I have an unpopular opinion about maternity leave so you get to just dismiss me. Shitty.
Still waiting though.
I don't want to dismiss you but I have never encountered anyone who was so vehemently anti-maternity leave.
My belief in there needing to be some kind of gov't mandated maternity leave protocol doesn't stem from my own situation -chances are, even if a year's maternity leave wasn't a protected right here, I would get some sort of leave option because of the nature of my job (professional, great working conditions, etc). I believe it is necessary in order to protect workers in industries where there would be no guarantee otherwise.
Do you not believe there should be ANY provision whatsoever made to protect the job of a woman who takes a leave (unpaid let's say) after delivering a baby? What if they work in a job that doesn't accrue sick time? Or not enough? Or the company size doesn't qualify her for FMLA? Is your belief really that having a child is a privilege that should be afforded only to those lucky enough to have a job that graciously allows them to?
I guess I just don't understand why you feel so passionately about it.
I feel some kind of way about holding a female CEO to some standard that we don't hold one of her male counterparts to.
But the truth is that aspiring female professionals are never going to look to male CEOs as an example for maternity leave and how much they "should" take. There's just no equivalency there.
No one opines that a male C level is somehow harming society if he doesn't take paternity leave (or takes it and proceeds to work the entire time) or is working from his hospital bed after surgery or is lining up corporate meetings to attend while he's on a family vacation. All of these are pretty much the norm for global ex comm at our company. But when a woman holds the same position she is also saddled with some BS gender bias that she should ignore the time constraints and workaholic nature of that level because she somehow has to also think about what 50% of the population needs instead of what is best for her and the career she obviously wants? I can't get behind that.
I have an unpopular opinion about maternity leave so you get to just dismiss me. Shitty.
Still waiting though.
I don't want to dismiss you but I have never encountered anyone who was so vehemently anti-maternity leave.
My belief in there needing to be some kind of gov't mandated maternity leave protocol doesn't stem from my own situation -chances are, even if a year's maternity leave wasn't a protected right here, I would get some sort of leave option because of the nature of my job (professional, great working conditions, etc). I believe it is necessary in order to protect workers in industries where there would be no guarantee otherwise.
Do you not believe there should be ANY provision whatsoever made to protect the job of a woman who takes a leave (unpaid let's say) after delivering a baby? What if they work in a job that doesn't accrue sick time? Or not enough? Or the company size doesn't qualify her for FMLA? Is your belief really that having a child is a privilege that should be afforded only to those lucky enough to have a job that graciously allows them to?
I guess I just don't understand why you feel so passionately about it.
To be clear - and this is off-topic to the thread, but I'm vehemently against extended maternity leave. There was a lengthy discussion in another thread awhile back, so I really don't want to belabor (ugh) this point in here. But I think where I arrived was that I'm cool with something along the lines of a 12 week leave for medical recovery. And beyond that, everyone, parent or not, can have a certain amount of extended leave throughout the course of their careers. I'm pleased to see Ms. Mayer did include a benefit like that at Yahoo, along with the increase in maternity leave, so that's pretty neat.
But like I said, that's besides where I'm getting at in this thread. I don't think I'm being vehement about that point at all. I just want to know why Ms. Mayer's short maternity leave is bad for me.
I don't want to dismiss you but I have never encountered anyone who was so vehemently anti-maternity leave.
My belief in there needing to be some kind of gov't mandated maternity leave protocol doesn't stem from my own situation -chances are, even if a year's maternity leave wasn't a protected right here, I would get some sort of leave option because of the nature of my job (professional, great working conditions, etc). I believe it is necessary in order to protect workers in industries where there would be no guarantee otherwise.
Do you not believe there should be ANY provision whatsoever made to protect the job of a woman who takes a leave (unpaid let's say) after delivering a baby? What if they work in a job that doesn't accrue sick time? Or not enough? Or the company size doesn't qualify her for FMLA? Is your belief really that having a child is a privilege that should be afforded only to those lucky enough to have a job that graciously allows them to?
I guess I just don't understand why you feel so passionately about it.
To be clear - and this is off-topic to the thread, but I'm vehemently against extended maternity leave. There was a lengthy discussion in another thread awhile back, so I really don't want to belabor (ugh) this point in here. But I think where I arrived was that I'm cool with something along the lines of a 12 week leave for medical recovery. And beyond that, everyone, parent or not, can have a certain amount of extended leave throughout the course of their careers. I'm pleased to see Ms. Mayer did include a benefit like that at Yahoo, along with the increase in maternity leave, so that's pretty neat.
But like I said, that's besides where I'm getting at in this thread. I don't think I'm being vehement about that point at all. I just want to know why Ms. Mayer's short maternity leave is bad for me.
Ah, I got it. You aren't against leaves per se, just beyond 12 weeks. Okay. I don't agree but I understand your position better.
To be clear - and this is off-topic to the thread, but I'm vehemently against extended maternity leave. There was a lengthy discussion in another thread awhile back, so I really don't want to belabor (ugh) this point in here. But I think where I arrived was that I'm cool with something along the lines of a 12 week leave for medical recovery. And beyond that, everyone, parent or not, can have a certain amount of extended leave throughout the course of their careers. I'm pleased to see Ms. Mayer did include a benefit like that at Yahoo, along with the increase in maternity leave, so that's pretty neat.
But like I said, that's besides where I'm getting at in this thread. I don't think I'm being vehement about that point at all. I just want to know why Ms. Mayer's short maternity leave is bad for me.
Ah, I got it. You aren't against leaves per se, just beyond 12 weeks. Okay. I don't agree but I understand your position better.
To be fair, derp moved the football about 39 times in the 27-pager.
I'm not answering her question because I haven't taken a position on Mayer's leave plans so I feel no need to defend another person's statement.
I was just pointing out to people that act discussion of maternity leave with derp is pointless, if past practice is any indication.
But the truth is that aspiring female professionals are never going to look to male CEOs as an example for maternity leave and how much they "should" take. There's just no equivalency there.
No one opines that a male C level is somehow harming society if he doesn't take paternity leave (or takes it and proceeds to work the entire time) or is working from his hospital bed after surgery or is lining up corporate meetings to attend while he's on a family vacation. All of these are pretty much the norm for global ex comm at our company. But when a woman holds the same position she is also saddled with some BS gender bias that she should ignore the time constraints and workaholic nature of that level because she somehow has to also think about what 50% of the population needs instead of what is best for her and the career she obviously wants? I can't get behind that.
Well I personally am not arguing that Mayer is harming society with her maternity leave, but I do think it's a reality that when you're one of the few women to reach that level, you're going to be looked up to and emulated by many, many people. And I think she should be mindful of the example that she is setting. Yes, it's unfair. Someday when 50% of women are CEOs, this won't be the case anymore, but for now, being one of the few does mean that you're a symbol, whether you like that or not.
FWIW, I do think that male CEOs should also be cognizant of the tone they set for the whole company when they fail to take paternity leave.
I think Mayer is damne either way. If she takes a normal-length leave, some influential people will proclaim she is not CEO material because of X example of some male CEO who worked from his hospital bed after surgery. If she goes back to work ASAP, she's accused of failing to promote women's rights with respect to the very real physical impacts of childbirth.
Can we just respect that she's smart enough to have thought this through and is making the decision that is best for her?
I think Mayer is damne either way. If she takes a normal-length leave, some influential people will proclaim she is not CEO material because of X example of some male CEO who worked from his hospital bed after surgery. If she goes back to work ASAP, she's accused of failing to promote women's rights with respect to the very real physical impacts of childbirth.
Can we just respect that she's smart enough to have thought this through and is making the decision that is best for her?
As evidenced by this thread and the comments sections of the articles about her decision, evidently not.