So Vanderbilt's football coach will not hire an assistant coach until/unless he has met and approved of the candidate's wife.

[link]

Franklin, in a relaxed mood near the beach, explained, "I've been saying it for a long time, I will not hire an assistant coach until I've seen his wife. If she looks the part, and she's a D-1 recruit, then you got a chance to get hired. That's part of the deal. "There's a very strong correlation between having the confidence, going up and talking to a women, and being quick on your feet and having some personality and confidence and being fun and articulate, than it is walking into a high school and recruiting a kid and selling him."

Apparently this is also featured in Moneyball?

I'm pretty appalled at the logic behind this. I mean, WTF?

What's a food pod?

It's a bunch of food trucks all together at the same place.

I'm pretty appalled at the logic behind this. I mean, WTF?

Wow, yeah. What if he's gay? Or just single? And I guess there's no chance of a woman being an assistant football coach.

Also, "looks the part"? That means she has to be pretty in order for her husband to be hired? And what does "a D-1 recruit" mean--that she had to be a college athlete, or is that in reference to her looks?

The more I think about this, the dodgier it gets--it really is something out of the 1950s.

Huh.

Before my uncle was hired to be the senior VP of a medium-sized corporation, they interviewed his wife as well. Apparently this was standard practice back then. I think they wanted to know if she could entertain properly at parties and what-not?

This would have been late 1980s.

D-1 means division 1, but I'm going to assume he means a 10, or whatever his dickish hottie-ranking scale is.

Here's a tee shirt that Jilli shouldn't wear: [link] (or look at)

Let's take the assumption that a major VP must do some entertaining to maintain a company presence, etc. It might be relevant to the job skills and effort to interview the spouse to see if she can assist the VP in performing his duties. I am not sure I agree with this line of argument, but it isn't unlike the national expectations of the First Lady. Though I am not sure any person was ever not elected because of the attractiveness of his wife. Really.

However, the assistant coach's wife would not be helping him perform employment duties (at least not described in the article). The coach is evaluating prospectives based on assumptions of why they chose their spouses (and why the spouses chose them).

IMO, if the wife (either to the coach or VP) isn't getting PAID, she doesn't need to interview.

Let's take the assumption that a major VP must do some entertaining to maintain a company presence, etc. It might be relevant to the job skills and effort to interview the spouse to see if she can assist the VP in performing his duties.

IF it's part of his duties, then it's on him to deliver. How he does that (wife, companion, sister, event planner, or - hey there - all by himself) shouldn't be on the table. If you're interviewing at that level one would think you'd figured it out somehow or other.

If the VP's wife cannot entertain (god forbid she have her own career) he should know that and be able to deal with it, by know good places to take business associates and/or having a good relationship with a catering and/or event planning company. GET OUT OF THE DARK AGES OR ANGRY WOMEN WILL COME SUE YOUR ASS!

This is supposably a good way to size your bra: [link]

I haven't tried it yet--am about to give it a shot.