======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
Getting through a job interview is stressful enough. From researching the company, to making sure you have everyone’s name down, to not screwing up curveball questions, successfully navigating an interview can be nearly impossible. If you’re a married or engaged woman, it’s about to get a lot harder for you, because a LinkedIn columnist has now recommended that you’d better not wear your ring for your interview. Wait, what?
In yet another case of men giving terrible advice to women, Bruce Hurwitz has decided that ladies, you’d better not even consider showing up to a job interview wearing your engagement ring. If this sounds like strange advice, well, it is. But just wait – when you hear the reasoning behind this advice, you’ll be more confused than ever. Bruce says,
“When a man sees that ring he immediately assumes you are high maintenance. When the woman at the office who has the largest diamond on her finger, sees that ring, she will realize that if you are hired she will fall to second place and will, therefore, not like you. Lose the ring!”
I wish I could say that this is a satirical article, but either Bruce’s sarcasm is too refined for me to detect, or he’s actually a moron. Apparently, according to Bruce, a woman being engaged or married automatically indicates that she’s high maintenance to a male interviewer, so he would never hire her. Looking at this another way, you’ll see that this means Bruce would only exclusively hire single females, so if I were his HR director, I’d promptly ask him to see his way to the door. Additionally, Bruce has created some structured hierarchy of females in the office based on the size of their rings. Bruce, I’m sorry, but never in my life have I ever heard of one female hating another because her ring happens to be bigger. I’m not sure Bruce has ever interacted with a woman before, but this narrative he’s created for us is interesting, to say the least.
Bruce, if you’re going to be sexist, please do so in the privacy of your journal instead of spewing this garbage all over LinkedIn. Telling women that promising to stay committed to one man forever and ever, until death or divorce do us part, is sexist, discriminatory, and idiotic. In 2016, it’s safe to say that women shouldn’t have to conceal their relationship status in order to successfully interview with a member of the opposite gender. If you don’t get the job with a ring on your finger, then you, my female friends, have dodged a major bullet, because I would much rather spend my days lazing on my couch collecting unemployment from Uncle Sam than to be subjected to working for someone like Bruce. Ladies, wear your engagement rings whenever you damn well please – you’ve earned it. .
[via LinkedIn]
Respond
Steph W.
Steph W. is a new Master's degree graduate with an intern's salary and six-figure taste. She realizes her expectations far exceed reality, so she spends her days pinning away Loubs she pretends are in her physical closet instead of her virtual one. Her hobbies include attempting to trapping her boyfriend into marriage before he finds out how insane she is and pretending that Black Box wine tastes as good as the kind she could afford when she was gainfully employed. Send her tips for getting out of student debt at recruitchairtsm@gmail.com
@therecruitchair
Other titles in this authors repertoire: “why you should never button your top 3 shirt buttons” and “Don’t be afraid to get handsy during your interview”
Even though it is a protected status, being married or engaged definitely can play into a decision to hire or not. Not for the skeezy reasons this Bruce fellow brings up, but because old Boomers who get to do the bulk of hiring at big companies assume that if a woman is engaged or married, that sooner or later, she’ll take time off work to have kids. Buuuuuuut, if you don’t get the job, and he asked you a question about your marital status, please get ahold of me in a couple years, I’d love to litigate the shit out of that fucker.
Couldn’t you make this argument about women in general though? Doesn’t take a ring to fertilize an egg. I think one of our writers can back this up…
I take a couple weeks off to try to get all my reading done (lol), and I miss something really interesting. Who’s Preggers?! (I am ok to ask that, since I don’t hire or fire anyone.)
Crash has a kid. Crash isn’t married. Granted he’s a guy, but I have to imagine a chick was involved somewhere in that process.
And Not Mrs. Crash called him out on it the other day. I’ll refer you to the sex tips article.
Yeah, that got a little too real.
I was expecting “because they will assume you will spend more time planning your wedding than working,” which is also sexist and stupid, but this is so much worse.
Exactly what I was expecting. He certainly proved us wrong.
Reading the comments on his article is infuriating. Over and over that sad excuse for a man keeps insisting people check his source, a source that is garbage. The expert opinion he is citing as the source is his own opinion. What a moron.
Bruce is a tool. Women automatically get competitive over the size of each other’s rings? Go back to your pissing contest in the men’s room, Bruce. It sounds like he’d rather have a Mad Men-style office setup with blatant sexual harassment and only young single women working as secretaries/mothers to the men.
UGH, just UGH to this guy and his opinion.