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While I can understand this used to be common in the past, it feels a very outdated practice now.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?

I'm not really sure why you feel so strongly about this OP. If the wife wasn't making a contribution, I'm sure she wouldn't be able to attend. I go to lots of these sort of events with my DH. My DH would always choose to take me if it was an option as he hates this sort of thing and knows I will shoulder much of the 'burden' of making small talk. I love chatting to people so don't necessarily see it as a burden, but at the end of the day these things are not free jollies, they are work.

Most events my DH company organises involve partners (and sometimes families too). Not because I need a night out or I'm short of things to do, but because he prefers it that way. He values any time we spend together as he is so busy, and assumes that others would prefer a night out with partners too. Again, this is not fun for us, but work. Yes the costs are significantly higher with extra 'partner' places, but assumes, in most cases correctly, that people benefit from having their partners there.

I'm wondering why you're choosing to view this in such a negative manner. I'm quite sure that the small talk you seem to view with such disdain has contributed positively to many businesses around the world. And I can assure you that nowadays, at least in my DH's industry, significant others come in all shapes and sizes. It certainly isn't just wives. Try and accept that even though you don't approve, your CEO's wife is quite probably making a huge contribution.

Some of the comments on here are hilarious - I'm jealous because I have a thing for the CEO. Funny.

I'm not overinvested in this at all. I posted on here as it's something I find a bit irritating and wonder if others feel it's an outdated practice. I didn't expect to get a character assassination over being judgemental.

Worral I am SURE there are lots of different permutations and combinations to this and set up and others like it. That doesn't mean that, in the round, I can't disagree with the concept/idea. I am not exactly close minded but not sure if I should be 'open minded' to reconsider my opinion on this one. I can disagree with this practice without disagreeing that women can bring something to the table.

If we have a "social" work event then we pay for ourselves and any partners pay for themselves.
And if I travel for work but it's a destination that DH fancies visiting (OK this was more before we had the DCs) then he pays for himself, he does in effect get a free room because a double room is the same price as a single, but he's paying his own travel, food etc.
Partners would most definitely not be invited to in-town work events, but it is understood that some people choose to - or actually have no choice due to childcare - take family members along on work trips (e.g. two colleagues had to take Granny as otherwise she'd have been alone at home with their DCs and all travelling was better). So they'd be welcome at some social events during out of town functions but again would pay their own way.

forgot to add that there a few senior women in the sector and yes they do bring their DH along.

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

YOU are the one treating her like this, implying she has no value in herself, that she is worthless as her own person. YOU only see her as an accessory to him.

Perhaps they just enjoy attending these things together. Why are you so horrible about this poor woman, what has she ever done to you, OP?

Grand I am not hating this specific woman, I am hating the IDEA of something. There is a difference.

The idea of women like her. The idea of women going places with their husbands (and presumably men, if the CEO was a woman?).

Of all the things to hate in the world, a woman going to a bloody party with her SO is a bizarre one to choose.

Well generally in life it's better to be open rather than closed minded.

What you're really asking is whether it's ok for you to make assumptions based on your prejudice towards white business men of a certain age and women who don't work out of the home.

It is of course a possibility that you're right and she is simply fleecing the charity for all the free food she can get, or she could be adding value through her presence in a number of ways.

We don't know these people so can't tell you which is the case, but we can put forward suggestions about why the opinion you have formed on this may not be an accurate view.

grand I posted my distaste in a particular practice, and many agree with me. This is not my number one pet hate which you suggest it is. You are also framing this as my personal slight against this particular woman, which it is not.

I didn't suggest it was at all, merely the fact that it should even enter your radar is odd.

I think you know that if this particular woman knew she was being talked about in this way, she would see it as a personal slight. Which is why you do it behind her back.

punjana just because we don't know these particular people, doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about a practice that I find outdated?

Guess what. The only people you'll ever really know is you. Does that mean I can't have opinions about the practices of other people outside of ME?

Why is it racist to point out that most of the men at these events are middle aged and white - if that is the truth? It's well known that diversity is not what is should be at the higher levels of organisations.

Come on - lots of women ARE considered to be trophy hostess wives for their high achieving husbands (who are invariably white). It is sticking your head in the sand to think otherwise.

When we have lots of black (wo)men with their trophy wives/husbands of whatever colour we'll have made progress.

And I also think there is a great deal of waste in the charitable sector - the thing that bugs me the most is the number of duplicate charities there are. Lots of charities doing the same thing - or very similar. They should merge and save on costs.

There are two issues: whether her attendance is old fashioned and whether it's inappropriate for her to use charity resources.

The reality is that CEOs spend many days "on the road" and sometimes it's nice to have company - don't see what's the issue?

Re charity waste frankly I'm sure there is far worse

Grand how is it odd for this to enter my radar? It's something I observed that I believe is wrong so I've mentioned it.

That's like saying I think it's wrong to have an opinion on things like equal pay for women if you're being paid okay. Cuz it shouldn't be on your radar if it doesn't effect you.

OP I think you're essentially right - this is a very simple case of charities needed to be financially responsible and transparent.

The charity is hosting with its employees and perhaps trustees and volunteers? Inviting guests - the donors, or partners organisations. So, everyone attending from the charity is or should be a member of staff, trustee or heavily involved volunteer (committee chair etc).

The idea that the wife could be a 'secret volunteer' is bogus and would be very worrying from a governance point of view. She either holds influence within the organisation in a recognised, accountable capacity, or she doesn't.

The only blurred line here is that some of the guests bring partners. I find that unusual and a bit odd, to take a mixed approach but, if that works for them and its justified in terms of your fundraising, ok.

I can see that, as a consequence of that blurring, it is felt acceptable or even expected that there is a 'host to the partners' who takes responsibility for them, perhaps entertains with non-work chat, while all the people who actually have any business being there, do their networking.

Personally, I worked in charities for a long time and attended individual charity and 'gathering of similar charities' events and conferences. There were male and female CEOs. I never saw a spouse.

Interestingly, perhaps, it was the same among the trustees - generally retired people who put vast amounts of time in and were certainly 'of an age to consider taking spouses to business events normal'. I'm sure some had had business careers where that had happened. Never happened with the charity - they were there to work for the charity.

Because its a woman going to a party/event with her husband. It's perfectly normal and not in any way odd. And doesn't impact you in the slightest.

And no, it's not at all like that. Please don't demean serious issues like that with your odd ephemera. Telling a woman she's an accessory and to stay home is hardly a feminist issue....

Maybe the paranoid wife demands to be taken along...

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

LOOK at YOUR wording. YOU say you HATE the idea that you have just conveyed.

but YOU decided that this woman has no other function than to turn up as frippery and that her presence is of no value at all. You decided to convey that interpretation.

You called her a trophy, an accessory.
You said 'tag along', that implies a lack of reason to be there, verging on gatecrashing.

I suggest that if you HATE the idea of being a bitter and jealous sexist, then just STOP IT.

Accept that a person is supporting their partner's activities/work, and is happy to accept the invitation that has been extended.

It really is that simple. Let the ugly go.

Hissy Does your suggestion of letting 'the ugly go' extend to charities funding WAGS' jollies? You genuinely feel that this is ok and a fair and just expenditure of monies which could, should and are intended to be spent on people in need?

So yes, I'd definitely notice and think 'that's really weird, old-fashioned and financially questionable.' (Because the notion of 'entertaining the spouses', while nice, is quaint).

I'd see it as being a bit similar to when one place I worked was recruiting for a new chief exec and there was some discussion of extra admin support, as 'X doesn't do his own typing' - incredulous faces from staff, laughter from outgoing chief exec, all round 'OMG who hasn't learned to operate a keyboard and expects a secretary? Hello 1950s! sort of way. (Yes, all chief execs need some admin support but typing letters??).

Op you are sounding ever so slightly obsessed and a tad jealous of a woman you don't know. Let it drop - go to the party or whatever it is you need to attend and try to enjoy it. It seems to have slipped your attention but you also are benefiting from these lavish corporate events too - can we all assume you just sit there and grin and bear it and leave at the earliest convenience? It may not have occurred to you but perhaps his wife is an invited guest and clearly she is happy to attend. Wives and husbands of CEOs at corporate events happens. Get over it being old fashioned - some would see their presence as an integral part of the work the CEO does. I would view it as networking which is particularly important for charities.

I think you need to find something else to stress over. Y A B U.

OP I also work in the charity sector in events and like you find this really old fashioned bordering on uncomfortable BUT in my experience it does still happen. It depends entirely on the culture (and age!) of the CEO, the trustees etc. I usually find CEO's like this also like to still be addressed as Mr Whomever :) It seems to derive from a now outdated idea that behind every successful man is a devoted wife enabling him to succeed so she deserves to go to these social events to get her out of the house. some recognition for her devotion and also if she's charming/attractive will add something to his successful corporate image.

I've had a CEO's wife shout at me at an event because I didn't know who she was and had the audacity to ask for her name so I could check the guest list.

I think you need to look past it and know you're not alone in thinking it's old fashioned and a waste of resources.

I think there's some failure to distinguish between private sector and third sector going on here. If a business's owners or shareholders are fine with spending money on jollies, great. But this is not 'just a woman going to a party'. This is a charity paying for a person, with no defined role or accountability to that charity (and yes that really matters), to go to a party.

I also think there's a lot of weirdness and some obtuse determination to see things from the least relevant veiwpoint possible going on here. (Is that a regular MN game? Oh yes, it is).

If his DW is invited, but others' aren't then it's not fair.

If the charity is footing the bill for his DW to attend and have a nice evening out then it's not fair.

And yes, it's outdated - as well as being sexist and unfair. YANBU.