My favorite was this part:
“Please remove your giant diamond rings,” wrote one contributor to a community forum on Urbanbaby.com last week, billing her post as a public service announcement. “I work at a non-profit,” she continued, “and when I interview someone who is sporting a huge diamond, I immediately deduct points from that person. I talked about this with some of my colleagues today, and they feel the same way. It’s just an unnecessary risk.”
The poster later clarified that she has a specific reason for resenting when applicants bring their bling to an interview: She works for a non-profit that helps African women and children suffering from the effects of the conflict diamond trade.
Forget the engagement ring: that woman should have lost the job purely for teh stoopid. But I wish the interviewer had explained better her thought that huge diamonds are “an unncessary risk.” Is it a risk to their fundraising abilities? Is it a safety risk for the other employees? I’m not wild about people who work with their hands who wear enormous rings of any kind–physicians who regularly have to glove up, for example. It just seems obnoxious and inconvenient to have to ease the glove over the blingy-dingy.
Personally, I’m not moved by the claims that this represents discrimination against women, because lots of married women don’t wear diamond rings and yet remain legally married. What do the rest of you think?
40 Responses to “A ring-a-ding-ding: the awful oppression of wealthy heterosexualists never ends!”