Weekly News Update

Liking these posts? Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook — this is the edited version of what we’re reading! (We also Tweet if we hear about a good sale through our CorporetteDeals Twitter feed.)

- LitReactor rounds up 20 common grammar mistakes that everyone makes.
- ForbesWomen has the scoop on a recent survey involving juror attitudes towards women.
- Do women lack male sponsors at the office because the men fear the appearance of impropriety? The Careerist wonders. Speaking of relationships, the NYT says that educated women and marriage go together like a horse and carriage…
- Glassdoor advises how to get a second chance interview after you bungled the first one.  Meanwhile, Savvy Sugar has advice for how to fall back in love with your own job.
- Ever wonder what CEOs do all day?  The WSJ is on it.

- Randomly: as campaign season ramps up, some of you have apparently been seeing ads for politicians in some of the ad spots on this blog, most likely placed there via Google Ads. At the moment, we have not sold any political ads directly; as with all banner ads, none should be considered an “endorsement” by me of any particular candidate or viewpoint. That said: being the capitalist I am, I reserve the right to sell ad space to whomever I choose, so this may change. If I ever do choose to “endorse” a candidate (because I’m sure you all care who your friendly fashion blogger thinks you should vote for, riiiight?) I’ll do so in a post or some other obvious way.
- This week’s fun tech woes are apparently coming from the mobile site. I’m trying to figure it out; for the moment I’ve turned off the plugin I use for mobile content. Sigh.

Did we miss anything? Add ‘em here, or send them to [email protected] Thank you!

Comments

  1. Kat — Did you see the NYTimes article about how Target can tell you’re pregnant practically before you can?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

    Maybe it can be used for good — Target can tell you if your skin care regimen is going to give you premature wrinkles or something. Otherwise, super creepy.

    • Heh. I accidentally grabbed pre-natal gummie vitamins off the shelf at Target this week. Thought about keeping them — not only are they supposed to be great for hair and nails, I figured it may be fun to freak my SO out.

      • I use prenatal vitamins! They are the only ones at Trader Joes that have all the iron you need in a day in 1 pill– the woman’s formula requires you to take like 3 pills & only 30ish%

    • Hmm… I’m hoping that I’m pregnant and just got an email from Target advertising baby clothes because “you’re going to need them.”

  2. Anonymous :

    Moot means what?! I’m a stickler for almost all of those other grammar rules — further and farther are a particular peeve of mine — but I had *no idea* I was misusing moot in conversations. I have to admit that the explanation in the link confuses me; I think I’ll reserve it for legal discussions and find another word instead.

    • I know! Same here. I have never heard “moot” used to signal anything other than “move on; this topic is no longer relevant” and will certainly not be using it as it is apparently defined, as I suspect I would be viewed as the idiot.

    • I heard an NPR story ages ago (like when I was in middle school) about how the word “moot” has come to have 2 distinct (and almost contradictory) defintion. One, where it means the subject is beside the point or obsolete or irrelevant – which is by far the more common usage and the other meaning that the point is open to discussion – which is more in line with the idea of a moot court in law school.

      The Oxford online dictionary seems to suggest that the first definition is more of an North American adaptation, while the second one is…British?

    • "Moo" point :

      It’s like a cow’s opinion, it just doesn’t matter.

    • I prefer this usage, per Joey from Friends: it’s a moo point: “Like a cow’s opinion. Doesn’t mean anything.”

    • I have a real problem when someone tries to say “grammar” dictates that a word or words should be used a certain way, even though no one does that anymore. Languages aren’t dead, they evolve. I have heard “its a moot point” used to mean “move on — there’s no point arguing about it” enough times that I have to believe that is a valid meaning. Language is how we use it! Its not just “rules” but its a communication tool.

      • Equity's Darling :

        I think English is traditionally a language that evolves, but many other languages are not nearly as evolutionary (e.g. French and the Academie francaise, which to a large degree determines what is “proper” French).

        • Yeah, but they’re the french. Who cares about them. ;-)

          Also, I feel like there’s some conflict in the french linguistic community about this issue.

    • It would make “moot court” make more sense, though. After all, the whole point is not that the questions debated are settled and irrelevant, but that there is much to discuss.

      • Addicted to Moot :

        A British client recently used ‘moot’ in this way. I love it.

      • Ha ha. I always thought “moot court” was named because it was pointless. Nothing happens if you “win” or “lose” the case.

        I’m silly, I guess.

        • That was my take, too. I always thought it showed that they had a good sense of humor about themselves to point that out so obviously. Guess I was wrong about that. :)

      • job hunting :

        I thought it was “moot” court because the case doesn’t matter– the parties don’t really exist.

    • The guy is confusing ‘proper grammar’ and ‘current word usage’. Clearly, he’s totally off the mark for moot. Once a word acquires a certain common meaning, you can’t ignore that by mis-listing the old one in grammar rules.

      Mind you, I’d add one hint to his list: don’t write drunk. His examples are amazingly one-track..

  3. Foot In Mouth Disease :

    Argh!! I just did something so so stupid. I was meeting with some attorneys and was asked about the judge I used to be in front of. Since this is anonymous, I’m comfortable saying that he’s the most difficult, frustrating and temperamental person I’ve ever met. This is also his reputation throughout the legal community. Anyway, stupid me didn’t just say, “oh, he’s very nice” or some other false platitude and instead I basically admitted (didn’t come out and say it, but my reaction said it all) that he was a little difficult. …. Turns out the attorney was his fraternity brother. Yeah, can I go dig a hole for myself now? Granted, the attorney did say that he (judge) was a bit difficult and I’m sure he is well aware of his reputation but still — couldn’t I have at least shown a little discretion? I hate doing this sort of thing. And now this will be on my mind for the entire weekend. Ugh. Horrible.
    Thank you for letting me vent. :)

    • I used to clerk for a judge who was considered very difficult and he used to really get a kick out of his reputation. I wouldn’t fret about it too much – especially since I have a hard time picturing the conversation where the former frat brother from long ago calls up the judge to say, “hey, guess what? This attorney said you were not so nice on the bench. Her name is …”

    • Totes McGotes :

      Hey, you didn’t say, “He’s an a*hole!” …Did you?

      • Foot in Mouth Disease :

        Ha, no! The exact question was, “How did you get along with X?” I sort of laughed, said something to the effect that he was a little difficult (but also didn’t really have much of a complete, coherent answer) and then the other guy said that he thought he was difficult, they were frat brothers, etc.
        The other part of the me (the part of me that isn’t just completely mortified) is kinda annoyed that the other person would even ask this question, as clearly he and I both know the truth. Wasn’t very nice of him to put me on the spot like that when he knows it would be hard for me to come up with a good response. Argh.
        From now on: “he’s very nice!” …..

        • Seattleite :

          I dunno. I think saying “he’s very nice,” when he’s generally regarded as being difficult, and you found him difficut opens up questions as to: 1) your judgment wrt to others’ character; and 2) your ability to own your opinions. If I were the questioner in this case, and got the ‘nice’ answer, I’d be questioning your judgment and perhaps your maturity. You called him ‘difficult,’ not a *(&^ @sshole.

          I wonder if the fraternity thing has you thinking of them as Members of a Club* and you the outsider. When really, you and the questioner are Members of the Find Judge Difficult Club. (*not the fraternity, a different club.)

          • I agree with this. The fact that he asked you this question at all makes me wonder whether perhaps the two of them didn’t get along, even though they were fraternity brothers. My husband was in a fraternity and even today, 20+ years later, two of his three best friends are fraternity brothers of his. That said, he has also regaled me with stories of fist-fights, d*uchebaggery and multiple instances where one brother deliberately spread lies about another to break up a relationship (because the liar wanted to date that girl instead). “Fraternity brothers” does not mean they like each other!

        • I’m sorry, that is tough! FWIW, in situations like that where I want to be politic but not dishonest I usually smile cheerfully and say something about how we had very different work styles but s/he was a good judge/boss/lawyer/whatever.

    • karenpadi :

      I think you handled it perfectly. When someone has a professional reputation for being difficult or taking unnecessary risks, it’s important to acknowledge that when meeting new people.

      Case in point: I did an internship with a scumbag lawyer just out of law school to pay the rent. In the interest of complete disclosure, I include it one my resume. When I was looking to lateral from BigLaw, I interviewed at a firm that was highly recommended by a mentor. My first interview that day started with “Ah, you worked for [Scumbag]. He’s a good friend of this firm. We like working with him.” At that moment, I knew I would never accept an offer at that firm.

      I think calling someone “difficult” is fair in a professional context. I usually follow it with “but I’ve learned so much working with so-and-so and it’s been a very valuable experience.”

  4. MaggieLizer :

    Pretty sure there’s something in NGDGTCO about not dancing (as much as possible while sitting) in your office while doing a(nother) priv log. I’m trying to decide whether I care.

    • Does it say anything about office chair races?

    • AnonInfinity :

      I have been known to full-on chair dance while reviewing documents, so I support your plan completely.

      (In this context, chair dance means to dance while sitting in a chair, similar to car dancing. It does not imply some sort of Britney-esque exotic dance around a chair.)

    • If it hits 6pm and I’m still in the office, I turn on XM’s Bluesville, turn up the volumee and chair-dancing definitely happens while I try to power through a few more discovery esponses.
      And I don’t give a rat’s @$$ who sees me at that point.

  5. Nothing about the big birth control/religious liberty hearings on the Hill yesterday? That is certainly something that affects working women — we are always talking here about planning our families and employer benefits/personal finances, both of which this ties into. And some of the biggest pro-access movers on this issue have been female law students at Fordham. I know this isn’t a political blog and don’t expect Cat to take a position on it personally but I certainly would expect it to be of interest to many corporate readers, no matter their ultimate take on it.

    • I think it’s really interesting, but, personally, I resent the idea that access is conflated with “having someone else pay for it.” I’ve been on several insurance plans where BC wasn’t covered (not for religious reasons, just because fertility is not an “illness”), and I’ve never had the slightest problem paying for my pills, even when I was just waiting tables for a living. They’re not that expensive, and I considered them my responsibility (and my husband’s, when relevant).

      On the family planning issue, I’ve known a lot of people who’ve had unplanned pregnancies, but I can’t think of anyone who actually couldn’t afford contraceptives, as opposed to just having not planned/didn’t want to/been too embarrassed to ask. (And our local health department gave them away for free if your income qualified when I was in college – I assume that they still do.) I’m pretty skeptical of the idea there are that many people actually having unintentional pregnancies purely because they couldn’t afford BC. I don’t know if anyone’s ever studied it, but I’d love to see if there are demonstrably more unplanned pregnancies in groups of people who have insurance coverage that exempts contraceptives.

      • Lyssa – you’d probably enjoy this article.

        http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14093

      • I am not sure why you would “resent” the idea that access means not paying a copay instead of merely disagreeing that this might be the case for someone else. And fwiw, I think it is inaccurate to characterize it as “having someone else pay for it” — insureds who use birth control are paying for it through their premiums, that is the basic concept of how insurance pooling works. Insureds are just not paying out of pocket for the full retail cost.

        It has been a long time since paying for birth control was a hardship for me, thankfully, and personally I’ve never gone without, even during, ahem, long dry spells. But I remember there was a time when the cost of a subsidized pack of pills at Planned Parenthood was 10% of my monthly income, which felt pretty tough at the time. I wish I’d gone to school where you did! I became a medical test subject for what became the HPV vaccine because contraception and free annual exams were part of my compensation. It worked out ok for me but not anything I’d advocate as a policy solution.

      • Not that expensive?!!!?! My generics were 70 bucks a month!

        When I was just post-college it came down to cell phone (which you need to have apparently if you want a job — just saying I have a phone at home will get you weird looks and no second calls) or pills. Luckily,I wasn’t in a long term relationship.

        At $70/month it is cheaper to get an abortion $300-$400) twice a year than take the pill. That should NEVER be the calculus on reproductive health. I’ve never met anyone (pro-life or pro-choice) who thought abortions were better than taking a contraceptive. So they certainly shouldn’t be cheaper. (Seeing as how we live in a capitalist society and cheaper = logical / better, right?)

    • karenpadi :

      Don’t get me started. I acknowledge that the life I have would not be possible without me having insurance coverage for birth control through my law school and “poor” periods of my life. I am so disappointed that Issa is from my state and so happy Nancy Pelosi is from my state.

      We’ve been through these debates on Corporette. We have a lot of fellow readers who respectfully disagree that basic healthcare for women includes contraceptives and/or abortion in addition to pre-natal and labor and delivery care. As such, the community on Corporette has an unspoken understanding to not bring up these topics in politics. Considering the amount of pregnancy and maternity conversations we have, it’s not fair.

Add a comment.

Questions? Check out our commenting policy. Tech problems? Please report it to the tech team.