"Bad Mommy!"

Due to a confluence of circumstances, it recently fell on me to pick my children up from school--not the late "after care" pick-up, which I often do, but the mid-afternoon, when-classes-end pick-up normally reserved for nannies and mothers (mostly) who do not work full time. Planning my day in the morning, I realized I might have to drop off my afternoon conference call if it ran long, but I didn't think much more about it.

Inevitably, though, the conference call began to drag, and I started bargaining with myself over the drop-dead drop-off moment. How long could I manage to stay on the call and still not be late? Let's see, if it takes twenty-five minutes to get to school, no, say twenty (I'll drive fast), then I have to leave at, at, at . . .

When? Oh my god! I don't know. When do I have to be there?

I couldn't make that calculation because . . .

I don't know when my children get out of school!

My Fair Lady

I was in London on business a few weeks ago. The first day was pre-planned "jet lag day": arrive early, sleep it off, work a little, and walk around in the noon day sun. Early to bed, and tomorrow, you're good as new. (Because I love London so much, I won't complain about the billable day lost in the process).

My hotel was near both Saville Row and the business district, so I took the opportunity of my stroll to look for London business women. I was hoping to confirm that the clothes I had packed would not be too far off base.

Here's what I found:

1)   There are no London business women!

I wandered through bustling London streets, for two hours on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon, and I simply could not find any exemplars. At first I thought I was in the wrong place, or it was the wrong time, but there were businessmen everywhere in classic London business dress: chalk stripes, colorful shirts, cufflinks and flashy ties. Where were the women?

I cannot explain this, except possibly, as pure law of numbers. Are there still so many fewer women in the business world in London than in the United States?

Finally, I found a few. And I do mean a few, two maybe, in that whole long walk. I saw a small handful of others in meetings the next day, and I learned something else:

2)   On my (admittedly small) sample size, London business women dress like U.S. business women dressed twenty years ago.

The women I saw and met were all wearing skirts or dresses. ALL of them! And (with the exception of some extraordinary shoes--we didn't wear those in the early '90s!), the skirts were the same stodgy, man-like skirt suits we abandoned in 1999.


Now, I have nothing against skirts and dresses. I often wear them, but increasingly, when I'm at my most lawyerly -- in court or for a pitch to a prospective client for a hundred million dollar case -- I wear trousers. Elegant, shapely, female trousers, but trousers, nonetheless. (I'm especially partial to Elie Tahari.)

Trousers are an evolution. When I started practicing law, they were not permitted. With the exception of a few (old and now deceased) judges who made clear their views on the abomination of women in trousers, the rule was unwritten. But it was universally followed. There were slightly more elegant versions and considerably less elegant versions, but the norm was skirt suits with nude stockings and a low square heel. Designers had not yet learned how to design suits that were female without being frilly, so they put women in male suits plus boxy skirt.

What was wrong with trousers? I don't know, really. There's no answer to that, except that there was something vaguely frightening about it, and not just to men. Somewhere, subconsciously, we were all afraid--men and women alike--that if the women did everything just like the men--if the women were not only lawyers but, gasp, even wore trousers--we would all lose our way.

London can be a confusing city. But the maps are excellent and omnipresent. If you keep your head, you can't get too terribly lost. I'm pretty sure in a few years, the women in trousers will be everywhere.

(But, please, keep the shoes). Ooo, la, la.

All the Young Men

An email from one of my male colleagues made me smile the other day. He's a senior associate I work with a lot, and rely on even more. I had sent him some last minute revisions to a motion we were filing, and he emailed back: "Ok 2 call u later? @ the dr w/ R for his 2 year old check up."

Now, it wasn't the "u," or the poor grammar that made me smile (I'm just old enuf 2 think u should always use ur best English 4 ur boss). It was something much more enlightened that I am finding to be almost as common among his peers as text-speak: specifically, male forthrightness about family commitments.

Twenty years ago, when I was a young lawyer (how awful that sounds!), men didn't take their 2-year olds to well-baby visits, and women pretended they were going somewhere else: "Unfortunately, I'm out of the office at that time on another engagement." That state of affairs wasn't good for any of us. The men I know are all good fathers, and they would have liked to be at that appointment (and at the school plays and birthday parties and recitals), and the mothers didn't like going to those appointments alone. Even worse was the sense we shared that we had to hide what we were doing, like it was somehow shameful to be a parent.

Twenty years ago, we knew how to write a proper note to our boss.

Twenty years ago, we understood that the workplace is a formal setting.

But if excessive informality is the price we have to pay to let fathers be fathers and mothers be honest, I'll take it.

Reply to colleague?

"Ok. It can w8. Talk 2 u l8r."