If you've ever been turned down for a job, ladies who are engaged, there's no point in feeling down about how you performed in the interview. Because one recruiter seems to think it comes down to something a lot more basic than, you know, whether you're actually eligible for the job.
In a recent blog post on LinkedIn written by recruiter Bruce Hurwitz, women due to be wed are advised (in all seriousness) to leave their engagement rings at home. Yup. And just wait for his explanation as to why:
"When a man sees that ring he immediately assumes you are high maintenance. When the woman at the office who has the largest diamond on her finger, sees that ring, she will realise that if you are hired she will fall to second place and will, therefore, not like you. Lose the ring!"
Is this for real?
In Hurwitz's post, he recalled giving this exact advice to a woman who, despite having had a number of interviews, had not managed to firm up any offers. Apparently, as soon as she tried his suggestion of 'losing the ring', she magically got a job offer. Right, and I'm sure that's got everything to do with the absence of a diamond from her left hand.
Hilariously, Hurwitz also adds a note at the bottom of his post for women who are engaged but don't have a ring. He gives them this wonderful advice:
"If you don't have one, but got engaged by signing a pre-nup, find a way to let male interviewers know that. They'll respect you. (Women may as well, but I'm not certain that this is the case.)"
Just literally where has he got this bullshit from? If I were ever hiring for a role and a male candidate came into the interview with a signet ring on his finger, would I be with in my rights to cast him off as 'high maintenance' and not give him the job?
Absolutely not. I wouldn't even entertain the thought, and I'd like to think most other hiring managers aren't shallow enough to either.
I surely can't be the only one who's bored of misogynistic people with their heads too far up their own arses continuously disregarding women's abilities, ignoring their merit and choosing only to focus on superficial aspects when it comes to our careers.
Thankfully, many of the comments on the the post echoed our sentiments - and this was men and women:
"This is ridiculous drivel. I would FIRE any firm who gave this kind of advice to candidates."
"Crazy new form of discrimination."
"Your 'guidance' is misguided, petty and misogynistic, and I hope no one takes your advice."
"This might be the single most idiotic article I have read on LinkedIn this year."
In response, Bruce Hurwitz piped up again with a second article. And clearly he doesn't know when to stop digging.
"The problem with a large engagement ring, as I noted and was confirmed by a couple of women in the comments of the previous article, is the message it may send. When a man gives a woman an engagement ring, he buys the least expensive ring that he believes it will take to get her to agree to the proposal. For women it may be a symbol of everlasting love, but for men (when it is expensive) it is akin to a business transaction. So when a male interviewer sees what appears to be an expensive engagement ring he assumes the wearer is, as I said in the article, "high maintenance." He may be willing to have a high-maintenance woman in his personal life; he doesn't necessarily want one in his office."
Dear God. "For men (when it is expensive) it is akin to a business transaction" - please do us a favour and be quiet forever.
So yeah. The main thing to take from this advice that we should categorically ignore it. And any company which does see it fit to judge a woman's professional ability on the furniture on her ring finger is one you should be running a country mile from. So thanks, Bruce, for reminding us of that.
Originally appeared on Cosmopolitan.co.uk