Wednesday’s TPS Report: Belted Dolman Sleeve Sheath Dress

Our daily TPS reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.

Suzi Chin for Maggy Boutique Belted Dolman Sleeve Sheath DressCommenter TCFKAG wrote in to recommend this Suzi Chin dress, noting “People are always looking for sleeved dresses, the price is relatively reasonable and I like the colors available.” Nice! I do like this piece (and the 54 mostly positive reviews). I’m not sure why the model looks so forlorn — the twisted neckline, the three-quarter sleeves, the ladylike length… it’s a great dress! Do note that with the dolman sleeves, it will be hard to throw a blazer on top of it, but I think this dress looks professional enough that you don’t need one. It’s $118, in regular and petites, at Nordstrom. Suzi Chin for Maggy Boutique Belted Dolman Sleeve Sheath Dress

Seen a great piece you’d like to recommend? Please e-mail [email protected]
(L-2)

Comments

  1. I don’t wear red but this may make me reconsider that choice!

    • I keep finding myself drawn to these Suzi Chin for Maggie Boutique dresses… no familiarity with the brand, but they’re pretty!

      • I have this dress in green and love it. It got a ton of compliments – like people accosting me at Starbucks kinds of compliments. I’m not a fan of dolman sleeves generally, but this one still looked good. My only thought is that if you have broad shoulders and are generally bigger up top, it probably wouldn’t work for you. (I don’t mean big b* * bs because I have those but am otherwise small up top.)

      • CountC says:

        I have this dress in the blue/grey color and I love it. I swapped out the brown belt for a yellow faux animal hair belt, which is way more fun!! It’s a dress that can go to work or to events, depending on how you style it.

  2. Before we have any discussion of politics or the debate today I want you all to know that if I ever have the chance to choose a cabinet, you’re all going to be in my Binder. Except Ellen…she wastes too much time on the internet.

    Also, when we eventually really start that e-dating thing we’ve joked about — we should call it the Binder of Men.

    Tip your waiters folks, I’ll be here all week.

    • Herbie says:
    • DC Jenny says:

      Just as long as I’m home in time to cook dinner every night.

    • SF Bay Associate says:

      Hearted, TCFKAG. And don’t forget that they will want flex time so they can leave at 5pm to go home and cook dinners for their families. Apparently their husbands won’t do that.

      Since I don’t know any woman planning to vote for Romney, and I know some of the smart, hardworking, thoughtful women on this blog are Republican, how did that “binders full of women” comment sit with you? I’m wondering if it’s just the Obama supporters found that so hilariously awful that it’s worthy of a Tumblr meme. Maybe it resonated in a good way for you? I’m genuinely curious.

      • It didn’t really bother me. I honestly don’t get the whole kerfuffle. He was saying he wanted more women on his cabinet. What’s so bad about going out and looking for more women? I will obviously admit that the phrase sounds kinda funny, but it wasn’t hilariously awful to me. Can you explain why it’s so bad?

        • DC Jenny says:

          It’s bad to me that Romney apparently didn’t have any female professional or political contacts that he would consider for cabinet positions. He had to go ask “women’s groups” to point him toward some qualified women. It’s bad to me that Romney totally dodged the question on pay equality. And while I do think flexible schedules are an issue that is important to many women, I hate that it’s always framed as a “women’s issue” as if domestic duties are the sole provence of women.

          Overall, I just really hated his tone which seemed to indicate that women are some mysterious “other” and that he is a really good guy for trying to give the ladies a break that one time.

          • Agreed. A few blogger/tweeter points I thought were interesting: (1) this is affirmative action for women; (2) his implication that this was his idea was BS, and in fact in started before he was elected (I think this was on a blog called “the phoenix”); (3) god forbid there should be top-down reform to “level the playing field” (as he wants to do with China but not at home), all improvement should come from good guys like Romney helping out their neighbors and friends and coworkers and interviewees. We don’t need welfare programs, we just need Americans helping each other out — that’s the best way to make sure that everyone succeeds, no one falls through the cracks. By the way, I thought one of Romney’s worst points was in his closing remarks, where he tried to prove that he cares for all Americans because he worked as a missionary and served his church. Actually, that means he cares for people who share his beliefs (politically, economically, etc.) — not that he knows and respects and cares about the “other half.”

          • This. Exactly.

          • momentsofabsurdity says:

            Gogo – agreed, my biggest issue with the comment comes from this article in the Phoenix:

            http://m.thephoenix.com/boston/blogpost.aspx?id=828852

            “Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?”

            Romney started working at Bain & Co in 1977. I could buy that he ran into many more men than women at that time. He moved to Bain Capital in the mid 80s and was there for 20some odd years – in all of either Bain Capital or the variety of companies he invested in, he didn’t run into smart, talented women he made a mental note to remmeber? Then he ran the Olympics in 2000 – again, really, NO smart, talented women involved? No one he could tap for a prestigious position in a state cabinet? Really?

            That’s what concerns me the most about Romney’s comment. As someone who is just starting in the workforce, I could rattle of 10-15 people offhand, about 60% of them female, that I would put in my imaginary state cabinet that I *know* are capable, hardworking and would do a great job. Why doesn’t Mitt Romney, who has decades of business and political experience, know these women? He didn’t say he offered these jobs to them and they turned him down, so he had to broaden his scope. He said he didn’t know the women.

            That said, I appreciated that he then took steps to rectify the problem, rather than just assuming “because I don’t know these women, they don’t exist and I don’t need to worry about this problem.”

          • +1

          • Prefacing this by saying I’m Canadian, and I didn’t watch the debate. I’m also LDS (Mormon) and wouldn’t vote Romney if I were American. However, I wanted to address Gogo’s comment about missionaries. 2 of my brothers served missions for our church – one in Quebec and one in France. Missionaries actually spend most of their time with people not of our faith and do tons of service helping others. There are minimum hours of service per week they are required to preform, ideally for people who are not already of our faith. I know my brothers, being English speakers in French areas held English classes for anyone to learn English. The majority of the people who attended these classes were not LDS and had no interest in learing about the LDS church, but they were welcome to attend.

            I’m not defending Romney’s comments, but I just wanted to clarify what missionaries do. Yes the proselyte, but they also do other things as well.

          • This was my concern too. The binders full of women comment was awkward, but took away from the real issue that it was so difficult to identify female candidates. We need to improve the pipeline to leadership. This was his opportunity to address that problem, but instead he said that women can leave work early to cook dinner.

        • Romney did not go out and look for women. A non-partisan group did. Here you go http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

        • Freyja says:

          This. He may not have stated it particularly eloquently, but I can’t see the problem with him making the point that he was trying to bring women into his administration. Shouldn’t that be a good thing?

          • In the Pink says:

            Yes it should. In this era of real time video/internet feedback, a lack of eloquence should not be penalized as much as it is…

          • DC Jenny says:

            In theory, yes, but in the context of the question, what does Mitt once going out of his way to hire some women have to do with the discrimination and inequities women face as a group? It was like he heard the question, panicked because he had no real response, and just blurted out the first seemingly woman-friendly thing he could think of.

          • Yeah, but he didn’t have the idea in the first place, didn’t put in much of the effort, and in fact appointed women mainly to non-critical positions (and often to positions in departments he didn’t care about or didn’t want to work with). So he is saying, “Oh, I care about women because I personally have made an effort to hire them,” when in fact that’s a misleading statement as to his actual commitment to putting women in positions of power. Plus, that doesn’t say much about what he would do as president with regard to women’s rights. And there is a big difference between appointment some women at the top and ensuring that women at all levels in the workforce are treated fairly in terms of compensation, evaluation, and promotion.

          • 2/3 attorney says:

            @In The Pink: agreed that the 24 hour news cycle sensationalizes a lot of things that wouldn’t have been a big deal 2 elections ago, but – the President has to speak live, and answer questions, in front of all kinds of audiences around the world. In some places and to some groups, phrasing things wrong can be extremely offensive. So that’s why a lack of eloquence makes me uncomfortable.

        • As Mark Shields pointed out, it’s the very definition of affirmative action. Which, you know, most conservatives are not exactly down with. That cracked me up.

          • I wonder what the response would have been if he had gathered “binders of African Americans”

          • In the Pink says:

            Good point @2/3 attorney! I speak in public all the time, so I think I may have a different outlook, yet in politics, … good point!

        • I don’t think it was a huge gaffe or whatever, but this is inherently my problem with his whole answer – the way he answered that question (and nevermind that he didn’t say one word about pay equity), it basically sounded like “we need women for token positions to show that we are inclusive and if it means hiring someone less qualified than all the male applicants I got and letting them leave at 5 to cook dinner, so be it.” In contrast, with Obama (or even with Bush/Karen Walker and Condi )you just get the feeling that he has trusted advisors and some of them happen to be women. For instance, Valerie Jarrett or Desiree Rogers — whatever you think of them, their inclusion doesn’t feel like it was forced due to some political quota. Take all that and throw in the Mormon church’s generally conservative position on women working outside the home and the way that he and Anne structured their own family arrangement, and it all doesn’t leave you feeling too great.

          Honestly, the whole thing really reminded me of his comment about how he wouldn’t hire illegals to mow his lawn because he’s running for office “for Pete’s sake.” It’s like, can’t hire illegals, need to hire ladies.

          • cbackson says:

            I was not a special friend of Bush, but I was always struck by the degree to which he relied upon sharp women.

        • Godzilla says:

          His comments were basically a more wordy version of Ann Romney’s I LOVE YOU WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There was no meat behind it. Left me hongray.

        • The problem with his comment is that “when asked about equality in hiring and in pay, [Mitt Romney] implied that he and his advisors had to dig to find qualified female applicants – and he had to make accommodations for them so that they could get home in time to make dinner.” (my friend on fb)

      • And as to your first point, it really irritates me that people are so worked up about his comment about flex time. That’s exactly what the Can Women Really Have It All article was all about, and people loved that. The criticism of that comment makes me think that people would criticize Romney for whatever he said.

        • DC Jenny says:

          Not everyone loved that article.

        • The flex time bit was fine. I just didn’t like that he prefaced it with “if you’re going to have women in the workforce…”

          Really? As if it’s optional?

        • Personally, I’m all for flex time. I don’t, however, think it, by itself, is a solution to pay inequity. And when you’re running a campaign where you only ever seem to mention women when you’re talking about wives and mothers, making your only answer to a question about achieving pay equity “flex time so that women can get home and cook dinner”? Pretty condescending.

          • Monday thinks this is a bunch of malarkey says:

            Agreed. I don’t think either of them were direct enough in answering the question, which was what new efforts would be made to correct pay inequity. The woman was asking about money and got an answer about making dinner and taking care of kids.

        • The comment wasn’t grating because it proposed flex time. It was grating because it presupposed that (1) all women will require special accommodations; (2) household duties belong only to women; (3) flex time will correct all of the problems facing women in the workplace; and (4) employers should (but need not) be sensitive to women’s needs in this regard.

          • Becca in Chicago says:

            Yes! Flex time is something that is good for ALL PEOPLE. Ugh, we do not require special accommodations for our lady parts or lady duties.

          • It’s so we can tend to our lady garden!

          • Hmm, I agree with you, but I would like to say that I hear that flex time is a woman’s issue ALL THE TIME from feminist-types, including here on this blog. Quite honestly, it’s one of the reasons that I dislike what generally passes for feminism (That the general attitude seems to be that childcare/family care is a “woman’s issue,” which should be specially accomodated for women.)

          • Susan says:

            @ Lyssa

            Please don’t treat feminists as some monolithic group with identical motives and agendas.

            That said, I too have a problem with the “essentialist” feminists. They’re saying almost the same thing as sexist pigs.

            Both say, “childcare is some magic circle that only women belong in, and that women must carry the burdens for.” The essentialist feminists say: give women more props, more money, freebies, gifts because this difference makes women
            MAGIC AND SPECIAL. The sexist ones say: punish women because this difference makes women INFERIOR. Both viewpoints are objectionable to me.

      • Intent was good. Phrasing was terrible because it was a business phrase. It’s sorta like intense recruiting for a client, you do have to go through tons of resumes and stuff.

        • err, business-like. A business phrase would be “we need to bring to bear more women” hahaha.

          An aside, i would die if one of the candidates used a corporate meeting challenge phrase in the next debate: ?If somebody moved our cheese, then, yeah, we should go out looking for different cheese. And then we should bring back a hunk of that new cheese and put it in the old spot with a bunch of habanero sauce on it.”

          • momentsofabsurdity says:

            Ha! I really want to see one of them pull that in the debate. Whoever did it most successfully could totally win my vote.

        • Herbie says:

          How can we successfully action our learnings about hiring women? I really want to maximize our synergies on this.

      • momentsofabsurdity says:

        I’m not planning to vote for Romney (and literally screamed at the screen when he let out that baldfaced lie about how he supports women’s access to contraceptive coverage because omg-so-we-can-just-say-whatever-we-want-and-ignore-our-previous-positions?!) but I tend to agree while the comment was poorly phrased, I do generally agree with this viewpoint:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-anthony-libresco/binders-full-of-women_b_1972404.html

        That said, he did dodge the question. He didn’t answer the equal-pay-for-equal-work thing at all.

        • Freyja says:

          Not to split hairs, but the question was not an equal-pay-for-equal work. It was based on an often quoted but very misleading statistic. The 72/77 – cents (depending on the source) on the dollar meme is a stat comparing all FT working women to all FT working men, regardless of occupation, years of experience, etc. Social workers & teachers with bankers & lawyers, all in one bucket. Which, naturally, would result in lower *apparent* pay scales for women when you consider that 1) in gross generalization, women are more heavily present in lower paying occupations, esp service jobs, than in higher paying jobs; and 2) women in general do take more time out of the work force than their male counterparts, reducing their earnings levels. Now, you can have legit discussions about why 1 & 2 are true and the implications of those, but as far as the pay issue, when you compare women & men in similar professions with similar levels of experience, it’s more like 95 cents to the dollar. Perfect, no, but far from the 72 cents that gets thrown around a lot, which I believe is a red herring.

          • DC Jenny says:

            Not true for the legal field.

            “women law school graduates start out earning roughly the same as men, but 15 years later women graduates earn only about 60% as much as male graduates. In each cohort, sex differences in labor supply (work hours, years worked, part-time work experience, labor force interruptions) account for about half the male/female earnings gap.”

            http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/paper1/03-1.pdf

          • Freyja says:

            This is really in reply to DC Jenny; there’s no reply button showing!

            That study is interesting, but it also points out:
            “Unadjusted and adjusted sex-based earnings gaps have declined over time in the general population; and sex-based gaps in engineers’, physicians’, and scientists’ salaries tend to be small or non-existent once human capital and work hours are controlled.” So I believe in general my point still stands re: the 72 cents thing.

            That said, I have a theory as to why there may still be a gap in legal (and my field, i-banking) salaries. In those fields, to a far greater extent than other high-education, high-pay areas like medicine, science, etc., the real superstars/highest paid are compensated based in part on the ability to be rainmakers for their firms. You bring in the bucks, you get the bucks. I can’t speak for law, but I can say that all of the banking rainmakers I ever came across were men. From my own experience, I am perfectly happy to network, but the other requires a whole different level of commitment over a period of years – early breakfasts, client dinners all week, etc. Personally, I never cut back on my work hours, but I did reduce the pre-post office hours stuff after kids, and I know I am not the only one. That will affect my earnings over time, but it’s a trade-off I made knowingly. (And, one that’s very difficult to capture/trace in studies like the one you linked to.)

          • I think you also have to consider why certain, typically-female professions (like teaching and social work) are compensated at much lower rates than traditional male professions (garbage collection, etc). In part, it’s because these jobs were seen as in line with women’s natural inclinations to work with children and the less fortunate–and because those women were just working till the got married and had husbands who would take care of them financially.

      • Diana Barry says:

        I think the phrasing was awful, and also the whole thing about flex time is only for women, they have to go home and cook dinner, was awful. NO. Flex time/flexible workplaces/etc is for EVERYONE, so that EVERYONE can be a more productive worker in the way(s) that works best for them and the company. Sheesh.

        Also, Romney has clearly not read [this site], because plenty of SOs and husbands get home earlier than the ladies, and also cook dinner!

        • But you’re simply ignoring the facts. I agree that would be the ideal, but I know tons of women who have quit my big firm because they couldn’t swing having a child and working our kind of hours. I don’t know a single man who has quit for similar reasons. It’s just a fact of life that women are the ones who care about that more generally; there are obviously exceptions, but we shouldn’t pretend that men are quitting the work force in droves for that reason like women are.

          • You’re mistaking “fact of life” with “status quo.”

            The status quo changes. Please don’t pretend that it’s immutable.

            It’s not clear that women care more; they’re pressured to look like they care more, or to take on the caregiver role, and many women marry men who aren’t supportive of their careers.

          • I agree – what “should be” and what “is” are completely different. Yes, flex time is for everyone, but there is a reality as to who takes advantage of it more often (not always, and yes, you can site exceptions). My husband and I are both lawyers and my career has definitely taken the back seat. Is this self-imposed? Yes. Could I hire someone to do it? Yes. But I won’t. I want to be home by 5:30 to have dinner with my kids, do their homework with them, tuck them in, etc. And because of that, I left the partner track at a large law firm and now have a much more manageable job where I can do these things. My husband is a great father and loves spending time with the kids, too, but the reality of it is that I havae made career choices to make that happen.

          • I work in a company where most people work around 40 hours and everyone, both men and women, take advantage of our flexible schedule. I’ve had meetings rescheduled because guys needed to pick their kids up from the school bus or wanted go on a field trip with their kid. If women are quitting your company because they can’t swing working 80 hour weeks or some crazy amount of hours, isn’t that a sign that a more flexible schedule would be beneficial? Culturally women are more willing to compromise their careers than men are. There’s nothing wrong with making that decision but it really doesn’t have to be that way. I’m glad I don’t have to compromise my career if I want to be able to make dinner or pick up kids from after school activities or whatever.

          • AnonInfinity says:

            +1 to Susan. I typed and deleted a response to this several times and couldn’t come up with a good way to say it.

          • hellskitchen says:

            And I know lots of women whose husbands have chosen to be SAH or have less demanding careers so their wives can focus on their careers. Romney’s suggestion that women be given more flex time doesn’t help them at all and in fact, if he doesn’t support equal pay for women, that actually hurts these women as the primary breadwinners. We all make the choices that work best for us – it’s dangerous when we assume that everyone else would make the exact same choice. Your reality and your choices are not “facts.”

          • PollyD says:

            Do you think women wouldn’t quit as much if flex time for everyone was just generally/socially accepted, and it was just as common for men to leave early to pick up the kids at daycare as women? I worked in a company that had some husband/wife pairs, and I really think that the men took pretty much the same amount of “life duties” (picking up the kids, cooking, dealing with vacations) as the women. It was not a big deal for the male half of the couple to come in late, so he could get the kids off to school, and then stay late, while the female half came in early and left early, to pick up the kids. Although the men I’m thinking of were higher in the company hierarchy, I think this could be attributed to the fact that they had PhDs and the women didn’t. But one of the women basically ran the clinical component of the company (biotech detection technologies) so she did have a pretty high-responsibility job.

            Long-winded way of saying that maybe if society changes, women won’t carry such a burden and need to quit these jobs. And like it or not, I think these changes need to start in the workplace with more flexibility for everyone. Even barren spinsters like me!

          • Betty says:

            Let’s also remember that perhaps it’s not that women are more willing to compromise their careers or quit their job because they can’t “swing it” with kids, but instead that maybe women are more willing to compromise or quit *because* they are making significantly less than their husbands and it makes more economic sense for their family unit.

      • Monday says:

        I was more bothered by Romney’s comment that women should get married before having children in response to a question about gun control. It’s not that I don’t see the connection he was trying to make–it’s that I find the implied 100% female onus offensive (if familiar). Let alone the utter delusion that marriage = permanent guaranteed 2-parent family.

        • When he said that, I had two thoughts. First, another option would be better s3x ed and contraceptive choices. Second, I wish they had been asked about gay marriage…sadly, it looks like that won’t make it into this year’s debates.

        • 2/3 attorney says:

          I agree. I hate that this remark implied that any perceived fault in the upbringing of a child by a single mother is, of course, the single mother’s fault – we certainly can’t place any responsibility on the absentee father.

          • Monday thinks this is a bunch of malarkey says:

            I was hoping hard that Obama would respond specifically to that comment–whether or not it was to defend his own mom, whose situation was much like those Romney was shaming. But the answer overall was so disjointed that it raised a number of points, and Obama chose others to target.

          • PollyD says:

            Really. I do believe that two-parent (and note I say parent, not mother and father) families are optimal (I may be biased because I find children very taxing and would not want to do it on my own), but then again, you could be raised by a single mother and grow up to be President of the United States.

            Perhaps Obama just didn’t want to be Captain Obvious, although it could have been pretty funny.

          • I just heard it as race. Poor (black) single mothers who don’t marry their baby daddies and then their kids cause urban violence.

        • TO lawyer says:

          This answer seemed so off-base I actually yelled at my TV. As a side note, I wish I could be this wrapped up with Canadian politics…

          • Marilla says:

            Haha, seriously. Except it’s probably good that it’s not bad enough here for us to be sitting and screaming at our politicians on TV. I’m not exactly Harper’s biggest cheerleader, but he’s an angel compared to the current Republican party.

          • Bring on Justin. :-)

        • hellskitchen says:

          I agree too. His remarks implied that gun violence could be curbed if people got married and there were less single moms. As if gun control laws and NRA’s lobbying has nothing to do with how easily kids can get their hands on guns. He similarly implied that fair pay for women wouldn’t be an issue because women could get more flexibility and need not work long hours. UGH. Romney came across as that senile, grouchy uncle who rambles and goes off on tangents when you ask him a question

          • Monday thinks this is a bunch of malarkey says:

            i.e. MANAGEING PARTNER behavior. Though to be fair, Biden has a definite MANAGEING streak as well.

          • mamabear says:

            For a little synergy here, I suggest all wedding registries have a “gun” section. Win-win.

          • LadyEnginerd says:

            yes, and then your meddling Aunt Ethyl could buy you a trigger lock as a passive-aggressive judgmental gift instead of ugly decorative vases. Win-win.

          • hellskitchen says:

            LOL! mamabear, that’s hilarious. Amazon would jump into the game offering a subscribe and save package on ammo

      • Not trying to start any fights, but the binder story was not really true. I worked with MWPC and MassGAP, two of the organizations that put together the binders, and Romney didn’t ask for them. They were put together in advance of his election and presented to him post-election (as they would have been to whomever won).

        Here’s an article on it in the Phoenix: http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx

        He did have a good number of women, but not exactly because he went looking for them and, as the Phoenix article notes, not exactly in positions that he thought were “important”.

        • Jennifer says:

          I’m totally blown away by the fact that there were physical binders. Not more or less offended, just somehow surprised!

      • I wrote out a whole ugh response but… honestly it’s not worth it. You never convince anybody on these things. For the people who are truly bothered by a single awkward statement- well they aren’t going to be convinced otherwise by some vinging on a message board. And for the people who believe in the values/policies that Romney broadly supports- well, they probably didn’t find the statement that big a deal, or they did and don’t care because they’re voting for him anyway. UGH, I say. It’s the new fooey.

      • Bluejay says:

        Speaking as one of the more conservative women on this blog – I had to vote absentee, and I voted for Obama.

        Er, that doesn’t really answer the question. Anyway, I had planned to vote for Gary Johnson, not Romney.

        • You’re not the only woman I know who’d self-identify as (more) conservative who has voted for or will vote for Obama. The ladies I’m referring to have said that while they disagree with Obama on some social issues, they think that he has the “less bad plan” for the economy.

          I’m curious about your reasons for voting for Obama, if you don’t mind my asking.

          • Bluejay says:

            I guess I’m not really that conservative; I’m more of a left-leaning libertarian, which tends to get me grouped with conservatives even though I tend to disagree with them on the majority of issues. I think abortion should be illegal, and I’m pretty libertarian on the vast majority of civil liberties issues. But on economics I’m centrist-to-liberal, and I work in foreign policy and am far to the left of any American politician on foreign policy issues. Anyway, I really disagree with Obama’s record on human rights and civil liberties, and it’s hard for me to vote for anyone who supported the PATRIOT Act or the so-called war on terror. But Romney p*ssed me off SO SO much with his stupid 47% remark and his idiotic remark about emergency rooms that I really just wanted to vote for his biggest opponent as a big eff you. Very mature of me, I know.

            To summarize, I think Obama is not a very good president, but Romney would be a disastrous one.

            Also, I want to punch Paul Ryan in his smug, multi-millioniare, fratty little muppet-face. But that’s neither here nor there.

          • Maybe not “mature,” but I like your self-knowledge. And +100 for the Paul Ryan thing. Conservative, libertarian, liberal– whatevs. You are pretty awesome, Bluejay, whatever the political label you choose.

          • Bluejay says:

            @Susan – thanks for the kind words!

          • Lalo for Bluejay says:

            I feel you! I’m not really a fan of Obama, but am still voting for him because I can’t vote for the other party. I don’t feel like I have a place in US politics because I’m so far to the left on foreign policy, center/left on economics, believe in climate change, and am all for civil liberties. I have such a hard time swallowing the Patriot Act, not to mention the NDAA and O’s signing statement. But I can’t vote for someone who doesn’t seem to have a spine and is contemptuous of so many people, either for political expediency or personal beliefs. It was never a question, unfortunately.

          • While I wanted to punch both Obama and Mitt Romney equally hard last night for being such jerks to each other and avoiding all the questions, I agree that nobody makes me want to punch them in the face more than Paul Ryan does.

          • Bluejay says:

            @Lalo – completely agree with everything you said.

          • Penna says:

            @Bluejay and Lalo

            I am in a similar boat. Probably the only thing I’m really conservative on is that I don’t believe in abortion rights for the most part.

        • Yay Gary Johnson. He was Governor of my homestate!

          • Bluejay says:

            He’s been campaigning pretty hard in DC. I think he could win a significant portion of the Republican vote here; his stated goal is to come out in second place here.

        • Gail the Goldfish says:

          My fairly conservative BF who I never, ever thought would vote for a Democrat is most likely voting for Obama b/c 1) the Republican Party has gone so far crazy right on social issues and 2) as he puts it, “I don’t like Obama and I disagree on his policies, but I honestly think he wants to help America. I have no idea what Mitt Romney’s policies actually are, and I’m pretty sure the only reason he wants to be president is so he can put it on his resume.”

      • I understood it to mean that he was presented with binders full of resumes for accomplished women. In the same way, I am presented with binders full of resumes for candidates when we hire new attorneys. The candidates make slip ups every once in awhile-Rs, Ds, Independents.

    • Ryan Gosling says:

      Hey Girl. I won’t put you in a binder.

      (h/t bindersfullofwomen dot tumblr dot com)

      • TCFKAG says:

        My Sister’s Trapper Keeper.
        (A touching story).

        http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/post/33761218580/a-touching-story

        (Sorry…I’m not even going to get into the substantive debate here people…I’m just enjoying the memes.)

        • me too, i am just enjoying the meme, cuz i need a good laugh these days:

          http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/image/33753756139

          In your binder (the light the heat)
          Your binder (I am complete)
          Your binder (I see the women)
          In a thousand binders….

          • This just made my day. Y’all are awful for productivity, but awesome for mental sanity.

          • Dude, as someone who works in politics in these cray cray times, the INTERNETS are the only thing allowing me to hold on to my mental sanity. Laugh to keep from crying, etc. ;o)

          • I know the feeling (not in politics, but am dating a guy who is/am getting equally little sleep due to work right now). Slap happy doesn’t begin to describe it! ;)

      • What about Obama’s statement that he called the attacks in Libya terrorist attacks the next day. That is just not true. He said the word “terror” but he never called the attacks acts of terror. Read the transcript.

        It’s crazy that people think Romney is a liar and deny deny deny that Obama is. Honestly, they both are playing with the facts a little fast and loose, but the Libya thing is undeniably false. As is Biden’s comment that he didn’t support the wars because we couldn’t pay for them — he voted for both.

        • momentsofabsurdity says:

          I did not like that and thought it was a lie. I like Obama, but the administration is totally covering its butt on this one. That said, it was a bit rich of Romney to go after Obama for campaigning in the days after the attack, considering he issued a political press release about it condemning the president within hours.

        • Okay, here’s the transcript: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

          He never called the attacks acts of terror?

          • um, no he didn’t. And then he refused to do it again on the View a few days later. Seriously, if you think that’s not a lie but that Romney has lied, then you’re applying different standards. At best, he implied it indirectly but then his response on the View clarified that he didn’t really mean it. Even Candy Crawley said Romney was right on the big point.

          • Honey Pillows says:

            I was heartily amused by Romney’s excitability at the statement, though. He was practically jumping up and down with and wetting himself with glee at the opportunity to call out the president.

          • Bluejay says:

            There is literally a transcript of his remarks. Republicans, there are a lot of things to criticize Obama about. Don’t pick something that can easily, quickly be proven false. I mean, it’s amazing to see B post the literal, verbatim transcript and the very next commenter claims it’s a lie. Cognitive dissonance much?

          • Aren’t there lawyers here? I’m voting for Obama, but he is greaaat at being sneaky. B posts the literal, verbatim transcript that DOES NOT call it an act of terrorism. It says that no act of terror will shake our resolve. That’s saying “Hey cfm, did you eat the last brownie” and me saying “brownies are bad for my diet”

          • In response to cfm says:

            I don’t agree with that analogy.

            Monday night football, anyone? Let’s say that the Chargers’ head coach is being interviewed about the game and he says “No terrible second half defines an entire season”. And then later he is accused of not coming straight out and admitting that the second half of the Chargers/Broncos game was (for the Chargers) terrible. Point is – he didn’t have to say that straight out, because it was obvious from the context. The same applies here.

          • Oh come on, cfm, that is not a good analogy.

            He’s clearly referring to the Libya attack and saying that acts of terror won’t shake our resolve. In context, he’s including the attack within the category of “acts of terror.” I don’t see how else you can understand that quote, in the context where Obama is speaking specifically about the Libya matter.

          • Actually he was clearly referring to 9/11. Wash Po agrees with me

            What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? We covered this previously in our extensive timeline of administration statements on Libya.

            “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said.

            But the president did not say “terrorism”— and Romney got tripped up when he repeated the “act of terror” phrasing.

            Otherwise, Romney’s broader point is accurate — that it took the administration days to concede that the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad. (The reporting is contradictory on whether there was indeed a demonstration outside the mission.) By our count, it took eight days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya were the result of a “terrorist attack.”

            More to Romney’s point, Obama continued to resist saying the “T” word, instead repeatedly bringing up the video, even in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25. On Sept. 26 — 15 days after the attack — the White House spokesman felt compelled to assert “it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the president’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”

          • voting for Romney says:

            I am a fiscal conservative and social centrist, and will be voting for Romney. Obama is better at pandering to women– so what? I don’t want to be pandered to, I want the government to reduce spending and get the economy back on track. Obama has failed to do that over the past four years, and will only continue to fail if elected to another 4 years.

      • Honey Pillows says:
    • Bluejay says:

      I really wish Obama had asked Romney why there were no women partners at Bain Capital during Romney’s 20ish years as head.

    • Blonde Lawyer says:

      I knew you ladies would be all over this with me. 1.) Not all women want to be home at 5 to cook dinner and not all women want to be moms. Stop assuming it. 2.) Those that do want to be moms don’t all want to be home at 5. 3.) Flex time is for everyone, not just women and there would be far more equality if men would use the benefit too. 4.) Are you saying there were no women qualified to be in your cabinet so you hired women less qualified than men just so you could have women? If so, are you saying there were no qualified women because they had already hit the glass ceiling? 5.) So we get more women to the top – do you agree they should be paid equally? 6.) Are you going to judge the woman who wants to stay at work with you until 7 or 8 at night that isn’t home cooking dinner for her husband and kids? 7.) Woah, you think all women have a right to contraception and that all insurance companies should pay for it too? Bet the religious right is going to LOVE this flip flop. 8.) If you treat the time between the primary and the general election as a do-over despite all the promises you made to those who backed you when you were “far right” are you just lying to all the people saying you can be “middle of the aisle” when you will really go back to “far right” when elected? 9.) Are you seriously asking the President questions and demanding an answer? You are not the moderator and not the one asking questions. 10.) How can you brag about getting insurance for everyone in your state but oppose Obamacare? If getting insurance for everyone in your state is a success are you going to try to get all Americans insured, aka a mandate that you previously opposed? 11.) If you don’t support the mandate but now support the popular benefits of obamacare (no pre-ex condition exclusions, no lifetime caps, stay on parents plan to 26, can’t be dropped for being sick) how do you intend to keep the insurance companies in business? You understand that the healthy people pay for the sick people, right? You understand that if the healthy people don’t buy insurance then the insurance companies can’t pay for the sick people and that is why they had all those awful exclusions we all hate? I bet those insurance companies are sorry they backed you. You can’t have it both ways (no mandate plus all the benefits).

  3. Who is this TCFKAG commenter? j/k :)

  4. Ginger says:

    I am a 2L attending a conference this weekend and am wanting to wear something professional, yet fashionable. I own this skirt (http://www.urbandarling.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Mossimo%C2%AE-Womens-Printed-Pencil-Skirt-Belt.jpg) and would like to wear it, but am unsure as to how to style it/what to wear with it. Suggestions fashion experts? I have never been to this conference, but have been told that it is like most CLE situations in that there will be people wearing everything from jeans to full suits.

    • lucy stone thinks this is a bunch of stuff says:

      I cannot tell if it is black or brown – but you could do it with a blazer in whichever color that is and flats and tights. It’s really cute. Most of the CLEs I go to are extremely casual. This time of year I tend to wear jeans, wedges, a cashmere sweater, and a scarf and I tend to be on the more dressy end.

    • TCFKAG says:

      I think this would look great with a grey top, especially something in a blousy loose silk or silk-poly blend button down long-sleeve look (that way you can wear a jacket over it if you want or not if you don’t want). One thing I’ve learned about CLEs is that the temperature in the room can very dramatically so you may want to layer.

      Do you own any grey tops? Not sure if you want to buy anything new. But if you want something new, I might get something like this top: http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/classiques-entier-novita-ruffle-silk-blouse/3280406?origin=category&cm_ven=Linkshare&cm_cat=partner&cm_pla=10&cm_ite=1&siteId=J84DHJLQkR4-J2oSpoNGokEWW1OHyXW5Cw and then wear a cardigan (maybe white) with it.

      • Ginger says:

        Thanks for the suggestions! The accent color is indeed black.

        TCFKAG – I actually own a cardigan that is strikingly similar to that top! Same color, a bit more ruffly down the center by the buttons but very much the same look. It is from AT Loft… The link below is to some woman’s blog (not me, but I applaud her husband for taking her picture every morning before work), I think it is the same sweater. I wear it open though, not buttoned up like she does… what color of top would would wear under it? Black? White?

        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t5VoX9SXknY/TLYz856pEJI/AAAAAAAAEXM/2HEGYKJGFQ8/s320/IMG_5105.jpg

        • TCFKAG says:

          Probably white, but black would work too (since the belt is black). Though this time of year, a green or a burgundy might also work to add a pop of fall color to it. Oh and I agree with commenters about tights (as I said, many CLEs can be brutally cold.)

    • SAlit-a-gator says:

      Love the skirt. I think you could wear this with the obvious (black, brown, camel, or gray top), but my vote is for teal or maroon top to spice things up. And definitely bring a layer because these things are usually held in super air conditioned hotel conference rooms and you’ll most likely freeze.

  5. rosie says:

    In desperate need of fashion help. I am planning to wear this dress in red to a formal wedding in the not-too-distant future in the midwest:
    http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/nicole-miller-open-back-jersey-sheath-dress/3238549?origin=keywordsearch&contextualcategoryid=0&fashionColor=Red&resultback=3118

    I mainly need help with a wrap (or something) to wear over it–both for temperature and covering my shoulders during the ceremony. I was planning to wear black patent heels, other suggestions? Should I wear tights/hose (if so, what color)? I was thinking of wearing either diamond stud earrings or a diamond solitaire necklace (I don’t think they go together, unless different cuts are ok to wear together–I really don’t know).

    All suggestions welcome, but if you want to shop for me, I’m looking to spend about $50 or less on the wrap and will probably order from Zappos or go to Macy’s in person. Many thanks in advance!

    • Of course you can wear different diamond cuts together…just make sure you don’t mix metals as far as the earrings and pendant are concerned. Rings are exempt from this rule.

      • Ummmmmm, disagree. Feel free to mix metals, especially since the metal prongs of diamond stud earrings are barely discernible by an observer. Wear BOTH the earrings and the pendant necklace.

        • Mix away! I wear a stainless steel watch, a silver ring, a pink gold ring (neither wedding jewelery), and a gold necklace almost every day. Earrings are often stone or black pearl. And w/r/t diamonds: wear away!

      • Maddie Ross says:

        Ha – if differently cut diamonds cannot be worn together, than I am a walking faux pas every day. My engagement ring is cushion, my wedding band inlaid with round diamonds and I wear a pear shaped pendant. Oops.

        • Haha, even I would know that wedding rings are excluded from whatever mixed metals/mixed cuts/etc. rules might or might not exist. Although if there’s a rule about getting rhodium plating redone every so often on a ring, I am probably breaking that one myself.

          • Oh, and I should add a general thanks to all of you for these suggestions and correcting my mixed diamond cut ideas.

          • Ginger says:

            My personal rule is the more diamonds the better.

    • Anon Analyst says:

      What a gorgeous dress! Maybe a wrap in a metallic color like silver or gold?

    • 2/3 attorney says:

      I have this wrap from Macy’s and it’s lovely – it’s soft and has a pretty sheen to it, and it is large enough to wrap generously around your shoulders but isn’t bulky at all. It comes in 14 colors and is $25 on “everyday value.” May I suggest a pin or broach to secure it if you think you’ll be wearing it most of the night?

      http://www1.macys.com/shop/product/jones-new-york-wrap-satin-pashmina?ID=402713&CategoryID=31957#fn=ACCESSORIES_TYPE%3DScarves and Wraps%26sp%3D1%26spc%3D190%26ruleId%3D52%26slotId%3D2

  6. Young Consultant says:

    As I just bought my tickets home for thanksgiving, I am beginning to think about the holidays. I have gotten to the point where I rarely am directly involed in the blow out family fights. However, I am often pulled into the fueds between my mother and sister. What are everyone’s tools for staying out of family drama, coping with it, and/or resolving it?

    Hoping to learn from those of you wiser and more mature than myself, and hoping I can channel all you fabulous corpor***** this holiday season!

    • Ooof. I have no good tools for you but just a lot of empathy. I find it helps if you can schedule other activities during your time home so you’re not trapped under the same roof with feuding family members — for example, have coffee with a friend who’s in town, go for a walk or a run, visit with Grandma, etc. You can even invite select family members to do some of these things with you (like going on a walk) — it just helps to break up the time packed into one space/house and changes the routine a little.

      Good luck and big hugs. Been there, done that. And now this year for the first time I’m not going to see my family on Thanksgiving b/c I can’t take it anymore :)

    • What stage of life are you at?

      Are you a student?

      Or do you have your own household? (I define having your own household as having an apartment large enough to have 6+ people over for dinner, even if it’s a bit snug, and having a job that covers your expenses such that you’re not taking financial help from your parents.)

      If you have your own household, can you host Thanksgiving? That way, it’s your house, your rules. And it’s more “neutral ground.” My brother-in-law hates my mother-in-law, and for no good reason, and is a prat to her for every single holiday that is celebrated at MIL’s house. I’ve decided to circumvent World War Three, Four, and Five by hosting certain holidays at my place. Then, they’re under my house, my rules.

      And trust me, anybody who tries to start a family fight in my house will get shut down hard by me. A second attempt to re-start the fire will get that person booted from the house right out into the street, no exceptions.

      • DC Jenny says:

        Lady, I like your style.

      • Young Consultant says:

        I am a “new” adult, mid 20s. So I have a place and table that could hypothetically host, but not exactly rank in the family, so to speak. In a few years I would love to host, however I think it will be a many years before I will be shutting my mother down when she tries to start a fight, even at my own house.

        • I’m in the same boat. Young enough that I can’t pull the “I’ll host myself” card but old enough that I’m paying for my ticket home (which, pardon the venting) was crazy expensive and makes me somewhat bitter about going home in the first place…. I keep reminding myself that this is family, but I’m bracing myself to not lash out at the first person to start a fight (because really, I’m using vacation time/spending $700 to sit here while you all pick fights with each other?!).

          Sorry for the side rant. I sympathize with your situation and am hoping to figure out a better solution for the next holidays.

          • Young Consultant says:

            Yeah I also find I will probably have a geographical block on hosting. Since I moved away from the family, I can’t expect everyone to come to me and whatnot, which is seems like the same situation you’re in. We will be pertpetually guilted into taking vacation time and expensive flights to the family haha. Or at least until we get married and can be guilted by someone else’s family that is hopefully a more tranquil holiday vacation.

          • Haha, exactly! I’m the one who moved away, so it’s “my fault” that traveling takes a full day each way and thus Thanksgiving becomes a half week commitment.

            And yes, while boyfriend’s family is more low key/ideally located geographically, I think my family would take it as a major snub if I spent the holidays with him. I’m normally not wistful for marriage, but this is the one reason I’d rush into it ;)

        • Stay in a hotel. Seriously. It is awesome.

    • I hear you. My mom, grandma, and aunt have all spent their lives continually engaged in long dramas with all of the extended family and, often, each other. They also love to draw other people (me, sometimes my female cousin) into the drama. I usually handle it by continually pointing out why the other person has a point. It’s extremely irritating to people who only want to be vindicated and therefore often effective at getting them to stop trying to enlist you (at least, in the moment — my mom and aunt still try to get me on their side, but this at least denies them the satisfaction of hearing “wow, you’re completely and totally right and not at all at fault!”).

    • MaggieLizer says:

      Refuse to engage. You’re going to be frustrated and sound like a broken record. Your family members will throw all kinds of emotional ammunition your way to try to manipulate you into siding with them. Do not give in and do not apologize or explain your position. It is inappropriate for your mom and sister to involve you in their disputes; they are responsible for their relationship with each other, you are not. When Mom complains about Sister, say “I do not want to get involved, please don’t talk to me about Sister. I’d love to hear about xyz in your life though.” Do the same with Sister. Be calm and leave no room for argument. Repeat as necessary. These things are always really tough; stay strong!

    • karenpadi says:

      MaggieLizer is right–you have to refuse to engage. I’ll tell you how my brother and I did it. It was a different situation because our parents divorced when we were adults and were constantly fighting and bringing us into it.

      For my brother’s college graduation, our parents were starting the fight over email. It was bad. So bad I decided to fly 2000 for the weekend to support my brother. It got worse when they knew we would both be there. So I sent an epic email to everyone to lay out ground rules for all future family functions.

      1. They could fight before the event. But my brother and I weren’t to know about it. Before the event, they had to plan things like transportation, who would pay, how they would pay, who was invited, etc.
      2. They could fight after the event. But my brother and I weren’t to know about it.
      3. They had to behave and act civilly during the event. If they weren’t (or were doing hidden jabs that family does so well), they would get a warning. If the behavior continued, the family event was ended then and there. My brother and I would leave.
      4. If my brother and I had to leave a family event, Christmas would be canceled forever.

      It worked! During his graduation, I gave my dad one raise of the eyebrow–not even a warning. The behavior stopped immediately and we’ve had a few successful family functions since.

  7. Shoe help says:

    Hello ladies. I’ve been searching for a mythical pair of shoes that don’t seem to exist, so now I’m turning here for help. I am looking for a pair of pointed toe flats or with a small heel, but no more than an inch or so. They need to me professional and lux looking (possibly with buckle details, patent leather, etc), but come in under $100 or so because I have found that I wear flats out quickly, regardless of their price point, so I go into it knowing they will have to be replaced sooner or later. The big kicker is size – I need either an 11 or 11W.

    If any of you ladies can work your magic, I would greatly appreciate it! I feel this is an especially appropriate request for the TCFKAG post!

  8. Just chiming in to fall all over myself in appreciation of the people who commented on my “Breaking up with your family” question yesterday. I’m bookmarking that thread for times of weakness. What an amazing community — thank you, thank you, thank you.

    • I meant to comment on your question yesterday but got pulled into a rushed project instead. I was thinking about you on my way home and wished I had had a chance to respond. I was “broken up with/divorced from” my father just about a year ago. It sucked, alot, and soemtimes still does. But, I’m glad it happened in other ways, because he was such a mean person, and now I can breathe.
      Anyway, just wanted to say that you are in my thoughts, and you’ll get through this!

    • I swear I am not a paid publicist for Dear Sugar (see below) but she (Cheryl Strayed) is an amazing advice columnist over at the Rumpus. And she has written a lot about having to cut off ties with her father, and other difficult family issues. I don’t have the relevant post link handy, but you might want to start reading through her posts. She has kind of changed my life. (okay now I sound like a cult member, ;oP…)

      • I read the piece you posted recently (a week/few weeks ago?) and bookmarked her column to catch up on when work dies down. Thanks for sharing :)

      • Worried says:

        Cheryl Strayed’s memoir, Wild, is also really terrific.

        • mamabear says:

          Wild is the best book I’ve read in a long time. I had zero expectations. Objectively, I am nothing like the author and can’t really relate to her motivations and decisions on any level, but while I was reading the book, I WASCheryl Strayed and I could not put it down.

        • Agreed. I’m in the middle right now and have been surprised by how wise and gripping I’ve found it, especially because I don’t really like Dear Sugar most of the time.

  9. Our article proposal was accepted! Weren’t sure how it was going to go because it is a topical special issue of a journal and we had to submit a proposal rather than the actual article. I wrote the proposal in a couple of hours but I felt pretty good about it. Now we have to write the article by mid-February! My co-writer will be on sabbatical in the spring but it will be due shortly after her sabbatical starts.

  10. anonymous101 says:

    Eek half-naked man in 2xist briefs ad on this site = NSFW!

  11. Freyja says:

    I like the blue “lagoon” color they have. However – it’s kind of in between a navy and gray; in the fall, what would you ladies do for tights/shoes with that color?

  12. Styling question: I own Cole Haan oxblood patent heels, similar to these: http://www.zappos.com/cole-haan-chelsea-pump-oxblood-patent . I usually go bare legs in the summer and tights in the winter (usually black). What do I do with those shoes for winter?

    • petitesq says:

      Black tights would be great with these, too. Pretty shoes!

    • TCFKAG says:

      Give them to me because they’re AMAZING (seriously I kind of hate you right now for introducing me to their existence in the world).

      I think they’d look great with black tights — the black tights would make the oxblood pump really pop. Also you could always consider nude hose (OH THE HUMANITY). :-)

    • Besides black tights? I think gray tights or dark brown would look awesome.

  13. In the Pink says:

    So, I’m all about nude hose. Oh the oldfashioned humanity! (nod to TCFKAG and my DH).

    This week, I again had someone pay their account with me at my office in a stack of Benjamins. I take it, smile, and take it to the bank.

    Am I the only one that is “creeped out” by this?

    Cash = Credit Card Deposit both > Personal Check, I know but ….

    • Are you creeped out because you think the money might have been obtained via illegal means, hence the lack of a bank account (for check-writing) or a credit card?

      What work does your office do? I know some businesses won’t accept cash above X amounts for these reasons.

    • Thank you for the nude hose love! I wear stockings (pantyhose, whatever — I’ve always called them stockings but I know some people associate that with thigh-highs) pretty much every day to work from late Sept to late April. And I love them. They smooth everything out. They make my skirts hang well. They make my shoes fit well (and not give me blisters). They’re forgiving of bumps and of those days when I’m running just too late to shave even though I know I need to. AND I think they look good! I love when the weather turns cool enough in the fall that I can break out the stockings again. I hate going bare-legged in the summer (although in DC, stockings in summer are just too stifling).

      • Philly CPA says:

        I’m with you on this, TBK. I love my stockings!

      • Brooklyn, Esq. says:

        I *want* to love stockings. What kind do you like?

        • Seriously I just get L’eggs. In a giant baggie. From the outlet store. Then I wear them twice (yes, twice without washing, which I realize is gross-ish, but my feet don’t smell) and then throw them in a big mesh sweater bag and wash and dry them in the washer and dryer. Sometimes they make it to wearings 3 and 4, sometimes they don’t. But I bought them in a giant baggie from the outlet store so I really don’t care. Also, I wear control top. Like an old lady. And love them. Sometimes I’m afraid that within 10 years, I’m going to be one of those old ladies (at the ripe old age of 44) poking around the Target asking why they don’t sell stockings anymore. Sigh.

          • I’m delighted that someone else does the whole L’eggs in a baggie from the outlet.

            It is like my buying wine in a bag in a box (“WIABIAB”). (I have a very dull sense of smell, a $4 bottle smells and tastes very similar to a $50 bottle to me, so I see it as my special ability to enjoy cheap plonk.)

          • Brooklyn, Esq. says:

            Now that I’m no longer a teenager being forced to wear stockings her mother bought, I totally, totally *get* control top. As in, understand it, see the need for it, embrace it. :)

          • Philly CPA says:

            I just bought L’eggs over the weekend and have been pretty happy with them. +1 for control top.

        • In the Pink says:

          My all time for work are Filodoro brand (Italian), Aurora 15. Wear like iron, lovely hand and colors. I get them from shapings dot com out of Canada. Just starting to explore some of their fancy brands for nights out, started with one toeless variety. Can’t recall the name but I think they only had two offerings of toeless…Spanish brand I think. They have others in that brand so that’s where I”ll epxlore more.

          Tons of things, styles, weights, brands, tights to thigh highs.

      • TCFKAG says:

        Excuuuuse me, I’m the captain of Team Hose around these here parts. And I’m also very bored at work today. So I’m feeling territorial. :-)

        Lol.

      • I’m pro-nude hose too.

        • In the Pink says:

          That’s Sargent At Legs to all.

          Just home and can report in on the evening brand of hosiery I’ve been using:

          Silvia Grandi “Top 7″ … from Italy again, not Spain. Lo siento.

    • lucy stone says:

      My husband does criminal defense and gets paid in stacks of cash all the time. I’ve gotten used to it, but it was weird at first.

    • Blonde Lawyer says:

      I’m also creeped out anytime I have large amounts of cash. I’m used to having less than $10 on me at all times, if any cash.

    • Senior Attorney says:

      I love nude hose but here in So Cal nobody wears them except the old and the frumpy. So I feel like they are just so old fashioned and aging that I don’t wear them ever. I am hoping the Duchess of Cambridge will eventually bring them back into style but so far it’s a no go in these parts.

  14. Need a catchy handle says:

    How do I keep myself sane during the next two weeks while waiting for New York bar exam results? I’m finding myself googling it and checking above the law to make sure that they haven’t come out, and I know tht they probably won’t until November. Rationally I know that I just need to put it out of my mind, but it pops up even when I’m doing other things and really busy, and I know that I can’t change anything now, but that doesn’t seem to be translating to my mental thoughts.

    • petitesq says:

      Find something else to engage your mind. This is the time to get a new hobby, start online dating, read the Hunger Games series (or something similarly addictive), etc. Just telling yourself “no” is really hard, but being busy with something you look forward to being busy with helps. Beyond that, try literally visualizing a stop sign whenever that idea starts to pop into your head. Then actively pick a new topic to think about (the new hobby helps with this too), and move on!

    • MaggieLizer says:

      This is kind of horrible but it’s the only thing that worked for me – I looked at it like a reprieve. I figured, if I failed then this is the last however many weeks of my life before I have to tell everyone I know that I failed and deal with the stress of retaking the bar while working. Uncertainty > disappointment.

    • Need a catchy handle says:

      Good suggestions! I like the visualization and the positive spin on it.

  15. Bonnie says:

    Trying to resist the urge to choke my legal assistant. Back to work.

    • Stop the Violence says:

      Assistant got you down? Pull out the binder and find a new one, then.

    • TCFKAG says:

      My professional legal advice is that you not commit a felony. That sort of thing tends to get you at least put on administrative leave. :-P

    • I think assistant-cide might be a trend. Story from last week: I’m frantic to get a monster brief done, assistant buzzes in that client B is on the phone. I say take a message, she doesn’t just say okay but says okay, I’ll tell him you’re in a meeting, is that all right? Fine, whatever. Then she buzzes back to say that partner S will take his call. Again, fine, whatever, I am BUSY. Then 10 minutes later she actually comes in my office, stands 18 inches away from me and proceeds to tell me exactly what the client wanted to talk about, why partner S couldn’t take his call right then and when she will be able to call him back. By now I am rawring. I would pay to see Godzilla versus the Legal Assistants.

  16. In the Pink says:

    OK I am all over this blog today.

    Shoe help needed.

    Red or Oxblood mary jane pumps! 3-4″ heels. Patent or real leather. Strap over instep, not at toes and please, not up so high toward the ankle.

    My CH Lucetta dark brown ones need companionship…

  17. Yet Another Relationship Threadjack says:

    Regular poster going anon for this. I know it’s difficult to give relationship advice based on limited info, but I’d genuinely appreciate any feedback you sage ladies may have. Apologies in advance for the long post!

    My boyfriend and I have been together for two years long-distance. He lives in my hometown, and I’m in a nearby state. His career specialty is largely tied to his area, mine is less so. I’m a mid-level associate at a firm with offices in both cities. We absolutely adore each other, but he’s indicated that he isn’t ready to make a greater commitment. He says he ultimately would like to be married someday, but he’s scared and hesitant due to his parents’ ugly marriage/divorce and a general worst-case-scenario mindset.

    The dilemma: there’s an opening at my firm’s office in my hometown. I’d love to no longer be long-distance, but I’m afraid to go for it without having a guaranteed future for the relationship. I’m also anxious about starting over at a new office, but I do think I’d eventually like to be near my family, and if I’m going to do it at all it makes sense to move before reaching senior associate. Should I just bite the bullet and see what happens, or is it stupid to sacrifice the solid reputation I’ve built for myself here?

    • petitesq says:

      If you’re moving home because you’ve always wanted to do so and it’s an opportunity that may not come up again, do it. I started my career in my home town for that very reason. However, if you would feel at all disappointed about doing so if you broke up, don’t do it. He’s basically told you not to make plans based on him right now, and it’s really hard to hear that, but “ultimately married someday” is not a reason to move unless you will otherwise be happy doing so.

      • I agree with all of this, but would throw in one caveat — being long distance is not the same thing as being in the same town. I wouldn’t commit to marriage if I’d never lived in the same town with someone. While I agree that moving for a relationship that might not work out is tricky, I’d at least put the opportunity to see each other in real life (because weekend visits or whatever aren’t really real life) in the “pro” column.

        • I was thinking that as well.

          Maybe try to imagine yourself moving if he weren’t in the picture – you’re back in your hometown, so you probably know some people, have a basic familiarity with it, maybe have relatives nearby. How does that make you feel and how much would you miss your current town. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that you should only move if you would if he weren’t in the picture, but could you see it as a positive if it weren’t just for him? (Or, new hypo, if your company transferred you and you didn’t have a choice, would you be OK or upset?)

          Good luck!

    • AnonInfinity says:

      Would you consider applying if your boyfriend wasn’t in the picture?

      I don’t think it’s stupid to apply for this job at all, even if you’re doing it in large part to be near your boyfriend. However, I think you shouldn’t do it if you won’t be happy in your hometown if the two of you break up.

    • There are some really good reasons for staying in your current city, as well as some really good reasons for moving to your hometown.

      If you can go to your hometown, would that prevent you from returning to this other office if things don’t work out? Also, if you go to the office in your hometown, would your job be a lateral move or a move down in position from your current one?

      The one reason I would completely excise from the list of “pros” for moving to your hometown is your boyfriend. He’s noncommittal about the future, so he should not have any weight in your decision about your future career.

      If what he says is really true: that (1) he’d like to be married someday and (2) he hopes it’ll be with you, then he needs to be open to therapy to deal with the fallout from his parents’ crap marriage and ugly divorce and to be willing to go with you to learn how to build a good relationship. Think: Languages of Love, learning to fight fairly, etc.

      If he’s afraid of X, then he should do stuff to mitigate X. Passively doing nothing, but fearing this problem that he’s turned into this big amorphous lurking horror isn’t going to get him closer to “married someday.” It’s solvable. One test for him is whether he’s willing to do the work to solve it with your help and support, or if he’s only making excuses and wasting your time.

    • LadyEnginerd says:

      One rule of thumb- if someone says they have commitment issues … believe them. I agree with Susan that I’d feel more comfortable if he were doing hard work to get past these issues instead of wishfully thinking that “someday” he’ll get past them and get married (but not necessarily to you). This is similar to how “He’s just not that into you” handles this scenario, if you’re looking for a longer version of this argument.

      Another related opinion: if he hasn’t explored other options to be together with you (like you both moving to a 3rd city) except for the one that involves no sacrifice on his part, that’s something not something to take lightly. Therapy would count as sacrifice in my book. If the two of you want to be together, both of you should be willing to sacrifice somewhat equally and generously in order to get there.

      • LadyEnginerd says:

        Oh, and because we’re trying to avoid the DTMFA tone, I’d like to add – I’m absolutely not against you moving. I’m just trying to identify what would be at the crux of my decision. If you want to move regardless of the guy, great! (the overprotective older sister in me adds: just don’t sign a lease together quite yet). If it’s clear you’re taking this next step together as a team and moving forward towards building a life together, and that he’s on board with being flexible about his job too, that’s also a a green light (older sister adds: do remember – actions speak louder than words).

        Transferring within your firm sounds low-risk in the grand scheme of things. There’s also an argument to be made, professionally, that a larger network across multiple offices within your firm could be advantageous to your career in the long run. You might want to plan on scheduling trips back to your current city a couple times a year to take people out to lunch and stay in touch.

    • Not wholly relevant, but how old are you both? Also- have you asked your BF what he thought of the opportunity?

    • This may be a minority position, but I would move in your situation (in fact, I did for my now husand). We were a year into LD, and I realized I could move to be close to him (cross-country). We were both PhD students at the time, and moving was a risk to take professionally, but not knowing if he was the one wastoo much of a personal risk for me. And frankly, i’d never before givenupu anything for a relationship, so I knew something in my gut was telling me I had to know abt this one. My PhD advisor was concerned it would impact my work, but he let me do it. It was not easy to keep my reputation intact with him, but with hard work i graduated with glowing rferences and got engaged 9 months later.

      I can’t assess your BFs hesitation, though I know I woulod never have told my now DH that I was ready to be married if we hadn’t lived in the same place. And a tranfer between offices with your current firm seems fairly low risk professionally (not zero, but low). I think it comes down to, do you have to know). A friend of mine moved cross-country for a relationship withfar less professional certainty and commitmen than you have. It didn’t work out, though the move actually helped her onto her current career path hich she loves (and was totally unexpected). And she doesn’t regret it b/c she needed to know.

      I view it as, I only ever regret the things I didn’t do. If you’re really unsure abt this guy, then you need to think harder. But if a decnt part of you thinks this is it, you owe yourself to find out. You only get one life, and employment situations canchg for all kinds of reasons (firms can merge, bosses changee, etc).

      • Yet Another Relationship Threadjack says:

        Sincere thanks to all of you for the insight thus far. There are things that I hadn’t previously considered, like the independent value of dating on a day-to-day basis.

        We are both in our late twenties, and the move would be lateral, although there’s obviously a bit of a learning curve. I do have immediate family and close friends in my hometown.

        I haven’t spoken to my boyfriend about the possibility yet because I wanted to sort out my own feelings first. He has mentioned before that he’d be happy if I moved, but again, that’s the “no sacrifice” approach Lady Enginerd pointed out. I agree that I need to have a conversation with him about how he can work through his issues, whether that be through therapy or otherwise.

        • LadyEnginerd says:

          Gotcha. Sorry to be all over this – recently did Big Cross-country Move with a guy, and the decisions surrounding told us this was really it for the both of us. I do think that you can widen your horizons before you apply for transfer – sit down with him and try to solve, together, your long-distance problem without it being a yes/no on this specific job. For instance, make a list of top 5 cities and see if there’s overlap. Try to make it a “team” problem instead of a “you” problem. The last thing you want is to resent how you rearranged your life for him and he… didn’t. This is an opportunity to see if you’re happy with how the two of you work through a big life decision together as a team, which will tell you a lot about whether the two of you are ready and willing to move forward together.

        • If you’re in your late 20s and he’s not ready to say that if you move, and if things continue to go well, he’d like to get married, I’d be a bit concerned. I can totally understand from his side that having someone move for you is a lot of pressure but so is marriage, kids, home ownership (etc.) and late 20s seems a fine time to start thinking seriously about these things (not that it has to happen then! or soon! At all!, just that it seems like a sign if he isn’t willing to talk seriously about the future at an age that many people start thinking about these things).

    • CountC says:

      Not quite the same, but I moved back to the area I grew up in to live with my boyfriend (without a job). I wouldn’t have done it unless I knew that I would be okay with or without him. My family is here, and I know the area well enough. I also knew the job market was better than where I was and even with the poor job market, I would have more opportunities. In the end, I passed the VA bar, found a job and broke up with my boyfriend. I am still happy that I am here in the area and I am really excited about my new job. As others have said, if you would be okay in that area, having that job, but not having him, go ahead and go for it.

  18. e_pontellier says:

    NYC Meet Up tonight at 8PM! Look forward to meeting you ladies at Grey Dog’s Coffee, on W 16th St between 7th and 8th Aves. If you have any trouble locating it or our group, you can reach me at e.pontellier.r et te [at] gmail [dot] com.

  19. RSI doctor? says:

    After years and years of computering, I’m beginning to have what I understand to be pretty classic symptoms of RSI in my wrists. What kind of doctor should be my first stop for an actual diagnosis? Any recommendations in the DC area? Thanks!

    • I would recommend that you start with your general practitioner, and see what he or she recommends. I had a problem with my wrists for a while, and it turned out that my ulnar nerve was inflamed, mostly from resting my elbow on my armrest too much – it was easily solved by an NP with just 1) stopping doing that, and 2) some anti-inflamatories. Wrist/RSI issues are common enough that most GPs are pretty well versed in them.

      So, start small, and rule out the easy stuff before you go to a specialist, would be my opinion. Good luck; I know that wrist injuries can be a pain (heh) to deal with.

    • jesseves says:

      Yes, start with your GP, but generally the next step is to see an orthopedist. I highly recommend Dr. Leo Rozmaryn. He’s based in Rockville and specializes in hand/arm issues. He’s done wonders for me — without surgery.

    • Research, Not Law says:

      I also recommend seeing a chiropractor. Mine had a hand specialist to refer, but her exercises have staved it off so far. It wasn’t a typical diagnosis, and I honestly think that my GP (who I love) would have misdiagnosed.

  20. I'm Just Me says:

    Does anyone own The (New) Skirt in Rust Sienna? It’s one of the colors on discount right now. Trying to figure out if it will be a color that is good for me. On my screen it is a more coral color not a sienna color.

Speak Your Mind