SAHM to working mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If I read this correctly... women leave tech because they can't keep up with the changes? Or don't want to? Maybe give this more context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If I read this correctly... women leave tech because they can't keep up with the changes? Or don't want to? Maybe give this more context.

It's not JUST this, but your skills go stale quickly if you're out of the workforce, even if you're in the workforce you're often putting in time when you're not working to keep up with technology, and the WLB in general isn't great. And it's a situation where you could not just find yourself competing with people who are entry-level, but actually behind them because they've more recently come from a program where they're learning the latest tools. I can't imagine trying to come back after a decade away without first putting in a lot of hours on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If I read this correctly... women leave tech because they can't keep up with the changes? Or don't want to? Maybe give this more context.

It's not JUST this, but your skills go stale quickly if you're out of the workforce, even if you're in the workforce you're often putting in time when you're not working to keep up with technology, and the WLB in general isn't great. And it's a situation where you could not just find yourself competing with people who are entry-level, but actually behind them because they've more recently come from a program where they're learning the latest tools. I can't imagine trying to come back after a decade away without first putting in a lot of hours on your own.

Right, but you said "It's a big part of why women leave in the field, even if they're not taking significant time off. " So what does being a woman have to do with it?
I'm also in tech and I don't know anyone that puts in extra time to keep up with technology, at least out of necessity (some ppl truly love it and do open-source contributions).

I think there are trends that dominate but it's not like you have to learn this stuff in a week.

[Anonymous]

I work in the medical sciences. The last 10 years there have been huge amounts of changes, some related to improvements in technology, some related to a changes in response to the pandemic and some just regular advances in research.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from going back to work if they want to. I’m not saying you’ve become dumb. You might be able to pick things up. However, there are people who have been actively demonstrating their skills consistently for the last ten years and those people are a safer bet. I wish the OP luck, I do, and there are probably jobs she could do well. It’s just the idea that the hiring people are prejudiced because they are jealous is offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If I read this correctly... women leave tech because they can't keep up with the changes? Or don't want to? Maybe give this more context.

It's not JUST this, but your skills go stale quickly if you're out of the workforce, even if you're in the workforce you're often putting in time when you're not working to keep up with technology, and the WLB in general isn't great. And it's a situation where you could not just find yourself competing with people who are entry-level, but actually behind them because they've more recently come from a program where they're learning the latest tools. I can't imagine trying to come back after a decade away without first putting in a lot of hours on your own.

Right, but you said "It's a big part of why women leave in the field, even if they're not taking significant time off. " So what does being a woman have to do with it?
I'm also in tech and I don't know anyone that puts in extra time to keep up with technology, at least out of necessity (some ppl truly love it and do open-source contributions).

I think there are trends that dominate but it's not like you have to learn this stuff in a week.

Women leave the field more because of family issues. Shorter leaves are an issue, not just longer ones, and so is the WLB.

You can get in the hours to get yourself back up to speed before you job search. But if you just start applying with no tech experience over the last decade -- do you really think that person is going to be broadly employable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If I read this correctly... women leave tech because they can't keep up with the changes? Or don't want to? Maybe give this more context.

It's not JUST this, but your skills go stale quickly if you're out of the workforce, even if you're in the workforce you're often putting in time when you're not working to keep up with technology, and the WLB in general isn't great. And it's a situation where you could not just find yourself competing with people who are entry-level, but actually behind them because they've more recently come from a program where they're learning the latest tools. I can't imagine trying to come back after a decade away without first putting in a lot of hours on your own.

Right, but you said "It's a big part of why women leave in the field, even if they're not taking significant time off. " So what does being a woman have to do with it?
I'm also in tech and I don't know anyone that puts in extra time to keep up with technology, at least out of necessity (some ppl truly love it and do open-source contributions).

I think there are trends that dominate but it's not like you have to learn this stuff in a week.

Women leave the field more because of family issues. Shorter leaves are an issue, not just longer ones, and so is the WLB.

You can get in the hours to get yourself back up to speed before you job search. But if you just start applying with no tech experience over the last decade -- do you really think that person is going to be broadly employable?

I agree with you here, but for the sake of this conversation, what should someone reentering the workforce do to convince an employer that they are "ready"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If I read this correctly... women leave tech because they can't keep up with the changes? Or don't want to? Maybe give this more context.

It's not JUST this, but your skills go stale quickly if you're out of the workforce, even if you're in the workforce you're often putting in time when you're not working to keep up with technology, and the WLB in general isn't great. And it's a situation where you could not just find yourself competing with people who are entry-level, but actually behind them because they've more recently come from a program where they're learning the latest tools. I can't imagine trying to come back after a decade away without first putting in a lot of hours on your own.

Right, but you said "It's a big part of why women leave in the field, even if they're not taking significant time off. " So what does being a woman have to do with it?
I'm also in tech and I don't know anyone that puts in extra time to keep up with technology, at least out of necessity (some ppl truly love it and do open-source contributions).

I think there are trends that dominate but it's not like you have to learn this stuff in a week.

Women leave the field more because of family issues. Shorter leaves are an issue, not just longer ones, and so is the WLB.

You can get in the hours to get yourself back up to speed before you job search. But if you just start applying with no tech experience over the last decade -- do you really think that person is going to be broadly employable?

I agree with you here, but for the sake of this conversation, what should someone reentering the workforce do to convince an employer that they are "ready"?

Take some classes, contribute to projects or do your own, find volunteer or gig work. Ideally start before you're ready to go back full time. I think this is doable if you want to, but probably not the easiest way to re-enter the labor market.

[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.

No, I think a lot of posters want to believe that WOHMs are out to get them and would only not hire them out of jealousy. It's simply not the case but that is an easier story to swallow than the truth that it really is hard to leave the workforce and return if you are looking for a professional position. You do give some things up when you leave and it is an important thing to understand in making an informed choice about whether to leave. Plenty of SAHMs have zero interest in returning or are fine with taking an low-key administrative role if they go back, which is a perfectly defensible choice. But the notion that keeps getting advanced on this thread that anyone can just jump back in with the snap of a finger is clearly a simplistic uninformed view. Perhaps that is what the working world looks like from the outside but those of us in it know it takes hard work, and experience is valued because it can't just be summoned in a day.

[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.

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.

But the entire tax code has not changed in ten years. She still presumably knows the underlying bulk of the tax code, she knows processes and procedures, and now of course she needs to catch up on the changes.

No one is saying she won’t have to work very hard to catch up, but you are very clearly exaggerating when you pretend that her previous DECADE of experience in your field now counts for absolutely nothing.

If one could really NEVER catch up on “a comprehensive level” then one could never really know your job on a comprehensive level in the first place. There is always something that existed before you were there that you have to learn along with changes going forward. In other words, your argument is fundamentally non-sensical. If a 22 year old new graduate can catch up, a 42 year old tax veteran can also catch up.

[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.

No, I think a lot of posters want to believe that WOHMs are out to get them and would only not hire them out of jealousy. It's simply not the case but that is an easier story to swallow than the truth that it really is hard to leave the workforce and return if you are looking for a professional position. You do give some things up when you leave and it is an important thing to understand in making an informed choice about whether to leave. Plenty of SAHMs have zero interest in returning or are fine with taking an low-key administrative role if they go back, which is a perfectly defensible choice. But the notion that keeps getting advanced on this thread that anyone can just jump back in with the snap of a finger is clearly a simplistic uninformed view. Perhaps that is what the working world looks like from the outside but those of us in it know it takes hard work, and experience is valued because it can't just be summoned in a day.

(I am not OP)

“It’s hard to leave the workforce and return” is not some fundamental law of nature. The reason it’s hard to return is often (not always) because biased hiring managers won’t give SAHMs a chance.

The rest of your post perfectly illustrates my point that some (not all, not most, but some) working moms are just hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place. Your post is an attempt to put me in my place, as though I have absolutely no idea what it’s like in the working world. After all, I only had a professional job for 15 years, what could I possibly know? A decade and a half of experience is not nearly as valuable as the zero years of experience of a new college graduate. In fact, because I took some time off, I’m apparently not even as qualified as a new graduate and should look exclusively at low-key administrative positions, right?

If this is truly your attitude then you have almost certainly been showing some good talent the door over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You may want to humbly acknowledge that your mindset is terrible and inaccurate, and then get started doing the work to change.

It reeks of jealousy to me. Most people I know don’t like their jobs, including those in prestigious / well-paid positions. I would love not to work, and by no means am I lazy. Making other people rich is totally overrated.

Some of us knew that when we were 20, and therefore picked more meaningful careers.

NP - WDYD? Not snarking, just curious! It's nice some people like their jobs.

Public health (=keeping people healthy, which is different than medicine, which focuses more on treating sick people). With a research component.

My point is that earning money for a corporate board/investors was never what I wanted to devote my life to. I am not sure why some people think that is a career that they will look back on with pride and satisfaction.

Building a business can and does bring huge satisfaction to people that are motivated and want to make a difference.

Betting money your life is made much easier by the many large business that people built.

[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 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?!

Why would I want to be part of an movement that says women are lazy and don't want to work (better leave! flexibility!) versus one that advocates independence with self sustaining employment?

I refuse to be the ward of the government or a man.

[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.

No, I think a lot of posters want to believe that WOHMs are out to get them and would only not hire them out of jealousy. It's simply not the case but that is an easier story to swallow than the truth that it really is hard to leave the workforce and return if you are looking for a professional position. You do give some things up when you leave and it is an important thing to understand in making an informed choice about whether to leave. Plenty of SAHMs have zero interest in returning or are fine with taking an low-key administrative role if they go back, which is a perfectly defensible choice. But the notion that keeps getting advanced on this thread that anyone can just jump back in with the snap of a finger is clearly a simplistic uninformed view. Perhaps that is what the working world looks like from the outside but those of us in it know it takes hard work, and experience is valued because it can't just be summoned in a day.

(I am not OP)

“It’s hard to leave the workforce and return” is not some fundamental law of nature. The reason it’s hard to return is often (not always) because biased hiring managers won’t give SAHMs a chance.

The rest of your post perfectly illustrates my point that some (not all, not most, but some) working moms are just hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place. Your post is an attempt to put me in my place, as though I have absolutely no idea what it’s like in the working world. After all, I only had a professional job for 15 years, what could I possibly know? A decade and a half of experience is not nearly as valuable as the zero years of experience of a new college graduate. In fact, because I took some time off, I’m apparently not even as qualified as a new graduate and should look exclusively at low-key administrative positions, right?

If this is truly your attitude then you have almost certainly been showing some good talent the door over the years.

No one is out to get you here. If some kind of general bias were the issue, it would hold just as much for the former SAHM who has been back in the workforce for awhile as the one just returning, and of course it doesn't. Your skills atrophy in fast-moving, competitive knowledge fields. That's all. Lots of women are aware that and pick fields where that's less of an issue, which also tend to have better WLB and lower pay. Maybe you did as well -- I can't really tell because I don't know what "a professional job" means -- so maybe we're just talking past each other here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I think a lot of posters want to believe that WOHMs are out to get them and would only not hire them out of jealousy. It's simply not the case but that is an easier story to swallow than the truth that it really is hard to leave the workforce and return if you are looking for a professional position. You do give some things up when you leave and it is an important thing to understand in making an informed choice about whether to leave. Plenty of SAHMs have zero interest in returning or are fine with taking an low-key administrative role if they go back, which is a perfectly defensible choice. But the notion that keeps getting advanced on this thread that anyone can just jump back in with the snap of a finger is clearly a simplistic uninformed view. Perhaps that is what the working world looks like from the outside but those of us in it know it takes hard work, and experience is valued because it can't just be summoned in a day.

(I am not OP)

“It’s hard to leave the workforce and return” is not some fundamental law of nature. The reason it’s hard to return is often (not always) because biased hiring managers won’t give SAHMs a chance.

The rest of your post perfectly illustrates my point that some (not all, not most, but some) working moms are just hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place. Your post is an attempt to put me in my place, as though I have absolutely no idea what it’s like in the working world. After all, I only had a professional job for 15 years, what could I possibly know? A decade and a half of experience is not nearly as valuable as the zero years of experience of a new college graduate. In fact, because I took some time off, I’m apparently not even as qualified as a new graduate and should look exclusively at low-key administrative positions, right?

If this is truly your attitude then you have almost certainly been showing some good talent the door over the years.

No one is out to get you here. If some kind of general bias were the issue, it would hold just as much for the former SAHM who has been back in the workforce for awhile as the one just returning, and of course it doesn't. Your skills atrophy in fast-moving, competitive knowledge fields. That's all. Lots of women are aware that and pick fields where that's less of an issue, which also tend to have better WLB and lower pay. Maybe you did as well -- I can't really tell because I don't know what "a professional job" means -- so maybe we're just talking past each other here.

“The rest of your post perfectly illustrates my point that some(not all, not most, but some) working moms are just hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place.”

“If some kind of general bias were the issue, it would hold just as much for the former SAHM who has been back in the workforce for awhile as the one just returning, and of course it doesn't. “

We are indeed talking past each other. Perhaps you should spend less worrying about other women’s allegedly atrophying skills and more time developing your own reading comprehension skills. Once you learn how to truly understand what you read, you can carry that skill with you always, so it’s really worth your time to at least give it a go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I think a lot of posters want to believe that WOHMs are out to get them and would only not hire them out of jealousy. It's simply not the case but that is an easier story to swallow than the truth that it really is hard to leave the workforce and return if you are looking for a professional position. You do give some things up when you leave and it is an important thing to understand in making an informed choice about whether to leave. Plenty of SAHMs have zero interest in returning or are fine with taking an low-key administrative role if they go back, which is a perfectly defensible choice. But the notion that keeps getting advanced on this thread that anyone can just jump back in with the snap of a finger is clearly a simplistic uninformed view. Perhaps that is what the working world looks like from the outside but those of us in it know it takes hard work, and experience is valued because it can't just be summoned in a day.

(I am not OP)

“It’s hard to leave the workforce and return” is not some fundamental law of nature. The reason it’s hard to return is often (not always) because biased hiring managers won’t give SAHMs a chance.

The rest of your post perfectly illustrates my point that some (not all, not most, but some) working moms are just hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place. Your post is an attempt to put me in my place, as though I have absolutely no idea what it’s like in the working world. After all, I only had a professional job for 15 years, what could I possibly know? A decade and a half of experience is not nearly as valuable as the zero years of experience of a new college graduate. In fact, because I took some time off, I’m apparently not even as qualified as a new graduate and should look exclusively at low-key administrative positions, right?

If this is truly your attitude then you have almost certainly been showing some good talent the door over the years.

No one is out to get you here. If some kind of general bias were the issue, it would hold just as much for the former SAHM who has been back in the workforce for awhile as the one just returning, and of course it doesn't. Your skills atrophy in fast-moving, competitive knowledge fields. That's all. Lots of women are aware that and pick fields where that's less of an issue, which also tend to have better WLB and lower pay. Maybe you did as well -- I can't really tell because I don't know what "a professional job" means -- so maybe we're just talking past each other here.

“The rest of your post perfectly illustrates my point that some(not all, not most, but some) working moms are just hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place.”

“If some kind of general bias were the issue, it would hold just as much for the former SAHM who has been back in the workforce for awhile as the one just returning, and of course it doesn't. “

We are indeed talking past each other. Perhaps you should spend less worrying about other women’s allegedly atrophying skills and more time developing your own reading comprehension skills. Once you learn how to truly understand what you read, you can carry that skill with you always, so it’s really worth your time to at least give it a go.

Best of luck finding a job. Definitely bring that attitude with you.