Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Admittedly, this was a far greater issue back in the Seventies when I was starting out, but I'd like to know how many of us here have had their employers drop hints that the path to advancement would be easier for married candidates. And I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who had to deal with it in the days when the prejudice was out in the open. Did a hurried or pressured decision on this issue come back to haunt you later?
I left college in 1972, after an unsuccessful attempt at graduate study. My first "real" job was interesting and challenging enough, but my boss (very much a product of the World War II generation) made it clear early on that I could expect little in the way of advancement so long as I remained single, and proved his point by promoting two men whose performance statistics were somewhat lower than mine, but who were engaged. Having only recently emerged from a college-centered community where men outnumbered women by a 2-1 ratio, but settling in a blue-collar town with a much smaller (and picked-over) set of available singles, I found myself on the horns of a dilemma.
Anyone familiar with the culture of the "organization man", and the much-stronger stigma against both cohabitation and homosexuality which prevailed in the Fifties and Sixties can probably add a story or two of their own.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-30-2014 at 04:29 AM..
I would almost think the opposite is more common where an employer, if they had a preference here, would rather have singles in higher responsibility positions. That way, the employer does not have to compete with the employee's "family" for their time and priority. (But really, I wonder if this is all that big of a deal many places. It has never been anything ever spoken of in the hiring or promotion process where I am).
Not to say that this wasn't your experience but in 50 years in the workforce in many different arenas I've never heard of anything at all like that, regardless of sex or field.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,580 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57818
No, in fact we offer "domestic partnership" benefits to unmarried partners same-sex or otherwise. No one where I have worked the last 40 years paid any attention to marital status when considering people for hire or promotion.
This wouldn't occur to my current employers. The bulk of our start-up company is under 50. However, as a single woman, my life would be considerably easier if I had a stay-at-home spouse as all our top executives do.
I really can't see this being an issue. With todays work life balance or lack of it I would actually see employers preferring single people. I hear alot of women on these boards complaining of getting hints employers would prefer if they weren't married or didn't have children. A spouse ties you down in terms of not being as ready to move for promotions and not being able to work insancely long hours.
Maybe for a CEO position if you're in a role where your entertaining other clietns and there wives but I really can't see this being a big issue.
Many companies today prefer singles because they can relocate them at will. For example, oil companies such as Exxon relocate employees all the time and prefer singles who can move at moments notice.
Admittedly, this was a far greater issue back in the Seventies when I was starting out, but I'd like to know how many of us here have had their employers drop hints that the path to advancement would be easier for married candidates. And I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who had to deal with it in the days when the prejudice was out in the open. Did a hurried or pressured decision on this issue come back to haunt you later?
I left college in 1972, after an unsuccessful attempt at graduate study. My first "real" job was interesting and challenging enough, but my boss (very much a product of the World War II generation) made it clear early on that I could expect little in the way of advancement so long as I remained single, and proved his point by promoting two men whose performance statistics were somewhat lower than mine, but who were engaged. Having only recently emerged from a college-centered community where men outnumbered women by a 2-1 ratio, but settling in a blue-collar town with a much smaller (and picked-over) set of available singles, I found myself on the horns of a dilemma.
Anyone familiar with the culture of the "organization man", and the much-stronger stigma against both cohabitation and homosexuality which prevailed in the Fifties and Sixties can probably add a story or two of their own.
Yes, some professions do subtly prefer families in some areas. For instance, women with children are seen as more capable than women without them in my chosen profession, teaching. I still like the flexibility of being single, though. I don't have some overbearing husband or screaming rug rats to take care of and can move at the drop of a hat if I need to. Kids are a drag. Most of the women I know have them, and it seems like too much work.
No, never heard of anyone experiencing anything such as this. And I agree with the above poster where a single person would most likely have the advantage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
