NYT: professional moms who opted out of work after kids are now opting back in

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous"It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world."

Disagree. I think the root of the problem is the expectation of longer work-weeks, on-going job insecurity even among established professionals, and the need for two-incomes to maintain the same lifestyle once maintained with one income. It's not just that both parents are working, it's that they are working longer hours, including when they get home, and are more stressed. This makes them more exhausted and less able to connect and spend time with their spouses.

It is all of these things. But especially that we as a society pay all this lip-service to "family-values" but in reality, completely de-value child-rearing. It's disgusting. Money and business are king; raising good, healthy, happy, responsible, etc. human beings is secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous"It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world."

Disagree. I think the root of the problem is the expectation of longer work-weeks, on-going job insecurity even among established professionals, and the need for two-incomes to maintain the same lifestyle once maintained with one income. It's not just that both parents are working, it's that they are working longer hours, including when they get home, and are more stressed. This makes them more exhausted and less able to connect and spend time with their spouses.

It is all of these things. But especially that we as a society pay all this lip-service to "family-values" but in reality, completely de-value child-rearing. It's disgusting. Money and business are king; raising good, healthy, happy, responsible, etc. human beings is secondary.


You are all right. My husband's schedule as a law partner over the last 7 years has been ridiculous and the recession has hit us hard. I've considered going back to work about every 6 months over the last few years for security. Problem is the school schedule has a ridiculous number of random days off throughout the year. Are we supposed to warehouse our children during this time because childcare costs $17 per hour? I honestly have no idea how women manage a full-time job and full-time parenting. The culture of work of Washington, DC and major urban areas is sickening. Sometimes, I just want to move to Idaho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

[Anonymous]

It's BS that once you choose to stay home for awhile you should be expected to never work again. Are women who stay home for awhile to care for their children just magically supposed to be independently wealthy? Why is it unfair to the people who didn't take time off that people who did want to have jobs again at some point? Why does someone who has shown their "priorities to be elsewhere" never get a chance to modify her priorities once again when she is at a different stage of her life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that once you choose to stay home for awhile you should be expected to never work again. Are women who stay home for awhile to care for their children just magically supposed to be independently wealthy? Why is it unfair to the people who didn't take time off that people who did want to have jobs again at some point? Why does someone who has shown their "priorities to be elsewhere" never get a chance to modify her priorities once again when she is at a different stage of her life?

What are you talking about? Where is this "never" bullshit coming from? You sound like you lack the ability to comprehend what this issue is really about: women who leave can't get back in at the level at which they left and often have to reenter the workforce at a lower level and for less pay. There's no "never" involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world."

Disagree. I think the root of the problem is the expectation of longer work-weeks, on-going job insecurity even among established professionals, and the need for two-incomes to maintain the same lifestyle once maintained with one income. It's not just that both parents are working, it's that they are working longer hours, including when they get home, and are more stressed. This makes them more exhausted and less able to connect and spend time with their spouses.

It is all of these things. But especially that we as a society pay all this lip-service to "family-values" but in reality, completely de-value child-rearing. It's disgusting. Money and business are king; raising good, healthy, happy, responsible, etc. human beings is secondary.

You are all right. My husband's schedule as a law partner over the last 7 years has been ridiculous and the recession has hit us hard. I've considered going back to work about every 6 months over the last few years for security. Problem is the school schedule has a ridiculous number of random days off throughout the year. Are we supposed to warehouse our children during this time because childcare costs $17 per hour? I honestly have no idea how women manage a full-time job and full-time parenting. The culture of work of Washington, DC and major urban areas is sickening. Sometimes, I just want to move to Idaho.

If your DH is a partner, I very much doubt it will hurt your finances much to pay $17/hr for backup childcare a few days every school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

Yeah, the law market is saturated right now. You can't jump back in at the same level you were at because ten NON-rusty, super-motivated senior associates are lined up for every open position.

If you don't want to take the risk of not being where you would have been, you can't step out. Sometimes you get lucky and get right back in, but sometimes you don't. In this case, the bad economy and particularly hard-hit legal sector means you have bad luck. Don't forget that you may have been fired even if you had stayed. Nothing is a guarantee in life.

[Anonymous]

What always surprises me about these debates is that they are always framed as 50+ hour week/CEO/Big law partner/ exec/Sheryl Sandberg vs. SAHM. How many of these women tried to find a lower-key position? Rather than BigLaw, try govt/in-house/non-profit. Friends of mine with MBAs went from partner-track at big consulting firms to internal, non-billable work or government. No, it is not as prestigious, but it seems like if you are saying you can't handle working all hours/travel and kids (and no one would blame you for that!), you should try to find something manageable rather than giving it all up.

My guess is that most of the women who managed to keep WOHM found a BALANCE that allowed them to ramp back up once they are ready. For example, these are moms I know: one person gave up partnership for counsel so she could eliminate travel and have more control over hours; another woman gave up partner track and went to family friendly govt agency; etc. My own husband didn't want to do Biglaw with kids, and left for govt-- he works with dads who have fulfilling careers who also coach baseball and are very involved in their kids' lives.

I work in-house at a large non-profit with about 10 other working moms. We all leave around 5pm (finish up work at night), make all our kids' events, and find our work fulfilling.

[Anonymous]

PP here: more examples: doctor-moms who took non-tenure track "staff doctor" position at hospital while kids were young...moved into a director position at same hospital when it came time to pay private school bills. Another doc-mom (specialist) found a practice where she could only work 2 days/week with no call (allergist). When she wants to work more, she can add more hours.

Obviously, if you are a doctor/specialist, you are not going to get hired again if you take off 5+ years from the medical practice!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

BINGO

[Anonymous]

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

Yeah, the law market is saturated right now. You can't jump back in at the same level you were at because ten NON-rusty, super-motivated senior associates are lined up for every open position.

If you don't want to take the risk of not being where you would have been, you can't step out. Sometimes you get lucky and get right back in, but sometimes you don't. In this case, the bad economy and particularly hard-hit legal sector means you have bad luck. Don't forget that you may have been fired even if you had stayed. Nothing is a guarantee in life.

I agree that i would have a hard time getting an equivalent job at a new firm but I've been assured by the leadership at my firm that I could have my job back whenever I want it, so I am not concerned about that. My issue was more the assumption made by the mothers who never took time off that I don't deserve my job back. To me that just sounds like bitterness and I don't understand it. As I said, I don't want to be promoted to where I would be because I haven't earned that. But I did earn the job I had and still am qualified for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that once you choose to stay home for awhile you should be expected to never work again. Are women who stay home for awhile to care for their children just magically supposed to be independently wealthy? Why is it unfair to the people who didn't take time off that people who did want to have jobs again at some point? Why does someone who has shown their "priorities to be elsewhere" never get a chance to modify her priorities once again when she is at a different stage of her life?

What are you talking about? Where is this "never" bullshit coming from? You sound like you lack the ability to comprehend what this issue is really about: women who leave can't get back in at the level at which they left and often have to reenter the workforce at a lower level and for less pay. There's no "never" involved.

Previous quote: Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

So if you work for 15 years pre-kids, take 3 years off, then want to come back, you should have to be "close to entry level"? Because you suddenly became incompetent? Only if you are at the top of your game, you might eventually be able to rebound? The average woman who is not at the top of her game should what, stock shelves at Wal Mart?

[Anonymous]

I agree that i would have a hard time getting an equivalent job at a new firm but I've been assured by the leadership at my firm that I could have my job back whenever I want it, so I am not concerned about that. My issue was more the assumption made by the mothers who never took time off that I don't deserve my job back. To me that just sounds like bitterness and I don't understand it. As I said, I don't want to be promoted to where I would be because I haven't earned that. But I did earn the job I had and still am qualified for it.

I took 3 months off and when I came back they had given my job to somebody else. They gave me an "equivalent" job which means I made the same money with the same job title. But I had a different boss, locations, job duties, career track...

They could not just let my job sit for 3 months. They also could not just take away the job from the the person that was doing my job for 3 months.

While this never happens to the man that has the stroke or heart attack I do understand it is a balancing act.

I think it would have been arrogant just to expect to walk into my old position as if the world had stopped for 3 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world."

Disagree. I think the root of the problem is the expectation of longer work-weeks, on-going job insecurity even among established professionals, and the need for two-incomes to maintain the same lifestyle once maintained with one income. It's not just that both parents are working, it's that they are working longer hours, including when they get home, and are more stressed. This makes them more exhausted and less able to connect and spend time with their spouses.

It is all of these things. But especially that we as a society pay all this lip-service to "family-values" but in reality, completely de-value child-rearing. It's disgusting. Money and business are king; raising good, healthy, happy, responsible, etc. human beings is secondary.

You are all right. My husband's schedule as a law partner over the last 7 years has been ridiculous and the recession has hit us hard. I've considered going back to work about every 6 months over the last few years for security. Problem is the school schedule has a ridiculous number of random days off throughout the year. Are we supposed to warehouse our children during this time because childcare costs $17 per hour? I honestly have no idea how women manage a full-time job and full-time parenting. The culture of work of Washington, DC and major urban areas is sickening. Sometimes, I just want to move to Idaho.

If your DH is a partner, I very much doubt it will hurt your finances much to pay $17/hr for backup childcare a few days every school year.

Clearly, you have no idea about the state of law firms do you? The anxiety, stress and uncertainty has been a awful and there is no end in sight. And, by the way, where are these magical child care providers who will swoop in every other week to provide care? My point is that a part-time salary will not cover the cost of childcare. A full-time job will ultimately put further stress on our kids and marriage with a very few benefits. So until there are larger policy decisions made about how we can make jobs scalable to provide quality of life issues, then everyone loses. Employers lose highly skilled labor, families lose income and the economy continues to teeter on the brink of recession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

I agree with this. In my field and other fields I'm familiar with, one could come back after years of absence and either prove herself through testing, or go through 1-2 weeks of training. There's really no need to start entry level. I can imagine there would be a few fields where the rolodex is most important and it would be hard to jump in after years out of the network, but, come on - for most jobs that is not an issue, and this excuse is used to punish women who've SAH.

I took about 3 years off. For two years, I didn't work at all. The third year, I freelanced. The fourth year, I got a job offer of 3 shifts at an employer doing similar work as my last job as they had had a medical leave and needed help immediately. They offered me a FT job after the first night. I didn't take it, but then they offered my PT, so I took that.

Of course I didn't start at the bottom. I had 25 years of experience! I easily sailed over people who had been working there even 5 years or more, in fact. And I had management experience so I started on the highest profile projects within the month.