Freely admitting that my experience is clouding my thoughts on this, I was kinda thinking about this and what happens when other CEO's become ill (Jobs is the only one that comes to mind). It's great that she's doing well, but it's a long way to December. What happens if (God forbid) things take a downturn? I assume companies have plans in place for these kinds of events, but it is a very real possibility that that she may have to take a longer break than she intended.
We do need more women CEOs for sure. I feel that sometime in our lifetime, a pregnant CEO is going to cause an even bigger discussion due to health complications, and then the question of should women in leadership positions step down is going to come up.
For the record, I am in no way saying Mayer should step down. I am making a prediction about some other currently-faceless CEO down the road.
I guess I don't really understand why this is a question? If her health changes then I presume she would not work as much and the company would come up with alternative plans. I mean there's always a chance that a CEO, the President, etc will have a health problem. But for now I think it's ok if she plans to work as long as she's healthy.
With her being a female CEO, I think it will do more for women as a whole to continue being a female CEO even if that means working harder or more than a new mother "should" or truly wants to.
I don't see a male CEO generally taking the most paternity leave of anyone in the company by any means.
I'm all for more maternity leave for women who want it (like me lol) but nobody should be forced to take more maternity leave, especially when it could very easily negatively affect their position at the top.
If I heard our CEO (who is a man. but if he were a woman) took very little maternity leave I'd barely register it because it's the CEO. I would assume she would a)take less maternity leave because it's an important position and not one easily filled by a temp for several months and b)have the money to pay for accommodations that make going back to work early easier. Like a whole bunch of help that I couldn't personally afford.
So while I guess the fear of trickle down is somewhat plausible, I feel like trying to keep more women in leadership positions is very important too.
It is truly difficult because as a woman, yes I guess we can't have it all. We want to be treated like and paid as well as men in the workplace, but we also are the ones who are physically and emotionally changed greatly by the act of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting. Much more so than men. Therefore logically we should be allowed the time we want and need to recover and adjust. But it's not easy to achieve that when you are literally the head of a company.
I don't know what the answer is. But I don't believe forcing a CEO to take 12 weeks of leave when she would rather not is the solution. I mean doesn't that send a bad message too? I want to and am physically and emotionally capable of returning to work sooner than 12 weeks, yet I am being forced to stay out longer because I am a woman?
Freely admitting that my experience is clouding my thoughts on this, I was kinda thinking about this and what happens when other CEO's become ill (Jobs is the only one that comes to mind). It's great that she's doing well, but it's a long way to December. What happens if (God forbid) things take a downturn? I assume companies have plans in place for these kinds of events, but it is a very real possibility that that she may have to take a longer break than she intended.
We do need more women CEOs for sure. I feel that sometime in our lifetime, a pregnant CEO is going to cause an even bigger discussion due to health complications, and then the question of should women in leadership positions step down is going to come up.
For the record, I am in no way saying Mayer should step down. I am making a prediction about some other currently-faceless CEO down the road.
I guess I don't really understand why this is a question? If her health changes then I presume she would not work as much and the company would come up with alternative plans. I mean there's always a chance that a CEO, the President, etc will have a health problem. But for now I think it's ok if she plans to work as long as she's healthy.
Oh for sure! I don't disagree. As long as she is doing fine, more power to her. I'm just kinda thinking out loud and wasn't really sure where I was going with that. I mean at 20 weeks I was practically screaming at my boss to get a backup lined up and at 26 weeks I was taken out of work. My experience is definitely clouding my thoughts here.
I also don't think it's comparable to taking leaves of absence due to serious health conditions. There's little that can be done if you are so ill you cannot actually work, and that would go for both male and female CEOs.
I think that one of the things that is important in the fight for good parental leave in this country is the fact that women should be able to take the time they need. She only needs a few weeks. Some women need a few months. I don't have the right to judge either one.
But she doesn't know how long she'll need. The whole point of 6 month to 1 year maternity leave isn't because all us mothers and babies physically/mentally needed that long before being productive again, but instead that when you have it, and its culturally accepted to take it all, its used to both the mother's and baby's advantage.
The fact that she is having twins just further ups the likelihood that she really will need some sort of break for more than, you know, 3 days. Granted, she can get people. Her "working" can be lying in bed on conference calls with nannies and maids to do everything else. But is she going to be pressured to be working from her hospital bed? That's what's fucked up to me.
Post by Velar Fricative on Sept 1, 2015 10:05:06 GMT -5
I know there is a limited number of female CEOs, but it would be nice to see a variety in ML length among women at the top than it would to see them all take 12 weeks off. I want people to see that length of ML should be an individual/family decision, with no length better or worse from an outsider standpoint.
"Since my pregnancy has been healthy and uncomplicated and since this is a unique time in Yahoo's transformation, I plan to approach the pregnancy and delivery as I did with my son three years ago, taking limited time away and working throughout,"
What is troublesome to me is that she feels the need to address this in this way. What sort of horrible culture is she in that people are pre-emptively judging her ability to do her job when her babies aren't even here yet.
Post by sparkythelawyer on Sept 1, 2015 10:08:53 GMT -5
I guess I want to ask that for those of you who feel she is not taking enough time for whatever reason resonates with you, how much time should she take for you to feel better about her maternity leave?
Post by runforrest on Sept 1, 2015 10:36:26 GMT -5
I do not understand how this ONE woman's decisions has somehow snowballed into "this will be bad for all women". I have a friend that works at Yahoo and she said (today) that since Meyer took the helm at Yahoo, they have instituted great parental leave policies and an 8-week optional paid sabbatical if you have been with the company for five years. So it is clear that just because going back to work soon after birth works for her, she understands it may not be feasible for other employees.
She just can't win - I went back to work 4 weeks after having an emergency c/s with my twins; I worked from home, but I was still working. My decision did not have any bearing on how other female employees could handle their leave.
The other thing I don't get is that if the US were to join other countries in adopting a government-sanctioned parental leave (which I highly doubt will ever happen), would women who choose not to take the full leave or any leave at all be seen as "setting us backwards"? Why does anyone else care what works for this woman and her family.
And don't even get me started on some of the comments (from the articles) that say "why have kids if you work 100 hours a week? Someone else is raising them!" Ugh.
How will we ever gain any traction on a parental leave option if we dissect this woman's choice and set her up as the downfall of a non-existent US parental leave policy?
As for the topic, good for her. She's the CEO. And I don't see why this decision would be "bad for women". If you want to make the argument that it's "bad for mothers", whether it's correct or not, go for it. But don't conflate women with mothers.
As for the topic, good for her. She's the CEO. And I don't see why this decision would be "bad for women". If you want to make the argument that it's "bad for mothers", whether it's correct or not, go for it. But don't conflate women with mothers.
If tomorrow, every cent of funding for breast, uterine, cervical and ovarian cancer research was pulled, wouldn't you say that was bad for women?
As for the topic, good for her. She's the CEO. And I don't see why this decision would be "bad for women". If you want to make the argument that it's "bad for mothers", whether it's correct or not, go for it. But don't conflate women with mothers.
If tomorrow, every cent of funding for breast, uterine, cervical and ovarian cancer research was pulled, wouldn't you say that was bad for women?
What has that got to do with Marissa Mayer's maternity leave?
I do not understand how this ONE woman's decisions has somehow snowballed into "this will be bad for all women".
Because its not really a decision. Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave. And she is a prominent figurehead in the US and internationally, so what she tells everyone, on a public forum, matters a lot.
I guess I want to ask that for those of you who feel she is not taking enough time for whatever reason resonates with you, how much time should she take for you to feel better about her maternity leave?
I personally don't care. I just worry that her expectations that she'll do things the same this time as she did with her son may be stated a little too soon. I realize she can get help but we never know what's going to happen and how having twins is going to be on her life. Maybe there won't be one. I just feel bad that she even needs to say what she's going to do with a situation she hasn't been through yet considering she's comparing singleton to twins. I hope she's able to do all of that but that's so much weight to put on her shoulders I just feel bad at the need to set the expectations now before their here. The fact that she feels the need to explain all of this publicly to reassure people is the part I feel is screwed up. Take what you need I certainly don't care.
I do not understand how this ONE woman's decisions has somehow snowballed into "this will be bad for all women".
Because its not really a decision. Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave. And she is a prominent figurehead in the US and internationally, so what she tells everyone, on a public forum, matters a lot.
How do we know it's not her decision? How do we know she doesn't really truly enjoy her job and likes working a lot?
I know several woman on these boards and in real life who planned to not take a long maternity leave and didn't and have no regrets with their decision.
I mean one way or another she has to plan something, she is the leader of an organization. It's not really practical for her to be all like, well I'll decide what I want to do the day before their birth. For now, she has decided to plan to not take a long leave.
I know it seems like everyone is fighting for more leave, which overall I agree with that the U.S. sucks and things should change. But if she does not want a long leave for herself, why so much criticism?
I do not understand how this ONE woman's decisions has somehow snowballed into "this will be bad for all women".
Because its not really a decision. Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave. And she is a prominent figurehead in the US and internationally, so what she tells everyone, on a public forum, matters a lot.
This is BS. Any CEO would be pressured here, male or female. And they're compensated justly.
Because its not really a decision. Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave. And she is a prominent figurehead in the US and internationally, so what she tells everyone, on a public forum, matters a lot.
How do we know it's not her decision? How do we know she doesn't really truly enjoy her job and likes working a lot?
I know several woman on these boards and in real life who planned to not take a long maternity leave and didn't and have no regrets with their decision.
I mean one way or another she has to plan something, she is the leader of an organization. It's not really practical for her to be all like, well I'll decide what I want to do the day before their birth. For now, she has decided to plan to not take a long leave.
I know it seems like everyone is fighting for more leave, which overall I agree with that the U.S. sucks and things should change. But if she does not want a long leave for herself, why so much criticism?
Could we assume that this woman has somehow freed herself from all cultural and societal rules and influences? Sure, I mean I guess. That's what you'd have to do to say its truly her own decision. But I don't really see any evidence of that. I think we have a wealth of evidence that she is actually heavily influenced by her culture, and knows her "place" in it.
Why do you think I'm against her making a plan of any sort? Did you see where I said medical leave? As in, psychical need to heal? You can't choose to heal faster. I mean, look I've been sick as a dog for 4 days with something DS apparently licked off the floor and gave to me - I can "choose to go back to work" all I want but if I have a 101 fever and am fainting in the hall its not going to go over very well.
Because its not really a decision. Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave. And she is a prominent figurehead in the US and internationally, so what she tells everyone, on a public forum, matters a lot.
This is BS. Any CEO would be pressured here, male or female. And they're compensated justly.
Men are pressured to not take maternity leave?
Or are you saying men are pressured to not take medical leave of other types? I mean, I think that's also a problem - I don't see why that makes it "BS".
Every woman. Who doesn't take the appropriate medical leave for having had their child, is harming our culture's perception that woman really do need to heal from child labor - and if you do take it you are somehow "weaker". It perpetuates the myth that women can just bounce back from having a baby and don't have to rebuild/regrowth vital parts of their body back in order to operate their vital functions correctly and over the long term. Some women have no choice because they don't have the financial ability to take appropriate leave which is why its so important that women who do have the ability to care for themselves properly, actually do it.
Its not surprising to me at all that this is met with skepticism by other American women. We aren't a culture of healing and well being. We are a culture of running ourselves ragged until we can't get up.
Disclaimer: yes, men feel this issue too. We run both men and women too ragged. But we are talking about women right now.
Well I can tell you all this much...in a culture where women DO take a year (most women in Canada do, the exception being women who make so little that they can't afford to get less of their pay because even though we do get $ for mat leave, it is rarely as much as we make), my taking LESS time doesn't impact others' choices to take more time (as in the teachers at my school certainly don't feel compelled to take less than a year just because I am, lol).
But the culture to take a year here is VERY STRONG. This isn't the case in the US, so I could see how her decision to take VERY little time (as in none really?) could impact those within her system. That being said, as a PP mentioned, there is only one of her. And the buck stops with her. That kind of changes things.
Now that I have been in the position of choosing to buck the common culture, I am very much "do what you need to do" but that's easy to say when the culture is "take a year".
I find it difficult to believe that there is any scenario where she'd be taking a conpletely disconnected from work maternity leave in the first place, regardless of how long it was. H's (paid) paternity leave was pretty much working from home partial days. I don't remember the last time he took a day off and no one tried to get in touch with him about something or other. Once you get to a certain level there is no such thing as disconnecting.
This is BS. Any CEO would be pressured here, male or female. And they're compensated justly.
Men are pressured to not take maternity leave?
Or are you saying men are pressured to not take medical leave of other types? I mean, I think that's also a problem - I don't see why that makes it "BS".
Male C-level execs are pressured not to take medical or any other type of leave. It's BS that "Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave". It's our culture of working period.
Say what you want about that, but CXOs have the freedom to choose that pressure for financial reward. The pressure at that level cannot and should not be compared to your average worker. I understand the "trickle down/slippery slope" worries, but as long as Yahoo!'s policies are family-friendly for their non-CXOs, I'm not concerned.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - California tech workers are not the droids put-upon mothers you're looking for.
I do not understand how this ONE woman's decisions has somehow snowballed into "this will be bad for all women".
Because its not really a decision. Its our culture of working women until they fall apart that is pressuring her to PLAN to not take MEDICAL leave. And she is a prominent figurehead in the US and internationally, so what she tells everyone, on a public forum, matters a lot.
She had her first child a couple years so, right? And nothing changed wrt leave policies, that I'm aware of. I work for a tech company and there have not been any changes based on what Marissa Meyer is doing. Also, she changed the policy at Yahoo after she started, so if anything, she's a positive influence on the greater issue of parental leave, and her decision for herself is a drop in the bucket.
Also, I think it's a bit much to assume this wasn't her choice; obviously she has to take her job into consideration, but we have no idea what planning and thought went into the decision to not take an extended leave. Plus, she may very well end up in bed rest or with babies at the NICU, and she may change her plan at that time.
There are all kinds of men that choose to forgo their health and families in favor of their ambition. Most CXOs are not chasing dollars; they have plenty. There is something their career gives them that they value highly. I think it's pretty gross to assume Meyer can't have that same drive, or she only has it because society is telling her to.
If tomorrow, every cent of funding for breast, uterine, cervical and ovarian cancer research was pulled, wouldn't you say that was bad for women?
What has that got to do with Marissa Mayer's maternity leave?
Just because not all women get breast/uterine/cervical/ovarian cancer doesn't mean that cutting that research wouldn't be bad for women.
Just because not all women are mothers doesn't mean that something that works against women's ability to make choices about maternity leave isn't bad for women.
Every woman. Who doesn't take the appropriate medical leave for having had their child, is harming our culture's perception that woman really do need to heal from child labor - and if you do take it you are somehow "weaker". It perpetuates the myth that women can just bounce back from having a baby and don't have to rebuild/regrowth vital parts of their body back in order to operate their vital functions correctly and over the long term. Some women have no choice because they don't have the financial ability to take appropriate leave which is why its so important that women who do have the ability to care for themselves properly, actually do it.
Its not surprising to me at all that this is met with skepticism by other American women. We aren't a culture of healing and well being. We are a culture of running ourselves ragged until we can't get up.
Disclaimer: yes, men feel this issue too. We run both men and women too ragged. But we are talking about women right now.
What has that got to do with Marissa Mayer's maternity leave?
Just because not all women get breast/uterine/cervical/ovarian cancer doesn't mean that cutting that research wouldn't be bad for women.
Just because not all women are mothers doesn't mean that something that works against women's ability to make choices about maternity leave isn't bad for women.
WUT
This doesn't make a lick of sense.
All women are at risk for getting cancer at some point.
Not all women are mothers or pre-mothers. In fact, treating them as such is damaging to some women. (but that is a different topic)
I am a woman. You'll have to explain to me how Marissa Mayer's maternity leave length is bad for me.
Otherwise I don't know what else to say you. This is nonsensical.
She is one of only a handful of CEOs at this level, female or not. You have to get stuff done, particularly given that it is a crucial time for the company. It is special circumstances that most women (or men) will never encounter.
But you have to be daft to not see how the trickle down works here. We tell people all the time to take their cues from their boss if they eventually aspire to BE their boss so what about her female direct reports, what is expected of them. And it's not a far leap to think that expectations on working after childbirth could change when others take notice that women at the top are "needing" less and less maternity leave.
Maybe flameful, but I would presume that if I want to be a CEO I'm not going to have the luxury of taking an extended maternity leave in this country.
Unless someone can show me where Yahoo has now changed their policy to essentially eliminate maternity leave based on what this woman is doing, then I don't think this should be a discussion.
If you're an hourly worker at Yahoo and see the CEO taking a short leave and feel like that means you need to take a short leave even though the policy says otherwise, then I think that's on you.
The thing is, policy is not the same as practice. A company might have a policy to offer maternity leave, but there's an unspoken rule that if you take all 12 weeks, you're considered "uncommitted" and will be passed up for promotions and next on the list when layoffs occur. Same with vacation time and other personal time - there's often a feeling that yes, they're offered, but you're not *really* supposed to take them.