I judge her because she's a crappy and terrible ceo that doesn't deserve the job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was kind of hating on her, too, because I think two weeks isn't enough time to heal or enough time to spend with her kids before going back to work. But she isn't responsible for setting an example for working moms everywhere. She is the CEO of a major corporation and this evidently is what she feels she needs to do at this time in her life to keep her job and provide for her family. Yeah, she's rich and has help, but that doesn't give me permission to judge her choices.

Good luck, Marissa Mayer.

Sorry but more CEOs need to think of their employees instead of just what's good for themselves. And as a semi public figure, we do get to judge her more.

She is thinking of her employees - hence the paid maternity/paternity benefits mentioned upthread. CEO's are held to a higher standard than the average employees and that's ok. There's also been no evidence that I can find that suggests women who work for Yahoo are emulating her and trying to take only 2 weeks off after their own births.

Good for her. I wish more women had the kind of support and resources she has, and I wish more workplaces were supportive of things like onsite childcare etc...

I delivered my twins at just past 37 weeks. I worked on a telcon that morning and had a scheduled c-section that afternoon. I went radio silent for a few days but was answering critical email and doing a few critical tasks from home within 2 weeks.

I'm in senior management, had a boss that was flexible with my maternity leave, have a job that would have significantly suffered if I stayed totally away for weeks on end (and a job I enjoy and didn't want to suffer), and it worked out fine for me.

SHe is incredibly lucky, but I would rather focus energy on freeing more women to do more (if they wish) throughout their parenting years than knock down some privileged individual for utilizing the resources at her disposal.

Anonymous wrote:I was kind of hating on her, too, because I think two weeks isn't enough time to heal or enough time to spend with her kids before going back to work. But she isn't responsible for setting an example for working moms everywhere. She is the CEO of a major corporation and this evidently is what she feels she needs to do at this time in her life to keep her job and provide for her family. Yeah, she's rich and has help, but that doesn't give me permission to judge her choices.

Good luck, Marissa Mayer.

Sorry but more CEOs need to think of their employees instead of just what's good for themselves. And as a semi public figure, we do get to judge her more.

I was kind of hating on her, too, because I think two weeks isn't enough time to heal or enough time to spend with her kids before going back to work. But she isn't responsible for setting an example for working moms everywhere. She is the CEO of a major corporation and this evidently is what she feels she needs to do at this time in her life to keep her job and provide for her family. Yeah, she's rich and has help, but that doesn't give me permission to judge her choices.

Good luck, Marissa Mayer.

Twin mom here: According to WaPo, she already knows they're identical. If that's the case, she's automatically high risk (moreso than twin pregnancy in general) and more than likely going to be looking at either home or hospital bed rest at some point down the road because the babies are sharing a placenta and/or amniotic sac. You can have identical twins with separate sacs and placentas--mine had this scenario and I carried them to 36 weeks and had a super easy vaginal delivery and recovery--but if she's already saying her twins are identical, then there's some sharing going on in utero. I wish her well, but I honestly don't think she's being realistic about the amount of medical monitoring she's going to need with a mo-mo or mono-di twin pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her. To be a successful business woman she needs to make a lot of compromises in her family life. It's a shame that corporate America doesn't allow for a better balance, at all levels.

Are you kidding? She is in the position to make changes to this dynamic, instead she chooses to stay the same old course and take away one of the benefits that folks have, but keep them for herself.
Not only that, but how many of her employees are allowed to bring their babies to work.
She can take a seat -- all of the seats.

Anonymous wrote:plans on taking off limited time and working throughout. didn't really take a maternity leave for her son's birth a couple years ago.
I can't wait to see how she does (or doesn't ) do this.

She doesn't do it. She has a nanny bring the kid to work with her. She's the CEO, everyone will come to her, and she can outsource everything.

Anonymous wrote:First of all, telecommuting isn't a substitute for childcare. I do it full time, and had a nanny for three years, now daycare.

That being said, she's still a hypocrite.

No one said it was a substitute for childcare. I got daycare while working from home, too.

But allowing telecommuting gives people a little more flexibility to deal with things like appointments close to home, sick kids, etc. More productive hours, really, when done correctly.

I do get that there were people abusing it, and it probably needed to be reigned in a bit, but taking it away completely while doing it yourself? Yeah, hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the reason people aren't having kids per the other recent thread is nasty attitudes shown on this thread

Seriously!!! Working moms are treated like shit. But 99% of us need our salaries to provide for our families.

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.

+1

Anonymous wrote:What is yahoo?

What is yahoo?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is up with all the hate? Should she not have any kids? Or should mothers not be CEOs of tech companies?
What does her husband do?

The hate comes because this is a woman that says: "I can do it, why can't the rest of women?" Except we aren't all millionaires with staff.

This this this. Or other oblivious men say MM did it, why do you need X number of months off (regardless of it not even being unpaid leave)? Some younger men who haven't experienced being a parent or dealt with their wives recover from birth or on maternity leave have noooooo clue. n

Maybe the reason people aren't having kids per the other recent thread is nasty attitudes shown on this thread