Have an Engagement Ring? You Probaby Don’t Need a Job.
Image via Wikipedia
Thanks to Amanda, I saw this article the other day that told me and every other woman with an engagement ring out there, When On An Interview, Leave The Bling At Home.
Apparently some jobseekers have damaged their chances for a job by wearing a big engagement ring, which some hiring managers and recruiters say could send the signal that “this person doesn’t need the job.”
In another instance, HuffPo writer Katherine Bindley says, a woman returning from maternity leave asked for a raise and was turned down because of the size of her engagement ring. (She’s now suing.)
“It’s obviously unfair,” Bindley says. “No one would ever ask a man how many carats the diamond ring he bought his wife is to determine what kind of job or salary he deserves — but the [evidence suggests] that it happens.”
Wow. Just wow. Thank goodness this was categorized on mediabistro.com as OMGWTF and the author of the article, Rachel Kaufman, denounced this practice. But SERIOUSLY?! Part of me absolutely cannot believe this is true, but then my more logical, feminist side takes over and I realize that yes, I can totally believe this is true because it is yet another example of men judging women based on their appearance.
While there are obvious sexist implications to the practice of not hiring a woman based on the size of her bling, I think this also points to another, equally problematic attitude in America – the attitude that we all work for money and nothing more. Of course, having money makes a lot of things much easier, but if we all worked jobs just to get paid and not because we felt a deeper calling to do this thing for the rest of our lives, we would all be totally miserable.
Sure, Tim bought me a nice engagement ring. Sure, he could probably provide for us alone if I lost or left my job. But, for as much as I complain about waking up and going back to work and dealing with people who sometimes don’t appreciate what you do, I know that now, if I were stuck in my house all day with nothing to do I would literally lose my mind. In fact, most summers I border on cabin fever and those first few days back at school in the fall quench the thirst in me to feel useful and fulfill a purpose. I teach because I want to, dare I say because I need to for my own sense of purpose, and because I enjoy our standard of living and would like to keep the income that provides for that. You could say that I have that opportunity to do something I love rather than something I need to pay the bills because my husband is employed, which could be true, but considering he’s a teacher, too, I think we’re about in the same boat here. I’m speaking from privilege, I know this. But I don’t think that changes the fact that if, given the option, everyone could choose a profession (or choose to stay at home) that fulfilled the same sense of purpose, they would.
But, you know, we can’t ever really convey that needing a job is about more than needing a paycheck when the prevailing attitude is that women who have husbands or fiancés don’t really need to do anything at all. Kind of like how pretty girls don’t need to do homework or know how to make coffee, eh?
I have heard of this – I was actually warned not to wear my engagement ring to any meetings at University of Chicago as a prospective student, either. They don’t want to invest 5yrs of funding into a student that may not stay actively working, right? That being said, I might actually have a better shot in some senses as a couples therapist if I am wearing my engagement rings; couples are a little more likely to trust me (I believe) if they think I have an intimate understanding of what it means to be in a marriage. So there’s the flip side for ya 🙂
Oh yes, I believe it. I have a very modest engagement ring that I stopped wearing after one particular interview. I did not mention my wedding, wedding planning, or engagement at the interview. I thought everything went really well and I answered their questions honestly, confidently, and in line with the values of the school. When the principal called to let me know they’d chosen someone else, she said, “Good luck with your wedding!” I was floored.
I love it, in this financial market employers can be so picky. Was the principal being sexist or maybe someone that has had prior dealing with an employee planning a wedding and used past experiences to steer clear from that again. I don’t think it is hard to comprehend why you probably lost the job to someone who didn’t present as many problems. You cannot be mad at the principal, you walked into the interview thinking you were prepared and clearly was not. If you think that your skills at being a producer at work is all that matter when it comes to getting a job and even after, you should get very comfortable with mediocrity.
I’m not trying to imply that the candidate they chose wasn’t right for the job. Simply that I was shocked she even noticed the engagement ring in the first place, and took note enough to mention it when she called. As I said, it was not a topic we discussed during the interview.
I bet its more evident now that your resume isn’t all that’s being reviewed during an interview. Damn this economy for allowing employers to be so picky, sometimes I think the job market is so tough and so many people are competing for jobs that they hire the first person to wear black shoes to the interview gets the job. Wow and after reading what I wrote I sound like an ass. I was just trying to push the point of how little things can keep someone out of a job.
This is so dangerously close to the way employers justified not hiring women in the 1930s (and again after WWII)–“someone” (a MAN) could support a family with this income, it’s more responsible to give it to “someone” who really needs the income. Is a married man always going to seem like a more responsible choice during an economic crisis?!
I once looked into the history of women in academia for a college project and discovered that women were already making up half of many graduate programs in the 1920s and ’30s but almost NONE of university faculty hires. The excuse was often “What would the newspapers say about us if we gave a good job to a single woman when there are fathers out of work?”
It’s sad, but I’m sure it’s true in some cases. And I’m also sure it’s both male and female interviewers who make those judgments – as with the situation that Anne-Marie described. What you said about purpose is exactly it. Ability should be the main ingredient in hiring, not need for a paycheck. Is that how you’d want your heart surgeon chosen, or your dentist, or your fire fighters?