SAHM to working mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's always a good rule of thumb to avoid assuming people are jealous of you.

Yes, OP, get over yourself. You need to be around some working people. You will quickly learn that there are many scenarios for parents.

I mean we’re all jealous of the Sahm married to a guy who makes 1m and she has a housekeeper and nanny. Not so jealous of those whose husbands make 200k and they had to pull back on retirement funding college and travel.

NP. Haven’t read the rest of the thread. I’m definitely not jealous of the SAHM married to the guy who makes $1m. I’ve been around those men too much. No way would I want my life under their thumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn’t say Americans don’t pay taxes. I said Americans detest paying taxes.

Further, Americans don’t pay even close to enough to fund all of the lackluster programs we already have, and certainly not enough to fund actual well-functioning, beneficial-for-society programs that so many people (especially liberals) *claim* to desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn’t say Americans don’t pay taxes. I said Americans detest paying taxes.

Further, Americans don’t pay even close to enough to fund all of the lackluster programs we already have, and certainly not enough to fund actual well-functioning, beneficial-for-society programs that so many people (especially liberals) *claim* to desire.

The problem is that a lot of Americans don't pay all the taxes that they should. So of course the honest people feel cheated.

[Anonymous]

Eat the rich and we can all stay home

[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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t be arrogant in your interview.

Remember you are essentially a new college grad with no experience and out of date skills.

Don’t mention you have kids because after SAH it’s clear your h has no interest in being involved in the kids lives so they will assume you will take off every time they are sick.

Say you took time to care for a dying aunt.

This. Here’s my bias as a working mom:

1. You don’t really want to work
2. You didn’t value your career
3. You don’t have a spouse who does his share at home
4. Your spouse is now used to you doing everything and all sick days will fall on you
5. You’ll talk about your kid all the time because it’s been your life and you don’t understand other people don’t care about your kids anymore than someone’s pet or vacation

Hello toxic work environment wow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

You’re right, and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. To be fair, I’m not in the camp that believes that women have an obligation to support each other and build each other up no matter what, but some of the posters in this thread seem to have gone to the other extreme and are actively trying to hold some women back.

Thus far not a single poster has been able to provide any concrete examples of how some years out of the workforce causes brain rot to the point that the former SAHM can never recover. Or how technology has changed to such an extent that a relatively young adult with a functioning brain wouldn’t be able to catch up in a timely manner.

To me it seems that some women for whatever reason are deeply offended that a woman may have taken some time away from her paid employment to focus on her family, and they are reaching for excuses to justify their desire to punish such women and put them in their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

You’re right, and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. To be fair, I’m not in the camp that believes that women have an obligation to support each other and build each other up no matter what, but some of the posters in this thread seem to have gone to the other extreme and are actively trying to hold some women back.

Thus far not a single poster has been able to provide any concrete examples of how some years out of the workforce causes brain rot to the point that the former SAHM can never recover. Or how technology has changed to such an extent that a relatively young adult with a functioning brain wouldn’t be able to catch up in a timely manner.

To me it seems that some women for whatever reason are deeply offended that a woman may have taken some time away from her paid employment to focus on her family, and they are reaching for excuses to justify their desire to punish such women and put them in their place.

Exactly. It's just a bias. You lose what you don't you use but it's not like you can't pick it up again. It's pretty much like going back to the gym.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

You’re right, and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. To be fair, I’m not in the camp that believes that women have an obligation to support each other and build each other up no matter what, but some of the posters in this thread seem to have gone to the other extreme and are actively trying to hold some women back.

Thus far not a single poster has been able to provide any concrete examples of how some years out of the workforce causes brain rot to the point that the former SAHM can never recover. Or how technology has changed to such an extent that a relatively young adult with a functioning brain wouldn’t be able to catch up in a timely manner.

To me it seems that some women for whatever reason are deeply offended that a woman may have taken some time away from her paid employment to focus on her family, and they are reaching for excuses to justify their desire to punish such women and put them in their place.

If these women admit that a 5-10 year resume gap is not the end of the world then there goes one of their main justifications for not being with their kids when they were young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

You’re right, and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. To be fair, I’m not in the camp that believes that women have an obligation to support each other and build each other up no matter what, but some of the posters in this thread seem to have gone to the other extreme and are actively trying to hold some women back.

Thus far not a single poster has been able to provide any concrete examples of how some years out of the workforce causes brain rot to the point that the former SAHM can never recover. Or how technology has changed to such an extent that a relatively young adult with a functioning brain wouldn’t be able to catch up in a timely manner.

To me it seems that some women for whatever reason are deeply offended that a woman may have taken some time away from her paid employment to focus on her family, and they are reaching for excuses to justify their desire to punish such women and put them in their place.

If these women admit that a 5-10 year resume gap is not the end of the world then there goes one of their main justifications for not being with their kids when they were young.

Here are some reasons I didn’t stay home with my kids when they were young: I was the primary breadwinner and I thought we should continue to pay the mortgage while my husband was starting a business, I worked extremely hard to have a successful career and I find it fulfilling, I love spending time with my kids but was bored doing 24/7 diaper and laundry duty and I don’t cook, I could hire a nanny who was great with young kids and I could see my own we’re getting everything they need. Now my kids are doing great in high school and we still have a close relationship. I’m an executive with a few million dollars in my 401k and I have no regrets.

I have no problem with SAHMs who want to re-enter the workforce and I’ve hired a few who have worked out well. Pretending that their experiences and mine are the same or that their gap doesn’t matter is not realistic. Ultimately for every hire I care about whether you can do the job and not about your family status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

You’re right, and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. To be fair, I’m not in the camp that believes that women have an obligation to support each other and build each other up no matter what, but some of the posters in this thread seem to have gone to the other extreme and are actively trying to hold some women back.

Thus far not a single poster has been able to provide any concrete examples of how some years out of the workforce causes brain rot to the point that the former SAHM can never recover. Or how technology has changed to such an extent that a relatively young adult with a functioning brain wouldn’t be able to catch up in a timely manner.

To me it seems that some women for whatever reason are deeply offended that a woman may have taken some time away from her paid employment to focus on her family, and they are reaching for excuses to justify their desire to punish such women and put them in their place.

Then you weren't paying attention because I gave one. I'll be more specific so maybe you'll hear it this time: I work in tax, which changes all the time -- statutes change, regulations change, and enforcement changes -- and 10 years is a lifetime. That is 10 years of reading the tax press every day, 10 years of daily Federal Registers, and 10 years of weekly Internal Revenue Bulletins. You would never really catch up on a comprehensive level but I have seen at least one SAHM come back and find herself a little niche where she was able to develop a narrow expertise but she did have to come in with a "fresh out of school" attitude and roll up her sleeves. The problem is this attitude is often missing. And anyone who comes in thinking what everyone else has been working on for the last 10 years amounts to nothing will need to adjust that thinking if they want to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 mean, I have no judgement whatsoever. Everyone should do what they want. But pretending like taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing is just silly. If you’re happy to go back to an entry level job great! If you’re happy to go back to a job based on relationships and connections and admit you lost a ton of knowledge and practice and build yourself back up great!

Otherwise I’d focus on explaining how you are ready to do the job you are interviewing on day 1. I have read a lot of resumes and we would generally not hire someone who has a gap of 10 years for any job I’m hiring for because we could easily hire someone without the same gap and who could talk about how what they are currently doing translates into the new job and how they will be ready to go. So forget about explaining why you were out and think about how you are ready to do this job now.

Can you honestly explain why 10 years away from a job means that one has lost all of the knowledge and skills acquired during their 10 previous years in that job? Sure, they’re not going to be as quick off the starting block as someone with zero gap, but entry level? Really?

If the underlying knowledge and skills are there, it will take some refreshing, that’s true, but that’s not the same learning curve as literally starting from scratch.

No one is pretending taking 10 years out of the workforce is nothing. It’s actually the opposite - you and those who are similarly biased are pretending that taking 10 years out of the workforce is *everything*.

Women always shit on each other. Some of my the best hiring managers who hired me were men with kids.

You’re right, and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. To be fair, I’m not in the camp that believes that women have an obligation to support each other and build each other up no matter what, but some of the posters in this thread seem to have gone to the other extreme and are actively trying to hold some women back.

Thus far not a single poster has been able to provide any concrete examples of how some years out of the workforce causes brain rot to the point that the former SAHM can never recover. Or how technology has changed to such an extent that a relatively young adult with a functioning brain wouldn’t be able to catch up in a timely manner.

To me it seems that some women for whatever reason are deeply offended that a woman may have taken some time away from her paid employment to focus on her family, and they are reaching for excuses to justify their desire to punish such women and put them in their place.

If these women admit that a 5-10 year resume gap is not the end of the world then there goes one of their main justifications for not being with their kids when they were young.

Here are some reasons I didn’t stay home with my kids when they were young: I was the primary breadwinner and I thought we should continue to pay the mortgage while my husband was starting a business, I worked extremely hard to have a successful career and I find it fulfilling, I love spending time with my kids but was bored doing 24/7 diaper and laundry duty and I don’t cook, I could hire a nanny who was great with young kids and I could see my own we’re getting everything they need. Now my kids are doing great in high school and we still have a close relationship. I’m an executive with a few million dollars in my 401k and I have no regrets.

I have no problem with SAHMs who want to re-enter the workforce and I’ve hired a few who have worked out well. Pretending that their experiences and mine are the same or that their gap doesn’t matter is not realistic. Ultimately for every hire I care about whether you can do the job and not about your family status.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

I work in tech. Ten years is a lifetime. Tools and processes change. What employers are looking for change. As you get older, it's hard to keep up even if you're working full time. It's a big part of why women leave in the field, even if they're not taking significant time off. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but this is a well-documented issue, it's not something I'm making up to make anyone feel bad.