Corporette.com

Updated: Oct 30, 2018 287 Comments · by

Tuesday’s Workwear Report: Shaded Plaid Faux Wrap Pleat Front Dress

The Personal Shopper (TPS)

This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sleeveless Work Dress: Classiques Entier Shaded Plaid Faux Wrap Pleat Front Dress Our daily workwear reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices. I like plaid anyway, but shadow plaid on a lovely navy silk dress? Sign me up. I like the faux wrap details at the waist, as well as the soft pleats on the skirt. (If sleeveless isn't appropriate at your office, try this one with a shrunken blazer (such as this one or this one) or a simple shrug or bolero.) It's $268 at Nordstrom, sizes 0-16. Classiques Entier Shaded Plaid Faux Wrap Pleat Front Dress Here's a lower-priced option available in misses, petites, woman, and woman petites. Seen a great piece you'd like to recommend? Please e-mail tps@corporette.com. (L-6)

Sales of note for 9.30.24

And some of our latest threadjacks here at Corporette (reader questions and commentary) — see more here!

Some of our latest threadjacks include:

About Kat

Kat Griffin is the founder, publisher, and editor-in-chief of Corporette. You can read more about her here.

Comments

  1. IKEA recall

    IKEA is issuing a recall for a dresser (topple-over risk) that I purchased a few years ago and recently listed on Craigslist. A buyer is coming tonight to pick it up. Is it still ethical to sell it to her? I sent her an email this morning explaining about the recall and how she’ll need to buy a wall anchor if she wants to keep the dresser, but I’m not sure if I might be opening myself up to legal liability.

    • Anonymous

      She might not have kids, so it might not be a concern. My feeling is that many pieces of furniture are topple-over risks and require anchors, so I’m not sure that the recall itself would concern me as a seller.

      • Blonde Lawyer

        That’s my question on this recall. How is this different than any other dresser? All dressers have topple risks and many have likely resulted in the death of children. I commend them for taking action but I’m not quite sure what they can do in the future to prevent risk if people don’t anchor. Maybe this one is more top heavy than most.

        • Closet Redux

          My furniture store dresser (as opposed to ikea) has feet that come out beyond the width/depth of the drawers, so it would be basically impossible to topple. I think even if I stood in the bottom drawer, or only filled the top drawers with heavy things, it just wouldn’t fall over because of its physical design.

          • Closet Redux

            I’ve painfully stubbed my toe on those protruding feet several times, though, so it isn’t without it’s non-deadly drawbacks.

          • Wildkitten

            It’s when kids climb on the dresser and pull it down onto themselves that it topples. Not just randomly.

        • Cc

          It’s really not different. There have been 6 deaths in 20 years with 30 million dressers. They’ve also always warned about the need to anchor. I think they are just an identifiable brand- so they were sued and I think this is them trying to take action.

        • All the Cake

          I think the rollers on the drawers add to the topple risk. You just have to give the handle a small tug and the drawer will come all the way open thanks to the smooth gliding rollers, so it would be easy for a kid to do that from underneath. Older style dressers that are on tracks without rollers have to be pulled with effort the entire way out, so it’s harder to do that from underneath where the dresser could then topple on you–you really need your arms level with drawer height to not have friction from the wrong angle when pulling it out.

          As an adult with no kids and a dog that doesn’t understand pulling to open things, I love the ease of roller drawers, but I can see how they’re a risk with little ones.

        • Betty

          These dressers are incredibly easy to tip over. After we set it up, my 2 year old pulled out the bottom drawer with gusto and the thing toppled over. I was standing next to her so caught it. It has been permanently attached to the wall.

    • Anonymous

      If you’ve made her aware of the recall and she still wants to buy it, I don’t see how you could have any legal liability.

      • TravelBug

        And it seems perfectly ethical to sell her something as long as she knows the risks. Good for you for proactively letting her know.

  2. Interviewing/math

    Does anyone have any tips for how to address a lack of mathematical background in an interview? My husband is interviewing for a technical position he is well-qualified for based on experience, but he majored in something unrelated in college and is fairly weak on math. The main reason for all of this is his unconventional background and lack of opportunity (foster care, lack of college prep classes, working multiple jobs all the time, etc.), but he doesn’t want to use that as an excuse (and tbh, he could have tried a little harder once he actually got to college). Is there another way to explain the situation to reassure the employer that his experience makes up for the educational background?

    • Anonymous

      I think it’s pretty easy to explain bad grades or a lack of certain courses in college by talking about all your real-world experience (assuming you’ve been out for a few years). But if his math skills are weak and the position uses a lot of math, that’s a separate issue than just not having the right words and letters in your transcript and is harder to explain away. If he wants to get into this kind of position, he might think about working with a tutor or taking a local college class to improve his math skills.

    • LAnon

      He should come up with some specific examples of work that he has done in the past which confirm his qualifications for the position. This could take two forms: examples of projects he has done in the past which required the use of the sort of math necessary for the position, or examples of times that he had to learn a new skill quickly and was able to do so. Then, if the interviewer asks about it, he should acknowledge their concern and give some of those examples. “Yes, I know my background is slightly unconventional, but I’m confident I can handle the math required. For example, at my previous position, I worked on Project A, which required math skill XYZ. I also worked on Project B, which required me to master underwater basket weaving in 2 weeks, so if there are any gaps in my skills, I know I can learn quickly.”

    • Jen

      i’d use specific, relevant examples of quantitative work he’s done. Do they actually want someone that knows math theory? Or just someone that doesn’t break into a cold sweat when asked to do quantitative work?

      I was an English major at a liberal arts college and I think the last math class I took was my junior year of high school. But I put together all kinds of financial spreadsheets and documentation that runs circles around my peers and superiors. I can estimate and do quick math on the fly. I’m not necessarily bad with numbers, I just never bothered to take courses.

    • Interviewing/math

      For more context, he works in systems engineering. It’s definitely a field where experience can take you very far (he has a number of coworkers with similarly unrelated college majors), but this new job seems a little hung up on the fact that he didn’t major in computer science. I’m not sure if it’s just one of their general requirements or if they really find it essential for the specific position (the topic didn’t come up at his in-person interview – it’s only coming up now in a follow-up phone interview with someone who couldn’t attend the in-person).

      • Jen

        My husband was a systems engineer type for decades. Just give very concrete examples. One caveat might be if they are looking for someone PE track, you *have* to have an engineering undergrad(though…there is no PE in systems engineering so that’s less likely? But perhaps it’s a stock requirement for other types of engineering). Do they want a specific degree (and potentially want to put it on paperwork)? I can see why when they send out firm bios of engineers ( like for RFPs) it could be odd to have Joe Brown, BA English Literature next to all the Suzys and Joes that have at least an undergrad in comp sci or engineering. Short of that, stick with examples.

      • Meg Murry

        Does the position require a lot of programming experience? Part of the concern could be that people that learn to program as computer science majors learn a lot about theory, and may also learn about various ways to optimize code and coding best practices. However, that training doesn’t necessarily mean that they are good coders – just that they have the foundation. People who are self taught in a coding language may also have learned these best practices and optimization – or they may have picked up coding in a more self taught way, which may not follow those practices. However, they may also be better at “just making it work”, as opposed to formally taught computer science majors who may know that something theoretically will work, but not how to make it happen (or not how to do it quickly).

        There can be tensions between people that are self taught vs those with the formal education, so it may not be that not having the computer science degree is a problem, but rather than they want to know how your husband has dealt with these tensions in the past. They probably want to know whether he can adapt to “play nice with others” or if he is the type that will work well on self contained projects but have trouble working on collaborative projects where commenting your code or following standard conventions so others can add to it or modify it.

        The hang up may also be that at his previous job there were a lot of older PEs who pre-date computer science being a common major, so they came to it in a more roundabout way, whereas now computer science is offered at most schools, so most people they interview probably majored in computer science or another engineering discipline.

        When you say “weak on math” do you mean “never formally took upper level calculus and linear algebra”, etc? Or do you mean “is a bit number-phobic?” Has lack of formal math been an actual issue in his ability to to the job in past positions, or has he been ok?

      • Anonymous

        It’s probably not a concern over math skills so much as a concern over his technical competence. Stuff like not being able to program is absolutely a common that you sometimes don’t discover until after they’re hired (like when you hire MIS majors and find out they can’t write an If statement…). He should be prepared to discuss his technical work and answer technical questions.

      • lost academic

        Someone in my family is in this role, at a software company (so I recognize that systems engineering may cover other core competencies, tasks and responsibilities outside of the ones I understand). I have seen that beyond programming skills, a certain amount of upper level math is a surrogate for experience with a kind of more rigorous analytical thinking that can be harder to evaluate prior to rounds of technical interviewing. It’s absolutely possible to have that without the math (or programming) formal education, but a lot of places are going to use that to triage because they just have to. These days, though, there are lots of example technical interview questions that someone can use for practice that would help.

    • SH

      In my previous company, we cared about the college degree and transcripts because we had to, by regulation, regardless of how many years experience you had. If the person didn’t have the right degrees, we didn’t interview them unless we thought we could argue it away through their experience afterwards. If they’re interviewing him, they probably think they can make an exception or argue away the degree through his experience/later certifications, and want to see if that’s the case. If it was a big enough deal, he wouldn’t have gotten interviewed in the first place.

  3. Anonymous

    Does anyone know any specifics about the politics of the clothing retailer Altar’d State? My tween would like to shop there, but I am concerned about inadvertently supporting causes that run counter to our family’s values, and I can’t find many specifics on the web.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve never heard of Altar’d State, but my two cents is that you shouldn’t be imposing your values-based shopping restrictions on your tween. Make her aware of your issues with the store, but ultimately it should be her decision, especially if she’s using “her” money.

      • Anonymous

        This is interesting. I’m not like the Dad in Footloose, but I do think that there is a floor that I wouldn’t go below (not sure what that is) and habits that I share. OTOH, I believe that to fail is to learn, so I am pro-failure on many things.

        Habit: consignment, thrift stores (our junior league runs one that is excellent for prom dresses and smocked children’s wear), hand-me-downs

        Also habit: discussing conditions in overseas factories; was that item made by someone younger than you who enjoys none of the privilges you have.

        Also habit: read the annual report of the company that makes or sells your clothing; read the risk factors; read the footnotes to the financial statements. Feel better? I wouldn’t think so.

    • I'm Just Me ....

      I assume you read the article on Racked.com. That said, I agree with Anonymous at 9:02 am.

    • KT

      …there’s problems with Altar’d State? Proceeds benefit children in Peru who need nutritional assistance, education and shelter. They sponsor starving children to get them medical attention.

      I am not a Christian or a fan of religion, but I can get behind any organization that does good work with their money. They sell normal clothes for normal bodies, don’t promote covering everything neck to ankle and are generally a woman-positive organization that just happens to be owned by Christians.

      • KT

        Yeah, the Racked article isn’t exactly breaking ground. It’s a Christian-owned store that sells clothes that can be worn by anyone of any faith–there’s no bible verses on t-shirts or purity agenda–it’s just boho-chich blouses and dresses.

        I’m surprised that there is any controversy at all, really–I feel like the Racked author was pretty desperate to find a story where there was none. They’re religious but have clientele from different demographics and aren’t big on press; I don’t see the problem.

      • Anonymous

        I’d never heard of it either, but from that article it seems like the top, overarching message/mission is a positive one (and one that even negative reviews claim is accurate), but employees at the store level are not treated in accordance with overall ethos. Perhaps that’s the concern.

      • Wildkitten

        I think the concern is that they might financially support an organization like the one in God Loves Uganda. It’s a valid concern. For example, I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby.

      • Anonymous

        That Racked article was so bizarre. In the first couple of paragraphs the author went on and on about how secretive the company was and how she did all this investigative reporting, and I thought the article was going to reveal that selling clothes isn’t their real business and it’s actually a front for child prost*tution or something. But then the big reveal was that…they are backing away from their Christian message slightly and trying to update their brand to appeal to a wider audience, and they have slightly-worse-than-average reviews on Glassdoor? What a weird piece of “journalism.”

    • Anonymous

      Are you walking the walk here? Do you know the politics of Gap? Anthro? Do you yourself shop only in places that support your values? If not give it a rest. Teenagers have a refreshing hatred of hypocrisy.

    • Wildkitten

      I’m super politically conscious and opposed to religious oppression and I shop at Altar’d State. I haven’t done A TON of research because I really don’t want to be convinced not to shop there, because I like their stuff. @KT – they definitely have a ton of stuff with bible verses on them.

      I also call it “Christian Anthropology” so maybe your tween would like Anthropology.

      • Anonymous

        OP here. Y’all have convinced me. Just didn’t want to be patronizing the Hobby Lobby of clothing stores.

        • Wildkitten

          Totally get it. Also – being a tween is SO HARD that if she wants to shop at Altar’d State, that’s not the hill I would choose to die on. Good luck with the next few years, OP!

    • Anonymous

      There is a store in my daughter’s college town and went there with her once. I perceived it as wannabe Anthro, but cheaply made; and not being Christian, did not pick up on religious messaging at all, even though I wondered about the store name.
      I just skimmed the article and their website and noticed that all the looks use Caucasian models. This might only indicate that the company’s PR is out of touch, but I will point it out to my daughter, send her the link to the article, and let her decide whether she’d shop there in the future.

    • Canadienne

      IDK, mission work is very damaging to both the culture and economy of the places they are ‘helping’. I wouldn’t really be behind a company that uses its profits to destroy traditional cultures.

      • Wildkitten

        I also feel like this is actually like 4/5ths of companies: uses its profits to destroy traditional cultures.

      • Anon

        I am glad some one brought it up. I am from a country where there is heavy missionary activity. The methods they use to convert people is disgusting (plain cheating, making false promises of money and jobs, breaking up families by brainwashing and converting one (usually younger) person, blackmailing and what not) . I never support any christian organization.

  4. Cat

    I will repeat — Women Are Not Wearing Shrugs/Boleros To The Office! Stop trying to make “fetch” happen!

    • KT

      Man, I worked the HECK out of shrugs when I was 17. With my low-rise jeans, lacey camisole tee and shrug, I thought I was the greatest thing ever.

      So, so ashamed.

      • Cat

        Yeah, I had a few in college that I styled the same way! Bonus points for the super low rise flared jeans, right? But that was in 2003… and a “going out” look…

        • KT

          Mine were scandalous and had laces in the front instead of zippers. I felt like a saucy minx/borderline trashy Britney Spears and loved it

          • Meg March

            I wanted those soooooo bad and my mom (uh, wisely, looking back) would not let tween me buy them.

          • Anonymous

            One of my high school BFFs had two lace-up pairs–one where the laces went the entire length of the leg down the side, except for a few inches at the sides on top so you could wear underwear, and another pair where they laced all the way down the front center, from thigh to hem. She also had a J. Lo denim jumpsuit. It was so awesomely awful.

      • AIMS

        I see the occasional shrug/bolero at work but it is always super duper frumpy. My objection is not so much that it’s unprofessional, just that it’s not cute. That said, if chokers and early 90s slip dresses are back, can we really be that far off from cami/belly shirt + shrug fashion resurrection?

        • KT

          I always see shrugs on women who wear them with Lily-Pulitzer-type dresses, and it always strikes me as an Easter Mass look

          • Cat

            Yeah, that’s the only time I see them now too, and I don’t like that look either. Still a “going out”/party look, just “aged up” to reflect fancy brunch rather than beer pong!

        • Cb

          I have been seeing a lot of belly-baring shirts on campus lately. I can’t imagine shrugs are that far behind.

          • Cat

            Well, maybe they are — so then they won’t be “dated” again for the college/teen group, but that doesn’t make them office appropriate… to me they’ll always be a juvenile look.

    • Anon

      +1000. I have never, ever seen a grown woman wear one of those shrunken boleros to the office. They look appropriate for a 12-year-old on Easter Sunday and that is it.

    • Anon in NYC

      Ehh, not really my style, but I think that if you have a body type where A-line dresses look best on you that cardigans can often look make you look boxy because it will mask any sort of waist definition. I would just wear a blazer in that case, but it can be hard to find a good (fitted) blazer. I think the first image on the shrug link is cute – the Eliza J. bolero/dress combo. The combo says more ‘baby shower/Sunday brunch’ than ‘office’ to me, but swap out the dress and I can see that being office appropriate and not particularly tween.

      But then again, I have never seen a woman wearing a shrug/bolero in the office.

      • Ellen

        I agree with Anon. This was VERY styleish when I was in college and law school, but the ONLEY women who could get away with it were taller women with model shoulders. I asked my mom if I could wear this and she said NO b/c I am kind of squat and have WIDE shoulders, and I do NOT have the LONG THIN BODY that model’s do. Even Rosa, who is bone thin is NOT that tall, so she does NOT even try boleros or shrug’s. Beside’s, she WANTS men to see her upper arm’s b/c she works out and has definition, NOT loose arms like me b/c I do NOT do alot of workeing out my arm’s.

        Dad also said I need to avoid lookeing short, and this top covering kind of makes me look shorter. Especially with my big tuchus, b/c I am a total DISASTER if I try an A-line with Flat’s. I look like a mess, Dad says, and he is probabley right.

        Anyway, let’s leave this fashion statement to women who 1) are in fashion, 2) worke at home, or 3) are MARRIED to rich husband’s who let them stay home and/or go shoppeing all day. That is what I want. What is behind door #3. YAY!!!

    • (Former) Clueless Summer

      I will say that I have never seen a lawyer wear a shrug or bolero to the office. As a late 20 something, I associate it with two things: 1) middle school 2) when my 65 year old mother goes to a wedding (because she thinks she has old wrinkly arms that she can’t show off).

      Where did Kat get this crazy idea you can’t wear a normal blazer with a dress? As long as its sleek and well tailored, and hits at a good place, you can definitely wear a normal blazer with a dress like this. The only time I find I need a cropped blazer is for fuller skirted dresses (way more than A-line), and I rarely wear those with blazers anyway.

      • Anon

        Completely agree. A normal blazer would look WAY better and more professional. I am finding it hilarious that Kat keeps trying to push the Eliza J bolero, though. I feel like I’ve seen it four or fives times on this site.

      • Anon

        I am a senior attorney who wears shrugs to work. I wear a lot of office-appropriate dresses; for health reasons, blazers are uncomfortable for me, and so I wear shrugs to cover my arms/shoulders. I also have a large bust, and as someone noted above, a cardigan can make me look like I am boxy from chest to hips. I wear then with scarves and statement necklaces. I am sensitive about being work appropriate (no full-length zippers, thanks), but this has never occurred to me as an issue. So, I am the unicorn (or, perhaps given the distaste expressed above, some equally mythical reptilian creature).

        • anon

          I see plenty of people on the metro in DC wearing shrugs to work — you are not alone!

          • Anon

            Ahhh. I came from DC, so perhaps that explains it — it’s a “DC style” thing (although many would suggest that is an oxymoron). Thank you anon 10:15. Glad to know I’m not entirely alone. I think I may be built somewhat like Kat, so perhaps that also explains it.

          • Anonymous

            I never see anyone in DC wearing a shrug, but maybe I just don’t notice it. I’d wear a shorter (waist-length) cardigan instead. I’m with everyone else. Shrugs are frumptastic.

        • Anonymous

          I have one shrug that I absolutely love that I wear over a black shift. Glad to know I’m not alone!

    • Cc

      I feel like she must just be trolling at this point. It’s been like 3 years of her suggesting a bolero , everyone saying no one would wear those to the office , and her still suggesting them

      • Anonymous

        +1. I also feel like the survey results she posted yesterday are an attempt to minimize the commentariat by saying “look! the majority don’t come for the comments or ever post themselves!”…basically, her rationalization for her consistent passive aggressive F Us to the feedback given in comments.

        Kat, you may want to do some advanced statistical analysis of those results and I’m guessing you’ll see the commenters are the ones who come back multiple times a day and drive the majority of your traffic and therefore ad revenue.

    • Anonymous

      When you’re talking about a bolero/shrug/shrunken cardi, where do you imagine it hitting you? I’m short and high-waisted and I’ve always really liked this style because it hits me right at my natural waist. I don’t necessarily wear it to work because I just don’t think it’s a professional look, but I love the short cardi with a fit and flare dress – it nips in my waist and creates a nice soft non-pregnant-looking drape over my belly. Am I hopelessly out of fashion?

      • Anonymous

        Actually I take back the “not a professional look” comment – I’ve worn short cardis with A-line skirts to work, particularly in the summer. I think it actually looks more polished than a regular length cardigan, which tends to bunch around my hips when I wear a skirt with any hint of a flare.

      • Snick

        Me too. I like a shorter cardigan (hitting at the waist) with an a-line or full skirt. I think of shrugs/boleros as hitting right at the bottom of the rib cage, which would be about 4″ inches higher than a short cardigan on me.

      • Spirograph

        I’m long-waisted and tall. Shrugs fall several inches above my natural waist. I do have one that I wear to church occasionally in the summer, but I would never in a million years wear it to work. It’s not really a flattering look on me in general.

        I have shorter cardigans (eg J Crew Jackie) that I like for work — those hit at my natural waist.

    • Shopaholic

      I’ve been rewatching Gilmore Girls and Lorelai wears them all the time to Friday night dinners! And it looks so dated.

      • Anonymous

        Yesss! Totally a Lorelai look. And Lorelai’s wardrobe – especially in the early seasons – was straight up trashy. She wore denim cutoffs, low cut tops, nothing remotely work appropriate until she started wearing wrap dresses and boots in the later seasons.

    • Nelly

      I am just totally laughing that in this community—we who worship Land’s End ponte dresses and workwear from Target—there is finally a consensus of a frumpiness line below which we will not sink:)

      • Anonymous

        Shrugs are not just frumpy though. They’re juvenile and not office wear, and thus inappropriate for work in the same way pink jelly sandals are inappropriate. I fully admit I embrace the frumpy brands like Lands End but my wardrobe is super professional and I don’t think shrugs fall into that category.

      • (Former) Clueless Summer

        If it helps, I also think Lands End dresses are too frumpy for work ;)

        • Tonka Bean

          Lands End is VERY frumpy.

          But I am wearing a dress from Gap Kids with metallic leather flipflops at the office today, so take that with a grain of salt. I’m also more dressed up than everyone around me.

          • GCA

            I need to know: which dress? How do the kids’ sizes fit? Gap has vanity-sized me right off the bottom of the women’s size chart.

            Of course, today I’m working from home, so I’m in a tunic and bermudas. Mm, summer!

          • Tonka Bean

            It won’t let me reply to your comment, but it’s a dress that is like a ribbed tank top on top and somewhat full eyelet skirt on bottom, in coral. Wearing it with a cardigan on top.

          • lost academic

            And yet people here keep recommending the dresses there for tall women.

    • Anonymous

      +1 million. Literally never seen someone where one to the office and the only women I know who wear them even outside the office are 60+ and not exactly fashion-forward (including my mum in this, so I say it with love). And yes for the live of G-d, blazers are FINE with dresses and a million times more work appropriate than “boleros.”

    • Anon

      I’ll join the fray … boleros can be done in the office. Even by attorneys! Who work at law firms! I purchased one in Montreal at a fashion-forward store with clothes for adults, not teenagers. With the right pencil skirt, it looks good, and I get a lot of compliments when I wear it. I would also consider my wardrobe quite professional. To up my cred on this issue, I also don’t wear LE, etc.

      • Anonymous

        If shrugs are frumpy, then FRUMP FOREVER! I have a stack of the Eliza J shrugs in different colors; they are a nice, heavy weight and smooth finish- much like the cardigan jackets Kat sometimes posts – that hang well, and give nice balance to my outfits (particularly over sheath dresses). And I am not giving them up. I actually think _how_ you wear the shrugs, and with what, matters as much as the fact of the shrug itself. On the other hand, I have some very casual cropped sweaters from Old Navy and Banana that I would never wear to the office.

      • Anonymous

        I wear boleros/shrugs quite a bit at the office as well. I have tattoos on my arms and like to keep them covered at the office. I find a shrug is a nice alternative to a Blazer when wearing a pencil skirt or dress pants paired with a nice fitting sleeveless or short-sleeved top, but I still need the arm coverage.
        I think there are far frumpier pieces sitting in ones’ closet than a simple, well-fitting black shrug!

  5. Annie

    Has anyone tried that PiperWai deodorant that was on Shark Tank? I’m always searching for an aluminum-free deodorant that will actually be effective in both odor and sweat. Curious to hear any feedback on this one.

  7. In house

    I’m considering moving from a firm (on partner track) to an in house corporate position and I’m looking for some insight and maybe personal stories. It seems to me, based on comments, that this kind of move is frequently cast as “leaning out,” due to (in at least most/some cases) less crazy hours, theoretically better work/life balance, etc. But going in house can still be considered leaning in, right? My goal is to kill it and pursue success wherever I go, be it a firm or an in house position. I just need some reassurance that this is still possible in house, and that I wouldn’t be giving up being a rawr powerful corporate attorney by making that move.

    • Bewitched

      I know that this is a true question based upon career angst, but for the love of god, people, in house attorneys are still attorneys! We have challenging professional careers. We are paid well. I feel that most of the time, I know more about my subject matter than my outside counsel colleagues. We are well respected in the community. In fact, I would argue that in house attorneys at a senior or DGC/GC level are better known and more respected than a random partner at a law firm. I just don’t get the ever present theme (not just here, but elsewhere as well) that in house is somehow a “lesser” position than being at a firm!

      • Anonymous

        Yep- it seems to be only big firm lawyers that think in-house is this “lesser than” state. Wrong- I’m well paid, I get to do good work, and leave at 6.

        Where’s the downside? I don’t get to be partner and be constantly shilling for business? As an introvert, that’s not a downside. And I care very little about saying “I’m a partner!”, because most partners I know are kind of miserable. It’s winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.

        • Anonymous

          “It’s winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.”

          this is the best description of Biglaw partnership that I have ever heard!

        • In house

          Thanks to both of you! I needed this. I understand that in a lot of ways, the two positions are necessarily apples and oranges, I just needed that reassurance that going in-house doesn’t mean you’re less career driven and aren’t keeping your eye on the prize (whatever it is for you). I’ve also been conditioned to think that going in-house is typically a step down in compensation, that you’re trading a better salary for better work-life balance, but with this position, it would actually be a step up in compensation and benefits, plus the track for increasing compensation and responsibility is really good. And … no constant client development.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, that and the constant “will leaving a V10 firm for an AmLaw50 firm ruin my career?” questions. They may be asked sincerely, but they reek of privilege and obliviousness, when hundreds of thousands of people would kill for the job you deem “lesser than.”

          • ezt

            Meh – I disagree with this (though I agree that in-house jobs are not in any way “lesser than”) – of course we all know that there are unemployed people or under-employed people who would love to have our jobs (and who may well deserve them as much or more than we do). That doesn’t change the fact that when you have multiple options available to you, you can and should think deeply about what you want and what will most advance your career. I don’t think it “reeks of privilege” to agonize over whether something is the best choice for you, unless you’re also saying “Why me god! Why do I have to be the only one faced with this terrible choice!” or something.

      • Scarlett

        Oh +1 million. I’d add to my other comment that it’s pretty amazing to me that people don’t realize that where there’s no up or out pressure, you can actually keep going up. Check out GC salaries before being dismissive. and completely agree it’s really only big firm people who seem to hold this view of being in-house, which is also puzzling since that’s usually the same population that wants out.

        • nutella

          Yes. Recent biglaw kid now in-house here. All the GCs I know make bank, are respected, and live full lives outside the office. They are respected both in the legal community as well as the outside community. (The truth is, nobody cares about biglaw except for firm lawyers.) Many of them are VPs and other high executives and one I know often attends congressional hearings for her industry. That’s not leaning out. Not one bit.

          • Tonka Bean

            Our GC has made millions (like, double digit millions) on company stock exercised and sold — and that’s in the couple of years he/she has been here. On top of base salary and bonus.

    • Scarlett

      Both are true. I left a firm on the partner track where I worked ridiculous hours and I didn’t want to do that anymore. Since going in-house a decade ago, I’ve been promoted more than I probably would have been at the firm (as we know “on track” is no guarantee), and have responsibility and professional respect. I also do have better hours – not necessarily shorter, but predictable which is better, and I can actually say the elusive balance. I go on vacation, and have evenings and weekends. Anyway, I don’t feel like I leaned out (and don’t really care if anyone else thinks I did), I took a saner path to a sustainable career I can see doing until I’m ready to retire. Couldn’t have said that about a firm.

    • LSC

      I actually feel like in house jobs are MORE prestigious. There are fewer of them, they are competitive to get, and they offer a much nicer lifestyle than any of the big law partner jobs I am aware of. Maybe I am biased, but I wouldn’t change my in house gig for the world.

      • Anonymous

        Right? The senior counsel for the business unit in which I work oversees legal matters for billions of dollars of business. He is my age, he graduated one year ahead of me in law school, and has never had to work in a firm in his life. He is extremely well respected, gets to travel all over the world, is involved in massive M&As, and gets to go on vacation and see his kids.

      • Betty

        Right there with you. I find it ironic that the same biglaw partners who find going in house to be “leaning out” take a very different tune when you become a potential client.

        And as an in house attorney, I will say that I viewed taking this position as leaning in. I work hard and I like to thing that I am on the rise in my field. I go home most nights at 5 and rarely bill for my time, but that doesn’t mean that I’m leaning out. It means that I have recognized that I want professional success and balance (whatever that means) in my life too.

    • cbackson

      Girl, leaning in is about achieving professional success as you define it – going after that, not being afraid to pursue that, not undermining yourself as you chase that. That can mean owning your own business, being the world’s most kick-butt kindergarten teacher, or yes, being an in-house lawyer.

      The reason people associate going in-house with leaning out is because there are a lot of people who are less career-focused and more lifestyle-focused who want to go in-house (they often can’t! because those jobs are hard to get!). But the decision isn’t inherently a lean in/lean out choice. If that is your career dream, how will you pursue it other than doing it? Do it!

    • Cat

      Yeah, I was you last year. Hello from the other side. One of the most surprising parts about being in-house is that you have an opportunity to be WAY more influential to your clients than outside counsel was, because you get to serve as gatekeeper/initial question-asker for deals (i.e., “should we even do X thing?” rather than “here’s the form of acquisition agreement for X thing now that you’ve decided to proceed after consulting with in house finance and legal and gotten the bankers involved.”)

      Don’t listen to the partners if they imply you’re “giving up your career” to go in-house. They clearly thought partnership was the best career or they wouldn’t have gone to all the effort to make it and keep it. Admitting that an in-house position could also be a great career move means admitting to themselves that they could have been happier elsewhere.

      • In house

        Great perspective – and yes, facing partners telling me I’m giving up my career, making a terrible decision, etc., has been weighing on me. I need to know that going in house doesn’t mean giving up my career drive. Thank you so much. And congrats on your move and success.

    • Anonymous

      I’ll second/third/fourth what everyone else is saying – the myth that in-house attorneys just sit around all day doing nothing is totally outdated. Yes, in the past it may have been the route for attorneys who couldn’t “cut it” as partners, but that is no longer true, particularly as more and more companies recognize they can save money by bringing their attorneys in-house (rather than paying exorbitant rates for outside counsel). I’ve been in-house at 2 large F50 companies, and I’ve worked on more cutting edge legal issues than I ever did while I was practicing. I’m regularly called on to weigh in on issues that have a significant impact on the business. The work I’m doing ends up on the front page of major newspapers – sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way – but either way, I’m doing substantive work.

      I think going in-house makes you a much more well-rounded attorney…you’re called on to use different parts of your brain than you ever would when you’re at a firm. You can’t stick to reciting the law and letting someone else make the decision, you have to be willing to make the tough calls, and explain them to non-attorneys in a way that makes sense. I hope to be in-house for the rest of my career, but I’m 100% certain that if I chose to go back to a firm, I would be a much better outside counsel than I ever was before going in-house.

      • In house

        Awesome. Love to hear this, especially about being well-rounded, and having to make tough calls, and doing substantive work on major legal issues. Thank you.

      • Betty

        Agreed. I will add that it can be a shock to the system to go from being the one who researches the issue and provides that information to the partners to the one sitting in the meeting and making the tough calls.

    • Anon

      I went in house two years ago from a big firm. (Original comment in moderation)

      I work harder during the day now (but have way more free time at night/during weekends), am paid much more, have more responsibility, am in meetings with the C-suite daily regarding bet-the-company deals and ideas, and am seen as a valued partner to the business. I am a much better lawyer than I ever was a senior associate. I’m seen as critical component to my major corporation’s success (or at least, that’s what the execs tell me). It’s not leaning out.

      • In house

        Love hearing this. I want to have that responsibility and to be in those meetings, and to be seen as a valued partner in the business. Thank you!

  8. Charlotte, NC

    I will be in Charlotte for work this week. Any suggestions for things to do/see or places to eat in my somewhat limited free time? I tend to prefer healthier foods when traveling, but have a serious love for Mexican food. Thanks!

    • QC biglaw anon

      If you are uptown, you might try Roosters (farm to table) or also Mert’s (more home-cooking than Roosters, less expensive, but I love their steamed cabbage).

      I like the turkey burger at Cowbell and the cucumber salad.

      The patio at Viva Cantina is nice (but it’s not particularly Mexican, even for here). If you can light rail out to Phat Burrito, that isn’t Mexican (but Mexican-ish) and IMO is better / more interesting of a trip.

      Alexander Michael’s is a great neighborhood bar. Amelie’s is great.

      Many other places require a car or venturing out of uptown. Not sure if budget is an issue. For lunch spots, I prefer Johnny Burrito (next to Amelie’s), Qdoba, and Salsarita’s, in that order, if you are looking for cheap eats (get to Johnny early or the line is out the door).

    • Anonymous

      I’ve been to Charlotte on a handful of day trips but haven’t really done much besides shopping and eating. However, there are a few things on my to-see list: Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden, Wing Havens Gardens and Bird Sanctuary, and the Mint Museum.

      Given the recent headline, I’d skip the Whitewater Center.

      Also, you won’t be far from the Appalachian Mountains, if you run out of things to do in the city.

      For shopping: South Park = $$$$, Concord Mills = $-$$ (including a number of outlet locations)

      • Anonymous

        If you like ropes courses and/or craft beer and/or hiking, I’d go to the WWC. Just the water channel is closed. The ropes are great (as is the beer).

        Second Daniel Stowe. UNCC also has a hidden gem of a botanical garden if you’re up that way. Wing Haven is lovely.

        Mint Museum uptown is very nice. C*cktails at the Duke Mansion in Myers Park is fun. The patio at Ruru’s tacos (nearby Duke Manion) is awesome.

        For shopping: Paper Skyscraper on East Blvd (the end by South Blvd) is awesome for little gift-y things. Kid Cashew (other end of East Blvd by Freedom park) has a great patio.

  9. thanks

    Thanks to those who gave me comfort and advice about a particularly difficult summer where two close loved ones are dying and my mom contracted shingles. My son mailed her a drawing and she LOVED it. Great idea!

  11. Thistle

    Fabletics. I understand the shop or skip bit, but is it worth it? And, are the sports bras strong enough? They look a bit flimsy (not to mention the straps aren’t adjustable).

    • Wildkitten

      Skip it. They are a scam who makes their money by continuing to charge people the monthly fee even after they’ve cancelled. The CFPB should shut them down. Don’t get stuck in their trap.

      • Midwest Mama

        Eh, I’m going to slightly disagree. I ordered an outfit using one of their super discounts (capris and tank were like $15) and they are actually great quality. The capris are thick, don’t fall down, and have held up well (no stretching, fading, or pilling) after over a year of probably weekly wearing. I cancelled after that and was never charged a monthly fee. I recently ordered a second outfit (using a different email address) and that, too, seems to be good quality. OP, I have not tried their sports bras so can’t comment on those.

        • DC to ATL

          I agree, if you want certain things it can be great. I have about 8 pairs of their leggings, they are nice and thick and offer great compression. I also like their tanks. However, the sports bras and very flimsy and don’t really do anything. I skip on months I don’t want it, or order something a friend likes but who doesn’t want to remember to skip monthly. I order 3 to 4 outfits a year.

        • I'm Just Me ....

          I don’t like their bras or their tops, but their capris and leggings are the best. I’ve never had them charge me when I have chosen to skip, and I get about 6 email reminders a day between the 1st and the 5th of the month, so it’s hard to forget to skip.

    • All the Cake

      I haven’t tried it (have more workout gear than I know what to do with!), but one of my friends did and she wasn’t happy with how revealing the tops/bras are. She is a D/DD for reference and did not feel that it was really suited for women on the bustier side who want adequate coverage and support during their workouts.

  12. anon

    You guys. Because my hair is apparently a new texture post-pregnancy, what was meant to be a short-ish lob (or long-ish bob) ended up being a huge triangle head. Have always had extremely thick hair but it used to be curlier — now just wavy — so the shag-like layering and angling that was previously necessary is now apparently a huge mistake! Ideas to fix without cutting it even shorter? I think I might just have to cut the back shorter and pretend I was going for a short haircut all along.

    • AnonInfinity

      Can you get some layers cut on the sides and front? Then it’s the same length over all, but more layers should make it less triangle-shaped.

    • anon a mouse

      Ask your stylist to thin it a little in the bottom third. That will help it become more of a rectangle and less of a triangle.

  13. anon

    This is a genuine, honest question without any intended judgment, despite how it may sound. We talk a lot on here about how career success can be whatever you define it as, people shouldn’t hesitate to be a SAHM if they want to etc. While I firmly believe that every individual should make the choice that best suits them (and I don’t judge) how do we as women in the workforce expect to ever achieve parity with men (in the conventional measures of wealth and power) if we’re constantly choosing to see “success” however we want to? Ladies who espouse this view- are you holding out hope that men will en masse also focus on more domestic things, or in some other way the external environment will just change? Or do you not think it’s important to achieve said parity? Or do you just do what works for you and the rest isn’t your fight? I just wonder whether on a societal level this idea of redefining success to be whatever you want it to be might be self-defeating for historically underrepresented groups, although on an individual level I support it.

    • Anonymous

      There is nothing I like better carrying my group’s burdens and perceived shortcomings on top of my own.

      I am running my own race, not as an unelected representative of everyone configured like me or from where I’m from.

    • Anon

      Even if a person from a historically underrepresented group attains wealth and power, they do not necessarily reach back to help others, and symbolism only goes so far.

      Women also have a higher price to pay because they are less willing to be uninvolved parents, and face much more scrutiny if they choose to be unmarried, child free, or uninvolved parents. Many men of wealth and power are known for being absentee parents.

    • Anonymous

      I think everyone should define success however they want to, not just women. And yes, I absolutely think men need to take on more of the domestic work and childcare responsibility. I would love to see a world with as many SAHDs as SAHMs, but I doubt we’ll get there in my lifetime. That said, I don’t think the fact that more women than men choose to stay home with kids is what is holding women back from achieving parity with men in terms of “wealth and power” as you put it. True, the fact that a greater percentage of women than men opt out of the work force or opt for lower-paying “lifestyle” jobs explains why the average woman earns less than the average man. But only part of the wage gap can be chalked up to the fact that more women than men hold the types of jobs that pay less or work part time. The reality is that women earn less than a man in the same position with the same skill set would. That disparity can be chalked up to sexism and pretty much nothing else, in my opinion.

      • Anon in NYC

        Let’s not forget that once women enter a field en masse that it becomes less valued and therefore pay in that field drops.

    • pockets

      I work part time and I leave every day by 5:30.

      My husband works full time and often does some work at night and on weekends. He makes about 5 times what I make, and at some point he’ll probably make closer to 10x what I make (here’s hoping!). He also has the fear that if he’s fired we’re screwed, whereas if I’m fired it’s really not a big deal.

      Yes, I’m disproportionately responsible for the domestic stuff, and I’ll never be a high powered anything, but I think in this particular situation I definitely got the better deal. I wouldn’t trade places with him. If that’s not feminism, I don’t know what is.

          • anon

            I think this may be representative of what some call “choice feminism,” which I don’t really think is feminism. You feel good about the choices you’ve made and your situation. good for you, seriously. But that doesn’t make it feminism just because the arrangement works for you.

          • Senior Attorney

            Because you are dependent on your husband. If he gets fired you’re screwed. If he decides to dump you for a younger wife, you’re screwed. You do not have the choices and options that your husband has. You are not the master of your own destiny.

          • pockets

            I disagree that I’m dependent on him. At this exact moment, I am dependent on him. But if we did separate, I could go to work full time at any point if I needed to – I haven’t removed myself from the labor market and I still have very relevant skills that would translate to highly-paid work in the public sector (I work for govt as I described below).

            And I disagree that the “if he’s fired we’re screwed” thing is anti-feminist. If we made the same amount of money and he got fired, we’d be screwed as we’d be losing half our income. It just happens to be that I make so little that the loss of my income would not necessitate major life changes.

          • Anonymous

            Because feminism is a word that has a meaning? And the meaning is not just “a happy life and a job that satisfies you and pays the bills.” Its great that you have a part time job you enjoy and what sounds like a terrific set-up for your family. But feminism means equality. It’s more complex of course, but if you have to give a one word definition, that’s it. And how does your choice to work part-time have anything to do with equality, either pro or con? If you want to get technical, the only thing in your comment that has anything to do with equality is that you make less than your husband and that you do a disproportionate amount of housework and that sounds like the opposite of feminism to me.

            I’m really not trying to slam you. Your situation sounds great and I’d personally love to have a similar set-up. But not every good thing in a woman’s life is “feminism.” You can say you’re a feminist, because that has to do with ones beliefs and I have no idea what you believe. But to say about your situation “if that’s not feminism, I don’t know what is” is absurd. A lot of things better espouse the ideals of feminism. Starting with marriages where the earning power and the housework are more equitably distributed.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly anon at 12:21. It’s not feminist. That doesn’t mean it is horrible or a bad choice for you or worthy of scorn, but it isn’t feminist. Working part time and taking care of all the housework while he brings the bacon home for you to cook is not feminist.

          • pockets

            So the only type of feminist household in one in which the partners work the same hours outside the home for the same amount of money and equally share household duties? That’s a pretty high standard to hold feminists to.

            Feminism means having equal choices and rights, and if anything I think I had more choices than my husband did. I could have chosen to work full time (or to not work at all) and I chose to work part time. He didn’t have that choice (for societal reasons that he has internalized). I understand that historically a man’s higher earning power (or the existence of earning power) has been used to subjugate women and keep them in unfavorable or abusive conditions, but that’s not my situation. I would even argue that if I had to plan my life on the possibility of that becoming my situation, that would remove a substantial amount of choice that I could exercise. My husband certainly does not plan his life on the possibility that I may leave him and did not choose his job based on the fear that I might out-earn him (I used to work in Biglaw so that was at one point a possibility) and use my economic power against him.

          • SC

            I’m a little torn here, but I think I agree with pockets. Or at least it’s not as simple as people are making it out to be. From her post, she seems to be well-educated, have a good job working for a government who is an equal-opportunity employer, and have a job she likes with a low salary and good benefits. She does more of the housework, presumably not because she’s the woman, but because she has more time. But she’s happy with the choices she’s made and has options going forward.

            I have the financial stress of being the primary breadwinner (and am the only one who gets benefits), and I still do the majority of the housework and at least half the childcare because I have more time. Last time I complained about the situation here, the vast majority of advice-givers said it’s unreasonable to ask the lower-earning spouse to lean out if s/he is happy leaning in. I’m emotionally in a better place now, but mainly because I’ve made the decision to “lean out.” I will still be the primary earner and will still have the only job with benefits, but we will have less money overall, and I hope to have more time for childcare and housework. That’s not feminism either.

            I think my point is that when it comes to individualized choices, “feminism” gets messy.

          • Anonymous

            But saying your husband “didn’t have that choice (for societal reasons that he has internalized)” is exactly why people are saying this is not feminism. It is 2016 and he absolutely DOES have the choice, if not to quit his job, at least to take a lower-stress, lower-paying one that would allow him to do more work at home and you to lean into your career harder. The fact that he claims he doesn’t have any choice but to be the big breadwinner letting the wife take care of the home is literally the opposite of feminism. Feminism is as much about men taking equal responsibilities for home life and supporting their wives’ careers as it is about women leaning in. Look, I’m honestly not judging your situation. It’s fine if it works for you. But you don’t get to describe yourself as the textbook definition of feminism if you’re living your lives exactly the way most women did in the 1950s.

          • pockets

            I want to point out that in my situation, my husband actually does do a lot of housework. When we’re both home, it’s 50/50 – he’s not sitting on the couch with a Scotch in his hand while I serve him dinner. We’re both working or we’re both relaxing. Obviously this is very me-specific, but I think that’s the point – it’s easy to look at my situation and say, Nope, not feminism, but when you look at the particulars I don’t think it’s such an easy call.

            I don’t think most women in the 1950s had JDs and/or satisfying jobs and/or career potential. To say nothing of the huge difference between choosing to stay at home part of the time and having no other option but to stay at home all the time.

            He does have the choice, and we’ve discussed in the future (after we’re done with kids) that I might go to work full time in a high-paying job while he cuts back. But I’m not sure I want that. Working is not fun (for me at least). My job is interesting and satisfying, but I don’t really want to do more of it. And if he’s willing to shoulder the economic burden so I can have a life that is more pleasant to me, why is it anti-feminist to take advantage of that? Shouldn’t I be able to use gender norms and stereotypes to my advantage this one time? Literally every gender norm and stereotype works against me – can’t I just use this one without my choice being painted as anti-feminist?

          • Cc

            You said it was the definition of feminist. It’s not. We aren’t saying you are destroying women’s rights or anything like that- but you said it was the definition of feminism and it’s not, it’s participating in traditional gender roles and breakdowns. Again, fine for your family- fined for many families.

          • pockets

            Yes, we behave in ways that track to traditional gender roles (I am still adamant that I am not at all like a 1950’s housewife) but – so what? Unless I was forced into that position, why is it un-feminist to work less and make less than my husband? I don’t like to work. I don’t want to responsibility, I don’t want the stress, I don’t want to physically sit inside a building all day. I would not be fulfilled by having a high powered job. I had a child and now I have an excuse not to work full time, and we have the resources to allow me to do that. And I found a situation that works for me – not just for my family, but for me, personally, as an individual. I had other options, and when a full time job came along my husband wanted me to take it (although he knew the choice was mine and he supported me either way), and I didn’t. Because I don’t like to work! So I had a choice, and I had support either way, and I made the best choice for me. That’s feminism.

          • Cc

            It’s not- feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of equality to men. Your decision did nothing to advocate for that equality- it was the best choice for you as an individual. In no way do I think that is a wrong or bad. But your choice did nothing to advocate for women’s equality.

      • Anonymous

        I’m curious: what job is part time AND has you staying until 5:30. I hope you get in at the crack of noon!

        But if a spouse can make 5x what you do at a PT job that keeps you until 5:30, in your tax bracket, do you even break even by working? Your $ are taxed at his likely high rate.

        • pockets

          I was unclear. I work 3 days a week, 9-5ish.

          Working for me is not about the money. I get free health insurance for the entire family and I don’t want to stay at home full time. Also in my particular situation it would be very easy for me to transition to full time in a few years.

          • Anonymous

            You have a part-time job that provides health insurance for your whole family at no cost to you?

          • pockets

            Yes. I work for the government. Aside from the actual dollars that are exchanged for my labor, my job is great – part time, good hours, nice people, interesting, varied, and challenging work with a lot of responsibility, full benefits (health insurance, pension), no harm to my career (many people, including men, with very high positions worked part time at some point). I landed here by complete accident and I feel very fortunate to have found this position.

      • Cc

        It’s almost the opposite of feminism? I mean it sounds like it works great for your family, which is great. But saying that doing most of the housework while having a husband who makes a lot of money is “the definition of feminism” is laughable…. That’s what we have had for ever..

        To the op I feel like you are mixing up a few things together in your op. To your first question- success is always going to be seen however people want. That goes across gender lines. for some men success is going to be making money as a starving artist while for others it’s the c- suite. Now in the narrower field of office life, yes we need men to start doing more. For me- it worked out that way. My husband is a teacher and does disproporionately more of the general errands and all of our cooking. I do more cleaning but he is naturally very tidy and I enjoy cleaning. I don’t know if it was a fully conscious decision, but I was aware somewhere that I certainly wasn’t going to ramp down- so maybe that influenced our decisions along the way. His job is very important to us but it comes with more flexibility which makes it a good career pairing for us.

        • pockets

          Would you consider your situation a feminist set up? Because it sounds an awful lot like my setup, but with the genders reversed. So I think the quick answer is that your situation is more feminist than mine, but both of our setups have the same lack of equality.

          • Cc

            Well we (my husband and I) do view our relationship as one of equality. (We make decisions jointly, I work more hours for us but he does more around the house, etc) whether you and your husband feel it’s equal is between you. But yes I do feel like my husband and I have rejected traditional gender norms- doesn’t give us a gold star or anything but the more people who do the more profess can be made toward normalizing those decisions, which then can just fully be on an individual basis. That said- I don’t think women should or need to be a representative of all women at all times. If my husbands career path led him to be a sought after professor and author, the priorities of our jobs might switch.

          • pockets

            OK, but that’s not the question I asked. Some poster above said feminism was about equality and my situation wasn’t feminist because there was an inherent lack of equality. I would say that my husband and I are also an equal partnership in that major decisions are joint and that if you added up all the hours of the day that we could do whatever we wanted (i.e., we weren’t engaged in remunerative or non-remunerative work), they’d be about equal. I agree with you that the more people that act like you guys do, the more progress we make towards normalizing the decisions. I really, really agree with that very strongly. BUT. The fact that I made my decision before it was fully normalized for a man to make those decisions does not mean that I didn’t make feminist decisions.

          • Cc

            I’m not calling it un feminist. But no, it is not a feminist decision- it did nothing to advocate for change or for women’s equality.

    • Nelly

      My view is that I have no issue with the choices other women make if it works for them and they find it fulfilling. I do take issue, however, with people representing their choices, or the fact that they made a choice, as “empowering” or the like. Someone here once put it really well— that actual POWER is “empowering.” Everything else is just BS. So if you don’t want to exercise financial independence, leadership, etc., that is fine, but it’s not powerful/empowering/whatever. And we should stop pretending that SAH parenting is a “choice” for anyone but those with a lot of resources. Single parents, the working class, etc. don’t call it that, even when they have kids at home. They still call it being unemployed. Because that’s what it is.

      • Anonymous

        Yup. I knew some one who was rich (tech millionaire). People kept trying to label her as unemployed. And she was all, “no, I’m rich” (not like that, more like “I am choosing not to work at TechGiant and explore my options,” which led to more people acting like she was soft-pedaling a layoff).

        I expect to see this on an episode of Silicon Valley shortly.

      • cbackson

        I really agree with this.

        Also, FWIW, there are a lot of times that my job (I’m a biglaw partner) is very hard, and what keeps me going is the knowledge that my presence, as a partner, matters and makes a difference in terms of the options that are available to other women in practice.

      • SC

        What? I know a lot of working and middle class couples where one parent (in these cases, the mom) stays home to take care of the kids, and they call it “stay at home mom.” My impression is that, to the extent they lack choice, they lack employment opportunities that pay more than childcare, and one spouse’s income won’t support household expenses plus childcare. But I also know that for many working- and middle-class people, it’s the norm for moms to stay home. I even know a woman who announced to her bridesmaids (not me) that she planned to get pregnant on her honeymoon so that she wouldn’t have to work anymore. The dividing line between “stay at home” and “unemployed” is whether you’re looking for work.

        For the past year, DH has made less in take-home pay than we pay for childcare. (It was the perfect storm–we didn’t onto daycare waiting lists soon enough because I was extremely sick during the first 4 months of my pregnancy, and DH’s salary was cut by 25% while I was on maternity leave.) But it’s only because we have “resources” from my paycheck and benefits that we could afford for DH to continue working, instead of quitting after his salary cut. Long-term, DH will have more career opportunities and income potential for having stayed in the work force, plus he’s more fulfilled. But this is a pretty common scenario, and many families can’t afford childcare, or at least childcare that is flexible enough to allow both parents to work.

      • Pretty Primadonna

        Eh. I tend to agree with you that being a SAHM is a choice most often left to the wealthy. But, what do you consider “a lot of resources?” The best real-life example (as in, people I actually know in real life) I have of an intentional SAHM is someone whose husband doesn’t make much more than me on my state government attorney salary. I wouldn’t consider them upper class at all.

        • SC

          Of the intentional SAHMs I can think of right now, who I would say don’t have a lot of resources, their husbands are in the armed forces, sell cars, and work on oil rigs. I don’t know the details of their finances, but I would guess they make the same as or less than state government attorneys in our state.

          • Nelly

            Right, which means the “choice” to stay home is likely to be more about social / cultural constraints or inability to find work. Not a “choice” to take on the SAH role and be personally fulfilled by it. For many, it just means that Mom can’t earn enough to justify paying for childcare… but that doesn’t mean she would not be better of personally if she were working outside the home. That’s the difference. The woman married to the private equity partner has nice life taking her kids to the pool and the lake house…and if she gets divorced, he actually has the money to pay alimony. (It’s still risky not to be able to earn your own way, IMO, but she won’t be screwed the same way the wife of the car salesman could be).

          • Anonymous

            I think that’s the point OP is making though, unless I misread. Being a SAHM isn’t a “choice” when the cost of childcare is higher than her earning potential and the family doesn’t have the money today to pay for her to work, even if it would mean higher earning potential in the future. Being a SAHM is only a “choice” if the SAHM could be earning more than the cost of child care but her partner makes enough that the family can afford to leave that money on the table.

          • Anon

            Yes, SC, you seem to be referring to SAHM who likely live in low cost-of-living areas. In high cost-of-living areas, families with 2 parents usually work outside the home and seek affordable childcare, which may be with a relative or of lower quality.

            In HCOL areas, SAH parents and larger families are often a sign of wealth, poverty/unemployment, and/or traditional values.

      • Anonymous

        I live in a low-cost of living area but I know a lot of SAHMs whose husbands are “working class.” Housing in our area costs about 1/10 or less what it does in one of the big cities in the US (average single family home price is under $100k) but day care costs only slightly less than it does in HCOL areas. So day care here is a much bigger percentage of a family’s monthly spending, and for people who earn very little, having one parent stay home with the children makes a lot of financial sense and is definitely not just a “privileged person” thing. (And the women I know who have done this definitely refer to themselves as SAHMs, not “unemployed.”)

        • Nelly

          I just made this point above but it bears repeating— if a woman (since this was a conversation about feminism, I’ll use that gender) is staying home because her teaching salary is lower than the cost of childcare, she is being forced out the workforce, not choosing to be a SAH mom.

          Staying home because it makes more financial sense is not a “choice” to be a SAH parent, at all. It is being forced into domestic labor because of low earning potential. Meanwhile, maybe she really really would rather work outside the home.

          So when I mentioned “resources,” I meant that women who consider success to be living out their choices, again, I would say it doesn’t apply unless you have a lot of wealth to support that being a lifestyle / parenting choice versus a financial decision.

          • SC

            I think we mostly agree. I took issue with saying that working-class people call staying at home, even when there are kids, “unemployed.” Anecdotally, the lower- and middle-income women I know who stay at home with kids call themselves stay-at-home moms.

            But, yes, inevitably, wealth gives people more choice in spending their time in a personally fulfilling way. I can’t say whether any particular SAHM I know would have made the same choice with different cultural and financial constraints. I suspect some would have (I know of one woman who told her family before her wedding that she planned to get pregnant on her honeymoon so she could quit her job, but maybe that’s cultural constraints), and some would have worked outside the home.

      • Anonymous

        That “actual power is empowering” comment remains one of my favorite things I’ve ever read on this s1te. If I’m remembering right, it was in the context of a conversation about heel height or wearing makeup or looking put-together at work, which made the smack-down of “I don’t feel powerful because I look good, I feel powerful because I make decisions that have effects beyond me” all the better.

        To the original question, though. I do think society at large would benefit from both s3xes, all gender identities, and all races having parity. I see equal value in all life choices (within, you-know, the bounds of being a law-abiding citizen and a decent human being) having parity. While I see the point that if everyone does what’s best for herself, and what’s best for herself is to be a SAHM or lean out, or whatever and do more “unpaid work” around the house, we will never get there while success is defined in terms of money, power, and influence. But I only get one life to live and I’m too selfish to give it over wholly to the cause of breaking glass ceilings and turning the paradigm on its head. I get more satisfaction out of being there for my family and having a work-life balance that favors “life.” (although I’m a woman in a male-dominated career field, so if I really wanted to make a case that I’m doing my part for feminism, I wouldn’t need *too* much spin)

    • Anon

      I was always a super feminist and couldn’t wait to start climbing the ladder. Then I landed a position at a large law firm in a super toxic department and realized all my coworkers of both genders had no relationships with their families (or in a lot of cases, didn’t have time to even have families) and a lot of them weren’t very good people, and I decided I didn’t want that life for myself. I went in house to a position with not much upward mobility but a lot of flexibility and family-friendly hours. If I wanted to put forth an extreme amount of effort I could probably move up (laterally) in the company, but it would require that I dive head first into some company politics with which I don’t agree and it would also be a huge time suck (time that I could otherwise spend with my family) and I just don’t want it. I have a competitive title and a good paycheck (making more than what most of the men I graduated law school with are making) and I want to enjoy my life and my kids. On some level I feel like I’ve done my part and now I want to enjoy my life.

      • Closet Redux

        What is “moving up laterally”? Genuinely curious by what you mean, no snark.

        • Anon

          I would need to go to the business side. Realistically there is not much opportunity to move up in the legal department of my company.

    • Blonde Lawyer

      I firmly believe that the necessary ingredient is men scaling back too or at least doing an equal or more portion of household tasks. While I never plan to work in big law, I do have a husband that does all of the grocery shopping, cooking and most of the house cleaning. He works full time but gets out at 5. I work at small law but frequently work until 7. If and when we have kids, I have no doubt he will do more than his fair share. Just yesterday our dog had to go to the vet. He dropped off and I picked up at lunch. We never just assumed that the other would handle it. That is what I think is most important. That there no longer be “women’s work” and “men’s work” both in the professional world and in the household.

      • Senior Attorney

        Yes. As cbackson says below, the personal is political and that starts with me being willing to fully participate in the work at home.

        It’s very tempting for women to say “oh, it’s easier for me to do xyz chore,” or “oh, I get paid less so I should do the laundry,” or “I don’t really mind cooking so I’ll just do it,” but the next thing you know you’re doing it all and he’s climbing the career ladder and you’re not and then it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

        Lovely Fiance is an honest-to-God egalitarian man and it’s been absolutely life-changing. Everything from him cooking dinner half (or more) of the time to him not feeling the need to attend my meeting today with the rental broker because he assumes I’ll handle it just fine, thank you very much. I wish every woman could have a partner like that!

        • LAJen

          Does Lovely Fiance have any like-minded friends or colleagues in the 30-45 age range who are single? If so, inquiring LA single-woman minds would love to know/meet them.

          • Senior Attorney

            LOL all his friends are still married to their first wives! It’s amazing!

            I could introduce you to my almost-30-year-old son in San Diego… ;)

    • cbackson

      “The personal is political.”

      It remains true. The question is just want does that mean in terms of the choices we make.

    • bridget

      I am a feminist because I am an individualist – I simply refuse to believe that anyone’s membership in a group (sex, race, etc.) is more important than who they are as *individual people.*

      So within that context, I’ve gone into male-dominated fields, done a lot of things that I’m proud of, and tried to mentor and be a role model for young women.

      But the flip side is that I don’t think I have an obligation to be miserable for the group, or that the group owns my decision-making process.

      What I want for women (and minorities) is to be their own decision-makers, and to not have that decision dominated by or heavily influenced by group membership. So not so much with achieving that by having a different set of equally narrow standards for acceptable life patterns.

      And as a final thought, some men seek “money and power” because that’s who they are. A lot of them do it to be good providers for their families. I’ve talked to partners in law firms who have basically said that what makes it all worthwhile is to know that they can put their kids through the best college for them and give their wives the ability to spend time with the kids. The “money and power” is a means to an end, not the end.

      • Nelly

        Yo, my decisions will stop being “dominated by or heavily influenced by group membership” the second I start getting equal pay for equal work and have free reproductive choice and don’t get punished at work for having kids and stop having to worry that if I drink too much at a party I will wind up assaulted behind a dumpster by some fratboy sh*head while a significant portion of the country believes I had it coming.
        Etc.

        • anon

          Yeah. While I sympathize with Bridget’s sentiment in theory, the reality is that I’m treated first as a member of my group in many ways, and to really have equal opportunity those things have to stop. I identify as an individualist too, but if I’m pursuing my individual self interest here, those “group identity” things play a big role. I wish they didn’t.

          • bridget

            Please re-read what I wrote. “What I want for women” means that it’s what I want for women.

            Your strained reading reflects on the both of you, not me. FYI.

        • Senior Attorney

          Yep. “I don’t see color/gender/religion/whatever” is a luxury largely reserved for those whose color/gender/religion/whatever hasn’t disadvantaged them.

          • bridget

            Except I never said nor implied that, Senior Attorney.

            Why do you tell lies about things that are right up there in black and white. You owe me an apology.

  14. Miz Swizz

    I work at a university and am finding that I need to carry my work ID with me, but alas I don’t often wear clothes with pockets. Can anyone suggest a lanyard or other hands-free way to keep it on me at work? It seems silly to carry my wallet and I rarely need a purse if I’m going to an on-campus meeting but I need to be able to swipe in to buildings occasionally.

  15. Kelsey

    Does anyone dislike using their fitness tracker? Mine was fine for awhile but then I started feeling tired of not meeting my goals (when I worked late) and feeling guilt and didn’t like having to keep track of one more thing (on top of billable hours – yay) and charging it, etc. I’ve only heard people say positive things so maybe I’m in a tiny minority here but man, I’m happier without being chained to that thing.

    • Wildkitten

      Then stop using it. You don’t hear from people like you because only the people who love theirs evangelize about them. You don’t randomly recommend to people that they not buy something they don’t have.

      • (Former) Clueless Summer

        WK, that was a bit dismissive and unnecessary. I think the OP was trying to spur a discussion about something she found to be guilt-inducing that is otherwise widely praised. There is nothing wrong with that.

        OP – I just use my phone for a steps counter, but I honestly find it disheartening when I meet my goals but not as much as last week, or when I don’t meet them at all. I don’t find it incentivizes me to walk more – I already walk a lot though. I do find it helps on an overall lifestyle level – I notice how the days I drive somewhere have so many less steps and that makes me consider taking transit and walking more. But on a macro, not micro level. And maybe I don’t need to track steps to make that logical leap…

        • Wildkitten

          Sorry. I was focused on the question of why you don’t hear from people who disliked fitbits that I wasn’t empathetic to the conversation she was creating here. My bad.

    • Catlady

      I had a fitbit and constantly felt guilty about not hitting my goals and stopped using it. I have an apple watch and use the activity tracking pretty consistently. I like the apple interface better, it’s based on calories burned over the day, not steps (though I know you can reset the fitbit’s tracking scale).

    • ITDS

      I changed the iPhone dashboard for my fitbit so it only showed what I wanted to see. I also changed my goals so they are more in line with what I can do vs. the mythical 10,000 steps. Once it stopped nagging me about the calories I enter into another app and claiming that I had failed to reach various arbitrary goals I liked it a lot better, and found the data it generates much more useful.

    • shadow

      I have a misfit flash. Doesn’t require charging – just replace the battery when it gets low (usually in a couple months – I bought mine in April and it still says 100% battery).

      I don’t always hit my goals and it’s not very motivating, but I always wear it so I can tell the time, and so it tracks my sleep. I think maybe buying a new accessory might make it more fun to wear. Maybe you can wear it sometimes, but not all the time, or change up the strap you’re using to hold the tracker/accessorize it differently. Would it help to join a community of people who use fitness trackers like you so you can “compete”?

    • bridget

      There are a lot of things I like about my fitness tracker. However, I don’t feel like it works well for actual training. I get more steps from moseying around the grocery store and taking a short walk than I do from a 3-mile run, and the fitness trackers are just terrible at giving any sort of credit for intensity of activity.

      Also, rest days are important – either in training, or because life got crazy and maybe one day a week is just going to be 4,000 steps. For that, I just readjusted my mental goal to be 70,000 steps a week, rather than meeting my “goal” every single day.

  16. Anon at a loss

    I don’t even know how to start this, but here goes. My husband of 12 years recently told me that he is sexually attracted to men. Although he says he is sexually attracted to me, and has been sexually attracted to other women, he does not think he would date women if we divorced. To say I was blind-sided is an understatement. Although our marriage was not perfect, it was very very good. We have a 4 year old daughter. We are currently in counseling. The way he has described things to me, is that 90%-95% of time he feels so so happy to be with me, but there is a persistent whisper the other 5%-10% of the time saying this won’t work/won’t be enough. He says that since we’ve started counseling and everything has been out in the open, the whisper has lessened and he has asked me to commit to staying for some period of time half a year or a year. I’m open to that (there is still a lot of joy in our companionship – we truly enjoy being with each other). The part I’m struggling with now is how to manage my emotions during that time. I have started seeing a therapist and it helps. Sometimes I feel like I should just prepare myself for the worst, but that leaves me miserable and sad. Other times I think I let myself entertain some hope during these sixth months. Sorry so rambly. I just needed to get this out. Pardon me for any typos. I was typing fast.

    • Senior Attorney

      Yikes! That has to be so hard!

      I think you’re doing all the right things. Definitely individual therapy is going to be important as you and he work through this.

      Sending hugs from an internet stranger!!

      • Anon at a loss

        Thank you, Senior Attorney. I know you don’t know me, but I’ve actually thought of you several times over the past few months. It makes me feel hopeful about life post-divorce to see how happy and confident you seem.

        • Senior Attorney

          Good! I was going to say above, but didn’t, that my one piece of unsolicited advice is not to let things drag on too long in a state of uncertainty. I stayed in an ambivalent marriage for YEARS and it was just awful. Divorce is certainly awful, too, but there is life on the other side and it’s much better than languishing in limbo. So by all means give it a chance but if you need to pull the plug, don’t let fear hold you back.

    • cbackson

      If you would like to email me at cbackson at the mail google brings us, I have direct experience with this. It is a very tough experience and hard to talk about. I’m thinking of you.

    • AnonforThis

      Managing your emotions is going to be hard. This happened to someone very close to me and she and her SO eventually got through it, but it still brings up some occasional rough patches. Hopefully you do have friends and loved ones you can talk to. For them, she eventually accepted that the 95% of good was worth the 5% of bad and she let him scratch the itch (with some well-defined boundaries and open discussion in counseling), which was also enough for him to quiet that whisper so they decided to stay together.

      I’m a big fan of the monagamish school of relationships. I don’t know if it’s a change in sexuality or just getting to know yourself better as you age, but I’ve seen multiple folks realize they had or discover various aspects of their sexual identity that they just plain didn’t know about when they were younger, and I think it’s a sign of a strong relationship that couples can evolve with those changes. It can be painful to hear this from someone you love, but realize it isn’t a reflection on you or any sort of failing on your part. You sound like a wonderful mom and a wonderful spouse. Be kind to yourself and don’t blame yourself for not being able to satisfy all his needs.

      • Blonde Lawyer

        What’s really interesting to me in reading this is the different reactions society has over women “scratching the itch” versus men. I think it can really complicate sorting out how you feel about this whole thing. If a guy told his friends his wife was bi and wanted to explore he would likely get high fives. The response when it is a man is usually different. It’s important you have a safe space OP to feel how you really feel and not just try to be PC. At the same time, it’s good to challenge norms and figure out what works for you and not care about what society thinks. I’m sorry you are dealing with this.

        • Anonymous

          Idk why you think he is bi. He’s 95% attracted to me and would not date women if he were single.

          • Anonymous

            He’s bi because he’s sexually attracted to men and you, a woman. But the label is pretty inconsequential at this point to the overall conversation.

        • Anonymous

          ” If a guy told his friends his wife was bi and wanted to explore he would likely get high fives. ”

          I don’t think that’s true- my husband would probably be pretty upset

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, Blonde Lawyer, I think your comment is really flippant. A guy might get high-fives if he told his friends his wife wanted to explore her $exuality by having threesomes, but I don’t think any guy is going to be getting high-fives if his wife wanted to end the relationship so she could date women. I have a friend whose wife did exactly that, and he was absolutely devastated. Fortunately his friends were very supportive and not just “wooo! lesbians are hot.”

          • Blonde Lawyer

            @2:27pm – thank you for pointing out that my comment came out different than I intended. I was referring specifically to situations where the parties choose to be monogamish (the Dan Savage term) referenced in 12:46’s comment. I was NOT referring to a situation where someone wanted to end his/her marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Can I be the voice that does not like him? Because the nerve of asking you to commit to him for 6 months right after telling you he has doubts about forever even though he already made that vow leaves me dealing.

      It is miserable and sad and rage inducing that he has been lying to you about his sexual orientation. It sounds like you are viewing this sixth months as waiting for him to decide what he wants. I think you need to refocus on what you want. Don’t be preparing for the worst, be making a plan. Your husband is primarily sexually attracted to men (go ahead and let him phrase this however he wants, but be honest with yourself- dude’s gay). Is that a marriage you want? Do you want an open marriage? Do you want a marriage where you are worried he is not sexually fulfilled? Not in a judgmental way- the answer might be yes. But you need to be engaging with the reality that you are married to a gay man and decide what you want next, not hoping he decides in the next 6 months he isn’t into men.

      • Senior Attorney

        I think this is tough, but good, advice. You don’t need to not like him to be proactive about taking care of yourself.

      • Blonde Lawyer

        Life is a lot more complicated than this. He may have been lying to himself. He may be bisexual. He may have grown up in a family that believes gay is a choice and he wanted to be straight. They have been married 12 years so he isn’t of the generation where this was all acceptable.

        • Anonymous

          And? I don’t mean to be harsh he, but who cares? He isn’t bisexual- he is 95% attracted to men and would not date women if he were single now. Does it matter if he wanted to be straight or didn’t realize it right away? I think not at all. He knows now and his first reaction is to extract a promise from her. That’s not great. I’m not saying she has to dislike him, but I do. And she does need to be living in reality, with her gay husband, making her own choices.

          • Anon in NYC

            I think you have the percentages mixed up. He said 90-95% attracted to *her* and 5-10% attracted to men. I would not say, categorically, that her husband is gay, although I understand that you’re making a bigger point.

          • Anon

            He might be trying to spare her feelings by continuing to be a little dishonest (maybe even with himself) about his own sexuality, but he isn’t doing her any favors by dragging out the inevitable. If he IS 15% gay (and she has no basis to believe his self-reported percentages of attraction to men vs. women) that would be highly, highly unusual. I know sexuality isn’t binary and that it’s a spectrum, blah blah blah but without exception, for my many close male gay friends that grew up in the 80s or 90s, the progression went something like

            – Dude, gross, I’m totally not gay
            – I’m just experimenting, not bisexual or anything
            – Ok I’m bi
            – Ok yeah I’m actually gay.

            The gay community is generally great about helping people come out of the closet (as they should be!) so he will come out of this difficult situation with a totally supportive community and a happier life. She, however, is having her world turned totally upside down and as others have noted, she risks being called a bigot for feeling sad that her husband wants to have sex with men instead of her.

        • cbackson

          I get this, but please understand – for the straight spouse, there is a LOT of pressure to minimize the fallout of this experience because the gay spouse may have experienced homophobia/pressure to be straight. Regardless of why he was dishonest, he was dishonest about something fundamental and that is incredibly painful for the straight spouse to learn. Before I ever met my ex-husband, I was a gay-rights-marching, GSA-leading, pro-marriage-equality-picketing straight ally (still am). I was no less devastated just because I was aware that he had faced social pressure to be dishonest.

          Life is complicated, for sure. But the OP needs two things right now: (i) permission to focus on what SHE wants, not what he wants and (ii) permission to be angry, because there is a TON of pressure to focus on his experience, not hers, and why he lied, versus the impact of that on her.

          Our cultural narrative of coming out is a celebratory one, which is great, but generally silences the voices of straight spouses.

          • AnonforThis

            Cbackson – thank you so much for sharing this perspective. I’m the anonforthis who posted above and I agree that there’s a lot of danger for the “straight spouse” for lack of a better term being pressured into being too giving and too understanding and not being allowed to grieve/be angry. I really struggled with my friend’s situation wanting to both be supportive of the spouse as part of the whole “yay, you’re embracing your sexuality, you do you” narrative and wanting to be supportive of my best friend and allowing her the “wow, your SO just asked to cheat on you and is breaking your heart, how could he do this” anger.

          • Anon

            Cbackson-

            I wholeheartedly agree as a fellow ally to the detriment of my love life until recently, due to socializing in environments with few to no straight men. This situation can be quite painful for straight spouses who assumed that their ex was also straight.

          • Blonde Lawyer

            Just to be clear, my response also wasn’t aimed at the OP but obviously she will read it too so your response is much more appropriate.

          • GCA

            cbackson: bravo. All of this. Especially “I was no less devastated just because I was aware that he had faced social pressure to be dishonest.” (You, too, have my condolences for what you went through.) It is no different, hurts no less, than if a spouse has spent years keeping you in the dark about anything else so fundamental after he has made a commitment to choose you.

            OP, now your husband needs to make the conscious decision to choose you, again. Meanwhile, massive hugs and do not put your life on hold for him – go ahead, talk through it, go to individual therapy and couples therapy, be emotionally supportive, but don’t forget to seek out your own happiness as well.

      • Anonymous Poser

        I’m not going so far as this commenter, but I will add that yeah, I definitely paused at this, “…he has asked me to commit to staying for some period of time half a year or a year”, and thought, WTF?

        Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but…in exchange for *what*? I mean, what’s the trade-off here? What’s the purpose? And asking for a specified length of time just comes off as…weird to me.

        It may be something you are not into telling the entire internet: I get that.
        That just gave me pause.

        • Anonymous

          It sounds like he is scared she will leave him immediately for this attraction. Speaks to the idea above that he may not have admitted this to himself for a long time and expects that she will leave him immediately and hence him trying to extract a promise that she will stay and work on the marriage. It sounds like he’s going through some kind of mid-life crisis.

          At the end of the day, most marriages are based on being monogamous – irrespective of attraction to other people (men or women). They each need to decide if this marriage is worth forgoing the possibility of exploring outside attractions – regardless of the gender of the person they are attracted to or if, usually less successfully, non-monogamy can be part of their marriage.

      • Mrs. Jones

        Asking you to wait months for him to figure stuff out is selfish and unreasonable. Do not put your life on hold for him.

        • October

          Seriously? They are married. Marriage is a commitment that often cannot be ended lightly. He is being vulnerable and asking her not to abandon him. I think it is in BOTH of their best interests to take a bit of time to process this and determine what happens next – it may be staying, it may be going, but a decision in the heat of the moment is not the best way to go.

          In case that sounds callous, I don’t mean it to be. It sounds like OP wants to support her husband in this request, and I think that is the right choice, for now.

    • Anon in NYC

      I don’t have advice, but I wanted to send you a hug. That sounds like a really tough situation, and one that is not easy to share IRL. It sounds like you are taking the necessary steps to work through this individually and as a couple, and I think that what you’re describing in terms of your emotions sounds completely normal. It doesn’t make it better, of course, but you’ve just been dealt a huge body blow so I think you’re entitled to feel a wide range of emotions.

    • Anon at a loss

      Thank you to everyone who commented. I really do appreciate the support. I just got back from lunch, and it was really nice to come back to read your kind words. Just a note – the only posts by me are the “Anon at a loss” ones. I may not have phrased it well, but he didn’t pressure me into making a promise to say. We decided in counseling together that we would both feel more secure if we had some sort of agreement about how to proceed immediately (I also don’t want to be afraid that every day is the day he’s moving out). With that said, I am very angry. I’m very angry that although he was in deep denial he choose not to include me in doubt he had over the years (especially before we had a child.). I love him very much though and he is truly my best friend and will always be my child’s father. I have no idea what’s going to happen. Someone above asked what I might be gaining for agreeing to stay. I get what you’re saying, I guess the trade-off for me is that we (both of us) might find a way to be happy within the life we’ve built for ourselves.

      • Anonymous

        Can I just say, as a total outsider, dream bigger. Go for more in life than settling for half a relationship with someone who has decided you and who isn’t attracted to you. You might find a way to be happy, sure. But aim higher.

        • Anonymous

          This is such a strange comment. Why should she aim higher than happy? What is higher than happy?

          Going through a difficult period with someone only to come out the other side and go on to happily raise a child together and grow old together seems like a perfect lovely life.

      • Anonymous

        I’m late, but I am so very sorry for your situation. I would not be so quick to give up on the marriage. I agree you have a right to be very angry at him (and I would be too) but I do not think the fact that he may be bisexual automatically means you have to separate. It sounds like you have an incredibly loving marriage, and a very happy family life for your daughter. While I would not want a s*xless marriage, assuming that there is still attraction and a satisfying intimate relationship between you two, if he is willing to not act on these urges (or only act on them within agreed parameters), it would not be a dealbreaker for me. We are all (or almost all) attracted to people we don’t sleep with and wouldn’t even if we had the opportunity. I don’t think his requested time frame for figuring out how he wants to move forward is unreasonable. Sending you love and strength whatever you decide to do.

    • bridget

      I don’t have much to add, except to echo the idea that you have the right to be hurt and angry, and it’s not your job to wait around. (You may find that you would prefer to try to make it work, or might want to separate in the interim, but it should be about what you can handle.)

      To be a bit traditional, “you do you” is great outside of marriage, but in marriage, there’s a lot more “we do us.” I think it’s completely wrong for your husband to take the “he does him” line while expecting that you will do both of you.

    • Wildkitten

      Why did he tell you this? If he wanted to stay married to you, he shouldn’t tell you what other groups of people he would date if he divorced you. If he wants to divorce you, he should do it. This seems like a very very hurtful thing to say to a person and I don’t know if I would want to stay married to someone who said that to me.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe because he’s trying to be honest, and most people think these kinds of feelings are a big deal? It’s not like he said “I think your best friend is hot and I’d totally bang her if we broke up,” which accomplishes nothing other than hurting the person who hears it. He’s struggling with whether he can suppress this side of himself and trying to openly communicate with his wife about it, which seems like a pretty normal and healthy reaction, given the circumstances.

        People are also attacking him for not telling her earlier. I’m not saying the guy handled everything well, but it really seems like he can’t win, unless he can stop being sexually attracted to men, which most people believe is not a choice.

      • Anon at a loss

        He told me because I asked. I certainly would have liked to hear, “no one – I can’t imagine being without you,” but I wanted the truth.

        • Anon at a loss

          And I get that asking sounds insane, but I felt like that’s information I needed to fully understand the situation.

          • Senior Attorney

            I totally get that.

            I read somewhere once that if you suspect your husband is gay you are almost certainly right. I think you were brave to ask. I feel like it’s better to live an honest life than to wonder about it (you) and live a lie (him).

          • Wildkitten

            Ah – so it was two separate conversations. I read it as him just announcing “If I divorced you I would only date men! – which would be rude. I didn’t realize it was him being open to inform her of of what he was struggling with, and her asking if he would only date men if they broke up.

            Either way I think you should GTFO. You can be best friends with an active social life you spend together while you co-parent, and you go home to someone without this confusion.

            I’m a huge fan of the “let’s not break up for the next 3-6 months because this season is going to be bananas.” Normally. It was recommended that my SO and I pledged to not break up when I was studying for the bar or he was working on an election. But in this case it’s not a finite issue he needs to get through. He’s cutting off your option to leave confortably. I think it’s unfair of him to ask you to promise to stay while he figures himself out. It’s like he wants you to be a guaranteed back up if he decides the dudes aren’t as great as he thought. That’s unfair to you.

  17. JustFab

    Has anyone purchased from them? How is the quality of shoes? Is this just another scam where they will charge me monthly and make it nearly impossible to cancel?

    • Anon

      Don’t do it. The shoes are really cheap and will not hold up. And how do you know they will fit you?

      I am really against any subscription shopping schema as you en d up buying things you really do not need and are stuck having to call in to cancel (which I never end up doing until it’s too late).

      Shop with intention. Only buy things that you really love and you will be so much happier with all your purchases.

    • KT

      The shoes are like cardboard, seriously. brutally uncomfortable and fall apart after a wear or two.

    • Anonymous

      Pretty sure it’s another scam. I don’t know of any shopping club things that aren’t.

  18. Anonymous Poser

    Nice dress, though it would not work on me. Note: it is not a faux wrap dress.

    • Anonymous Poser

      Ugh, sorry–that was supposed to be just a comment on the original post!

Back to Top

About

Work with Corporette®

Serious Stuff

work fashion blog press mentions