Tuesday’s TPS Report: Roscoe Jacket

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

ROSCOE JACKET Tory Burch is having some great sales, including this fun tweed jacket in hot pink.  We like that it’s a younger take on what can often be an older look, and we like the contrast piping.  For work we’d layer it with a slightly longer, hip-length top (sweaters always look the neatest, but a a nice simple blouse would be great also) and something simple, like bootcut black trousers.  Was $495, now $247.50 at ToryBurch.com (lots of sizes still left as of this AM). Roscoe Jacket


Seen a great piece you’d like to recommend? Please e-mail [email protected] with “TPS” in the subject line.

(L-0)

Comments

  1. EEK! No.

  2. No. Just no.

  3. LegallyBlonde :

    Not my taste (and I love pink and tweed). I think it’s the white piping that makes it look a little too much “candy store worker”. Without the piping, it would be cute.

    That said, I think this could be appropriate for a more creative industry or even maybe a political office staffer. But not for law.

    • LegallyBlonde :

      Oh–the black piping has to go to. Piping is bad here. So bad.

    • Definitely would have to lose the piping… though I suspect that something this memorable is a wear-once-a-year item for me…

      heck, I just can’t get past that girl’s t-shirt hanging out… it looks like Elle-Woods-goes-to-high-school

  4. I think this outfit belongs on someone the model’s actual age, perhaps with pom poms or a baton.

  5. I totally disagree that this is a “younger take on what can often be an older look.” The only thing younger here is the model. I can just as easily see this on Betty White – who might, by the way, be the one person who could pull this jacket off without looking hideous.

    • Forestgirl :

      Eh, all the edges are frayed–maybe that is supposed to make it young?

      • This is a throwback to 2004/2005 when tweed with frayed edges was all the rage…only this looks worse with the candy pink and the piping. Yuck!

    • surrounded by lawyers :

      I’m thinking that evil woman who took over Hogwarts in one of the recent movies…

    • It *could* be a yonger take but not for work — maybe if taken out of context, with slightly distressed boyfriend/skinny jeans & funky heels & cool jewelry. That *may* work to subvert the Nancy Reagan look — but for work, no.
      And god help whoever decides that pairing the jacket with that awful mini is going to be a good idea. Cher Horowitz indeed!

    • It *would* look fabulous on Betty White.

  6. This is Coco Chanel gone astray.

  7. I actually think the jacket is quite lovely, especially in light of the guest post yesterday about showing your individuality at the office. That being said, I would DEFINITELY not wear the skirt because it looks (a) too short, (b) too pink, and (c) too cheerleader-ish!

    • Forestgirl :

      Interesting. I was going to say that the skirt might fly (if it was the right length, of course) with a subdued top, but not the jacket.

  8. Augh! No!

  9. Legally Brunette :

    This looks horrid with the matching skirt (too too) but perhaps could look ok paired with a black pencil skirt. With that said, I agree that the piping is just too much. I think the pink is a pretty color though.

  10. When I see a pink suit, I think “Lawyer Barbie.”

    • I had “corporate Barbie” as a kid and I think she actually did wear a suit very much like this.
      To quote Heidi Klum, on Project Runway a few seasons back:
      “Oooh, that’s BAD.”

  11. Maybe if we saw it styled without the pink skirt… but probably no.

    Anyone have any quick tips for curing sinus headaches? I’ve taken advil but it isn’t working. I don’t have an office (hooray, cubicle-land!) so I can’t just close the door and put my head down for a few minutes.

    • Are you taking regular advil or advil cold & sinus? I find the latter to be very helpful. I think I would take one regular advil and one cold & sinus to start, then see how you feel.

      • I have chronic sinus headaches and allergies. I find that Excedrin helps significantly more than Advil for the pain, and Sudefed 12-hour (the behind the pharmacy counter stuff) helps with the pressure (I take 1 every morning, along with a long list of allergy meds).

        Feel better!

    • Second the sinus medication – if you’ve already taken the pain killer, you shouldn’t take painkiller+sinus medication now. Go out and get sinus medication only and you can have that now – it’s brilliant. At my desk, I have 10 mg phenylephrine hydrochloride – the box says nasal decongestant PE. There is another sinus medication with a different active ingredient – they both work for me.

    • Have you tried doing sinus irrigation? Obviously that may not be possible at an office, but it does help the pressure a bit without having to resort to using tons of other sinus meds. I try to avoid using pseudoephedrine as it tends to make me loopy/somewhat out of it and phenylephrine doesn’t do much of anything.

      • I completely agree with, and follow, this advice during allergy season. I use this:
        http://www.amazon.com/NeilMed-Sinus-Rinse-Regular-Kit/dp/B000A0S5KC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1280853719&sr=1-7
        once a day.

        • Love, love, love, Neil-Med sinus rinse. If you’ve ever tried a neti pot and found it cumbersome and messy, give this a try.

      • Liz (Europe) :

        Thirded on the sinus flushing. I get headcolds almost every year (after a strep throat – and I’m allergic to several kinds of antibiotics, so they can’t help me) and it takes right care of them without medication within a week to levels where you at least feel fine (I usually keep flushing for about 3 weeks after that). I’d recommend adding soda to the solution as well, not just sea salt. For prophylaxis, flushing the sinuses once a day really helps to decrease the frequency of occurrences as well. One of the things I do is, fill a large syringe (like, 50 ml one?) with the solution, cap with the needle (you’ll need to take that off before flushing!) and the needle cap and just take it with you where ever you need to go. It doesn’t work as well as the tea pot but at least you can take it with you. Syringes are available over-the-counter at the pharmacy here, you don’t need a prescription for just syringes – not sure about your country though.

        Also, Advil (ibuprofen) is not the best anti-inflammatory for this, take naproxennatrium (naproxensodium in English maybe? Anyhow, Aleve) if it’s over the counter where you live. :)

    • This advice may be kind of gross, but I find that it helps me. YMMV. I agree with the posters who suggested sinus specific painkillers, but if they still aren’t doing the trick and you don’t want to over medicate, then consider giving the following a try.

      Go to the drugstore and get one of those saline nasal douche thingies. Find a washroom with a lockable door and sink, not just a stall, and use the nasal thingy. If your office only has washrooms with stalls, then I suggest going Starbucks on the way back from the drugstore as they always seem to have individual rooms with sinks. Plus, you can come back to work with coffee and no one will think anything of it. My totally unscientific theory is that this helps release the headache causing pressure in your sinuses.

      My sinus headaches have gone way down since I started using a netty pot regularly. It may be purely psychological, but I feel a lot less clogged and breathe much easier.

      • Legally Brunette :

        My husband swears by the neti pot. It’s not gross at all and it has helped my husband’s sinuses 200%.

    • If you can get your hands on some Claritin-D, that should do the trick

    • I agree about the flushing technique.
      A quick fix is make a cup of hot hot tea (herbal, think peppermint), cup your hands around the lip and then your nose to create a semi-seal, and breath through your nose. Keep tissues handy as it could get messy.
      I find that massaging my sinuses below my eye sockets helps, but a friend tried it once and made hr feel worse.

      • Lip of the mug, that is.
        And her*. It’s one of those days.

      • For a quick fix, I recommend Emergen-c or AlkaSeltzere — you need fiz to make it easier.

        • I like Alka-Seltzer cold too. That’s normally what I use when I am congested (the orange flavored fizzy type).

          • s in Chicago :

            I feel your pain. I once went a few months before FINALLY finding the right antibiotic course to help. In addition to Sudafed (behind-the counter stuff) and the nasal rinsing procedures, I’d also recommend some Mucinex.

            And be strict about the timing of pills so you’re not going long in between the next dose.

    • I use a Neti pot to flush my sinuses and it always gets rid of headaches. It’s not something you can do at the office, though, and it takes practice to get it right, so it’s not going to be an immediate help.

      • Hit submit too soon – I also wanted to say that one of those saline solutions you squirt into your nostrils could have the same effect of loosening everything up and relieving pressure, and that you can use in the office bathroom.

    • Be careful adding an OTC (or behind-the-counter) decongestant like Sudafed or Advil Cold & Sinus if you’re already on something like Allegra-D or Claritin-D. I take Allegra-D twice a day as one of my regular allergy meds, and some pharmacists have told me not to take any other decongestants on top of it. They said if I wanted to take something like Advil C&S, I had to skip the Allegra-D that day.

      This advice came after I’d been using them in combination and never experienced problems (just some hyperactivity), but I still think it’s worth passing along because everyone reacts differently…

      • Neti pot vote from me too. It might take a couple or three goes to feel the benefit.

  12. My first thought was, “OOOh! That’s a bit loud.” But with black trousers and a white or black under-shirt I think this could work. That said, the price point is a bit too high for something that you cannot completely integrate into your wardrobe, and that you can really only reasonably wear once every two months or so (without people saying, “You are in your pink coat again!”).

    So, this faux coco is a no go.

  13. Yowza. Sticker-shock.

  14. Is it just me/my monitor or does it look like someone drew a cartoon suit on the model?

  15. Forestgirl :

    You said it better than I did, Ru! :-)

  16. I kinda like the idea. I like the pink and I like Chanel-esque jackets generally. But if you look at it closely, the piping is sewn on sort of unevenly and it looks a bit shoddy. I’m not a huge fan of the black AND white together, I would stick to just white. And yeah the skirt and jacket together is just too much.

    Nice in theory, fails in execution.

  17. Totally Anon for this one :

    Off topic question for those without kids:

    Do you feel your time is seen as less valuable by your colleagues? For example when a deadline is approaching I hear male and female coworkers alike say “I have to leave at x time to get my kids…” and somehow that is an automatic free pass to not have to stay and work late. And I am not talking about something that pops up with no notice, I’m talking about a deadline they knew about for months and could have either got the work done ahead of time or made other arrangements for.

    It is presumed, however, that if someone needs to stay and finish it up, it will be one of us without kids. No offense to the mothers out there but I feel like my free time is just as valuable even if I just want the time to go to the gym or have a romantic dinner with my husband or just relax and read a book.

    I guess I should be proud to work at a place that values family commitments and gives people “get out of work” free cards just because they have kids. But I am getting sick of getting the brunt of the stay late duties.

    I do pick days where I say “I can’t stay late, I am meeting someone after work” etc. But it is clearly not given the same respect as “gotta get to the daycare.” Now my husband made a great point. He noted that most of the people with kids have been around longer and maybe its not a kids/no kids thing but a seniority thing. Maybe after I put in my time I can leave for whatever reason, deadline be damned. I personally, however, do not think that is the case.

    Anyone dealing with the same thing?

    • Super Anon For This One, As Well :

      “Do you feel your time is seen as less valuable by your colleagues?” Yes, and by bosses, as well. It is a “given” that I will work weekends, while it is a “given” that those with children will not. A childless man I work with already commented on this to me, so I don’t think, at least in my firm, that it is only a mother/non-mother issue.

      That said, you state, “Maybe after I put in my time I can leave for whatever reason, deadline be damned. I personally, however, do not think that is the case.” I would disagree with you here.

      I think that you will be able to come and go without monitoring, if you put in the time AND meet deadlines, once you have been there a while. But no, you may not get a “free pass” on a deadline, that is, you will have to stay and meet the deadline.

      But, one day you may have kids (or parents?) for whom you will have to leave early, so try not to let it bother you in the meantime. Easier said than done, I know, but really, there is nothing you can do about the human propensities/instincts at play here.

      • I didn’t mean we as a company/firm would miss the deadline. I meant, it would be delgated to someone else and not just assumed that I would be the one staying late just because I don’t have kids. I run, I have a dog, I have a husband, I like to eat, LOL. I don’t have kids because I want to do those things now and maybe someday have them. But bailing on work to run is not equal to bailing on work to get to daycare.

        It doesn’t bother me a ton because I know the extra time I spend here is really appreciated by all. What does bother me is the assumption that because I don’t have kids it should be me who does it over someone who does have kids.

        That said, in a prior job where it had to be staffed 24/7/365 – I volunteered to do the holidays because I didn’t have kids. I thought it was only fair. But on a regular basis I just get a different vibe about it and wanted to know if it was a common phenomenon.

        • OP:

          I experienced the same thing when I was childless (in both single & married states). It is unfair, period. I resented folks who would coolly walk off saying “You don’t have kids, you can stay late”. I once shot back at a peer saying “I didn’t ask you to have kids or take this job; having done so, I don’t see why different rules should apply”. She got the message and by that point, I didn’t care whether or not she was ticked off at me.

          That’s why I am pretty careful to never make assumptions about people’s free time (regardless of marital state/ kids etc) – even though I have a toddler of my own. That does not excuse me from job commitments, IMO.

      • a two cents :

        As a single woman with no children, I experience this (the presumption that it’s okay to leave work re: kid-related commitments, and assumption that I will carry the load so we will meet our deadline) A LOT. It also happens, to a lesser degree, around coworkers’ parent and elder-related commitments.

        I do not plan to have children, and my parents are gone; I’m simply never going to have comparable “excuses” for leaving work early or abandoning my work-related responsibilities. It used to bother me quite a bit. But I have realized that, as noted above, it is about human instincts. It is NOT about an underlying belief on my coworkers’ part that says “her time is less valuable than my time” or “my kids are more important than her running after work” or anything like that. In fact, there is nothing about me or the value of my time that enters the equation for them; the issue for them is that their children/parents need them, as simple as that.

        So, as long as I don’t take it personally then we are fine. The way I react and feel about their use of time and scheduling, in the end, rests with ME. If I believe that I am as entitled to flexibility in my work shedule as they are, then I have to actually live that and take the time when I need it rather than resenting a supposed entitlement that the others supposedly have!! Just my two cents……….

    • I’ve dealt with it and seen it, regardless of seniority. I try to tell myself, as a single woman who does not have children, but does have parents who made it to every school play, soccer game and conference, that I’m paying forward the kindness visited upon my childhood … though, truthfully, my mother was a stay at home mom for several years and then went back to work as a teacher, and my father owns his own business, so I doubt the kindness of others factored into their attendance.

      But yes, it is not nearly as respected for me to say that I’m leaving for any reason – including emergencies concerning other relatives, as it is for a parent to say they’re leaving to do x,y,z w/ or for their child. The same goes for any single colleague, of any age/seniority.

      Do you think it affects single men and women the same, or do you think women bear the brunt of it? I ask b/c I always had a sneaking suspicion that single women were especially expected to have no life outside of work…

    • anon - chi :

      This has never happened in my office. The only way to get a “get out of work free card” is to (1) be in active labor or (2) be within 24 hours of your own wedding. Then again, every single female attorney with kids has either a nanny or a stay-at-home partner or both, and those who only have a nanny are also part-time.

      I can sympathize with your annoyance at feeling that your time as a childless person should not be valued differently, but be careful what you wish for. Working in an office that gives absolutely no leeway to employees with kids is not necessarily a better place to be.

      • I agree and I hope that came across in my post. I feel lucky to work somewhere that values families.

    • Forestgirl :

      I’m not sure I’ve experienced it myself, but I know what you mean. I think you have to really think about what you are comparing, though. “Picking up kids” has to be done at a certain time (or within a certain range.” “Having dinner with someone,” or “going for a run,” are inherently more flexible activities. So I think in a sense you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Yes, the person with kids made a choice in the past to commit themselves to raising kids, and maybe a workplace could be critial of that decision (I’d hope not, though!), but in the present it is a commitment that has less flexibility.

      Now, if you said that “taking a child to the doctor” is understood more than “going to the doctor yourself,” that seems more like apples to apples.

    • I find that this is true as a single female at my firm as well. It’s like there is a hierarchy: Children > Marriage/ Relationship > Single Female

    • As a mother, I totally get what you are saying, and have a lot of mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, if you have children in daycare, frequently the deadline to pick-up is inflexible — you can get tossed out of daycare if you are late too many times, and I’ll spare you how painful that is. On the other hand, even if you don’t have a drop dead deadline like parents do, you shouldnt be expected to stay late in their place. As an example, you could stay until 6:15 and then go running, whereas a parent has huge consequences for staying til 6:15 if daycare closes at 6:00. BUT, if the difference is the parent is leaving at 6:00 and you are regularly leaving at 7:30, there is fundamental inequity there.

      I don’t know if it’s true at your office, but I end up doing a lot of work after my kid goes to bed — I may be racing out at 5:30 to meet the nanny, but I end up doing a couple hours of work from home after 7:30.

      Finally, I KNOW that I prioritize my family above my job, and that at times, this creates more work for my coworkers. I deeply hope that I am as giving to them as they are to me when they need to take time for their family.

      • I have seen my colleagues racing out the door for daycare deadlines – and please know, as a single woman I have nothing but empathy for them as they try to get there in time.

        I think that it becomes unfair when you’re a single woman who does not have children – if you’re young and planning to have kids in the future, then you just take it in stride — you’re working hard now, but eventually you’ll be the one cutting out to get the kids from daycare and leaving your single colleague to finish up the report/return/file/project… but if you never have kids, then it’s a career long feeling of being a second-class citizen… especially when you get into hot button areas like divvying up vacation time

    • Also anon for this one :

      “No offense to the mothers out there but I feel like my free time is just as valuable even if I just want the time to go to the gym or have a romantic dinner with my husband or just relax and read a book.”

      Free time? That’s really funny. Moms and Dads go home to their other full time job. I have never once begrudged a colleague who had to go home to their child. In some cases, I was glad that I didn’t have to go home to deal with dinner, laundry, home work, or worse (the flu!) Also, it’s not uncommon for moms to work after the kids go to bed. I have received emails from moms at 2 or 3 in the morning. Now that I am a mom, I’ve sent them at that time in the morning.

      Give your colleagues some credit for being able to show up for the big meeting, after staying up all night with a sick child.

      Enjoy your free time, dinner with your husband, and reading a book. I’ve read 3 books and had dinner alone with my husband less than a dozen times since my daughter was born 2.5 years ago. ;-)

      • I have to agree with Also anon for this one. I’m a full-time litigator with two young children, one of which has had chemotherapy treatment for the last 1.5 years for a chronic, cancer-like medical condition. My full-time job is only half of my very real, non-work responsibilities.

        Yet, often, my husband takes the kids so I can stay at work and meet a 11:59 PM filing deadline, come home, and be back at work at 8 for the next day’s work. I rarely if ever dump work on the childless. It sounds like your situation is different, and you are getting work dumped on you, but there are plenty of us with kids who are just working twice as hard as you are because we don’t go home and relax with a book – we do 4 loads of laundry, clean up after the kids, write thank-you notes for their birthday gifts, and deal with schedules for the next week.

        • I can’t imagine the stress of having a sick child. It is amazing you do all that you do. And don’t get me started on 11:59 filing deadlines. We still get our state pleadings done and hand delivered by close (4 or 5 pm depending on state.) Why can’t we figure out how to get federal pleadings done by that time!! We will always be working until the last possible minute. I love ECF but that midnight deadline really sucks.

        • Anonymous :

          There is a critical distinction to be made for the claim of working “twice as hard” due to having a family – the work put in at the second job doesn’t make an impact on the colleagues in the first. I think the original poster seemed well aware of the difficulties that parents face – willingly putting in extra time/working undesirable hours is a measure of that understanding. However, I don’t understand why you think that the decisions she’s made with her life and how she spends her time outside of work is less relevant than the decisions that others have made with theirs.

      • I’m quite certain that when Totally Anon says “free time,” she means time when you are not doing work for your job. What you do with that time is free in that it is your choice, even if you made that choice several years ago when you decided to have a child. As many people noted, being a working parent is not equivalent to being a martyr. Most people either have kids now, have grown children, or will have kids at some point in their lives.

        That said, I’m not going to begrudge someone having to leave to pick kids up at a certain time. (Or needing to do anything with their kids, really, I just can’t stand the line about going home to your full time job. We all make choices.) I suspect that the people who truly take advantage of childless coworkers are people who were not good coworkers before they had children, either.

        Children have to be cared for, and that they are well cared for is a benefit to society as a whole. Plus, I worked in daycare when I was going through school, and daycare generally closes, period, at a certain time. The daycare I worked for charged folks a dollar a minute for each minute past 6pm, or the workers would never get to leave.

        The only thing I wouldn’t do is let someone take credit for things I did when they had to be gone. And if I was working in an office that deprioritized my vacations and medical leave needs in favor of allowing employees with children flexible time off, I’d be looking for a new job as soon as possible, though I realize that’s much easier said than done in this economy.

    • Anon for this one :

      FWIW, I think kids the situation of having kids that you have to care for is different from wanting to engage in leisure activities such as reading or running. I think that from a societal perspective, raising a family is seen as the normal progression in a person’s life, and thus expectations of working parents (and I do have to say, mainly working mothers, though that is changing) can be a bit different than those without children, regardless of the reason you do not have children. Engaging in leisure activities (or sanity activities, as I like to call them) is not as valued as raising a family (though some can argue that it should be, it just isn’t). I will say, however, that in my experience, I tend to get emails from parents who left the office earlier than I did much later at night, especially partner-types who work from home after the kids are in bed. So in my experience, at least, they are putting the time in, just not necessarily at the office. Although it can be frustrating, and you seem like you have a good attitude about it, at least you can take solace in the fact that most parents are probably not running or reading a good book in the evening, LOL. Also, as far as advance planning, it can be very, very difficult and expensive to make alternative arrangements for childcare or child pick up, even with advance notice, and I think workplaces in general recognize that, even if they don’t like it. Parents get leeway because kids are important. Other extracurricular activities are not important. Not necessarily my opinion, but I think that’s the way it’s looked at and treated collectively.

      • Busy Lawyer Mom :

        As a mom who currently works part-time, I can say this is certainly not true in my situation. Yes, I do leave by 6:30 everyday to go home and get my son, however, I then spend the next hour feeding him dinner, changing him, putting him to bed, so that I can spend the next however many hours finishing up what I couldn’t do in the office. I work weekends, I consistently work on Friday (my “day off”), and more than make up for my leaving the office each day at 6:30. While it may look like I’m not here, my billable hours tell a different story. AND, I took a pay cut for this luxury! Part-time working mothers work two full-time jobs, though you may not see it when you’re stuck in the office lamenting your missing dinner date. I can’t even remember the last time I went on a dinner date, or went running other than at 6 in the morning, or had a moment’s free time for myself, even just to get my nails done.

        • Just a different perspective – I am also PT (80%) in a small firm. I do work all my hours, BUT- I work 2 days from home, 2 days in the office, and never work on my day off (Friday). I work efficiently so that I can get in all my time during normal business hours (eg 9 to 5), then get home at 530, dinner on table by 6, kids (2yo, 7month old) in bed at 7, then have time to clean up the house/exercise/tv/etc before I go to bed at 9. I guard my weekends fiercely so that I can spend all my time then with my kids and DH. I think this depends a lot on what your actual hourly requirement is – mine is 1440.

        • “I can’t even remember the last time I went on a dinner date, or went running other than at 6 in the morning, or had a moment’s free time for myself, even just to get my nails done.”

          But this was your *choice*, yes?

          • Exactly.

          • Yeah, I started off really enjoying the supportive & understanding
            tenor of this discussion & actually thought back to similar threads we had on this topic & how much more pleasant this was as compared to the other. And now it looks like it is becoming that old post all over again. . .

          • Super Anon For This One, As Well :

            I am “Super Anon For This One, As Well” from 11:23. In large part, this is going to be a huge jumble of only semi-related thoughts. Make of them what you will. I will try to keep them brief, but that is not my strong suit.

            Most women will be mothers at some point (not me, I don’t think, even though I would like to be, but that is beside the point). We are really just fighting with ourselves.

            I remember reading a long, long time ago, I can’t remember where (suffice it to say, not in Maxim) that the “mommy wars” were an invention of someone/“them” (and I can’t remember the word the article used, it wasn’t so specific as to say “men,” it was something more amorphous like “society”/“the patriarchy”), because “they” want to make sure women are divided, not united. Sounds crazy/paranoid, right? :-) Well, a little. But looking closer, does it have some truth? Since junior high, at least, we have been told by “them” (whoever “them” is, let’s say “society”) that we can be EITHER pretty or smart, EITHER funny or popular with boys. We are too old and too experienced to believe that at our ages, so the battleground of the 20s- 40s is EITHER a mother or a hard-worker, EITHER a smug married (in Bridget Jones’ words) or a singleton.

            That said, I love men, in the general sense, and in the particular. So I do not believe the mommy wars are a male-wide conspiracy foisted upon us.

            THAT said, I love women. I am always sad when I hear a women say “women are their own worst enemies,” “women are so catty,” “I have no women friends because all women are jealous/catty/b*tchy.” I am sad for these women, and confused, for the most supportive people in my life, save for a couple of men, have been women. I’m not trying to get all Steel Magnolias and say anything close to “men will leave, you can only trust women,” because I think that, for most of us, the one person we will end up trusting the most, who trusts us the most, will be a man, our husband. But, I do not think “women are their own worst enemies,” or catty, and I find them, in the general sense, more supportive, on the whole.

            So this type of “debate,” which is not a debate at all, because no one can win in it, makes me sad. No, no one “forced” women with children to make the choice to have a child, but workplaces need to accommodate the fact that most women will have children, and that children need their parents around, if workplaces do not want to lose out on talented folks, since many (most?) people will become parents in their lifetime.

            My two cents.

            P.S.- I think all the lawyers here, at least (and I can only speak to law) can agree that ALL of us work hours outside of the office, and bring work, our laptops, transcripts, and research home. I think that may just be a 21st century thing, for all walks of life.

          • In-house lawyer here, and we are not permitted to work from home.

          • Super Anon For This One, As Well :

            And I should have clarified, I didn’t so much mean telecommute (during business/office hours) as bring home work at the end of the day, or get up early to prepare for a hearing at home at 5:00 in the morning, or email our offices at 6:00 a.m., i.e., giving our offices our free time, in a way. But that is interesting that that is not allowed at some places, I had not thought of that.

          • Exactly. I have a child now & need to squeeze in the time for “me” stuff, but it was my choice! My colleagues needn’t be penalised for it, and their singleton lifestyles are not any less important because of my child.

      • I think that companies need to treat employees equitably without regard for subjective factors like what they’re doing in their off time. If Employee A works 50 hours a week and Employee B works 40 hours a week and the quality of their work is equal, it’s not fair to Employee A if Employee B makes the same wage and bonus and gets the same promotion opportunities. This is true whether A is a working mother and B is a slacker who plays video games in her free time, or vice versa. What you do in your off time shouldn’t be relevant to your company.

    • in support :

      Not so much that time is less valued, but that our entitlement to free time/private life is less valued than a child’s need for their parents time. It’s a valid distinction. Still, it’s frustrating for the period in my life where I don’t have children but would still like to find fulfillment outside of work :)

      • Anon for this one :

        This.

        I’d like to think I’m pretty good at making a creative and compelling argument, but I’ve yet to find one for why it is more (or even equally) important for me to be able to leave at 6pm to have dinner with my s.o/attend a workout class/walk my dog than it is for a coworker to be able to leave at 6pm to pick up or tend to a child.

        Now, if someone could just explain to me why it is acceptable in my office to take 1.5 hour lunch breaks, but not okay to leave 30 minutes early (I’m approximating – we don’t bill our hours or have to be here from X to X time), then I’d really like to hear that explanation. Because it makes zero sense to me. However, I’ve just decided that it is a battle not worth fighting and when i’m the queen of the universe, I can change the rules :)

        • Speaking of lunch rules, I’ve worked in 3-4 places where there were enough smokers that it was perfectly okay for them to be out 10-15 minutes each hour smoking, but when the non-smokers wanted to take a break we were accused of being lazy and slacking off.

          • Oh god this made me CRAZY at my former job. I used to go for ‘smoke breaks’ just to get outside and chat with my smoker friends because it was the only way to get a break.

          • Glad to read I am not alone in this. Most of the places I’ve worked made the smoking area as unappealing as possible- usually it was a steaming piece of asphalt at the back of a building, sometimes accompanied by a dumpster. Needless to say I was never that desperate, but the smokers would still go out there religiously for their hourly break.

          • THIS! I used to work in a very tall building and you could only smoke outside the building. We were on the top floor. So the smokers in our firm got something like 30 minutes because that’s how long it took them to put on their coat, take the elevator down, smoke, and then back up, take the coat off, go to the bathroom, get coffee…Some of them did this twice in the morning, and maybe 3 times in the afternoon. I never once felt bad about leaving any one of the smokers in the office after 5!

    • In my current workplace as well as a previous one, both in DC, this is a constant problem that is perceived as unfair by all the childless people (I’d say we’re about half childless, maybe a bit more). Definitely childless people in both places worked fewer hours and needing to care for their child gave them carte blanche to leave early or do less work overall than the rest of us, for the same salary. I don’t want to minimize or be insensitive to the very real problems faced by working parents of both genders who want to be fully present in their children’s lives, but it makes me very angry when my supervisor allows my colleagues with kids to work modified schedules in order to correspond with their kids’ daycare schedules but allows no flexibility for the rest of us. One colleague who works a modified schedule does definitely miss out on good projects, though, and has expressed jealousy that she can’t work on things she’d like to work on because of her schedule.

      • Anon for this one too :

        This, exactly. I have the greatest sympathy for parents who are juggling work and their family, but I’ve often felt that my commitments – and yes, as a single woman, I do still have commitments – are viewed as far less important than those of my colleagues with children. I have had to, for instance, cancel my last two medical appointments because we’ve been on a tight deadline and I wasn’t allowed the time. Meanwhile, my coworker was allowed the time to take her daughter to the dentist (I’m not saying that this isn’t important; just that my own medical health is important too). I’ve also been stuck at the bottom of the vacation time request ladder for the last few years because I don’t have to schedule around school breaks. And yes, I feel really petty for being annoyed about that.

        I just feel that if we’re going to be flexible for parents, then we need to understand that you don’t have to have children in order to have important things going on in your life.

        • At the risk of getting sucked into a clearly sensitive debate, I would just like to add —
          That sometimes (at least for me — w/no kids), I do not make my own time as much of a priority b/c as much as I want to leave earlier or take better timed vacations, when push comes to shove & person w/kids says “Sorry I have to leave at 6 to pick up the kid,” I — of my own free will — stick around to finish. A fellow childless co-worker doesn’t — to her, her time is her time. She makes no excuses & just does her thing. So to some extent, I guess to a certain degree maybe parents are better (out of necessity or whatever else) at MAKING their time a priority at work.

          • Anonymous :

            AIMS, that is exactly what I was going to pipe in with. I have been on both sides. I have been a new associate, partime associate, and now an almost partner. It is only now out of necesity, that I am able to say definitively no, I have to leave. Before, I simply stayed thinking I couldnt leave, couldnt say no, etc. And frankly, the higher-ups will take advantage of every miute you give them. Now, I feel both intrinsically (missing my kids, guilt!) and extrinsically (day care closes at 6, Im more senior) empowered to draw a line, and no one really questions it since ultimately, I have the same billables and requirements as everyone else. Also, I think men in general are just better at drawing the line from day one. It took me a few years to be comfortable doing it.

            And as for not having to work as hard? That is total BS. I can tell you I am usually the only one on my floor here on weekends, or working at night. I dont take week long vacations like some of my single friends, because Im too busy making up hours for my kids soccer game that I went to.

            Yes, I chose this, but, I think it is a “grass is greener” type argument that you cant fully understand until you have been on both sides.

        • Forestgirl :

          The doctor thing you describe is just wrong–no job should put themselves above your health, and I would feel that way regardless of whether they let the parent take the kid to the dentist or not. That’s just a bad employer.

          As far as the word “commitments,” which I used earlier (and I’m not sure if you were responding to me or not) I think the difference is what some people have pointed about above–children are (in a sense)helpless and depend on their parents to care for them, and that care has to be given at certain specific times. Adult commitments that do not involve caregiving are often (but not always) more flexible.

        • OK, that’s a lot more extreme than my situation. I’m able to take my accumulated leave no questions asked – be it for medical appointments, to take my pet to the vet, or to get a pedicure. My problem is more with not having flexibility in my regular work schedule and literally working more hours than colleagues for the same pay. I’d put my foot down at being asked to cancel a doctor’s appointment once, let alone twice! And you’re entitled to your vacation – you earned that time. You are not petty at all.

      • Eponine, it is completely unfair that some get flex time and some don’t. It shouldn’t matter what the reason.

    • North Shore :

      This is a management problem, not a “people with kids” vs. “people without kids” problem. There are plenty of workplaces where the management makes sure work is accomplished without dumping on those without kids. You should talk to your manager about this. I have children, as do most of the lawyers at my office, but I’ve never seen anything like what you are describing.

      • Forestgirl :

        This! North Shore said it better than I could.

        • This is exactly what I was thinking! Its not the parents’ fault their commitments are viewed as more important, its management’s fault for viewing it that way.

    • A lot of people have said things I was going to, including the idea that this is a management issue rather than a parent vs. non-parent issue, that kids are basically helpless and not at all the same as grown adult spouses and friends who can take care of themselves, etc. I do want to say this. Whether or not adults without children realize it, you benefit from the childrearing your peers are engaged in. One, our children are going to be paying for your infrastructure and social services in your old age, just as we are paying for the social services of our elders now. Two, parents who want to maintain a secure, loving, trusting attachment with their children by doing things like caring for them when they are sick and picking them up from school on time are creating future adults who will be able to form secure attachments with other people. What happens when children have disrupted attachment and lose faith in their primary caregiver is not pretty; it creates adults who are insecure, who cannot bond or empathize with other people, and who exhibit antisocial, violent or psychotic behavior. We all suffer when children who have not been cared for lovingly and appropriately are released into society with no emotional coping skills or empathy for others. And it doesn’t just happen in poor families that park their kids in front of the TV all day.

      I am sorry to say this, because I know people without children find it condescending and patronizing. Unfortunately, it is the truth. Raising children is far more important an endeavor than finishing a legal brief, completing a spreadsheet, or attending a meeting. When people do not do a good job at their workplace, they get fired. When people do a bad job parenting their children, we all pay for it when those children become unproductive, disruptive, violent, etc. It’s not that Little Johnny is going to become a psycho-killer if Mom is late picking him up one day. But if time after time, Little Johnny’s emotional needs are not met by a mother who is always at work or busy with work when she is at home, Little Johnny will develop serious psychological issues that will get exhibited, one way or another, later in his life. Feminists in the 1970s populated a belief that childrearing was drudgery and could (and should) be easily outsourced so Mom could get into the workforce and do “real things,”; the implication was that a you could hire anyone to watch your child and kids would probably turn out fine. We’ve since found out that no, actually Mom or Dad does need to be there for the kids, or there will be consequences to pay. That is what is informing the behavior of parents in your workplace; that and the love they feel for their children, which is the love that your parents (hopefully) displayed to you. If it helps you to view it through that lens.

      That all being said. If people are in an office where work is routinely being dumped on them because they don’t have kids, I think that’s an issue to discuss with management. I work in an office where some people have children and some don’t. I have one who must be picked up from his daycare by 4 every day, with no exceptions. So yes, there are times I say “sorry, I have to go” when we’re in the middle of something. I do then try to get back online after he goes to bed and keep working. As with most situations in life, communication is key and people may not be aware there’s a problem if you don’t say something.

      I was child-free for the first 10 years of my career, so I do understand the concern. For what it’s worth, I’ve found that “it’s personal” or “it’s a medical issue” can cover a lot of territory, excuse-wise, without warranting further inquiry. It’s not that your time isn’t valuable, but as someone said – with a lot of upper managers, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile, largely because they’ve been the grunt doing the work and they don’t want to do it any more. If you don’t want to do it any more either, do or say something. That will probably help a lot.

      • Anonymous :

        No one is saying that childrearing isn’t important. But to posit that it is more important than other activities is a subjective judgment, not a truth. Lots of things are more important than attending a meeting. Let’s not go down the road of judging whether X or Y benefits society more.

        • Also, no one is saying that childrearing isn’t important, but what we are saying is that what you are doing in your off time should not be relevant to your company and you should not get preferential treatment because you’re doing a certain activity (say, kid’s soccer game) rather than another (say, volunteering). It is not fair for a company to treat one employee better than another because that employee engages in outside-of-work activities that other employees do not engage in, period.

      • Apologies for what I’m about to rant, but I’ve waited since I saw this comment this afternoon to ensure I didn’t really blow up at the poster.

        The notion that the rest of us should sacrifice because you chose to have children is narcissistic at best. I pay taxes that fund my local school system, and I volunteer with several charities that help needy kids. But aside from that, I don’t feel that it’s my duty to sacrifice for “you” personally because you elected to have kids and keep a demanding job. Once in a while because I like “you” and enjoy working with you and I’m a team player, sure. I’d expect you to do the same for me next time my dog needs to go to the vet because you are professional and because you respect that I sometimes will have obligations outside of work as well.

        If you truly believe that you need to be a good parent or else Little Johnny is going to have emotional issues because I’m not covering for you at work, then you need a different, less demanding, job.
        What irks me is the sense of entitlement to “have it all” at the expense of those around you who are making involuntary sacrifices so you can do so. To then try and justify it as if you’re doing all of us a favor by raising your kids well and that we should therefore be okay with working your hours, well, it just pisses us off, because I’d bet my mortgage that you didn’t feel that way before you had kids.

        I’ve inevitably offended a few of you, but hey, it’s an internet chat board, and well, most of us probably wouldn’t say it to your face.

        • Amen

        • Anon for this one :

          I don’t think anyone is saying people are forced to “sacrifice” their own free time because others have children. I think it’s been made clear that parents work at the their jobs just as much, but maybe not between 5:30 and 8 p.m. If a person works less than another person, regardless of the reason, that should be reflected in compensation/projects offered. If it’s not, that is a management problem, not a problem with people having children. If you don’t like the management, change jobs. If you don’t want to put the hours in, don’t put them in. But don’t whine about how you are “forced” to stay late while someone is picking up their kids from daycare. Just don’t stay. After all, if you believe that your free time is as important as child-rearing, this should be a position you have no problem taking– just like people who have children will say “I’m not coming in today” when their kids have raging fevers. And I love dogs and have 2 with chronic health problems. But I will likely not rack up $100 in daycare overcharges so that you can take your dog to the vet, no matter how much I like you.

    • Anon for this one too :

      Ahh, I subject near and dear to my heart. I certainly have dealt with this in my career. I brought it up to an older female coworker who tried to “mentor” me. She told me to suck it up and some day – hopefully – someone would do the same for me. Obviously, not everyone will eventually have kids, and not everyone who has kids will continue to work outside the home, and not everyone who does will work places where it feels like their workload goes to the child free – so this certainly won’t apply to everyone.

      Recently, I was up for an award that was given to a woman who has 2 young children. There were descriptions of what the candiates did to be nominated. Her’s included extensive travel for good of the project while leaving 2 young children at home with her husband.

      While I understand it must have been extremely hard to coordinate her travel with childcare needs, it did make me feel a bit slighted that it was mentioned because I can’t compete with that – I felt like I was automatically disqualified because no matter how much I travel or how many long hours I work she will always be working harder because she has kids.

      I am utterly convinced that those who have children are paid more because managers think they “deserve more in order to support their families”. It may fall in with one of the other commentor’s notions that people with children are seen as more mature as it is a natural progression for most people. But I’ve seen person after person have children and suddenly they are managers, suddenly they make VP, etc.

      I don’t mean to come across as against those with children, because I certainly am not, but I do feel like at my place of work, I am looked down upon for being the non-married child free female employee.

      • Anonymous :

        Im trying to stifle a laugh against being paid more because I have kids. How about, it is not humanly possible for me to get a bonus because I simply cannot work the hours required to earn one, regardless of the fact that my actual work product is better than those who rack up the hours? How do I know? because my work gets actually billed to the client, theirs is often cut. I cant speak for corporattions making managers or VPs, but having kids actually has kept me from making partner sooner, even though I have years of experience on others in my firm.

        • I think this is workplace-specific, but it is definitely true in my experience that men with families (not women) are treated as more mature and stable and thus are more likely to get promotions and increased responsibility (and the accompanying raises).

        • When your coworkers get their time cut, doesn’t that time not count towards their hours/bonus? It does where I work and it sucks!

    • I’ve been a mom for all of my working life, my daughter is now 14 so I’ve been on both sides of the spectrum. I always appreciated being able to leave when my daughter was sick, needed to be picked up or even to take her to the bus on her first day of school and trick or treating on Halloween. That being said, I also would make efforts to stay late/come in early whenever I could to make up for it, and certainly didn’t get to every single school event or soccer game my daughter had.

      It is unfortunate that the non-parents are having to stay late when the parents can’t, particularly in cases like OPs where the deadlines could have been planned for in advance. Employers need to recognize that everyone’s free time is valuable, regardless of how its spent and that one group shouldn’t be forced to shoulder all the burden of working late. That is only going to lead to burn out and people seeking out jobs that don’t treat them this way. Its great to support family values, but you have to support all your employees, not just select ones.

      • Well said. I was childless the first 15 years of my career and I don’t really remember getting dumped on so that some parent colleague could skate. And since I’ve had kids, I’ve definitely had to make sacrifices – both ways – sometimes for work obligations/deadlines (missed the school play; did parent teacher conferences by phone; let nanny take sick kid to dr) and sometimes for kid obligations (took a smaller role on a glam case; accepted doing more scut/piece work instead of having lead/glory slot; and DEFINITELY gave up hours and correspondent comp). But it really is a management/culture issue: employer and colleagues need to accept that all humans (with or without children) are equally entitled to ‘life’ time, regardless of the reason for it.

    • I’m a bit bemused by those who think that the childless are meant to cover for those with family obligations and not resent it, as well as those who say something to the effect that well, you’ll be glad one day when you have children that others will be expected to do this for you.

      Here’s a cry out from those who are lifelong childless – either don’t, or can’t, have children, ever. I’m both – waited too long, and then couldn’t (warning there, ladies!) , and I have spent fifteen years covering for others. Yes, sometimes I resent it so much that it’s all I can do to present a professional demeanor.

      But, for those who have to deal with this, here’s the upside. Have patience, put on that smile – fake or real – and get the job done. I’ve done that for fifteen years, and have become the “cover” person for those, who for whatever reason, are unavailable for a task, case, trial, whatever. It’s become my unofficial secondary position. I have been in every court, in every county, in my multi-county district (government lawyer). They are cutting into our budget, even to our personnel, in this economy, but I’m not worried, at all, because I’ve been told that if I’m out the door it will be because the office has closed. So my advice, dear ones, is that if you are put upon, suck it up, vent only privately, get the job done – with bells on. The rewards are remote and require patience, but they are there. You are noticed. : )

  18. AnneCatherine :

    I think, for me, it’s the color of this pink(s) that is, for lack of a better word, objectionable, in that it is too loud. That said, I’ve seen a lot of comments over the years/months, about “too Elle Woods” [the character, not the poster], “too Legally Blonde” [the movie, not the poster], “too Business (or Lawyer) Barbie,” or just plain, “No pink, ever.” Is this true? I mean, most of the men (young men) I work with wear pink (dress shirts); so, is it something that on women makes them (women) look too frilly/feminine/non-serious, and is okay/preppy/even fashion-forward on men, or is it not okay on anyone? Does age play a factor? I.E., should the very young avoid it for fear of looking non-serious, but women over a certain age can wear it? Or, is it just the opposite, and women over a certain age should never wear it, because of looking too mutton-dressed-as lamb?

    I have a reason for asking. I do have some pink clothes (blouses, think non-iron BB-type striped or solid broadcloth). I don’t have a pink suit, but I know a few women who do, and they are lawyers. I, personally, would not wear a pink suit because I think it would be too too on someone of my size and age, plus, well, where would one wear a pink suit? (Though I’ve seen them (light pink, tweedy ones) at Federal appellate court, a Bar Convention, and, of course, at Junior Leauge!). I do have pink accessories, and some pink cardigans of various shades. When I see the “no pink ever posts” (I’m thinking of one in particular, in the “can you tell your intern how to dress?” thread, that made a lot of good points, then basically summed up with “no pink ever, if you want to be taken seriously”), I am torn and adrift. I have to admit, my immediate, visceral reaction to seeing pink is to feel happy (maybe as a holdover from childhood/toys?). So I don’t want to expunge pink entirely. BUT I don’t want to look ridiculous, or like a wannabe Elle Woods (character, not poster), or behind the times, or whatever other messages pink accessories/blouses/sweaters can send. Is pink something that, like the goth style, some people can work into their wardrobe in small doses as an expression of their individuality? Or, is it true that, if you want to be taken seriously as a businesswoman, you should avoid pink? And, does shade of pink matter, e.g., is pale pink “classier” or is it more “babyish”? Put another way, is darker pink more grown up, or more clubby? I really am asking for opinions, I know this may seem like a silly topic, but it’s something I’ve been wondering about. Thanks.

    • If you like pink, then wear pink. I personally wouldn’t wear fuschia for the same reasons I wouldn’t wear bright orange too the office – too bright – but why would someone judge you for wearing a pale pink shirt? And if you want to wear fuschia, wear fuschia.

      If people are going to judge you for wearing pink, they are going to find something else to judge you on if you’re not wearing pink.

      You have to dress for you, not for the anonymous posters on this blog.

    • Love this question. I’m a mid-level attorney in Texas and I wear pink not routinely, but fairly often. I don’t think coworkers think less of me because I wear pink and I work in a pretty biz-casual office. I’ve *never* worn pink the shade of this jacket because as the earlier poster said, it just reminds me of “Lawyer Barbie.”

      I think the way to wear pink depends on the shade and type of clothing. I often wear pale pink tees or tank tops under neutral-colored cardigans with brown/black/khaki pencil skirts. My one caveat is that I’m *really* tall (6′ ish) and I like to wear heels, so no one is going to mistake me for a summer intern simply because I’m wearing lighter colors.

    • Blonde Lawyer :

      I work pink into my wardrobe and I get the double whammy b/c I am blonde. I also have some (limited) pink accessories – my blackberry, a pen, some post its. But my office doesn’t look like the barbie play house either. I think it is something that can be worked in, with reason.

    • You may have concluded by now that my username pretty much selected itself. I am, predictably, blonde, a lawyer and I wear a lot of pink. That said, it would never even occur to me to wear a pink suit for work. I have a matching pink tartan skirt and jacket, but i have never worn the two together as it is just too much, and in any event that is a casual outfit.

      But I do have pink (fuschia) shirts and a hot pink shift dress a la Joan Holloway which I have worn to work (usually on a Friday, even though my office is business casual) and seen other people also wear. In some ways it is like the goth thing – because I wear pink and other bright colours a lot, people don’t necessarily take as much notice. I have had many compliments for the bright colours (note, only ever one at a time, never e.g. a pink shirt and blue cardigan at the same time, and always matched with something neutral), but it isn’t for everyone and certainly not for every office. That said, I do wish more people wore bright colours as, particularly in the winter, the street scene is oh-so-dreary with everyone in the depressing black and grey coats and suits!

      • Agree with all of this. I wear a lot of pink — pale pink shirts under suits, a brighter pink cardigan, and an almost-hot-pink blazer. Nothing but compliments! If you hold yourself with confidence and expect people to take you seriously, they will.

    • anon - chi :

      Wear pink! I don’t do baby pink but I wear magenta a lot. The only time I would avoid it is during an interview, in part because I don’t want to look younger than I am.

      I would still avoid wearing head-to-toe pink (like this suit). As you put it, that is “too too.” :-)

    • I agree it is the colour that makes it work, and the dose. This shade of pink (bubblegum comes to mind) is too bright and too white. Just off the top of my head this would be my rule for wearing pink (I don’t wear pink because I have a shade of red hair that isn’t compatible, same goes with orange):
      White and bright should be inverse. The more white there is in a pink, the paler it should be: aka soft pale ‘baby’ pink. Pink can look good in bright colours, but that is when it is fuschia and magenta like people said above. It is rich, not white.

      That is just something I figured out for myself now, but it makes sense to me!

    • Just want to add to all the positive advice here – wear whatever shade of pink you like but know what shade looks good on you. I know I look great in fuschia but horrific in pale pink.

      Also, I loved the way you posted your questions – so detailed =).

    • Way back when (so long ago that shoulderpads still were in fashion) I had a fuschia wool crepe suit with a double-breasted shawl collared jacket (see, I told you it was a long time ago!) that I loved. I wore it to court in what we will call a “remote” county.

      The Judge asked where Ms B was and opposing counsel (of the older male variety) said, “Well, Judge, can’t you you see her there, plain as day in that bright pink suit?”

      The Judge said, “Ms B, do you have any response to Mr. X’s opening remarks?”

      I replied “I refuse to take fashion criticism from a man who is wearing head to toe beige wide wale corduroy with elbow patches.”

      Big laughter. Won the motion!

      What this goes to show is that you have to figure out if pink (or red, or lilac, or any other color) works for you. If you have issues about conveying authority or if the color just is not flattering on you, then stay away from it. Pink is more likely to draw comment than navy, so be prepared to address and overcome any objections.

      If one of my male partners made a remark about my choice of a pink wardrobe item now, I would tell that person that we can discuss my wardrobe right after he gets rid of his Woody Allen-style glasses (and no, he is not wearing them ironically, I just do not think it has occurred to him to get new glasses since 1968). Of course, I am a partner too, so YMMV. :-)

      • AnneCatherine :

        I love that story! Thanks, ladies, for all your responses, and for taking my question as seriously as a question about pink shoul be taken. :)

        I think one thing this site is good for, for me, is recalibrating my understanding, on a daily/weekly basis, of the messages certain clothes/colors are sending the world, versus the message (if any) I am trying to send.

        So thank you for your input.

      • Legally Brunette :

        LOVED your response in court! You go girl. :)

      • This made me (literally) lol

      • Ms B: That was amazing. Change your moniker to Ms Brilliant:)

    • I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t wear whatever shade of pink is most flattering to you, or any other color for that matter. Obviously a pink suit is not the most conservative option and I’d avoid it for formal events, but a pink blouse or pink accessories are always fine, as are any other color.

    • I routinely wear pink dress shirts & a fuchsia sheath because they suit me (dark skin tone, cool spectrum). Probably helps that my skin is NOT pink. That said, I do pair pink tops with black, grey, navy etc. I also stay away from frou-frou styles (that’s not what I like) – maybe it helps.

      But you should go right ahead and wear pink if you like it and it likes you. You will feel more confident when you wear what you look good in.

      IMO, the references to Elle Woods/Barbie etc were aimed at the overall “outfit” and not so much at the colour pink.

  19. I would not wear this as a full-on suit. I’d pair the jacket with white or grey pants or dark jeans (which are fine in my office).

    I’d wear the skirt w/ a leather jacket to down play the sweetness of the pink.

  20. Yeah, the piping is too much and it does look uneven, and black OR white but not both with the pink would have been better. Agree that the Chanel-esque thing is nice in theory but fails in execution.

    And what exactly is up with the sloppy looking gray t-shirt hanging halfway out? I mean, I’m gonna spend 6 or 7 large on some pink Chanel knock off I can only wear once a month and then pair it with a gym style tee shirt hanging over part of the waist? Not for me, no.

    • Totally agree — I had a hard time deciding whether I liked the jacket or not because I found the sloppy shirt so distracting!

  21. I think this jacket is adorable – I contemplated buying it a while back but didn’t because the price was too high and how often will you wear a pink tweed jacket? With a neutral-colored sheath dress, this jacket would look classy and still young. I can also see it working with jeans and a tshirt for a more casual look. I might be the only one, but I am a huge fan.

    • I was thinking it would look pretty awesome with a black sheath dress. Not for me, really, but I like it.

    • I totally dig the jacket as well but, unfortunately, it wouldn’t go with my skin tone.

      I agree with the other posters, however, that it probably shouldn’t be worn at the same time as the matching skirt – That just makes me crave a strawberry popsicle…

  22. Wow! Lawyer Barbie anyone or Fran Drescher would have worn this on “The Nanny”. The skirt is way too short.

  23. I think the jacket is cute. Just not with the skirt.

  24. I’m actually a fan of the jacket – with blue jeans and a white tank top on casual friday. I love pink in all its shades, but the suit as a whole is overwhelming.

  25. Pink happens to be a becoming color for me. I have a pale pink shirt, and a pinky lavender linen summer coat, and a few pink cardigans. I have a pink camera and I once had a pink wallet. Once when I was living alone I happended to have an apartment with a rose-colored carpet (I liked it). But I am careful not to overdo it.

  26. LOVE LOVE LOVE. I might be the only one, but whatever. I wouldn’t wear this to work as a suit, as it’s a bit too church lady, but the separates are great. And I’d wear it as a suit for something like a community benefit, or, well, church, if I were a church type.

    • Anonymous Today :

      I like it, too!

      Well, my opinion is a little different, as I can’t see myself wearing it as a suit, but I do like both pieces separately.

    • I LOVE it as a suit. I think with a black or gray tshirt underneath (untucked) and a pair of booties it gives off the perfect balance of trend, youthfulness, and classic. Obvs not for corporate work because of the length of the skirt, and I don’t know exactly where I’d wear it, but I think it’s so cute as a suit.

  27. What do you all think about the general notion of wearing t-shirts/sweaters that are much longer than one’s jacket as this model is doing? Every time I try it, by the time I get to the office, I decide I look “messy” and duck into the restroom to go back to “tucking.” It just seems unkempt and as though I didn’t care enough to check the mirror in the morning. However, so many of the tops (i.e., AT, BR) are very very long these days, as if insisting one lets them hang out/over, esp. those of that mysterious fabric, “modal.” Thanks for the informal thoughts on this one.

    • Anonymous :

      I like the look, a lot, but I think it makes any outfit look a bit more casual, so keep that in mind when deciding whether or not it is good for your workplace (it is fine for mine).

    • It depends on your body shape. A long shirt can elongate a short torso. I have a long torso and a hip-length top makes my legs look stumpy so I tuck.

      • Anonymous Today :

        +1

        I am generally short, so I wouldn’t say I have a long torso, but I have an average length torso and short legs, so tucked shirts just look better on me.

        And, while some companies/designers take it to the extreme, I actually kind of like the longer length shirts, even for tucking. I feel like I don’t have to worry as much about the shirt coming untucked. When shorter shirts were the in style, I sometimes found myself trying things on a size too large to get the extra length, only to discover that the larger shirts were just too big. So, I even though I tuck, I appreciate the extra length.

    • I like the look when I’m going for a more “casual suit” day (i.e., no big meetings, just working at my office with its antiquated dress code). I don’t think it works with a class suit blazar, but it does work well, at least for my body type, with a jacket cut like the one pictured above.

    • Another Sarah :

      For me it depends on the length of the shirt. If the length ratio shirt/blazer is such that more than a couple centimeters of shirt are showing, I tuck. I also always tuck in button-down shirts. But then again I don’t really have that many short (above the hips) blazers. If it’s a casual day, however, then whatever.

      Modal is pretty awesome, IMO :-D

  28. Liz (Europe) :

    Fugly.

  29. I don’t hate the colors, but I think this cut is generally unflattering on pretty much any body type. Straight down in the front, and straight across the bottom with no contouring makes the body look boxy, and if you have any bust at all, weird and tent-like on the front.

  30. Anonymous :

    I love this. It would look great with skinny jeans on casual Friday or with a simple black bottom (skirt/trousers) any other day. I suppose the “Barbie” factor depends on your look. If you are blonde and wear a lot of eye make-up, I can see the problem.

  31. I have to chime in on the children/less availability problem. I was a single mother who started law school with a 2-year old. That had its problems but on weekends I had parents and friends who helped tremendously by volunteering to spend time with my child while I studied.
    In my jurisdiction, the first year of practice is underpaid and overworked, sometimes to a ridiculous extent. And there were no breaks because of child care issues. I know this sounds like “I walked 10 miles to school, uphill both ways” but that first year was one of the hardest of my life. I survived using nannies and again, my parents and friend in emergencies.
    All that being said, I believe there is a slightly more supportive atmosphere now to parents than there was then. And the recognition of the necessarily reduced billable hours comes by way of bonus to those who are able to put in the extra hours. I helped forge some of those changes. My “child” is 30 years old.
    The one change to my own life I would make is to have let my ambition come a clear second place to my child. I still torture myself about missing her first grade Christmas concert because I had to finish an argument for court the next day.
    Finally, I have to say that through my professional life I have found the greatest support from other women, childless or not. If we want the best and brightest to reproduce, they need to be cut some slack to take care of their children. We all know the ones who take advantage and the ones who do their best. Maybe there is room for a little express acknowledgment to those who stay behind as you scream out the door to make the daycare deadline.
    Funny how things change but stay the same: now I worry about my mother! Try using parent care as your reason for trying to leave on time.

work fashion blog press mentions