Hitting the "Mommy Wall"

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Hitting the "Mommy Wall"
1585
Mon, 10-24-2005 - 11:19am

I am surprised that this actually comes as a surprise to women trying to re-enter the workforce after taking time off to SAH. *Anyone* taking a not-so-brief hiatus from their career should expect the same treatment IMO . . . you're not going to be able to pick up right where you left off.

BTW - "hi" everyone! I've missed it here! :)

Women raise kids, lose careers

By TENISHA MERCER
THE DETROIT NEWS

Veronica Golubovic spent more than 20 years on the runways of Paris, Italy and New York as a designer for some of the most powerful names in fashion -- Yves Saint Laurent, Donna Karan and Perry Ellis.

But it was a three-year gap on her resume -- the hiatus she took after the births of her two children -- that garnered the most attention from prospective employers four years ago when Golubovic tried to resume her career.

She hasn't forgotten one recruiter's look of discomfort when she explained she was a stay-at-home mom. Or the way a top official at a retailer dismissed her during an interview with, "Oh, so now you don't know if you want to be a stay-at-home mommy."

"I came here thinking I've done so much, but it was very difficult," said Golubovic, 45, who eventually opened a designer clothing store in Birmingham, Mich., earlier this year. "I didn't think people would be hung up on it, but it was shocking and surprising. I couldn't believe their reactions."

Thirty years after women began joining the work force in large numbers, many are hitting the "mommy wall" when they try to return to work after having children.

They find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to return to the same positions they left, according to a recent study by the Forte Foundation in New York and the Wharton Center for Leadership and Change at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

Unprepared for the obstacles they face on their return, many opt out of traditional corporate jobs and move to smaller companies. Experts dub the trend the "female brain drain" and say the exodus is coming just as businesses need talented, experienced workers to fill the gap as baby boomers prepare to retire en masse, leaving the biggest labor shortage in history in their wake.

"This is a defining issue for women," said Monica McGrath, an assistant professor at Wharton, who spearheaded the study. "Women who leave as vice presidents are not coming back as vice presidents. Now is not the time for corporations to squander billions of dollars in talent and enthusiasm at their fingertips. This is a talent pool that organizations need. We have a voice at the table, and I would hate to see us lose that."

The study found that half of working mothers who returned to work felt discouraged by their employer. Eighty-three percent ended up accepting a comparable or lower-level position, while 61 percent changed industries. About 45 percent of the women surveyed started their own businesses, and 59 percent went to work at smaller companies. The study is based on interviews with 200 women, most of them with MBA degrees.

The results add more fuel to the debate about whether and how women can blend careers and family. Even as women are graduating from law, business and medical schools at almost the same rates as men, they find their careers shifting in very different directions from their male colleagues once they have children.

"They want to spend time with their children, and it can be very time-consuming," said New York-based Cindy Swensen, who coaches executive women on how to return to work after having children. "Volunteering at the bake sale is probably not going to help you re-enter the work force."

It's a strange phenomenon for a generation of women who were raised to break down barriers while "having it all" -- even if that meant delaying or postponing plans to have children to focus on their careers.

"We hear very few stories of people just stepping back in where they left off," said Joanne Brundage, executive director of Mothers & More, a Chicago-area support group for working women who postpone their careers to have children.

"Clearly, there is a price to be paid for not staying full-time, full-force in most professions," Brundage said. "I think women who are becoming mothers now have a different set of priorities than women did 15 to 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the message may change, but the environment stays the same."

It's a message Cynthia Aks wasn't prepared for. The first female surgeon to graduate from the residency program at Oakland General Hospital in Madison Heights, Mich., in 1990, Aks battled her share of discrimination from colleagues who didn't care to work with women surgeons, she said.

But after Aks, an emergency room surgeon, decided to have a family in her late 30s, she found it tough to regain the solid career footing she had before her triplets were born nearly 13 years ago. Forced to take seven months off for pregnancy complications, her contract was not renewed, she said, because the hospital didn't know how to deal with a female surgeon with children.

Aks resumed her career as a specialty surgeon, but at a huge cost: Her salary plummeted 60 percent.

"The perception is that you cannot juggle multiple hats effectively," said Aks, 49, who now owns a medical practice in Southgate, Mich. "I believe it's challenging, but you can. You can have high aspirations, be successful, have a family and still be involved. It's not equal for women, and I don't think it ever will be."

Southfield, Mich.-based accounting firm Plante & Moran offers tailored work arrangements such as seasonal work, telecommuting and contract employment to retain working mothers. The firm offers the options to management only.

"We want to accommodate people and their schedules," said Bill Bufe, partner and human resources director at the accounting firm. "We've had people who wanted to leave, but we wouldn't let them. We made things much more flexible for them and allowed them to continue to keep their toe in the water here and do what they needed to do in their family."

CHANGING FOCUS WHAT WOMEN CAN DO

WHAT WOMEN CAN DO

Tips for preparing to return to work:

Create a "re-entry" plan with specific goals

Foster a network for support while away from the work force

Volunteer while away and make sure that experience can be framed in business terms when you want to go back to work

Stay connected to colleagues

Maintain professional licenses and memberships and attend continuing education courses

Take classes to refresh knowledge and skills

Stay informed about the business implications of global and economic changes in your field

Secure contract work while away

Be realistic about how long it will take to re-enter the work force

Sources: Wharton Center for Leadership and Change, the Forte Foundation

CHANGING FOCUS

A survey of women returning to work after raising families found many shifted professional roles:

Accepted comparable or lower-level job: 83 percent

Changed industries: 61 percent

Changed functional role: 54 percent

Became self-employed: 45 percent

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 2:46pm

"As I said in an earlier post, I do not think - at it's core - feminism is about choices. I think feminism is about access."

I would have to disagree here, as I think feminism is ultimately about gender *equality* specifically with regard to social, political, and economic equality, which also very much includes the *equality* of various types of *choices*, IMO. But of course, there are many, many views as well as misconceptions surrounding the meaning of feminism, in that it is fairly abstract, conceptually speaking.

For instance, I think a common misconception regarding feminism is that women must/need to WOH in order to be considered *equal* to men, when ideally speaking, men and women are equal regardless of work status. IMHO, the notion that men and women are equal is ultimately an ideal in and of itself. But then again, this is merely my humble opinion on the matter :)

"It's about conitnually expanding and holding open the opportunities that are made available to women and resisting against assumptions that women somehow are less able or less qualified to merit access based on gender."

Hmm, is there any reason why SAH (mothering in and of itself) shouldn't be "conitnually expanding and holding open the opportunities that are made available to women"? Or are you talking strictly about those opportunities that focus purely on WOH (working in and of itself)?

"I personally feel that freedom women gained ***as a result of feminism*** to - in some case choose to SAH or WOH is all fine and good, but it ain't feminism."

WHy not :) You don't think that the *equality* of various types of *choices* is an important aspect of feminism? Again, why not :) Surely you aren't suggesting that WOH is/should be considered the *only* choice that affords/gives women equality to men, as clearly this could be perceived as a fairly militant stance, right?

"Feminism is assuring you have the right to self-determination."

Wait a minute. Didn't you just say that the choice to SAH or WOH ain't feminism? Wouldn't having the right to self-determination very much include the right to choose to SAH or WOH? Or are you saying that "Feminism is assuring you have the right to self-determination," so long as you choose to WOH?

"That doesn't mean that feminism equates to an equal support of all the paths a woman COULD choose."

Why not? And if not, shouldn't it? In other words, shouldn't feminism ultimately equate an equal support of *ALL* the paths a woman COULD choose, not just SOME paths? Please elaborate, as I'm really not following your logic here.

<>

"Could this be a more disingenuous question?"

So, your answer would be...? Again, Do you think families should have a variety of options to choose from? Or are you of the opinion that families should ultimately simply choose to have a WOHM? If so, why and based on what? Because that's what you did/you think???

BTW, you know the drill. Another post, blah, blah, blah :)

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 3:11pm

You could not be more WRONG. I am a hair designer that made a very good living 6 years ago when I left to be a SAHM. I am required by law to attend 8 hours a year of training to retain my license. Let me tell you...you either have a good designer or you don't. Practice helps out a bit, but it is either a talent or it isn't. If you would hire a girl that has been doing hair for 6 years over someone like me that had 10 yrs in the business and took 6 years off then you would be really hurting yourself."

No she's not wrong at all. Even in your example...
One of my best friends is a hairdresser. She took 3 years off to SAH with her DD#1. She lost about 70% of her client base. She didnt just pick up the sizzors where she left off.

And more importantly...we arent talking about tradespeople here. We are talking about careers where career progression and demonstrable record are critical to success.

MM

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 3:19pm
by "peanuts" do you mean quite a bit of money- because that would make your post make more sense. Working for peanuts is usually conidered to be working for a pitance.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 3:21pm

<>

"Are they equally important to their families - yes?"

Yes, I agree.

"are they equally important to society - that's harder to ascertain."

How so? Do you mean for you personally? Or do you think you are in the position to answer for society as a whole?

"Again - it's all about context."

Again, it most certainly is :)

"I can imagine a scenario where a SAHP is healthily nurturing children who - were she not at home - would be placed, for financial reasons, in a poor quality day caer setting and maybe a mediocre school. Maybe the kids have learning problems, etc., and a SAHP can spend more time overcoming those. In the end, if the SAHP decision results in a child that is more successful in finding employment/placement in a good way, that SAHP is more valuable to society than if the same parent had worked and the kids turned out to need special care, Government assistance, whatever."

Yes, I can imagine such a scenerio as well.

"At the same time, a WOHP who provides love, trusted care, and financial support to their families, and by the way discovers a new cancer drug, writes an inspiring piece of music, or keeps airplanes from falling out of the sky by being at work is way more valuable to society than if they stayed at home."

Well, I have to say that I was definately imaging such a scenerio up until the part about being at work being "way more valuable to society than if they stayed at home." WHy the slant? Does it have to be an either / or situation? Again, why the slant on one's "value to society" being more important than one's "value to their family"? Aren't *both* valuable? Do you really think so and so's family would put the contribution she made to society above the contribution she made to their family? Hmm, talk about context :)

<>

"Context, context, context...."

Exactly!!! Context, context, context....

"if family finances are not troubling and core things like reduced or eliminated debt, retirement savings, and educational savings for children are addressed, then no, I don't think it is *wrong*."

Nor do I.

"If it is done solely as a personal ego thing (i.e., get a master's degree for the 'sake of learning'),"

Well, "for the sake of learning" is precisely why I personally would go back and get my Master's :)

"it does come across as dramatically self-indulgent."

And you are who and in what postition to make such a judgement again :)

"not wrong (nor is it any of my business),"

Well, you're certainly right about that as clearly it is not wrong nor any of your business :)

"but if it is presented to me for my opinion, I'm not likely to have a lot of respect for it."

And your respect is a prerequisite because...?

"I can't imagine not working - I love what I do"

I can't imagine not SAH - I love what I do too :)

"and I thrive on the political and intellectual interplay of a work environment."

Good for you! Sounds like you really enjoy your work. However, surely you can acknowledge that a wrok environment is hardly the only place in which one might receive/engage in political and intellectual interplay, among other types of stimulation I might add?

"But - accepting that others don't feel the same way - I'd still rank much higher in my respect and regard SAHMs who are volunteering at school or in the community than I would those who are pursuing some sort of flower-child-like "find myself" personal quest."

So how would you rank and regard SAHM's who do/value *both* then? You know, those "who are volunteering at school or in the community," *and* "who are pursuing some sort of flower-child-like "find myself" personal quest"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 3:33pm

<>

"All the time? Are they allowed so many hours of work a year? For example yourself is paid money for a small number of hours a year, is there a threshold? Does that mean they can't have a volunteer job or a work say at writing a book at home?"

The specific context is dependent upon *your* individual perception of that context.

<>

For how many hours? What if they don't work for pay? What if they work only a few hours a year?

Again, the specific context is dependent upon *your* individual perception of that context.

<>

Works, like at writing a book or recording a cd? Where does self-employed quasi workforce (or whatever you call it) comes into play? How many hours? Is it work other than taking care of a child?

Again, the specific context is dependent upon *your* individual perception of that context.

<

"See above."

Likewise, see above.

A WOHD is a dad who works out of the home.

"See above."

Likewise, see above.

A WAHD is a dad who workd at home.

"See above."

Likewise, see above.

With that said, perhaps you would be so kind as to finally answer the questions based on the specific context regarding *your* own individual perception of that context :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 3:40pm

"I have answered all of the questions in numerous different posts. I of course have asked for clarification and/or definitions to some of your very vague questions, but I still hadn't received those yet."

Hmm, seeing as you no longer need clarification and/or definitions from me (as the specific context of the questions that have been posed are entirely dependent upon *your* individual perceptions of that context) perhaps NOW you would be willing to answer the questions? Or are you going to come up with another diversionary tactic?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 3:46pm
Again, seeing as there is clearly no need for any further "clarifications", perhaps NOW you could answer the questions?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 4:22pm

"For example, in my current job (legal writing teacher), it didn't matter that I sah for 6 years. I was still better qualified than many of the people I was competing against, even though they didn't have the resume gap you consider fatal."

But don't you think that if you had been competeing against a person with the *same* qualifictions, the gap in your employment would have been a factor?

IMO, your past experience and qualifications gave you that plus-factor that put you ahead *despite* the gap in your work history. Hiring is not all about the gap, but gaps can certainly be a factor - such as in the order for prefered hiring that wen1001 listed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 4:31pm

What talent an individual will bring will almost always be a big factor. But a talented person with a gap will likely be considered behind a talented person with no gap.

I can see where past demonstration of talent will get you in the door (assuming no other equally talented person with no gap was available), but I am guessing that a person in that position would not be paid as if that past talent/experience were current.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-07-2005 - 4:34pm
I agree with your list. For me, generally speaking, a person with past experience would be almost on the same level of consideration as a new graduate (depending on the length/quality of prior experience). What would make me chose between a person with prior experience + a gap versus a new grad with no experience would be that intangible interview quality and/or personality.

Pages