Anonymous wrote:I find the term "gravy train" an obnoxious, envy-laden term. I SAH for 5 or 6 years. I was always planning on going back to work but had a child with special needs. I don't know about other posters but having a child changed me, and I would have done anything for him, and so I did. I "opted out" as you call it, and put my child first for that time. I kept up with industry trends and went back to work 3 years ago at the same level (many other things changed, but same $$). Guess what. Not only had technologies not changed at this place, but my keeping up put me ahead of the curve of the folks who "struggled" and put in the hours and got the promotions. (Bitter much?) They were just drifting I guess. Or just getting by. I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force. Yes, but do you contribute? How? Many SAHs can get back up to speed in certain industries. Sometimes you can opt back in. As so many are saying here, it depends on individuals, so stop lumping everyone's choices together. And it's hilarious that you are bitter about "gravy train" SAH. I have done both, and it is not gravy. It was hard, hard work.

Anonymous wrote:And do it goes -- women opt out of career then opt back in. This was my story and I prefer working to staying home. Personally, I hope we are moving towards a time when work and gender roles are becoming more fluid and both men and women both can make choices that work for their families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not stay at home if u can afford it?
Because of some insecurity that the spouse may leave?
Ok I will send my kid to day care just in case, then.

Ever heard of pride? Financial independence? Equality in marriage? Setting a good example? I could go on..

Anonymous wrote:gravy train is obnoxious poster here. Yes, I do realize I was very, very fortunate. I would not tell others to count on doing what I did. I would also tell others not to always count on going back to work after baby, because that option got thrown out in my case. Depends on baby. So toning down my post, we are all individuals. We are all unique! And the coasting working mom, just do what you need to do. You are putting out a good product and you're a mom now. I agree that everyone has a road. Let's be nicer to ourselves.

Anonymous wrote:Why not stay at home if u can afford it?
Because of some insecurity that the spouse may leave?
Ok I will send my kid to day care just in case, then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the term "gravy train" an obnoxious, envy-laden term. I SAH for 5 or 6 years. I was always planning on going back to work but had a child with special needs. I don't know about other posters but having a child changed me, and I would have done anything for him, and so I did. I "opted out" as you call it, and put my child first for that time. I kept up with industry trends and went back to work 3 years ago at the same level (many other things changed, but same $$). Guess what. Not only had technologies not changed at this place, but my keeping up put me ahead of the curve of the folks who "struggled" and put in the hours and got the promotions. (Bitter much?) They were just drifting I guess. Or just getting by. I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force. Yes, but do you contribute? How? Many SAHs can get back up to speed in certain industries. Sometimes you can opt back in. As so many are saying here, it depends on individuals, so stop lumping everyone's choices together. And it's hilarious that you are bitter about "gravy train" SAH. I have done both, and it is not gravy. It was hard, hard work.

Agree the term gravy train is obnoxious. But surely you realize your anecdotal experience, while awesome, is not necessarily the norm. There are real stats on what happens in many industries to women who take 5-6 years off. You've been back three years? That means you started back in 2010, and took off in 2004-05. The economy was really different in those 5-6 years and you lucked out. I graduated from grad school in 2005 and sailed into a job that was pretty much exactly what I was looking for. In 2010, 20% of my company got laid off (I was not included in that luckily) and a few months later my husband's entire team was laid off. He got a nice severance package and found something else quickly, since he had known this was coming for a while, but point is, I would not have predicted what happened in 2008-2010 back in 2005. Things change, you were lucky, plus probably had a great in demand skill set, but that's not going to be the case for everyone.

It's not to say that women shouldn't opt out or whatever, but to pretend there are no potential consequences and you can just waltz in to something is not realistic.

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer

I agree with most of what you said, and this as well, but perhaps part of the point of the article is that there is really no right answer, not just that there are different right answers for different people. We need more family friendly policies here in the US.

Anonymous wrote:I find the term "gravy train" an obnoxious, envy-laden term. I SAH for 5 or 6 years. I was always planning on going back to work but had a child with special needs. I don't know about other posters but having a child changed me, and I would have done anything for him, and so I did. I "opted out" as you call it, and put my child first for that time. I kept up with industry trends and went back to work 3 years ago at the same level (many other things changed, but same $$). Guess what. Not only had technologies not changed at this place, but my keeping up put me ahead of the curve of the folks who "struggled" and put in the hours and got the promotions. (Bitter much?) They were just drifting I guess. Or just getting by. I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force. Yes, but do you contribute? How? Many SAHs can get back up to speed in certain industries. Sometimes you can opt back in. As so many are saying here, it depends on individuals, so stop lumping everyone's choices together. And it's hilarious that you are bitter about "gravy train" SAH. I have done both, and it is not gravy. It was hard, hard work.

Anonymous wrote:My thought about the article was that none of them, wives or husbands, seemed to believe that real life was going to happen to them. They seemed to think that they would work hard for awhile and then be living like people with inherited wealth -- lots of vacations, big houses, as many well-mannered and cared for kids as they wanted.

But then it turned out that kids actually did change things. Wives had to stay home, or they had to spend a ton of money on childcare. Working spouses were too busy to enjoy those fancy vacations. When the kids were old enough for the wife to return to work ... it didn't happen.

Anyway, I'm now old enough to see this happen several times: a much-hyped study where women under 30 (no children) say that they've never encountered sexism and its an even playing field. Then, they are suddenly shocked at what happens when they do have children, both at home and at work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

I agree with this. In my field and other fields I'm familiar with, one could come back after years of absence and either prove herself through testing, or go through 1-2 weeks of training. There's really no need to start entry level. I can imagine there would be a few fields where the rolodex is most important and it would be hard to jump in after years out of the network, but, come on - for most jobs that is not an issue, and this excuse is used to punish women who've SAH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is so embarrassing, to every single one of us women, that we spend SO much time worrying about what other moms are doing. Work outside the home, work primarily at your home, work part time, work full time, work because you need the money, work because it's part of who you are or a calling, DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO for your family and your own personal happiness. Since when is a career synonymous with personal fulfillment? Are we all so one-dimensional? I don't assume that a big time job haver gets her personal fulfillment exclusively through work anymore than I assume a non-paycheck earning mom gets her fulfillment exclusively through their kids. I am sure there are some women who check one of those boxes or the other, but most of us, thank god, are complex people who manage to do a ton of things in life that offer us fulfilment. Some of us find child rearing to be tedious. Some of us find working to be tedious. Some of us find both things to be tedious! Some of us are working for the weekend and some of us can't wait to go to work on Monday. Who the hell cares? To be clear: I care if you are a crappy mom or parent, because your kids are valuable human beings who deserve good parenting. But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer.

It's embarrassing that we complex, nuanced, intelligent women believe in the Santa Clause type fallacy that there is ONE path to fulfillment, security, happiness, and ONE right thing to do, and for fuck's sake, that that thing is the rat race.

Signed, a woman with a kick ass job.

I love you!!!

signed, a mom of two kids who works full time and has a DH who works full time and doesn't give a shit what other families do, as long as they're loving to their kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PPs who said the people had marriage problems unrelated to the working/staying home issue. Their marriages probably would have dissolved either way. They also may have had self-esteem issues -- feeling devalued and trying to please to feel better about themselves and their relationships. I do think that SAHMs are often devalued, but these women seemed particularly searching for some meaning/value in their lives aside from this.

No, I disagree. Perhaps the people in the article do have problems in their marriages. But I do think that even in very good marriages, the dynamic changes when one spouse stays home, especially if that is the woman. There is a subtle but very real slip into traditional roles, and over time (I've seen this happen) the relationship changes, the level of respect changes.

It's a shame, but I do think it's a problem.