SAHM to working mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to do the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment..and actually getting more to choose from?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP didn't say every woman she interviewed with would feel this way, she said what approach should she take just in case they did feel this way.

If you are a working mom who took great offense at this you might want to reevaluate your confidence in your decisions.

No one is going to feel that way. Being concerned about that is like being concerned your interviewer is going to steal your husband -- it's so detached from reality that the only answer is "wtf is wrong with you, lady?"

Speak for yourself. I’m a working mom who is totally jealous of stay at home moms and wish we could afford for me to be a SAHM.

And you're going to take that into an interview with you in a way that affects how you treat a candidate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

It's cultural too though. You have high taxes in Italy, for example, but still, a lot of women don't work. It's quite a patriarchal society.

In Sweden, 80% of women from ages 20-84 work, compared to 53% in Italy...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20200306-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

It's cultural too though. You have high taxes in Italy, for example, but still, a lot of women don't work. It's quite a patriarchal society.

In Sweden, 80% of women from ages 20-84 work, compared to 53% in Italy...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20200306-1

Sure, but the funny thing about bringing that up on this thread is that the OP *wants* to go back to work, and of course this has brought out some working women explaining why they’d be reluctant to hire a woman who has ever been a SAHM. (The question of whether OP’s initial phrasing was offensive/silly/misunderstood aside, of course.)

It’s not about working or not working here, as far as I can tell. It seems to be about working or not working according to someone else’s approved timeline.

(e.g. let’s say we both plan to have 40 years in the working world. You finish grad school, start working at 24, work straight through until retirement at 64. I finish undergrad, start working at 22, stay home with kids from 32-42, then want to go back to work and retire at 72. Why is this SUCH a problem for so many people? Why does it have to be all or nothing?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

It's cultural too though. You have high taxes in Italy, for example, but still, a lot of women don't work. It's quite a patriarchal society.

In Sweden, 80% of women from ages 20-84 work, compared to 53% in Italy...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20200306-1

Sure, but the funny thing about bringing that up on this thread is that the OP *wants* to go back to work, and of course this has brought out some working women explaining why they’d be reluctant to hire a woman who has ever been a SAHM. (The question of whether OP’s initial phrasing was offensive/silly/misunderstood aside, of course.)

It’s not about working or not working here, as far as I can tell. It seems to be about working or not working according to someone else’s approved timeline.

(e.g. let’s say we both plan to have 40 years in the working world. You finish grad school, start working at 24, work straight through until retirement at 64. I finish undergrad, start working at 22, stay home with kids from 32-42, then want to go back to work and retire at 72. Why is this SUCH a problem for so many people? Why does it have to be all or nothing?)

I think it's defensive (whether anyone wants to admit it or not)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

Or, to translate the vitriol into precision, the Scandinavian countries are willing to have federal value-added taxes -- i.e., a national sales tax. In the US, the Ds don't want that because they want to "soak the rich" to pay for the the benefits they want rather than having the burden borne equally, and the Rs don't want it because they think it will just motivate the Ds to spend irresponsibly. If the same constituent that wants the benefits was willing to take a meaningful level of responsibility for paying for it, we could probably get it done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

It's cultural too though. You have high taxes in Italy, for example, but still, a lot of women don't work. It's quite a patriarchal society.

In Sweden, 80% of women from ages 20-84 work, compared to 53% in Italy...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20200306-1

Sure, but the funny thing about bringing that up on this thread is that the OP *wants* to go back to work, and of course this has brought out some working women explaining why they’d be reluctant to hire a woman who has ever been a SAHM. (The question of whether OP’s initial phrasing was offensive/silly/misunderstood aside, of course.)

It’s not about working or not working here, as far as I can tell. It seems to be about working or not working according to someone else’s approved timeline.

(e.g. let’s say we both plan to have 40 years in the working world. You finish grad school, start working at 24, work straight through until retirement at 64. I finish undergrad, start working at 22, stay home with kids from 32-42, then want to go back to work and retire at 72. Why is this SUCH a problem for so many people? Why does it have to be all or nothing?)

I would in no way be reluctant to hire a SAHM. Someone suggested being able to talk about how you've kept your skills sharp, and the pushback on that was "lol, what skills, you think what you're doing is hard?" There's also been general contempt for the idea of working. THAT is what I would not want to hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

We have selfish leadership bought for by companies looking to squeeze workers for profit. The majority of Americans are hard working, good people who do want nice things very much, like enough money for housing, time to spend with family, and proper healthcare. We can't achieve these things right now with the politicians we have in office, and that includes major democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

We have selfish leadership bought for by companies looking to squeeze workers for profit. The majority of Americans are hard working, good people who do want nice things very much, like enough money for housing, time to spend with family, and proper healthcare. We can't achieve these things right now with the politicians we have in office, and that includes major democrats.

What you’re saying is mostly true, but… the majority of Americans absolutely detest paying taxes. Particularly the idea of paying for a program that an individual may never directly make use of. It’s cultural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

It's cultural too though. You have high taxes in Italy, for example, but still, a lot of women don't work. It's quite a patriarchal society.

In Sweden, 80% of women from ages 20-84 work, compared to 53% in Italy...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20200306-1

Sure, but the funny thing about bringing that up on this thread is that the OP *wants* to go back to work, and of course this has brought out some working women explaining why they’d be reluctant to hire a woman who has ever been a SAHM. (The question of whether OP’s initial phrasing was offensive/silly/misunderstood aside, of course.)

It’s not about working or not working here, as far as I can tell. It seems to be about working or not working according to someone else’s approved timeline.

(e.g. let’s say we both plan to have 40 years in the working world. You finish grad school, start working at 24, work straight through until retirement at 64. I finish undergrad, start working at 22, stay home with kids from 32-42, then want to go back to work and retire at 72. Why is this SUCH a problem for so many people? Why does it have to be all or nothing?)

Good questions -- and it seems a lot of recruiters and hiring managers are extremely judgmental of employment gaps (and not just in the context of SAHMs). It's probably rooted in the "Protestant work ethic".

[Anonymous]

Protestant ethics are the worst, "be as miserable as me or receive my wrath and judgment"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you interviewed, is there a way to explain your absence in a way that doesn't offend the working moms who wish they could be SAHMs?

Step one - don’t assume they “wished” they could have be SAHMs. I have never wanted to be a SAHM and that is why I advanced in my career that I love which lets me afford a great life for my kids. My DH does at least 50% of childcare so don’t even start with “the poor neglected kids” attitude. One of us is always available for them. You already sound insufferable

Stick to why you want the job and why your qualifications meet what the employer is looking for

This. Also, I have never asked for an explanation when interviewing candidates who have stayed at home for a time. They usually say “from x date to y date I was at home with the kids” and that’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it is the women fighting amongst themselves about the better "choice" instead of coming together and advocating for more options, better flexibility, better leave; Currently, what "choice" one makes is an individual trying to the best in their circumstances, instead of insulting each other, wont it be better to band together and demand changes in this man-centric work environment?

Except better flexibility and leave often means all women must work. Go spend some time in a Scandinavian country. Women are essentially the same as men. To truly have the option to not work it means men must have it too.

The reason Scandinavian countries have nice things (such as one year + combined maternity/paternity leave) is not because “women are essentially the same as men” - it’s because they’re all mature adults who are willing to pay lots of money in taxes in order to fund those types of programs. We will never have that here in America, regardless of how many women are in the workforce or how many men stay at home, because we are (for the most part) a nation of fundamentally selfish people who can’t think even a year into the future, let alone decades.

We have selfish leadership bought for by companies looking to squeeze workers for profit. The majority of Americans are hard working, good people who do want nice things very much, like enough money for housing, time to spend with family, and proper healthcare. We can't achieve these things right now with the politicians we have in office, and that includes major democrats.

What you’re saying is mostly true, but… the majority of Americans absolutely detest paying taxes. Particularly the idea of paying for a program that an individual may never directly make use of. It’s cultural.

Americans do pay taxes though. They are not used optimally to start, and we all pay for programs we never use.