OMG. first.

I don't think you're the only one to experience this. Not all tales are rosey.

The older I get, the more I wonder what we mean when we talk about getting a "decent" job. I'm apparently not the only one to struggle with this. My family and even some of my friends keep asking me why I stay in an office job instead of seeking out a position that outwardly is more professional and more in keeping with my education. The sad fact is that my office job pays more money than those professional positions for which I'm qualified, and I'm not about to take a cut in salary just for the sake of being a professional, whatever that means anymore. At some point, we all need to decide what it is we want from our jobs, whether the paycheck is enough or whether we want some sort of psycho-spiritual fulfillment, as well. And if money is the bottom line (and for some of us it is), we should not simply assume that professional is going to be better, because sometimes it isn't.

When I was trying to find a job after 12 years at home with my kids, I felt like I might have been better off if I had been in jail for 12 years - at least there are programs to help ex-cons! Seriously, the problem is with the myth that employers are looking for the best qualified workers - in fact, they are looking for people that fit their sterotypes, which ususally means people like themselves, and they automatically assume that if you have voluntarily been out of the work force for an extended period of time, it means you will not be 'dedicated to your work'. Eventually worked out more or less ok for me, I took a federal job two grades below what I should I have been entitled to and then worked my *ss off and eventually reached a decent pay grade, but never really liked or felt respected at my job, and can't wait until I can take early retirement next year. Sorry I can't offer a happier scenario, but there is no point regretting your time at home, you did what you felt was best, and can't change the past anyway, so I hope things get better for you.

Linda,
You're not the only one. I'm expressing solidarity, by the way! I disagree with Leslie's article also. I had a terrible time trying to get back into the work force. In my area, IT, it is all 60+ hour work weeks, no part time, and you have to have current skills (skills > 1 year old will not be considered). I've said it before, but if you take more than one year off, you won't be able to get back in. Many women in my neighborhood have discovered what you are talking about. In my opinion, Leslie's article hurt by saying the going-back-to-work situation has improved, when in reality, it has not for those in engineering and probably science.

Although it wasn't due to staying at home to raise a child, my wife did drop out of the workforce for several years when she decided to go back to school to finish her degree (I carried her away from college when I married her).

Unfortunately, she chose to return to the workforce right when the economy hit a downturn, and it was very difficult to find a job in her career. Employers wanted experienced workers and more education than she had even with the degree, but going back to school simply wasn't an option after so long out of work.

After accepting any part-time work she could find for about 2 years, she finally landed a job with a small firm 30 miles south of where we live. When their senior engineer decided to start his own consultant firm, he asked her and one other to come with him, and she's now their senior designer and indispensible to the firm.

It took a lot of patience on her part and lots of support and reassurance from me that she was doing the right things, but she eventually did get the job she was looking for.

"like a decent husband"

Man bashing time again!

I don't have experience with this situation personally but I did watch my mother go through it. Like Linda, my mother was out of the work force for about 8 years raising kids; my parents divorced and she needed to return to work. It took her a long time to get a decent salary. I had hoped things had changed since then. A friend of mine, a lawyer, also was out of the work force 9 years. She is recently divorced and needed to find full-time work. Although a senior attorney when she left to be a SAHM she took a mid-level attorney position and salary just to get a job in the legal field. I don't know about the figures Leslie's article quoted but I think there are a lot of women in this situation. Maybe it's slightly better then when my mom did it, I don't know.

My heart goes out to Linda and others facing this situation. I'm so glad you wrote this guest blog though. I think it's important for parents to be aware of how hard it may be to get back in if you stay home for an extended period, not to scare folks away from staying home, but so parents know what they are getting into. I wonder if stay-at-home dads face the same difficulties. Anyone know?

I would like to see them interview normal people who didn't go to top 10 MBA schools like Kellogg or Harvard and had children before they were Vice Presidents and took off 3-5 years and see what the data show. I think your experience is likely to be shared by the vast majority of women and I hope that all your hard work pays off. I am a new mom and I took my maternity and came back full time and can't imagine taking time out of the workforce as it seems hard enough to feel like I am still a professional as I work a bit less than I used to. Good luck to you.

I wonder if part of the problem comes from how moms classify themselves. I always state that I am a stay-at-home mom. I feel like that is what I am. I simply do not have the same stresses that my working friends have and my life looks a lot more like a stay-at-home mom. However, I work. It is part-time and the hours are flexible. Not the deadlines but I can work whenever I want. When I go back to full time work I imagine it will be easier than someone who has completely stopped doing paid work. But I still feel like I dropped out to raise my kids and would describe it as such.

Great piece. Leslie's "research" was obviously ridiculously optimistic. The studies which found women encountering problems returning to work had larger samples and were more scientific.

The original poster didn't discuss this, but it seems from the comments that at least some of the people who are having trouble finding work expected to re-enter the workforce exactly where they left off. It seems to me like that could be a huge obstacle to finding a "good" job.

Of course, I haven't yet started looking to return to work, so I may be totally off-base here. But I do expect that I will have to take a step or two down when I do return to work, especially if I want to work 9-5 hours, rather than the 8:30-7 I worked before I had my daughter.

the need for employers to see that women are the breadwinners of many households.
=========================================================

One of the concepts that seems to be widely held here is that pay should be based job performance. Some women have decried the 1950's policy of paying women less and men more because the men were viewed as supporting a family. Is this policy to be reinvigorated for women now?

"the need for employers to see that women are the breadwinners of many households.
=========================================================

One of the concepts that seems to be widely held here is that pay should be based job performance. Some women have decried the 1950's policy of paying women less and men more because the men were viewed as supporting a family. Is this policy to be reinvigorated for women now?
"

Yes. Twist everything to fit this woman's agenda.

I think there is a difference between reentering the workforce when (a) the kids are in school and you are still married and have the second person's income and (2) the husband dies or leaves. In the first scenerio, you can afford to enter the workforce slowly and build up your experience. In the second scenerio, you need to be making "good" money fast.

One of the reasons that I chose not to stay at home (and there were many other reasons as well) is because I was afraid of what would happen if my husband passed away while the kids were young. Not only would I have to deal with my grief and my kids grief, but I would have to deal with finding a job etc. Now, I know that you cannot live your life in fear and if this were my only reason, I dont think it would be a very good one, but it was in my analysis. But, I will point out that an adequate life insurance policy would help alleviate my fears.

the need for employers to see that women are the breadwinners of many households.

I think what was meant by this comment is that women should be receiving the same amount as men, not more...No need to invigorate the argument that those with families should be paid more, but for equal work a woman should earn as much as a man. As we have discussed here before, such inequalities exist.
It took me 6 months to realize that the guy in the office next door, working equally hard got $10,000 more than I did. This was pre-kids, when I regularly worked 60-80 hours a week.

I got that equalized and in spite of the kids( now both of us have kids) still work the same number of hours as he.

This poster's story - and others like it - is, in part, a vindication of a more traditional view of post-divorce spousal support. While married, one spouse often sacrifices career opportunities for the good of the family unit, allowing the other spouse to advance further and/or more quickly. It makes sense for the sacrificing spouse to receive compensation in the form of a period of support while he or she brushes up skills and finds a job that will allow him or her to more closely approximate the marital standard of living. True, a teacher reentering the workforce will never be able to generate the income of a lawyer who never left it, and the teacher will eventually just have to accept this disparity with the former marital income. But the lawyer should be expected to provide enough support that the teacher won't have to take the first crappy job that comes along and so that the teacher can take classes to update his certification.

(BTW, lest the bitter exhusband brigade attack, I'm a woman who will likely make significantly more money than her husband. If anyone puts his career on hold to raise children, it will be my husband. These principles could and should be applied against me in the event of a divorce.)

"her research does not reflect my story" - oh how nice to hear from someone else that feels this way! Leslie's blog rarely addresses the issues and viewpoints of people that aren't upper-middle class, married and white...

employers do not care if women are the 'breadwinners' for a family, employers care only about the job being done. if they see women as breadwinners for a family, what does that say for the women who are not in that same situation? Should those women earn less, and thus invite the whole childless vs motherhood debate?

to 8:31,

She said specifically " and the need for employers to see that women are the breadwinners of many households."

Nothing anything about equal pay for equal work.

I don't not agree with you interpertation.

I don't not agree with you interpertation.

Meant to type, I don't agree with your interpertation.

Meant to type, I don't agree with your interpertation.

Posted by: anon for today | June 19, 2007 08:48 AM

Interpretation?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Interpretation?

If you want to spell it that way, sure!

C'mon guys I am in Jury Duty today and bored stiff. Someone say something entertaining! ;-)

Seriously though, as someone who hires in IT (engineers, scientists, misc. techies and other businesspeople) I always have to seriously evaluate how someone 'justtifies' the time they took off. Because, as dotted says above, their skills absolutely do get rusty.

I can honestly say that in most cases that I have seen, applicants (mostly women) indicating that they took time off to raise children are evaluated no differently from men who ~claim~ they took time off to start their own business, but can articulate no tangible lessons learned or professional development over that period.

Granted, that's just IT. If you are in a field where your skills do not rust so easily (writer?) perhaps it should be much easier to re-enter.

Oh, and by the way, many Executive Management skills should not rust quickly. A P/E Ratio calculation is the same today as it was in 1950. Therefore if you were a VP in 1995 and took time off to raise your kids and you try to jump back in the workforce tomorrow, your skills are probably still relevant. I agree that if Leslie's subjects were too senior, this dynamic will skew her results greatly.

Luckily, I'm one of those women who have always been paid similarly - if not more - than my male counterparts. I think part of the reason is that I don't just have jobs, I have a career and my employers know that. Yes, I am married. No, I don't have kids. In my technical field, I've worked with a lot of women who were planning on having kids at some point and were just biding their time until they could be a stay at home mom. That attitude does not get you raises or promotions. If I do have kids, I will still have a career, its just who I am and part of what makes me successful. I think a lot of employers see women returning to the workforce as just wanting a "job" and they probably want more committment than that. Not saying its right, but it is what I've observed.

Someone say something entertaining! ;-)

OK, show of hands. How many lurkers are out there?

I have always worked and will strongly advise my daughter and son to never quit working once they have children. My husband is a steady and excellent provider and so am I. Do I expect us to divorce? One of us to die early? No. But quitting work, for either of us, makes us vulnerable and dependent on things that we can't control. I have made career choices that provide a better balance with family needs at the expense of a more lucrative position, but I never made a choice that put my ability to support myself and my children at risk. At one point, I realized that although I loved my job (part time academic) it was not sufficient to guarantee my financial stability so I moved into something else. To accomodate this, my husband had to change jobs and we had to move. However, he valued my financial independence as much as I did.

I think my husband and I have a strong relationship in part because he knows I can take care of myself and the children if necessary and we know that we are not together for the other's paycheck. It is an enviable position and I know not everyone can get there. I know if one of us fell ill or was disabled or daycare wasn't available...etc...one of us would have left the workforce. But it would have been a high cost necessity, not a choice.

I will encourage my children to do their best to continue working and have working spouses. Not for the rewards of wealth, or personal achievment and challange in the workforce....I hope my children learn that work outside the home for both spouses is good for a marriage and a family.

Then, why did you have FOUR children? Why was your regret staying at home- when, clearly, it should have been limiting your family size? Obviously you can't resent your kids and you love them, as would I if I had 4, but having a large family is very difficult.

If you had 2 children, you would be doing just fine.

I'd find it difficult to raise four children, without hanging by a thread, even in a 2 income married household.

We are a dual income 1 child family and we are not rolling in all of this extra money! Between retirement and college and daycare, housing, gas, etc...

Don't you feel irresponsible for having so many kids knowing full well that one day you may need to be the breadwinner?

I'm sure people will jump all over me for this- but, really, what is the author looking for? How are you supposed to get paid well AND work fewer hours so that you can be there to raise 4 kids? What about sick days and school holidays and vacation days?

She really should have planned for this. You can't "have it all", contrary to what many believe. Something has to go- and, in this case- you CHOSE to have A LOT of kids. Now you have to deal with that.

No sympathy here.

I wanted to publish this Guest Blog because I think Linda's story is very representative of many women's experience, not directly reflected in what I studied. Hopefully by hearing from Linda and others like here, we can achieve a balanced story. My research showed that women who have been out of work for 10 years or more, and/or are 50+, have a FAR more difficult time finding work, even if they have excellent work and educational credentials.

A ten year gap is a lot harder to explain. But even more pernicious is age-ism on top of gender and SAHM bias. Ageism is something most women who left the paid workforce in their late 30s or early 40s have never encountered. But it's real, and it seriously derails efforts by men AND women to find good jobs after 50.

Given that so many Americans are living active, healthy lives well into their 70s, it is crazy for workplaces to overlook people in their 50s. These employees may have 20 or more years of great productivity to offer employers.

But back to my findings in Newsweek and More. Many former SAHMs who talked with me did so "to get the real story out." The real story is that your career is NOT doomed if you take a few years off. There is way too much fear and negativity dictating women's decisions, whether to stay at work and to stay at home. The women I talked to were eager to allay people's fears that caring for your children fulltime is no longer a black mark on your resume, as perhaps it once was.

As I've said before, I personally didn't have too big a problem re-entering the workforce - but I have a niche degree and very specific experience.

And then, once I had a job, getting another one wasn't as difficult.

However, I make far less than I did when I left the workforce, even having been back for almost two years - far less. If I ever make what I used to make it will take quite a while (I was out for four years). And I'm in the same level, for the most part, as I was.

BUT - I work close to home (was a big factor in taking this job) I have an understanding boss and not too much stress with this position. It's all good.

And when my DH decides to quit his job and/or start his own business or whatever, I'll not be making enough to support us, but enough until he figures out what he wants. This gives us a lot of freedom.

That all having been said, I did meet a woman who was trying to re-enter the workforce after 8 years staying at home - and she said she couldn't (she's an engineer) so she' teaching yoga.

Nothing's easy and yes, employers are definitely looking for what you can do for them.

My thought, also, is that companies want you to need them and not be able to quit on a whim - and staying out of the workforce tells them you could take or leave their job. So they don't like that. Even if the reasons for returning to work are that you are now supporting the family.

Marie - just get enough life insurance on your husband, and worry about bad things when they happen. My thought is that if I lost my DH, I would want enough to live on so that I could sell the house and make sure that everything's okay - probably would be six months to a year where I might or might not be working. Life insurance is cheap and buys a LOT of peace of mind. Just a thought.

small families -- your way or highway, huh?

I agree with Proud Papa and others wo pointed out that Leslie may have focused on more senior people in her survey.

Here's my example: I have only about 5 years of "professional" office experience under my belt, but I am certainly at the right age for kids (28). If I decided to take off a few years to raise kids this year, I would have to re-enter the job force at pretty much entry level. That means a job that pays between 30 and 40K. The we'd have to factor in the cost of day care, the increased gas and clothing costs, etc. Some people might not think that income is worth it. So they might look for jobs that pay more, but then they're not deemed qualified for those. And so the cycle continues.

The real story is that your career is NOT doomed if you take a few years off. There is way too much fear and negativity dictating women's decisions, whether to stay at work and to stay at home. The women I talked to were eager to allay people's fears that caring for your children fulltime is no longer a black mark on your resume, as perhaps it once was.

Posted by: Leslie | June 19, 2007 09:24 AM

I agree wholeheartedly, Leslie.
You are in no way doomed after a few years off.
In fact, I have been getting praised for it as of late and it's almost a badge of honor in the preschool parent's world.

I think the key is, as I always tell SAHM friends heading back to work, is to not hide it.
I learned more about myself and the world in those 3 years at home than I ever had. A lot of it was personal growth and seeing the world in a whole different perspective- which I believe makes me a better employee as well now. It's almost like traveling abroad for a year or a semester in college/right after college. You just learn about life in a non-traditional way.
And that's what I told prospective employers about my time "off". And they loved it. I didn't try to hide being a mom- they could have all of me, or none of me, and I received a lot of great offers.

I think women are so scared to admit they are a mom, some back themselves into a corner of guilt and then get angry about it.

No, it's not my way or the highway- I just believe the author needs to step back and look at ALL of her choices. That included having 4 kids- which is very expensive. She can have as many kids as she wants, but is she suprised that she doesn't have a lot of money? Just something to think about when considering family size.
Where I live, daycare costs alone would be more than 4K/month for 4 kids. That's more than most people would make in a month.

"Eventually worked out more or less ok for me, I took a federal job two grades below what I should I have been entitled to and then worked my *ss off and eventually reached a decent pay grade, but never really liked or felt respected at my job, and can't wait until I can take early retirement next year."

What are you entitled to after staying home for 12 years with kids? Really, I would like to know? Do you just expect the other people who were working the last 12 years to welcome you and give you the same level of job they have? Be realistic, please.

"You are in no way doomed after a few years off.
In fact, I have been getting praised for it as of late and it's almost a badge of honor in the preschool parent's world."

Oooh! A badge of honor in the parent's preschool world! Just what I've always wanted!

I'm lurking and I'm wondering why someone doesn't start an employment agency/temp agency that is just focused on helping stay-at-home-moms re-enter the workforce?

"My thought, also, is that companies want you to need them and not be able to quit on a whim - and staying out of the workforce tells them you could take or leave their job."

Well, it seems to me that career employees are a thing of the past and workers change jobs and companies many times over the course of their careers.

I think that part of the problem is that people expect to walk in where they left off. I think it is reasonable to come in at a lower level, even entry level and work your way back up. A senior attorney returned as a mid-level - the horror !!! most people in this country will never reach the level of a midlevel attorney.

My advice for balance - Offer to start at a lower level and be allowed 6 months to one year to prove yourself at which time you will be elevated to a level comparable to anyone with your total years of experience. The employer then has a chance to see if your time off has hurt your performance or not. Get it in writing. Of course, not everyone can afford this, but maybe you could do it on a parttime basis while you are doing something else.

Just thought I'd offer a suggestion and not just an opinion.

I didn't really get a lot of resistance when I send my resume - employers seem to understand a time gap (and we have a small business that I wrote on my resume I run).

In fact, one of the questions was: where do you see yourself in five years (I HATE that!) - and I said something like: able to juggle my life and hope that it all works - i.e., kids, going back to work, home, etc. The questioner seemed to like the answer (and ended up hiring me).

Forget whose show I heard it on over the weekend ... definitely on NPR, though ... but it was an interesting observation. Used to be that women who worked "at home" were "housewives." Now they are "stay at home moms." Not sure when this change in nomenclature took place, but it would seem to reflect a change in the nature of American relationships: whereas the couple was once the mainstay of the American family, now it's the children. Personally, I'm not a fan of either designation. Both strip the woman (or the man in the case of stay at home dads) of her own identity. Where's Betty Friedan when we need her?!?

I guess my question is why is she raising four kids alone. Even if she and Pappa divorced, he should be paying child support, spending time with his children, etc. Sounds like she is suffering from an ex-husband who got divorced from his family, not just his wife.

One presumes the choice to have those four kids was both of theirs, he should be taking responsibility even if the marriage is over.

And four kids on one salary would be rough on anyone - even someone who stayed in the workforce, so it is not surprising she is having trouble making ends meet after having been out of the workforce for a while.

Robin L.

The term "decent husband" or "good husband" as appeared in 27 posts on this blog.

whereas;

The term "decent wife" or "good wife" has only appeared 9.

The terms "bad husband" and "bad wife" equally weigh in at 8 apiece.

Jane,

Check out momcorps.com

I know there are others out there...

Interpretation?

If you want to spell it that way, sure!

Posted by: anon for today | June 19, 2007 09:09 AM

Yea, why would anyone want to spell a word the right way, except as another lifestyle choice? Give every kid a 100% on his spelling test whether he gets the words right or wrong, because we don't want to trample all over his fragile self-esteem.

"Eventually worked out more or less ok for me, I took a federal job two grades below what I should I have been entitled to and then worked my *ss off and eventually reached a decent pay grade, but never really liked or felt respected at my job, and can't wait until I can take early retirement next year."

I have a federal job and have been in federal service for over 25 years. Many people come to federal service and progress to higher levels. Many people don't progress, and not everyone reaches the same level even if they do progress. There are many factors in progression such as, experience, ability, education, budget for the department, politics, who you know, etc.

BTW, many people are eligible for federal jobs at various grades, but no one is entitled to any position. Maybe you should view yourself through someone else's eyes.

Yea, why would anyone want to spell a word the right way, except as another lifestyle choice? Give every kid a 100% on his spelling test whether he gets the words right or wrong, because we don't want to trample all over his fragile self-esteem.

Do you ever shut up?

Interpretation?

If you want to spell it that way, sure!

Posted by: anon for today | June 19, 2007 09:09 AM

Yea, why would anyone want to spell a word the right way, except as another lifestyle choice
==================================================

I did enjoy yanking your chain! (not that their is anything wrong with another lifestyle!)

Q. Why would anyone want care how other people spell words on a blog?

A. Low self esteem

Good points re the father. What about a helping hand (emotionally, if not financially) from the mom's own family? Don't those kids have grandparents, aunts & uncles, cousins?

I actually care that words are spelled correctly in all of my correspondence, formal and informal. I actually care that my grammar is correct. But once in a while, my fingers go too fast or I don't spell check. Once in a while I enjoy yanking someone's chain also!

Correct spelling DOES make a difference. If your work-related writing is filled with spelling errors, your views aren't taken as seriously in the workplace, and you're going to be considered a less-valuable employee. Very few professions don't involved extensive communications, and one easy way to help yourself is to spell correcly.

Correct spelling DOES make a difference. If your work-related writing is filled with spelling errors, your views aren't taken as seriously in the workplace, and you're going to be considered a less-valuable employee. Very few professions don't involved extensive communications, and one easy way to help yourself is to spell correctly.

Ok, so how is it we can all have a (surprisingly) nice conversation about this entry, yet people were jumping all over each other when discussing the 'Feminine Mistake' book? Aren't the ideals and consequences of both really about the same?

correcly: my typo!

"Correct spelling DOES make a difference"

when you are presenting yourself as an educated person. You lose credibility if you can't spell (or are too lazy to check your spelling).

"Good points re the father. What about a helping hand (emotionally, if not financially) from the mom's own family? Don't those kids have grandparents, aunts & uncles, cousins?"

How is it her family's responsibility to take care of her kids? My sister has four children, and I don't have any yet, and every time she is in a bind, her four kids' needs are suddenly my responsibility. Four kids are expensive. People should consider before they have that many. I love them all, but I work hard and shouldn't have to support them, too.

How is it her family's responsibility to take care of her kids? My sister has four children, and I don't have any yet, and every time she is in a bind, her four kids' needs are suddenly my responsibility.

Um, family love? You are a hateful and bitter person.

"Correct spelling DOES make a difference"

when you are presenting yourself as an educated person. You lose credibility if you can't spell (or are too lazy to check your spelling).

Yes, I agree, but this is a blog and you people really need to unclench.

"Good points re the father. What about a helping hand (emotionally, if not financially) from the mom's own family? Don't those kids have grandparents, aunts & uncles, cousins?"

How is it her family's responsibility to take care of her kids?"

I agree - as a single parent I regard it as my responsibility to provide a home for my DD. I do expect my ex to provide his share, but any help I get from my parents, sister etc. is what they want to offer as gifts whether this is money or time.

As for the emotional support, that is not the struggle the writer is talking about and in that category the more support family AND friends can provide the better.

"Yes, I agree, but this is a blog and you people really need to unclench."

You mean people need to lower standards 'cause it's a blog?

Linda, I'm sorry you've had such a rough time of it over the last eight years. I imagine you're experiencing some backlash from being at home and also some ageism, as Leslis mentioned. Getting divorced with four kids is my nightmare situation by the way, so you have my sympathy. Whoever was criticizing you for having four kids, grow up! Nobody has four kids expecting to get divorced. You can't trash people for being optimistic about their marriages, their careers, their lives, etc, that's just really screwed up.
I didn't get enough particulars about your situation to give you much advice, maybe try looking for a job that will allow you to advance, and try to cut back so you can cut out the part time jobs (can you move to a cheaper neighborhood? I always feel wealthy in the public library or the local thrift store). Four kids and three jobs is enough to make anybody feel really, really tired and negative, maybe if you were stretched a little less thin you might be veiwed as more promotable.

Jane and others:

There are more and more high-end "temp" and recruiting agencies that help moms and others find work (FT or project work) after absences:

MomCorps has a Chicago office now, in addition to DC and Atlanta.

In DC, McKinley Marketing is good.

In LA, United Business Group.

In SF, Flexperience Staffing.

All are cited in my More Magazine article. If anyone needs the contact info, send me an email.

You mean people need to lower standards 'cause it's a blog?

Yes, and it should be:

You mean people need to lower their standards 'cause it's a blog?

Can Linda's older kids get part-time jobs to help cover some of their discretionary expenses? They must be in high school by now.

"You mean people need to lower their standards 'cause it's a blog?"

Cunsider it dunne.

Cunsider it dunne.

Awesome!

"when you are presenting yourself as an educated person. You lose credibility if you can't spell (or are too lazy to check your spelling).

Yes, I agree, but this is a blog and you people really need to unclench."

My mother always said that your true character is the way you behave when no one is watching. Can this be applied to spelling?

Everyone makes mistakes and typos, but I think it matters that you try to get it right. Would you teach your children that it is ok to spell incorrectly when playing because "it's only playing?"

Obviously, the Washpo needs to include a spell check and grammar feature in the "post a comment" mechanism. (Still some people would not no how to use it!)

Translation: I can't find a job that lets me work part time, from home, and pays $150,000 per year.

What makes you think that if you were equipped with a penis it would be any easier? The job you seek does not exist.

"Can Linda's older kids get part-time jobs to help cover some of their discretionary expenses? They must be in high school by now."

This could help, but it's not always possible. I have teens who would love to work because they don't like the level at which they are being indulged by parents. Unfortunately, there is nothing that is walking distance, the available jobs that are biking distance would require biking on major highways (illegal), and public transportation is non-existent. Taxis would cost more than they could make.

In our case, it's either not possible or not worth the effort of the parents to rearrange our schedules just so we can take them to work. My children will get jobs when they are able to borrow our car to get themselves to work. I imagine the author has limited time to get her children to their jobs and limited resources to buy them a car of their own.

"Um, family love? You are a hateful and bitter person."

I'm not hateful and bitter at all. I love her and the kids, and I offer her all kinds of emotional support, and try to offer financial support if I can, but I shouldn't have to bankrupt myself to take care of her kids.

Obviously, the Washpo needs to include a spell check and grammar feature in the "post a comment" mechanism. (Still some people would not no how to use it!)

Posted by: anon for today | June 19, 2007 10:33 AM

Know kidding!

"Translation: I can't find a job that lets me work part time, from home, and pays $150,000 per year"

And let's me continue my martyr act for popping out 4 kids!

(Still some people would not no how to use it!)

HA HA HA HA HA!!!! I really hope that was intentional....

It was very intentional! I no better! Or is it I know better?

(Just a no-ing example of what can pass a grammar check!)

Megan, you mean intenshunul write?

Correct spelling DOES make a difference. If your work-related writing is filled with spelling errors, your views aren't taken as seriously in the workplace, and you're going to be considered a less-valuable employee. Very few professions don't involved extensive communications, and one easy way to help yourself is to spell correctly.

Posted by: speller | June 19, 2007 10:03 AM

Itz a blog peeple --

"It was very intentional! I no better! Or is it I know better?"

Depend's on there point of view...

The original poster didn't discuss this, but it seems from the comments that at least some of the people who are having trouble finding work expected to re-enter the workforce exactly where they left off. It seems to me like that could be a huge obstacle to finding a "good" job.

Of course, I haven't yet started looking to return to work, so I may be totally off-base here. But I do expect that I will have to take a step or two down when I do return to work, especially if I want to work 9-5 hours, rather than the 8:30-7 I worked before I had my daughter.

Posted by: NewSAHM | June 19, 2007 08:05 AM

Fine in theory. In practice, employers don't like to hire someone they think will be bored in a position, regardless of whether you promise in blood that you'll be happy to start there. The bottom line is it's naive to think that you will have the opportunity to take a few steps back to account for the rustiness of your skillset.

LOL, KLB.

Thanks for the guffaw, anon for today!

Ditto a lot of responders on why I always worked; even after children. So, I could support myself no matter what. This was based on being raised dirt poor in a two parent household; I was not going to live that way as an adult.

Ironically; my "career" came up as an issue at the end of the 20 year marriage in that he felt I worried more about my job than him. Never mind that my "career" let my now-ex carry a much less stressful position where HE got to spend more time with the kids (I would have traded his position in a heartbeat) and lots more relaxation time than I ever had. How funny he managed to find a "sugar mama" where the money flow coming in is even more than with me and he can continue his "less stressful" job and relaxing lifestyle that I supported him thru college to achieve.

Thankfully I have my job and can support myself after a 20 year marriage and divorce. I thank God EVERY DAY for being in that position. My employer is wonderful and I thank God everyday for that as well.

Re the comment from Small Families posted at 09:23... another marriage issue is my now-ex wanted a third child; and I held steadfast at two. He divorced me and married a younger woman (who is also a sugar mama) and he now has that third child. I was punished for being responsible and keeping my family the size that seemed reasonable to manage. I would have had a third child if my husband had gotten a better paying job so I could stay home; but he didn't. It is not fair to make judgements when the whole story is not known.

rumicat: I definitely understand what you are saying, but...

my sister married, then decided to have not one, not two, but THREE children with a man who, before she got engaged, was well aware that he was abusive. It was no secret and she would talk about how she would 'change him' and blahblahblah. He was and is unwilling to think there is anything wrong with him, it's the rest of the world.

So even after all that has happened and how he treats his kids, she is still with him. If, for some crazy reason, she wakes up one day and sees what a menace he is to her and their children, it would still be *her* who married him and decided that he would be a good dad to her kids.

I'm not saying this is what has happened in the case of *this* blog writer, but definitely, people sometimes just want what they want, and don't really want to see what is right in front of them.

C.W.

"It is not fair to make judgements when the whole story is not known."

Do we ever really know someone else's whole story or back story? Are we mind readers?

Exactly June. That is what gets a lot of folks in trouble- Only hearing and believing one side of the story. There is generally three sides to a story; especially involving couples. His side. Her Side. The truth.

You're right; none of us are mind readers or know the whole picture.

"If you had 2 children, you would be doing just fine."

What an extraordinarily, uninformed statement. Maybe she would. Maybe she would not. How would we know? Assumptions make an . . . . , you know how the old adage is completed, don't you, Small Families?

I recommend you not buy any more stocks if you are basing your purchases on advice from the same crystal ball upon which you relied in making the statement above.

Maybe the name of the article should be: "Why do people in bad marriages continue to make babies?"

"If you had 2 children, you would be doing just fine."

Maybe she had one baby and then had triplets.

Regret is a terrible emotion to feel. Our guest blogger doesn't seem to feel too great about her decision to stay home for so long, but I wholeheartedly appreciate her unapologetic, refreshing honesty. A nice counter to the cheesy optimism often shown by guest bloggers ("I have the best job in the world!" "I made up my own company: a sorority for stay-at-home moms! I'm a genius!" etc.).

Your tale serves as cautionary to me. If I have children, I don't plan on staying home any longer than I have to, and your blog re-confirms that decision. Thanks for an honest guest blog. :)

I am afraid I somwewhat agree about having four kids. That must be very difficult as a single mom to juggle. The more kids you have the more expensive it gets. I think the caution here is not staying home, its finding yourself divorced with a lot of kids.

Another distortion or misconception is that women who have taken time off, have to or should take jobs at lower responsibility levels. I didn't find this to be true. In fact, it's kind of a trap; often you are labelled as overqualified and you don't get those jobs, or you do get them and it's hard to move forward.

The better plan is to invest in yourself before beginning the job hunt. Work with someone still in the workforce to update your resume and polish your interviewing skills by conducting mock interviews. If you need to brush up on critical skills, take a class or conduct lots of research so you are up to date. The kiss-of-death for women returning to work is this kind of approach: "I can do anything, just tell me what to do and I will work hard for less money than you have to pay anyone else."

Employers don't want that kind of employee, at any age or stage of life. Figure out what your skills are and how to market yourself. This kind of job search is not that different from a post college or post grad school search. It's going to be tough, the competition will be stiff, and you need to really know who to market yourself in order to succeed.

Also, you need to be willing to return to full-time work. Part time work, or flexible hours, are still the Holy Grail, even for people in the workforce. You dramatically limit your options if you are only looking for this kind of position.

I think the caution here is not staying home, its finding yourself divorced with a lot of kids.

Posted by: pATRICK | June 19, 2007 11:11 AM

Do you mean that she shouldn't have had such a large family?

"Looking back at my career path, I believe I should never have quit my job long ago to stay home with my kids. My children and I pay for that choice on a daily basis."

Recognizing that her career and current lifestyle has been affected by her decision to stay home is not the same thing as regretting her choice to be with the children.

My mother always said that your true character is the way you behave when no one is watching. Can this be applied to spelling?

Yes, like your true character? You are an annoying, nasty person who continually picks at other people's flaws on an anonymous blog. Your mother should be proud. No one is saying that spelling isn't important, but please get over your self and leave people alone. Are you like this in real life too? To answer your question, most people don't care how their kids "spell" when they are playing because most kids aren't raised by a crazy, grammar and spelling czar who thinks "spelling" is playing. What a bad analogy.

"I think the caution here is not staying home, its finding yourself divorced with a lot of kids.

Posted by: pATRICK | June 19, 2007 11:11 AM

Do you mean that she shouldn't have had such a large family?"

That's hard to determine. I think that large families can be very difficult to support and manage for a single mom

"No one is saying that spelling isn't important, but please get over your self and leave people alone. "

But note how scarry's spelling has improved over time...

Correction has worked in her case.

OT to scarry and others who indicated that eating cheap can't be healthy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502222.html?hpid=smartliving

(I'm not picking on you, scarry, you were just arguing the other day that it can't be done. Of course, others might have said the same thing, I just remember you!)

Leslie,

When you say "Another distortion or misconception is that women who have taken time off, have to or should take jobs at lower responsibility levels," does this mean that people should not have to take jobs at lower pay also? Are you saying that a person can reenter the workforce at the same level as when they exited, or where they would have been had they not taken time off?

What about the person that finds themselves in a divorce and needs a job immediately?

I agree that updating skills is great, I am just not sure its realistic -- I hope so though.

However, I work and make as much as my husband and can easily support myself and two kids (pretty much at the same lifestyle (because we live well below our means) so hopefully I will never have to directly deal with this issue, but I know others that do

"My mother always said that your true character is the way you behave when no one is watching. Can this be applied to spelling?

Yes, like your true character? You are an annoying, nasty person who continually picks at other people's flaws on an anonymous blog"

LOL - that was my first post of the day, so you must be confusing me with another 'annoying, nasty person who continually picks...'.

"The kiss-of-death for women returning to work is this kind of approach: "I can do anything, just tell me what to do and I will work hard for less money than you have to pay anyone else."

Leslie, the kiss-of-death for a career maybe, but parents should be willing to do anything (legal) to take care of their families, including accepting less money for hard work in order to feed their families.

I see this from the other side. I work and my wife and I plan to have a baby next year. She would like to stay home with the baby for a while. We can afford this--that's not the problem--but I have also been very open about my concerns for her in case something happens to me. I'm hardly planning to divorce her, but I could die, and life insurance doesn't last forever.

So we talk about how to keep her skills sharp and her work history current as much as possible, so she can reenter the workplace when she needs to. (Eventually, it's going to happen, I'm sure.) The idea of her being stuck starting over does concern me, as it should.

Someone needs to write a guest blog "Balance and Spelling." Death to dangling participles, execution to prepositions without an object, exile for the lack of noun/verb agreement! Indeed, all misspellings are suspect of being lascivious strumpets!

Maybe the author of this guest blog can provide English consultation to all commenters before their comments are posted! A better world awaits those who heed the call of E.B. White

"I am afraid I somwewhat agree about having four kids. That must be very difficult as a single mom to juggle"

Get real! And learn how to spell somewhat!
Your grammar also sucks! At least a billion people would trade places with this chick in a heartbeat!

Wah, wah, wah!

And, Leslie, if/when a company doesn't want to give you a raise if you've been doing above and beyond, because they think they can pay you less - one can always go out and find another position elsewhere. If you have updated your skills, and are now working, and the company that took a chance on you isn't working with you to do what it should - get another job.

Shakespeare wrote "FIRST THING WE DO IS KILL ALL THE LAWYERS', he should have written,"FIRST THING WE DO IS KILL ALL THE SPELLING AND GRAMMAR POLICE".

11:16 AM was my post. Sorry, I hit the button before I signed. I am tired of the grammar talk and the picking at people. If you don't like that they can't spell or accidentally make a typo, don't read their posts.

Also, to anon at 11:21, I make my living by spelling and grammar, so yes, I can spell, write, edit, etc. I just don't get worked up over it on a blog, like some of you do. Most of the time the corrections are aimed at people you don't like, so the sooner you admit that, the better off you will be. There are typos all over this blog, incomplete sentences, and poor word choices, I just have enough class to overlook them and respond to the content.

Altmom that is interesting, I am going to go to that site. I think that sometimes though it is harder for the people who don't qualify for food stamps, but still have a hard time paying for all the necessities they need.

Some women I talked to took a "pay penalty" of 10-30% vs. their prior position. Others earned more -- far more -- when they returned to work. It depends on the field, the job, and luck.

Many of the women who took a salary penalty quickly made up for lost time, regaining their prior salaries within 1-3 years. I think it is okay to take a job at a lower salary or responsibility level, as long as it seems you will have the opportunity to advance fairly quickly.

Employers I talked to reported that SAHMs were very valuable and gotten promoted quickly because they were extremely focused on their jobs and doing well. They didn't care about office politics or who had the biggest office or expense account or other petty things. They just wanted to WORK and their ethic and diligence made them especially valuable employees.

That was me, I did it again.

That was me, I did it again

OK, Britney!:)

"I am tired of the grammar talk and the picking at people. If you don't like that they can't spell or accidentally make a typo, don't read their posts."

"There are typos all over this blog, incomplete sentences, and poor word choices, I just have enough class to overlook them and respond to the content."

So why don't you just overlook the spelling and grammar criticisms?

scarry (I'm assuming it's you at 11:35), I just found it interesting. Of course, they didn't buy any meat, and while *I* don't eat meat, I know it's a staple in most people's lives. However, the point was to eat healthier, anyway, and tofu and grains and beans are healthier than pork and red meat. Just sayin...

That was me, I did it again

OK, Britney!:)

Haha, but at least I have my underwear on.

Damn, who riled your feathers this am, pATRICK? I am glad that I am the sheriff rather than the police.

What are the second and third things to do then?

Leslie,

I was laid off, at almost 9 mos pregnant, from a company where I was making a whole lot of money - who later went bankrupt. I KNEW no one would pay me what I was making - and even now, 2 yrs later, am sure it would be tough to get that salary. That's fine - I make quite a good living anyway.

The reality is the market has changed during the years that I was out of work. That's the way it goes, really.

"Damn, who riled your feathers this am, pATRICK? I am glad that I am the sheriff rather than the police.

What are the second and third things to do then?"

I will tell you then, grammar and spelling posts are inane and lame. SURELY you have something better to post about than a dangling participle. I find those posts petty and boring.

Atlanta Mom -- I'm confused by what you mean about the market changing. It sounds like your experience -- and the company you worked for -- were unique. Individual stories are compelling and interesting, but you can't just take one data point and assume that that is everyone's experience or the market's overall trend.

"At least a billion people would trade places with this chick in a heartbeat!"

Peasant.

p.s. I doubt that, given a year in which to conduct a search, and whether in a heartbeat or given some time to consider the choice, you could find even 10 women who would trade places with a single mom of 4 children - no matter how lovely, bright, and compliant - struggling to make ends meet.

"p.s. I doubt that, given a year in which to conduct a search, and whether in a heartbeat or given some time to consider the choice, you could find even 10 women who would trade places with a single mom of 4 children - no matter how lovely, bright, and compliant - struggling to make ends meet. "

Nicely and elegantly done, MN.

Grammar Sherrif you are not rude with your posts. The anons are rude and only pick on a few people that they don't like.I say we ignore them. If they really cared so much they would be pointing out everyones typos and not just people they don't like.

"If they really cared so much they would be pointing out everyones typos and not just people they don't like."

It's hard to resist correcting the errors of the windbags...

"Shakespeare wrote "FIRST THING WE DO IS KILL ALL THE LAWYERS', he should have written,"FIRST THING WE DO IS KILL ALL THE SPELLING AND GRAMMAR POLICE"."

Hey, pATRICK, we agree on this one!! And I'm one who gets very irritated by spelling and grammar errors in work materials, books, newspapers, etc. But here?

I'll happily take the errors and the casual atmosphere and skip all the indignant corrections!

"She would like to stay home with the baby for a while."

She wants a big, fat vacation, brought to her by the sweat of your brow.

pATRICK,

I rarely post. I may comment in egregious cases. Maybe my satire was lost to you in my 11:28 post? Oh, well, at least I don't yell about it!

P.S. to pATRICK

Please don't call me Shirley!

pATRICK,

"I rarely post. I may comment in egregious cases. Maybe my satire was lost to you in my 11:28 post? Oh, well, at least I don't yell about it!"

I was actually not directing that at you personally but all the little anklebiters that are overruning this blog with spelling and grammar posts.

Small Families: I found your posting somewhat naive and presumptuous. There's nothing inherently wrong with having four kids. Yes, it's generally harder raising four than one or two (and it's always more expensive), but some people have it harder with one than DW and I do with four.

A few things in particular:

"If you had 2 children, you would be doing just fine."

As has been pointed out, you don't know that, and given the situation I suspect she wouldn't be a whole lot better off than she is now. Maybe just a full-time job and ONE part-time job; maybe not.

"I'd find it difficult to raise four children, without hanging by a thread, even in a 2 income married household."

We don't. Fine, you're different, but don't generalize your experience onto all of us.

"We are a dual income 1 child family and we are not rolling in all of this extra money! Between retirement and college and daycare, housing, gas, etc..."

You're right, living is expensive particularly in the DC area, and you have to work hard to manage it properly. But it can be done.

"Don't you feel irresponsible for having so many kids knowing full well that one day you may need to be the breadwinner?"

Don't you feel irresponsible for having one kid knowing full well that one day you may need to be the breadwinner? Seriously, this comment is offensive and shows a real lack of understanding of the situation. Yes, one day DW or I may be a single parent for one reason or another; we hope it doesn't happen but if it does we're prepared.

"I'm sure people will jump all over me for this- but, really, what is the author looking for? How are you supposed to get paid well AND work fewer hours so that you can be there to raise 4 kids? What about sick days and school holidays and vacation days?"

You don't have to work "fewer hours", you have to have flexibility. Vacation days and school holidays are generally the same with four children as with one, if they're all in the same school system. That leaves sick days from your list. If you have a flexible job - NOT fewer hours, but more workplace flexibility - those can be dealt with. Okay, if your job is totally inflexible (set hours, at a specific location, etc.) it can be harder to deal with having different kids sick at different times, but it's manageable.

"She really should have planned for this. You can't "have it all", contrary to what many believe. Something has to go- and, in this case- you CHOSE to have A LOT of kids. Now you have to deal with that."

She should have planned for a divorce with her husband completely abandoning her? If she had planned for that she shouldn't have married the so-and-so in the first place. Yes, you should have life and disability insurance in case of a death or long-term disability; yes, each partner in a marriage should know what the finances are; and yes in a divorce both parents should know that KIDS have to come first and the finances need to be structured for that.

"No sympathy here."

Nope, none at all.

"P.S. to pATRICK

Please don't call me Shirley!"

Ever been to a turkish prison?;)

"I was actually not directing that at you personally but all the little anklebiters that are overruning this blog with spelling and grammar posts."

Since the first week of this blog! What else is new? This is the Net!

To Leslie -- you did the study so I believe you, but I have to admit I am skeptical. I just hope its true.

Thanks for getting back to me

Wow. This instantly made me think of a friend of ours. They have two kids. Mentally, he's stuck in high school and does not want to take responsibility for their marriage and their kids. She's the sole breadwinner now.

She had a free ride to go to college from her parents. She was one semester short of graduating when she decided that all she wanted to do with her life was get married and become a mom, so she quit school. They got married soon after, because they wanted to have sex. She's a sweet girl, but we have nothing in common.

Just because she wanted kids does not mean she should have denied herself a college degree. Why do women think they need to choose between things like these? I just don't get it.

And when they divorce, and she's left to raise two kids on her own, I bet she'll feel differently about the choice she made before. Granted, one semester is quite doable. But I just can't grasp the concept of "Well, I just want to be a Mom. I don't need to do anything to better myself. Or just do this FOR myself."

"all the little anklebiters that are overruning this blog with spelling and grammar "

overruning ?

Army Brat, kudos to you for your 12:10 analysis.

To the skeptics: why would an employer disregard years of educational and professional accomplishments in a job candidate just because she (or he) had taken a few years off to stay home with children?

Let me know -- because I haven't found many compelling answers.

The only logical answer, to me, is that taking time off might signal to some unenlightened employers that a person was less committed to work than to his/her family.

More and more employers are understanding that this isn't true. Many SAHMs are very committed to work, but chose (for many different reasons) to make their children their exclusive priority for a relatively short period of time.

If a SAHM can convince an employer she wants to return to work, this bias should logically evaporate. More and more employers are shedding this bias -- if they ever had it at all.

"To the skeptics: why would an employer disregard years of educational and professional accomplishments in a job candidate just because she (or he) had taken a few years off to stay home with children?"

Depending on the field, for a very simple reason: their skills get rusty. I'm having some trouble with that even as I keep working, because I am expanding my skillset. Doing that is good in one way (I know how to do more things) but bad in that I am not as sharp on some things as I was when I did them every day. And that's working full time. Were I not working, I wouldn't be developing the second set and the first would still be rusty.

It is possible to sell yourself as a person who can learn very quickly--I have--but to make that work you have to walk in with something that the employer needs NOW that is ready to go.

As you say, even when you are in a job your skills get rusty. But SAHMs often develop or strengthen entirely new skills. However, I think often you have to have been a SAHM to really understand that. Part of the trick, as in any job interview, is to persuade the employer that you can contribute NOW. Which is why the pre-interview prep is so critical, and why it's easier to find a job in the same field, especially for people who've been out of the workplace for a spell.

June 19, 2007 10:51 AM
Okay, three kids with the abusive husband isn't the smartest thing to do. But I would still rather feel sorry for people than give them a hard time. We all have our blind spots after all, I've had some of my own to deal with, just like everybody else. I try not to judge, doesn't really help anybody get past those blind spots from what I can tell, just makes the world an uglier place. Cause and effect have always gone pretty far to get me headed in the right direction. I find that verbal abuse is just obfuscating, people get distracted being annoyed at the messenger and never really listen anyway.

"Why do women think they need to choose between things like these?"

I never understood this either. You can still be a good mom, even if you have an education, a job, autonomy, and your own thing to do every once in awhile, whether it's tatting doilies or climbing rocks. Even if you do want to be a SAHM, you owe it to yourself and your family to be capable of funding their livelihood, should the need ever arise.

I don't really think it is a matter of employers not wanting to hire SAHM, I think it is the case that the employers don't want to give them the pay or the position that some of them may think they are entitled to.

I think this would be the case for someone who took time off for anything. My MIL took time off for two years to care for her mother and she had a hard time getting back into the work force and had to take a job at lower pay and position. I just think that in some fields you can't have it both ways. This can also be the case in areas that may not have a lot of jobs available too, which was part of the problem for her. She has young people coming out of college who basically had the same skills she had who would work for lesser pay and she was competing with people who never took a break from work.

"all the little anklebiters that are overruning this blog with spelling and grammar "

overruning ?"

I knew that some one would post this.

After a dozen years, my marriage is ending. Even though I am a wreck emotionally, I am SO thankful that I never stopped working. I work less hours than my husband and make consisderably more than he does. Thank goodness that, even though our lives are about to go through a lot of upheaval, my children's and my standard of living will not change one bit. Eveyone thinks their marriage will last. Don't bet your financial security on it.

"why would an employer disregard years of educational and professional accomplishments in a job candidate just because she (or he) had taken a few years off to stay home with children?

Let me know -- because I haven't found many compelling answers.

The only logical answer, to me, is that taking time off might signal to some unenlightened employers that a person was less committed to work than to his/her family."

Why do you label this conclusion unenlightened? It strikes me as reasonable.

I'm here to get a job done, and in a no-excuses environment. My clients are not interested in hearing why we didn't get them what they needed when they needed it. They have plenty of choices of other businesses to hire if we don't respect them enough to deliver on time, as promised. I am not going to risk those client relationships by hiring anyone who is later going to miss a deadline because a child is sick, than have to endure some sanctimonious drivel about how, if she has to choose between her kids and her job, her kids will always come first. She can lecture some other employer on his dime, not mine. If I have a choice between someone whose career choices indicate that she will respect our clients' business needs, and someone else whose career choices indicate that she will deliver the above lecture some time in the future, I'm going with the safer bet. If you don't think that's compelling, I wonder if you've ever had clients. What you call unenlightened, I call rational acting.

Why doesn't Linda just find a new husband? There's tons of single men out there.

overrun
One entry found for overrun.

Main Entry: 1over·run
Pronunciation: -'r&n
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): over·ran /-'ran/; -run; -run·ning
1 a (1) : to defeat decisively and occupy the positions of (2) : to invade and occupy or ravage b : to spread or swarm over : INFEST
2 a : to run or go beyond or past b : EXCEED c : to readjust (set type) by shifting letters or words from one line into another
3 : to flow over

Looks like he just made it into a gerund .

overrun
One entry found for overrun.

"Main Entry: 1over·run
Pronunciation: -'r&n
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): over·ran /-'ran/; -run; -run·ning
1 a (1) : to defeat decisively and occupy the positions of (2) : to invade and occupy or ravage b : to spread or swarm over : INFEST
2 a : to run or go beyond or past b : EXCEED c : to readjust (set type) by shifting letters or words from one line into another
3 : to flow over

Looks like he just made it into a gerund . "

Kill me now, please.

Late to the party again, but I must chime in: I see a lot of resumes for a range of positions (technical, administrative, and professional) and it bothers me not one bit if someone's got a gap due to child raising -- although 10 consecutive years out of the workforce might be an issue. It bothers me not at all if someone took a year off and climbed Everest and Kilimanjaro. I couldn't care less if someone took a few years off and kicked back with margaritas in the Virgin Islands, as one secretary I recently interviewed (and subsequently hired on a temp-to-perm basis) had done.

Absolutely, there are positions which require updated skill sets, such as help desk/technical specialists, but many do not. My advice to the Guest Blogger would be to temp in her field for six months or so if possible and then go for a new job, one more suited to what she wants to do.

Got to go grab lunch and head into another meeting! Have a great day, everyone.

Mom who hires, can you give a specific example or two of:

"If I have a choice between someone whose career choices indicate that she will respect our clients' business needs, and someone else whose career choices indicate that she will deliver the above lecture some time in the future, I'm going with the safer bet."

Just curious. Thanks.

"all the little anklebiters"

Schools out for the summer you know.

"As you say, even when you are in a job your skills get rusty. But SAHMs often develop or strengthen entirely new skills. However, I think often you have to have been a SAHM to really understand that."

Well, you asked why an employer would disregard years of experience/accomplishments. If the employer hasn't been a SAHP, then that would be your reason, particularly when weighing them against candidates who have current skills.

Your suggestions--get work in your field to take advantage of what you already know, or use the new skills--are contradictory. Let's say that you're a network engineer. After 3 years, you no longer remember how to configure a router, and have never touched the current router types. (You could buy simulation tools, granted, but that's not the same thing as configuring a live one or fixing it when something goes wrong and the client is breathing down your neck.) So then you go into a new field using the new skills you developed... but you have no experience there, so you're starting at the bottom.

Some skills rust more easily than others because they are about a specific body of knowledge, not a general ability.

"If I have a choice between someone whose career choices indicate that she will respect our clients' business needs, and someone else whose career choices indicate that she will deliver the above lecture some time in the future, I'm going with the safer bet"

Same here. There are hundreds of more than qualified applicants for our positions. We toss the ones from the potential trouble makers.

"You can still be a good mom, even if you have an education, a job, autonomy, and your own thing to do every once in awhile, whether it's tatting doilies or climbing rocks."

Mental image of Mona tatting doilies: priceless. :-)

Leslie,
When I was laid off, yes, there were other companies in that industry laying off as well. I definitely had headhunters calling me right away, because of my skillset, but I wasn't planning on looking for and starting a new job at 9 mos pregnant. And, those jobs were not in the city I was living in at the time - so no, even if I had pursued those positions (and I wasn't even able to interview for them, EVEN IF I WANTED TO, because dr's say you can't fly after 30 weeks), I'm not sure the pay would have been compatible.

Then there was a sort of recession - and definitely that field took a hit - I know people who had been laid off and they couldn't find ANY job for a year or so afterwards - that's what i mean by the market changed. I.e., there were SO MANY people looking for work, it didn't matter if you are in or out of the workforce for years, if there is a lot of competition and no jobs - then you *should* be willing to take a pay cut.

Certainly, the job market *today* is not that way (labor shortage in most places), but I was referring to that particular time - and the particular industry I was in at the time, which, actually, at this moment, is resurging.

I have to say that I am an editor and I've never corrected people's grammar or spelling on this blog (well, maybe once). I edit 8 hours 5 days a week--I consider this my break. Also, almost every spelling error on the blog is actually a typo. I'm sure the people who point these out have a reason; I'm just not sure what that reason could be.

Back on topic, have any mothers considered lying in an interview about the lapse in their resumes? I might be tempted to say that I started my own business or bought a franchise or something and decided to re-enter the workforce because health insurance was too expensive or something. How would they know the difference?

to mom who hires: does that mean someone who has taken a few years off to take care of his/her kids isn't dedicated, in your opinion? or wouldn't meet a deadline? You're making an awful lot of assumptions.

A year or so ago (maybe not that long) I was reading one of the discussions with one of the WaPo reporters. Someone wrote in saying he had spent a year or two playing poker and making a living off it (he implied he made a lot of money at it, but who knows). Apparently traveling to the tournaments, etc and he was saying he was having a difficult time getting back into the workforce.

I thought: hmmm - those employers are clearly not very bright. His math skills are obviously very good, if he's making money at it, he's pretty bright. This from someone who took an upper level math class in game theory. It was very interesting that apparently many employers looked at it as if he was just playing around - but he indicated in his question that he was *making money* at it, so he wasn't just playing around, he was *working* - which meant he, again, had to have some great math skills. Possibly, he wasn't applying to positions that were good for his skillset -

but it's a similar application to the fact that my mom used to play bridge (grand master) and I flipped thru one of her bridge mags once (never learned to play myself) and in it were ads for jobs on wall street - cause the skills needed to play bridge are similar to other skills needed for those jobs (assuming you had some other education as well). I found that very interesting.

To the skeptics: why would an employer disregard years of educational and professional accomplishments in a job candidate just because she (or he) had taken a few years off to stay home with children?

Let me know -- because I haven't found many compelling answers.

The only logical answer, to me, is that taking time off might signal to some unenlightened employers that a person was less committed to work than to his/her family.

Posted by: Leslie | June 19, 2007 12:34 PM

So the "only" logical answer is the employers are unenlightened? I can think of many others.

Another logical answer is that the former SAHM is competing with people often of with the same experience and skills, without the multi-year gap in employment. Who would you rather hire; the woman who has been working jobs similar to the one you are hiring for and who would look at this as a career progression or a woman, with the same education and qualifications, who worked 10 years ago at something similar.

The second woman was also willing to forgo employment altogether for a decade, while in the ideal world, this shouldn't matter, it does. It is a neutral mark against the positive mark of the person with a continous employment history.

There are millions of people out there with experience and accomlishments that don't take time off. This is the competition, and by taking time off, you have given them a head start.

Meesh -- anymore, so many companies/firms do background checks (including criminal and financial), so it would be a simple enough matter to determine if someone is lying about having their own company, unless of course you're going to claim that you started a company and never got a cent of business, which is probably not the most intelligent way of building yourself up in an interview.

Meesh

"Back on topic, have any mothers considered lying in an interview about the lapse in their resumes?"

NO! I don't hire or retain liars!

Lying on a resume/interview can be grounds for dismissal.

First, for the love of GOD, please moderate this blog. The spelling and grammar sniping have gotten out of hand.

Second, to answer Leslie's question - Employers often have at least two or three and sometimes more applicants who are more or less equally qualified to choose from. Selecting an employee is not a mathmatical equation - it's a complex decision made when a lot of important factors are essentially unknown and unknowable. How will this person fit in? Will she be dedicated to the job? Will she leave in a few months after sucking up valuable training resources? Right or wro