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...
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.
To be clear, my post was directly in response to repeated posts saying taking 10 years off is nothing. How hard can it be? For many professions, including mine, the answer is quite hard. That said, quite hard doesn't mean it can't be done but rather that it is a daunting task to be approached with appropriate respect for the slog you're attempting. So, you are incorrect that I am "hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place"; my interest is in finding a candidate who understands what they're getting into, because training someone is an investment for a business so you only take so many risks. If a candidate of any stripe is stridently dismissive of the work they would need to do for the job they want, that candidate is a risk. I don't assume that a SAHM particularly represents those risks but a SAHM saying the sorts of things people are saying here is a huge red flag that I don't want to make my problem.
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...
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.
To be clear, my post was directly in response to repeated posts saying taking 10 years off is nothing. How hard can it be? For many professions, including mine, the answer is quite hard. That said, quite hard doesn't mean it can't be done but rather that it is a daunting task to be approached with appropriate respect for the slog you're attempting. So, you are incorrect that I am "hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place"; my interest is in finding a candidate who understands what they're getting into, because training someone is an investment for a business so you only take so many risks. If a candidate of any stripe is stridently dismissive of the work they would need to do for the job they want, that candidate is a risk. I don't assume that a SAHM particularly represents those risks but a SAHM saying the sorts of things people are saying here is a huge red flag that I don't want to make my problem.
You do realize that people say things on an anonymous message board that they would never say in an interview, I hope. ANYONE saying dismissive things in an interview is a huge red flag. SAHM status has absolutely nothing to do with it.
But I will call you a liar if you’ve never inwardly rolled your eyes while smiling and making sure to hit all the jargon filled phrases and buzzwords that you know the person interviewing you expects to hear, or at least if you claim to be unaware that most people understand they are expected to behave during an interview even if they think many questions are complete and utter BS.
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...
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.
To be clear, my post was directly in response to repeated posts saying taking 10 years off is nothing. How hard can it be? For many professions, including mine, the answer is quite hard. That said, quite hard doesn't mean it can't be done but rather that it is a daunting task to be approached with appropriate respect for the slog you're attempting. So, you are incorrect that I am "hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place"; my interest is in finding a candidate who understands what they're getting into, because training someone is an investment for a business so you only take so many risks. If a candidate of any stripe is stridently dismissive of the work they would need to do for the job they want, that candidate is a risk. I don't assume that a SAHM particularly represents those risks but a SAHM saying the sorts of things people are saying here is a huge red flag that I don't want to make my problem.
You do realize that people say things on an anonymous message board that they would never say in an interview, I hope. ANYONE saying dismissive things in an interview is a huge red flag. SAHM status has absolutely nothing to do with it.
But I will call you a liar if you’ve never inwardly rolled your eyes while smiling and making sure to hit all the jargon filled phrases and buzzwords that you know the person interviewing you expects to hear, or at least if you claim to be unaware that most people understand they are expected to behave during an interview even if they think many questions are complete and utter BS.
Just to level set on where we are: A bunch of posts made the point that taking 10 years off is nothing. Or more precisely: everyone knows that taking 10 years off is nothing (all you need is a "functioning brain") so the only reason not to hire a SAHM is jealousy. I said: in the real world, 10 years is not nothing because it is very hard to replicate that experience. You, or some other poster responded once again disputing that 10 years is a big deal and that, instead, my post shows I am "hell-bent on putting SAHMs in their place." I said: I was simply explaining that 10 years of experience matters because it has been repeatedly put forth that it doesn't, and a candidate who doesn't get that is problematic. You responded that candidates are not going to say what they're really thinking, and by the way, I've spent my interviews spewing jargon and inwardly rolling my eyes. To sum up: I've tried repeatedly to give you real facts about the working world, and the emotional response has always been that WOHMs are out to get SAHMs.
Bottom line: 10 years matter. That loss of experience is not dispositive, but it is relevant. Screaming that anyone who considers the absence of experience relevant is out to get you is not going to change the reality. SAHMs merit no special treatment, and I have no reason to grade them on a curve. I'm applying the same rules that I would apply to anyone else: show me you can do this job well.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}