Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer pregnant with twins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:two weeks leave is going to be super-rough if she has a C-section.

With twins she could also be put on bed rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess my comment was deleted for profanity? I basically was saying I'm tired of her "look at me, I'm such a hard worker" nonsense.

She can do this because she can hire a ton of support. She doesn't keep the same hours that her office drones do, etc.

She set up a nursery in her office after #1 and could bring her team of helpers to work-something her workers cannot do.

Oh, and she can work from home while she took that from her employees.


Screw her - she's a hypocrite.

I agree. She just makes it harder for all other women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess my comment was deleted for profanity? I basically was saying I'm tired of her "look at me, I'm such a hard worker" nonsense.

She can do this because she can hire a ton of support. She doesn't keep the same hours that her office drones do, etc.

She set up a nursery in her office after #1 and could bring her team of helpers to work-something her workers cannot do.

Oh, and she can work from home while she took that from her employees.


Screw her - she's a hypocrite.

I agree. She just makes it harder for all other women.

yes and she's a shitty ceo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has never said that all women should do what she does, never.

She IS the CEO of a successful public company. It is in the best interest of the shareholders that she is fully engaged. She doesn't have much of a choice. She is speaking to Yahoo shareholders and Wall Street- not as a role model for working moms- that is not her agenda.

I think her husband in a Venture Capitalist, so he won't be the SAHD. So what?

High society people for centuries have had multiple nannies to help raise their kids. Why is it all of a sudden a big deal and she is a bad mom?

I have 4 kids and honestly for the first couple years, it doesn't matter who is holding, feeding, and changing the baby. Any warm body will do. Harsh but true. As they get older, quality time (not quantity) is what really matters.

And I suppose you happily tell your children that "any warm body" was just fine as a stand-in for you or your husband. Nice.

[Anonymous]

Why is she pushing it? She was doing ok despite being nether a great mom nor a great CEO, but now she wants a risk of a twin pregnancy, being let go, etc.
Some people just want more more more
Poor kids will have to share what's left from moms crazy work schedule
But mom wants three kids and her awesome job, so who cares

[Anonymous]

Why do so many people hate her...I never heard of her before until just now, and I don't really feel like dreading through every single comment, but from what I've seen here seems to be a large amount of vitriol surrounding her. Is there actual evidence that she is a bad mother? Or is it just the usual jealousy because how much much money she has (and therefore the opportunities she has that most others do not). Didn't she earn her money working at google? So it's not like she married for the money or inherited her riches. Seems to be a hard worker. And she is not the first woman to use a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:two weeks leave is going to be super-rough if she has a C-section.

While I didn't have twins, I had no problems or pain with recovery after either of my two csections. Recovery is easy! (Although it is major abdominal surgery, really easy peasy!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has never said that all women should do what she does, never.

She IS the CEO of a successful public company. It is in the best interest of the shareholders that she is fully engaged. She doesn't have much of a choice. She is speaking to Yahoo shareholders and Wall Street- not as a role model for working moms- that is not her agenda.

I think her husband in a Venture Capitalist, so he won't be the SAHD. So what?

High society people for centuries have had multiple nannies to help raise their kids. Why is it all of a sudden a big deal and she is a bad mom?

I have 4 kids and honestly for the first couple years, it doesn't matter who is holding, feeding, and changing the baby. Any warm body will do. Harsh but true. As they get older, quality time (not quantity) is what really matters.

And I suppose you happily tell your children that "any warm body" was just fine as a stand-in for you or your husband. Nice.

It's also not true at all, but keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people hate her...I never heard of her before until just now, and I don't really feel like dreading through every single comment, but from what I've seen here seems to be a large amount of vitriol surrounding her. Is there actual evidence that she is a bad mother? Or is it just the usual jealousy because how much much money she has (and therefore the opportunities she has that most others do not). Didn't she earn her money working at google? So it's not like she married for the money or inherited her riches. Seems to be a hard worker. And she is not the first woman to use a nanny.

It's not the nanny, it's the idea that she eliminated teleworking, drove the company in the toilet and gets use benefits ( teleworking) that she eliminated for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

The teleworking thing was overblown. It was poorly handled but essentially it was done to eliminate a few 100 percent teleworkers who were a using the system. It is my understanding that now it is more relaxed and plenty of people WFH a few days a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The teleworking thing was overblown. It was poorly handled but essentially it was done to eliminate a few 100 percent teleworkers who were a using the system. It is my understanding that now it is more relaxed and plenty of people WFH a few days a week.

Sorry meant abusing the system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would have kids if they are just going to hand them off to someone else to raise them. What's the point?

This is my take. It's easy to say "that's what works for her family", but does it really work for her kids to have parents who work super crazy schedules. Reminds me of that Bethesda mom who was profiled last year in the Bethesda magazine.

Why have kids if you work 80hrs/wk and your husband does too?

Signed,
working mom who deliberately mommy-tracked because my kid deserves as much as I can give

You realize there are people thinking the same thing about you, right? Why didn't you quit your job to stay home? Don't your kids deserve that time with you?!

Yep, they do. And I cut back my hours as much as I can and still keep our family afloat. DH is still full-time but is home as much as he can, teleworking at night to get the rest of his work done. Wish I could give even more time.

She could, but is choosing not to which makes me incredibly sad. Nothing to be admired. Seriously, who the hell doesn't want at least some time to bond with their children. Going back to work just days after giving birth shows very clearly where her priorities are. Hint, they aren't with her kids.

Except she cant. See is not like any other employee - she is the CEO of a publicly traded corporation. One that is not doing so well I might add.

In which case, then maybe she needs to make a choice. She's trying to have it all, and someone's going to lose out whether it's her family or her shareholders. I have plenty of friends who chose career rather than motherhood, and some who chose motherhood over career. To do both well, you have to balance and I don't believe she does in a way that is long-term going to be good for her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess my comment was deleted for profanity? I basically was saying I'm tired of her "look at me, I'm such a hard worker" nonsense.

She can do this because she can hire a ton of support. She doesn't keep the same hours that her office drones do, etc.

She set up a nursery in her office after #1 and could bring her team of helpers to work-something her workers cannot do.

Oh, and she can work from home while she took that from her employees.


Screw her - she's a hypocrite.

I agree. She just makes it harder for all other women.

+1

She abolished all telecommuting. My job doesn't require me to interface with anyone so I telecommute and I work for a larger company than Yahoo. I would pissed if I had to drive to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can't get it up to care about this. Her kids will be taken care of by nannies and that's clearly what works for her and her family so whatever. She can certainly afford it.

Btw I found an article from 2013 that said that Yahoo has 8 weeks paid leave for dads and 16 for moms. So the rank and file definitely gets the benefits, but the CEO chooses not to take them, which is her prerogative.

Better than most.

Still doesn't excuse the nursery in her office and telecommuting for her only...

This is just ridiculous. As the CEO, she is "on" 24/7. She would be working from home a good chunk of time anyway. A nursery in her office seems like a reasonable perk for a CEO of a major tech company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would have kids if they are just going to hand them off to someone else to raise them. What's the point?

Did you feel like your dad (I assume your dad worked and mom SAH) didn't raise you?

Now, see I judge the SAHMs with nanny's and mother's helpers because that's just plain lazy. Her, I see as pulling in resources to balance a very demanding work/life balance.