AIBU to think wife attending DH's corporate event is incredibly dated?

[windygallows]

I work for a large educational charity and we hold lots of events, either fundraising events or events to launch initiatives and projects many related to partnership working. The events can range from informal to formal, sometimes stand up drinks and sometimes a proper sit down formal dinner.

While most of those invited come alone - don't bring a partner -
including our senior executive team, our male CEO (age 55) INSISTS on bringing his wife EVERY TIME. She comes to every event and when there is a dinner, sits at the 'high table' with him.

While I can understand this used to be common in the past, it feels a very outdated practice now. Why does his wife need to be there? By bringing her, what is he trying to say about himself? And on the most practical level is it fair that the company, a charity, continues to pay for fancy dinners and nights out for his wife?

I can understand that some of our older donors may expect this set up or may bring their wives as well but...surely gone are the days when this practice is normal? I remember my mother saying she couldn't WOH as she needed to be available to go to Corporate events and effectively 'do hospitality' for my Dad.

I really hate the idea that the wife is some kind of trophy or accessory who tags along to work events for her DH. AIBU?

You're making massive assumptions here, unless you've sat down and spoken to her about it?

Perhaps she asks him if she can attend, because she really likes these events?

Perhaps he goes to all her work events too?

Some couples are just really close and enjoy doing these things together.

There is absolutely no way he's paying for her place out of his own pocket. I totally agree with you OP - very old fashioned and sexist. I cannot see a female CEO dragging along her husband (or indeed her wife) to corporate events.

Belongs in the dustbins of history - along with women being expected to host dinner parties for the boss and his wife at the weekend.

It's irrelevant if she enjoys them or not - unless it's a plus one celebratory party (like a Christmas do) where everyone has a plus one, if it's a working event, partners don't belong there.

If she really wants to go then by all means, work away. Just don't expect a night out to be paid for from the charity's pot. Pay for your meal. This is not what I and I suspect most people donate towards.

For corporate/business events I have no issue with it. Charities though? Yep, I have a major gripe. Can you tell?!

I can see that she might be tasked with entertaining the other 'wives/partners' of important, white men but even that idea feels terribly old fashioned

Whoa!! What? What the hell has the colour of skin got to do with it? Why are you now being racist? Why would she entertain the partners of white men only?????

Your organisation's policy on "plus ones" seems poor and inconsistent: you could propose that it be reviewed?

Decaff some of the VIPs are asked to bring their partner/get a '+1' invitation but staff and most of those invited DO NOT. So if there were 200 people in the room, I'd say about 20-30 were able to bring a guest

So there you have it. the VIPs (and CEO is pretty much the biggest VIP your organisation would have) have the option to bring a plus 1. They choose not to.

My OH is the same age as your CEO and despite his success in life, actually doesn't like peopley stuff at all. I know if he were in an environment like you describe with hundreds of people, he would not be comfortable. He'd struggle and would very much prefer if I were there.

Worral, no I haven't had a conversation with his wife about this obviously and guess what - one is always going to make assumptions looking in on a situation. But using our experience and facts at hand, as humans we make judgements about situations!

The CEO's wife doesn't work outside the home and hasn't in 20 years - I know that as fact. She may enjoy these events and she may ask to attend (I doubt she begs to attend every one).

It doesn't change the fact that the charity is paying for her to attend and it doesn't change what it means symbolically and what it says to her DP's staff/colleagues.

As I wouldn't make any of those assumptions, that's not really a question for me.

Not least because you have missed out one further assumption, on whether or not she fundraises for the charity year-round.

You might not like the idea that entertaining potential donors goes on, but that's how it works, especially if wooing high-worth individuals or potential corporate donors. I'd agree that the term Ladies Committee is dated, but I don't underestimate the effectiveness of networking.

If done properly, it's done within rules of ceiling for expenses of course, and this can include spouses (especially if targeting individuals).

Fundraising events come with costs, as long as they raise more than they cost I'm OK with that.

It's irrelevant if she enjoys them or not - unless it's a plus one celebratory party (like a Christmas do) where everyone has a plus one, if it's a working event, partners don't belong there.

And if that was the OP's point, I would probably agree.

But her 'point' is that apparently she appears to be an old fashioned trailing spouse, who he asks to attend as an 'accessory' or 'trophy wife', when she knows nothing of the sort.

Bluntness - chill out. I was making a comment about the fact that 99% of the VIPs who attend our events are older white men. FGS I'm not being racist!

It's a bit "Sir Dennis" from Terry and June

Rose the wife doesn't directly fundraise for the charity in her off time. But if you're saying that her contribution of networking and making small talk at corporate events IS IN FACT a fundraising activity, then she should be on the fucking payroll.

You're basically now stating that the 'work' she does networking at these parties has huge value thus perpetuating the idea that it's important for wives to make small talk at their husband's events.

She may enjoy these events and she may ask to attend (I doubt she begs to attend every one).

But again, what makes you doubt that?

I've met some very needy, insecure/controlling individuals in my time, who've given their partners a very hard time about attending events like this without them.

You even read about it in the relationships topic.

How do you know she's not one of those people, who insists on clinging to his side?

I agree it doesn't change the fact that the charity is probably paying for her to attend.

I think there are two separate issues here; the 'outdated' idea of bringing a partner along to a function, and the fact that extra guests are a wasteful use of the charity's resources.

I don't necessarily think that bringing a partner is old-fashioned or objectifying - maybe she enjoys it, perhaps she does a lot of unpaid work behind the scenes, maybe she's hugely knowledgeable or well-connected and adds value to the event itself. (I was at a work event recently and the wife of someone senior was there - she is very senior herself in a related organisation. I noticed her name and asked her if she was Mr X's wife. Her response was, "no, he is my husband!")

The issue of superfluous guests at a charitable event is a valid one though. If the CEO is simply exploiting his position to get a free night out for his wife at the charity's expense, that is obviously not OK - and would make no difference if she was his wife, his daughter, his aunt, his neighbour or his urologist.

I was making a comment about the fact that 99% of the VIPs who attend our events are older white men. FGS I'm not being racist

Yeah, you are. They ain't all white by your own admission, why mention skin colour? It's irrelevant. And you're being horribly judgemental.

I'm very interested by the idea that donors are all male so are bringing their wife's as a trophy. And that said wife will have nothing to say during the event because obvioulsy she won't know what it is about....

That idea itself is the most outdated of all TBH.

As if their wife can't possibly be aware of the fundraising, what it's done for and how it's going to work just as well as her DH.
As if too, it's the man who gives the money. But somehow not the wife, even though she has is in effect owning half other assets and therefore half of the new given to said charity.

And the idea that a woman can only be useful to 'entertain' the other wife. Because obvioulsy as a woman she can't possibly talk to the men there and have an interesting and useful conversation... Nope a wife is only there for entertainment purposes...

Fundraising events come with costs, as long as they raise more than they cost I'm OK with that

As am I. Allowing for the fact that the costs are relevant expenses. Feeding and watering spouses is not one of those justifiable costs. IMO of course.

How much direct 'actual cause' receiving money do charities waste every year on such antiquated and frankly corrupt practices? Paying for WAGs to attend dinners and events?! How much does each meal/hotel stay cost the charity? What could they pay for with that money? Depends on the charity of course. The point is though, the money could absolutely be better spent than lining the bellies of hanger-oners. Seriously. It's sickening to me.

I'd love to go to some of DH's work events, but they're all employee only. So I get to stay at home with the kids while he spends all day/evening on a jolly. It's expected that he goes and reflects badly if he doesn't. So perhaps she just doesn't fancy always being sat at home while he's out at fancy dinners and events? I know it winds me up and I don't even have the option of attending.

How do you know the charity pays for her? Perhaps she pays for herself?

My son's head teacher has just retired after 25 years at his school.

It was only last night that I found out how much his wife has done behind the scenes, for the school's alumni group as well as having her own career.

In all the years I've known her, she's never spoken about it.

Nobody truly knows what people do behind the scenes, if they don't want to blow their own trumpets.

So that's why it's best not to assume.

Purple I agree with you absolutely. But there is a long-held assumption that the wife is there to talk to other wives and that is the value she brings. This is why I think the practice is dated and best just to stop altogether, regardless of the value that the wife may bring.

windy why on earth do you think that these women can ONLY do small talk???

Younseem to have a very poor idea of what women who are not on the payroll can do.

Or are you saying that the only people who can do fundraising efficiently?) are the ones on the payroll??

Fwiw, if it's a fundraising event, I really think you are taking things the wrong way.
If it's a work function where you will be discussing projects in a more specific way, then you might be right. It's work so only people who work there should be present.
If it's the launch of something, don't you want as many people as possible to spread the word??

Xpost.

Sorry but I don't agree.
The solution is to accept that they can also talk to MEN and have a meaningful input.
Not pushing them away making sure that only men are there because they are the only ones who can do something meaningful.

Worral I am pretty confident that in this instance the wife IS NOT doing extra work for the charity. I'm senior enough in the organization to know who is contributing what (just not senior enough to be able to change our events format!).

Maybe the wife thinks attending these events IS her contribution to the charity.