. I have batik fabrics, or pieces, that I haven't used lately -- I wouldn't put them on a table since they'd get foodstuff on them when dining. They're more wall hangings.
Over here on the east coast, batik is super hippie-dippie.
382: white shoes are the most common footwear at your current firm for the same reason as all those Huey Lewis earworms?
Intentional misreading aside, I'm thinking you don't mean the kind of white shoes made reference to in the term "white shoe DC law firm", do you?
Over here on the east coast, batik is super hippie-dippie.
Nose rings are kind of mildly hippie more than edgy, I think. They're more "I think merchandise from India is beautiful" than "I like the color black".
Drippy candles are transgressive? Jesus christ ... well, actually I figured that. Figures.
I'm so edgy even my shoes are black.
They're not transgressive, but they are inconsistent with the social codes of being stodgy.
Okay, so talking to the formal-shoes-talkin'-guys: what about Oxblood? Where does that fit in? Evening events only, or plausible in business environments?
398: Only evening events, unless you used real ox blood in the dye.
I'm so edgy even I am black where it counts.
I'm so edgy I appear to be stodgy.
Evening events only, or plausible in business environments?
Save it for the cocktail parties.
Oh, I already have plenty of shoes for cocktail parties.
398: for professional purposes, if it's not black, it's brown.
404: Isn't it time for the "Just one drop" rule to die.
||
Since I am sure Sifu wants to know. I picked up a tube of DZNuts and tried it out on a trail ride today. Held up pretty well over 3.5 hrs and did have a nice cooling sensation after applications.
|>
They're more "I think merchandise from India is beautiful" than "I like the color black".
Yeah, I get that "edgy" isn't exactly hippie. What's that about the "merchandise from India"? You can make batik cloth at home. People do.
Making batik at home isnt inconsistent with finding merchandise from India beautiful, but it does require more dedication than I would presume from a mere nose ring. Such a lass would also have inky fingers.
410: Same with the women who work in the squid massage parlors.
For oxblood, you'd have to be certifiably blueblood, or else work in one of the creative fields (where you'd wear them as an ironic gesture, naturally).
The venn diagram of women with nose rings, women who make their own batik, and women who work in squid massage parlors would show no proper containments, but plenty of intersections, some even three-way.
The point representing Brock's wife would be included in A-(B U C), I presume.
410: Ah. I begin to follow. A nose-ring means naught, is your point. It's partaking of a certain gestalt that may be only skin deep, part of an investment in a certain subset of consumer culture.
405: needless to say, I also have plenty of shoes for Burning Man.
408: that's fabulous! I'm so happy for your taint!
OT: I just ate the last Peep in the house. It was a bit rubbery, but not bad.
OT: I just ate the last Peep in the house. It was a bit rubbery, but not bad.
Wait, oxblood is a class marker? Is that a general rule?
Wait, oxblood is a class marker?
It has other uses too; you sprinkle it during certain sacrificial rites, for instance.
|| I have less than 200 words left on the word limit for the last paper for this academic year, but it's now clear that I will not conclude it on the exact word limit. I guess it would be bad form to end in mid- |>
This oxblood thing is hilarious. I first became aware of it as a shoe color for Doc Martens and other similarly chunky oxfords.
I had the best pair of shoes ever in that color, I forget the brand. All their shoes had a green logo on the sole of one shoe and a matching red one on the sole of the other.
They were a French company, maybe? They later moved made more hippie-ish, chukka boot style shoes.
423: "And may I end this paper with a selection of my favorite tweets of the past year:"
I admit that this thread is the first time I've ever heard of "oxblood" as a shoe color.
Me also. Is it another name for cordovan?
428: I think they're basically the same, yeah.
Oh, then you can wear that to the office.
one of the very best partners I worked for started her time as an associate as an out lesbian, had a public partnering ceremony with her partner, left her partner for a male associate and still made partner because she was such a great lawyer caved to heteronormativity
BROWN SHOES DON'T MAKE IT!*
*Wiki: "The lyrics start off as a general attack on suburban American society: TV, greed and conformity are all mocked openly in the song.....The title was inspired by an event covered by Time Magazine reporter Hugh Sidey in 1966. The reporter correctly guessed that something was up when the fastidiously dressed President Lyndon B. Johnson made the fashion faux pas of wearing brown shoes with a gray suit. LBJ flew to Vietnam for a surprise public relations visit later that day.")
Wow, OK, so the guy from 330, it turns out, didn't go into the apt. I thought he did. He let himself into the apt. of the chick across the hall. They're having some kind of sex party. People come and go. Mostly it sounds like conversation with a lot of loud laughing, and then there are screamy sex sounds for 30 seconds, and then someone lets himself out. There's more conversation for a few hours, and then another 30 seconds of sex. Rinse, repeat. She seems only to have one or two dudes in there at a time. This has happened before.
My neighbors are weird.
Evening events only, or plausible in business environments?
I don't know the answer. I just wanted to comment that my comments above in no way pertain to all or even most business environments. There are businesses, and, more importantly, business roles where edgy is not only acceptable, but positively good. I don't perceive Brock's law practice (which I won't claim to understand all that well) is not such an area. Bucketloads of other people's money are riding on his ability to create documents that conform perfectly to every imaginable requirement. He's not (as I understand it) about creating new and nifty ways that someone is going to make money -- I can see that someone playing a creative role might get away with edgier. But when one's role to provide assurance that the transaction is going to come off exactly as contemplated -- and is understood to be coming off exactly as it will -- the people looking for assurance don't want edginess or personality. They are looking for security.
Sorry, Brock if I've misunderstood what it is you do.
That was a mess. Convert the double negative in sentence 3 to a single.
435 to the apartment across the hall from AWB
30 seconds of sex
Do you think they're just easily distracted or something?
437: It's possible that most of the sex-having sounds, for some reason, exactly like regular full-voiced conversation. I used to live below some people who did it that way, so they'd keep on talking about whatever they were talking about and then there'd be a few seconds of orgasm.
In fact, it's happening right now!
And now it's over again.
Man, living in separate houses with yards and trees and stuff between them sure does create a radically different neighbor experience.
I mean, I don't have any idea who the freaks are on our street. Though I bet most of the neighbors suspect it's us.
She seems only to have one or two dudes in there at a time. This has happened before.
I'm so glad I moved to New Jersey.
Man, living in separate houses with yards and trees and stuff between them sure does create a radically different neighbor experience.
Indeed. Our neighbors hate all the renters on our street except us because we helped shovel snow for everyone else during the epic snowfall. We're now "in" and hear about the annoying renters on the street, which is weird.
Brock, I've sported a nose stud in the Ohio River Valley for the last 10 years and the only one who's ever been shocked or appalled by it was my mother. I've had tons of little old ladies say, "You know, I don't like nose piercings but on you it actually looks good," which I think is a genuine response on their part. Assuming your wife looks equally awesome, this is a plausible outcome. I don't think it's anything people view as major even in Polite Society and if she's wearing nice clothes she should be able to fly under radar juts fine. I also have friends who didn't notice for years that I did have a piercing, though, so maybe I'm not a good indicator.
