Anonymous wrote:

And for DH?

I think I specifically said that I thought one parent...doesn't matter which one....should have a less-than super demanding job while the kids are young. For example, my husband has a job that requires long hours and frequent travel. Because of that, I would never consider a job with those kinds of demands. If he worked 8-5, I would be o.k. with working longer hours.

I simply do not think both parents should be working 10+ hours a day. I think kids deserve more than a couple of hours a day with a parent.

Anonymous wrote:When I had just finished school and was interviewing for my first job, I was pumped to work. Husbands and children were far from my mind, and the last thing I would speak of in an interview. Same goes for everyone I knew in the same situation.

Now, you might respond that perhaps she has different ideas and priorities than I had in my early 20s. And that ther's nothing wrong with that. and you would have a point.

But this was a job interview. These are our CAREERS. We think they are important, and we were just turned off by someone that seemed to see the position as a placeholder for a husband and kids. Going through 400 resumes is exhausting. So is interviewing. We did not want to have to do it again in a year, and risk losing an FTE.

We only get a small snapshot ofma person in an interview. It is possible to make a mistake, but it is an imperfect process. You have to be very careful as to the picture you present.

Anonymous wrote:

When someone is talking about themselves THERE ARE NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOU AND YOUR SITUATION!! (Most of the time) That is why the sentence was bolded and the eye roll was posted.

With all due respect, I think you've missed the point. The response the woman supposedly gave at the interview was unlike any of these statements you included in your example. It is more along the lines of saying, I would love to work here because it seems like it would be pretty easy, which is in fact offensive to the interviewers (who presumably works there). I have interviewed quite a few people throughout the course of my career, and have had people (none of whom were moms, as far as I know) make similar statements, and have offered positions to none of those applicants.
What if someone said to a stay at home mom that they would love to do what she does, because you can relax all the time, avoid stress, and have time to go to the gym? That person would portray themselves as inconsiderate and uninformed.
Totally separate from the SAHM and WOHM issue, I have noticed that many people forget that an interview is an opportunity to sell yourself, not an opportunity to find out what the job/office can do for you. That part comes after you have the offer in hand.

And for DH?

When someone is talking about themselves THERE ARE NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOU AND YOUR SITUATION!! (Most of the time) That is why the sentence was bolded and the eye roll was posted.

Anonymous wrote:To me, it isn't about staying at home vs working. It's about where your priorities are. I know plenty of very involved moms who work full time. They leave for work at 7:30 and they pick their children up at 5:30. That's a long day. But it's also very different than dropping your child off at 6:30 in the morning and picking him up at 6:30 that evening. And working on the weekends. And working at night. And talking to clients on the cell phone when you are should be spending time with your kids.

I think if ONE parents has a demanding, high-stress job and the other works a more typical 9-5 schedule, it's much different than having two parents who work very long hours. To me, it's simply a matter of how much time both parents spend away from their children. Sorry, but if both you and your husband are spending 10+ hours a day away from your kids, you simply are not raising kids: You're just babysitting for a few hours till the daycare opens or until the nanny arrives.

I've mostly been a stay-at-home mom. But I've worked occasionally through the years. My job was exactly that....a job. I went to work. I did what I was supposed to do. And at 5pm, I left. I enjoyed working. And the extra income was important at the time. However, my top priorities have always been my husband and my children. And now that I have two grown children, I realize all too well how quickly those early years went by. When I look back, I am thankful every single day that my husband and my kids were more important than any job. And whether some of you want to admit it or not, when something is "important", you spend a lot of time on it. There is no such thing as "quality time". Quantity matters.

Anonymous wrote:DCUM

Just.like.high.school.

The only reason the SAHM is even considered for the job is because working moms exist. Because women become moms and continue to work. So achieving the holy grail for a SAHM is dependent on WOHMs and that is a fact. You (not you, as in you, but in people in general) can't have it both ways. You can't say the ultimate goal should be to stay home and raise kids and then get back into the workforce because if a significant number of women did that, there would be no returning to the workforce for SAHMs in any role other than what my moms' friends returned to in the 1980s after raising kids - teaching, nursing, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Someone said that bitterness was driving my interview decisions. I simply pointed out that the circumstances of my life do not indicate that I would feel bitter towards a woman who wanted both a family and a job.

The woman was in her 20s. And she was already emphasizing to us in an interview that she wanted a job that would support her in raising a family. When I was in my 20s and looking for my first job, I wasn't even thinking of such things, let alone speaking of them in job interviews. This, coupled with her having transferred to a school halfway across the country because she "WAS in a relationship" made it seem to us that this applicant placed husband-hunting and baby-making over job performance. We wanted someone who wanted to be here and would stay for the long time. Would this woman quit to pursue a relationship?

Enter the male applicant. Also in his 20s, but a bit older. She was coming off an internship; he had a few years at a firm. He hadn't disrupted his studies to pursue a relationship. He wasn't talking about raising a family. I am not sure why I even mentioned that he was gay. Except that, while gay men often do get married and raise children, it is not something they tend to talk about in job interviews when they are in their 20s. Gays are discriminated against far more than women. In this case I was proud to bring some diversity on board.

Not vile.

Not vile.

Anonymous wrote:11:28, thanks for making such a meaningful addition to this thread. I know exactly why you disagree with the quoted post, and you made some really interesting and cogent points. Oh wait, maybe not.