during out time at home we have also honed skills that can easily be translated into the workplace (i.e., multitasking, putting out fires, managing people and projects). we also have a maturity that "young" men and women will absolutely NOT have.

Yes, because moms who worked outside the home have no ability to multitask. That is silly. I think SAHMs should get full and fair consideration if they have experience/skills applicable to the job. But I don't think they have any better ability to multitask and put out fires than moms that WOH.

Anonymous wrote:So....if you don't work for X years the perception is that you lose some skills? Or just that you're not up with all of the latest and greatest. Because I feel like I could step back into my old job any day and not miss a beat for the most part. Six years out. I did happen to kick a$$ in that field and felt it was very easy. Maybe I need to freshen up a bit on the latest & greatest, but most of my job was dependent on people skills. Which I know are still there, improved if anything, having to deal with irrational short people. Just need to apply those skills toward irrational tall people if I went back.

FWIW, my husband is in the same field and there isn't anything that he's done recently that I couldn't do. And do well.

Ugh. I hate to post on this topic at all. Just curious about the perception - because that is pretty huge.

I think you make a great point. In my opinion the bigger obstacle is that is really competitive. If there is a good job out there, a lot of people want it. If you have a gap on your resume it might be a deterrent. I agree you likely haven't lost intelligence or skills.

My job is not rocket science, but in order to do the nuances of writing comment letters, navigating certain issues, dealing with the politics of it all (which is my least favorite part), it did take a few years to learn. It's not intelligence, it's more just learning the go to resources and solutions that you can use quickly and that may take a while to build up in any job. I'm sure it depends on the industry.

We hired a SAHM - out for about ten years - who used to work in our industry. She is only works in a very part time capacity, about 15 hours or so a week, but she is super smart and has been an asset. However, she did have connections in that she used to work for our CEO in a different capacity. I'm not sure they would have hired her just sending in a blind resume, but who knows.

Depends on the industry and job.
Did you lose all your clients? Did laws and regs change while you were out? Did you get off a certain track and now want to be the oldest at a lower position?

Or, can you pick up right where you left off? Mainly need certain certifications/licenses which are still valid? Do your target companies have many people at broad/flat org levels?

Anonymous wrote:I took a year off just for personal reasons when I was in my early 30s, I didn't have kids. Nobody has ever questioned it, maybe if it is several years? I honestly don't see how it's a big deal to take a year off or even two years and then come back into the workforce and why this would be negative. People take time off for various reasons, some for health reasons, others, to travel. Some cannot actually find a job for a year, this happens. And sometimes people start a new career in a different field, or a new business and then come back to what they used to do before. This happens. I don't know why taking time off for raising kids for a year or two would be a career killer. I think it's the entire perception of mothers with little kids, not the fact that you took time off.

I agree. I think it is about animosity toward women rather than about, specifically, time off. Re-read these many pages, so often women are simply using the "time off" as an opportunity to slam other women. It's a bit like saying "I don't hire vets b/c some have PTSD" or "I don't hire people from X racial or ethnic group b/c some haven't been good employees." You realize, I hope, how wildly outrageous such blanket statements are in those contexts. Please realize they are equally outrageous with regard to women who have stayed home.

Anonymous wrote:Does the bias against SAHM last forever? I was at home for about 4 years and have been back at work for 5.

Have you noticed any concerns from your current co-workers?

Does the bias against SAHM last forever? I was at home for about 4 years and have been back at work for 5.

Anonymous wrote:This is just the age old argument of whether or not women should stay home with their kids or continue in the workforce--instead of men belittling a woman's choice it is women belittling other women's choices. You all make me sick and ashamed to be guilty by association.

+1

So....if you don't work for X years the perception is that you lose some skills? Or just that you're not up with all of the latest and greatest. Because I feel like I could step back into my old job any day and not miss a beat for the most part. Six years out. I did happen to kick a$$ in that field and felt it was very easy. Maybe I need to freshen up a bit on the latest & greatest, but most of my job was dependent on people skills. Which I know are still there, improved if anything, having to deal with irrational short people. Just need to apply those skills toward irrational tall people if I went back.

FWIW, my husband is in the same field and there isn't anything that he's done recently that I couldn't do. And do well.

Ugh. I hate to post on this topic at all. Just curious about the perception - because that is pretty huge.

I wouldn't be so quick to slam PTA volunteering! Madeleine Albright got her start in political fundraising by first fundraising for Beauvior

Anonymous wrote:What about a mother who went back and forth between kids?

I think this is less of an issue. If you are staying connected with your field and maintaining experience and expertise, going back and forth seems viable.

What about a mother who went back and forth between kids?

Anonymous wrote:I took a year off just for personal reasons when I was in my early 30s, I didn't have kids. Nobody has ever questioned it, maybe if it is several years? I honestly don't see how it's a big deal to take a year off or even two years and then come back into the workforce and why this would be negative. People take time off for various reasons, some for health reasons, others, to travel. Some cannot actually find a job for a year, this happens. And sometimes people start a new career in a different field, or a new business and then come back to what they used to do before. This happens. I don't know why taking time off for raising kids for a year or two would be a career killer. I think it's the entire perception of mothers with little kids, not the fact that you took time off.

I think a year or 2 is a blip that would be easily overcome. I think it becomes an issue when one has taken 5 to 10 years off. If you had multiple children and stayed home until they were school age, this can easily be a lengthy absence from the workforce.

I took a year off just for personal reasons when I was in my early 30s, I didn't have kids. Nobody has ever questioned it, maybe if it is several years? I honestly don't see how it's a big deal to take a year off or even two years and then come back into the workforce and why this would be negative. People take time off for various reasons, some for health reasons, others, to travel. Some cannot actually find a job for a year, this happens. And sometimes people start a new career in a different field, or a new business and then come back to what they used to do before. This happens. I don't know why taking time off for raising kids for a year or two would be a career killer. I think it's the entire perception of mothers with little kids, not the fact that you took time off.

Anonymous wrote:Mothers should be with their children. Don't like it, then don't have kids. Single moms are exempt because the world isn't perfect. Moms who are trying to come back home are exempt. Anyone else needs to be fixed due to being unfit. Work if you want, just don't have kids. Get a puppy instead.

Wow, just wow. I find these threads so mesmerizing because you people are actually willing to say the things that my mother will never say to my face but I know she is thinking!! Responding to this comment is a futile exercise. If someone truly believes that women (and only women) must be cord-attached to their children or declared unfit, that is a fundamental belief. You just have to pat that lady on the head nicely and move on.

As far as SAHMs in the workplace go, I wouldn't rule them out per se but for me, it's a fictional beast. It is extremely uncommon for a woman to stay at home for years and then jump back on the track and effectively compete with anyone who stayed on the track in my field. Even if they could somehow relearn everything they lost, there is a continuing detrimental need to be graded on a curve because performance at work is not a priority. In theory, it could be done but I haven't seen it. That said, I think it depends on the job and the profession. If the position simply requires basic organization skills or something that can be learned quickly, it could work. If it is a job that really requires years to build an effective expertise, I just don't see it working.

We hired a SAHM who raised her children to be our babysitter. She is great for what we need aftercare (we have backup through the school) and helping get homework done. If she left us I'd try to find someone like her.