The Boss of You

Did any of you see the New York Times article, “Would You Hire Your Husband?”

Collecting a handful of examples of men employed by their wives’ businesses, the story has such a perpetual tone of amazement, I half expect the author’s face to be frozen into an o-mouthed, eyebrows-raised mask of surprise. The subtext that runs throughout the piece can be summarizes thusly: Did you know that some men are not only progressive enough to work for a woman, but for their very own wife?, it muses.

Of course, it continues with furrowed brow, given their fragile male egos and manly need to act as family breadwinners, it’s vewy vewy hard for them to play second fiddle to their wives, and they require special treatment.

The men interviewed for this article seemed comfortable working at family companies controlled by their wives, perhaps because those who agree to that arrangement are not threatened by it. It was the wives who tended to be more sensitive about the potential pitfalls of having their husbands on the payroll.

One entrepreneur decided that to avoid her husband (whom she met after hiring him to work for her) feeling undervalued as a mere employee, she would take an approach I can only describe as bizarre and convoluted:

“One year I get the lower salary, and he gets a higher salary, and the next year we reverse it,” she said.

“I don’t think Greg could feel emasculated, because he is such a balanced individual and sure of himself,” she added. “But I did not want him to feel undervalued.”

Now, I find it difficult to understand how a) commanding a lower salary than your CEO spouse could possibly constitute EMASCULATION, and b) why, if she’s so concerned about his ego, she doesn’t just cut her salary to the same level as his. Wouldn’t it be simpler to just earn equal incomes, rather than always having one person earning more than the other? Does he really need to earn more than her half the time? (And if he does, could he maybe consider starting his own company and competing with her the good old-fashioned way?)

On the one hand, I hate to give the story any more time than it deserves by even talking about it — but on the other, it got me riled up enough I had to post a little rant here. Can you imagine anyone writing in the Times about women working for their husbands and being content to earn a little less and keep to the wings while their spouses hog the spotlight? No, because it’s not news. And neither is this small set of anecdotes about the tables being turned (for once).

And don’t get me started about the fact they didn’t include a single same-sex couple (or unmarried couple, for that matter) in their examples…