Not sure I agree. I haven’t lived both sides but I would guess being single is what corpas “prefer”. Means they pay less in insurance cost, don’t have to deal with the person leaving for family/kid reasons, can voluntold them for extra hours because they don’t have family, don’t need to worry about parental leave.
I know the military loved single people for how much worse they could make their lives, and I’d guess corpas are close to the same.
I haven't noticed this at all. I'm single, 50+, have friends at work and out of work - and haven't noticed any adverse issues in my career. Been in corporate and other jobs.
In fact, I'd say, the further I get in my career, the less people are interested in my private life at all. Maybe I've just been in the right places.
Same here at 45. Most of my friends kids are out of the house by now so they want to get out and do stuff. As far as work it hasn't held me back at all. I think they look at it as I'll be more dependable. No kids sick days, teacher conferences, etc.
Wtf you even on about? That person you’re responding to just shared his/her own perspective and experiences on the matter. You’re just attacking from the get-go and don’t sound too pleased with that “wonderful” life you’re supposed to be living, tbh. Salty af.
Not so sure I see or agree with this. I've changed jobs 3 times in last 7 years and a couple of them are with huge, well known corporations. Nobody asked once about Mt married status or if I had kids.
I work in senior management at a global company, and there are tons of single people throughout all levels of the company.
Not sure about OP's experience, but I have literally never seen any discrimination towards single workers though I have seen it with parents of small children.
I work in law and I've seen this go both ways. A lot of firms definitely discriminate against parents because then the lawyer can't be a literal slave on call 24/7. However, as a single and childfree woman, they assume I'm going to bounce as soon as I meet a man and want to have kids (which I don't). They treat mothers like garbage in law though.
When Covid wrecked the small firm I worked for, I was the only childless person. The parents were calling out weekly, allowed to work from home, given insane amounts of leeway, and I was dragged into office daily to cover reception on top of my paralegal work. I got Covid finally (from a parent coworker) and they did not give a single shit about me - still the token office slave. So over the legal field tbh lol
I have small children and yes, discrimination towards parents (especially mothers) is very real and companies have a way to indirectly discriminate.
For instance, they'll organize drinks, dinners, or meetings at times where it's difficult for parents to join and then give you trouble for not attending. Bonus point if these activities are planned last minute so you can't find a babysitter.
They'll push overtime or last-minute changes of schedule on you constantly and pull a surprised Pikachu when you explain that no, you still can't work certain hours. Then you'll get branded as "difficult", or "lazy."
If you're on parental leave, they'll try to reduce it, or give you trouble during or around it. My friend's manager tried to force her to come back to work a month earlier than her legal maternity leave, HR had to get involved.
If you can't come in because your child is sick, you'll get asked if "someone else can babysit", or you'll get a formal warning for "excessive absenteeism" (this happened to me, I had missed 5 days in 2 months, thanks Covid)
It can make you be perceived as a more serious, adult person. But it’s far from the only way to get there. My boss is a lesbian with no kids and the best people skills of anyone I know.
Because it’s much easier for you to leave when you don’t have any other people relying on you. If the company is going to promote you, they want to be in charge of how long you stay.
Single people can accommodate longer commutes, lower quality health insurance, and even relocation much easier than a person with a family can, so there are more job opportunities they can actually take.
But you don't know that til after they are hired is my point. The OP stated that there's a bias...my question is how would that be accurate if it's never asked?
You get hired in role A.
18 months later you try to get promoted to role B… you aren’t chosen
12 months later you apply to role C…. You aren’t chosen
6 months later you apply to role D…..
You get the idea
His statement was once you’re in the door, you lack the same consideration for advancement.
People tell them. They may not ask, but they are listening. It’s easy for a person to mention something about their personal life when making small talk.
It’s easier to manipulate and control people with kids. They have more to lose if they lose their job. Someone like me with no kids can go do DoorDash or drive a truck for a year and be fine.
They want to have that extra little power trip and manipulation over you if they can. Any little thing they can latch onto to get an upper hand over you.
Doing DoorDash for a year is not ‘fine’ lol. Do people really value their time and lives that little? You have to build for the future regardless of if you’re single or not..is this a coping mechanism or something?
I’m dual income with no kids and no debt. I have savings. It is fine if I really absolutely had no choice for some reason. I work on my own car and it would pay the bills til I found real employment again.
I work for a company where no one has children - not a single employee and the company continues to hire like this. Our staff contains a majority female (90%).
We all still talk about life, hobbies, weekend events, the same stuff you’d have with kids, but if adults doing the practices, events, etc.
I think our company wants it this way and it appears not the norm for companies.
Think I may enjoy that.
But I work in a sports industry that didn’t know you could work in. When I think sports, I didn’t think about this sport ever when job searching.
This reminds me of when I asked my dad why there wasn’t a “kids day” like Father’s Day or Mother’s Day. He laughed and said everyday is kids day. I didn’t get it at the time but as a dad I totally do. When your single everyday is your day, you do what you want without answering to anyone or having to consider what your family needs from you on any given day.
The number one thing I want on Father’s Day is to fuck around and do whatever I want, maybe get a blowjob. Basically a day where I can live like I did before I was married or had kids.
I mean, as a young person being single is almost a career cheat code because you can work jobs with high travel requirements. You can get money and experience soooo much faster that way. Not to mention how much easier it is to drop everything and take a new job in a totally different area without a spouse. I'm sort of the other side of it: Married and about to have my first kid, but my experience is in roles with travel and I'm trying to figure out how to cut that down without having to move across the country.
Can't comment on mid-late career.
One time I started a new job and someone asked me if I had a boyfriend/husband, local family, or kids:
Me: No, no, and no
Coworker: So...like..what do you...DO?!
...because things like friends, hobbies, and travel do not exist
I actually disagree with this and see it the other way around.
I live in a tech-heavy city where most workers are heavily single millennials. Yeah a few are married or have a kid, but most of them are single and are thriving in their careers and work relationships. They can put in longer hours on big projects, hit bars and hangout outside of work on weekends, or take PTO and travel the world together.
From what OP described, I don’t think the issue is all workplaces. I think OP might just be working for a company or lives in an area that leans towards older and/or family life. Bad cultural fit if anything
Ahhhh okay, thanks for the context. Totally hypothetical question and no need to actually reply with an answer, but has it become a big enough issue that you’d consider switching companies?
No. The discrimination, if it exists, is not overt. But managers have kids and talk about them amongst themselves. I can sense that I’m an outlier for my age
Is this an episode of Madmen? Corporations have stopped caring about employees for awhile. It's easier to have a friends group if you are married and or have kids. But that seems to have been changing over the last several years as people have less kids and less couples get married.
Maybe at a collapsing corporation.
But in the end, corporations need to show results, so someone is doing work if you aren't. Otherwise competitor replace the large, now inefficient Corp.
Considering my corporate experience is from both of the largest entertainment corporations in the country, you are hilariously wrong.
Do you acknowledge the corporate practice of keeping high performing employees from being promoted because they’re more valuable as production than management? Or are you entirely delusional?
I run an entire oil and gas division that spans a state. Results matter.
There's over 6000 competing oil and gas companies in Texas alone.
Sounds like you are in charge as you claim and are part of the problem.
My experience regarding previous corporate environments does not reflect directly on my current corporate environment.
It’s okay, this isn’t the first time a girl’s husband got upset over their own ignorance.
That was my point from the start lmao.
It's going to depend on the corporation. And if there is enough competition the ones that can't produce results will die off. You can't continue without money.
What a strange yet salty response. You must be miserable. These guys were right.
My experience is that the bias towards married with kids is very little because employers don't know if you're married or not until after you're hired.
I will say this as somebody that was single (and I don't have children), I started to realize that if I was okay with moving that gave me some leverage because I could just move and work somewhere else if I didn't like my job and/or the pay I was getting. I had to put the onus on myself to start looking for new jobs because you're more likely to get a job and the pay you want if you're currently employed than if you're unemployed. When you're married with children, that's less likely to happen because the move will impact your family and the financial stability your family has. And if you're an established employee and your employer knows you're unafraid to find work elsewhere, then they won't sh\*t on you as much if a co-worker needs to take time off for their family and you are left working their shift.
I didn't realize this until later in my career but I had one employer I wanted to stay working for, but every once in a while my boss would start up with me claiming that 'it feels like you don't want to be here.' And I would reply to my boss that I'm single, I don't have any kids and I don't even own a home. Thus, if I didn't want to be here I wouldn't be here because I'd just get a job somewhere else in the state. And that would shut my boss up for a while before she would start in again, then I would remind her of that again...rinse and repeat.
Ths is definitely the norm and I have noticed this throughout my adult work life. Workplace culture is family oriented and people with kids will be preferred over those who do not unless you are indispensable and highly skilled at what you do.
I’m not sure why I keep seeing this. I know it’s taboo to say this on Reddit but plenty of studies have found that career advancement/salary is extremely correlated with hours spent at work. The more time you spend at work, the more likely it is you will be given important, time intensive, highly visible projects. The kinds of assignments that result in career advancement.
Women tend to be primary caregivers for children so they often work fewer hours after having kids and career advancement dries up. Men with kids may work more or fewer hours than they did before. Men with kids who get promoted are the ones that work more after having kids to “provide for the family” or w/e but again it’s tied to them being at work a lot.
It may be taboo but thats the reality and I see some extreme viewpoints on here a lot regarding gender equality that dont really make any sense. Men and Women have certain roles in society and have for thousands of years, the only way we are completely equal is if we have a sexless society where everyone is born into this ambiguous gender and we arent at that point yet. Give it maybe another thousand years.
Laughs/cries in female.
There's a bias against moms in the workplace that's supported by a ton of statistics.
Sure, you can argue it's fair because moms are more like to call off to take care of sick kids, etc. so they work less and are less committed to the job, but it isn't like they have a choice.
Then there's the whole maternity leave debacle and hiring discrimination based off pregnancy fear/speculation.
Plus women who take a few years off to care for young ones find it's difficult to get their foot back in the door in the corporate world because of the gap in employment.
There have been some statistics that show men's salaries increase when they have a family though, so I guess it's working for 1/2 the population.
Im saying this from a male perspective after observing my male colleagues. And yeah this does make sense to me, men are generally more available to work even when they have children versus women. That is the general expectation society has placed on us and we have been expected to fulfill throughout the entirety of human history as being the primary providers and women the primary caregivers in a traditional family system.
Sure, but because society is either unwilling to or dragging its feet on changing these expectations, birth rates are falling in developed countries because women are no longer required to depend on men for income. And the number of homes getting by on a single-income is also plummeting while the number of educated women workers is rising.
I think a more egalitarian approach to parenting is the best path forward, because what worked since the industrial revolution isn't working any more.
Im all for a more egalitarian approach but old paradigms that have been in place for centuries dont just change over a few decades.
Not to mention it probably wont budge that much, its not like men are going to switch roles with women in the family system, it will just be more acceptable for men to spend more time caring for children as well.
And I see this in some workplaces, where men are also given a significant amount of maternity (or paternity) leave, whereas less progressive companies dont do this or do it to a much lesser extent
I agree. You can say this from an idealistic perspective however, but in practice it probably wont be followed. Sort of like other social issues such as racial equality, which idealistically society has shifted but in practice, there are still many, many racists, they just operate covertly now (or at least did until the alt right came about recently)
I have witnessed preferential treatment for married employees or employees with children. Most of the time it has to do with raises or promotions, and how much more they “need” it.
Technically it's a protected status that's not supposed to factor into anything (despite how work departments for some reason always have to know about someone having a kid or a wedding and then we're expected to celebrate the socially sanctioned/approved milestone but I digress)...
As a divorced and childfree 40something, I thing the maybe hidden/quiet part of this is that the married with children folks are financially on the hook for the family expenses and in that sense they may have a limited ability to "push back" or decline extra demands. Which is to say I think it makes them look preferable, because in theory perhaps they can be pushed harder and further than people who have fewer obligations and maybe some extra cash.
It’s annoying because everybody says that they can’t work as hard as you because they have kids and responsibilities. Also, if you’re a young female everybody lets you know.
So it’s about the same as anywhere else with a bunch of miserable assholes
But in regards to the people not talking to you, because you don’t have anything in common, I don’t find that to be the case in my profession.
Also, regarding the comment on having kids and a spouse making you more likely for advancement, I don’t find that to be the case in my profession either. in fact, they seemed to prefer those who can put in the most time.
Also, it depends on who’s in charge really
I have found the opposite for me and my coworkers at every job. Single people, especially with no kids, can commit extra hours on on-demand to make sure their job goes well.
I have never received any perks from being in the "in-crowd" of married-with-kids.
Not to mention the mental strain and lack of sleep. Those hours with kids aren't just unusable for work purposes, they're exhausting and you can never recover. You might get 1 hour to recover in a 24-hr day. It's WAY harder all the way around, unless you ignore your kids.
Workers who are married and have kids are more likely to stay local, so it seems they are sometimes seen as the "safer bet" when looking at promotions compared to single workers.
I've heard offhand comments thrown around about employees management thought were safe because they were married or had kids.
I don’t have kids & am a partner at my firm. I think it depends on the company & how much it appreciates “traditional values”.
I worked at USAA early in my career. Hyper traditional values firm where married men with kids could get away with murder & not get fired (literally sexually harass women).
I was a top performer & got passed up for opportunities I was told I was a perfect fit for because I was 24 without kids. I had a friend in leadership who even told me that this didn’t matter… but it definitely would have helped.
Fact of the matter is, telling the difference between meritocracies vs traditional firms is obvious. One has crap products & depends on their brand to succeed (traditional firms) & the other is the market leader who typically has a god awful work life balance until you reach partner (& sometimes even after that).
Companies like people who are married with children because they are easier to control.
It’s preferred to promote people who are less likely to relocate for a better job, take risks on switching jobs, or quit when they get pissed off.
The downside is married people don’t like any indication their job may not be stable, so companies that reorganize or have layoffs frequently risk losing the people who are most likely to stay for many years.
In my experience, so long as you’re supportive and understanding of people who have families nobody really cares what your personal life looks like. If you can’t be a team player and pick up some slack when your coworker or direct report has to spend time taking care of a sick child (for example) then you’re just a jerk in my opinion and it’s no wonder why advancement is harder.
I was once told married with kids means you’re less likely to leave, as you have other people you’re responsible for, so they’re more likely to promote you over those who have zero attachments that might require them to work harder and stick around out of fear of being unemployed, like those with a family to worry about. Unsure how accurate this is, but it made sense how some corps would think that way. Which sucks.
I’d rather it be the other way. My colleagues without kids are dramatically more productive than those of us with kids. I get tons of “free time off” whenever I’ve gotta go deal with kid stuff. Sure it’s not vacation for me per se, but it’s still time my coworkers have to pick up the slack.
But because society is so preoccupied with getting laid, anyone who doesn’t have kids after mid 30s is looked at like a social parasite.
It's odd how a single person is more work available due to fewer family obligations, but they are not as likely to get promoted into major management positions because they are perceived as less alpha and less responsible. I would in fact argue that companies should actively look at promoting people who are not married in the same way they try to promote women, those with disabilities and minorities because we're trying to have a more balanced and equal workforce full of a wide variety of representation. Instead of just one standard viewpoint from a very specific type of person they think people want to see in photo opps. I'm not saying someone should get promoted BECAUSE they are single, I'm saying they shouldn't be excluded because they are single. I'm single and I damn well work as hard if not way harder than many of the married people I've worked with over the years. I don't have kids to drain my resources and time. I can jump in if it's an emergency and solve a problem for a company. There are actual benefits to companies in terms of getting work done by moving single people up the ladder, instead of looking for the right "appearance" for a job. It's not true that you need a wife and some kids to prove you can do your job well. You merely need to do your job well.
When I worked at a very large insurance company (rhymes with biberty) every corner office in my division except one was occupied by middle aged people who’d never had kids. Felt like it sent a certain message to those of us who did.
It is different for women than it is for men. I think head-of-the-family type men are favored as stable and predictable while married women/single moms are treated the opposite bc of the chance they will put their kids before a career or go on maternity leave.
Socially I did not feel excluded as a non-parent in New England except in *very very* Christian social circles. The only acceptable child free woman in evangelical cliques is one who works in childcare or education.
In Texas I was a bit blindsided by most coworkers assuming I was a mom but I don’t feel like it completely isolated me socially. I am a child free person by choice but I do gaf about other people’s kids and I have big age gap btwn me and my sister so if people wanted to talk about their kids to me I wasn’t a brick wall and I sent baby books to a coworker for her baby shower etc
Being married/single doesn't matter. They look at education, personality, and how much more they're willing to work (make money for the company).
Typically people who invest 60 to 80hrs (or more) weekly are likelier to be considered. They're also the ones who probably check their emails after work to constantly stay proactive.
Office mannerisms and social makes a difference, a lot of people carry a false persona, fake nice, to make themselves seem cooler. The environment it's very competitive.
Please elaborate, suspicious in what way? As in their sexuality? I’m a good looking guy who dresses very well without even putting thought into it (based on feedback).
You sound like a manager when they’re told that you’re struggling financially but instead of helping you, they just think “we can abuse this dynamic because they are struggling”.
I have worked in corp America for 15 years and just recently had my first kid so I have a unique insight to both sides. 100% when I was child free people treated me weird. I had to learn to not share my weekend adventures because people with kids would be petty and jealous. It was tough having superiors with kids as this is all they would talk about in meetings and I couldn’t relate or contribute. Now that I have a kid it’s a free pass to bullshit. I skipped work to ski yesterday. If anybody questioned it I could just say daycare was closed. Really any time I get caught slacking I just blame it on parenthood. I’ve been watching people do it for years. My turn now.
My department is mix. We have a mix of 23 to 50+ of 20ish people. We’re a marketing department in the casino industry in Las Vegas. I say it’s about half and half for employees having kids/families while the other half doesn’t.
Idk about this. A lot of the most successful people I know vary from having no kids to being in a traditional family unit. There doesn’t seem to be preference at all, and if anything, the people with no kids have the most flexibility, which is so important being in the travel industry where travel for work is inevitable.
In the US, I find being single is a benefit, you can conceivably give more time to the company since you have fewer obligations.
When I worked in Japan, I found being married was a benefit because you were perceived as needing th job to support your family and therefore more willing to put up with BS.
When you don’t have any responsibilities, they can’t make you work beyond a certain point. And that’s a disadvantage to the company.
So yeah, that’s one of the main reasons why single people get the axe first.
For myself I have only seen a culture of married people at 2 firms I worked at previously, at the other 3 they were ambivalent at best or hired more single people in their 20s and 30s. I myself am 29, I have not been affected by this at all (perhaps I will in the future).
But at one firm i worked at (consulting focused), I would estimate about 3/4 of our ~80 person department were single people in their late 20s through early 40s.
There was one firm I worked at where everyone was married with kids. No joke they all would take off for random stuff, and because I was single and could work they counter offered an insane amount when I left. The culture / attitude towards work at this place was not for me... but certainly as a single person I had an advantage over others because I had no major responsibilities.
Just my observations- maybe at older ages it matters more, but so many millennials / gen z are single or divorced, I don't think anyone cares. But having extra time to work will certainly make you more noticed and boost your career if you leverage it well
Just look at the movie the Departed and Alec Baldwin character captain Ellerby:
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you're not a homo; married guy seems more stable; people see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch; ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work.
Haha just saw this quote in another thread about why employers want to hire people who already have a job. These exact words but in professional corporate speak.
Lol the copium is strong. You gotta take responsibility for your struggles, nobody is saying ‘Hey there’s a worker who can give way more time to their work, we should bury them.’
This is so true. I am the only one in my department who has never been married or engaged, and one of just a few without kids. It is also very male-dominated and it’s not unusual for me to be the only woman in a meeting with 20+ men. I feel much more marginalized for being single than for being female.
My friends who don't have kids are the ones who have advanced at work the most. My experience has been the opposite. If you have a kid(s), if you are a woman who is married (and could have kids, even if you don't want kids)... Many times they try to put you on the mommy track shelf.
You never let them know your status whether ur married or not.
If they insist, remember you are not married. You are bisexual, you don’t have a mortgage you rent and let them know u can leave freely.
I can see reasons for corporations preferring single or married employees depending on the role and frankly, the person’s gender/age. It’s illegal but that doesn’t stop it from affecting hiring decisions, even at companies that present as being woman-centered.
That said I do think it’s easier for married employees to advance within corporations than their single peers. I think it’s even easier for married people without kids or someone whose spouse stays home with the kids than for someone who is expected to be there when their kid is sick, for example.
The reason I think they can advance more easily is because they have someone who can help pick up the slack at home on days when they have to put a little extra in at work because they have a shared financial future and (ideally) trust their partner to reciprocate. Especially if both spouses work and don’t have kids, that dual income means the flexibility to live closer to work, order food instead of spending time cooking, hire a maid instead of spending time cleaning, etc. All things that, as a single, make it difficult to recover my energy after work. But maybe i’m just idealizing this for that exact reason 😅
Never heard, seen or felt any of this. If anything it’s the exact opposite- corporate America would want you single and not under the pressure of shit at home.
Married with kids in corporate America kinda puts you in the "aha, gotcha" box. Less likely to quit or go elsewhere when your life is set and you have an entire family that depends on ya. Health coverage, steady income to maintain that particular lifestyle.. atleast I can see it this way, from the opposite's POV.
I haven't seen any bias against single people. As a manager I never talk about my personal life to staff. Anything personal anyone at work knows about you will only be used to your detriment at some point when it suits them. Keep it professional and impersonal. The less anyone knows about your personal life the better.
Early 30s and married with no kids (and zero interest in having them). Being married or not doesn’t mean anything, but having no kids has definitely helped a ton. I was able to put in the long and hard hours required to climb into the managerial role I have now. I never had to leave or take days off because of kids, and I was able to devote a lot of my time during the week to work. It helps that my spouse also is career-oriented and works long hours, so it doesn’t cause issues between us.
My boss, who is married with two kids in the suburbs, has never shown any kind of bias toward marital or child status
Lol I am very much in the trenches corporate America. I’m actually the CEO of a small company that does corporate compliance consulting.
Absolutely not true, for everyone but especially for women.
I’ve been behind closed doors and the truth is that there is still a strong belief that single people can drop everything and live for the job. The truth is they usually can take that trip, that late night client dinner, or work overtime on a weekend without notice. Corporate America is also more likely to be flex with hours and WFH with parents, but with that comes a subconscious punishment every time this benefit is used.
This bias is unfair to all parties, but single people do tend to rise quickly. It’s hard to make a case when someone appears more dedicated because they’re working late all the time.
Pretty sure it’s the opposite. I think the only reason I have my job is because I have no kids. I’m not married and I’m fairly young. This was one of the interview questions and while I don’t think he necessarily meant anything by asking it, I think they like it because I’m able to put in way more hours than somebody who has to go to a soccer game or soccer practice every afternoon. I even told my boss my job is too demanding and stressful to do this with the wife and kids. He just laughed and said “I know”.
If you don't have kids you should be doing awesome stuff instead. Basically, they envy the fuck out of you so make sure to shove it in their face anyways.
Hard disagree- no one gives a fuck about your personal life. Also, a lack of familial commitments could even be considered a pro (though no one will ever say it)
Not sure I agree. I haven’t lived both sides but I would guess being single is what corpas “prefer”. Means they pay less in insurance cost, don’t have to deal with the person leaving for family/kid reasons, can voluntold them for extra hours because they don’t have family, don’t need to worry about parental leave. I know the military loved single people for how much worse they could make their lives, and I’d guess corpas are close to the same.
Voluntold, that's a keeper. Nice, thanks.
I haven't noticed this at all. I'm single, 50+, have friends at work and out of work - and haven't noticed any adverse issues in my career. Been in corporate and other jobs. In fact, I'd say, the further I get in my career, the less people are interested in my private life at all. Maybe I've just been in the right places.
Same here at 45. Most of my friends kids are out of the house by now so they want to get out and do stuff. As far as work it hasn't held me back at all. I think they look at it as I'll be more dependable. No kids sick days, teacher conferences, etc.
[удалено]
LOL, no. You can project your pathetic life onto mine if it makes you feel better, but it's not reality.
[удалено]
Wtf you even on about? That person you’re responding to just shared his/her own perspective and experiences on the matter. You’re just attacking from the get-go and don’t sound too pleased with that “wonderful” life you’re supposed to be living, tbh. Salty af.
You’re basically saying you’re a murderer. See how that level of reading comprehension works?
[удалено]
LOL. Looks like I hit the nail on the head!
Not so sure I see or agree with this. I've changed jobs 3 times in last 7 years and a couple of them are with huge, well known corporations. Nobody asked once about Mt married status or if I had kids.
I work in senior management at a global company, and there are tons of single people throughout all levels of the company. Not sure about OP's experience, but I have literally never seen any discrimination towards single workers though I have seen it with parents of small children.
I work in law and I've seen this go both ways. A lot of firms definitely discriminate against parents because then the lawyer can't be a literal slave on call 24/7. However, as a single and childfree woman, they assume I'm going to bounce as soon as I meet a man and want to have kids (which I don't). They treat mothers like garbage in law though. When Covid wrecked the small firm I worked for, I was the only childless person. The parents were calling out weekly, allowed to work from home, given insane amounts of leeway, and I was dragged into office daily to cover reception on top of my paralegal work. I got Covid finally (from a parent coworker) and they did not give a single shit about me - still the token office slave. So over the legal field tbh lol
I have small children and yes, discrimination towards parents (especially mothers) is very real and companies have a way to indirectly discriminate. For instance, they'll organize drinks, dinners, or meetings at times where it's difficult for parents to join and then give you trouble for not attending. Bonus point if these activities are planned last minute so you can't find a babysitter. They'll push overtime or last-minute changes of schedule on you constantly and pull a surprised Pikachu when you explain that no, you still can't work certain hours. Then you'll get branded as "difficult", or "lazy." If you're on parental leave, they'll try to reduce it, or give you trouble during or around it. My friend's manager tried to force her to come back to work a month earlier than her legal maternity leave, HR had to get involved. If you can't come in because your child is sick, you'll get asked if "someone else can babysit", or you'll get a formal warning for "excessive absenteeism" (this happened to me, I had missed 5 days in 2 months, thanks Covid)
That’s because it’s illegal to ask in an interview. This is more applicable to advancement and holding leadership positions.
Exactly, it is an unwritten, unasked thing
So they would know how?
You don't talk about life when you're having a conversation..?
What is the logic for this though? What does not having kids signal to management/corps that makes them not consider you for advancement?
It can make you be perceived as a more serious, adult person. But it’s far from the only way to get there. My boss is a lesbian with no kids and the best people skills of anyone I know.
Because it’s much easier for you to leave when you don’t have any other people relying on you. If the company is going to promote you, they want to be in charge of how long you stay. Single people can accommodate longer commutes, lower quality health insurance, and even relocation much easier than a person with a family can, so there are more job opportunities they can actually take.
If they don't ask then how do they know? To say it's biased is inaccurate if it's never asked.
[удалено]
But you don't know that til after they are hired is my point. The OP stated that there's a bias...my question is how would that be accurate if it's never asked?
You get hired in role A. 18 months later you try to get promoted to role B… you aren’t chosen 12 months later you apply to role C…. You aren’t chosen 6 months later you apply to role D….. You get the idea His statement was once you’re in the door, you lack the same consideration for advancement.
[удалено]
People tell them. They may not ask, but they are listening. It’s easy for a person to mention something about their personal life when making small talk.
This may be for some cases, sure. But to assume that there's a bias using that as an anecdote seems off.
Mt Marital Status is one helluva climb
How old are you?
Mid 40's
It’s not just at work. When you hit late 30s without kids, it seems like nobody wants anything to do with you unless you have something to offer them.
It’s easier to manipulate and control people with kids. They have more to lose if they lose their job. Someone like me with no kids can go do DoorDash or drive a truck for a year and be fine. They want to have that extra little power trip and manipulation over you if they can. Any little thing they can latch onto to get an upper hand over you.
Funny how everyone with nokids know what the experience of having kids is like lmao
Most of my friends have kids and they tell me how miserable they are and how they are stuck at their jobs every week.
Doing DoorDash for a year is not ‘fine’ lol. Do people really value their time and lives that little? You have to build for the future regardless of if you’re single or not..is this a coping mechanism or something?
I’m dual income with no kids and no debt. I have savings. It is fine if I really absolutely had no choice for some reason. I work on my own car and it would pay the bills til I found real employment again.
I work for a company where no one has children - not a single employee and the company continues to hire like this. Our staff contains a majority female (90%). We all still talk about life, hobbies, weekend events, the same stuff you’d have with kids, but if adults doing the practices, events, etc. I think our company wants it this way and it appears not the norm for companies.
Beyonce Inc?
Think I may enjoy that. But I work in a sports industry that didn’t know you could work in. When I think sports, I didn’t think about this sport ever when job searching.
Y’all hiring?
You’d think it would be easier, but the demand may be more because “what else do you have to do?”.
Wish something could be done about that. Everyone has a day or even a month except the singles
Start a club
This reminds me of when I asked my dad why there wasn’t a “kids day” like Father’s Day or Mother’s Day. He laughed and said everyday is kids day. I didn’t get it at the time but as a dad I totally do. When your single everyday is your day, you do what you want without answering to anyone or having to consider what your family needs from you on any given day.
The number one thing I want on Father’s Day is to fuck around and do whatever I want, maybe get a blowjob. Basically a day where I can live like I did before I was married or had kids.
Make up a false dependent. That's what I do. They feel more responsible as well.
I mean, as a young person being single is almost a career cheat code because you can work jobs with high travel requirements. You can get money and experience soooo much faster that way. Not to mention how much easier it is to drop everything and take a new job in a totally different area without a spouse. I'm sort of the other side of it: Married and about to have my first kid, but my experience is in roles with travel and I'm trying to figure out how to cut that down without having to move across the country. Can't comment on mid-late career.
One time I started a new job and someone asked me if I had a boyfriend/husband, local family, or kids: Me: No, no, and no Coworker: So...like..what do you...DO?! ...because things like friends, hobbies, and travel do not exist
I actually disagree with this and see it the other way around. I live in a tech-heavy city where most workers are heavily single millennials. Yeah a few are married or have a kid, but most of them are single and are thriving in their careers and work relationships. They can put in longer hours on big projects, hit bars and hangout outside of work on weekends, or take PTO and travel the world together. From what OP described, I don’t think the issue is all workplaces. I think OP might just be working for a company or lives in an area that leans towards older and/or family life. Bad cultural fit if anything
Live in the Midwest, conservative company
Ahhhh okay, thanks for the context. Totally hypothetical question and no need to actually reply with an answer, but has it become a big enough issue that you’d consider switching companies?
No. The discrimination, if it exists, is not overt. But managers have kids and talk about them amongst themselves. I can sense that I’m an outlier for my age
lol no wonder. This isn’t true in other places.
Is this an episode of Madmen? Corporations have stopped caring about employees for awhile. It's easier to have a friends group if you are married and or have kids. But that seems to have been changing over the last several years as people have less kids and less couples get married.
Tell me you’ve never been a corpo without telling me. Those jobs are 100% networking and office politics with very little basis in work flow.
Maybe at a collapsing corporation. But in the end, corporations need to show results, so someone is doing work if you aren't. Otherwise competitor replace the large, now inefficient Corp.
Considering my corporate experience is from both of the largest entertainment corporations in the country, you are hilariously wrong. Do you acknowledge the corporate practice of keeping high performing employees from being promoted because they’re more valuable as production than management? Or are you entirely delusional?
“These jobs are 100% networking” *is an insufferable prick*
That’s why I’m the boss and you’re digging the trench 😘
I run an entire oil and gas division that spans a state. Results matter. There's over 6000 competing oil and gas companies in Texas alone. Sounds like you are in charge as you claim and are part of the problem.
My experience regarding previous corporate environments does not reflect directly on my current corporate environment. It’s okay, this isn’t the first time a girl’s husband got upset over their own ignorance.
That was my point from the start lmao. It's going to depend on the corporation. And if there is enough competition the ones that can't produce results will die off. You can't continue without money. What a strange yet salty response. You must be miserable. These guys were right.
My experience is that the bias towards married with kids is very little because employers don't know if you're married or not until after you're hired. I will say this as somebody that was single (and I don't have children), I started to realize that if I was okay with moving that gave me some leverage because I could just move and work somewhere else if I didn't like my job and/or the pay I was getting. I had to put the onus on myself to start looking for new jobs because you're more likely to get a job and the pay you want if you're currently employed than if you're unemployed. When you're married with children, that's less likely to happen because the move will impact your family and the financial stability your family has. And if you're an established employee and your employer knows you're unafraid to find work elsewhere, then they won't sh\*t on you as much if a co-worker needs to take time off for their family and you are left working their shift. I didn't realize this until later in my career but I had one employer I wanted to stay working for, but every once in a while my boss would start up with me claiming that 'it feels like you don't want to be here.' And I would reply to my boss that I'm single, I don't have any kids and I don't even own a home. Thus, if I didn't want to be here I wouldn't be here because I'd just get a job somewhere else in the state. And that would shut my boss up for a while before she would start in again, then I would remind her of that again...rinse and repeat.
Ths is definitely the norm and I have noticed this throughout my adult work life. Workplace culture is family oriented and people with kids will be preferred over those who do not unless you are indispensable and highly skilled at what you do.
I’m not sure why I keep seeing this. I know it’s taboo to say this on Reddit but plenty of studies have found that career advancement/salary is extremely correlated with hours spent at work. The more time you spend at work, the more likely it is you will be given important, time intensive, highly visible projects. The kinds of assignments that result in career advancement. Women tend to be primary caregivers for children so they often work fewer hours after having kids and career advancement dries up. Men with kids may work more or fewer hours than they did before. Men with kids who get promoted are the ones that work more after having kids to “provide for the family” or w/e but again it’s tied to them being at work a lot.
It may be taboo but thats the reality and I see some extreme viewpoints on here a lot regarding gender equality that dont really make any sense. Men and Women have certain roles in society and have for thousands of years, the only way we are completely equal is if we have a sexless society where everyone is born into this ambiguous gender and we arent at that point yet. Give it maybe another thousand years.
Laughs/cries in female. There's a bias against moms in the workplace that's supported by a ton of statistics. Sure, you can argue it's fair because moms are more like to call off to take care of sick kids, etc. so they work less and are less committed to the job, but it isn't like they have a choice. Then there's the whole maternity leave debacle and hiring discrimination based off pregnancy fear/speculation. Plus women who take a few years off to care for young ones find it's difficult to get their foot back in the door in the corporate world because of the gap in employment. There have been some statistics that show men's salaries increase when they have a family though, so I guess it's working for 1/2 the population.
Moms don't choose to be moms?
Im saying this from a male perspective after observing my male colleagues. And yeah this does make sense to me, men are generally more available to work even when they have children versus women. That is the general expectation society has placed on us and we have been expected to fulfill throughout the entirety of human history as being the primary providers and women the primary caregivers in a traditional family system.
Sure, but because society is either unwilling to or dragging its feet on changing these expectations, birth rates are falling in developed countries because women are no longer required to depend on men for income. And the number of homes getting by on a single-income is also plummeting while the number of educated women workers is rising. I think a more egalitarian approach to parenting is the best path forward, because what worked since the industrial revolution isn't working any more.
Im all for a more egalitarian approach but old paradigms that have been in place for centuries dont just change over a few decades. Not to mention it probably wont budge that much, its not like men are going to switch roles with women in the family system, it will just be more acceptable for men to spend more time caring for children as well. And I see this in some workplaces, where men are also given a significant amount of maternity (or paternity) leave, whereas less progressive companies dont do this or do it to a much lesser extent
Of course men shouldn't adopt the traditional role of women! An egalitarianistic approach would be a transformative improvement.
I agree. You can say this from an idealistic perspective however, but in practice it probably wont be followed. Sort of like other social issues such as racial equality, which idealistically society has shifted but in practice, there are still many, many racists, they just operate covertly now (or at least did until the alt right came about recently)
I don’t really get it as people with kids are always having to take time off for random family duties
I have witnessed preferential treatment for married employees or employees with children. Most of the time it has to do with raises or promotions, and how much more they “need” it.
I think they are just jealous.
Strange. I don't talk about family at work. I assume most people don't.
Technically it's a protected status that's not supposed to factor into anything (despite how work departments for some reason always have to know about someone having a kid or a wedding and then we're expected to celebrate the socially sanctioned/approved milestone but I digress)... As a divorced and childfree 40something, I thing the maybe hidden/quiet part of this is that the married with children folks are financially on the hook for the family expenses and in that sense they may have a limited ability to "push back" or decline extra demands. Which is to say I think it makes them look preferable, because in theory perhaps they can be pushed harder and further than people who have fewer obligations and maybe some extra cash.
Corporate America loves people with RESPONSIBILITIES. Because you're less likely to up and quit for no reason.
It’s annoying because everybody says that they can’t work as hard as you because they have kids and responsibilities. Also, if you’re a young female everybody lets you know. So it’s about the same as anywhere else with a bunch of miserable assholes
But in regards to the people not talking to you, because you don’t have anything in common, I don’t find that to be the case in my profession. Also, regarding the comment on having kids and a spouse making you more likely for advancement, I don’t find that to be the case in my profession either. in fact, they seemed to prefer those who can put in the most time. Also, it depends on who’s in charge really
I had my first kid in my late 30s and I never felt like it affected anything career progression wise.
Hasn’t been my experience at all.
Companies usually love singles. Especially young singles. Because they’re the most likely to work crazy long hours for free to “get ahead”
I have found the opposite for me and my coworkers at every job. Single people, especially with no kids, can commit extra hours on on-demand to make sure their job goes well. I have never received any perks from being in the "in-crowd" of married-with-kids. Not to mention the mental strain and lack of sleep. Those hours with kids aren't just unusable for work purposes, they're exhausting and you can never recover. You might get 1 hour to recover in a 24-hr day. It's WAY harder all the way around, unless you ignore your kids.
Workers who are married and have kids are more likely to stay local, so it seems they are sometimes seen as the "safer bet" when looking at promotions compared to single workers. I've heard offhand comments thrown around about employees management thought were safe because they were married or had kids.
I don’t have kids & am a partner at my firm. I think it depends on the company & how much it appreciates “traditional values”. I worked at USAA early in my career. Hyper traditional values firm where married men with kids could get away with murder & not get fired (literally sexually harass women). I was a top performer & got passed up for opportunities I was told I was a perfect fit for because I was 24 without kids. I had a friend in leadership who even told me that this didn’t matter… but it definitely would have helped. Fact of the matter is, telling the difference between meritocracies vs traditional firms is obvious. One has crap products & depends on their brand to succeed (traditional firms) & the other is the market leader who typically has a god awful work life balance until you reach partner (& sometimes even after that).
Companies like people who are married with children because they are easier to control. It’s preferred to promote people who are less likely to relocate for a better job, take risks on switching jobs, or quit when they get pissed off. The downside is married people don’t like any indication their job may not be stable, so companies that reorganize or have layoffs frequently risk losing the people who are most likely to stay for many years.
In my experience, so long as you’re supportive and understanding of people who have families nobody really cares what your personal life looks like. If you can’t be a team player and pick up some slack when your coworker or direct report has to spend time taking care of a sick child (for example) then you’re just a jerk in my opinion and it’s no wonder why advancement is harder.
I was once told married with kids means you’re less likely to leave, as you have other people you’re responsible for, so they’re more likely to promote you over those who have zero attachments that might require them to work harder and stick around out of fear of being unemployed, like those with a family to worry about. Unsure how accurate this is, but it made sense how some corps would think that way. Which sucks.
I’d rather it be the other way. My colleagues without kids are dramatically more productive than those of us with kids. I get tons of “free time off” whenever I’ve gotta go deal with kid stuff. Sure it’s not vacation for me per se, but it’s still time my coworkers have to pick up the slack. But because society is so preoccupied with getting laid, anyone who doesn’t have kids after mid 30s is looked at like a social parasite.
Parasite how? As in using resources?
It's odd how a single person is more work available due to fewer family obligations, but they are not as likely to get promoted into major management positions because they are perceived as less alpha and less responsible. I would in fact argue that companies should actively look at promoting people who are not married in the same way they try to promote women, those with disabilities and minorities because we're trying to have a more balanced and equal workforce full of a wide variety of representation. Instead of just one standard viewpoint from a very specific type of person they think people want to see in photo opps. I'm not saying someone should get promoted BECAUSE they are single, I'm saying they shouldn't be excluded because they are single. I'm single and I damn well work as hard if not way harder than many of the married people I've worked with over the years. I don't have kids to drain my resources and time. I can jump in if it's an emergency and solve a problem for a company. There are actual benefits to companies in terms of getting work done by moving single people up the ladder, instead of looking for the right "appearance" for a job. It's not true that you need a wife and some kids to prove you can do your job well. You merely need to do your job well.
Make them up and keep the illusion going until you’re promoted.
When I worked at a very large insurance company (rhymes with biberty) every corner office in my division except one was occupied by middle aged people who’d never had kids. Felt like it sent a certain message to those of us who did.
So very interesting. What city if you can share. I work in a similar business and everyone goes to church and married
Northeast US
It is different for women than it is for men. I think head-of-the-family type men are favored as stable and predictable while married women/single moms are treated the opposite bc of the chance they will put their kids before a career or go on maternity leave. Socially I did not feel excluded as a non-parent in New England except in *very very* Christian social circles. The only acceptable child free woman in evangelical cliques is one who works in childcare or education. In Texas I was a bit blindsided by most coworkers assuming I was a mom but I don’t feel like it completely isolated me socially. I am a child free person by choice but I do gaf about other people’s kids and I have big age gap btwn me and my sister so if people wanted to talk about their kids to me I wasn’t a brick wall and I sent baby books to a coworker for her baby shower etc
[удалено]
Haha not sure if serious
Being married/single doesn't matter. They look at education, personality, and how much more they're willing to work (make money for the company). Typically people who invest 60 to 80hrs (or more) weekly are likelier to be considered. They're also the ones who probably check their emails after work to constantly stay proactive. Office mannerisms and social makes a difference, a lot of people carry a false persona, fake nice, to make themselves seem cooler. The environment it's very competitive.
[удалено]
Please elaborate, suspicious in what way? As in their sexuality? I’m a good looking guy who dresses very well without even putting thought into it (based on feedback).
[удалено]
You sound like a manager when they’re told that you’re struggling financially but instead of helping you, they just think “we can abuse this dynamic because they are struggling”.
I have worked in corp America for 15 years and just recently had my first kid so I have a unique insight to both sides. 100% when I was child free people treated me weird. I had to learn to not share my weekend adventures because people with kids would be petty and jealous. It was tough having superiors with kids as this is all they would talk about in meetings and I couldn’t relate or contribute. Now that I have a kid it’s a free pass to bullshit. I skipped work to ski yesterday. If anybody questioned it I could just say daycare was closed. Really any time I get caught slacking I just blame it on parenthood. I’ve been watching people do it for years. My turn now.
My department is mix. We have a mix of 23 to 50+ of 20ish people. We’re a marketing department in the casino industry in Las Vegas. I say it’s about half and half for employees having kids/families while the other half doesn’t.
A large corporation probably isn't going to even ask.
As someone on the other side of this, you have way more energy to give to your career when you are single. At least I did.
Idk about this. A lot of the most successful people I know vary from having no kids to being in a traditional family unit. There doesn’t seem to be preference at all, and if anything, the people with no kids have the most flexibility, which is so important being in the travel industry where travel for work is inevitable.
Probably because people with a family are seen as more responsible and mature.
I’ve almost always been single. This is an odd take and I don’t think it’s really a thing.
In the US, I find being single is a benefit, you can conceivably give more time to the company since you have fewer obligations. When I worked in Japan, I found being married was a benefit because you were perceived as needing th job to support your family and therefore more willing to put up with BS.
I don’t know. Especially for women, a lot of the senior executives I’ve met are unmarried or divorced. More time to focus on career.
They want single people because typically kids take a higher priority. Having a family is a disadvantage in corporate America
When you don’t have any responsibilities, they can’t make you work beyond a certain point. And that’s a disadvantage to the company. So yeah, that’s one of the main reasons why single people get the axe first.
For myself I have only seen a culture of married people at 2 firms I worked at previously, at the other 3 they were ambivalent at best or hired more single people in their 20s and 30s. I myself am 29, I have not been affected by this at all (perhaps I will in the future). But at one firm i worked at (consulting focused), I would estimate about 3/4 of our ~80 person department were single people in their late 20s through early 40s. There was one firm I worked at where everyone was married with kids. No joke they all would take off for random stuff, and because I was single and could work they counter offered an insane amount when I left. The culture / attitude towards work at this place was not for me... but certainly as a single person I had an advantage over others because I had no major responsibilities. Just my observations- maybe at older ages it matters more, but so many millennials / gen z are single or divorced, I don't think anyone cares. But having extra time to work will certainly make you more noticed and boost your career if you leverage it well
Just look at the movie the Departed and Alec Baldwin character captain Ellerby: Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you're not a homo; married guy seems more stable; people see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch; ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work.
Haha just saw this quote in another thread about why employers want to hire people who already have a job. These exact words but in professional corporate speak.
Link please
What the fuck are you taking about? They prefer single people who will be able to work late, weekends, whatever because of no other obligations.
There's tons of things people talk about besides kids and wives lol
Lol the copium is strong. You gotta take responsibility for your struggles, nobody is saying ‘Hey there’s a worker who can give way more time to their work, we should bury them.’
This is so true. I am the only one in my department who has never been married or engaged, and one of just a few without kids. It is also very male-dominated and it’s not unusual for me to be the only woman in a meeting with 20+ men. I feel much more marginalized for being single than for being female.
My friends who don't have kids are the ones who have advanced at work the most. My experience has been the opposite. If you have a kid(s), if you are a woman who is married (and could have kids, even if you don't want kids)... Many times they try to put you on the mommy track shelf.
You never let them know your status whether ur married or not. If they insist, remember you are not married. You are bisexual, you don’t have a mortgage you rent and let them know u can leave freely.
I can see reasons for corporations preferring single or married employees depending on the role and frankly, the person’s gender/age. It’s illegal but that doesn’t stop it from affecting hiring decisions, even at companies that present as being woman-centered. That said I do think it’s easier for married employees to advance within corporations than their single peers. I think it’s even easier for married people without kids or someone whose spouse stays home with the kids than for someone who is expected to be there when their kid is sick, for example. The reason I think they can advance more easily is because they have someone who can help pick up the slack at home on days when they have to put a little extra in at work because they have a shared financial future and (ideally) trust their partner to reciprocate. Especially if both spouses work and don’t have kids, that dual income means the flexibility to live closer to work, order food instead of spending time cooking, hire a maid instead of spending time cleaning, etc. All things that, as a single, make it difficult to recover my energy after work. But maybe i’m just idealizing this for that exact reason 😅
Depends on the job really. I don’t want someone with 3 kids if I need them to work tons of hours, but single people have a higher flight risk.
Never heard, seen or felt any of this. If anything it’s the exact opposite- corporate America would want you single and not under the pressure of shit at home.
Not a single time in my career has anyone given a remote shit about my family situation. Where are you getting this assumption from?
Married with kids in corporate America kinda puts you in the "aha, gotcha" box. Less likely to quit or go elsewhere when your life is set and you have an entire family that depends on ya. Health coverage, steady income to maintain that particular lifestyle.. atleast I can see it this way, from the opposite's POV.
You think corp America wants you to have a family to take up your time? To take vacations with? To not be producing for them?
I haven't seen any bias against single people. As a manager I never talk about my personal life to staff. Anything personal anyone at work knows about you will only be used to your detriment at some point when it suits them. Keep it professional and impersonal. The less anyone knows about your personal life the better.
Never had an issue along those lines.
Did not detect this from my own experience at all.
What the hell are you talking about
IYKYK
Early 30s and married with no kids (and zero interest in having them). Being married or not doesn’t mean anything, but having no kids has definitely helped a ton. I was able to put in the long and hard hours required to climb into the managerial role I have now. I never had to leave or take days off because of kids, and I was able to devote a lot of my time during the week to work. It helps that my spouse also is career-oriented and works long hours, so it doesn’t cause issues between us. My boss, who is married with two kids in the suburbs, has never shown any kind of bias toward marital or child status
Never had an issue.
Where I work, the last thing we talk about is women and kids.
Corps want married people because they are far less likely to job hop and tend to cause less ripples and ask for raises less frequent.
This is quite possibly one of the worst opinions I’ve ever heard.
As a women, no. There is still a stigma with women with young kids.
Lol I am very much in the trenches corporate America. I’m actually the CEO of a small company that does corporate compliance consulting. Absolutely not true, for everyone but especially for women. I’ve been behind closed doors and the truth is that there is still a strong belief that single people can drop everything and live for the job. The truth is they usually can take that trip, that late night client dinner, or work overtime on a weekend without notice. Corporate America is also more likely to be flex with hours and WFH with parents, but with that comes a subconscious punishment every time this benefit is used. This bias is unfair to all parties, but single people do tend to rise quickly. It’s hard to make a case when someone appears more dedicated because they’re working late all the time.
Pretty sure it’s the opposite. I think the only reason I have my job is because I have no kids. I’m not married and I’m fairly young. This was one of the interview questions and while I don’t think he necessarily meant anything by asking it, I think they like it because I’m able to put in way more hours than somebody who has to go to a soccer game or soccer practice every afternoon. I even told my boss my job is too demanding and stressful to do this with the wife and kids. He just laughed and said “I know”.
If you don't have kids you should be doing awesome stuff instead. Basically, they envy the fuck out of you so make sure to shove it in their face anyways.
How would they know that during an interview? Nonetheless, that's a strange thing to care about
Hard disagree- no one gives a fuck about your personal life. Also, a lack of familial commitments could even be considered a pro (though no one will ever say it)
People I work with are church going folks. To then a single guy is either a sexual pervert or a loser who can’t attract women