when an interviewer wants to talk to the candidate’s wife

by Alison Green on February 24, 2025

A reader writes:

My father-in-law was visiting over the weekend. He started talking about how my brother-in-law is job-hunting to escape new company ownership.

At one of my brother-in-law’s interviews, the employer asked to talk to his wife (my sister-in-law, who isn’t employed and cares for my three young nephews).

I was so surprised that I exclaimed, “They can’t do that!” Well, I guess my comment offended my father-in-law because he raised his voice and said back, “What do you mean they can’t do that?!”

I said what if the candidate was a single mom with kids? My father-in-law snapped at me, saying the employer wants to make sure that my brother-in-law’s wife “is on board.” (He missed my point that not everyone who works is a married man.) I dropped the conversation and said nothing more after that, because it wasn’t worth fighting over it in front of my daughter and husband.

So now I’m wondering, is it okay for an employer to ask to talk to “The Wife” before hiring? It seems very outdated to me. It’s like they want to know that she will agree to provide free childcare so my brother-in-law can work as many hours as the company wants.

It’s a very retro and outdated practice.

And I’d love to know whether they’re asking to talk to female candidates’ spouses, because I bet they’re not.

Some years back, I had an interesting conversation with Suzanne Lucas of Evil HR Lady about companies that ask to meet the whole family before offering a job that would involve moving to a new country (something Suzanne herself has done; she and her kids moved to Switzerland when her husband took a job there). She made a good argument for why it makes sense in that situation — the job won’t work out if the family is unhappy in the new country / doesn’t want to move — but that’s very different than interviewing for a job locally.

My guess is that the explanation is one of the following:

* Your brother-in-law is interviewing for a high-up executive role where his spouse will be expected to play more of a role in his career and/or the company is more-than-usually invested in the character of the executives they hire and think meeting his spouse will give them insight into whether they’d be comfortable having him as representing their company.

* The role is relatively senior and they want to make sure his spouse is on-board with what the demands of the role are expected to be. (Typically this is something that the company would convey to the candidate and let the candidate talk with their spouse about, but again — retro.)

* The company thinks of themselves as “family-oriented” and this is part of that.

In any case, it’s pretty weird, and your father-in-law sounds like a difficult in-law (not because he doesn’t find it weird, but because he took it personally to the point of snapping at you about it).

You may also like:
{ 302 comments }

{ 302 comments… read them below }

    2. sambal*

      Yeah, that’s who came to mind for me too. He’s also famous for asking families for their budgets, too. Very, very icky.

      1. Mid*

        Ehhh…in his specific context, I can see it making sense and being less icky than it otherwise would be. Similar to how some finance and govt jobs require you to pass a credit check/show your finances are in an okay place.

        1. Work*

          I think passing a credit check is very different than providing your family budget. I would not want my employer passing judgment on how much I spend on streaming every year and could easily see a situation where an employer decides you don’t need a raise because you spend too much of your budget on “frivolous” or “unnecessary” items, not to mention more personal issues like prescription medications

          1. Audiophile*

            Seriously.

            I’ll never forget the time a crappy supervisor cut my hours without any warning even though I was full-time. When I said something, she told me I’d need to revise my budget to work within the hours she was giving me. Never mind, the fact that no one’s hours were consistent week-to-week as she continued to erratictly make changes to the schedule.

          2. WillowSunstar*

            That and sometimes people don’t want to tell their employer about all of their prescription medication, especially if it’s for something they want to keep private.

          3. Mid*

            I don’t disagree, but I also deeply dislike Dave Ramsey and pretty much everything he stands for, says, and does.

            That said, his entire brand is about family budgeting and a near cult-like following of his tenets. I don’t think it’s dissimilar to a clothing brand requiring you to wear their brand clothing while working for them. It’s not a requirement I would tolerate or appreciate, nor would I work for a company like that, but I also don’t think it’s an inherently unreasonable request, again, given that the entire company is based on his budgeting/lifestyle approach.

          4. Cats Ate My Croissant*

            I think there was a letter on here where someone asked for a raise and the boss said to bring in their bank statements and boss would organise their spending to fit their current salary.

            I was going to say ‘on here recently’ but I have form for saying ‘a couple of years back’ meaning 2007.

            1. I Have RBF*

              Yeah, I would quit if someone did that to me. I don’t allow other people who don’t understand my household F with my budget.

        2. Shutterdoula*

          No, it’s invasive and none of the company’s business. A generic credit check is much, much different than expecting to see the family’s detailed budget!

        3. Charlotte Lucas*

          I’ve had to do a credit check. That’s to make sure I’m not in such a bad place that I might be tempted to steal people’s identities

          Nobody needs to know how much money I spend on books and specialty flour per year.

          1. goddessoftransitory*

            Exactly. It doesn’t matter if every dime of my disposable income goes to designer bags, orphaned capybaras, vajazzling…not their beeswax.

            1. Pikachu*

              FYI I put designer bags under “storage” and vajazzling under “craft supplies” and nobody ever asks any questions

          2. Academic Physics*

            Or that really all my budgets are aspirational, and I actually spend about 50% more on my cat each month than I think I will

          3. I Have RBF*

            Yeah, basic credit check is fine.

            But there’s no way I would share my budget. For one, my personal budget and household budgets are different pots of money. My water bill is every other month. Plus I have a side business. Not something I want my employer weighing in on at all.

        4. M2RB*

          Strongly disagree. I’m a CPA and have zero problem with someone pulling my credit report and running a background check to be sure I’m not a fraud risk – but it is nobody’s business how much I do or do not spend on yarn, cat supplies, travel, music, movies, or anything else. My budget is between my spouse and me – no one else.

        5. Rainy*

          Not sure it’s reasonable to give my boss (or worse, my spouse’s boss) a chance to pass judgement on how much toilet paper (or bagels, or cat litter, or tampons, or or or) per month I buy.

        6. Ellie*

          I think it makes sense if you are applying for a role with a security clearance, or some other position where the employer needs to know if you constitute a bribery risk.

          But for a regular job? That’s an unjustifiable invasion of privacy.

          Also, this bit: “the job won’t work out if the family is unhappy in the new country / doesn’t want to move?”

          Am I the only one who wondered how they’d handle it if the employee was planning to divorce their spouse? Not everyone values family happiness over their career. I’d suggest a lot of big time executives probably don’t.

          1. PineappleColada*

            It’s not about being able to predict with 100% certainty; it’s about reducing risk. You can’t cover every single possibility.

      2. RagingADHD*

        I think discussing your budget with an employer that provides budgeting advice might be one of the less problematic thing that company does (such as firing employees for getting pregnant).

        1. Michelle Smith*

          I disagree. I think for people providing budget counseling, they can get enough information by giving them a sample client budget with fake numbers and have them walk through what they’d advise. I think for the receptionists, general counsel, IT, etc. – people not providing budget counseling – it’s entirely irrelevant.

          1. RagingADHD*

            I think you misread my comment. I didn’t say it’s not problematic at all. Perhaps you are not aware of the multiple discrimination cases against the company in question.

      3. Artemesia*

        I have a lot of mixed feelings about Ramsey’s politics, religious nonsense and management practices BUT his financial advice is excellent for most people struggling with their finances and since the job is about advising people about how to budget, it seems reasonable to expect his employees to walk the walk and be willing to show that. A genuinely special case.

        1. Dog momma*

          I would agree with you but lately he’s been giving bad advice..imo& more importantly, has been very rude and contract to many of the callers

          1. Wolf*

            The business focus of his youtube channel isn’t to help callers, it is to entertain listeners – and listeners clicks the recordings where he scolds people and makes them look stupid. He’s getting rewarded for being rude and obnoxious.

        2. Mio*

          > the job is about advising people about how to budget

          No, the company is. It’s not a religion, no, everyone there doesn’t have to walk the walk and live by his values. In fact, even for religious org, not every job is always reserved for religious people. Your argument can make sense for certain positions, like advisors, but there’s no valid reason for Dave Ramsey to pry into the personal budget of an editor, an accountant, an HR manager, a janitor, a secretary, an IT person, etc.

          Besides, he doesn’t just do it at his company. He recommends this practice to every business.

          Not to mention, prying into someone’s personal budget will give one access to a lot of sensitive information you aren’t supposed to ask and that increases the risk of discrimination.

          As an aside, not only do I agree with you on his non-financial positions, I also have problem with some of his financial advice. In particular, I find what he’s published about MLM unconscionable given his audience. But of course, he’s close to MLM leaders, so…

        3. Sacred Ground*

          If he’s bringing his religious nonsense into his hiring practices, then he’s violating the law, period. Unless he wants to call his business a non-profit and start calling it a church, he doesn’t get to discriminate. He’s not that special.

      4. I Have RBF*

        Ugh, no. I don’t share my budget with an employer or potential employer. It’s none of their damn business.

      1. Artemesia*

        A guy who thinks it is fine to consider the wife as a subordinate and a company having the right to manage a guy’s marriage i.e. a deep seated patriarchal misogynist is naturally going to treat his DIL as if she were not an actual person and had no right to respect in her own home (his son’s home that is and it is his job to help keep her in line.)

        1. Crooked Bird*

          You know, I essentially agree with all of these sentiments, and I do think this practice sounds ridiculous and like A Lot, but the way you phrased it made me realize what’s confusing about the whole thing. Can someone unpack for me the logic of how this practice implies the wife is subordinate? If a potential employer asked to speak with a woman’s husband, wouldn’t we think that was sexist in the other way–like it implies he’s in charge & she has to have his permission?

          To me it feels like a wrong practice b/c it pries into the marriage and offers potential for abusers to abuse it, etc, so I’m not trying to argue for it in any way, I just don’t quite follow this part.

          1. Anonymous Reader*

            Per Alison’s response: “And I’d love to know whether they’re asking to talk to female candidates’ spouses, because I bet they’re not.”

            I’m inclined to take it even further and suggest that since this is the sort of thing that is probably only required of people applying for executive positions, that I bet it never comes with female candidates because they only ever consider men for those roles.

          2. JJ*

            I agree, if the wife was subordinate she would not have to be consulted at all. Maybe the assumption that she would of course have to cover the slack if the man is not around, but again, in a truly patriarchal house wouldn’t this be the default anyway? I think it’s weird that the company is trying to involve the whole family, but it is not necessarily sexist.

          3. bighairnoheart*

            I think it depends what they intend to get from their conversation with her. There’s a stereotypical model for a politician or high powered business executive (or similar roles, just using those as an example) needing to have a wife who’s perfectly polished, demure, beautiful, and puts her husband first, doing everything in her power to support his career. If they want someone who fits that very subservient role, and they’re interviewing her to see if she can do it, then it’s very obviously rooted in the idea that she’s subordinate to her husband. On the other hand, if they’re truly only interviewing her to make sure she’s on board with the demands this new job will put on her husband or something like that, well, it’s still weird, but it’s not loaded with the same assumptions. And we don’t have enough info to say from the outside which of those it is (or likely, if it’s a little of column A and a little of column B).

            2. JustaTech*

              There’s also a variant of Column A where the wife is tasked with being a hostess (which takes skill) and connector – this was common in the earlier 20th century for politicians especially, where the wife would have the connections (usually through family) and organize the social events where the politician would do his negotiating.
              In those cases she wasn’t expected to be a doormat but rather to be part of a team (the junior half, but still with her own brain).

          4. Sacred Ground*

            The company doesn’t just imply the wife is subordinate to the husband (company gives a directive to the husband and expects his wife to comply with it), it assumes that the wife is subordinate to her husband’s EMPLOYER.

            The company believes that they have a legit claim over her time and they expect to get an interview with her because she’s married to their employee/applicant.

            Whatever they think about the marriage, it says they expect her to be subordinate to the company and SHE DOESN’T WORK THERE.

    2. Rainy*

      Her FIL sounds similar to mine, as in, I can imagine having exactly this conversation with my FIL, including him cornering me to scream at me about some view he assumes I hold. Mine is not at all a pleasant person to be around.

  3. Long Time Lurker*

    I actually went through this as a spouse, but very informally — my husband had just gotten a promotion that would likely take us to a faraway state within a few months, and his boss was in Then Current City and invited him and me out to dinner, along with some other co-workers and their guests. While we were out with them the boss asked me “what do you think about this possible move? How would that affect your job?” and a few other questions. Obviously my husband and I had already discussed this so I had answers, but I got the impression that the boss was just checking that it was okay with me. I thought it was smart, but it wasn’t a formal thing — it was just something that came up when we met (though I think part of the reason he wanted to meet me was to get a feel for how I felt about the move)

    1. The Starsong Princess*

      Yes, in my company, they want to meet with the spouse when someone is asked to relocate to head office to make sure they are onboard. They often will try to sell the spouse on the move – here’s the relocation help we offer, here’s a community of potential friends etc. But overall, that’s in decline.

      1. We Put the Fun in Dysfunctional*

        My dad said in the old days (either 1970s-80s if he meant his career, or 50s-60s if he meant my grandfather’s), it was common enough to take the wife around and sell her on safe neighborhoods and good schools, do something fun with the kids, etc., while the man went through the interview process. The companies figured part of wooing a good candidate was convincing the wife that it’d be worth it to uproot from the support network.
        But I don’t see companies taking the time now, never mind changes in accessibility of information, family structure, women in the workforce, etc.

        1. Frosty*

          It would be awesome if companies still offered this as a service to people relocating for jobs – just not with the specific sexism of the past.

    2. Sparkles McFadden*

      This sounds more like Alison’s example. Though it’s not international, moving is involved, and it makes sense to make sure everyone who has to move feels OK about it. Plus, as you mention, it wasn’t a formal thing. It’s not like The Boss said “I need to schedule a meeting with your wife.” It was “Let’s all have dinner and discuss this while I’m in town.” which is a friendly thing to do.

      1. Curious*

        While the packaging is different, I think that the substance is the same. This seems similar to the fact that when they take you to lunch or dinner during an interview, that is in fact part of the interview.

    3. Long Time Lurker*

      I should add he was at the company for a long time (still is, actually) and I had met his boss before, and being included in something like a dinner or drinks after meetings is common in his company. That would have felt different if it was out of the blue, I think.

    4. Sloanicota*

      Wow, I’d be so uncomfortable with this. It seems too intrusive to the marriage to me. And what, if the spouse isn’t enthused, they can unilaterally sink the candidate’s prospects? If a prospect wants to divorce their spouse and move away, would that exclude them from consideration?

      1. Long Time Lurker*

        Reading the comments on the original post I definitely see that — but at the time, I have to say I appreciated that his boss cared enough to ask me how the move would affect me. But obviously that is fraught for a million reasons, as you point out.

        1. Lizzo*

          I had a similar relationship with a prior boss of my spouse, who I had spent some time with at company functions. I think he (boss) recognized that I had significant influence on my spouse and big decisions were/are not made unilaterally in our household. He also showed genuine care for us, including giving my spouse a week off when *my* father died (this was above and beyond corporate bereavement policies), and then sending a sympathy card to *me* by way of my spouse when we returned from the funeral trip. It had the potential to be problematic, but it never was.

          Jobs and employees don’t exist in a vacuum.

      2. Beth*

        I think an invite to a group dinner is really different than an interview request. It’s hard to say no to an interview request–there’s really not a lot to fall back on other than “I don’t want you to talk to them,” which is awkward. But a dinner invite, at a set date/time, which includes several people and is based on the boss’s travel plans? All you need to say is “Spouse unfortunately can’t make it but I’ll be there.” It’s a lot less pressure and a lot easier to put off.

      3. Nonym*

        > And what, if the spouse isn’t enthused, they can unilaterally sink the candidate’s prospects? If a prospect wants to divorce their spouse and move away, would that exclude them from consideration?

        That was my thought as well. It’s inappropriate, gives excessive power to the candidate’s spouse, and is rife with risk of unconscious biais playing a role.

        Your employer shouldn’t ask your spouse’s permission to offer you a job, much less interview them – formally or informally.

        Some people may be willing to take a job even if their partner isn’t on board, including even if it results in a divorce. That’s their choice.

        And I say this as someone who has taken a position abroad and would have declined if my partner hadn’t been on board. My husband had to quit and it took him a year to find something in our new country, which was the average it took for my colleagues’ spouses too. So I do understand the impact of an international move.

    5. A non-mouse*

      I had a similar thing happen when my husband was being recruited for a fairly senior position – we flew to the city where the company was based and the CEO took us out to dinner. In our case, my husband played the “well my wife might not be onboard with all the changes we’d need in our lives to make it work” card to hedge and preserve the option to decline the role while preserving the professional relationship, and I was able to ask questions at the dinner that my husband wasn’t able to ask as directly. It worked in our favor – I was able to ask a question that made it clear to us that this wasn’t a role we wanted to consider for our family, and my husband kept a positive working relationship with the CEO/company.

    6. HonorBox*

      Handling it casually makes a lot of sense. I’m supportive of that. But calling the spouse separately is a bit too far.

    7. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, if they are going to be a trailing spouse, find out if they’re aware of all the changes that will come into their lives, especially if moving to somewhere with a different language. Mention what help you can give and ask what else they need.
      Also, are they enthusiastic, lukewarm or being dragooned by their spouse

    8. Frieda*

      I once went to dinner as part of my then-husband’s job interview – the rationale was that there’s an expectation in that specific field that your spouse (of whatever gender, they were pretty clear with him) will do things like go to fundraising dinners with you.

      Informally, it was definitely to make sure I was socially acceptable to be associated with the organization/role – a class/education/appearance vibe check. We went to the interviewer’s country club, where amusingly to me we also ran into his dad, and I just tried to be pleasant and supportive and have a normal person conversation and do things like not order alcohol because the interviewer and his wife weren’t, etc.

      He got the job although it was not ultimately a good fit for him (nor was I, as it turned out, but that was unrelated.)

      1. JustaTech*

        I understand why some fields do this, but oh my whole face wrinkled up at the “class/education/appearance vibe check”.
        Like, they’d turn down a great candidate because their wife didn’t fit a particular appearance mold (which would likely hit a whole bunch of discriminatory categories)?

        1. allathian*

          So did mine. But it really depends on the job and why they want to talk to the spouse. If the job involves a long move, especially an international one, most expats who leave their jobs early do so because their families are unable or unwilling to move or to adjust to living in the new country.

          If it’s a political appointment where the spouse has an official or semi-official role, their willingness to support their spouse is pretty essential to the job. This also applies to the spouses of clergy who are expected to work for the church.

          I’m in Finland, and we had our first woman President, Tarja Halonen, in office 2000-2012 (two 6-year terms). She married her male partner during her time in office, so not being married wasn’t an impediment to her career. She was also a single mom, although her daughter was an adult by the time she was elected. He played a role, albeit a fairly minor one, as First Gentleman, although he also managed to do research for, write, and defend his doctorate in legal studies during her first presidential term.

          Our current President Alexander Stubb has a British wife, Suzanne Innes-Stubb. She seems smart but so far she’s been fairly invisible as First Lady, except on state visits, whether visiting or hosting, where she always looks glamorous and elegant. It’s sad to think that this is in any way important, but it’s the world we live in…

          In the second round he beat Pekka Haavisto, who has managed to build a pretty decent career for himself as a peace negotiator. He’s gay and has been married to a man for about as long as it’s been legal here. His husband, Antonio Flores, is Ecuadorean-Finnish. His sexuality hasn’t been an impediment to him being a successful negotiator even in parts of the world where you can be executed for gay sex, although I have absolutely no doubt that some people didn’t vote for him because of his sexuality even if they agreed with his politics.

          Although I’m happy with our current president, it would’ve been really interesting to see how a gay couple would’ve handled the traditional host and guest duties of top officials and their spouses.

          1. JustaTech*

            I have to imagine that being the spouse of a high-power politician is a pretty challenging job and complex line to walk, especially if you have your own career (see one Hilary Rohdam Clinton).
            Speaking only for myself, I’m very envious that you’ve had women presidents. Sigh.

    9. La femme Nikita*

      I think this practice of meeting spouses has some merit and ought to be less controversial than it is being made out to be here.

      In international moves, one of the very top reasons for an expat assignment failing is that the spouse dislikes the new locale. A failed assignment costs the company a considerable amount of money in relocation costs, possibly tuition fees, and so on. It is easy to see how this would also be the case for domestic relocations.

      And this is the case regardless of whether the marriage is a traditional or same-sex, and of whether the spouse is female or male.

      A marriage was historically supposed to be a blending of individuals. The modern perspective may be more nuanced, maybe more of a stewpot than a melting pot, but it’s still not entirely without basis — how your spouse behaves can be a reflection on your and affect your status at work. Furthermore, if your marriage is awful, it can adversely affect your performance at work.

      There was that letter a few weeks ago about how some spouses got wildly drunk at an office Christmas party, with mayhem resulting and the CEO telling the people involved to come forward because “you know who you are.”

      1. Joron Twiner*

        I think the issue is that, while it is important for spouses/family to be involved in the decision, there’s no equitable or practical way for a potential employer to interview the spouse.

        If the spouse doesn’t like the new locale, what could/should the employer do? If they really want the candidate and would offer more money, shouldn’t that negotiation happen between the candidate and employer, and separately between the candidate and their spouse?

        And towards the end of your comment you’re getting into dicey territory–while your spouse’s behavior could be egregious enough to affect you at work, that’s no reason for employers to interview or screen spouses in advance. Can you imagine an employer turning down a candidate because their spouse was awful and it might affect their work performance? What a horrible world!

    10. allathian*

      I’m very much of two minds on this one. Somehow, it feels a lot more acceptable for a company to interview the spouse of a future expat than it would be for any job within the country, even a large country like the US. And let’s face it, moving from one location to another in the US can involve as large a culture shock as it would be to move from one country to another in Europe.

      One of my friends married a man who switched countries every two or three years. When they met, he was just about to move to Tokyo, and they had to marry within a few months of her moving there on a tourist visa for her to be allowed to stay. After that they went to Taipei, Sydney, Zürich, Riyad, and Madrid, and she was interviewed for every move (he worked for a major global telecoms company). She said that the interview was particularly intense for the move to Saudi Arabia because the company had to be sure she’d be okay with living in a country where she wasn’t seen as a legal adult. She got pregnant in Saudi Arabia and decided to come back to Finland with his full support (they went for a vacation in Finland and she never went back there). When their son was old enough to start school she wanted to stay in Finland and he wanted to continue moving from one country to another. Their marriage didn’t survive the LDR but my friend thought their son deserved some stability in his life, so they ended up divorcing. Then her ex was laid off by the telecoms company and is now living in Finland again, and now the kid sees his father every other weekend and some holidays.

      For most of their marriage, my friend was a homemaker/SAHM, now she works as a translator like I do, but for a different employer.

  5. Brian*

    As a gay male living in the south, I have been asked personal questions about my family in past interviews. It always created a really tricky and uncomfortable dynamic for me.

    1. Vio*

      I would love to think that was unintentional, but sadly I suspect that in some cases that is exactly the reason they like to ask. See: Things Nobody Should Be Ashamed Of But Some Idiots Want To Stigmatise Anyway (While Being Unashamed Of The Prejudice They Should Be Ashamed Of)

    2. Alicent*

      I lived in the South for a while as a cishet single female and my boss asked me to go to church with him because OBVIOUSLY I needed help finding a new one when I moved. I had to sidestep that carefully and it wasn’t the only time I had major problems.

      3. Ally McBeal*

        My best friend (cishet white female) lives in a major Southern city and works for that city’s government. She knows – not assumes, knows – that her career would be in a better place if she weren’t an atheist even though she’s in a government job. There’s no escaping the question “where do you go to church?” and “I don’t” isn’t an answer you can give without consequences. I spent my adolescence in the same city and got out (of the city, of the South) as quickly as I could, even though (unlike her) I was a practicing Christian until just a couple years ago.

        1. glowingfirefly*

          Honestly even as someone who DOES go to church, it’s a loaded question because they’re trying to figure out if you go to a “good” church or not. The church I go to is LGBT friendly/has a female pastor so that puts it on the naughty list for a lot of people

      4. Artemesia*

        I did my career in the south and I can’t count the times I got asked if we had gotten ‘churched yet’ and were reassured we would feel at home once we were ‘churched.’

        1. Seashell*

          I’ve told my husband that I don’t want to retire anywhere that people ask questions like that. It’s a totally foreign experience to me, since I live an area with plenty of non-Christians and non-religious people.

          1. Ellie*

            Me neither. I’ve been asked it before, I’ve always answered I’m an atheist/I don’t go to church, and I really wouldn’t want to stay anywhere where that would be a problem. But I’ve been pretty lucky – I’ve never been anywhere where that answer has cost me more than a social invitation.

        2. StarTrek Nutcase*

          People here seem to recognize that there’s wide diversity in, e.g., sexual preferences but not for Southern job attitudes. I’ve lived in a mid-size Southern town from age 16 (now 68+). My 50 years working include jobs in private & government (state & local). All that time, when asked I’ve been clear I’m atheist despite working with predominantly Christian coworkers. While I have been gently offered to join, I never felt pressure or discrimination that I’m aware of. I “have’ been aggravated by the wilful blindness that other religions don’t exist nor deserve recognition if any religion is going to be recognized (conference prayers, Christmas parties, etc.).

          I doubt Northerners would appreciate being clumped together based on negative traits, attitudes or behaviors.

          1. Toxic Workplace Survivor*

            This is a fair point to raise. I’d like to say I appreciate hearing a first hand story like yours while acknowledging there is an echo of “Not All Men” and “All Lives Matter” here. For marginalized folks or anyone with “invisible” identities, etc. if you are in a place that *could* be unsafe for you it is only prudent to behave as if harm could happen. And that can be very difficult.

            I’m glad to know you had a better experience!

            1. Nah*

              Having moved around the northern states, it’s not that this attitude (“obviously you’re a Christian”, “obviously you’re straight and married and want kids”, “obviously you support red politicians”, etc) doesn’t exist, it’s that it’s more quiet and less upfront, while still having the exact same negative ramifications for going Against The Norm™. Especially in areas that consider themselves to be Proud Blue Areas, they might not deck their houses out in x politician/anti-x cause paraphernalia, that Wouldn’t Be Proper, but get stuck alone with them or find them in a back room where they think they can take off the mask and all the prejudice comes out in force. Growing up in the closet it was honestly terrifying to see the sheer level of heel-turn, and many of the people doing it were often well respected and/or held authoritative positions in the community at large. Honestly for all that it stinks in all the other ways, moving to an area where people didn’t hide their prejudices was a minor relief, because at least then I knew who I should be avoiding telling XYZ about myself, rather than being paranoid someone otherwise acting as an ally would be immediately turning around to ruin my life in secret.

              tldr, it’s not just The South™ (which honestly also ignores that many places are liberal and/or accepting as heck, but gerrymandered to hell and back – Texas and Florida have the second and third largest LGBT populations in the country after California!) with these attitudes, it’s the attitudes themselves that are the problem, and it’s frustrating to see northern states get a total pass when this topic comes up, honestly.

    3. not nice, don't care*

      Nothing says ‘I quit’ like a boss referring to my ‘special friend’, repeatedly, in the case of my corrections.

  6. Jennie*

    Sometime circa the late 1970s/early 1980s, my dad was asked to bring his family with him when he interviewed for jobs out of state. The “women of the office” all talked with my mom while the “men folk” interviewed my dad. As for me, they left me in the corner with a coloring book munching on a fancy chocolate they gave me that was from a box given to the staff for “secretary’s day”. – I was warned to be on my “very best behavior” because we wanted to “make Daddy proud” and help him get this great new job.

    1. Anonym*

      My grandmother was informally interviewed at a party that grandfather’s boss hosted – she didn’t realize until afterward, but he was up for a promotion to an executive role and apparently they wanted to know if he had sufficient partnership at home to take it on. Apparently her being intelligent, competent and supportive was part of why he got the role? Very interesting, and also very much occurred in the 1960s. I can sort of understand the desire to know, but a) privacy and b) assumptions about people’s personal lives and gender and gender roles and c) appropriate boundaries. Nowadays and for so many good reasons, it’s red flags galore.

      Though I do understand more in cases of international moves with a family. I’d still be put off by a request to talk to my spouse.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Back in the old days I think spouses were expected to play kind of a secretary role to their husbands, TBH. At least in some fields. And there were probably bored educated women who’d be eager to do it. I think even now in the military and the church (weirdly those two are the two that come to mind), senior leader’s spouses are expected to do a good amount of hosting and community work.

        1. JSPA*

          Entertaining business contacts and clients at home was a thing! I remember as a small child eating in my bedroom (hot dogs and fries, a special treat, as a bribe to be quiet), because there were clients coming for dinner.

          1. Milltown*

            I feel like there are episodes of, say, I Love Lucy, the Flintstones, and/or the Jetsons (as well as a parody of them in WandaVision) that involve the Big Boss coming over for dinner and if the wife doesn’t cook a good meal the husband’s promotion will get tanked or he’ll even be fired. Which are played for laughs because obviously something goes wrong with the food and Lucy etc needs to cover it up and act like everything’s fine.

            I feel like even watching them on reruns as a child I thought that was wild. Lucy’s meatloaf is overcooked so Ricky would lose his job??

            1. Elsewise*

              Entertaining my boss at my home was sort of like quicksand, something you really expected to have to worry about a lot more as an adult than you really did.

          2. WillowSunstar*

            I remember in the 80’s we had people from my dad’s job come to dinner at our house. As a young girl, I was required to either wear a skirt or a dress. (No makeup though, I wasn’t old enough for makeup.) Since I was the shy kind of kid and not the rambunctious sort, was allowed to go to my room after dinner and read. No TV allowed on those nights since the adults were talking in the living room.

            Interesting how times have changed.

          3. La femme Nikita*

            “Entertaining business contacts and clients at home was a thing!”

            I hate to tell you this, but the practice has not disappeared. It’s just that today, the entertainment is much more likely to take place at a restaurant — homes have acquired a kind of “inner sanctum” status reserved for only your closest friends.

            Dinner parties were very much a thing in the 1960s, and they’re much less so now, even where the guests are friends, rather than work colleagues. People are also much more willing to spend discretionary income at restaurants.

            1. allathian*

              Indeed. My parents are both retired academics in a STEM field, and they sometimes entertained other academics at home, especially when we lived on a research station in the boondocks where the nearest mom-and-pop store was 2 miles away and the nearest restaurant 20 miles away, and that was a village pub. The store did home deliveries, though, in the 1980s! My parents would call in with a list of items every week, and a couple days later, the research station van would go pick up stuff for people, and they got billed once a month. The last year we lived there, in 1984, the store got a fax instead.

              That said, they weren’t fancy dinners by any means, just ordinary home-cooked food with everyone dressed in their nice clothes.

              At least from what I’ve seen, business entertaining at restaurants is less likely to involve spouses, though.

          4. londonedit*

            My dad was ‘the boss’ (he owned the company) and I definitely remember that my parents would have dinner parties in the 80s where my dad’s fellow execs and their wives would come over for dinner. I think there’s historically been less of the ‘boss’s wife must be a pillar of the community’ thing here in the UK than in parts of the US, and there wasn’t the dynamic where lowly employees would have to invite my dad and my mum round for dinner – it was very much that my dad as the boss would be hosting other members of the team. But my mum would cook a nice dinner for them and my dad would do the hosting (he’d be in charge of drinks and they’d all talk business for an evening). I guess it was the 1980s equivalent of an executive team awayday or something.

        2. Smithy*

          Yes – I also think of foreign service spouses. In my old job, I used to need to attend a number of embassy parties a year – and there were just always an interesting variety of traveling spouses and what they did with their time. You could always tell the ones who went to every party to really work the room that it was their way to do something substantive with their time.

          Those types of jobs have those tasks and opportunities a bit more bluntly baked into them, but I always found it fascinating to see how different people approached the traveling spouse role.

          1. Angstrom*

            I had older ex-foreign service relatives. back then, the wife’s “performance” at embassy social functions was part of the husband’s annual performance evaluations.

          2. Applesauced*

            We probably wouldn’t have Julia Child without the “trailing spouse” thing!

            She (highly educated and a whole person in her own right) was in Paris because he husband was a member of the foreign service and she took cooking classes (after having also served in government positions across the world).

          3. Foreign Service Babe*

            I thought of this, too. I’ve been in the Foreign Service ~15 years. And while there is a lot of workplace advice about ensuring your family is onboard, they [officially] trust us to handle this without their intervention. In one of my early tours, I had a boss who liked to invite spouses to the initial courtesy call on the employee’s first day of work. The tone of it started out as inclusive, i.e. “we’re so happy to have you here; we’re serious about making sure spouses integrate well into the embassy community.” But it ended up with a “this is what we expect of you/don’t screw this up for your spouse” kind of vibe. Plus there was some ethnic/gender normativity to which I specifically took offense, i.e. “I know it may be easier for you to make friends with locals as opposed to embassy personnel, but I need you to make the effort to be a real American.” As soon as my husband left the room, I informed the Ambassador that there would be no more of that. I do not need my employer to assert itself in my marriage, thanks.

        3. iglwif*

          My late father was a tenure-track (later tenured) professor when he married my mom in the early 1970s. For a while he was head of his department. It was absolutely considered part of the job to host dinner parties in your home with colleagues, visiting professors, etc., and my mom absolutely did 99% of the work to make that happen.

          Fortunately for my father, my mom is the most extroverted person in the universe and absolutely loves this kind of stuff. It actually took me a long time to work out that a lot of the dinner parties of my early childhood were Professional Obligations, because my mom loves to entertain and kept on doing it, though with a slightly different rotation of guests, long after she yeeted my father. [I will not go into the reasons here but believe me, the yeeting was entirely justified.] I helped her make so many dinner parties, Thanksgiving gatherings, seders, holiday dinners, NYE parties, etc. when I was growing up that to this day people see me in action at a large gathering and say “I can tell you worked as a server when you were young!” (I did not.)

          In those days there were some women faculty, and certainly lots of women getting PhDs as my mom nearly did, but the majority were still men and the entertaining was all done by the women.

        4. Nobby Nobbs*

          I wouldn’t be surprised if it were in pretty steep decline in churches too, given that most of the pastors’ spouses I know are also pastors.

          1. Lily Rowan*

            I was just on the search committee for a new pastor, and one of the questions we got from the candidate was what expectations we had for her spouse. Luckily, we had none! Our last pastor had a partner who was not involved at all, and the two before that were both single. So it will not be an issue that the new minister’s spouse is not a member of our religion. (We did invite him and the family to the community dinner we had to meet the new minister, but not to interview him.)

        5. MigraineMonth*

          My aunt’s grave marker reads The best Navy wife. I have extremely mixed feelings about it.

          The thing about “women’s work” is that I’m angry when it’s overlooked *and* angry when it’s praised. Changing diapers, vacuuming or hosting dinners for the admiralty aren’t sacred callings, stop waxing poetic and *pay someone* to do them.

          1. SAHM*

            I absolutely feel a calling to care for children. Dismissing other women’s choices is pretty anti feminist.

            1. JSPA*

              I read “sacred” to mean something that all women are intrinsically called to.

              Any person can clearly find their calling in any role–and we just read a lovely tribute to someone who absolutely found their calling in hosting dinners–so the alternate reading doesn’t particularly make sense here.

              1. C.*

                This is a response to a comment that says “I’m angry when ‘women’s work’ is praised… *pay someone.*” Of course this is a judgment on women who do this stuff for free because they love it, love the partner they are doing it for, and/or love being praised for doing it. You can agree with that judgment, but that is what you are agreeing with.

                1. Calanthea*

                  I mean… I love my research area and teaching, but I should still be paid for it. It’s not anti-feminist to suggest that all work be paid for, and to note that unpaid work has traditionally been passed over to people with less power (women, non-citizens, people of colour, etc).
                  It’s not a judgement on women who do this work for free because they love it, or on women who do this work for free because it needs to be done (or on men who do this work for free because they love it, or for men who do this work for free because it has to be done – single fathers exist too).

                2. Miss Fire*

                  Calling for valuable work to be valued (and paid for) isn’t remotely a judgment on those who do it unpaid, but on the society that relies on their unpaid labor

            2. La femme Nikita*

              As an unmarried professional who does *not* feel this way (!), I want to thank you for your comment. Different people can have different perspectives and values, and that’s OK.

            3. MigraineMonth*

              I apologize, I didn’t mean to say that someone couldn’t be called to childcare. I meant that, societally, we usually honor men’s callings with respect throughout the year and also (generally) financial security. It’s always made corporate buy-in to Mother’s Day, Secretary’s Day and similar feel performative, since there are so many things we could be doing to make raising children easier but choose not to.

          2. boof*

            I also have mixed feelings about converting social support into $$$ – I get on the one hand if there’s no payment, in some ways it is “valueless” on the other hand, maybe commodification isn’t the only way to get things properly valued/respected.

            1. iglwif*

              This is where I land. It feels unfair to me that the labour of caregiving (whether for kids or anyone else), the labour of social diplomacy, the labour of keeping a household fed and clothed and pointed in roughly the same direction, is not valued as it should be. I don’t like the gendered ways that caregiving labour is socially valued, and I don’t like the way caregiving / helping professions dominated by women, such as nursing, ECE, and social work, are systemically underpaid and undervalued.

              And I also don’t super love the idea that the only way of recognizing the value of unpaid labour is by attaching a wage to it. I feel like, as a society, we should be able to come up with something better, but I don’t know what that would look like.

        6. Bruce*

          In the 50s to the early 70s my mom had a definite role to play as an officer’s wife. She was glad when my dad retired, she went back to college to finish her degree and they both got to try some different things! She got her BA the same year I got my BS :-)

      2. not nice, don't care*

        They wanted to make sure his indentured servant was supportive enough, without being uppity.

      3. Ellie*

        Yes, why can’t they just ask the applicant to discuss it with their family and make sure they’re on board? Why the need to talk to them themselves? Unless you’re a politician or some other role where your spouse is going to be in the public eye as well, it’s completely irrelevant.

    2. Chauncy Gardener*

      My grandmother went to numerous dinners while my grandfather (high level engineer) was being courted by Honeywell and Raytheon et al. But this was in the 40’s and 50’s!
      Not to mention that some of the dinners were at places where generally women were only allowed as guests of men, not women alone or just with other women….
      Yeah.

      1. Chauncy Gardener*

        Plus, we’re all pretty sure that my other grandfather didn’t make admiral because, and I do mean this accurately, my grandmother was a HUGE b—h to everyone

        1. MigraineMonth*

          If my spouse’s job expected me to do the amount of unpaid labor expected of an admiral’s wife, I’d be a bitch too.

          1. Ellie*

            Oh yeah – that sounds like a winning strategy to get out of it!

            Or maybe she just hated her husband? Got to keep an open mind.

        2. zuzu*

          There were rumors my ex-BIL didn’t make Chief because my sister was a “bitch,” but really, there were too many guys in line for Chief, and he wasn’t going to hang around once he qualified for a pension on the off chance he could make it.

          Besides, evidence of her being a “bitch” included things like not accepting the substandard housing the Navy wanted to stick her in when their housing burned down, refusing to take the blame for the fire, and going over the Commandant’s head to Sen. Inouye’s office when she was getting the runaround from the Navy by going through channels and realized, “Fuck it, I’m a civilian. I don’t need to go through their channels.” Oh, and also turning down the advances of her husband’s Chief.

  7. Jennifer Strange*

    My father-in-law snapped at me, saying the employer wants to make sure that my brother-in-law’s wife “is on board.” (He missed my point that not everyone who works is a married man.)

    Oh, I don’t think he missed it. I think he’s specifically commenting on what type of person he thinks is deserving of a job like this.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      “No, honey, this is a BIG BOY job, they want to hire a man with exactly the right kind of woman behind him.”

    2. My Name is Jonas*

      Yeah, it’s weird that the FIL is basically sticking up for the idea that his son can’t be relied upon to relay to his wife and the mother of his children what the new job might entail for her.

    3. Kay*

      In fairness, I don’t think that the point of this argument *should* be that not everyone who works is a married man. Well, at least not the focal point, but, waves hand and mumbles something about the state of the world we are currently living in…

      And I absolutely agree that he didn’t miss any of the possible points of the OPs argument.

    4. Zona the Great*

      Yeah and upon being snapped at in my own home, I’d be ending the visit right then and there.

    6. Beth*

      This is my read too. It’s not that he doesn’t know there are women in the workforce–or gay people, or single dads, or people with spouses who work full-time and don’t want to take time off to interview with their spouse’s prospective employer (what a weird reason to use PTO!), or etc. It’s that he thinks the priority in the workplace *should* be straight married men who are the breadwinner for their family, and whose wives need to be ‘on board’ because they’ll be a key support figure in their husbands’ careers. And he doesn’t like being challenged on that.

  9. Ugh*

    Besides this being a bizarrely sexist practice, it can break up a marriage. What if the wife IS on board, but doesn’t reply as enthusiastically as the employer expects, or says that she hopes to return to work soon. Then the husband doesn’t get the job. He’ll blame his wife. They could literally divorce over this. If it’s a high-salary position, he could go ballistic on her, blaming her for it. I could see a job non-offer resulting in a violent reaction at home, because there’s no way he’s going think he was rejected due to his own shortcomings.

    Also, suppose the couple is having marital trouble, and the wife expresses something to that effect, and he doesn’t get the job? Wow, this is the reddest of red flags.

    1. JSPA*

      Red flag reality check: if there’s a potential for abuse, that red flag sits with the borderline/almost abuser. Not the outside world.

      There will always be sub-optimum situations in life. Exactly none of them excuse “going ballistic.”

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Very true.

        Also, if not getting a job offer breaks up your marriage, it was on pretty shaky foundations to begin with.

    2. Kay*

      Another plot twist – what if the marriage was already broken up and the husband wanted to escape an abusive marriage and doesn’t want her to know? There are so many reasons this is just so so gross.

      1. Ellie*

        That’s what I was thinking. This overseas job might just be his ticket to a new and better life. I wonder how it would go down if he said during the interview, ‘I’m actually not planning to be married anymore by the time I take this job”.

    3. RagingADHD*

      Marriages don’t actually break up over things like this. A functional marriage is not going to be filled with blame or hostility like that. And dysfunctional marriages break up because they are inherently unworkable – external circumstances are merely a pretext.

      That doesn’t make it a good policy. But any marriage that would end over “not being enthusiastic enough” probably should have ended several years earlier anyway.

    5. Kella*

      A person who responds to a job rejection by “going ballistic”, using violence on his wife, and/or divorcing her has a whole lot of other reasons for engaging in those actions, and not getting the job is likely one of the more surface level reasons. A person who reacts this way is also a person who would blame his wife for not making him lunch before his interview, which made him perform less well. The practice of placing inappropriate and disproportionate responsibility on your spouse can be used on just about any event, big or small. The employer did not create that behavioral pattern.

  10. JSPA*

    Or the illegal (but who knows for how long) options of

    a) making sure the partner is the opposite sex

    b) making sure there is a partner

    c) guessing as to the hypothetical partner’s ethnicity / background

    d) figuring out if the partner also works, to suss out whether the prospective employee will likely have “family duties” that can’t be shoved off on a spouse

    Then there’s always, “we hire based on what went wrong with the last person in the role,” which isn’t at all illegal, but might be a yellow flag.

    Regardless, a bland, “they’re not available right now, can you tell me what you’d need to know, and I’ll pass it along?” would probably be a good, non-confrontational solution.

    1. Mrs. Pommeroy*

      Yes to all of that.
      “Figuring out if the spouse is on board with it” is one explanation that nicely covers a number of questionable or even outright illegal sins.

  11. BigLawEx*

    This is one of those a-ha moments. In large law firms, candidates are often encouraged to bring their significant others to dinners during recruitment periods. When I was graduating, law schools were still predominantly male (my class was 70/30 male/female). Medicine was the same for my friends back then. As I sit here all these decades later, I never thought about why it happened….

    1. Kelly L.*

      Yeah, I mostly remember it as something that came up in The Firm, a book published in 1991, and the characters thinking it was kind of retro *then*! It would not surprise me if this job was with good ol’ boy lawyers.

    2. Scarper*

      Your split was 70/30 for males? Interesting. Nationally, in 2023, 55% of all law school graduates were women. If you add them up, from 2019 through 2023, there were 12,175 more women awarded JD degrees than men. (From the ABA.)

      For the 2023-24 academic year, 72% of U.S. medical schools graduated more female than male MDs. (From Adtalem)

      1. JSPA*

        Surely it’s no surprise that decades ago (as per BigLawEx’s post, this is looking back “all these decades later”) this was not the case?

        All these decades to my mind implies at least 4, maybe 5 or 6.

        In 1970, the most “mixed” schools achieved 30%. In 1975, the national average of women students was 30%. In 1980, the average was closing in on 40%, but with a large standard deviation. In 1985, the lower tail still included some few schools at 30%.

        If BigLawEx graduated law school between (say) 1973 and 1983, a 70/30 split would have been entirely unremarkable.

        Link to follow.

      4. MigraineMonth*

        It’s surprising, isn’t it, how things change over the decades? And yet, at the upper levels, how they always seem to stay the same…

      5. Looper*

        Graduating from law school and practicing law are not the same thing. Only 60% of all law school grads practice law afterwards, so it would not surprise me to see that while more women are graduating law school, there are fewer getting hired into firms.

      6. PhysicsForGurrrrrrrls*

        FWIW, my graduating class of physics majors in the 90s was 94% male. My grad school class was 89% male. Med schools and law schools were already a lot closer to parity, but hard sciences were still really skewed.

        1. Random Anon*

          My dad graduated from medical school in 1968 and for reasons that mostly involve me being so over patriarchal bullshit once when he told me that there were “lots” of women in his graduating class I googled for an image of said graduating class, magnified it, and in front of him and out loud counted the women.

          Eight, in a class of about 100. I said in as close to a neutral voice as I could get that it just must have *seemed* like lots of women.

          He told me earlier this year that he really thought he wanted an independent daughter who thought for herself until I started disagreeing with him but by then it was too late. He seemed to feel a little sorry for himself.

  12. Curdeatin’ Cheezehead*

    Could also be a job (like clfederally adjacent or civilian but working at a military facility) where a clearance is required…depending on the level of clearance, they may want to interview family members, neighbors, etc (as well as pulling a credit report and doing a background check). That said, usually those jobs inform you from the beginning that a security clearance is required and they don’t just randomly ask to speak to “the wife” (as you put it) out of the blue.
    It’s kind of odd that your father in law immediately took offense, rather than simply explaining (as Alison did) that there are some rare circumstances where that might be done. I’m sorry he was such a jerk about it.

    1. Rotating Username*

      Demanding to talk to a candidate’s wife is completely separate from any clearance process.

    2. Parrhesia25*

      Not going to volunteer how I know but if a spouse needs to get a security clearance due to their partner’s job they will just interview the spouse for a security clearance, which is different from expecting them to be a plus-one at a job interview.

    3. Anon for this one*

      If a spouse is talked to as part of the clearance process, which is not universal, an interview with the company is not the way it will happen. It will be Nice People In Suits from a three-letter agency.

      1. Ellie*

        For me I had to provide contact details (not necessarily for a spouse, but for people that fit different categories – a friend you have known for more than 5 years, a former supervisor, etc.) and they emailed them a questionnaire. It was all about me, not them. Have they ever known me to take drugs? Am I solvent? Would you trust Ellie with a confidence, etc. It’s an official process that is open to legal scrutiny, and a single mother, a gay couple, etc. would have the same amount of hassle with it as anyone else.

    4. Meow*

      My husband had the FBI go around asking people he knew about him for a security clearance – they specifically didn’t ask me, because I would be so biased, there wouldn’t be any valuable info to get from me.

      Though speaking of outdated views, they did ask my husband about *me*, because they wanted an explanation on why/how he had a 10 year old daughter when we had only been married for 1 year. Like that’s an unusual circumstance these days…

  13. Bunch Harmon*

    It’s also very common with clergy positions, especially when there’s a rectory and the candidate’s family will live on-site. Or is the candidate’s spouse (read:wife) will be expected to provide unpaid labor for Sunday school, church suppers, etc.

    2. Rocket Raccoon*

      My dad is a minister, hiring him and my mom was always just that – hiring a pair of people for a pair of positions. Sometimes my mom was paid separately, sometimes it was one check, but it was always clear that both spouses were expected to work in specific roles.

      If a clergy candidate was unmarried, they would simply hire an unrelated person for the support position.

      1. Sloanicota*

        What was the job title for the spouse? Surely the budget didn’t say “minister’s wife” …

        1. Mid*

          Organist, teacher, secretary, music director, choir director, assistant, lots of different job titles (and job duties.)

        2. Librarian of Things*

          Music minister, youth minister, associate pastor, education coordinator. I’m sure there are as many options as there are churches with married clergy. Associate pastor was big where I grew up.

        3. Rocket Raccoon*

          Program Director, most commonly, or Community Director. In the older days something like Women’s Society President or Sunday School Director.

    3. Parrhesia25*

      While being in a clergy family has its own challenges, the expectation for unpaid labor from the clergy’s spouse has diminished. For one thing, the financial reality of ministry makes it likely that the spouse will need to work for pay. Also, there is a heightened expectation of professionalism and no longer the assumption that a minister’s spouse will have the qualifications to do the work.

      1. Nobby Nobbs*

        I suspect the fact that many pastors’ spouses these days tend to have a very particular job, and that job tends to keep one pretty busy on Sunday mornings, might have something to do with it too…

      2. Irreverend*

        Yeah as a member of the clergy, when I was last interviewing a church invited my wife to travel with me to the interview weekend but only because they recognized that moving across the country would be a family decision and that she might want to visit the city. She was only invited to a brief social gathering over a meal. Certainly no one was checking with her separately to be sure she was on board with me taking the job! And as a queer, interfaith couple, no one at any church I’ve worked in has expected her to do any work at the church (or even show up on Sunday mornings). I know there are still many denominations/churches where spouses are a package deal, but it’s absolutely less common than in previous generations.

      3. Pepper*

        Absolutely! “…the financial reality of ministry makes it likely that the spouse will need to work for pay.”

        1. Pepper*

          And having studied for ministry in the U.S. myself, some denominations have historically been open to women being in the highest levels in churches, and other still bar women. And overtime, as population change, more and more women are ministers and more and more unmarried people and people who are LGTPQ+ are minsters. This practice of expecting there to be a spouse who will act as free labor to a church is – hopefully – more and more going away.

  14. ImAtWork*

    “And I’d love to know whether they’re asking to talk to female candidates’ spouses, because I bet they’re not.”

    Female candidates? What female candidates?

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Even if the company has an excellent reason for meeting the spouse, (like I don’t know what that would be but let’s just be open minded) news of this going round would definitely deter anyone who isn’t a straight, married male. Women usually have already worked for that company where they’re trying to figure out when/if you have kids and why that means you shouldn’t be promoted. I’m sure this would go down like a lead balloon with gay candidates. Maybe that’s the point but it’s horrifying how often people just don’t think.

    2. Probably Should be Anon Here*

      I agree that Alison is being very generous in assuming that there are female candidates, based on what we know about the employer. If there are, I doubt they’re being given any serious consideration.

    3. pally*

      I’m sure they have female candidates.

      The interview with the spouse includes asking if the candidate has his permission to hold down a job. No woman’s 1970’s style job-seeking experience is complete without such questions.

      1. Texan in exile on her phone*

        In an interview for my first job out of college, the male VP (redundant I know) asked what my parents thought about my pursuing a career.

    5. Zona the Great*

      The ones who do admin work until they themselves get married and start their real job of being a wife.

    6. AVP*

      Yeah let’s be honest, they’re [likely] not interviewing any women for senior-level jobs at a place like this.

  15. Ann O'Nemity*

    The only time I’ve seen companies ask to meet the spouse involved relocation. In those cases, the candidate would be uprooting their entire life, so the company wanted a chance to woo the spouse too.

    1. Cease and D6*

      Yeah, I’ve occasionally heard of this in relocation-heavy jobs like academia as well. But the crucial difference here is that the spouse is not being *interviewed*, they’re being given the opportunity to ask questions that might be pertinent to their individual future prospects (eg. prospects for their own careers in the area).

      That’s a very different situation from one in which the spouse is being tested or judged in some way.

      1. TK*

        Yeah, I’m in academia and faculty positions usually have full day or longer interviews that include multiple restaurant meals. Some departments ask candidates if they’d like to bring their spouse/partner along for one of the meals (like a dinner at the end of the day). Since these positions almost always involve relocation, it’s common for spouses to be along anyway to get to know the city.

        Of course, this is always optional on the candidates’ part and it’s totally gender-neutral. I’ve heard rumors that for high-level positions (like VPs and deans) the university is basically mandating that committees offer this opportunity to candidates because we recently lost someone for a high-level position primarily because the candidate’s spouse didn’t want to move here. So it gives them an opportunity to interact with the search committee and ask questions too.

        1. not nice, don't care*

          At my workplace we have ‘dual career assistance’ which allows spouses of certain new hires to bump other folks for new positions.

        2. Quill*

          And when both partners are in academia the process may also be considering spousal hires, aka can we get a two for one deal with Tangerina in Astrophysics and Waukeen in Classics.

          1. TK*

            Yeah, although more often it’s like “astrophysics really wants Tangerina so classics will reluctantly take Waukeen even though he isn’t really what they’re looking for.”

            1. Quill*

              Classics: NO MORE MEDIVALISTS! I swear to god we have too many of those.
              Astrophysics: But! Big name! Many publications!
              One of several deans: Now, you’re just going to have to learn to get along. Why don’t you compromise and take Waukeen?

              Classics: *Sigh*

        3. AFac*

          At my school, this doesn’t happen until after an offer is made to a candidate. So at least on the school’s end, the choice has already been made before talking to the spouse, and it’s up to the candidate + spouse to learn about the place and decide whether to accept.

          We have had candidates decline offers because their spouse didn’t want to move, quit their job, etc. Sometimes it does feel like we wasted our time, but it’s never occurred to us to bring the spouse in at the interview stage. We have had candidates ask questions on behalf of their spouse, but that’s topic they bring up, not us.

      2. Sloanicota*

        Academia is the only place it makes sense to me as it’s the only place I’ve ever heard of with a “trailing spouse” tradition.

        1. Magpie*

          The military and foreign service have trailing spouse traditions as well. In the foreign service, there’s a lot of support for trailing spouses to make sure they’re happy and integrated into the community because there’s a concern that trailing spouses who get too lonely in their new country are susceptible to becoming friendly with bad actors who might use them for espionage.

      3. Samwise*

        If they’re asking questions, they’re also answering them. They are being observed and evaluated.

        My dissertation director told me that every single minute of the on-campus interview is part of the interview. Faculty member picks you up at the airport/takes you back to the airport? part of the interview. Getting a tour of campus from a student? part of the interview. Getting a coffee with junior faculty? part of the interview. Chatting with the admins? most definitely part of the interview. Going to dinner with members of the department and your spouse/partner? part of the interview for you AND your spouse/partner.

        1. Cease and D6*

          Yeah, my advisors also told me that. And it’s certainly true that even when a committee is not trying to judge the spouse, they inevitably will end up doing so a little. That’s not even completely unreasonable – if the spouse seems like they’d cause problems for the department (eg. they turn up to the dinner high as a kite and start insulting people) – you might want the committee to be able to react to that.
          But there’s still a major difference between going into a meeting to judge someone and to inform them. Think about it this way – if a candidate were otherwise great but their spouse wasn’t as pleasant or interesting as a different candidate’s spouse, that would never be a deciding factor against the candidate.

          1. TK*

            Especially since relocation is a big thing… you may meet a spouse at dinner and get the sense from the conversation that they really aren’t keen on relocating to your location.

            1. Cease and D6*

              Yeah. That’s an unfortunate case, though. I think most people would have trouble setting the appropriate level of enthusiasm before they’ve actually seen the full details of the offer, which is typically the case at this stage of an academic interview. I think my spouse would be a lot more enthusiastic for a move and a lot of money than for a move and a little bit!
              And in general, judging enthusiasm like that seems like a practice that’s going to closely track biases of all kinds. Not everyone demonstrates interest in the same way.

        2. Nonym*

          Agreed. If you want to make it solely for the sake of the candidate and their family’s sake, then set-up that opportunity *after* you extend an irrevocable offer.

      4. UKDancer*

        Yes one of my friends was offered a fairly high powered job overseas and the company offered her husband a chance to come and visit and tour so he could ask questions and see about it. It was one of their standard suggestions for people taking these jobs.

        It wasn’t a requirement and if she hadn’t had a spouse or partner she could have declined. Apparently it was a thing they did to ensure the transition and move was a smooth one.

        I’ve worked abroad myself and I can see trailing spouses often find it hard. I worked in Brussels for a while and at least 2 of my expat colleagues had spouses return home because they couldn’t settle and one colleague had a marriage implode rather messily. So I think in those circumstances it doesn’t hurt.

        1. Chocolate Teapot*

          Yes, I have seen couples (not always married, sometimes a boyfriend and girlfriend) relocate and then the relationship implodes. Sometimes one or both halves of the relationship leave, other times they both remain with new partners and eventually families.

  16. Glengarry Glenn Close*

    The only times I’ve seen this have been when it’s clergy or a big relocation.

    Well…did your sister-in-law give the green light??

  17. Chocoholic*

    Not exactly the same thing, but my mother tells a story about interviewing for a job back in the late 60’s or early 70’s and at some point in the process, they asked her what my dad’s salary was.

    When she asked why that was relevant, the answer was that they didn’t want to damage my dad’s ego by paying her more than he was paid. She had a Master’s Degree that he didn’t have and more experience than he did, and he worked in a completely different type of role.

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      Seems like a trick question, because if you say your spouse makes $100k (whether it’s true or not) then it becomes “Oh, he makes enough to support you, so you don’t need a big salary here!”

    2. Turtlewings*

      Good grief. As if a non-employee’s ego was any of their concern or any of their business, anyway. I’m weirdly reminded of the woman featured here at some point, who refused to call a trans coworker by their* new name “out of respect for their mother” who had originally named them. As if respecting some stranger she’d never met and never would was more important than respecting her actual coworker.

      *I can’t remember the trans coworker’s pronouns

      1. Anonym*

        That is WILD. I’ve heard versions of it before, and every time am so taken aback by the obviousness of “and I respect this theoretical person I’ve never met more than I respect YOU.” Flabbergasting.

      2. Hlao-roo*

        The letter Turtlewings is referring to is “my employee keeps getting deadnamed by a coworker” from August 27, 2020 (with an update on December 1, 2020). I highly recommend reading both!

        (The trans coworker, “John” in the letter, uses he/him pronouns.)

    3. Delta Delta*

      When I was in college I applied for a sales position at a family-owned shoe store. the very old man owner asked me what my father does for work. I asked him what difference that made to my ability to sell shoes.

      I did not get that job.

    4. not nice, don't care*

      I was interviewed for a position in county gov, only to be told that ‘jobs like these’ were for men with families. This was in 2003.

    6. Anon for this*

      In the early 2000s, my then partner/now husband both worked for different sections of the same organisation. I was the successful candidate for a 6 months acting role at a higher level. When being offered the job by my female boss, she asked if I was sure that he would be okay with me earning more than him.

      A kind interpretation would be that she was concerned it would cause trouble at home. The reality was I worked with a bunch of women who’d followed their husbands’ careers to this regional city, including the boss, and the wives’ jobs/careers always played second fiddle.

      Years later, my husband voluntarily left an organisation after I secured a leadership position there. He is always happy for my success, however it looks.

      I wish I was shocked by this FIL, but I’m not…

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      Don’t be ridiculous. They’re not going to ask to talk to someone’s “mommy.”

      They’re going to ask to talk to his daddy!

  19. Gherman*

    We do a dialed back version of this (for ALL genders!) when we’re nearing the offer stage for out-of-state clinicians. We hire surgeons and are in a rural area. We’ve had doctors move from NYC to our rural area because they can buy a huge house for what they make in a month (instead of ridiculous city housing costs) and we have great outdoor recreation options.

    We have lost several surgeons when their spouse and/or children don’t like outdoorsy stuff and miss the culture and activities of the big city post-move. Before someone uproots their whole life, we want the family to come to the area and meet their potential fellow surgeons/leadership, meet with a realtor, talk about schools, etc. We only do this when we anticipate making an offer, though, and it is NOT required.

    1. Hlao-roo*

      This sounds like one of the cases where it makes sense–a relocation to a different state and from an urban area to a rural one is in a similar class to an international move in terms of culture change.

    2. Ama*

      When I worked at a university in NYC we did the same for the opposite reason – living with a family in the NYC area requires choices you don’t need to make in most US college towns and the school system in particular can be hard to navigate. A coworker of mine actually headed a special office at the university to help faculty families understand their education options and she met with every candidate that made it to the in person interview – either with or without their spouse (their choice). Some people did end up withdrawing when they realized how much their lifestyle would have to change.

      That said, the hiring committees weren’t included in these meetings and my coworker didn’t share anything discussed with candidates with them so it truly was completely separate from the decision about who was offered the job.

      1. iglwif*

        living with a family in the NYC area requires choices you don’t need to make in most US college towns and the school system in particular can be hard to navigate.

        Really curious what this means! What kinds of choices? Other than the fact that real estate / rent is expensive, what are the “lifestyle changes” in moving to NYC that people object to?

        What makes the school system hard to navigate? Is it not the normal “live in this catchment area, go to this school” that obtains in most places?

        1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

          Nobody said object. They said different choices than in a college town.

          Whether to keep/sell your car, whether it is worth paying for parking in a lot/on street/in a covered garage, whether you want a house/condo/apartment, whether you will rent/buy said space, how long of a commute you are willing to put up with, whether you can deal with all the city noise… I could go on.

          And that’s before schools, which I know nothing about.

          1. iglwif*

            I phrased it that way because Ama said “Some people did end up withdrawing when they realized how much their lifestyle would have to change.”

            That’s an interesting set of choices that would never occur to me as applying only to NYC. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “college town” — that’s not a term we use in Canada — so maybe I am wildly off base here, but apart from “whether it is worth paying for parking” (absolutely not), those all sound like the exact same set of choices you would face in any place you were considering moving to.* “All the city noise”? Do other cities in the US not have noise?

            * “Whether to keep/sell your car” is a weird way to say “whether or not you need a car”, but it is still a choice you would need to make no matter where you were moving to.

            1. Jenesis*

              A college town is what it sounds like: a small town that hosts a prominent college where a large portion of the resident population is either attending the college (and will likely leave after the 4 years are up), employed by the college, or working in businesses that cater to college students.

              I’m hardly what you’d call “rural” (grew up in suburbs my whole life), and I’ve never been to NYC personally, but my understanding is that a big, dense city like NYC is a whole different beast compared to even a medium-sized city. The noise where I live is… existent, but not constant. Apartment complexes are decently spread out, as opposed to a high-rise where neighbors are packed like sardines. The car issue is a real question because most cities in the US, even very large and dense cities like LA, aren’t anywhere near as public-transport serviced as NYC and if you don’t happen to live in one of those metro hubs, the assumption is that you own a car unless you specifically tell someone you don’t. And going from car to not-car is a significant lifestyle change.

              My husband (who grew up in the same area as me) went on vacation to NYC once and declared that he could never stand to move there. Another local friend warned me against flying directly into Tokyo if I were to vacation there, because upon arrival his jet lag was exacerbated by the sheer sensory overload of the city environment compared to what he was used to back home.

              1. iglwif*

                I’ve been to NYC, although not for long periods. I found the ambient noise … honestly pretty similar to what I’m used to in my large (but not as large as NYC) Canadian city, and in other cities I’ve spent time in: people talking, cars and car horns, sirens. (Disclaimer: every city has louder and quieter parts, and I have not explored every area of the 5 Boroughs.) It is definitely quite different from the smaller but much more spread-out city in which I grew up! It’s also got 3 universities with a total of 6 campuses and ~200K students, plus probably half a dozen colleges (I haven’t counted recently).

                “Packed like sardines”, IME, is something people say about high-density (and even medium-density!) housing who have never lived in such housing and who haven’t thought through the environmental and social implications of suburban sprawl. What makes the good things about cities possible — the transit systems that actually get you where you need to go, the variety of restaurants and grocery stores and museums and concerts and educational opportunities and religious communities and sports things, the religious and cultural and linguistic diversity of your kids’ schools and your workplaces, the availability of hospitals, the walkable neighbourhoods — is residential density. But there’s also a lot to be said for just … living close to other humans. Even for an introvert like me ;)

            2. Lizzo*

              A “college town” in the US ranges in population from 30,000 (for smaller schools) to 250,000 (for larger schools like University of Wisconsin-Madison or University of Michigan) *not* counting students. Transit systems may exist but are not robust like major metro areas, so a car is essential–more than one car if you are a family with children to transport. There are plenty of single family homes, and they’re relatively affordable. You likely have choices for schools, but they’re much simpler (e.g. a handful of private schools vs. the local public school). Most businesses aren’t open past 10pm unless they’re catering to college students. And the key thing: the cultural and economic life of the town revolves around the school.

              Living in New York City is pretty much the exact opposite experience of what I’ve just described, and it can be a challenging adjustment for those who aren’t eager to live in NYC.

              Statements based on my lived experience in both a major city in the US and in several college towns, plus the experiences of my spouse who lived in a college town when I met him, followed me to the major city we’re now in, and had a helluva time adjusting to urban life.

              1. iglwif*

                So I’m not gonna lie, your description of a “college town” sounds like it’s probably absolutely awful for anyone who doesn’t either attend or work at the college or university. (You say “college town”, but then your examples are both universities, so idk which you actually mean.) And might be pretty awful for those people, too — how do the university students get places if there’s no transit? Where are they all living once they move out of first-year residence (or if they don’t live in residence), if there’s nothing but single-family homes to live in?

                But I definitely take your point that if you were a person who liked living in somewhere like that, moving to a city like NYC could be very jarring!

                I personally moved from a smaller city to a bigger city 30+ years ago and would not move back if you paid me, unless it was to look after ageing parents. So it’s baffling to me that someone would look at what’s available in a large city — the transit, the high-density housing, the variety of restaurants and museums and parks and music and sports and religious communities, the cultural and religious and linguistic diversity of their kids’ schools — and go, nah, I’d rather not. The only reason I’ve ever heard anyone give for moving further out of the city I live in is that they can’t afford to live here, which is a whole different problem that we need waaaaay better urban planning to resolve.

                1. Beth*

                  Having lived in one of the examples Lizzo gave (Madison)–students either live on campus or in enclaves of cheap rentals right around campus. These rentals are private housing not affiliated with the university, but functionally are student housing–they’re mostly pretty run-down, they’re advertised as either e.g. a 3-bedroom that will rent to a group of up to 6 people or a “we will find you a roommate” type setup, leases start in September when classes start, there’s often flexibility to lease for just the semester or academic year and move out over the summer. Students mostly get around via walking and mostly stay on or around campus.

                  The rest of the city (read: most things that aren’t walking distance from the university) is pretty standard American suburbs. It’s mostly single-family housing or small apartment buildings, you need a car because it’s not walkable and public transit is minimal, there are restaurants (including some genuinely good ones), there’s entertainment (movie theaters, plays, concerts), there are some really nice parks and a great farmers market, it’s a great area for things like hiking and ice fishing and cross country skiing. There are decent schools for your kids. If you like a quieter pace of life, it’s a nice place to be. (I didn’t stay because I don’t really like a quiet pace of life, but that’s a personal choice!)

                2. Fíriel*

                  Americans often use the words college and university differently than we do in Canada – I’m not exactly sure what the line is for them but I think an American could ‘go to college’ at the University of Toronto, for instance. Maybe all higher ed is ‘college’? But there are some places in Southern Ontario that have this dynamic in terms of population too – Kingston only has a population of 130 k, but 30k Queen’s students (not counting how many employees of Queen’s there are there. From people I have known who lived there and were not a Queen’s – yes, apparently it is unpleasant.

                3. Lizzo*

                  @Fíriel in the US “college” and “university” tend to be used interchangeably to refer to higher education, though the general distinction is that colleges focus solely on undergraduate education, whereas universities serve both undergrads and graduate students. Large universities also have colleges within the school, e.g. college of arts, college of business.

                4. Lizzo*

                  @iglwif I didn’t say transit systems don’t exist, I said if they do, they may not be very robust (especially when compared to somewhere like NYC or Chicago or Boston). I know both Madison and East Lansing (home of Michigan State U) have bus systems. IIRC they’re fairly useful if your daily life revolves around on-campus activities, but if you’re a parent trying to get your kids to school *or* you commute to an office that isn’t conveniently located near a bus line *or* you don’t work a typical 9a-5p schedule and therefore the bus schedule doesn’t match with your commuting schedule, then you’ll probably opt to drive everywhere.

                  In the US we frequently use “college” and “university” interchangeably when referring to higher ed institutions in general conversation (vs. referring to a specific school). I cited those two schools as examples of institutions located in towns with large non-student populations. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of college towns with under 30,000 full-time residents, where the school probably enrolls 2,000 students. So, if we’re talking about student-to-citizen ratios, they’re probably similar across all college towns, but the real numbers vary significantly.

                  Re: housing, my comment said there was plenty of single family housing options in college towns. I didn’t say anything about high density housing *not* existing in these places–as Beth points out in a separate comment, it does, and it’s usually apartments for students. There are also on-campus dorms that house students. My point, again, was that New York City in particular is almost exclusively high density housing, so unless you have $$$$$$ available, tightly packed apartments are going to be your only option when relocating. That’s not for everyone, particularly if there are children involved.

        2. Beth*

          I lived in Manhattan for several years and would love to move back. I loved it. Walking/taking transit everywhere instead of having a car, having food and convenience stores available at all hours, seeing every new exhibit at the Met or MOMA, buying fabric in the garment district, being a 20 minute train ride from all sorts of exciting shows and restaurants, going to gallery shows and university lectures, stumbling across a random opera performance in Central Park…it was great. If I was only thinking about myself, I would go back in a heartbeat.

          But moving to Manhattan (or anywhere within 2 metro transfers of it) would be a huge sacrifice for my family. We’re too settled in our ways for roommates, and the space we’d be able to afford on our own would be too small for us. We cook a lot more than I did when I was in my 2os and need at least a moderate-sized kitchen. My partner has hobbies that need a workshop (like a garage or finished basement, not a desk in a spare room). We have a dog who loves hanging out in the yard. We want a big enough couch to have a few friends over for movie nights. My partner has trouble sleeping if it’s too loud at night. I don’t want to ask them to give all of that up.

          There are places in the NYC metro area where we could afford the space and lifestyle that my family needs, of course. But they’d be a long commute to the inner city. I’d be able to get in for a special occasion, but it wouldn’t get me the daily-life lifestyle I miss. And it seems stupid to uproot us for the sake of a move that wouldn’t even get me what I want. So, we’re not moving back.

          I imagine anyone debating taking a job at, say, Columbia or NYU would have to deal with that same debate. Is it worth changing your entire lifestyle to live there? Is it worth having a long commute to live in a more suburban part of the NYC metro area? Or is it not worth taking the role, given what you’d have to give up?

          1. iglwif*

            See, this is really interesting.

            When my daughter was born, we were living in a rented 1-bedroom apartment in a neighbourhood we LOVED, closer to downtown than where we live now. As soon as I was visibly pregnant, older people* started asking us when we were going to buy a house. We were not going to buy a house, because we (a) didn’t make that much money and (b) had spent what could have been a condo down payment on IVF in order to get pregnant in the first place. We lived very happily in that apartment until kiddo was 4, at which point we looked around us and were like, “well, this child probably needs a bedroom, and if we manage to conceive another child we will definitely want more than 640 square feet for 4 people.” So for the past 18 years we’ve lived in a 2-bedroom condo in a low-rise building still in the city and close to a subway station, but further from downtown. And we never did manage to have a second child, but we very happily raised our 1 child in our 780 square feet (including balcony), with 3 parks/playgrounds within walking distance, down the block from our synagogue, etc., etc.

            BUT! My spouse’s hobbies are the indoor kind — comics, sports cards — and playing team sports, we’re all already city people and we like the ambient noise (mostly haha). My kiddo’s friends mostly also lived in apartments or condos, and we got her a twin bed with a pull-out trundle bed for sleepovers, and that was fine. We don’t entertain a lot, but can get more people around the kitchen table by pulling it away from the wall when we need to. When we got a dog, one of the things we looked into was “will this breed be happy living in an apartment with 2-3 outdoor walks per day?” The main thing I miss about our old apartment, which had that nice 1960s/70s L-shape, is its pass-through kitchen with doors at each end and its dining room area, which meant I could cook, bring the food to a nicely laid table, and close the doors on the food prep mess XD When I visit my parents in their ridiculously large house in the city I grew up in, I do enjoy making big meals for a crowd in my mom’s huge kitchen, but I absolutely do not want to clean that big house, mow that lawn, or shovel that snow. So it’s kind of a matter of what you prioritize, and there are definitely reasons people prioritize different things.

            *Very occasionally people our own age who made way more money than us. Never younger people.

            1. Beth*

              If my partner had mostly indoor hobbies and could handle a noisier world, we didn’t have a dog (or had one that was less outside-oriented), and our combined income was like $50k higher, I’d be right there with you! That would be enough of a difference for us to manage a lower-end 2-bedroom in Manhattan or Brooklyn, and I’d be thrilled with that.

              But I’d need a different partner for that, and I love my partner more than I love being right downtown. Right now, we live in a big city, about a 20 minute drive out of downtown. (It’s genuinely 20 minutes, not the “it’s not far geographically, but it’ll take an hour, plus you’ll be looking for parking for 30+ mins” that I’d expect if I was heading into Manhattan from the NYC suburbs.) We have closer to 1000 sq ft of space in our rental, plus another 500ish sq feet of private outdoor space. We don’t have the walkable lifestyle I miss, and we don’t have as much of a connection to our neighbors and neighborhood as I remember having in the NYC era of my life–I miss that. But we can access culture–restaurants, theater, concerts, museums, community geared to our interests and values, community that stretches outside our interests/values and connects us to people we wouldn’t have met in a smaller town. So I get at least most of what I want, and my partner gets what she needs. It’s a good balance for us.

        3. doreen*

          It’s not the sort of zoned schools that exist in other places – below high school , some school districts have zoned schools and others have unzoned schools, open to any child in the district. There are also gifted and talented programs which require an application and acceptance When it comes to middle schools, there are zoned middle schools but a child can apply to any middle school. High schools no longer have zones for the most part so applications are required and tests/interviews for some. And that’s just the public schools – there are also charter schools and all sort of private schools.

            1. Pocket Mouse*

              NYC has universal public 3K (school for 3 year olds) – yay! …Right?

              There are a handful of public elementary schools in my school zone, but there are dozens and dozens of public 3K programs because they can be housed in daycares and private schools too. Public school/3K placements are by lottery—you rank your choices and are guaranteed a spot somewhere, even if it’s not a school you ranked—but kids get priority if they need accommodations only some programs can provide, or have siblings already at that school, or are already students at that school. That last one means that if a family wants their kid to go to a particular school for elementary, 3K is the time to try to start there. Unless the school has a 2’s program or camp, in which case your 2-year-old can attend and get priority for 3K. But the 2’s program age eligibility runs by school year (must turn 2 by September, for statutory childcare ratio reasons) while 3K is by birth year, so kids with birthdays late in the year aren’t eligible for 2’s programs and therefore can’t get priority placement for 3K. Oh, and the 2’s programs are a couple days a week for a couple hours – if your kid’s in daycare as they approach eligibility for a 2’s program, how’s that going to work?

              And wait – schools get out midafternoon, when many employed parents are still working. Does the school offer aftercare? The online school portal says yes, but you have to call the school to find out if that starts at 3K or a later grade, how much it costs, and at some programs it’s offered but not guaranteed for all students. Does your daycare pick up at the 3K you want to go to? Do they pick up at all the 3K programs you’re applying to? Does it make sense to go to 3K at all, or would it be easier to keep your kid in daycare (if you can afford it)?

              So yeah, NYC schools are on hard mode almost immediately.

              1. iglwif*

                That sounds absolutely bananapants.

                I’m sure there is a long and complicated history behind that kind of situation!

        4. Commenty*

          I’ve lived in NYC and a mid sized city in the US. Some of the lifestyle adjustments people could struggle with are: not having a home with outdoor space, not being able to afford to keep your car, your kids having to share rooms, your workplaces both being an hour or more away from your child’s school; your child commuting by subway to school, instead of on a school bus. It’s also an adjustment to carry stuff/gear with you all the time, if you’re used to having a car. It’s not impossible to relocate to NYC, but it does take some adjustments!

          1. iglwif*

            OK, so my difficulty with understanding where the adjustment comes in is not about my lack of knowledge of what NYC is like, but my lack of knowledge about what “a mid-sized city in the US” is like! That’s helpful to know :)

            Because I have never lived in NYC but all of that stuff sounds totally normal to me. (Although actually my kid did not go to school by subway, she took a [city, not school] bus and then walked. But lots of kids absolutely go to school by subway here.)

            1. Crepe Myrtle*

              Some of us don’t like living in cities, some of us do. It’s a big adjustment to change from one or the other. What is so hard to understand?

              1. iglwif*

                Well, because I apparently didn’t understand what “college town” and “mid-sized city” mean to Americans, I was imagining moving from a city to a bigger city — not from something that is manifestly not a city to a large city.

                To give you an example of what I was imagining, and why I didn’t understand how big the differences might be: My daughter moved from a big city (~4M people) to a smaller city (~1.5M people) for university, and her third-year summer job has led to a full-time salaried job, so for the moment she is still there. It’s been an adjustment, yes, but not a big or life-changing adjustment. There’s no subway there and the bus system isn’t as robust, but it’s not so bad that she needs to learn to drive and acquire a car. The shopping options are less varied, but not so dire that she can’t get everything she needs. Rent on an apartment is slightly lower, but not so much lower that she can afford her own place with no roommate. There are fewer people overall, but the proportions of low-, middle-, and high-density housing are not too different. It’s a little bit less diverse, but not like going from a Benetton advert to an Abercrombie & Fitch advert, if you see what I mean.

                I moved from a smaller city to a bigger one for university, and I found the adjustment similarly non-traumatic (apart from being 3000km away from home instead of like 500km, at a time when it was a lot harder to stay connected).

                So that’s the kind of difference I was imagining. I apparently should have been imagining moving from a small town to a big city, which — according to my mom, who did it in her youth — is very very different.

            2. allathian*

              Yes, my son’s been taking city buses and commuter trains on his own since he was 10 and decided that after a noisy day at school he’d rather come home alone and wait for us to come home from the office than go to after school daycare. My husband’s a chatty introvert and I’m a chatty introvert so it came as no surprise to us that our son’s also a chatty introvert who can only handle so much socializing per day.

              Some kids travel on their own on public transit from when they’re issued with their own ticket at 7 years old. Adults here are generally very keen to protect kids’ ability to travel safely on public transit, my son has never had any problems and the one time when a new bus driver took a wrong turn, he just sent me a text to say that he’d be home a bit later than usual.

              I’m in Finland and our culture as a whole values early independence for kids. There are supports available for kids with special needs who can’t be trusted to travel to school on their own, but kids in general are seen as capable of doing this.

              1. iglwif*

                That’s lovely.

                My kiddo’s school (like most schools in my city) had before and after school care, and technically kids could use it until Grade 6 (age 11), but in practice, there were no kids older than 10 in the program, because they outgrew it and were able to get themselves to school in the morning and home from school in the afternoon.

    3. Spaypets*

      Yes, this. I worked alongside people who were recruiting physicians for rural, sometimes very rural, hospitals. Everyone needs to be enthusiastic.

      Too many people leave because the spouse dislikes the area.

  20. Burnt Out Librarian*

    If my fiancé’s employer asked to speak to me, I’d have to wonder out loud if they’re looking to fill a second position, or if they think I might be better qualified than he is… But then again, Mr. Burnt Out Librarian is also a librarian. ;)

    A lot of the world seems to be amidst a time-warp back to the 1950s.

  21. Will's Mom*

    Not really related to this post, but I remember the olden days where I was asked if I was pregnant, and, if not, was I planning to have any more children. I can guarantee that my husband was never asked about if he was planning on more children.

  22. Bad Wolf*

    This happens in academia. It’s pretty common for university to fly out final round candidate and spouse. Candidate will have meetings and presentations spanning several days while an admin will organize things for spouse to do to get to know local housing market, job opportunities, schools, etc. At some point there will be a dinner that spouse will join.

    1. Ex-academic*

      Hm, in the hiring I’ve seen (2 state institutions in the US Midwest), the spouse trip comes after an offer is made to make it clear that it’s NOT part of the offer whether you have a spouse, what their gender is, what their job is, etc. I’d have been very uncomfortable rolling into the finalist interviews.

      1. Bad Wolf*

        In my experience, and my father’s 20 years earlier, it was always rolled into a single trip. Institutions in NY, MD, GA, CA, CO, and others (dad did a lot of hopping around). I did this once without a spouse, and they just made room in my schedule to check out the town on my own.

    2. Ann*

      VERY unusual at this point for a spouse to be included in the campus visit because of the expense and potential for conscious or unconscious discrimination.

  23. CubeFarmer*

    Oh hell no! I’ve never heard of this, and I would be very, very uncomfortable (as both the applicant and the spouse,) to step into something like this.

    It’s giving me John Grisham’s “The Firm” vibes.

  24. Liz the Snackbrarian*

    Definitely feels like a dated practice to me. Also I feel for LW, as it sounds like her father-in-law shares such views, and is also short-tempered.

  25. edj3*

    This happened years ago with my now ex-husband. The job was a big change for him, into outside sales with a 9-state territory. He was expected and indeed was gone at least 5 days a week, sometimes 6.

    They interviewed both of us twice–first round was in our current city. The second round, they flew us to the company headquarters for a two day visit. They really did want to make sure I knew what we were getting into.

    I joke that I think the marriage lasted longer than it should have precisely because of that heavy, heavy travel schedule.

  26. Mad, Mad Me*

    Bizarre. And I don’t see why it’s any less objectionable if the job is abroad. Same damned thing!

  27. Viki*

    So! From second hand experience-aka my partner’s best friend, who is a rising Partner in a Big Firm, there is a lot of pressure to make sure the family [read Spouse] represents the right way to clients because there are a lot of dinner/golf deals where things get closed and Spouse may be present.

    This gives me and my Spouse the ick, but Best Friend and our other Best Friend (who also works in an adjacent field) both say this is a norm for their Big Finance/BioTech Firms in the level they are at, and have filled in as each other’s default partners when they need to bring someone to a dinner or else it will be bad optically. I will say that in my role in Tech leadership, my spouse was never asked about besides the “how are they?” but also I’m not aiming for C-Suite so perhaps it is different.

    From Best Friend, this is something that is asked of both men and women, and moving to Partner specifically, means this has been something that has been discussed between Spouses as there are some other less fun stuff that would affect their life (on call 24/7, last minute global travel or travel to random states etc.)

  28. Charming Kitten*

    oh wow. I remember once my dad was interviewing for a job in a far-away state and the company flew BOTH him and my mom out there to talk to them. But that was 1973!

    1. pally*

      Me too! Mom checked out the school system and housing situation while Dad was interviewed. Not sure if she was actually interviewed. But I know my parents would not have paid for a plane ticket for her to go with.

    2. Liz the Snackbrarian*

      Once when my dad inteviewed for a job the whole family came along–it was an admin position in higher education, and my brother and I came as well as my mom. They didn’t want to interview us kids, I think it was just so we could get the lay of the land. I needed zero persuading–I was being bullied at school, and was happy to move several states away and get a fresh start.

    3. HonorBox*

      My wife and I traveled once when I interviewed for a position. That was at my request, however, because I wanted to be sure it was a community in which we felt comfortable.

  29. Tweepark*

    When my husband (a pastor) interviewed for his current job, the church’s hiring committee flew both of us out for the interview weekend. The previous pastor had been let go because of an inappropriate office relationship (having an affair with the associate pastor, who had voluntarily quit once it was discovered), and the previous top candidate had turned down the offer because his wife didn’t want to move.

    They were definitely trying to woo me and make sure I was on board, but I think they also wanted to make sure I was a real person and didn’t have any immediate red flags.

    1. TK*

      Clergy hiring pretty much follows its own set of rules entirely and little other job-search advice can be applied to it! And what that set of rules is varies massively by the type of church or other religious institution.

      1. Tweepark*

        Oh yes. That was not the first time I was invited alongside my husband to interview… and we definitely nixed a couple of churches that wanted to use me as unpaid labor. I have my own life and career, thank you very much.

    2. iglwif*

      I don’t know much about churches, but I have served on a synagogue board, and clergy hiring is … its own entire thing. Aside from serious shenanigans such as you describe, clergy work long and weird hours — for a start, you can’t schedule when people get sick or die or have emergencies! — and are expected to welcome congregants into their homes, at least sometimes. Clergy spouses know all of this going in, but there’s more, too, and it’s going to be terrible for everyone if you hire a pastor or a rabbi or whatever whose spouse has some serious objection to the gig.

      1. TK*

        Yeah absolutely. I think anyone who marries a member of the clergy (at least one who is serving or going to serve in a congregational setting) has to know going in that there are going to be expectations for them as a spouse that go far beyond a normal job. And honestly, this largely makes sense for a religious institution.

        1. Rocket Raccoon*

          Yes, my parents divorced largely because my mom didn’t want to be a pastor’s wife and there’s no getting around that when, well, you’re married to a pastor. I think she grossly underestimated the amount of involvement she would be expected to have with his job.

        2. iglwif*

          For sure. You have to know what you are getting yourself into generally, but you also have to know what you are getting yourself into specifically, because different congregations can have very different vibes and very different expectations!

  30. learnedthehardway*

    I have done recruitment projects where the company DID speak with spouses – but it was more on an informal basis. This is usually for one or more of the following reasons:

    – the role entails relocating the family, and the hiring company wants to be VERY sure that the spouse is genuinely on board and supportive of the move (it’s expensive to relocate someone, then find out that their spouse and kids won’t come, and then have to replace the person because they decide to go back home to be with family).

    – the role entails an international move – not only relocation but also the potential for the spouse and family to adapt to the new culture.

    – the role is very senior and/or very prominent in the company/community and the company wants to be sure that the candidate’s spouse will not embarrass the company. We’ve all heard stories of a spouse attempting to throw their weight around because their partner is important, or behaving badly at industry, political or business events – companies don’t like that and will try to vet spouses to make sure that won’t happen.

  31. WorkingClassLady*

    I’m shocked this is legal to ask in 2025. How? I thought marital and childbearing status was off-limits.

    Why not simply be up-front with the candidate about what the job demands in terms of extended time away from home, travel, relocation to a new city, etc and give them a few days to decide?
    if a job candidate can’t be trusted to figure that out on their own, they probably can’t be trusted with the job.
    My husband is supportive of my career but no WAY would I be okay with an employer asking his “permission” and I’d be equally weirded out if the tables were turned.

    1. TK*

      Marriage and family status aren’t protected classes federally in the US, though they are in some states and municipalities. And it’s never illegal to ask about protected class characteristics, just to make decisions based on them. (Which means asking is quite… unwise.)

      That being said, there are settings where this isn’t as weird as it sounds, though not like in OP’s story. In academia, where relocation is the norm for many jobs, some interaction with a candidate’s spouse or partner in a job search can happen. But it’s not required and it’s gender-neutral.

      1. Jennifer Strange*

        I would also hope in situations where this is more typical, it’s framed less as “We want to talk to your spouse and children” and more as “If there is anyone who would need to move with you to accept this position we’d love the opportunity to meet with them and talk through any questions about this area they may have”. That way you’re acknowledging that family doesn’t just mean spouse and children, and it seems less like an interview for your family.

        1. Kevin Sours*

          They way I heard it framed was “Is there anybody who might affect your decision to accept this position that we should talk to?” (not academia but an industry where relocation is common and positions can be sometimes hard to fill). And by talk to we mean give them a sales pitch.

    2. Kevin Sours*

      It is illegal to use marital status as a basis to hire or not hire. There is a strong presumption that anything you ask is used as basis for hiring but it’s only a presumption. It is not strictly speaking illegal to ask. You’d have to inquire of a employment lawyer if asking if your spouse in on board with the hire crosses the line.

      On the one hand getting into family dynamics is intrusive and really not appropriate for an employer. On the other hand figuring out if a job candidate can be trusted with a job is the entire purpose of the interview process, so I can understand why they’d want to ask. But sometimes we have to accept that some things that impact us are none the less none of our damn business and get on with things.

      1. TK*

        Marital status is not a protected class federally in the US, though it is in some states or municipalities.

        As I (and others) note elsewhere in the thread, involvement of spouses/partners in the interview process can often be a thing in industries (academia chief among them) where relocation is the norm.

        1. Kevin Sours*

          That it is a thing doesn’t mean it’s not intrusive or inappropriate. My wife is in a industry where relocation is exceedingly common. I would not want to be in a position where me performatively showing enthusiasm would be a determining factor in whether or not she gets a job.

          1. allathian*

            I think it really depends on the type of relocation involved. In some cases, to get a prominent C-suite employee, the company may be willing to hire the spouse, too. Or at least act as a temp agency to help the spouse get a job in the new location. Extremely unlikely in interstate moves in the US, but in international moves across half the world it’s not unheard of.

            And in academia and the upper reaches of the diplomatic services in various countries it’s par for the course, although people who marry diplomats generally know what they’re getting into.

            1. Kevin Sours*

              I think there is a nuanced but significant distinction to be made between “making sure spouse in on board with the job” and “selling spouse on the job”. The latter is more about getting the candidate to take the job and if the company is willing to offer perks to the spouse to make that happen then talking directly with spouse about it is going to make it a lot easier.

              But a lot this discussion carries the strong implication that if spouse is not sufficiently “on board” in the eyes of the company an offer may not be extended. That’s intrusive and puts the spouse in a particularly difficult spot.

  32. Zona the Great*

    A couple of years ago, a female boss told me, a non-drinker, that I had better learn to fake it for when my (non-existent yet presumably in some Mad Men era business) husband needs me to impress at company cocktail parties. Perhaps she and your FIL or the hiring manager were once married.

  33. Ana Gram*

    I spent about 10 years hiring cops (and other public safety roles) and we also talked to the spouse/partner for officer hires. We wanted to make sure they understood the shifts, the mental health toll, etc. and we also asked them about the candidate’s alcohol use*, drug use, domestic violence, concerns about having guns in the home, etc. But that’s a pretty extreme outlier. Even I think what the OP is describing is outdated and weird.

    *We were asking about negative behaviors associated with alcohol use, not addiction issues, fwiw.

  34. used to be a tester*

    The most charitable explanation possible (and I’m reaching like a yoga instructor here) is that it’s a position with long hours/lots of travel/an expectation that clients are entertained by the employee and their spouse, and they’ve had people quit shortly after getting hired because ‘the family’ had not understood the level of commitment required?

    But I’d have that conversation with just the person I’m hiring – something like “In the past some spouses have been surprised by how often you’ll be away from home/how involved we expect them to be in your work life. Would you like me to chat with your partner about that, or do you feel both you and they have a good handle on what the role requires?”

  35. James*

    My brain made “your father-in-law sounds like a difficult in-law” into “difficult-in-law” and I got a flashback to my late-boyfriend’s mother.

    I reserve the right to use “difficult-in-law” in future conversations.

  36. CrashTestHuman*

    I am a clergy spouse and this is a very common practice in that world. The spouse (for better or worse) is assumed to be part of the package and an asset to the community. (I’ve also been asked to serve on the board on multiple occasions, which to me crosses a line to where I become my spouse’s boss).

    In my field, however (private sector R&D) this would be extremely outside the norm. I would be very suspicious of an employer asking about my family before being hired.

  37. HonorBox*

    If I take my glasses off and look at this with some obscured vision, I could see a couple situations in which this works. Best case, the employer wants to ensure that the investment they’re making in bringing someone onto their team has the best opportunity to pay dividends. For instance, if the applicant will be working longer hours, traveling more, etc. than they’re used to, you probably want to ensure that expectation is fully understood all the way around. Because if not, your new employee may pull the rip cord sooner. Or if someone is moving a distance and the conversation with the spouse includes offers of resources and support for them to get connected in the new community, great.

    But when I put my glasses back on, I see that there are far better ways to gather this kind of information and provide this kind of support because there are far too many ways to look at this and get the icks. I think a lot of it is how the request is phrased, whether it is a request or demand, and what you know about the company already.

  38. CzechMate*

    The only other reason I could see this being maybe okay (aside from those Alison mentioned) is if a) the candidate is a professor b) who is interested in relocating, c) the candidate’s spouse is also a professor, and d) the hiring manager wants to see if they have a job for the spouse at the institution.

  39. Strive to Excel*

    I know that there’s a number of high-security or other clearance-related roles where they want to know about your family as well as you. But that doesn’t apply here, because at least in the US, that process is waaaay more formal and takes months.

  40. Not all that long ago*

    In the early 2000s my husband was told he should “Get his wife under control” when I was very vocal about a local issue in our community. The issue had nothing to do with his job but was concerning a non-profit his company helped support. It was made clear his career path could be in jeopardy if I continued to speak out. He loved his job and we needed the income. I kept my opinion to myself after that. He was thankful.

    1. PJ86*

      I genuinely respect your choice and agency to make that choice.

      Not job related, but when my hubby was told to get his wife under control because I told off senior members of the church who were being extremely cruel to an older teen who had come out as gay and trans, he just looked at them and asked if they’d met his wife. I all but burned the church down. It had some massive social repercussions for husband who had known these people for all his life, but he supported me and the young person, There are still mild social ramifications 15 years later, and neither of us attend any church now. (Me because I was always an atheist anyway, him because he believes in God but not religion and especially not any religion that hurts people like that).

      I honestly want to say I’d expect the same level of support if his job (C-suite role but in a smaller company) told me to get me under control, but I don’t know if I would. I personally would have absolutely nothing to do with anyone in the company anymore, but I think I’d support his decision to stay. Feminist me doesn’t like that, rent-paying me understands that it’s not all about me.

      1. PJ86*

        I should have said “any CHURCH that hurts people like that” – I know not all Christians (as the religion specific to my anecdote) are hateful, but this church leadership sure was.

  41. Lisa*

    I interviewed for a company in Denmark once and they were concerned about my BF. They were willing to give him a job too! They didn’t want us to move to isolated part of the country without knowing the drawbacks. Danish are known to ignore coworkers and exclude new hires and I knew that ahead of time. Since there were plenty of non Danish in that area to work there, I said I was confident we would be fine waiting the 5 years before being accepted by locals if I had expats around. Plus no kids then and that my bf planned to not work for 6 months to travel around. But that is the exception because so many spouses such as stay at home moms are isolated there and 65% either divorced or moved back after a year. Didn’t get it but then that division moved to my hometown in the US which is hysterical to me that I could have gone home if I wanted to on company dime.

  42. GirlieePop*

    If an employer my husband was interviewing with asked to talk to me about it I would tell him not to take a job with that company lmao

  43. Crencestre*

    In John Molloy’s “Live for Success” (1981), he described this exact scenario – companies looking for high-level executives also interviewing their spouses (and yes, he did include their wanting to interview female candidates’ husbands as well.) This was to determine their social class as well as their willingness to be supportive of their spouses’ careers; an executive who was expected to entertain business guests could not have a spouse whose lower class behavior, speech, dress or mannerisms would reflect badly on the executive to whom they were married.

    He described one subterfuge to determine this – the candidate was asked to invite some of their friends for a small gathering to entertain a company executive supposedly visiting from out of town (but who was actually there to evaluate the class level of the candidate and their spouse.) If the spouse and the couple’s friends were solidly upper-middle class or above, then the candidate passed with flying colors. If they were determined to be lower middle class or below, that candidate could kiss their chances goodbye at THAT company!

    This book was written in 1981, and doubtless reflected normal business thinking among many upper management executives at that time. It’s 44 years later – what’s the excuse for pulling this kind of stunt NOW?!

  44. Not your typical admin*

    I mentioned this in the thread the other day about the church hiring the pastor’s wife to lead music. I’ve been the wife in this situation several times. Little bit different situation, since many times a clergy spouse has an unofficial role to play.

    In every case, the majority of the interview was about making sure I would be happy and that I meshed with the congregation. It was always more of them selling me on my husband taking the position than anything else. I could possibly see this being good in a position that was going to involve a big move, or something about the position would require a large adjustment from the spouse – regardless of the gender of those involved.

  45. allhailtheboi*

    All this talk in the comments about ‘wooing’ spouses and families reminded me of when my mum worked in schools. She interviewed somewhere where they kept stressing to her how good their in-house creche was for preschool children and how they’d be guaranteed spaces at the school (primary) once they were old enough. My brother and I were in our teens! Unfortunately I can’t remember if Mum told them that while the offer was great, it was a little irrelevant for her.

  46. Bonkers*

    “it wasn’t worth fighting over it in front of my daughter and husband.”

    Funny – when my FiL starts spewing sexist BS, it’s the one time I feel pretty good about fighting with him in front of my daughter.

  47. Gentle Reader*

    When my dad was applying for his first teaching job in the late 1960s, they asked him (single white man in his mid-twenties) what his parents(!) would think about him working with Black people. My dad is very honest. He said his mother wouldn’t care. His father was a racist bastard, but my dad wasn’t even in contact with him at the time. He got the job.

  48. TMarin*

    If the BIL has to move a great distance for this job, asking to speak to the spouse makes perfect sense to me – regardless of the sex of the interviewee and spouse. Lots of assumptions being made here that they wouldn’t ask the question in reverse.
    They’ve probably been burned by someone moving to take a high position and their spouse hates it and they end up leaving too quickly.
    Sometimes the agendas are not what you assume.

  49. Cupcakes are awesome*

    Is it at all possible that the company wants to talk to the wife as a means of finding out answers to questions they shouldn’t be asking – like are you married and do you have children, and how old are the children? I thought those questions were not allowed in interviews.

  50. Midwesty*

    Hello — I wrote the original question. Thanks for all your comments. I truly didn’t know if it was legal to speak to the spouse for a job interview. My brother-in-law works in the corporate world, in a male-dominated industry (think engineering).

    After I wrote to AAM, I brought up the “incident” to my husband, asking did your dad get upset with me? My husband says I was misinterpreting the situation. He said maybe my brother-in-law’s wife was involved because she has a law degree. (However, she’s never been a practicing lawyer.) Which just brings up more questions in my mind.

    And yes, I did marry into a very odd family. Thanks again for all your support. It was definitely an uncomfortable situation. I couldn’t just walk away because I was in my own living room! I also can’t leave when he comes to visit, because I’m afraid of what he might say in front of my 8 year old daughter.

    1. allathian*

      Getting testy enough with him to persuade him to leave may not be a bad thing… Just saying. Your instinct to protect your daughter from him is a sound one, but you’re within your rights to be more assertive about just what behavior is and isn’t acceptable in your own home! Although this does require your husband’s enthusiastic support to work.

  51. Raida*

    On one hand, retro.
    On the other hand, seeing as you don’t know the company, the people hiring, the role, the other applicants, the company’s track record on sexism – then all these things need to be stated and confirmed *unknown* as a qualifier for having almost any opinion on it other than “Huh, never heard of that before, seems weird, is it weird?”.

    What if it was a single parent?
    Or a woman!

    You don’t know, so let’s not jump to “this is wrong and it’d suck to be [person BIL is not], because I can *imagine* it going badly and they *would* be bad etc in other ways…”

    IF this was me:
    Ah, this is an opportunity to enquire the reasoning and value in wanting to meet his wife, and express interest in how the business approaches staffing when the applicant is not a man-with-wife-and-kids, going on to discuss how having a one-size-fits-all approach could easily result in a workplace stuck in an exclusionary mindset disproportionately impacting staff that aren’t of-the-mould, so I hope if BIL ends up working that this is an example of how the business is looking at each staff member as a full person (and in his case with a family) and not just another number, won’t that be nice…

    I’m an analyst. This could be a good thing or a bad thing or just a thing. But I don’t have enough data points to make any determination, so I can have a discussion which is not accusatory or lecturing about how *everyone* has had *some* job where the management mindset was *definitely* stuck on one type of person being the goal – family businesses, cliquey fast food, cut-throat corporate…

Comments are closed.