In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Amongst Reasonable Men
• Margot Parmenter (bio)

In the autumn of 2014, I moved to Los Angeles to work for a large international law firm. I learned to describe it that way from the employee handbook, which I read nervously from cover to cover on my first day—contemplating in detail all the ways my employment relationship could go wrong before it had even begun. I memorized chains of command and contingency plans and procedures to be followed. It was my job now, after all, to be prepared for eventualities.

One of the potential eventualities the handbook described was a "separation from the firm." In the event of such a separation, it read, former employees would relinquish the use of the firm's proper name. Instead, they would be required to refer to it only as "a large international law firm." As in: "There was rampant harassment at the large international law firm where I used to work" or "I used to work at a large international law firm, but then I realized that all of my colleagues could pull their faces off, so I went back to school to get an MFA." [End Page 93]

I think the idea was that you got to take credit for being the kind of person who could land a job at such a place, so long as you also agreed to carry the shame allotted to someone who somehow managed to squander the opportunity. It was like the law firm was a beautiful celebrity girlfriend who would only date you if you signed an NDA. This way, it could retain the prestige and escape the suspicion, all while denying former employees that most pretentious of pleasures—the name-drop.

The handbook, however, did not detail the various scenarios in which such a separation might occur, so I ended up prepared for an eventuality that seemed, according to the information at hand, impossible. I might as well have been preparing for an alien invasion or a moon landing—something unlikely to happen but worth thinking about because the magnitude of its impact would be inversely related to its frequency of occurrence.

I drove to work every day from an apartment overlooking the ocean and sat in an office with a view of the Hollywood sign. I spent most of my signing bonus on patio furniture, which I belatedly discovered was much more expensive than it should be. I hung fairy lights above and around my new outdoor couches and wore a black Brooks Brothers skirt suit for my company photo. Most days I went outside to eat lunch in the triangular green-and-concrete space between my office building, its twin, and the glass-and-light structure housing CAA. One day a famous actor stood behind me in line at the complex's Coffee Bean. He talked on his phone while he ordered, and I wondered why he hadn't sent an assistant.

________

I was meant to do whatever work was thrown my way and to feel anxious about its amount regardless of objective measurement. Too [End Page 94] much was good but maybe meant I was indecisive and possibly disorganized; too little was bad but perhaps forgivable so long as it was not the result of demurral. There were entire meetings for my colleagues and me—the associates—on the unending complexities of saying no. It was like a perversion of a college freshman orientation on the concept of consent, except that where volunteers might teach teenagers to earnestly identify signs of disinterest, Ivy League-educated HR representatives coached us first-year attorneys in the fine art of compulsory enthusiasm. We were meant to learn how to keep our superiors happy by always seeming to say yes even when we were really saying no. The gist was this: genuinely enthusiastic acceptance is preferred, but if you are unlucky enough to possess some persistent sense of personal dignity, then a carefully calibrated euphemism for "no" may be proffered—provided, of course, that you can procure at least two witnesses who will testify to the legitimacy of your refusal, should further evidence be required by the senior partner.

Being a woman and a compulsive...

中文翻译：

---

在合理的人中

代替摘要，这里是内容的简要摘录：

• 在合理的人中
• Margot Parmenter（生物）

2014年秋天，我搬到了洛杉矶，在一家大型国际律师事务所工作。我从员工手册中学会了用这种方式来描述它，第一天我从头到尾都紧张地读着它-详细地考虑了我的雇佣关系甚至在开始之前就可能出错的所有方式。我记住了要遵循的指挥系统，应急计划和程序。毕竟，这是我现在的工作，为可能发生的事情做好准备。

手册描述的潜在的潜在后果之一是“与公司分离”。它说，如果发生这种分离，前雇员将放弃使用公司的专有名称。相反，将要求他们仅将其称为“大型国际律师事务所”。例如：“我曾经在一家大型国际律师事务所工作过，经常遭到骚扰”或“我曾经在一家大型国际律师事务所工作，但后来我意识到我所有的同事都可以摆脱困境，所以我回到学校获得硕士学位。” [完第93页]

我认为这样的想法是，只要您也同意承担分配给某个设法设法浪费机会的人的耻辱，您就应该以能够在这样的地方找到工作的那种人而受到赞誉。就像律师事务所是一位美丽的名人女友，如果您签署了保密协议，他只会和您约会。这样，它可以保留声誉并逃脱怀疑，同时还可以拒绝前员工最自以为是的乐趣—改名。

但是，该手册并未详细说明可能发生这种分离的各种情况，因此我最终准备为万无一失，根据手头的信息，这似乎是不可能的。我可能还一直在为外星人入侵或登月做准备-不太可能发生，但值得考虑，因为其影响的程度与其发生的频率成反比。

我每天开车从俯瞰大海的公寓上班，并坐在一间可以看到好莱坞标志的办公室里。我将大部分签约奖金都花在了露台家具上，后来发现这比应有的要贵得多。我在新的户外沙发上方和周围悬挂着童话般的灯光，并穿着黑色的Brooks Brothers短裙套装来拍公司照片。大部分时间，我到外面在办公楼，双子楼和装有CAA的玻璃灯结构之间的绿色三角形混凝土空间中吃午餐。有一天，一位著名演员在我的身后站在大楼的咖啡豆排在我身后。他点菜时在电话上聊天，我想知道为什么他没有派助手。

________

我本打算做自己想做的任何事情，并且不管客观衡量如何，都对它的数量感到不安。太[结束第94页]很多都很好，但也许意味着我优柔寡断，可能杂乱无章。太少是不好的，但只要不是滞后的结果，也许是可以原谅的。对于我和我的同事（同事）来说，整个会议都是围绕说不的无休止的复杂性而进行的。这就像是对同意概念的大学新生取向的一种歪曲，不同之处在于，如果志愿者可以教会青少年认真地识别不感兴趣的迹象，那么常春藤盟校教育的人力资源代表就以强制性的热情美术指导了我们的一年级律师。我们本该学习如何通过总是看起来是肯定的，即使我们确实拒绝时，也要使上级感到高兴。要点是这样的：最好是真诚地接受，但是如果您不幸地拥有某种持久的个人尊严感，

作为女人和强迫...