Link

keepitlegalgurl:

tinycanuck:

lawschoolruinedme:

lawschoolruinedme:

lawschoolruinedme:

I’m curious what fellow lawblrs have heard as ‘advice’ regarding their attire. I’ve heard on several occasions not to wear skirts to interviews, as it makes us appear too ‘feminine.’ 

So, to sum up today: 

miss-sardonic has been told by moot court judges, in recorded comments, that she should have been wearing a skirt instead of a pantsuit. 

a-necessary-dream has been told women shouldn’t wear pantsuits

emmeetsworld has said that her office has a rule of skirts for court (kudos to the in-house more casual dress code). She also notes that the Hilary Clinton look (conservative skirt-suit, pumps, pearl earrings) is commonly considered a must for East-Coast interviews. 

Jdandunderemployed has been told that she shouldn’t wear shirts that fall outside the dark blue/black spectrum. She also has heard stories about how women shouldn’t wear pants during moot courts. (And her story about the legal aid lawyers is great)

theshinyinternets has been told, by a moot court judge, in lieu of constructive feedback, that she should ‘leave her hair down’ because it looked to ‘severe’ pulled back and she’s a ‘lovely girl.’ Kudos to her for not killing him dead right there. 

notloblawlawblog has been told to not have her shoes too high OR too short. You know, like Goldilocks. Also, you should wear enough makeup to look like a ‘woman,’ but not so much as so men actually ‘know’ you’re wearing it. 

And OP herself, heather-ilene has a great story about her Legal Research prof telling her that without a suit jacket and button-up white shirt, she couldn’t possibly be expected to be dressed for court. 

Miss-Sardonic put it best, when she said: Judges and other attorneys will feel they can critique your appearance because you’re a woman, and their advice will contradict, so you really can’t win.

Ladies, I have to applaud you for the fact that you all take this crap with a grain of salt, you don’t punch the people who are trying to police your body in the face and, hopefully, you stand by your fellow ladies when they make their own wardrobe choices. 

If you’ve got your own story, please share. It helps when we’re not alone in feeling how ridiculous this is. Perhaps, if we’re lucky, the sharing of stories will empower other women to stand up and not let others dictate what should be in their wardrobe. 

Day 2 Round-Up

lawblrgh discussed how a judge came into a law office and informed all the women they shouldn’t wear colours or necklaces because they were ‘distracting’ and people ‘would get the wrong idea’ (kudos to the female lawyer who wore a bright red blazer the next day as a hellavu fuck you)

nottreason talked about how in her moot, her critique was that her untucked shit was too distracting for him. She also notes that several friends have been told, by career services, that they should wear more makeup. I’m going to venture a guess that this actually means “please change your face without showing that you’re wearing more makeup.” Ugh. 

seducemymindyouidiot has the BEST one so far in regards to heels. No flats. But not too high of a heel. Oh, and kitten heels are unprofessional (apparently we should all take rulers to our pumps, ladies). She also WINS when it comes to inappropriate stories, of a fellow law student being kicked out as the court reporter, because her breasts were too big (and they were fully covered). She also talks about how she’s been told nail polish should be nude or pale pink. Considering how ridiculous it seems that someone felt the need to outline what colour nails are appropriate, I’m just waiting to hear of someone being told their lipstick was the wrong shade. 

ron-swansong gets a shout-out for calling bs on the requirement to wear heels and all the bad things that come with it. 

ultraohmygosh has a terrible story about asking for career advice from a senior partner, and instead being told to dress more provocatively. My apologies to her that this post reminded her of the instance, but we thank her for sharing. 

Because it reminds us that we’re going to get told we can’t be women, and yet be reprimanded if we don’t fit the ‘definition’ of women at the same time. It reminds us that all these rules are ass fucking backwards. 

And, hopefully, this post reaches a few more people. And it shows them they are not alone. That they are not the only ones going through this. And they are not the only ones who take that advice and throw it out the window like the garbage it is. 

It is easier to stand up for ourselves, when we remember we are worth standing up for. 

Got a story of your own, ladies? Sound off! 

At our interview prep/information session, our career guidance person (a woman) spent the entire time talking at the women in the room about “appropriate” attire, which included advice about how much jewellery (not) to wear, what kind and how much makeup to wear, and the kicker “wear heels but if you wear heels, you have to be able to keep up with the men in the room”. Here I thought I was going to get good advice about how to answer tough interview questions but instead got lectured about my potential wardrobe choices. She never said a single word about what the men should/should not wear.

I have not been criticized (YET) on how I dress as a law clerk either in the office or in court. But I worry a lot about my attire and how I am perceived, especially in court. I worry because, as you all have already experienced bullshit double-standard- based-criticism for how you dress as women law clerks and attorneys, I know it’s only a matter of time before I have to deal with this crap.

(Source: heather-ilene)

Text

you look at everything differently when you realize half of the legal shit quoted in the papers was written by other law clerks like you 

Photoset

todaysdocument:

Judgment in Plessy v. Ferguson, 5/18/1896

Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, National Archives Identifier: 1685178

Issued on May 18, 1896, the ruling in this Supreme Court case upheld a Louisiana state law that allowed for “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races.” It was not until the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (which coincidentally turned 60 on May 17, 2014) and congressional civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s that systematic segregation under state law was ended.

Text

When finals end and I’m free

thehermitofsidleypark:

image

Photo
sleepybrowneyes:

seifukucat:

googled “dog swearing” and wasn’t disappointed

His fucking look of determination. Like, “you’re going to fucking jail Greg.”

sleepybrowneyes:

seifukucat:

googled “dog swearing” and wasn’t disappointed

His fucking look of determination. Like, “you’re going to fucking jail Greg.”

(via 2sweet2bsour)

Quote
"The equal protection clause might be safely inscribed in books, but on the streets, in boardrooms, in banks and locker rooms and classrooms all over the country, millions of Americans face the challenge of breathing life into the 14th Amendment."

Opinion: Keep checking your privilege: The accomplishments of wealthy Princeton men are real, but so are centuries of discrimination in America (via aljazeeraamerica)

Text

Anonymous said: Your views on race are sometimes dead on. But other times, you make absolutely no sense. I ask you, where in the Princeton freshman's article did he go wrong? How can you "tell him about himself" when you've never even met him or had a conversation with him? You rush to judgment calling "bullshit" quite often without stating your reasons, and it undercuts your otherwise valid points. I would appreciate if you would publish an articulate response to that piece, or the New Republic response

lawlschool-adventures:

I mean, I can do so by virtue of having read the article. And I didn’t rush—I just didn’t realize I need to publish an essay about every discussion I have when plenty of professionals have already explained all the flaws. But sure, if you wish, post-finals, I too will elaborate on why he is full of shit.

shall we start with the fact that tal has no clue what check your privilege means

"Check your pivilege" is not a "you’re white and your responses are invalid!" line. Check your privilige is about the fact that the world we live in is racist and sexist and so on, and each of us are approached differently by it. Our experiences are valid, but there are times when it is appropriate for us to shut our mouths and listen to other people and understand that their truths are important as well. When someone asks you to check your privilege they are asking you to remember that you may have been aforded things that other people haven’t. It doesn’t mean you haven’t struggled or faced adversity. 

The problem with Tal’s argument goes further because he not only thinks check your privilege means his experiences aren’t valid - but then he tries to prove his experiences by telling us the experiences of his grandparents!

It’s that old argument thats like “Well I can say the N-word because my grandparents moved here from Ireland and people used to hate the Irish” like no no no no no for a million reasons no. 

What really bites is to think that after a year at such a highly regarded school like Princeton that kid either learned that or was never untaught that. 

PS Anon you have the right to ask, but you don’t have the right to an answer. Don’t forget, our tumblrs are sort of a space that we can do with what we please. No one owes you their space. If you honestly are looking for an answer - there are tons online. letmegooglethatforyou

Text

how i feel about exams

Tags: lawblr
Text

Some Studying Tips

psych-facts:

1. General Studying Tips
2. When And Where to Study for a Mental Boost of Energy -
3. 9 Tips To Help You Focus 
4. Tips to Improve Memory and Recall 
5. Tips for Students Heading To College 
6. Stress Managements Tips -
7. 6 Tips TO Deal With Test Anxiety 
8. My Comprehensive Studying System For Psychology Classes Video

9. Last Minute Studying Tips

10. Last Minute Studying Tips When You’re Rushed

(via hermionesparkle)

Text

When a case starts with a Bible quote

Tags: lawblr