AIBU to think SAHMs shouldn't put this nonsense on a CV/job application

[windygallows]

In the last year I've recruited for numerous part-time jobs, receiving applications from many women who took time out to be with family and are now returning to work.

Many of the applicants have been straightforward and simply noted on their CV that they have been SAHM - simple.

But increasingly applicants, perhaps based on some guidance from career counsellors or MN, are finding more creative ways to describe their absence from the workforce.

One, we'll call her Mrs Jones, wrote that for 10 years she was employed by the 'Jones family' and that her work involved 'organizing international travel for her family.' Because organizing a holiday is similar to the tasks led by senior executives.

Another wrote a list of every task she did at home from getting groceries to cleaning the house which, while impressive as an exhaustive list, doesn't really mean much when applying to an office-based role. Especially as it's basically a list of everything most employees have to fit in outside of work.

More galling are the claims that women make about the critical role they played - with my favourite being the one who 'Spent 7 years looking after my two children who needed and deserved my attention.'

There is huge value in the work that SAHMs do but please, please don't put this kind of waffle on your CV. You never know if your interview panel will consist of a FT working, single mom like me who finds it pretty insulting that working means her children apparently lost out on 'the attention they needed and deserved.' Urgh.

Turquesa- I think you're preaching to the converted here! We know that it's quality of parenting that counts. We know that spending 168 hours a week 'directly parenting' your children isn't necessarily better than 130.

You have also been very honest that your decision to stay at home was about meeting your need to not let them be looked after by anyone else, not just about their needs. The issue is with the minority of SAHM who claim that they are somehow parenting in a 'superior' way, and try to convince us that there will be better outcomes for their kids than for other peoples because they've sacrificed themselves to being 'CEO of the family, head of domestic operations' etc

This is just bullshit and it's very demeaning to all women, especially if it's presented as some great sacrifice and they feel undervalued blah blah blah, when it's actually what they've chosen to do. They're usually the same ones who, if you respond 'well get your husband to cut down his hours, spend more time with the kids and organising the home and get your own work life back on track if you want recognition in that sphere' - are very quick to tell you all the reasons they can't possibly change the status quo, and that their dh is far too high earning and important to spend any more time in the home

Yes I would probably agree that my decision to be at home was about my needs as well as what I perceive to be important for the DC. I was an ed psych which may have had something to do with it.

I'm afraid I am indeed one of "those women" you describe whose DH is a high-earning workaholic. None of us make choices in a vacuum. It is what it is.

Anyway, I only came on to respond to the claim that women who work full-time do "everything" SAHMs do. To my mind, this kind of statement is as ridiculous as a SAHM claiming that they have acquired marketing skills as a result of going shopping.

turquesa
These threads go round in circles because some people on them refuse to engage with the point of the thread, hear SAHP and jump in with the usual nonsense.

They can feel that SAHP is best for them. Nobody says they shouldn't. But start going around suggesting that they are somehow better, able to give their children more love, meet their needs etc / claim they are so busy doing cleaning, cooking, childcare, book keeping etc that nobody every values them etc will rub people up the wrong way.

Anyway, I only came on to respond to the claim that women who work full-time do "everything" SAHMs do.

Lots of posters have pointed out how they DO do the same things and the question of whether we do them for the same amount of hours is not relevant when we are discussing what skills we have gained. We are really going around in circles and I really don't know how to make it any clearer.

Nothing wrong with partnering a high earning workaholic if it's what suits you both. As I say, it's about recognising that within the boundaries of the choices available to you, each of us makes decisions and then gets on with it - though I would always add the proviso that it's wise to remain as skilled and adaptable as possible because you never know what's around the corner. I inwardly shudder when I hear of role reversal situations (due to redundancy, illness etc) and the high flying husband doesn't know where the kids' clothes are kept or how to use a washing machine, and the wife doesn't have any self confidence or marketable skills.

But ultimately yes it's up to couples to find what works for each of them.

Have you ever met a SAHM in real life who claims that though?
Even if you do meet someone like that, why would you care? Just accept that that is her belief and move on.
I have friends who are hugely high-earners with mega-careers but I never feel "rubbed up the wrong way" when they talk about the "kudos" of their jobs because that is not the path I chose. I just accept that that is a big focus in their lives and why shouldn't they be proud of it?

Also Turquesa - I reject your compulsion argument. I'm a single parent. Whether I wanted to work or spend time with my children was neither here nor there - I had to work to keep a roof over our heads.

It is a position of extreme privilege to have the choice. I don't resent you for it at all - I love working and I think it's best for me and, by extension, for my children. But let's not pretend it's something that all parents are free to decide

Turquesa- no! That's the irony- in real life people just get on with it.
But the point is, a thread like this starts (which is NOT SAHM-bashing, but about a very small minority who are writing awful job applications) and people see 'SAHM' and you suddenly get that vocal minority banging on about how great they are.

If you re-read the thread (I did earlier today) you'll see that probably the first two thirds is various WOHM very patiently giving consistent and good advice about how to explain time out of the work place.

But ultimately yes it's up to couples to find what works for each of them

I don't know if you do find what works for you really, to me its all one big compromise.

Anyway, I only came on to respond to the claim that women who work full-time do "everything" SAHMs do.

We do though. And the reason I think wohms get a bit cross about this is because they see it as a thinly veiled 'you don't care about your kids because you farm them off to childcare.'

Where I live, there are vanishingly few sahps and this isn't an argument people have. It's very unusual to have a parent at home permanently. The usual thing is you spend 12-24 m at home (in a mixture of both parents having time off) and then they go to state childcare. Parents have a right to reduce working hours to 70% until the child starts school at 7 ish. Most parents we know do this, even the ones with quite high flying jobs (not CEO level, but six figures.)

I took a long mat leave and now I work 80% - I honestly don't feel like I was a better parent because I spent longer at home with my kid. And I don't feel like I'm a worse one now because they don't get me that extra 9 hours a day hour days a week. They get the bits that matter, and they get a lot of fun and frolics at kindergarten.

Sahp or wohp - it really doesn't matter. One isn't superior to the other, and I'd never dream of telling someone they were a worse parent than me because they worked longer hours.

The op is about CVs - women need to be taken more seriously when getting back into work and putting 'domestic engineer' on your CV is not how to do it. I have no problem hiring women who've been out of the workforce if they have 'career break to raise family' on a CV but I'd question their judgement if they put al the waffle on. who is advising them to do this? It's dreadful advice.

Also- I agree with jiggly that I'm pretty sure every mother feels that very primal bond with her children, in that a part of you could quite happily never let them more than arms length from you for years and years.... but we don't all respond to that emotion in the same way. Just because we entrust others to care for our precious children, doesn't mean the bond is any less iyswim

Jiggly - of course having choice is a privilege and I did state that in different circumstances I may well have made different choices - and I would still believe that I was doing 100 percent what is best for my DC in those circumstances

If I decided to become a SAHM tomorrow, I would still send my child to nursery a couple of times a week. He loves it, and he gets activities and a level of stimulation and socialising that I simply couldn't provide at home by myself, even with toddler groups and so on.

My mother was a SAHM until we were all in school, and she still sent me to nursery a few mornings a week. I remember it. I bloody loved it.

of course WOHM's dont do everything SAHM's do

a SAHM spends more time with her kids than a WOHM does, that's a no brainer, unless she puts them into nursery all day

that's the difference, if you work you'll spend less time with your kids than someone who is at home with them all day....the other stuff probably gets similar time spent on it. the admin etc.

turquesa - of course we all make choices based on our circumstances.

But my point is that I doubt you felt 'compelled' to spend time with your children any more than many parents do - you just had the luxury of being able to indulge that feeling.

Quite possibly true Jiggly, although I do have friends who knew after a few months that being at home would not be for them.

it isn't always a luxury to stay at home. only on MN with all the high powered husband's earning a packet

most mums at home I knew had no choice, they couldn't afford childcare and they had no family help either

It's all very well partnering up with a high earning workaholic. Until said person disappears into the wide blue yonder taking their earnings with them. And the non working partner is left high and dry wondering how they didn't see it coming and wondering if they did the right thing giving up their career. I've seen it happen too many times in real life and on these threads too.

Totally agree vivienne; or their DH gets made redundant...

I'm not sure that final sentence is judgy? Some women (like me) work because we have to. But judging by the number of shiney new 4x4s at the nursery gates, plenty don't strictly need to work /work as much to keep a roof over their heads. That's not a judgement, it's a perfectly reasonable decision to make.

I recall seeing an excellent takedown of that idea a few months back on here. Can't remember who posted it or I'd credit them.

But basically, what that person said is, my full time salary before kids was 70k in a field where no part time roles were available. While we couldn't afford for me to SAH, I only needed to earn 20k so we could pay the bills, but I found I wasn't actually qualified for any 20k jobs. It was either a high salary or sod all. So I have a posh car, or handbag, or whatever it was she said, because I can afford it, but I also couldn't afford not to work.

Now I don't earn anything like as much as that, but I saw where they were coming from. Because my qualifications and recent work experience are all in a very niche field. I'm just fortunate mine lets me work part time.

Yeah that's a fair point senator. Not sure it's true for everyone but it's true for some for sure.

And - as I've already said many times on here- many of us who do have the luxury of choice aren't returning to work because being at home 'isn't for us', or because we're bored, or fed up, or feeling undervalued. We feel that primal bond every bit as much as other mums, and we could quite happily make a life at home long term but we choose to keep going in our working life too. Not because it's better, but because we weigh things up, and we decide (often for multiple reasons rather than just one factor) that's what we want to do.

And neither do we make these decisions and then they're set in tablets of stone... life is a continual process of reviewing and re evaluating. If our fabulous nursery had suddenly closed, if one of our children had been very clingy and unable to settle, if one of us had run into problems at work and stopped enjoying it- we would have adapted

exactly babbity, as I said before, each to their own...we all do whats right for us, if we can and if we have no choice we try to make the best of it.

I went back to work after my first because I was lucky enough to have the choice to.

I couldn't go back to work after my twins because I had no choice. My first borns disabilities were evident by then, and extreme, the cost of childcare for three would have wiped out my wage, and I had numerous meetings for dc1 and then for them all that would have eaten into my work time, and my case load was already double most of my colleges.

I did the same activities with dc1 when I was at work. We went swimming or to the park or soft play or library, but maybe one once a week if lucky. I did these daily after I was sahm. I read books prior, but one at bed time, not the huge number we get through everyday now. Same with sensory play, role play, play therapy (we paid for private appointments then followed up at home). Same with any of it really. We got a dog once I was a sahm and could walk it every day which helped DC massively. He's a therapy dog as far as we are concerned. I installed a sensory garden. Took them to equine therapy and hunted down a riding for the disabled place. And I developed patience that I previously had never came close to, despite working with very damaged dangerous lac kids. Having done both they just aren't the same. Lots of children will benefit from parents working, earning more and modeling how to chase their dreams but plenty won't. And I don't just think that's true in the case of my disabled DC. I remember my mother claiming that we had quality time, which was just a term she used to comfort herself as to me it did nothing to undo my permenant insecurity. I was a child who needed to be home, familiar set up and routines and access my own space. I felt like I could never switch off in child care despite my first childminder being my much loved aunt and a later one being my best friend's mum. Some of us are natural introverts and need down time at home to recoup and recharge, and that's no less true for children. Just as some are extroverts and need constant social stimulation to keep them learning and engaged. There is no right way for all kids.