Dating life in big law

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
WeeBey

Silver
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby WeeBey » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:06 pm

zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


Hate to play devil's, advocate here because I agree that any dating advice here should be focused on dating in general human terms BUT fertility is a biological difference. Of course, this assumes that dating is at least somewhat tangentially related to potentially having children.

User avatar
zhenders

Silver
Posts: 942
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby zhenders » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


Hate to play devil's, advocate here because I agree that any dating advice here should be focused on dating in general human terms BUT fertility is a biological difference. Of course, this assumes that dating is at least somewhat tangentially related to potentially having children.


lol... doesn't sound to me like you hate playing devil's advocate... sounds like you enjoy it fine.

So to be clear, you're saying that when we're taking about dating generally in response to a "possible to date in biglaw?" thread, we're actually talking about menopause? Do you even hear yourself?

What a joke. Dating is dating. And to the idiotic "blah blah blah men paying for dates" guy who sounds about as thoughtful as Rob Moore's "you gotta swear on the Bible to get elected" dude, There are sexist social norms. We should be identifying them and working to fix them; not perpetuating them by pretending we need separate dating advice for men and women because of...what, ovaries was it?

jfc.

ETA: dudes telling women what sexism is = literally mansplaining.

WeeBey

Silver
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby WeeBey » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:19 pm

zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


From my count, I only see one person attacking her, and that was in reference to her response to the OP (not the one calling out sexism). The other person just made a dumb counterargument as to why something that's blatantly sexist is not blatantly sexist.

There's enough blatant sexism in the world. No need to exaggerate it.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:20 pm

zhenders wrote:What a joke. Dating is dating. And to the idiotic "blah blah blah men paying for dates" guy who sounds about as thoughtful as Rob Moore's "you gotta swear on the Bible to get elected" dude, There are sexist social norms. We should be identifying them and working to fix them; not perpetuating them by pretending we need separate dating advice for men and women because of...what, ovaries was it?

jfc.


Please point to where I said that men pay for dates. Please. I would love to see where I said that.

But nah, you're right. There aren't any gender norms at play in dating. Everyone's experience is the same and cannot be divided up based on sexual identity, orientation, or any other factors. It's all one big bag of sameness, just like America!

Fucking classic.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:24 pm

There is a big fucking difference between acknowledging that gender norms are at play and endorsing gendered assumptions about how dating works. Also, telling women posters that a comment rooted in gender assumptions is just actually really life is mansplaining.

Also, the anon abuse in this thread has reached critical levels and I'm warning you all that I will be outing people who continue to post anon who aren't actually talking about specific work experiences in a specific context. There is no need to post anon with your opinions about dating.

Finally, we are not going to have the "is it fair that men are expected to pay for dates???" conversation because it is not going to get us anywhere useful.

flowering

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby flowering » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:28 pm

zhenders wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


Hate to play devil's, advocate here because I agree that any dating advice here should be focused on dating in general human terms BUT fertility is a biological difference. Of course, this assumes that dating is at least somewhat tangentially related to potentially having children.


lol... doesn't sound to me like you hate playing devil's advocate... sounds like you enjoy it fine.

So to be clear, you're saying that when we're taking about dating generally in response to a "possible to date in biglaw?" thread, we're actually talking about menopause? Do you even hear yourself?

What a joke. Dating is dating. And to the idiotic "blah blah blah men paying for dates" guy who sounds about as thoughtful as Rob Moore's "you gotta swear on the Bible to get elected" dude, There are sexist social norms. We should be identifying them and working to fix them; not perpetuating them by pretending we need separate dating advice for men and women because of...what, ovaries was it?

jfc.

ETA: dudes telling women what sexism is = literally mansplaining.


Great way to advance your position - rather than respond to an argument bring up Roy Moore's spokesman in response to a completely unrelated argument that you don't like. Great debate skillz.

And you haven't addressed the question - do you find it sexist that men are generally expected to pay for dates and/or make the first move?

And do you really believe that no man is ever able to respond to a woman's claim of sexism? How does the validity of an argument depend on the gender of the person stating it?

WeeBey

Silver
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby WeeBey » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:30 pm

zhenders wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


Hate to play devil's, advocate here because I agree that any dating advice here should be focused on dating in general human terms BUT fertility is a biological difference. Of course, this assumes that dating is at least somewhat tangentially related to potentially having children.


lol... doesn't sound to me like you hate playing devil's advocate... sounds like you enjoy it fine.

So to be clear, you're saying that when we're taking about dating generally in response to a "possible to date in biglaw?" thread, we're actually talking about menopause? Do you even hear yourself?

What a joke. Dating is dating. And to the idiotic "blah blah blah men paying for dates" guy who sounds about as thoughtful as Rob Moore's "you gotta swear on the Bible to get elected" dude, There are sexist social norms. We should be identifying them and working to fix them; not perpetuating them by pretending we need separate dating advice for men and women because of...what, ovaries was it?

jfc.

ETA: dudes telling women what sexism is = literally mansplaining.


Nope, not at all. Read my reply again. And maybe a second time. And really slowly, too.

I said the discussion should not be gendered even though there is technically a biological difference.

Unlike you, instead of paraphrasing, I'll use your own words. "But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. [b]There's no biological reason why it shouldn't"

All I did was point out the fact there is a biological difference BUT also agreed that dating advice that applies to men also applies to women.

User avatar
Milksteak

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby Milksteak » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:32 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:I find it odd that my comment is being singled out as yelling, when it was literally a one-sentence reply to a two-paragraph rant about misogyny based on five words: "especially if you're a guy."

Just to be clear on what those words imply, and it's not unreasonable: women are often in a much better position to be picky about who they date. It has nothing to do with an abundance of "quality men" (whatever the fuck that means), and more to do with how gender roles usually work out in dating. In the heterosexual dating world, guys tend to be expected to take the initiative on getting dates, which means they're usually in the position to get shot down more often. I'm not endorsing that, but it's currently the way of the world. So it doesn't seem all that strange to me to point out that men shouldn't feel desperate to just get a date--any date--while stuck in a tough job.

But even more importantly, the original post said "especially if you're a guy." Especially. Women were not precluded from being equally picky. It's kind of like saying, "All Trump supporters are idiots, especially white men." It doesn't preclude his white female supporters from being idiots; it just means that there's not a perfectly symmetrical experience between the sexes. And isn't acknowledging those imbalances part of feminist theory still? Or are we not doing that anymore?

I'm not even sure how you get to a more aggressive reading of that post, but if people think this is the place to make the stand, go for it.

P.S. Disagreeing with people's interpretations of things isn't "mansplaining." It's just disagreement.


So when I said "quality" it was in response to "standards." My understanding is that standards measure some quality. To say that men should not abandon standards in dating implies that men are evaluating the quality of women they are they are dating, the corollary being that women are evaluating the quality of men they are dating. Quality men and quality women was short hand for "good quality" or "bad quality." So that is whatever the fuck I meant, but I only brought it up because you did.

Also if men are in a position to get shot down more often and women are in a position to pick who they date, why should men be especially picky? If men are asking women out and getting shot down all the time then it seems like they do not have the luxury to be picky. If women are in this amazing position of being propositioned by men for dates all the time, then they should be the picky ones. Or if they are among those not fortunate enough to be asked out by all of these men, then maybe they can't be as picky. Who knows!??

RedPurpleBlue

Bronze
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby RedPurpleBlue » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


Do you find it sexist that men are generally expected to pay for dates?


1) Don't abuse the anon feature

2) Your comment is not remotely related to this discussion. Of course it's wrong that men are expected to pay for dates, but that's not what ANYONE in this thread is suggesting should be the case. You're just trying to start an inane and unnecessary fight.

3) I think the original comment was obviously laced with sexism. Why else would you say men need to be "especially" picky with women if you're not trying to imply something inherently flawed about the typical woman that makes them more dangerous/toxic than the typical man? Would you not look at a comment with suspicion if it said a women needed to be "especially" picky when choosing male mates? As a guy, I know I would, so why can't a woman take offense at an identical comment with the genders reversed?

ughbugchugplug

New
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:21 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby ughbugchugplug » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:12 pm

The ‘especially men’ thing was weird, needed explanation, and certainly sounded sexist. Maybe you can come up with a reason why it wasn’t, maybe you can’t. I agree with the person who called that post out, because if you’re going to say sexist sounding things the burdens on you to make it clear that you’re not saying a sexist thing. This thread is great TLS though.

Now, in response to OP, I have a long distance relationship. I’m a big law stub, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I’ve been able to visit my SO once a month by plane and she’s been able to do the same to me. It works out. We’ve been lucky about weekend work so far, so that’s been nice. It’s harder with someone new I’d imagine, but in my case at least we’ve made it work.

User avatar
TheBlueDevil

New
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby TheBlueDevil » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:44 am

zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


To suggest that "dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa" really ignores reality. Now, obviously some (perhaps even most) dating advice is gender-neutral. But there are, at the very least, social and cultural differences between genders (that goes to the very definition of gender). Hence, as a practical matter, for social activities (like dating), it should be unsurprising that different people of different genders will sometimes tend to take different approaches to those activities and thus generally benefit from different advice.

Acknowledging difference is not inherently harmful. Conversely, just as "colorblindness" can be harmful, "genderblindness," asserting that the genders are effectively one and the same and that we should discuss social activities (particularly activities where, as a practical matter, gender plays a nontrivial role) "in general human terms," can likewise be problematic.

It's really not a misogynistic line of reasoning at all. Consider Bumble, hailed as "feminist Tinder," which expressly sets communication restrictions based on gender (whereas regular, not-feminist Tinder imposes no such restrictions).

User avatar
4LTsPointingNorth

Bronze
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:17 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby 4LTsPointingNorth » Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:13 am

ITT: Anons pointing to straw women and straw men in order to pontificate about entirely distinguishable concerns.

Nothing constructive will come from conflating universal concerns about dating while in an unreasonably demanding job (from a reasonable layperson's perspective) with important conversations about women being treated with genuine respect in the work place, in public, or on the internet. These are two discrete, important concerns, and this thread only purports to address one of them. Let's start another thread for the other concern, and I'll be there in full force to support it.

In this thread, I'd just like to hear more people's perspectives about how to approach dating life in big law. People obviously do it, some successfully, and I'd like to know what has worked well for them and what hasn't.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:31 am

This could have been a good topic but tls ruined it

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:48 am

TheBlueDevil wrote:
zhenders wrote:Since the above poster called out definitional sexism and asked for allies to step up and call it out, at least three different people jumped in to attack her, and one person actually tried to mansplain sexism to her. Whoa. Lame and offensive.

Can't speak to dating in biglaw; 3L currently. But dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa. There's no biological reason why it shouldn't, and to argue otherwise probably comes off as pretty demeaning to many women. How about we discuss dating in general human terms? People date all kinds of people of all genders and for different reasons, and any gender based assumptions must end up being unhelpful anyways.

ETA: happy to be scooped by the immediately preceding guy.


To suggest that "dating advice that applies to men also applies to women and vice versa" really ignores reality. Now, obviously some (perhaps even most) dating advice is gender-neutral. But there are, at the very least, social and cultural differences between genders (that goes to the very definition of gender). Hence, as a practical matter, for social activities (like dating), it should be unsurprising that different people of different genders will sometimes tend to take different approaches to those activities and thus generally benefit from different advice.

Acknowledging difference is not inherently harmful. Conversely, just as "colorblindness" can be harmful, "genderblindness," asserting that the genders are effectively one and the same and that we should discuss social activities (particularly activities where, as a practical matter, gender plays a nontrivial role) "in general human terms," can likewise be problematic.

It's really not a misogynistic line of reasoning at all. Consider Bumble, hailed as "feminist Tinder," which expressly sets communication restrictions based on gender (whereas regular, not-feminist Tinder imposes no such restrictions).

None of this really applies to the original statement about how men should be "picky."

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby TheoO » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:42 am

jd20132013 wrote:This could have been a good topic but tls ruined it


I mean, it does show that hours should the least of some people's worries here.

raulg

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby raulg » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:43 am

This thread took an interesting turn lol.

To answer OP’s question, I’ve found it pretty easy. No one really cares what you do after 5p (at my firm at least). Also, I disagree that you need to find someone who is willing to put up with cancellations or whatever. I think you just need to be willing to put up bright line rules for your own life. For example, I don’t check my phone after a certain time or while I’m hanging out with certain people. It’s an intense job, but make time for life!

clshopeful

Bronze
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby clshopeful » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:18 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Put dates during the week on your work calendar so people think you're in a meeting when you're on the date. Use dating apps to meet girls and set up dates. Never go on a date with someone who doesn't know about biglaw. And be picky, especially if you're a guy.


???


Just wanted to second the calling out of this misogyny. As a female poster, the frequent, unchecked sexism on this board is very uncomfortable to me and has often made me consider whether it's worth posting here. While not directly relevant to this particular instance of misogyny, I also wanted to note that as a female senior associate, the assumption that many posters make that if we're discussing a "partner" or "senior associate," the person must be male, is equally misogynist and unwelcome. I would not be surprised to learn that the sexism on this board is one factor in making female members feel less welcome and less able to contribute. In this #metoo era - since this board appears to have a policy of not moderating sexist comments - I think the first step is for those of us (both male and female) who oppose bigotry to call out the offending comments and make clear they have no place here.

And to the OP's question, I'm posting from the office where I will be spending the rest of the weekend - including several hours that had been benchmarked for a seventh date tonight. Nor is this my first work-related cancellation as to this date. No word yet on whether they will be willing to overlook the latest. However, I am firmly committed to my career and am only willing to date someone who can accept that work-related cancellations are a relatively frequent fact of biglaw life; if this person can't, it's better that both of us figure that out now.


I mean if literally 75% of US law firm partners are men, how is it misogny to assume "man" if someone says ''partner''? Isn't that just choosing the highest probability, i.e., a completely rational assumption? Genuinely curious

mcmand

Silver
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby mcmand » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:31 am

Anonymous User wrote:
I mean if literally 75% of US law firm partners are men, how is it misogny to assume "man" if someone says ''partner''? Isn't that just choosing the highest probability, i.e., a completely rational assumption? Genuinely curious


Wtf anon abuse??? No reason this post should be anon.

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby dabigchina » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am

jd20132013 wrote:This could have been a good topic but tls ruined it

IDK. pretty quality so far imo.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:17 am

clshopeful wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Put dates during the week on your work calendar so people think you're in a meeting when you're on the date. Use dating apps to meet girls and set up dates. Never go on a date with someone who doesn't know about biglaw. And be picky, especially if you're a guy.


???


Just wanted to second the calling out of this misogyny. As a female poster, the frequent, unchecked sexism on this board is very uncomfortable to me and has often made me consider whether it's worth posting here. While not directly relevant to this particular instance of misogyny, I also wanted to note that as a female senior associate, the assumption that many posters make that if we're discussing a "partner" or "senior associate," the person must be male, is equally misogynist and unwelcome. I would not be surprised to learn that the sexism on this board is one factor in making female members feel less welcome and less able to contribute. In this #metoo era - since this board appears to have a policy of not moderating sexist comments - I think the first step is for those of us (both male and female) who oppose bigotry to call out the offending comments and make clear they have no place here.

And to the OP's question, I'm posting from the office where I will be spending the rest of the weekend - including several hours that had been benchmarked for a seventh date tonight. Nor is this my first work-related cancellation as to this date. No word yet on whether they will be willing to overlook the latest. However, I am firmly committed to my career and am only willing to date someone who can accept that work-related cancellations are a relatively frequent fact of biglaw life; if this person can't, it's better that both of us figure that out now.


I mean if literally 75% of US law firm partners are men, how is it misogny to assume "man" if someone says ''partner''? Isn't that just choosing the highest probability, i.e., a completely rational assumption? Genuinely curious

Because that’s not how English works. You don’t simply go with the highest probability. That’s why we say firefighter and flight attendant. And assuming that partner = man reinforces the idea that there is something specifically masculine about being a partner/that being a woman partner is weird/unusual/an outlier. (Numerically it may be, but it shouldn’t be as a concept.) Pretty sure the 25% or however many women partners it is get sick of the assumption that someone in their position a man.

User avatar
UBETutoring

Bronze
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby UBETutoring » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:00 am

This thread got derailed. Nobody cares about the gender views of some random law students and lawyers. Also, the suggestion that you can get away with casual dating a few times a month overlooks the fact that people that are looking for long term relationships and to start a family will not get satisfaction from casual dating a few times a month.

Observationally, the difficulty is not as much about l/t relationships being time consuming as the odds that any random date will lead to a l/t relationship. If you're going on 1 or 2 dates per month, it's conceivable that it will take several years to find someone with whom you have realistic l/t potential.

User avatar
UBETutoring

Bronze
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby UBETutoring » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:00 am

Accidental anon^

User avatar
jkpolk

Silver
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby jkpolk » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:31 pm

I'm not sure what I expected from this thread :lol:

yes you can date. some weeks/months you may disappear completely but it's easy to find a couple hours on a random Tuesday night if you prioritize. obviously a lot of people prioritize other things and that's ok too.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby Nebby » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:37 pm

clshopeful wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Put dates during the week on your work calendar so people think you're in a meeting when you're on the date. Use dating apps to meet girls and set up dates. Never go on a date with someone who doesn't know about biglaw. And be picky, especially if you're a guy.


???


Just wanted to second the calling out of this misogyny. As a female poster, the frequent, unchecked sexism on this board is very uncomfortable to me and has often made me consider whether it's worth posting here. While not directly relevant to this particular instance of misogyny, I also wanted to note that as a female senior associate, the assumption that many posters make that if we're discussing a "partner" or "senior associate," the person must be male, is equally misogynist and unwelcome. I would not be surprised to learn that the sexism on this board is one factor in making female members feel less welcome and less able to contribute. In this #metoo era - since this board appears to have a policy of not moderating sexist comments - I think the first step is for those of us (both male and female) who oppose bigotry to call out the offending comments and make clear they have no place here.

And to the OP's question, I'm posting from the office where I will be spending the rest of the weekend - including several hours that had been benchmarked for a seventh date tonight. Nor is this my first work-related cancellation as to this date. No word yet on whether they will be willing to overlook the latest. However, I am firmly committed to my career and am only willing to date someone who can accept that work-related cancellations are a relatively frequent fact of biglaw life; if this person can't, it's better that both of us figure that out now.


I mean if literally 75% of US law firm partners are men, how is it misogny to assume "man" if someone says ''partner''? Isn't that just choosing the highest probability, i.e., a completely rational assumption? Genuinely curious

Genuinely shut the fuck up

EliotAlderson

New
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:18 am

Re: Dating life in big law

Postby EliotAlderson » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:35 pm

UBETutoring wrote:This thread got derailed. Nobody cares about the gender views of some random law students and lawyers. Also, the suggestion that you can get away with casual dating a few times a month overlooks the fact that people that are looking for long term relationships and to start a family will not get satisfaction from casual dating a few times a month.

Observationally, the difficulty is not as much about l/t relationships being time consuming as the odds that any random date will lead to a l/t relationship. If you're going on 1 or 2 dates per month, it's conceivable that it will take several years to find someone with whom you have realistic l/t potential.


There is the issue.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.