Why a recruiter is telling women to ditch their engagement ring if they want to get a job.

Been struggling to land a job? You might be suitably qualified, you might interview well, you might be exactly what they’re looking for, but you won’t get anywhere unless you ditch your engagement ring.

Wait, what?

Yep, that’s the eyebrow-raising argument raised by one US recruitment specialist.

Bruce Hurwitz made the controversial case via a now-viral Linkedin post, using the example of a highly qualified job-hunter who, despite having several interviews, hadn’t been given a single offer.

According to Hurwitz, that was for one reason and one reason only: “The woman had the Hope Diamond on her finger”.

To her, and to rock-laden women everywhere, Hurwitz explained:

“When a man sees that ring he immediately assumes you are high maintenance,” Hurwitz wrote.

“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.”

According to Hurwitz, the woman ultimately heeded his advice and was successfully recruited two weeks later. And she wasn’t the only one: “This just happened again, only this time with a career counselling client,” he wrote. “I think that makes half a dozen.”

But tell us, Bruce, don’t recruiters generally advise against fudging the truth when applying for a job?

“Not wearing an engagement ring is not lying,” he wrote. “Being engaged is not a ‘protected class’ like gender, religion, or even marital status. After all, just because you are engaged does not mean you are actually going to get married. So not telling an employer that you plan to get married, is fine. It is none of her business. It would only be relevant if, let’s say, you needed some time off in the not too distant future.”

We didn’t think many more gems could spill forth from Hurwitz’s font of wisdom, but we were wrong. In fact, he saved the best ’til last.

“So lose the rock!”, he concluded. “And, 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.)”

Oh, Bruce.

This was the top comment on Bruce's post. We feel ya, Grace. Image: Linkedin

Needless to say, there was backlash, both in the press and the comments section, prompting Hurwitz to issue a clarification.

"As I (thought) I had made clear in the article, I was discussing rings akin to the Hope Diamond," he wrote in a second post.

"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."

(Bruce, just stop.)

"For women it may be a symbol of everlasting love, but for men (when it is expensive) it is akin to a business transaction."

(Seriously, step away from the keyboard.)

"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.' "

(Really?)

"He may be willing to have a high-maintenance woman in his personal life; he doesn't necessarily want one in his office."

Okay. Yep. That just happened.

We'll just leave that there.

Featured image: iStock.