Access to two accounts....

Ok, I read Ji Nin's and Tim Roy's blogs, but could not comment on them. Neither could I comment on Emmanuel's. E-blogger keeps saying I don't have access to the site, so maybe their privacy settings are set too high or blogger hates me. Anyway, here are my responses to their blogs:

To Ji Nin:
Your post made me scram for the latest issue of Glamour sitting in our living room. Hillary Clinton was asked, "You probably have to walk into a lot of rooms full of sexist guys. How do you work with leaders like that?

To which she responded:

"You just have to figure out what you're trying to accomplish."
To paraphrase her a bit, she also says that she tries to find common ground with her male counterparts. "I understand the pressures of politics on leaders... I was in politics. I've won elections and lost elections..."  
I don't know if this adds much to the conversation. But I agree with Hillary that the best we can do as women is try not to make ourselves any more different than we already are. We should try to present things in our narrative that point out what we share in common with males in the business and legal worlds.
But does this mean that we should only wear pant suits to keep ourselves more like the men, or wear only skirts, in compliance with sexist views toward women? How far do you go tring to find that common ground to allow you to get your point across? I think I've rambled on... sorry.



To Tim:
Tim, thanks for the post. It really helped clarify things. I just have one question. You said, "I also have to argue (ii) that bringing the issue to court is not a violation of the rules. That would be an issue of clause interpretation, and also choice of law." So in an argument regarding only procedural issues, you would only say that there is no violation of the rules, and nothing else, because anything else would be substantive?