Feel like the choice is binary re: whether to work or not after baby is born

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’ll never get those years with your babies back.

I hate this. Nobody gets any years back. That's how time works. You still have a baby if they go to daycare.

+1. I hate it too. I don't want those years back! I struggled with the infant stage. My baby was better off having a village of support.

Well that’s you. Many of us feel the opposite. My SIL took an 8 mo leave with her first and only 3 mo with her second, and she still feels that short leave impacted their relationship, 10 years later. For many women, being home fir a while with their baby is essential to bonding with their kid.

For me it was essential for my mental health. I tried going back at 4 months but had PPD and what I needed was more time with my child.

Any woman who wants to go back more quickly has my support. But many women want/need longer and that’s treated like some kind of moral failure. It’s not. It’s standard on most parts of the world outside the US. For many, many women, that’s a critical time that they cannot, in fact, get back.

PP here. Everybody should have the option of a longer, paid leave (1 year, potentially split between parents -- I like Germany's Elternzeit system).
I still personally would have gone back at like 6 months though. I can't deal with the isolation of staying home with a baby, and I did have family help. It was awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We hired an educated, skilled nanny with a degree in Early Childhood Development. It made me feel better about going back to work knowing that nanny was giving my son something different and better than I could.

I did the same. I also worked from home so I could nurse my kids for the first two years. I went back to an office when my youngest was two.

[Anonymous]

I think the "horror stories" are not actually based on real experiences and so are overblown and come from people who didn't take the leap due of fear and people who want employees to be afraid to take a sabbatical. The reality is that you will still be qualified for the job, and most jobs are compensated based on the position due to equal pay act requirements -- same pay for same work.

If you are GS-9, you are GS-9. If you have 10 years of experience, you have 10 years of experience. If you have a masters degree bump, you ave a masters degree bump. If you have certifications that are up to date you have the certifications. If you have a professional license, you have a professional license. Your resume will fit the job search algorithm.

Even on this thread, the people who actually did it are saying they did get back in the workforce. One said it took 20 months (though she did not say how long she had been out or what kid of job she was looking for), not that it was impossible.

Has anyone said they tried and never got a job again?

For the PPs in IT who are terrified to take time off -- is there a crisis in IT talent or not? If everyone keeps saying we are desperate for IT talent, are employers actually turning away such talent if it arrive in the form of an experienced worker who took two years off to raise an infant? If so, then the "crisis" is of the employer's own making, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/magazine/tech-company-recruiters.html

[Anonymous]

This is so dependent on management. I asked for a three day a week schedule (with pay cut) and my boss, a childless woman in her 60s, could not have been nicer about it. She still made sure to give me good projects and make me feel valued and I always got stellar reviews. Sadly she retired and my current boss, a childless woman my own age, has made it clear that I will be worthless in her eyes until I go back to full time status. Quote: "Your childcare issues are not my problem and we need 100 percent from you."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’ll never get those years with your babies back.

I hate this. Nobody gets any years back. That's how time works. You still have a baby if they go to daycare.

DP and I disagree. There are very few career opportunities that you couldn't replace or re-acquire after two years out of the workforce. But you can't replace the experience of being home with a baby. The experience of spending all your time with your baby is different than the experience of taking your child to childcare and then going to work. It just is. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

I have a better job now than I did before I quit to stay home with my baby. My career has taken zero hits and in some ways, being willing to walk away so I could do something important to me has helped me learn to expect more and to understand my own value, which has benefitted me professionally.

This is demonstrably untrue. Women with two year gaps in their resumes do not wind up in the same position as their peers who don’t and it’s been well studied. I think OP should take as much time as she wants and reasonably can but she should do so with awareness of the reality of her profession.

I went back at five months but didn’t return full-time until about 18M. Staying in the game got me promoted because my network was still very current and my work product was a known quantity. OP if you have part time choices can you explore them?

Provide the studies that say this, and they need to be within the last 10-15 years. A 5+ year gap? Yes, that will really hurt you. Two years? Not a big deal, especially if your career is already established.

It really is not all or nothing, and people need to stop thinking if it this way. People on DCUM always act like stepping out if the workforce with a baby means you’re never getting back on track. Yet most mothers I know took off 1-2 years and all came back, many into positions they liked more. And like OP, they were all older mom (33 I think was the youngest) and had established careers and good credentials.

This one is five years old. A woman with an 18M gap on her resume for family leave is less likely to get an interview than a male or female candidate who has been *unemployed* for 18M.

https://hbr.org/2018/02/stay-at-home-moms-are-half-as-likely-to-get-a-job-interview-as-moms-who-got-laid-off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the labor market could change and it’s industry specific, but don’t see how taking one or two years off could be that much of a derailment. The problem is that I don’t know any women who limited the break to 1 or 2 years. Everyone I know who quit their job ended up staying out for many years while having subsequent kids. They often had a reason they couldn’t return to work, but it sounded a bit of an excuse to me.

It’s not an excuse, they just want to stay home. I’ve stayed home since my oldest was born 10 years ago. DH and I agreed before we were engaged that when we had kids, I’d be home permanently. I never claimed to want to rejoin the work force.

^^Is this Op?

Nope. I’m 40 and married to my DH—the father of all of my children.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the "horror stories" are not actually based on real experiences and so are overblown and come from people who didn't take the leap due of fear and people who want employees to be afraid to take a sabbatical. The reality is that you will still be qualified for the job, and most jobs are compensated based on the position due to equal pay act requirements -- same pay for same work.

If you are GS-9, you are GS-9. If you have 10 years of experience, you have 10 years of experience. If you have a masters degree bump, you ave a masters degree bump. If you have certifications that are up to date you have the certifications. If you have a professional license, you have a professional license. Your resume will fit the job search algorithm.

Even on this thread, the people who actually did it are saying they did get back in the workforce. One said it took 20 months (though she did not say how long she had been out or what kid of job she was looking for), not that it was impossible.

Has anyone said they tried and never got a job again?

For the PPs in IT who are terrified to take time off -- is there a crisis in IT talent or not? If everyone keeps saying we are desperate for IT talent, are employers actually turning away such talent if it arrive in the form of an experienced worker who took two years off to raise an infant? If so, then the "crisis" is of the employer's own making, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/magazine/tech-company-recruiters.html

This is true, but none of these things prevent bias against you for being a parent and for showing that you chose to take time off with your family. If it’s between you and an equally qualified person who has stayed consistently in the workforce, 90% they will go with the other person. I know this because I took 2 years off (luckily I did get back in, but it took a long time).

[Anonymous]

OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’ll never get those years with your babies back.

This. Who says on their deathbed “I wish I spent more time at the office.”???

No one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

Generally: not penalizing people for having resume gaps. In many cases you’re penalizing people for having obligations :gasp: that are life, rather than work, related.

[Anonymous]

^^^To add to my 14:36 post: people who work at the companies you mention are extraordinarily privileged to begin with. I am speaking about society generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’ll never get those years with your babies back.

This. Who says on their deathbed “I wish I spent more time at the office.”???

No one.

This is true, but simplistic. Sometimes to reach a point in your career where you will have more time, more resources, more security for your family, you have to make short-term sacrifices. I do believe no one says “I wish I spent more time in the office” I *also* believe no one ever regrets that their children aren’t struggling to make student-loan payments and so putting off grandchildren. The trick is to be self-aware, and sometimes that means keeping a foot in the workplace door a few hours a week when you have 6MO so when your child starts kindergarten you’re established enough to end your workday at 2pm and get her off the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

Generally: not penalizing people for having resume gaps. In many cases you’re penalizing people for having obligations :gasp: that are life, rather than work, related.

This. Once up on a time a resume gap was presumed to be caused by something nefarious that made a person an undesirable employee. That is an antiquated and probably discriminatory point of view. What is the justification for dismissing a mother returning to the work force in a job she's already trained to do with a track record of doing it very well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

Generally: not penalizing people for having resume gaps. In many cases you’re penalizing people for having obligations :gasp: that are life, rather than work, related.

This. Once up on a time a resume gap was presumed to be caused by something nefarious that made a person an undesirable employee. That is an antiquated and probably discriminatory point of view. What is the justification for dismissing a mother returning to the work force in a job she's already trained to do with a track record of doing it very well?

That there is another equally well qualified candidate who hasn’t been out of the field for two years.