Anonymous wrote:"Finally, what about people who only want to stay home for a year or two? Why does it have to be 7 or 10 years? "

Some people like to stay on the gravy train.

LOL, or some people have children that need more intense parenting for a longer period of time. It is difficult to have two long hour porfessional jobs if one or more of your children requires additional therapies, OT,or simply more time on the vine.

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.

In my opinion, the lack of meaningful part-time work options really hurt all parents.

In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

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.

Anonymous wrote: These 2 women are furious the family is so dependent on their income and they nitpick about all the things their husbands don't do devaluing the fact the kids are getting so much attention and devotion from a parent. Even more alarming, they seem to feel it emasculated their husbands and made them less desirable/attractive. I find that both interesting and sad.

Oh, no! Not "over parenting" -- the horror!

I think it would interesting to look at SAHDs or dads who daddytrack/go part time while mom is the major breadwinner. I know 4 couples where there is some degree of this. In 2 cases I see real equality and respect. In the other 2 cases, the women, who consider themselves feminists, are angry their husbands have more time with the kids. These 2 women are furious the family is so dependent on their income and they nitpick about all the things their husbands don't do devaluing the fact the kids are getting so much attention and devotion from a parent. Even more alarming, they seem to feel it emasculated their husbands and made them less desirable/attractive. I find that both interesting and sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first paragraph is beyond obnoxious. They imply that living in a townhouse in Chevy chase md is like living in the slums. It's near a Safeway?? Gasp.

I know, right?

It's hard to have sympathy for many of these women, who probably had gift wrapping rooms in their 6 bedroom houses. They were the generation that started the whole "parenting is a job" that you must do perfectly--the whole Martha Stewart pretty as a picture perfectionism that drives me nuts.

Yeah. When I hear "Chevy Chase" my first thought is wealth. People who are not familiar with the area would assume it's a completely different type of place based on that paragraph.

I wish they included a link to the 60 minutes segment. Would have liked to see O'Donnel's old interview.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question.

If your husbands wanted to be SAHD and you work, what would be your responses?

Would you be ok with it only if he made less money than you? if so, why?

Do you think only women should be stay-at-home? if so why?

I work outside the home and obviously don't speak for everyone. But I would LOVE it if he would be a SAHD. I make more money and have a more secure job than he does. He travels a lot; so I end up doing more childcare duties too. And I'm ambivalent about our current daycare situation, though DD seems to love it. I would throw him a damned ticker tape parade if he said he wanted to SAH. The constant juggling at both ends is rough on all 3 of us.

I totally agree. I would not mind being the sole breadwinner as long as we could live healthily on what I make (and I think we could, even in DC, even though I make less than $140K). But at the same time, the stories of the women in this article is a good example of why he doesn't want to.

Anonymous wrote:

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 in this world you can't have both. Of course she's not entry-level, but it's not fair to the women who haven't taken time off (chose not to or weren't able to). If there were no career sacrifice, this wouldn't be a choice for anyone. I don't expect to leave my job for 7 years and come back where I left off. That just isn't the way the world works. Staying home is noble, but it comes with sacrifices. Just like working does.

Your mindset is part of the problem. She's not asking to unfairly take the positions of her colleagues who made the "career sacrifice". Her former peers are miles ahead of her on the ladder already. She's just asking for a job that she is qualified for, and starting at the bottom is unfair, a waste of education and brain power. Not to mention that many won't hire you even for starting positions if you're overqualified.
In all other developed countries, you can do just that - take 1-2 years off and get your old job back. Most women would not SAHM if we had those type of policies here.

I agree with your last two sentences. You're missing my point, though (and I don't make the rules). Say her peers are miles ahead. The people who now are at the level she was at before she left have likely been working full-time, are up to date on the current clients/latest technology/current state of the company/etc. It is unfair to have a person who has taken 7 years off to do something that is, as I said, noble but not career-related, hope back in without missing a beat. She has already shown her priorities to be elsewhere - which as I've said, is FINE - it's just not realistic to expect to waltz back in. I'd say the same thing if a person had, say, been traveling overseas for 7 years. I get that we'd all like to be able to come in and out of the workforce as is convenient for us, but that's not the way the world works. It's not that complicated.

I see. You do have a point. It obviously depends from one field to another, and I agree that in many fields you can't do that, unless you go back to school, training, or do some sort of activity that proves you've been keeping up with the latest. But that doesn't mean she should start at the bottom of the ladder - I think just a notch below her last position would do.

The thing is, as the PP in the last post said, it's all a matter of competition. If there is someone who has not been out of the workforce that long and is equally qualified, the company will favor her. And I say this as someone who is currently SAH (and wishes I could find a job that makes paying for childcare for two worthwhile when my twins are two or three).

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 in this world you can't have both. Of course she's not entry-level, but it's not fair to the women who haven't taken time off (chose not to or weren't able to). If there were no career sacrifice, this wouldn't be a choice for anyone. I don't expect to leave my job for 7 years and come back where I left off. That just isn't the way the world works. Staying home is noble, but it comes with sacrifices. Just like working does.

Your mindset is part of the problem. She's not asking to unfairly take the positions of her colleagues who made the "career sacrifice". Her former peers are miles ahead of her on the ladder already. She's just asking for a job that she is qualified for, and starting at the bottom is unfair, a waste of education and brain power. Not to mention that many won't hire you even for starting positions if you're overqualified.
In all other developed countries, you can do just that - take 1-2 years off and get your old job back. Most women would not SAHM if we had those type of policies here.

I agree with your last two sentences. You're missing my point, though (and I don't make the rules). Say her peers are miles ahead. The people who now are at the level she was at before she left have likely been working full-time, are up to date on the current clients/latest technology/current state of the company/etc. It is unfair to have a person who has taken 7 years off to do something that is, as I said, noble but not career-related, hope back in without missing a beat. She has already shown her priorities to be elsewhere - which as I've said, is FINE - it's just not realistic to expect to waltz back in. I'd say the same thing if a person had, say, been traveling overseas for 7 years. I get that we'd all like to be able to come in and out of the workforce as is convenient for us, but that's not the way the world works. It's not that complicated.

I see. You do have a point. It obviously depends from one field to another, and I agree that in many fields you can't do that, unless you go back to school, training, or do some sort of activity that proves you've been keeping up with the latest. But that doesn't mean she should start at the bottom of the ladder - I think just a notch below her last position would do.

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 in this world you can't have both. Of course she's not entry-level, but it's not fair to the women who haven't taken time off (chose not to or weren't able to). If there were no career sacrifice, this wouldn't be a choice for anyone. I don't expect to leave my job for 7 years and come back where I left off. That just isn't the way the world works. Staying home is noble, but it comes with sacrifices. Just like working does.

Your mindset is part of the problem. She's not asking to unfairly take the positions of her colleagues who made the "career sacrifice". Her former peers are miles ahead of her on the ladder already. She's just asking for a job that she is qualified for, and starting at the bottom is unfair, a waste of education and brain power. Not to mention that many won't hire you even for starting positions if you're overqualified.
In all other developed countries, you can do just that - take 1-2 years off and get your old job back. Most women would not SAHM if we had those type of policies here.

I agree with your last two sentences. You're missing my point, though (and I don't make the rules). Say her peers are miles ahead. The people who now are at the level she was at before she left have likely been working full-time, are up to date on the current clients/latest technology/current state of the company/etc. It is unfair to have a person who has taken 7 years off to do something that is, as I said, noble but not career-related, hope back in without missing a beat. She has already shown her priorities to be elsewhere - which as I've said, is FINE - it's just not realistic to expect to waltz back in. I'd say the same thing if a person had, say, been traveling overseas for 7 years. I get that we'd all like to be able to come in and out of the workforce as is convenient for us, but that's not the way the world works. It's not that complicated.

NP here. I agree with this. From a company's point of view, someone who has taken 7 years off has shown that they either prioritize family over paid work (clearly not a bad thing!) or that they can't juggle family and work and thus had to leave. In general, as unfair as it may seem to some, the objective choice between someone with this baggage AND the fact that they are 7 years behind on their skillsets, network, and areas of expertise, makes it really hard for a company to put them right back where they were vs. giving someone who is at the level they were at when they bowed out (but did not leave and thus is current and maybe has proven they consider paid work a priority) the job.

It stinks, but as another PP mentioned, the solution is not to declare it "unfair" -- it's capitalism. The solution is to consider the *gasp* non-capitalist ways other first-world countries have dealt with this issue, such as extended parental leave for both mothers and fathers, better health care, free childcare, etc.

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 in this world you can't have both. Of course she's not entry-level, but it's not fair to the women who haven't taken time off (chose not to or weren't able to). If there were no career sacrifice, this wouldn't be a choice for anyone. I don't expect to leave my job for 7 years and come back where I left off. That just isn't the way the world works. Staying home is noble, but it comes with sacrifices. Just like working does.

Your mindset is part of the problem. She's not asking to unfairly take the positions of her colleagues who made the "career sacrifice". Her former peers are miles ahead of her on the ladder already. She's just asking for a job that she is qualified for, and starting at the bottom is unfair, a waste of education and brain power. Not to mention that many won't hire you even for starting positions if you're overqualified.
In all other developed countries, you can do just that - take 1-2 years off and get your old job back. Most women would not SAHM if we had those type of policies here.

I agree with your last two sentences. You're missing my point, though (and I don't make the rules). Say her peers are miles ahead. The people who now are at the level she was at before she left have likely been working full-time, are up to date on the current clients/latest technology/current state of the company/etc. It is unfair to have a person who has taken 7 years off to do something that is, as I said, noble but not career-related, hope back in without missing a beat. She has already shown her priorities to be elsewhere - which as I've said, is FINE - it's just not realistic to expect to waltz back in. I'd say the same thing if a person had, say, been traveling overseas for 7 years. I get that we'd all like to be able to come in and out of the workforce as is convenient for us, but that's not the way the world works. It's not that complicated.

Anonymous wrote:Question.

If your husbands wanted to be SAHD and you work, what would be your responses?

Would you be ok with it only if he made less money than you? if so, why?

Do you think only women should be stay-at-home? if so why?

I work outside the home and obviously don't speak for everyone. But I would LOVE it if he would be a SAHD. I make more money and have a more secure job than he does. He travels a lot; so I end up doing more childcare duties too. And I'm ambivalent about our current daycare situation, though DD seems to love it. I would throw him a damned ticker tape parade if he said he wanted to SAH. The constant juggling at both ends is rough on all 3 of us.

"Finally, what about people who only want to stay home for a year or two? Why does it have to be 7 or 10 years? "

Some people like to stay on the gravy train.