De bonnes notes pour Anne-France Goldwater

Re : Avocate
> Note pour les futurs juristes:
> Si vous souhaitez poursuivre votre carrière dans ce domaine, je vous conseille d'améliorer la qualité de votre français écrit.
>
> Un document légal rédigé dans un français approximatif n'est pas acceptable dans ce domaine.
>
> Vous vous ferez juger sévèrement par vos pairs ainsi que par vos clients.

-- Merci pour votre commentaire. Si vous pensez que j'écris mal, attendez de voir celle de la génération à venir. PS: pour avoir travaillée dans le domaine du recrutement, je peux vous dire que mes aînés ne sont pas mieux.

Re : Avocate
> Me, too, I would love to know why there are such negative reactions about me!
>
> Lord knows, I neither seek nor need your approval, «Étudiante», and it is arrogant as hell for you to comment about my life when you are still a kid who has yet to prove your worth.
>
> Moreover, when La Petrowski did that interview, it was about ''my life'', and if my antics as a kid were more entertaining than yours, well, that's great for me, not so much for you.
>
> And Femme: Do tell me what it is you think that elicits these reactions? I am curious, and if anything, I would have thought La Petrowski's article would at least have communicated to the peeps that I am without artifice.

I can't speak for others, but as a man I took offence to some of the comments you made in the media. So you should be able to tolerate a bit of criticism, especially since you sought public attention. As for me, rest assured that I won't be "using my left hand" if see you on tv.

Re : Avocate
I believe that if you take the time the reply to a random commentary published on droit-inc then that must be because you are seeking approval.

Re : Re : Avocate
> I believe that if you take the time the reply to a random commentary published on droit-inc then that must be because you are seeking approval.

Too cute!! Actually, my reply was to "Femme" who put the question quite candidly, and I am interested in the answer.

Re : Re : Avocate
I can't speak for others, but as a man I took offence to some of the comments you made in the media. So you should be able to tolerate a bit of criticism, especially since you sought public attention. As for me, rest assured that I won't be "using my left hand" if see you on tv.

Presumably, my dear heart, your use of your left hand or other limb should depend more on what your spouse/partner provides you as entertainment.

In all seriousness, it was certainly not my intention to diss all men, just those who economically exploit their partners and rejoice at the lack of legal protection in the province of Quebec. So, it's not a matter of being anti-guy, but anti-exploitation. Heck, I have a few cases where, in all fairness, it is the woman who is the exploitative partner (because of a greater fortune, and hence power). It's just not that common in society for women to be in the position of being "the bad guy."

Re : Re : Re : Avocate
> In all seriousness, it was certainly not my intention to diss all men, just those who economically exploit their partners and rejoice at the lack of legal protection in the province of Quebec. So, it's not a matter of being anti-guy, but anti-exploitation. Heck, I have a few cases where, in all fairness, it is the woman who is the exploitative partner (because of a greater fortune, and hence power). It's just not that common in society for women to be in the position of being "the bad guy."

Heureusement que votre ''combat'' est uniquement anti-exploitation, Me Goldwater. Effectivement, si l'on se fie aux statistiques actuelles quant au pourcentage de femmes inscrites à l'Université, ce n'est qu'une question de temps avant que les rôles ne s'inversent...

Re : Re : Re : Avocate
> In all seriousness, it was certainly not my intention to diss all men, just those who economically exploit their partners and rejoice at the lack of legal protection in the province of Quebec. So, it's not a matter of being anti-guy, but anti-exploitation. Heck, I have a few cases where, in all fairness, it is the woman who is the exploitative partner (because of a greater fortune, and hence power). It's just not that common in society for women to be in the position of being "the bad guy."

You are the one who made it a man vs woman issue. Before you decided take it upon yourself to be the voice of exploited, I was in complete support of your efforts. You should have kept the issue to this one particular situation, which consisted of a man who is so cheap and so vindictive that he would throw away his money into space rather than throw a bone to the mother of his kids. Had you done so, you would have been the most beloved person in Quebec.

In any case, I wouldn't care too much about the criticisms of other lawyers. Many of it is sheer jealousy. You managed to invalidate a long standing tenet of Civil law. How many lawyers can say that?

Re : Avocate
Thank you for your comment. However, why did you assume that I was a kid? Pretty presumptuous for a lawyer.
And, just like everyone else in this country, I am entitled to my freedom of opinion and expression.

Re : GBS
Well, I asked the question, so there's an answer.

Funny, I find the biggest challenge in my practice is teaching people - mostly women, but occasionally men - how to affirm themselves.

So where you may perceive me to be arrogant, I perceive many people not to be affirmative enough (to use a less loaded word).

I have to say, from my 30 years as an attorney, that behaviour admired in male lawyers is not necessarily accepted in female lawyers, who are expected to be more submissive.

Heck, you acknowledge this yourself: arrogance is associated with an admirable, but male, personality trait. Not so much with women.

A little not-so-subtle sexism, perhaps?

Re : Re : GBS
> So where you may perceive me to be arrogant, I perceive many people not to be affirmative enough (to use a less loaded word).

You can be affirmative without a hint of arrogance. Arrogance is all about the way you do and say things, and has very little to do about your actual acts and comments.

Without even personally commenting on your behavior, I can nonetheless sense that it is your attitude that irks some people.

> Heck, you acknowledge this yourself: arrogance is associated with an admirable, but male, personality trait. Not so much with women.
>
> A little not-so-subtle sexism, perhaps?

I never said "admirable".

I do not admire arrogance ever, be it from men or women. I think it is a flaw. Not a huge one, but still.

I simply stated it might be more apparent when women have it, since it is more of a male flaw.

In the end, I would qualify your arrogance as a minor flaw, almost irrelevant. It's not like you need an intervention or anything like that. But it can explain why people will make unwarranted comments on anything that pertains to you.

That's my theory anyhoo.

La rançon de la gloire.

Re : Arbitre
Je vous rejoins entièrement! L'idée est intéressante, mais on s'ennuie du juge Hodge! Pourquoi ne pas présenter la réalité judiciaire québécoise plutôt que d'avoir un "greffier" portant un uniforme ressemblant à un policier américain, "une salle d'audience" alors que Madame est avocate, présenter des causes de 7000$ et moins pour ressembler aux petites créances, etc... Les gens connaissent si peu le système qu'ils n'ont pas besoin de désinformation du genre. L'émission de fiction de TVA est effectivement plus réaliste!