Dating life in big law Forum

[clshopeful]

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

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

[rahulg91]

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

I think the point is that it's just a dumb assumption to make, regardless of any sexism or whatever. If there's a 1/4 chance your assumption will be wrong, why make the assumption at all? Just makes an ass out of you and you, I think that's how the saying goes.

[clshopeful]

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

I think the point is that it's just a dumb assumption to make, regardless of any sexism or whatever. If there's a 1/4 chance your assumption will be wrong, why make the assumption at all? Just makes an ass out of you and you, I think that's how the saying goes.

But how far does that go? What if 90% of firefighters are men. Am I still an ass to assume that the people that will show up to a fire will be 90% men? Isn't that how our brain works? It just seems like we are in this hyper-offended culture where people advocate us replacing our rationality to being super neutral all the time so as to not offend (''I assume the firefighters will be male because 90% are male nationwide, and I've only ever seen male firefighters -- wait, I can't think like that'')

[ughbugchugplug]

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

I think the point is that it's just a dumb assumption to make, regardless of any sexism or whatever. If there's a 1/4 chance your assumption will be wrong, why make the assumption at all? Just makes an ass out of you and you, I think that's how the saying goes.

The saying is ‘it makes an ass out of you, you asshole.’ Get it right

[sublime]

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!

This is not even close to realistic for me, and I assume most biglaw associates.

Honestly, I just try to not make plans during the week, but it is doable if you prioritize differently. There is no complete unplugging though.

[delusional]

This could have been a good topic but tls ruined it

[TheoO]

I honestly think the hardest part is getting through the hurdle of trying to reschedule dates with someone you like and have them understand. As the relationship progresses, they may become more understanding, but initially there are so many options and people in NYC are dating so many others (assuming NYC), that it may be hard to justify keeping up with that one girl/guy you know little about other that their work hours suck and who just messages you randomly for a date or has to inconveniently reschedule. Add this to the difficulty of the search for people you like generally, and I can see how it can be a problem.

[AspiringAspirant]

A lot of triggered, unthoughtful posts in this thread. Also a lot of projecting one's own emotions onto others (the random accusation of yelling being the funniest imo).

I think dating is 100% doable in biglaw, so long as your partner can manage expectations and is willing to be flexible. But no doubt it's far easier if you can find that person before you get to biglaw. That said, market, practice group, and partners that you work under will create a lot of variation in your experience.

[Walliums]

I honestly think the hardest part is getting through the hurdle of trying to reschedule dates with someone you like and have them understand. As the relationship progresses, they may become more understanding, but initially there are so many options and people in NYC are dating so many others (assuming NYC), that it may be hard to justify keeping up with that one girl/guy you know little about other that their work hours suck and who just messages you randomly for a date or has to inconveniently reschedule. Add this to the difficulty of the search for people you like generally, and I can see how it can be a problem.

I would be really curious to know who biglaw folks end up dating and/or marrying - I wonder if you'd find a majority would be with people who have similar busy careers. Not necessarily just other lawyers but doctors, etc.

[Nebby]

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

Original post. You really knocked me off my white horse with that salvo!

[Nebby]

But how far does that go? What if 90% of firefighters are men. Am I still an ass to assume that the people that will show up to a fire will be 90% men? Isn't that how our brain works? It just seems like we are in this hyper-offended culture where people advocate us replacing our rationality to being super neutral all the time so as to not offend (''I assume the firefighters will be male because 90% are male nationwide, and I've only ever seen male firefighters -- wait, I can't think like that'')

Hope you didn't hurt yourself falling down that slippery slope into a pool of red herrings.

[worldtraveler]

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

I think the point is that it's just a dumb assumption to make, regardless of any sexism or whatever. If there's a 1/4 chance your assumption will be wrong, why make the assumption at all? Just makes an ass out of you and you, I think that's how the saying goes.

But how far does that go? What if 90% of firefighters are men. Am I still an ass to assume that the people that will show up to a fire will be 90% men? Isn't that how our brain works? It just seems like we are in this hyper-offended culture where people advocate us replacing our rationality to being super neutral all the time so as to not offend (''I assume the firefighters will be male because 90% are male nationwide, and I've only ever seen male firefighters -- wait, I can't think like that'')

Holy shit.

[zhenders]

clshopeful has really been gunning hard over the past two years for that top TLSer title. His comments may not consistently be the most obnoxious, but they're always top ten contenders. The post history search function and guys like cls make this whole forum worth it.

[rahulg91]

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!

This is not even close to realistic for me, and I assume most biglaw associates.

Honestly, I just try to not make plans during the week, but it is doable if you prioritize differently. There is no complete unplugging though.

That's intense. Are you saying that even when you're not "on call" (like near a closing or filing or whatever) you check your phone frequently? I understand that during busy times you can't get away, but most people I talk to have down periods where they can easy leave early (or not show up) as well as times where a case is just starting up and there's not much to do yet.

[sublime]

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!

This is not even close to realistic for me, and I assume most biglaw associates.

Honestly, I just try to not make plans during the week, but it is doable if you prioritize differently. There is no complete unplugging though.

That's intense. Are you saying that even when you're not "on call" (like near a closing or filing or whatever) you check your phone frequently? I understand that during busy times you can't get away, but most people I talk to have down periods where they can easy leave early (or not show up) as well as times where a case is just starting up and there's not much to do yet.

Yeah, I mean there are varying levels of expecting stuff to come in, but yea, I check once an hour, at least, usually if I am awake but at least until 10 or 11 pm.

[Lincoln]

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!

This is not even close to realistic for me, and I assume most biglaw associates.

Honestly, I just try to not make plans during the week, but it is doable if you prioritize differently. There is no complete unplugging though.

That's intense. Are you saying that even when you're not "on call" (like near a closing or filing or whatever) you check your phone frequently? I understand that during busy times you can't get away, but most people I talk to have down periods where they can easy leave early (or not show up) as well as times where a case is just starting up and there's not much to do yet.

Just speaking for myself, the bolded applies to a total of about 4 months of my 4+ years in Big Law. At all other times, what you describe in your first post would have been totally unacceptable. Are you a stub, by any chance? And are you in a practice group that is slow at the moment? I ask that because, while I have been busier than many of my peers, the statement "no one really cares what you do after 5 p.m." is inapplicable to basically everyone I know in Big Law with the exception of (1) some stubs and (2) those who do shit work and are about to be pushed out.

I don't disagree that you need to make room for dating and other important things in your life, but that doesn't mean it's "pretty easy". I met my SO while I was an associate, and we have found a way to make it work, but the demands of my job has been a frequent source of conflict.

[star fox]

I honestly think the hardest part is getting through the hurdle of trying to reschedule dates with someone you like and have them understand. As the relationship progresses, they may become more understanding, but initially there are so many options and people in NYC are dating so many others (assuming NYC), that it may be hard to justify keeping up with that one girl/guy you know little about other that their work hours suck and who just messages you randomly for a date or has to inconveniently reschedule. Add this to the difficulty of the search for people you like generally, and I can see how it can be a problem.

I would be really curious to know who biglaw folks end up dating and/or marrying - I wonder if you'd find a majority would be with people who have similar busy careers. Not necessarily just other lawyers but doctors, etc.

Usually someone they met before starting.

[actuator]

Oh wow Nebby, a man, getting offended for women. You're a hero. An honest question (If 75% men, isn't it rational to assume partner will be male) is met with ''shut the fuck up'' by the liberal. Classic: refutes with ''Racist! Bigot!''

I think the point is that it's just a dumb assumption to make, regardless of any sexism or whatever. If there's a 1/4 chance your assumption will be wrong, why make the assumption at all? Just makes an ass out of you and you, I think that's how the saying goes.

But how far does that go? What if 90% of firefighters are men. Am I still an ass to assume that the people that will show up to a fire will be 90% men? Isn't that how our brain works? It just seems like we are in this hyper-offended culture where people advocate us replacing our rationality to being super neutral all the time so as to not offend (''I assume the firefighters will be male because 90% are male nationwide, and I've only ever seen male firefighters -- wait, I can't think like that'')

you're a moron and you're embarrassing yourself.

[actuator]

"the world is too PC and snowflakes are ridiculous, right? RIGHT?!?"

::writes 3,000 words crying about how everyone else is too sensitive::

[Betharl]

Good God, you feminazis are insufferable. You do realize you (and other super liberals) are the reason Trump won the election, right? Some of what you've said in this thread is infuriating, even to someone like myself who has voted a straight ticket for Democrats since he turned 18. Crap like this is why Trump's people showed up to the polls in droves.

Aesthetic banned. And stop abusing anon.