Alilacia said:
Oddest/most prying question I was asked at one job interview was: "Are you planning on getting pregnant/having kids?"
I used to consider this question to be invasive, sexist and unfair.
Then one project, already five years in the making, nearly fell apart because of a rather selfish lady that came fresh off uni, seemingly bright, motivated and useful to the purpose, the post we hired her for.
In the interview, she stated that, aye, she'd be all dedicated, totally behind this project and wasn't planning on getting pregnant 'anytime soon'. Just four months later we got served with statements and legal documents and whatnot from her lawyer letting us know that, at the moment the interview took place, she'd actually already been pregnant, pointing out that she'd answered the question truthfully but would, inevitably, drop out due to childbirth, demanding all the monies and everything she legally could, leaving us one key man/woman down, poisoning workplace climate, dropping motivation significantly and even demanding to be allowed to come back to the job (or a comparable position) when she'd eventually feel like coming to work again. Pretty much everything that was already stressful and taxing turned to shit right there. We still managed to make it, but it's hard to explain why you would have to pay two expensive carpet-floor professionals when we struggled to get just one post green-lighted, and one simply not contributing anything to the job at hand, getting royally reimbursed for, what, two months of actual work, the act of having hired a lawyer and then just living the good life on somebody else's wallet for almost a year. I think that's not quite 'fair', no matter how one happens to define that word.
So, yeah, I absolutely do understand why anyone with their hearts and minds in the right place would feel offended by the question, but if you've ever been through this trauma once, facing facts of shutting an already struggling - but utterly important - project down and risking the jobs of dozens of people and seeing a good leader get axed for his 'leniency' and 'mistake' - I totally get why this question should not only be considered valid, but utterly important. The consequences of this one particular lady using her rights to the full extent? It's just the absolute minimal quota of females hired now, trans ladies and post-menopause ladies with experience preferred, as they pose a lesser risk of posing a costly threat by randomly pooping out babies and siccing hungry hungry lawyers on their employer.