But suggesting that freedom to choose and the capitalist system of rewards for performance don't take into account the need we all have to be taken care of from cradle to grave by a nanny state!

Neocons... Pffft. It's all "personal responsibility" -this, and "obey the law"- that..

When Hillary is Empress, all this will change!

Sexist? Not at all.  It could be that potential employers see a person who has taken a few years out of the workforce as a less stable bet than someone on a steady path in their career. 

I can certainly relate to the predicament of losing one's "place" in the workforce.  In 2001, after a company that I worked for that was heavily invested in the DotCom went belly up, I too was tired of it all and at 42, I took four years off from an IT career to stay at home and raise my two sons.  My wife went back to work, and after the first two years we got tired of counting pennies but we still weren't ready to turn the raising of our sons over to someone else at a day care, so I looked for a job at night.  The only night job I could find aside from stocking shelves at Home Depot was working overnights at a 24 hour health club.  So for almost three years I said "Good morning" for a living.  Damn night job almost killed me.

Last year when they both reached an age where they were in school most of the day, I went looking to get back on track.  Not easy.  That time off is looked at with suspicion.  Everyone wants to second guess what you COULD have done instead of taking a menial job.  I ended up taking the job off my resume and just presented that time off as non-employed.  It was still tough finding work, and when I did, the salary was considerably less.

However I would still do it all again, the time with my boys was priceless.  I feel that I know them better than I ever could, had I not taken the time off.  Retirement's gonna be rough, but worth it.

I like how things such as continued training and the updating of skills are "obstacles" that women (or men, too) could "face" when trying to re-enter the workforce.

Those pesky things called "qualifications" and "requirements" just keep getting in the way, don't they?

Dutch

Good point, Pam. 

The article did not sufficiently attempt to discern how many of the problems were due to lost skills, etc, and how many were due solely to gender.

I think that there's another aspect that's being missed.  There are always more indians than chiefs in a company.  If you're a chief and decide to bow out of the job market for a while, those chief jobs are going to go to the indians who are working the jobs while you're gone.  It's not realistic to tell someone who's been doing the job for years, and has worked their way to a promotion, that you're going to give the promotion to someone who's been off doing other things.  If you decide to leave your job for an extended period and come back, you should expect to fill a more available indian position.

I have been trying for months to pick up where I left off but to no avail. I am so glad this Bennet person wrote a book to help me understand it all. Its those mean white corporately greedy men trying to keep me back! Who do I sue? Just ignore the fact that I have been out of school and work for well over a decade... I can type and send emails and respond to news items that ought to qualify me to be a corporate secretary. I left as a sales associate/ data entry/ receptionist type person so why aren't greedy corporate types knocking down my door?

~lbcdawn Religion is about doing. Christianity is about done.