(03-30-2022 08:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 08:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 08:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 08:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 08:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  They probably would. And it would be just as sexist and outdated an argument if Red Team was making it.

It would be sexist/outdated if commenting on her husband's political activism? How would that be sexist? Outdated?

The notion that a woman is incapable of separating her professional life from her personal life? That she will use her wiles to persuade her husband to advance her agenda, and that like all men he can only think with his other head if it's the woman he's with who's asking?

This is a weird argument in any case. Are all conflict-of-interest clauses sexist/outdated?

If a company asks it's employees to verify that their spouse doesn't have a financial relationship with a competitor? Sexist? Outdated?

The implication here is that Ginny Thomas might be prevailing on her husband to rule in her favor, isn't it?

I don't know what employers currently are and are not allowed to ask about a spouse's employment, to be honest.

I believe that conflict-of-interest clauses are found in plenty of contracts and investment documents. They usually ask about immediate family members. Why do you think that is?